New Government in Tennessee

[Guest HexHead]

i work with a police officer and he sees both sides of this arguement, and his exact question to me was can you define on or off duty? being a visual deterrent against illegal activity is an official part of the job, so while he/she is sitting there eating, you can bet no one is gonna f-up while the LEO is present.

That is the best single argument I've seen on this issue.

[Guest TnDeerHunter]

I'm not sure but I think when they passed the carry law for national parks they left it up to the states to aprove which parks they will allow to carry in

[DaveTN]

Also not sure why they would have any more or less liabitly than anyone else that posted their property against carry.

Because they are off limits by statute. They need not take any action or make sure their postings comply with the law.

I have seen you make the argument to walk right past those posted signs. There aren’t many people making an argument to ignore the guns/alcohol laws.

Also… it’s not about liability; it’s about a payday. Businesses are the deep pockets in a lawsuit. Some attorneys are going to go after the business because they know that is where the money is. They can get a judgment against you, but that doesn’t do them any good if you don’t have any money.

It’s the same thing I have said about businesses posting signs… Remove the ability to sue the business. It costs a lot to defend yourself in a lawsuit even if you are successful. Business owners should not have to shoulder that cost simply because their business was where the shooting occurred. But I doubt that will happen when many of our legislators are attorneys are they won’t want to give up any possible sources of payment.

[DaveTN]

I'm not sure but I think when they passed the carry law for national parks they left it up to the states to aprove which parks they will allow to carry in

The state has the right to ban carry anywhere they like; the SCOTUS just made that clear. The Feds are just removing their bans.

[Guest canynracer]

The way I read ©(1) it does not say anything about "in the discharge of duties" like ©(3) and ©(4) does. So it would not seem that is not part of the restriction. Also it says "during regular school hours" so to me that means there is no restriction after school hours. The reason being is, there are NO restrictions on LEOs except the 4 listed and ©(1) only mentions during school hours, so since there is no mention of after school hours, that would mean there is no restriction. Now whether school activities even after "normal" hours would still be considered "regular hours" I don't know for sure, but not IMO. But even during the "regular school hours" restriction all he had to do is notify the principal or some other authority that he is armed and he can still carry.

As for as the out of state officer, was he a full-time officer? 39-17-1350(d) says...

For purposes of this section, “law enforcement officer†means a person who is a full-time employee of the state in a position authorized by the laws of this state to carry a firearm and to make arrests for violations of some or all of the laws of this state, or a full-time police officer who has been certified by the peace officer standards and training commission, or a vested correctional officer employed by the department of correction.

So if he was a reserve or something like that, he would not be covered by any of exceptions in 39-17-1350©(1)-(4)

As far as 39-17-1359 goes, Yes he can ignore those signs...I believe that to be one of the main intents of 39-17-1350. Remember...in general 39-17-1350 allows LEOs to carry 24/7 anywhere as I said, the ONLY limitation are those in ©(1)-(4) and 39-17-1359 is not mentioned.

Now....IMO though, if he is not on official business, he still has to respect the wishes of a private property owner, even that which is open to the public, as far as being on the property period, but that was a long debate on another thread.

Some reserves are POST certified, so I would say the DO fall in.....I hope...LOL

[DaveTN]

Some reserves are POST certified, so I would say the DO fall in.....I hope...LOL

or a full-time police officer who has been certified by the peace officer standards and training commission,

It appears that POST is in addition to being full time.

[Fallguy]

Because they are off limits by statute. They need not take any action or make sure their postings comply with the law.

I have seen you make the argument to walk right past those posted signs. There aren’t many people making an argument to ignore the guns/alcohol laws.

Also… it’s not about liability; it’s about a payday. Businesses are the deep pockets in a lawsuit. Some attorneys are going to go after the business because they know that is where the money is. They can get a judgment against you, but that doesn’t do them any good if you don’t have any money.

It’s the same thing I have said about businesses posting signs… Remove the ability to sue the business. It costs a lot to defend yourself in a lawsuit even if you are successful. Business owners should not have to shoulder that cost simply because their business was where the shooting occurred. But I doubt that will happen when many of our legislators are attorneys are they won’t want to give up any possible sources of payment.

I was addressing the post two above me not the one immediately above me and was talking about if the law changed and we were allowed to carry in a place that serves alcohol, but a restaurant chose to post a sign under 39-17-1359.

If restaurants weren't off limits by statute but posted a 39-17-1359 sign, then why would they have more liability if something happened to a HCP holder that could not carry than any other business that posted a 39-17-1359 sign? I believe that was he was talking about in this post anyway.

[DaveTN]

If restaurants weren't off limits by statute but posted a 39-17-1359 sign, then why would they have more liability if something happened to a HCP holder that could not carry than any other business that posted a 39-17-1359 sign?

Perceptions.

They wouldn’t have any more liability. But right now they don’t need to post signs.

They aren’t getting anything out of this except a greater risk of having to defend their business in a civil suit.

If we (HCP holders) and the legislators feel that a person should be able to carry into an establishment that serves alcohol (or any other kind of business) then give those businesses absolute immunity from having to defend themselves in a civil suit simply because the shooting occurred on their property.

[Fallguy]

DaveTN, I totally agree that places that allow carry should be completely immune from the actions of a HCP holder using deadly force in their business.

However to go along with that I would also like to see (in order of preference)

• Do away with 39-17-1359 signs. or
  
• If a place post a 39-17-1359 sign, that it not carry the weight or law. or
  
• That if a place post a 39-17-1359 sign that carries the weight of law that it is easier for them to be liable if something happens to a HCP holder that was not allowed to carry.
  

[midtennchip]

Perceptions.

They wouldn’t have any more liability. But right now they don’t need to post signs.

They aren’t getting anything out of this except a greater risk of having to defend their business in a civil suit.

If we (HCP holders) and the legislators feel that a person should be able to carry into an establishment that serves alcohol (or any other kind of business) then give those businesses absolute immunity from having to defend themselves in a civil suit simply because the shooting occurred on their property.

Here's two rationales (again, I haven't seen these argued -- YET).

1. Restaurant (or any other business) where it is legal to carry makes you disarm to come into the business. You are attacked on their premises (inside or outside), there could be liability. This one isn't as strong as the next one, since the restaurant/business can argue that you knowingly assumed the risk. However, right now, the restaurant has NO liability at all since they didn't force you to disarm. A change in the current law opens the door (however small the risk).

2. Criminal (i.e., VT, mall shootings, etc.) chooses a business that posts the "no guns" sign because he believes there is less likelihood of resistance. Apparently, this is what is showing up on the latest studies (see link below). So, if Restaurant A has a sign and Restaurant B does not have one, theoretically, Restaurant A has chosen to put its customers at more risk than Restaurant B. Even someone without an HCP could sue under this theory. But, right now, the restaurant has no liability because it couldn't allow guns, even if it wanted to.

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local/story/When-Seconds-Count-Stopping-Active-Killers/_yls0jTxAkK8QJR1NKbePA.cspx

From the story:

"The other statistic that emerged from a study of active killers is that they almost exclusively seek out "gun free" zones for their attacks. . . Now some tacticians believe the signs themselves may be an invitation to the active killers."

Currently, both of these examples are remote possibilities. But, twenty years ago, we didn't think someone could sue (much less win) for coffee being too hot. If allowing HCP holders to carry on your premises almost assures you that your restaurant/business will NOT be the sight of a shooting, you may eventually have lawsuits filed on this basis if you do put up the signs and a shooting occurs. But again, there's no liability for a restaurant (serving alcohol) with the current law. In fact, the current 39-17-1359( specifically states that the law allowing the posting does NOT "alter, reduce or eliminate any civil or criminal liability that a property owner or manager may have for injuries arising on their property."

Edited December 24, 2008 by midtennchip

[Guest 270win]

What does the state gain by making criminals out of people who have paid quite a sum to the state because a sign has some sort of 'proper' wording? Is this some goofy way to make the quick $500 fine money? Many states, such as Georgia and Alabama, put no weight on signs. Missouri doesn't either. It is humorous that people in Alabama pay generally ten to twenty dollars per year to their county sheriffs and can carry anywhere...no required classes...sometimes no fingerprints...just a simple background check...but they can legally carry in more places (schools, bars, signs mean nothing) than people in TN after we are put through the ringer to legally carry a handgun. It makes absolutely no sense. How are we somehow less competent than people who get sheriff issued licenses in Alabama? Maybe the folks down there do have some things right.

[Guest ProguninTN]

What does the state gain by making criminals out of people who have paid quite a sum to the state because a sign has some sort of 'proper' wording? Is this some goofy way to make the quick $500 fine money? Many states, such as Georgia and Alabama, put no weight on signs. Missouri doesn't either. It is humorous that people in Alabama pay generally ten to twenty dollars per year to their county sheriffs and can carry anywhere...no required classes...sometimes no fingerprints...just a simple background check...but they can legally carry in more places (schools, bars, signs mean nothing) than people in TN after we are put through the ringer to legally carry a handgun. It makes absolutely no sense. How are we somehow less competent than people who get sheriff issued licenses in Alabama? Maybe the folks down there do have some things right.

AL may have a shorter list of off-limits places, but is has the problems of the sheriffs. The cost varies county to county, some sheriffs add restrictions to permits, (nevermind the law that says only the state legislature can do that ), and it is not as widely honored as TN's permit. TN used to be like AL is now, but the process was handed over to the state and made uniform in all 95 counties. Knowing that TN previously was on the Sheriff issue system, and it had massive problems, I'll take our uniform shall-issue system with more restrictions over the "Sheriff's good ole boys" system.

[Glock30Owner]

Perceptions.

They wouldn’t have any more liability. But right now they don’t need to post signs.

They aren’t getting anything out of this except a greater risk of having to defend their business in a civil suit.

If we (HCP holders) and the legislators feel that a person should be able to carry into an establishment that serves alcohol (or any other kind of business) then give those businesses absolute immunity from having to defend themselves in a civil suit simply because the shooting occurred on their property.

I tend to agree with Dave's opinion. Conversely, I think that places that don't want HCP holders to carry in their establishment should be automatically civilly (and possibly criminally) responsibe for the saftey of their patrons.

I'd love to see laws that require any place open to the public (including goverment buildings/property) that don't allow firearms to provide lockboxes (at no cost) for the securing of firearms, armed guards at every entrance (I'm in an armed guard so more money for me ), and metal detection/screening at public entrances.

At best this would allow us more places to carry, at worst we'd not have to lock out guns in our cars to be possibly stolen when we have little choice to patronize any particular establishment.

Do I expect any of this to happen? Not in my lifetime, but I can still dream, can't I?

[Guest ProguninTN]

I tend to agree with Dave's opinion. Conversely, I think that places that don't want HCP holders to carry in their establishment should be automatically civilly (and possibly criminally) responsibe for the saftey of their patrons.

I'd love to see laws that require any place open to the public (including goverment buildings/property) that don't allow firearms to provide lockboxes (at no cost) for the securing of firearms, armed guards at every entrance (I'm in an armed guard so more money for me ), and metal detection/screening at public entrances.

At best this would allow us more places to carry, at worst we'd not have to lock out guns in our cars to be possibly stolen when we have little choice to patronize any particular establishment.

Do I expect any of this to happen? Not in my lifetime, but I can still dream, can't I?

Well, I suppose you could consider McClung v. Delta Ltd. a small victory.

http://www.tennesseefirearms.com/law_regs/caselaw/walmart.asp

[Fallguy]

Well, I suppose you could consider McClung v. Delta Ltd. a small victory.

http://www.tennesseefirearms.com/law_regs/caselaw/walmart.asp

It is a start, but it unfortunately it only has to do with when criminal acts are reasonably foreseeable, not all the time.

After careful consideration of the jurisprudence of other jurisdictions and our own, we adopt the following principles to be used in determining the duty of care owed by the owners and occupiers of business premises to customers to protect them against the criminal acts of third parties: A business ordinarily has no duty to protect customers from the criminal acts of third parties which occur on its premises. The business is not to be regarded as the insurer of the safety of its customers, and it has no absolute duty to implement security measures for the protection of its customers. However, a duty to take reasonable steps to protect customers arises if the business knows, or has reason to know, either from what has been or should have been observed or from past experience, that criminal acts against its customers on its premises are reasonably foreseeable, either generally or at some particular time.

Edited December 28, 2008 by Fallguy

[Glock30Owner]

Well, I suppose you could consider McClung v. Delta Ltd. a small victory.

http://www.tennesseefirearms.com/law_regs/caselaw/walmart.asp

I just scanned this while at work, and my initial impression is that unless the property owner banned weapons for defense on the property, then they should be liable, in my opinion.

The incident that happened in this case is of a type that could have happened in any open place. Had this particular property been posted in accordance with Tennessee law, I would hope they would he held liable. Walmart's corporate policy, though, is to allow a person to carry in accordance with the state's laws. Incidents that I've heard about involving the expelling of a CC or OCer from a Walmart have generally resulted in the manager getting remedial training in the coporate policy.

[Oh Shoot]

.... Walmart's corporate policy, though, is to allow a person to carry in accordance with the state's laws. ...

Actually, we've seen written WalMart policy posted somewhere onsite that they may ask you to conceal your firearm or leave store.

- OS

[strickj]

Actually, we've seen written WalMart policy posted somewhere onsite that they may ask you to conceal your firearm or leave store.

- OS

From the TFA site on banned locations

EMAIL FROM TFA MEMBER:

Date: Monday, September 14, 1998 7:25 PM

Subject: Fwd: Wal-Mart Handgun Carry Policy

Dear TFA,

>I wrote to Wal-Mart and asked what policy, if any, their company had

>regarding the lawful carry of concealed handguns in their stores by

>holders of Tennessee Handgun Carry Permits. I also told them that I

>would be glad to share their response with the TFA so that through your

>newsletters and webpage you could share that information with permit

>holders statewide.

> I was pleased to get their answer affirming the right to carry in

>their stores. I have attached their response below. Their only concern

>was that a concealed weapon be concealed. Of course, as you point out

>on your page, it also is true that Tennessee law forbids carry in stores

>that sell alcohol.

REPLY FROM WALMART:

From: Letters to the President letters@wal-mart.com

To: [deleted]

Date: Monday, September 14, 1998 3:03 PM

Thank you for contacting Wal-Mart regarding our concealed handgun policy. Wal-mart was founded by Sam Walton on three principles: Strive for Excellence, Service to our Customers, and Respect for the Individual. It is that respect for the individual that led us to create the current policy pertaining to concealed handguns.

The following is our policy: if a Wal-mart customer has been aearded a concealed handgun license by the state government, Wal-Mart will follow the direction of the state. However, if at anytime while on Wal-Mart property, that customer's concealed weapon becomes visible to Wal-Mart associates or customers, Wal-Mart reserves the right to ask the customer to either reposition the weapon so that it will not be visible, to remove the weapon completely or to leave Wal-Mart property.

With the exception of law enforcement personnel, Wal-Mart does not allow any exposed weapons to be worn or carried in public view on Wal-mart property or in Wal-Mart stores. Customers other than low enforcement personnell wearing or carring a weapon in an exposed manner will be asked to leave the property immediately.

We appreciate your concern and trust that this has addressed your concerns regarding this issue.

However this is outdated as you can see at the time,it was still a no no to carry where alcohol is sold...

Edited December 28, 2008 by strickj

[Oh Shoot]

From the TFA site on banned locations...

Ta da!

Thanks

- OS

[Guest canynracer]

It appears that POST is in addition to being full time.

Well that just SUCKS!!!!