Intent to go armed in Tennessee

imported post


The Legislature still allows cities to enforce gun laws they had on the books prior to April 1986 (see tca 39-17-1314) you need to be careful where you carry. I live in a city (Brentwood) where it is against city ordinance to carry a handgun with the intent to go armed. The city next to where I live (Belle Meade)has a similar ordinance on carrying with intent to go armed.

Brentwood city ordinance

Sec. 42-161. Weapons and firearms generally.

(a)It shall be unlawful for any person to carry in any manner whatever, with the intent to go armed, any razor, dirk knife, blackjack, brass knucks, pistol, revolver or any other dangerous weapon or instrument. However, the prohibitions herein shall not apply to members of the United States armed forces carrying such weapons as are prescribed by applicable regulations, nor to any officer or police officer engaged in his official duties, in the execution of process, or while searching for or engaged in arresting persons suspected of having committed crimes. Furthermore, the prohibitions herein shall not apply to persons who may have been summoned by such officer or police officer to assist in the discharge of his duties, nor to any conductor of any passenger or freight train of any railroad while he is on duty.

(Code 1978, § 10-213; Ord. No. 93-07, §§ 1, 2, 3-22-93; Ord. No. 2005-11, § 1--3, 10-24-2005)





Belle Meade city ordinance



11-602. Weapons and firearms generally.

It shall be unlawful for any person to carry in any manner whatever, with the intent to go armed, any razor, dirk, knife, blackjack, brass knucks, pistol, revolver, or any other dangerous weapon or instrument except the army or navy pistol which shall be carried openly in the hand. However, the foregoing prohibition shall not apply to members of the United States Armed Forces carrying such weapons as are prescribed by applicable regulations nor to any officer or policeman engaged in his official duties, in the execution of process, or while searching for or engaged in arresting persons suspected of having committed crimes. Furthermore, the prohibition shall not apply to persons who may have been summoned by such officer or policeman to assist in the discharge of his said duties.

(Ord. 71-6, § 2.12. 1987 Code, § 10-212) This ordinancewas changedin 87, but the wording is similar to another ordinance which was much older. Icalled the City of Belle Meade and checked.



View of TCA 39-17-1314 by Metro Nashville Department of Law

Except as provided in § 39-17-1311(d), which allows counties and municipalities to prohibit the possession of handguns while within or on a public park, natural area, historic park, nature trail, campground, forest, greenway, waterway or other similar public place that is owned or operated by a county, a municipality or instrumentality thereof, no city, county, or metropolitan government shall occupy any part of the field of regulation of the transfer, ownership, possession or transportation of firearms, ammunition or components of firearms or combinations thereof; provided, that the provisions of this section shall be prospective only and shall not affect the validity of any ordinance or resolution lawfully enacted before April 8, 1986.

(emphasis added- exception provision). The fact that the General Assembly reenacted the existing exception removes the concern that the General Assembly intended to require additional action by the local legislative body to prevent the newly adopted provision allowing handguns in parks from becoming effective.

The reenactment of a statute in substantially the same words effects no change in the law, but merely continues the original law in force. Furthermore, no change in the meaning of a statute is effected by its subsequent repeal and reenactment, even though the circumstances have changed. 73 Am. Jur. 2d Statutes § 221 (2009 Update).

Where a statute is repealed by a new statute which relates to the same subject matter, and which reenacts substantially the provisions of the earlier statute, and the repeal and re-enactment occur simultaneously, the provisions of the original statute which are re-enacted in the new statute are not interrupted in their operation by the so-called repeal; they are regarded as having been continuously in force from the date they were originally enacted. 77 A.L.R.2d 336, Effect of Simultaneous Repeal and Re-enactment of All, or Part, of Legislative Act.



Tennessee Attorney General Opinion 96-080 April 25, 1996

Question.

Article I, Section 26 of the Tennessee Constitution provides for the right to keep and bear arms for the common defense. Do the following statutes violate this provision?

1. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1307(a), making it an offense to carry a firearm with the intent to go armed.

3. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1311, making it an offense to possess or carry a firearm with the intent to go armed in a public park or recreational facility.



Analysis.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1307(a)(1) states that "a person commits an offense who carries with the intent to go armed a firearm," a certain kind of knife or a club. This statute does not prohibit owning or carrying a firearm. It prohibits the carrying of a firearm with the intent to go armed. Thus, the carrying of a firearm is prohibited only when it is carried in a manner so as to be "readily accessible and available for use in the carrying out of purposes either offensive or defensive." Kendall v. State, 118 Tenn. 156, 101 S.W. 189 (1906). This statute does not, in the opinion of this Office, infringe upon the citizen's "right to keep and bear arms for their common defense."

Tenn. Code Ann. §39-17-1308 lists a number of defenses to the application of Tenn. Code Ann. §39-17-1307. Included in the list is when the person is carrying a weapon that is unloaded and unconcealed about his person and the ammunition is not in the immediate vicinity; when the person is authorized to possess or carry a firearm pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §39-17-1315, the handgun permit statute; when the person is at home, at his place of business or on the premises; and when the person is lawfully hunting, trapping or engaged in other lawful activity. Thus the application of Tenn. Code Ann. §39-17-1307 is rather narrow. The statutory scheme envisions many situations when the carrying of a weapon does not violate this statute.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1311(a) makes it an offense to possess or carry a firearm, with the intent to go armed, with certain exceptions, in or on the grounds of any public park, playground, civic center or other building facility, area or property owned, used or operated by any municipal, county or state government, or instrumentality thereof, for recreational purposes. The analysis of this statute is the same as the analysis under question one. Only the possession or carrying with the intent to go armed in these designated places is prohibited. Furthermore, the statute merely regulates the carrying of these weapons in places of public assemblage. This is permitted by Andrews v. The State, supra. It is the opinion of this Office that this statute is a valid exercise of the state's regulatory authority under Article I, Section 26.


I'm not a lawyer or giving any legal advice.

imported post

No comments?

Other cases[/b]

It is not illegal to carry a weapon. It is against the law to carry a weapon with the intent to go armed. If an individual carries a pistol without the intent of going armed he does not violate the law. Biggs v. State, 207 Tenn. 603, 341 S.W.2d 737, 1960 Sams v. State, 210 Tenn. 16, 356 S.W.2d 273, 1962.


Without the intent or purpose of going armed there is no violation, and the mere carrying of a weapon does not deprive a defendant of the presumption of innocence. Cole v. State, 539 S.W.2d 46, (Tenn. Crim. App. 1976).



Intent to go armed cannot be presumed from mere possession of a weapon and it is improper to instruct a jury regarding such a presumption. Liming v. State, 220 Tenn., 371, 382,417 S.W.2d 769, 774 (1967)





Intent to go armed may be inferred by the trier of fact from the

circumstances of the case including the fact of the possession of the weapon.

State v. Washington, 658 S.W.2d 144, 146 (Tenn. Cr. App. 1983)



I also found this:


[align=center]T.P.I. CRIM. 36.08[/align]
[align=center]CARRYING A WEAPON WITH INTENT TO GO ARMED[/align]
Any person who unlawfully carries a weapon with the intent to go armed is guilty of a crime.

For you to find the defendant guilty of this offense, the state must have proven beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of the following essential elements:[suP]1[/suP]

(1) that the defendant carried [a firearm] [a knife with a blade length

exceeding four (4) inches] [a club];

[align=center]and[/align]
(2) that the defendant did so with the intent to go armed;

[align=center]and [/align]
(3) that the defendant acted either intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly;[suP]2[/suP]

[align=center]and[/align]
[(4) that the weapon carried was a handgun;

[align=center]and[/align]
(5) that the carrying of it occurred at a place open to the public where

one (1) or more persons were present.][suP]3[/suP]

["Firearm" means any weapon designed, made or adapted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or any device readily convertible to that use.][suP]4[/suP]

["Club" means any instrument that is specially designed, made or adapted for the purpose of inflicting serious bodily injury or death by striking a person with the instrument.][suP]5[/suP]

["Knife" means any bladed hand instrument that is capable of inflicting serious bodily injury or death by cutting or stabbing a person with the instrument.][suP]6[/suP]

["Handgun" means any firearm with a barrel length of less than twelve (12) inches that is designed, made, or adapted to be fired with one hand.][suP]7[/suP]

["Intentionally" means that a person acts intentionally with respect to the nature of the conduct or to a result of the conduct when it is the person's conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result.][suP]8[/suP]

["Knowingly" means that a person acts knowingly with respect to the conduct or to circumstances surrounding the conduct when the person is aware of the nature of the conduct or that the circumstances exist. A person acts knowingly with respect to a result of the person's conduct when the person is aware that the conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result.][suP]9[/suP]

["Recklessly" means that a person acts recklessly with respect to the circumstances surrounding the conduct or the result of the conduct when the person is aware of, but consciously disregards, a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the accused person's standpoint.][suP]10[/suP]

["Public place" means a place to which the public or a group of persons has access and includes, but is not limited to, [highways] [transportation facilities] [schools] [places of amusement] [parks] [places of business] [playgrounds] [hallways, lobbies and other portions of apartment houses and hotels not constituting rooms or apartments designed for actual residence]. An act is deemed to occur in a public place if it produces its offensive or proscribed consequences in a public place.][suP]11[/suP]

[align=center]FOOTNOTES[/align]
1. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1307(a)(1).

2. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-301(b) and (c) and accompanying Sentencing

Commission Comment. The Committee is of the opinion that the definitions

of "knowingly" and "recklessly", although statutorily required, are in conflict

with element (2) of this offense. Because element (2) includes the "intent to

go armed", some judges believe that only "intentionally" should be charged

for this offense.

3. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1307(a)(2).

4. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-106(a)(11).

5. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1301(1).

6. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1301(5).

7. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-106(a)(16).

8. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-106(a)(18).

9. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-106(a)(20).

10. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-106(a)(31).

11. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-106(a)(29).

[align=center]COMMENTS[/align]
1. A violation of this statute is a Class C misdemeanor, which is increased to a Class A misdemeanor if elements (4) and (5) are applicable. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1307(a)(2).

2. It is a defense to prosecution for this offense that the defendant's possession was of an unloaded rifle, shotgun, or handgun not concealed on or about the person and the ammunition for the weapon was not in the immediate vicinity of the person or weapon; or that the defendant was authorized to possess or carry a firearm pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1315; or that the defendant was at the defendant's place of residence, place of business, or premises; or that the possession was incident to lawful hunting, trapping, fishing, camping, sport shooting, or other lawful activity; or that the defendant possessed a rifle or shotgun while engaged in the lawful protection of livestock from predatory animals; or that the defendant was a Tennessee Valley Authority officer who held a valid commission from the commissioner of safety and the possession was while such officer was in the performance of the officer's official duties; or that the defendant was a state, county, or municipal judge or any federal judge or magistrate. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1308(a). However, these defenses are not available to the defendant if he or she has previously been convicted of a felony involving the use or attempted use of force violence, or a deadly weapon or has been convicted of a felony drug offense. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1308(b). The burden of proof on this issue is upon the state to prove its contentions beyond a reasonable doubt.

3. The trial judge should also refer to Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-203 concerning defenses.

4. If the definition of an offense within Title 39 does not plainly dispense with a mental element, intent, knowledge or recklessness suffices to establish the culpable mental state. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-301(c). The Committee is of the opinion that the definitions of "intentionally", "knowingly", and "recklessly" should all be charged for element (1) of this offense. See also footnote 2 above.

imported post

Are you fishing for some sort of justification to break the law?

The municiple ordinances you cite were clearly grandfathered in since they were in effect prior to State preemption. The still have legal standing. The only recourse you have is to petition the governing bodies of these municipalities to repeal the ordinances. Failing that, you can campaign to replace the members of the governing bodies that oppose a repeal of the ordinances in the next elelction of said officers.

Failing both those courses of resolution, I suggest moving out of those municipalties and never going back.

As to the "intent to go armed", anyone that carries a loaded firearm (or any other weapon) does so "with the intent to go armed", DUUUUHHH I don't know about you, but I don't wear a gun on my hip as a fashion statement.

I don't think there's much chance of anyone seeking you out for legal council, even if you were a lawyer.

imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:

Are you fishing for some sort of justification to break the law?

The municiple ordinances you cite were clearly grandfathered in since they were in effect prior to State preemption. The still have legal standing. The only recourse you have is to petition the governing bodies of these municipalities to repeal the ordinances. Failing that, you can campaign to replace the members of the governing bodies that oppose a repeal of the ordinances in the next elelction of said officers.

Failing both those courses of resolution, I suggest moving out of those municipalties and never going back.

As to the "intent to go armed", anyone that carries a loaded firearm (or any other weapon) does so "with the intent to go armed", DUUUUHHH I don't know about you, but I don't wear a gun on my hip as a fashion statement.

I don't think there's much chance of anyone seeking you out for legal council, even if you were a lawyer.

Click to expand...

I'm not claiming to bea lawyer or a legal know it all. I like to read some of these court decisions.

Justification to break what law? I'm thinking about carrying an unloaded handgun.

The laws in Brentwood and Belle Meade were copied from Tennessee laws back in the 1870'swhen the whites wanted to keep the black from owning and carrying handguns.

But after a lot of reading I think "intent to go armed"may be the same as carrying a firearm. I'm not sure that unloaded isn't included in "intent to go armed."

Page v State 1871 carry is "intent to go armed"

"...what is the meaning intended by the Legislature to be conveyed by the word "carry"? It will be observed, that the prohibitory clause of the Constitution uses the words, "keep and bear arms," &c. The Legislature has avoided using this language, but has used a word, which, as connected with weapons, conveys the idea of "wearing weapons," or "going armed." When we use the expression, "he carries arms," we mean "he goes armed," or "he wears arms." This is manifestly the sense in which the word was used by the Legislature, and we know of no other single word which could more clearly convey the meaning intended to be conveyed, than the word "carry." In this sense, Page was not only literally carrying a forbidden weapon, but he was "carrying" it, that is, "he was going armed," contrary to the true meaning of the statute."

State v Wilburn1871 agrees with above decision



Moorefield v State 1880 "intent to go armed" is for offense or defense

"The object of the statute, as we have before said, is to prevent carrying a pistol with a view of being armed and ready for offense or defense in case of conflict with a citizen, or wantonly to go armed."



Andrews v State1871 limit type of weapon

"We hold, then, that the Act of the Legislature in question, so far as it prohibits the citizen "either publicly or privately to carry a dirk, sword cane, Spanish stiletto, belt or pocket pistol," is constitutional. As to the pistol designated as a revolver, we hold this may or may not be such a weapon as is adapted to the usual equipment of the soldier, or the use of which may render him more efficient as such, and therefore hold this to be a matter to be settled by evidence as to what character of weapon (p.187)is included in the designation "revolver." We know there is a pistol of that name which is not adapted to the equipment of the soldier, yet we also know that the pistol known as the repeater is a soldier's weapon--skill in the use of which will add to the efficiency of the soldier. If such is the character of the weapon here designated, then the prohibition of the statute is too broad to be allowed to stand, consistently with the views herein expressed. It will be seen the statute forbids by its terms, the carrying of the weapon publicly or privately, without regard to time or place, or circumstances, and in effect is an absolute prohibition against keeping such a weapon, and not a regulation of the use of it. Under this statute, if a man should carry such a weapon about his own home, or on his own premises, or should take it from his home to a gunsmith to be repaired, or return with it, should take it from his room into the street to shoot a rabid dog that threatened his child, he would be subjected to the severe penalties of fine and imprisonment prescribed in the statute."

imported post

OK, so you're looking for away to create another confrontation with LE. Maybe even get you name in the news, again.

Since you didn't respond to my suggestion to resolve these problem ordinances through petitioning the local government, I take it you're not interested in that method. Not sensational enough for you? Do you like having guns drawn on you?

:banghead:

imported post

Why should anyone draw a gun on me if I am not threatening anyone or breaking the law? Are you suggesting that police would assault me again and detain me w/o probable cause?

I'm not the one who put my name in the news. I'm pretty sure it wasn't the cops either. I'm fairly certain it was a local gun forum, or it could have been the shop which sold me the silencer.

imported post

kwikrnu wrote:

Why should anyone draw a gun on me if I am not threatening anyone or breaking the law? Until LEO determine by examination that your firearm is not loaded and that yu do not have any ammunition for it on your person, they don't know if you're breaking the lawor not.Are you suggesting that police would assault me again and detain me w/o probable cause? When LEO first arrive they only see a firearm on your hip, an "apparent" violation of city ordinance. There's your "probably cause."
I'm not the one who put my name in the news. I'm pretty sure it wasn't the cops either. I'm fairly certain it was a local gun forum, or it could have been the shop which sold me the silencer. Yeah yeah yeah, it's never your fault. Are you claiming irresponsibility? Didn't you tell us that the shop backed out of selling you a silencer?

Click to expand...

imported post

Last time I was ID'd by an armedranger who saw me, the gun, and my permit. I was let go passed many other people then ambushed at gunpoint.

The laws state I must carry openly in my hand this time. The handgun may not be holstered.

I didn't give out my name. I have a cell phone I rarely use, but used when I gave the gun shop info for the silencer. It seemed weird that that number was the one used when reporters started calling. I was told maps to my house and my pictures and name was on the local gun forum.

I made a contract to buy the silencer and paid $355 down until I was to pick it up after the ATF approved the stamp. They called the next day after selling me the silencer and said they will not honor the deal we made. They have not returned my money and by law I have to give them 30 days. They've dodged attempts by the department of commerce to mediate the situation.

imported post

kwikrnu wrote:

Last time I was ID'd by an armedranger who saw me, the gun, and my permit. I was let go passed many other people then ambushed at gunpoint.

The laws state I must carry openly in my hand this time. The handgun may not be holstered.

I didn't give out my name. I have a cell phone I rarely use, but used when I gave the gun shop info for the silencer. It seemed weird that that number was the one used when reporters started calling. I was told maps to my house and my pictures and name was on the local gun forum.

I made a contract to buy the silencer and paid $355 down until I was to pick it up after the ATF approved the stamp. They called the next day after selling me the silencer and said they will not honor the deal we made. They have not returned my money and by law I have to give them 30 days. They've dodged attempts by the department of commerce to mediate the situation.

Click to expand...

Didn't you tell us that the shop told you to come get your money?

imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:

kwikrnu wrote:

Last time I was ID'd by an armedranger who saw me, the gun, and my permit. I was let go passed many other people then ambushed at gunpoint.

The laws state I must carry openly in my hand this time. The handgun may not be holstered.

I didn't give out my name. I have a cell phone I rarely use, but used when I gave the gun shop info for the silencer. It seemed weird that that number was the one used when reporters started calling. I was told maps to my house and my pictures and name was on the local gun forum.

I made a contract to buy the silencer and paid $355 down until I was to pick it up after the ATF approved the stamp. They called the next day after selling me the silencer and said they will not honor the deal we made. They have not returned my money and by law I have to give them 30 days. They've dodged attempts by the department of commerce to mediate the situation.

Click to expand...

Didn't you tell us that the shop told you to come get your money?

Click to expand...

I don't need the money, I'm surprised they have not made an effort to return it. I still need to give them 30 days notice (can be a class C misdemeanor). I wrote a letter, but haven't sent it. I just received the last letter from Commerce Thursday. They'll have 30 days to perform, if not I'll buy another suppressor from a different dealer. According to the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act I may be due damages (difference in price), punitive damages up to three times price difference, maybe punitive damages to the State (up to $1000),and attorney fees.

imported post

And you have not made an effort to go and get your full refund. You haven't even mailed the letter to the shop that you say you've written. Instead you're contemplating a law suit against the shop, provided you can find an attorney willing to take your case.

Now you are consideringOCing an unloaded gun in the City of Brentwood. Why? To possibly get another reaction from teh Brentwood PD like you got with your AK47 pistol, maybe?

I take it, since you've not addressed my suggestion to petition the City of Brentwood to repeal or ammend their current ordinance prohibiting the carry of loaded firearms (even with a HCP), that you have no desire to go about this without some sort of confrontation with LE.

So..... It seems as though your motives are more inlne with fishing for a law suit for personal financial gain and nothing to do with attempting to restore 2A rights for the citizens of Brentwood.

imported post



Task Force 16 wrote:

And you have not made an effort to go and get your full refund. You haven't even mailed the letter to the shop that you say you've written. Instead you're contemplating a law suit against the shop, provided you can find an attorney willing to take your case.

Now you are consideringOCing an unloaded gun in the City of Brentwood. Why? To possibly get another reaction from teh Brentwood PD like you got with your AK47 pistol, maybe?

I take it, since you've not addressed my suggestion to petition the City of Brentwood to repeal or ammend their current ordinance prohibiting the carry of loaded firearms (even with a HCP), that you have no desire to go about this without some sort of confrontation with LE.

So..... It seems as though your motives are more inlne with fishing for a law suit for personal financial gain and nothing to do with attempting to restore 2A rights for the citizens of Brentwood.

Click to expand...

What fishing for financial gains? The gun shop has already stated they will not honor the contract. I tried to mediate with them through the State and they refused. This is only two days ago that I received that notice from the State. I wrote the letter yesterday and will send it monday. I will give them 30 days written notice they are in violation so there is no mistake that they are in violation of the contract. After the 30 day notice is up I will buy the same suppressor from a stocking dealer. When it is in my possession I will post a pic of it on my AK pistol and sue Guns America for damages. This is no different than any other lawsuit for breach of contract. For the court to award damages I must show my damages. Hopefully they will award punitive damages for their willful disregard of the contract.

I still need to find out when Brentwood changed their law and what the law was on April 8, 1986. Currently Brentwood TN prohibits all carry in their City. If the law has changed between April 9, 1986 and Jan 16, 2010 and they ammended the law to remove any provision allowing the carry of any handgun the changes may be invalid.

There is only one proper way to carry a pistol in the City of Belle Meade Tennessee. That is the carry of an Army or Navy pistol. The pistol must be carried in the hand it may not be holstered or concealed. It may be carried loaded or unloaded. I'm torn on carrying a black powder pistol in the city in my hand and it being loaded. I'll decide next week.

I can't make cops break the law.

imported post

kwikrnu wrote:

Task Force 16 wrote:

And you have not made an effort to go and get your full refund. You haven't even mailed the letter to the shop that you say you've written. Instead you're contemplating a law suit against the shop, provided you can find an attorney willing to take your case.

Now you are consideringOCing an unloaded gun in the City of Brentwood. Why? To possibly get another reaction from teh Brentwood PD like you got with your AK47 pistol, maybe?

I take it, since you've not addressed my suggestion to petition the City of Brentwood to repeal or ammend their current ordinance prohibiting the carry of loaded firearms (even with a HCP), that you have no desire to go about this without some sort of confrontation with LE.

So..... It seems as though your motives are more inlne with fishing for a law suit for personal financial gain and nothing to do with attempting to restore 2A rights for the citizens of Brentwood.

Click to expand...

What fishing for financial gains? The gun shop has already stated they will not honor the contract. I tried to mediate with them through the State and they refused. This is only two days ago that I received that notice from the State. I wrote the letter yesterday and will send it monday. I will give them 30 days written notice they are in violation so there is no mistake that they are in violation of the contract. After the 30 day notice is up I will buy the same suppressor from a stocking dealer. When it is in my possession I will post a pic of it on my AK pistol and sue Guns America for damages. This is no different than any other lawsuit for breach of contract. For the court to award damages I must show my damages. Hopefully they will award punitive damages for their willful disregard of the contract.

I still need to find out when Brentwood changed their law and what the law was on April 8, 1986. Currently Brentwood TN prohibits all carry in their City. If the law has changed between April 9, 1986 and Jan 16, 2010 and they ammended the law to remove any provision allowing the carry of any handgun the changes may be invalid.

There is only one proper way to carry a pistol in the City of Belle Meade Tennessee. That is the carry of an Army or Navy pistol. The pistol must be carried in the hand it may not be holstered or concealed. It may be carried loaded or unloaded. I'm torn on carrying a black powder pistol in the city in my hand and it being loaded. I'll decide next week.

I can't make cops break the law.

Click to expand...

Don't you think you should find out about the date of the current law before you do something that might go terribly wrong for you? And you still have not addressed to possibility of petitioning the city to amend/repeal any prohibitionof carrying a handgun.

imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:

kwikrnu wrote:

Task Force 16 wrote:

And you have not made an effort to go and get your full refund. You haven't even mailed the letter to the shop that you say you've written. Instead you're contemplating a law suit against the shop, provided you can find an attorney willing to take your case.

Now you are consideringOCing an unloaded gun in the City of Brentwood. Why? To possibly get another reaction from teh Brentwood PD like you got with your AK47 pistol, maybe?

I take it, since you've not addressed my suggestion to petition the City of Brentwood to repeal or ammend their current ordinance prohibiting the carry of loaded firearms (even with a HCP), that you have no desire to go about this without some sort of confrontation with LE.

So..... It seems as though your motives are more inlne with fishing for a law suit for personal financial gain and nothing to do with attempting to restore 2A rights for the citizens of Brentwood.

Click to expand...

What fishing for financial gains? The gun shop has already stated they will not honor the contract. I tried to mediate with them through the State and they refused. This is only two days ago that I received that notice from the State. I wrote the letter yesterday and will send it monday. I will give them 30 days written notice they are in violation so there is no mistake that they are in violation of the contract. After the 30 day notice is up I will buy the same suppressor from a stocking dealer. When it is in my possession I will post a pic of it on my AK pistol and sue Guns America for damages. This is no different than any other lawsuit for breach of contract. For the court to award damages I must show my damages. Hopefully they will award punitive damages for their willful disregard of the contract.

I still need to find out when Brentwood changed their law and what the law was on April 8, 1986. Currently Brentwood TN prohibits all carry in their City. If the law has changed between April 9, 1986 and Jan 16, 2010 and they ammended the law to remove any provision allowing the carry of any handgun the changes may be invalid.

There is only one proper way to carry a pistol in the City of Belle Meade Tennessee. That is the carry of an Army or Navy pistol. The pistol must be carried in the hand it may not be holstered or concealed. It may be carried loaded or unloaded. I'm torn on carrying a black powder pistol in the city in my hand and it being loaded. I'll decide next week.

I can't make cops break the law.

Click to expand...

Don't you think you should find out about the date of the current law before you do something that might go terribly wrong for you? And you still have not addressed to possibility of petitioning the city to amend/repeal any prohibitionof carrying a handgun.

Click to expand...

I know the Belle Meade law is current. It is listed on their website and last week when I called the city recorder toask if there had been a change in the weapons laws in 1986 she said no. According to the preemption exception in TCA 39-17-1314 cities cannot make laws regulating possession , transportation of firearms after April 8, 1986. This means they may not change their ordinance to prohibit the carry of an army or navy pistol openly in the hand.

I live closer to downtown Belle Meade than I do downtown Brentwood anyway. One of my New Years resolutions is to lose 20 pounds. Belle Meade blvd. is a great place to walk with literally hundreds of people walkingthe boulevard on nice weekends.

imported post

kwikrnu wrote:

I know the Belle Meade law is current. It is listed on their website and last week when I called the city recorder toask if there had been a change in the weapons laws in 1986 she said no. According to the preemption exception in TCA 39-17-1314 cities cannot make laws regulating possession , transportation of firearms after April 8, 1986. This means they may not change their ordinance to prohibit the carry of an army or navy pistol openly in the hand.

I live closer to downtown Belle Meade than I do downtown Brentwood anyway. One of my New Years resolutions is to lose 20 pounds. Belle Meade blvd. is a great place to walk with literally hundreds of people walkingthe boulevard on nice weekends.

Click to expand...

BS!!!!

The city may not be able to change the ordinance to prohit the carry of a black powder handgun (which would be more restrictive), but they sure as heck can ammend/repeal the ordinance that prohibits the carry of other handguns. But that won't get done unless citizens of that jurisdiction, like yourself, go before the governing body and petition for such a change.

Get a petition drive started, find other 2A supporters that are willing go with you to city council meetings and speek in favor of repealing the prohibitive ordinance or at least to amend it to add an exception for HCP holders.

This idea you have of carrying a black powder pistol (in hand) down the street of Belle Mead is a bad one, IMHO, that could potentially have tragic results. You have less confrontational alternatives that you can exercise. I strongly suggest you use them. People in other municipalties (check WI forums)are doing it with reasonable success.

imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:

kwikrnu wrote:

I know the Belle Meade law is current. It is listed on their website and last week when I called the city recorder toask if there had been a change in the weapons laws in 1986 she said no. According to the preemption exception in TCA 39-17-1314 cities cannot make laws regulating possession , transportation of firearms after April 8, 1986. This means they may not change their ordinance to prohibit the carry of an army or navy pistol openly in the hand.

I live closer to downtown Belle Meade than I do downtown Brentwood anyway. One of my New Years resolutions is to lose 20 pounds. Belle Meade blvd. is a great place to walk with literally hundreds of people walkingthe boulevard on nice weekends.

Click to expand...

BS!!!!

The city may not be able to change the ordinance to prohit the carry of a black powder handgun (which would be more restrictive), but they sure as heck can ammend/repeal the ordinance that prohibits the carry of other handguns. But that won't get done unless citizens of that jurisdiction, like yourself, go before the governing body and petition for such a change.

Get a petition drive started, find other 2A supporters that are willing go with you to city council meetings and speek in favor of repealing the prohibitive ordinance or at least to amend it to add an exception for HCP holders.

This idea you have of carrying a black powder pistol (in hand) down the street of Belle Mead is a bad one, IMHO, that could potentially have tragic results. You have less confrontational alternatives that you can exercise. I strongly suggest you use them. People in other municipalties (check WI forums)are doing it with reasonable success.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you are calling BS. I stated they cannot change the ordinace to prohibit the army navy pistol. If they did their change of law would be preempted by the State Law. This means they may not prohibit the carry of the army navy model pistol in their city.

Petitions accomplish nothing.

Why is carrying a loaded navy pistol in my hand in Belle Meade a bad idea? It is completely within the law. Cops should know the laws of their city.

imported post

kwikrnu wrote:

Task Force 16 wrote:

kwikrnu wrote:

I know the Belle Meade law is current. It is listed on their website and last week when I called the city recorder toask if there had been a change in the weapons laws in 1986 she said no. According to the preemption exception in TCA 39-17-1314 cities cannot make laws regulating possession , transportation of firearms after April 8, 1986. This means they may not change their ordinance to prohibit the carry of an army or navy pistol openly in the hand.

I live closer to downtown Belle Meade than I do downtown Brentwood anyway. One of my New Years resolutions is to lose 20 pounds. Belle Meade blvd. is a great place to walk with literally hundreds of people walkingthe boulevard on nice weekends.

Click to expand...

BS!!!!

The city may not be able to change the ordinance to prohit the carry of a black powder handgun (which would be more restrictive), but they sure as heck can ammend/repeal the ordinance that prohibits the carry of other handguns. But that won't get done unless citizens of that jurisdiction, like yourself, go before the governing body and petition for such a change.

Get a petition drive started, find other 2A supporters that are willing go with you to city council meetings and speek in favor of repealing the prohibitive ordinance or at least to amend it to add an exception for HCP holders.

This idea you have of carrying a black powder pistol (in hand) down the street of Belle Mead is a bad one, IMHO, that could potentially have tragic results. You have less confrontational alternatives that you can exercise. I strongly suggest you use them. People in other municipalties (check WI forums)are doing it with reasonable success.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you are calling BS. I stated they cannot change the ordinace to prohibit the army navy pistol. If they did their change of law would be preempted by the State Law. This means they may not prohibit the carry of the army navy model pistol in their city.

Petitions accomplish nothing.

Why is carrying a loaded navy pistol in my hand in Belle Meade a bad idea? It is completely within the law. Cops should know the laws of their city.

Click to expand...

You obviously have serious areading comprehension deficiency.

The ordinance can be changed as long as the changes relieve restictions, such as amending the ordinance to make an exception to carrying handguns (any) for HCP holders. That would be inline with State law, not in violation of state preemption.

Petitions ARE useless, if they are never initiated and put into motion. How will you ever know if it will accomplish anythingor not unless your try? I'll tell you what my parents told me when I was a kid, "CAN'T NEVERACCOMPLISHED ANYTHING!"

imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:

kwikrnu wrote:

Task Force 16 wrote:

kwikrnu wrote:

I know the Belle Meade law is current. It is listed on their website and last week when I called the city recorder toask if there had been a change in the weapons laws in 1986 she said no. According to the preemption exception in TCA 39-17-1314 cities cannot make laws regulating possession , transportation of firearms after April 8, 1986. This means they may not change their ordinance to prohibit the carry of an army or navy pistol openly in the hand.

I live closer to downtown Belle Meade than I do downtown Brentwood anyway. One of my New Years resolutions is to lose 20 pounds. Belle Meade blvd. is a great place to walk with literally hundreds of people walkingthe boulevard on nice weekends.

Click to expand...

BS!!!!

The city may not be able to change the ordinance to prohit the carry of a black powder handgun (which would be more restrictive), but they sure as heck can ammend/repeal the ordinance that prohibits the carry of other handguns. But that won't get done unless citizens of that jurisdiction, like yourself, go before the governing body and petition for such a change.

Get a petition drive started, find other 2A supporters that are willing go with you to city council meetings and speek in favor of repealing the prohibitive ordinance or at least to amend it to add an exception for HCP holders.

This idea you have of carrying a black powder pistol (in hand) down the street of Belle Mead is a bad one, IMHO, that could potentially have tragic results. You have less confrontational alternatives that you can exercise. I strongly suggest you use them. People in other municipalties (check WI forums)are doing it with reasonable success.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you are calling BS. I stated they cannot change the ordinace to prohibit the army navy pistol. If they did their change of law would be preempted by the State Law. This means they may not prohibit the carry of the army navy model pistol in their city.

Petitions accomplish nothing.

Why is carrying a loaded navy pistol in my hand in Belle Meade a bad idea? It is completely within the law. Cops should know the laws of their city.

Click to expand...

You obviously have serious areading comprehension deficiency.

The ordinance can be changed as long as the changes relieve restictions, such as amending the ordinance to make an exception to carrying handguns (any) for HCP holders. That would be inline with State law, not in violation of state preemption.

Petitions ARE useless, if they are never initiated and put into motion. How will you ever know if it will accomplish anythingor not unless your try? I'll tell you what my parents told me when I was a kid, "CAN'T NEVERACCOMPLISHED ANYTHING!"

Click to expand...

I wrote, "This means they may not change their ordinance to prohibit the carry of an army or navy pistol openly in the hand."

You claimed BS.

imported post

kwikrnu wrote:

Task Force 16 wrote:

kwikrnu wrote:

Task Force 16 wrote:

kwikrnu wrote:

I know the Belle Meade law is current. It is listed on their website and last week when I called the city recorder toask if there had been a change in the weapons laws in 1986 she said no. According to the preemption exception in TCA 39-17-1314 cities cannot make laws regulating possession , transportation of firearms after April 8, 1986. This means they may not change their ordinance to prohibit the carry of an army or navy pistol openly in the hand.

I live closer to downtown Belle Meade than I do downtown Brentwood anyway. One of my New Years resolutions is to lose 20 pounds. Belle Meade blvd. is a great place to walk with literally hundreds of people walkingthe boulevard on nice weekends.

Click to expand...

BS!!!!

The city may not be able to change the ordinance to prohit the carry of a black powder handgun (which would be more restrictive), but they sure as heck can ammend/repeal the ordinance that prohibits the carry of other handguns. But that won't get done unless citizens of that jurisdiction, like yourself, go before the governing body and petition for such a change.

Get a petition drive started, find other 2A supporters that are willing go with you to city council meetings and speek in favor of repealing the prohibitive ordinance or at least to amend it to add an exception for HCP holders.

This idea you have of carrying a black powder pistol (in hand) down the street of Belle Mead is a bad one, IMHO, that could potentially have tragic results. You have less confrontational alternatives that you can exercise. I strongly suggest you use them. People in other municipalties (check WI forums)are doing it with reasonable success.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you are calling BS. I stated they cannot change the ordinace to prohibit the army navy pistol. If they did their change of law would be preempted by the State Law. This means they may not prohibit the carry of the army navy model pistol in their city.

Petitions accomplish nothing.

Why is carrying a loaded navy pistol in my hand in Belle Meade a bad idea? It is completely within the law. Cops should know the laws of their city.

Click to expand...

You obviously have serious areading comprehension deficiency.

The ordinance can be changed as long as the changes relieve restictions, such as amending the ordinance to make an exception to carrying handguns (any) for HCP holders. That would be inline with State law, not in violation of state preemption.

Petitions ARE useless, if they are never initiated and put into motion. How will you ever know if it will accomplish anythingor not unless your try? I'll tell you what my parents told me when I was a kid, "CAN'T NEVERACCOMPLISHED ANYTHING!"

Click to expand...

I wrote, "This means they may not change their ordinance to prohibit the carry of an army or navy pistol openly in the hand."

You claimed BS.

Click to expand...

OK, perhaps the text was too small for you to read. I've enlarged it and highlighted it in Red.

I still call BS on you.

imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:

kwikrnu wrote:

Task Force 16 wrote:

kwikrnu wrote:

Task Force 16 wrote:

kwikrnu wrote:

I know the Belle Meade law is current. It is listed on their website and last week when I called the city recorder toask if there had been a change in the weapons laws in 1986 she said no. According to the preemption exception in TCA 39-17-1314 cities cannot make laws regulating possession , transportation of firearms after April 8, 1986. This means they may not change their ordinance to prohibit the carry of an army or navy pistol openly in the hand.

I live closer to downtown Belle Meade than I do downtown Brentwood anyway. One of my New Years resolutions is to lose 20 pounds. Belle Meade blvd. is a great place to walk with literally hundreds of people walkingthe boulevard on nice weekends.

Click to expand...

BS!!!!

The city may not be able to change the ordinance to prohit the carry of a black powder handgun (which would be more restrictive), but they sure as heck can ammend/repeal the ordinance that prohibits the carry of other handguns. But that won't get done unless citizens of that jurisdiction, like yourself, go before the governing body and petition for such a change.

Get a petition drive started, find other 2A supporters that are willing go with you to city council meetings and speek in favor of repealing the prohibitive ordinance or at least to amend it to add an exception for HCP holders.

This idea you have of carrying a black powder pistol (in hand) down the street of Belle Mead is a bad one, IMHO, that could potentially have tragic results. You have less confrontational alternatives that you can exercise. I strongly suggest you use them. People in other municipalties (check WI forums)are doing it with reasonable success.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you are calling BS. I stated they cannot change the ordinace to prohibit the army navy pistol. If they did their change of law would be preempted by the State Law. This means they may not prohibit the carry of the army navy model pistol in their city.

Petitions accomplish nothing.

Why is carrying a loaded navy pistol in my hand in Belle Meade a bad idea? It is completely within the law. Cops should know the laws of their city.

Click to expand...

You obviously have serious areading comprehension deficiency.

The ordinance can be changed as long as the changes relieve restictions, such as amending the ordinance to make an exception to carrying handguns (any) for HCP holders. That would be inline with State law, not in violation of state preemption.

Petitions ARE useless, if they are never initiated and put into motion. How will you ever know if it will accomplish anythingor not unless your try? I'll tell you what my parents told me when I was a kid, "CAN'T NEVERACCOMPLISHED ANYTHING!"

Click to expand...

I wrote, "This means they may not change their ordinance to prohibit the carry of an army or navy pistol openly in the hand."

You claimed BS.

Click to expand...

OK, perhaps the text was too small for you to read. I've enlarged it and highlighted it in Red.

I still call BS on you.

Click to expand...

Iwrote, "This means they may not change their ordinance to prohibit the carry of an army or navy pistol openly in the hand."