-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
?
- Thread starter old dog
- Start date
Fallguy
Regular Member
imported post
There is no duty to inform. What the law says is that you must present your HCP to a LEO upon his/her request.
Many LEOs prefer you inform, some will may make you think you must inform and some will give you "a talking to" if you didn't inform. But nothing in the law says you have to.
There is no duty to inform. What the law says is that you must present your HCP to a LEO upon his/her request.
Many LEOs prefer you inform, some will may make you think you must inform and some will give you "a talking to" if you didn't inform. But nothing in the law says you have to.
39-17-1351(1)
Except as provided in subdivision
kwikrnu
Banned
imported post
Look up TCA 39-17-1351(1)
You only have to show the permit on demand of a law enforcement officer (NOT SECURITY GUARDS) if you are carrying a handgun.
This means you do not have to show the permit if you are not carrying a handgun.
Iwonder if I have to show my permit whenI have a loaded rifle/shotgun (with no rounds in the chamber/s) on or in my car...
Look up TCA 39-17-1351
(1)You only have to show the permit on demand of a law enforcement officer (NOT SECURITY GUARDS) if you are carrying a handgun.
This means you do not have to show the permit if you are not carrying a handgun.
Iwonder if I have to show my permit whenI have a loaded rifle/shotgun (with no rounds in the chamber/s) on or in my car...
Fallguy
Regular Member
imported post
You may not have to legally show it to security guards, but they don't have to allow you on the property either.
Since having a HCP is the only thing that legally allows you to carry a loaded (minus one in the chamber)long gun in your vehicle, I would say of course you have to show it to them if you have one in your vehicle. If you don't have your HCP with you, you can't have the loaded long gun in your vehicle.
In fact even though the laws says you only have to have your HCP in your possessionwhen you are carrying a handgun, it doesn't restrict when a LEO can demand to see it.
You may not have to legally show it to security guards, but they don't have to allow you on the property either.
Since having a HCP is the only thing that legally allows you to carry a loaded (minus one in the chamber)long gun in your vehicle, I would say of course you have to show it to them if you have one in your vehicle. If you don't have your HCP with you, you can't have the loaded long gun in your vehicle.
In fact even though the laws says you only have to have your HCP in your possessionwhen you are carrying a handgun, it doesn't restrict when a LEO can demand to see it.
kwikrnu
Banned
imported post
Fallguy wrote:
There is no law which states you must show the permit to anyone unless demanded and carrying a handgun. It doesn't say rifle or shotgun. Not even in Public chapter 390.
"The permit holdershall have the permit in the holder's immediate possesion at all times when carrying a handgun and shall display the permit on demand ofa law enforcement officer."
I read that to mean that you must have the permit when carrying a HANDGUN (not rifle or shotgun) and shall display the permit (when in possesion of the handgun) to a LEO when demanded.
Fallguy wrote:
There is no law which states you must show the permit to anyone unless demanded and carrying a handgun. It doesn't say rifle or shotgun. Not even in Public chapter 390.
"The permit holdershall have the permit in the holder's immediate possesion at all times when carrying a handgun and shall display the permit on demand ofa law enforcement officer."
I read that to mean that you must have the permit when carrying a HANDGUN (not rifle or shotgun) and shall display the permit (when in possesion of the handgun) to a LEO when demanded.
WCrawford
Regular Member
imported post
Fallguy wrote:
Fixed that for you, Fallguy.
We have no legal obligation to follow any requests of law enforcement. We do have legal obligations to follow many (if not all) of their demands.
For me, this will be asking, "Are you requesting or demanding?"
Just for the record, I've never been stopped for OC or asked (demanded) for my HCP when not involved in a situation that needed police (car accidents).
Fallguy wrote:
There is no duty to inform. What the law says is that you must present your HCP to a LEO upon his/her DEMAND.
Many LEOs prefer you inform, some will may make you think you must inform and some will give you "a talking to" if you didn't inform. But nothing in the law says you have to.
39-17-1351
Except as provided in subdivision
Fixed that for you, Fallguy.
We have no legal obligation to follow any requests of law enforcement. We do have legal obligations to follow many (if not all) of their demands.
For me, this will be asking, "Are you requesting or demanding?"
Just for the record, I've never been stopped for OC or asked (demanded) for my HCP when not involved in a situation that needed police (car accidents).
WCrawford
Regular Member
imported post
kwikrnu wrote:
I am a supervisor, currently only one, of a security firm in Nashville (Vinson Guard Service). If ANY of my guards asks someone for an HCP, I will be highly peeved. The company may do things differently in other cities, but until I'm told otherwise by my boss (VP of the company), I'm in charge here in Nashville and we will conduct ourselves professionally.
kwikrnu wrote:
Look up TCA 39-17-1351
You only have to show the permit on demand of a law enforcement officer (NOT SECURITY GUARDS) if you are carrying a handgun.
This means you do not have to show the permit if you are not carrying a handgun.
Iwonder if I have to show my permit whenI have a loaded rifle/shotgun (with no rounds in the chamber/s) on or in my car...
I am a supervisor, currently only one, of a security firm in Nashville (Vinson Guard Service). If ANY of my guards asks someone for an HCP, I will be highly peeved. The company may do things differently in other cities, but until I'm told otherwise by my boss (VP of the company), I'm in charge here in Nashville and we will conduct ourselves professionally.
kwikrnu
Banned
imported post
I'v eonly had one security guard ask for my permit. I was a newbie carrier and showed it and they kicked me out of FoodLion. I have no problem with them asking, but now they will not see and I will leave when asked.:dude:
I'v eonly had one security guard ask for my permit. I was a newbie carrier and showed it and they kicked me out of FoodLion. I have no problem with them asking, but now they will not see and I will leave when asked.:dude:
suntzu
Regular Member
imported post
Some questions:
what penalty/penalties exist if a permit holder refuses to show permit upon "demand of a law enforcement officer"? There is no penalty provided that I can find in the law for refusing to show your permit.
Considering 39-17-1351(1)
Except as provided in subdivision(2), a permit issued pursuant to this section shall be good for four (4) years and shall entitle the permit holder to carry any handgun or handguns that the permit holder legally owns or possesses. The permit holder shall have the permit in the holder's immediate possession at all times when carrying a handgun and shall display the permit on demand of a law enforcement officer.
The law seems to read that you only need to show your permit IF you are carrying a gun, which means--if you are not carrying a gun, you need not display your permit. Yes or no?
Second question: 39-17-1308 provides that a person may carry a firearm while on their property, place of residence, or business they control.. The question is this: You are on your property mowing your yard, carrying your gun openly--the police drive by and see you and stop. They get out, tell you to remain where you are--they enter your property illegally under the law, making them guilty of trespassing, because they have no lawful purpose for trespassing, all they see is a citizen mowing their own yard, which is not a reason to trespass. They then begin to question you--you tell them it is your property, but refuse to provide identification--because again, it is your property, and in America we don't have to show our papers to every tom, dick and harry who wants to see them. SO, they enter your property, and are trespassing--you verbally ID yourself as the home owner/renter, considering that Tennessee has no "STOP AND ID" law whatsoever and tell them they are trespassing and you would now like them to leave. May they demand your ID, and may they demand your permit--considering you are on your property and don't need one....
Second, considering that 39-14-405 reads :
A person commits criminal trespass who, knowing the person does not have the owner's effective consent to do so, enters or remains on property, or a portion thereof. Knowledge that the person did not have the owner's effective consent may be inferred where notice against entering or remaining is given by:
(1) Personal communication to the person by the owner or by someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(2) Fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders;
(3)Posting reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders; or
(4) Posting the property, in accordance with the requirements of § 70-4-106(b)(1)(B)(ii).
(b) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1)The property was open to the public when the person entered and remained;
(2)The person's conduct did not substantially interfere with the owner's use of the property; and
(3)The person immediately left the premises upon request.
(c)For purposes of this section, “enter” means intrusion of the entire body.
(d)Criminal trespass is a Class C misdemeanor.
[Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 2005, ch. 297, §§ 1-3.]
in lieu of 39-14-405, which can be bumped up to aggravated criminal trespass, which is a class B misdemeanor under 39-14-406 if the conduct of the individual who is trespassing is reckless or is such that it would make you afraid...Now, in lieu of 39-14-405/39-14-406, if you trespass the officer, may the officer remain on your property, or may you call the Sheriff, or highway patrol and have the officer arrested?
hypothetically, we are speaking of an incident where no 911 call has been made, no official complaint made--the police simply drive by, see you on your property, get out, and demand your ID and begin questioning you without a valid, lawful reason to be on your property....
and while I am aware that having a police officer arrested for trespassing in many parts of this state would basically make you a huge glowing target for police harassment--the question remains--can a police officer be trespassed under 39-14-405 when they have absolutely no legitimate reason to be on your property?
not that I am looking to trespass anyone--but this is a question I have been very curious about for some time.
Some questions:
what penalty/penalties exist if a permit holder refuses to show permit upon "demand of a law enforcement officer"? There is no penalty provided that I can find in the law for refusing to show your permit.
Considering 39-17-1351
(1)Except as provided in subdivision
(2), a permit issued pursuant to this section shall be good for four (4) years and shall entitle the permit holder to carry any handgun or handguns that the permit holder legally owns or possesses. The permit holder shall have the permit in the holder's immediate possession at all times when carrying a handgun and shall display the permit on demand of a law enforcement officer.The law seems to read that you only need to show your permit IF you are carrying a gun, which means--if you are not carrying a gun, you need not display your permit. Yes or no?
Second question: 39-17-1308 provides that a person may carry a firearm while on their property, place of residence, or business they control.. The question is this: You are on your property mowing your yard, carrying your gun openly--the police drive by and see you and stop. They get out, tell you to remain where you are--they enter your property illegally under the law, making them guilty of trespassing, because they have no lawful purpose for trespassing, all they see is a citizen mowing their own yard, which is not a reason to trespass. They then begin to question you--you tell them it is your property, but refuse to provide identification--because again, it is your property, and in America we don't have to show our papers to every tom, dick and harry who wants to see them. SO, they enter your property, and are trespassing--you verbally ID yourself as the home owner/renter, considering that Tennessee has no "STOP AND ID" law whatsoever and tell them they are trespassing and you would now like them to leave. May they demand your ID, and may they demand your permit--considering you are on your property and don't need one....
Second, considering that 39-14-405 reads :
A person commits criminal trespass who, knowing the person does not have the owner's effective consent to do so, enters or remains on property, or a portion thereof. Knowledge that the person did not have the owner's effective consent may be inferred where notice against entering or remaining is given by:
(1) Personal communication to the person by the owner or by someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
(2) Fencing or other enclosure obviously designed to exclude intruders;
(3)Posting reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders; or
(4) Posting the property, in accordance with the requirements of § 70-4-106(b)(1)(B)(ii).
(b) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1)The property was open to the public when the person entered and remained;
(2)The person's conduct did not substantially interfere with the owner's use of the property; and
(3)The person immediately left the premises upon request.
(c)For purposes of this section, “enter” means intrusion of the entire body.
(d)Criminal trespass is a Class C misdemeanor.
[Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 2005, ch. 297, §§ 1-3.]
in lieu of 39-14-405, which can be bumped up to aggravated criminal trespass, which is a class B misdemeanor under 39-14-406 if the conduct of the individual who is trespassing is reckless or is such that it would make you afraid...Now, in lieu of 39-14-405/39-14-406, if you trespass the officer, may the officer remain on your property, or may you call the Sheriff, or highway patrol and have the officer arrested?
hypothetically, we are speaking of an incident where no 911 call has been made, no official complaint made--the police simply drive by, see you on your property, get out, and demand your ID and begin questioning you without a valid, lawful reason to be on your property....
and while I am aware that having a police officer arrested for trespassing in many parts of this state would basically make you a huge glowing target for police harassment--the question remains--can a police officer be trespassed under 39-14-405 when they have absolutely no legitimate reason to be on your property?
not that I am looking to trespass anyone--but this is a question I have been very curious about for some time.
Task Force 16
Campaign Veteran
imported post
suntzu,
As for penalty for failing to present HCP on demand. The law states that you MUST have the HCP on your person when armed. It is your defense for carrying a loaded handgun. I suspect, that if you refused to present your HCP on demand, while armed, the officermay assume you don't have it on you andcite you for illegal carry of a handgun (misdermeaner charge) and you could loose your HCP. Look up the penalty for going armed in public (without HCP).
As for the LEO trespass scenario, I doubt you could make that charge against an officer. But, you could file a suit for violation of one or 2 of your protected rights. Such as your 4th for starters.
suntzu,
As for penalty for failing to present HCP on demand. The law states that you MUST have the HCP on your person when armed. It is your defense for carrying a loaded handgun. I suspect, that if you refused to present your HCP on demand, while armed, the officermay assume you don't have it on you andcite you for illegal carry of a handgun (misdermeaner charge) and you could loose your HCP. Look up the penalty for going armed in public (without HCP).
As for the LEO trespass scenario, I doubt you could make that charge against an officer. But, you could file a suit for violation of one or 2 of your protected rights. Such as your 4th for starters.
Fallguy
Regular Member
imported post
I agree with Task Force 16 on the not showing the HCP. If you don't show it, the law would see it the same as not having one and you would be guilty of a violation of 39-17-1307
As far as the LEOs seeing you OCing while mowing....I figure the odds of them interacting with you are low, but if they do I don't think they are trespassing. It is illegal to posses a firearm in TN. You can defend your possession by being on your property. I mean if they saw pot growing on your lawn, surely you don't think they couldn't walk up and investigate that?
Everyone seems to forget that having a permit in TN doesn't really make handgun possession legal, it is simply and excuse to allow you to break the law. So as far as a LEO knowsyou are breaking the law when you are armed unless you can show you fall into one of the exceptions in 39-17-1308.
Do I like the way the law is...NO. Do I think it should be changed....YES. But as of know that is the way the law is.
I agree with Task Force 16 on the not showing the HCP. If you don't show it, the law would see it the same as not having one and you would be guilty of a violation of 39-17-1307
As far as the LEOs seeing you OCing while mowing....I figure the odds of them interacting with you are low, but if they do I don't think they are trespassing. It is illegal to posses a firearm in TN. You can defend your possession by being on your property. I mean if they saw pot growing on your lawn, surely you don't think they couldn't walk up and investigate that?
Everyone seems to forget that having a permit in TN doesn't really make handgun possession legal, it is simply and excuse to allow you to break the law. So as far as a LEO knowsyou are breaking the law when you are armed unless you can show you fall into one of the exceptions in 39-17-1308.
Do I like the way the law is...NO. Do I think it should be changed....YES. But as of know that is the way the law is.
imported post
An old professor of mine once said that among the more dangerous people are those who don't understand all they know.
Fallguy would seem to fall (sorry) into that category. The hallmark of the legal neophyte is the parsing of words and phrases to an almost theatrical degree. I doubt there is any concept in law that cannot be seized upon by the dilettante eager to display his grasp of the intricacies of legalese.
Sometimes a word or sentence means what it says -- no more nor less.
An old professor of mine once said that among the more dangerous people are those who don't understand all they know.
Fallguy would seem to fall (sorry) into that category. The hallmark of the legal neophyte is the parsing of words and phrases to an almost theatrical degree. I doubt there is any concept in law that cannot be seized upon by the dilettante eager to display his grasp of the intricacies of legalese.
Sometimes a word or sentence means what it says -- no more nor less.
WCrawford
Regular Member
imported post
old dog wrote:
Since I don't know Fallguy's background, he may very well be a self-trained amateur. There is a difference.
old dog wrote:
I would not call Fallguy a neophyte, as that would imply that he is a beginner. HE's definitely no beginner.
Since I don't know Fallguy's background, he may very well be a self-trained amateur. There is a difference.
WCrawford
Regular Member
imported post
Task Force 16 wrote:
In my 10+ years of as a security guard, I have called police for trespassing at least 100 times. I've only had one person taken to jail for criminal trespass, and I was the one who made the arrest (citizen's arrest).
Task Force 16 wrote:
In my experience with trespassing people, it is damn near impossible to get someone arrested for criminal trespass.
In my 10+ years of as a security guard, I have called police for trespassing at least 100 times. I've only had one person taken to jail for criminal trespass, and I was the one who made the arrest (citizen's arrest).
Fallguy
Regular Member
imported post
Let's say a LEO sees an assault occurring or some other illegal activity occurring, on your property....doesn't he havea right to come on to that property to investigate the crime he witnessed?
If the above is true, then it is true if he sees you with a gun on your property he could come investigate. Because again, there is a law against firearms possession. If the law said, it is not an offense against 39-17-1307 if the person is on their own property it may be different. But it doesn't say that, it says it is a defense to 39-17-1307 to be on your own property. Well how else can you defend yourself unless you are being investigated? That is readingas a whole, notjustparts of Part 13, Chapter 17, Title 39
I have no formal training and I make no claim that I know everything or that what I say should be taken as the gospel. Just simply saying what my interpretation of something based on thorough reading of it.
Let's say a LEO sees an assault occurring or some other illegal activity occurring, on your property....doesn't he havea right to come on to that property to investigate the crime he witnessed?
If the above is true, then it is true if he sees you with a gun on your property he could come investigate. Because again, there is a law against firearms possession. If the law said, it is not an offense against 39-17-1307 if the person is on their own property it may be different. But it doesn't say that, it says it is a defense to 39-17-1307 to be on your own property. Well how else can you defend yourself unless you are being investigated? That is readingas a whole, notjustparts of Part 13, Chapter 17, Title 39
I have no formal training and I make no claim that I know everything or that what I say should be taken as the gospel. Just simply saying what my interpretation of something based on thorough reading of it.
Fallguy
Regular Member
imported post
WCrawford wrote:
I agree on the getting someone arrest for trespass, most of the time you would have to be the one to make the arrest.
About the only time a LEO will is if they have something on file where the person was given prior notice, in the presence of a LEO,not to return tothe property.
WCrawford wrote:
I agree on the getting someone arrest for trespass, most of the time you would have to be the one to make the arrest.
About the only time a LEO will is if they have something on file where the person was given prior notice, in the presence of a LEO,not to return tothe property.