Training the cops wrong?

[ProguninTN]

Do you have evidence on your cell phone that implicates you in a crime? Then you have a duty to inform, if you do. Blood on your tools as a result of criminal activity? You have a duty to inform. What did you do with that tire or tire jack? If criminal in nature you have a duty to inform.

Wrong. An individual has the right not to incriminate himself per the 5th Amendment. Remember the very first sentence of the Miranda warning ?

All of those things are ubiquitous and not normally associated with crime. Guns are associated with crime and criminals by popular culture. Guns are also the great equalizer that protects the weak and the meek from the predators that would do the weak and meek harm.

This is true.

 

[FTG-05]

All of those things are ubiquitous and not normally associated with crime.

Hello? Isn't that one of the purposes of Open Carrying? Make guns ubiquitous and not normally associated with crime. Duh! How are you accomplishing that when uncessarily interjecting it into what is otherwise normal traffic stop?

Guns are associated with crime and criminals by popular culture.

And by gun owners who think they are being "respectful" by deliberately interjecting what should be a non-issue during a normal traffic stop. Way to continue the deliberately false image implanted by the media during the last 50 years.

So, what's your point?

See my last three sentences in previous post and the above - it should be obvious.


[Caveat: My input in this thread only applies to those states that do not have a "duty to inform" law when interacting with LEO's.]

 

[OC for ME]

Hello? Isn't that one of the purposes of Open Carrying? Make guns ubiquitous and not normally associated with crime. Duh! How are you accomplishing that when uncessarily interjecting it into what is otherwise normal traffic stop?

And by gun owners who think they are being "respectful" by deliberately interjecting what should be a non-issue during a normal traffic stop. Way to continue the deliberately false image implanted by the media during the last 50 years.

See my last three sentences in previous post and the above - it should be obvious.

[Caveat: My input in this thread only applies to those states that do not have a "duty to inform" law when interacting with LEO's.]

The purpose of OC, as I see it, is to be better prepared to defend myself and mine. If my OCing within the confines of the law makes OC ubiquitous.....bonus. I do not OC to get the public, and LE for that matter, used to OC. OC, or CC, of a firearm by a law abiding citizen is not an element of any criminal activity, thus the citizen should never make the firearm an element of any LEO encounter. (See your caveat)

I reiterate below for your reading pleasure re the obvious.

So, what's your point? So says LE and its minions.

So, what is your point? Reiterating the obvious only works when a reader recognizes the obvious, as I do. Some in LE routinely do not display the capacity to recognize the obvious.

 

[SgtScott31]

I think it was This one
Which reminds me....


Did you ever find that citation, SgtScott31?

How about getting back on track? This is a TN forum, not Georgia. I guess it was too much to expect that when I'm speaking of a driver's license in my state it would be a TN one when referencing whether I know you have a permit or not. So let's take your last few statements in context:

Now that he knows, should he assume that the chances of him being involved in a running gun battle along the highway is now increased since the motorist has recently had a criminal background check and found to be an upstanding citizen?

A motorist, regardless of whether or not he wants the officer to know he is armed that has ill intent towards the officer... is a threat.

So I guess even after arresting dozens of permit holders, including those with drugs & altered serial numbers on their weapons, all are "safe" and have no "ill intent" towards an officer because they passed a background check and 4-8 hour class? Easy to say from behind a keyboard when you've never walked a day in a LEO's shoes and dealt with permit holders who were, in fact, involved in criminal activity.


As far as "citations" involving the requirements of identification of a Terry stop, you should start with Hiibel:

The principles of Terry permit a State to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop. The reasonablenessof *188 a seizure under the Fourth Amendment is determined “by balancing its intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate government interests.” Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 654, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979). The Nevada statute satisfies that standard. The request for identity has an immediate relation to the purpose, rationale, and practical demands of a Terry stop. The threat of criminal sanction helps ensure that the request for identity does not become a legal nullity. On the other hand, the Nevada statute does not alter the nature of the stop itself: it does not change its duration, Place, supra, at 709, 103 S.Ct. 2637, or its location, Dunaway, supra, at 212, 99 S.Ct. 2248. A state law requiring a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a valid Terry stop is consistent with Fourth Amendment prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures.

You will not find an exact case with a fact pattern that YOU want. The US Supreme Court has said that Nevada's stop & identify statute passes Constitutional muster. There are dozens of states that do not have an actual stop/identify statute/law. Does that mean that when officers demand identification during a valid Terry stop that their actions are "unconstitutional?" Hard for the answer to be yes. I don't see SCOTUS saying any different just because a few states have actually decided to write it into law where many have not. If I have enough RAS to conduct a valid Terry stop/detention I'm going to find out who you are. If you want to challenge my actions in a court of law feel free to do so.

Here's another cite from a 2013 case Combs v. Birmingham. Combs was openly carrying a rifle and arrested for refusal to ID himself. AL does not have a stop/identify statute. Combs was eventually acquitted, but this is a District 6 case because he filed a 1983 civil rights violation against the officers/PD. This is a quote from the District Court's opinion:

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nevada, Humboldt Cty., 542 U.S. 177, 124 S.Ct. 2451, 159 L.Ed.2d 292 (2004) is instructive to the Court's determination that the police officers' request for proof of Mr. Combs' age was a lawful command, and to the Court's finding that there was probable cause to arrest Mr. Combs for resisting a police officer. In Hiibel, the Supreme Court held that during lawful Terry stops, police officers may compel suspects to provide their names and, pursuant to state law, may arrest suspects who refuse to do so. Id. at 185–88. The Supreme Court reasoned that obtaining a person's identification during a Terry stop is a “commonsense inquiry” that “serves important government interests”: it may “inform an officer that a suspect is wanted” or may “help clear a suspect and allow the police to concentrate their efforts elsewhere.” Id. at 186, 89. The police must have a reasonable basis for stopping the suspect and “an officer may not arrest a suspect for failure to identify himself if the request for identification is not reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop.” Id. at 188.


*9 Hiibel involved a person lawfully stopped under Terry who refused to give his name, in a state which legally required it. However, the law did not require the citizen to provide identification. See id. at 185. While there are important distinctions between Hiibel and this case—specifically, name versus age, and stop and identify law versus must comply with a lawful command law—the Terry principle reaffirmed in Hiibel and applicable here is this: demanding and obtaining certain identifying information from a suspect may be a critical and legitimate component to a Terry stop. In this instance, the discrete command to Mr. Combs to prove his age was reasonably related to the investigation of a potential underage person carrying a gun in public, in violation of § 750.234f.


The Court also finds Klaucke v. Daly helpful. In a case from Massachusetts-a state without a stop and identify law—the First Circuit held that during a lawful Terry stop, a police officer's demand to see the drivers' license of a person suspected of being underage and carrying alcohol was reasonable, and that the police officer was not required to accept the person's word that he was 21, without proof. 595 F.3d 20, 25 (1st Cir.2010) (The police officer's “demand for identification, plainly, was reasonably related to his suspicion that [the plaintiff] was underage. Under the circumstances of this case [where the plaintiff repeatedly refused to show identification], the officer was not required to take [the plaintiff] at his word that he was 21.”).


Accordingly, even in the absence of a stop and identify law in Michigan, the police officers' request that Mr. Combs provide identification that would prove his age was a lawful command, based on this Court's finding that: (1) Hiibel stands for the proposition that identifying information can be required of suspects during a Terry stop; and (2) a police officer can require proof to dispel reasonable suspicions of underage violations of the law during a Terry stop. The police officers' requests were reasonably related to the circumstances justifying Mr. Combs' legal Terry stop; they investigated a suspected violation of the underage weapon statute, based on a reasonable suspicion that Mr. Combs was not 18.


Viewed at the time of the incident, a reasonable police officer on the scene would believe that Mr. Combs' refusal to provide proof of his age constituted resisting or a knowing failure to comply with a lawful command. Probable cause to arrest a person for violation of either the Birmingham Ordinance or § 750.479 does not require an actual physical interference or the threat of it. Therefore, Mr. Combs' refusal to provide proof of his age supplied probable cause to arrest him for resisting/obstructing. See Devoe v. Rebant, 05–71863, 2006 WL 334297, at *4 (E.D.Mich. Feb.13, 2006) (After the officers lawfully stopped [the plaintiff], his refusal to provide identification and cooperate provided probable cause to arrest him for hindering and obstructing in violation of [§ 750.479] and/or Eastpointe Ordinance 658.03.”). Mr. Combs' false arrest/imprisonment claims based on resisting a police officer fail.

His 1983 claim was tossed btw.

Here's another cite from a District Court case involving a passenger and refusing to ID herself during a valid Terry stop (Marrs v. Tuckey):

In light of this Supreme Court ruling, Plaintiff here cannot claim any Fourth Amendment protection against the Defendant state troopers' requests that she identify herself during the course of their initial, limited investigative detention of her.10 At the time of these requests, the troopers were investigating Plaintiff's apparent violation of a Michigan traffic law requiring that all front seat passengers wear safety belts. Although Plaintiff contends that she complied with this statute by wearing her seat belt while her boyfriend's pickup truck was in motion, and that she removed the belt only after the vehicle had been stopped by the Defendant troopers, Trooper Tuckey's personal observation of Plaintiff without her safety belt fastened surely provided a sufficient ground upon which to detain Plaintiff for the limited purpose of investigating this apparent violation.11 In addition, Hiibel teaches that a request for identification is an appropriate part of such a Terry stop. Under Hiibel, then, the Fourth Amendment does not provide a shield against an otherwise lawful demand for identification during the course of a valid Terry stop.


*938 3 In any event, even if Hiibel had been decided differently, Defendants correctly point out that they would be protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity against any claimed violation of Plaintiff's alleged right to refuse to identify herself. Under this doctrine, of course, a defendant police officer can be held liable under § 1983 for a federal constitutional violation only if “the violation involves clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Burchett v. Kiefer, 310 F.3d 937, 942 (6th Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Thus, the purported Fourth Amendment right discussed in Hiibel and claimed by Plaintiff here must not only have existed, but must have been “clearly established” at the time of Plaintiff's arrest.

State v. Aloi (Supreme Court of CT citing Hiibel):

“Obtaining a suspect's name in the course of a Terry stop serves important government interests. Knowledge of identity may inform an officer that a suspect is wanted for another offense, or has a record of violence *839 or mental disorder. On the other hand, knowing identity may help clear a suspect and allow the police to concentrate their efforts elsewhere.” (Citations omitted.) Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177, 185–86, 124 S.Ct. 2451, 159 L.Ed.2d 292 (2004). Thus, “[t]he principles of Terry permit atate to require a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a Terry stop ... [because] [t]he request for identity has an immediate relation to the purpose, rationale, and practical demands of a Terry stop.”20 (Citation omitted.) Id., at 187–88, 124 S.Ct. 2451.


**1096*840 The fact that important government interests are served by obtaining a suspect's identity during the course of a Terry stop provides additional reason to reject the narrow construction of § 53a–167a advanced by the defendant and adopted by the Appellate Court because, as the court underscored in Hiibel, “[t]he threat of a criminal sanction helps ensure that the request for identity [in connection with a Terry stop] does not become a legal nullity.”21 Id., at 188, 124 S.Ct. 2451. In light of those important interests, and in the absence of any overriding countervailing considerations, we are unwilling to construe § 53a–167a as categorically excluding from its purview a refusal to provide identification to a police officer who has sought such identification pursuant to a valid Terry stop.

Regardless of what you might think every situation can be different based upon the applicable laws, case law, and distinct facts in every case. As far as TN is concerned 39-17-1307 makes it a crime to carry a firearm, club, or knife with blade over 4". As it stands with TN law, a defense to 39-17-1307 is if you have valid handgun carry permit. Whether you like it or agree with it when an officer in TN sees you with a firearm there's a presumption you're carrying illegally unless you meet one of the defenses listed under 1307/1308. It is definitely enough to conduct a valid Terry stop. The officer has the right to verify you have a permit to show that you are carrying legally. It doesn't mean we do very often, but state law says we can.

As I mentioned above if I have a valid reason to detain you, case law in state & federal courts (including SCOTUS) says that it's not unconstitutional to demand that you identify yourself. While some state courts have said that carrying a weapon by itself does not constitute reasonable suspicion to warrant a stop, TN is a different story due to the statutory language of 1307. So if you refuse to provide identification during a lawful detention you can be subject to criminal penalties. Off the top of my head I'm thinking refuse stop/frisk/halt(in TENNESSEE for those of you having a problem understanding what a "presumption" is). Especially refusing to provide your permit if you're carrying, which will result in violating another TCA involving permit holders.

On a side note I'm flattered you've been watching me for a year and half both here and on o.com.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

So I guess even after arresting dozens of permit holders, including those with drugs & altered serial numbers on their weapons, all are "safe" and have no "ill intent" towards an officer because they passed a background check and 4-8 hour class? Easy to say from behind a keyboard when you've never walked a day in a LEO's shoes and dealt with permit holders who were, in fact, involved in criminal activity.

I've never walked in a firefighter's boots either, but funny you don't hear Them whining how no one understands me.

The gist of your comment appears to be that licensed carriers are no more law abiding than anyone else (we both know better but it fits the narrative you've created), which causes me to wonder, "How should knowing that someone is licensed and may be carrying a firearm make me (as an officer) treat them as opposed to not knowing if they are licensed and still possibly carrying a firearm? As you say, I haven't "walked in your shoes" so all I can go by is that regardless of whether or not I knew someone was licensed I would assume that they had a firearm. Therefore, being informed of a worthless fact is ... well, for want of a better word, worthless.
Although the chances are rather slim, I do quite a bit of traveling in the six southern states that are my "local" territory. Heck, year before last I spent more time living at exit 12 of I40 than I did at my actual house. Should for some unfathomable reason I be stopped by you on the highway and you run my license plate and driver's license, you won't know if I'm a licensed carrier and I'm not likely to divulge that information. Again, now does knowing or not knowing affect anything?

As far as TN and the presumption of criminality based upon observation of a firearm. Sorry,that just gets a big shrug from me. Assuming I'm licensed, I show it, laugh and go on my merry little way.

 

[SgtScott31]

I've never walked in a firefighter's boots either, but funny you don't hear Them whining how no one understands me

Whining? You attempted to turn one of my statements into a blanket statement about whether or not I know of your license to carry a firearm from DLs outside of TN. I would have hoped that since I was a TN LEO and this was the TN forum that it would be "presumed" that I was referring to a TN DL, but I digress. Funny you mention FFs, as I have been a FF/EMT-IV for the last 12 years as well as a LEO. I find it comical that you refuse to accept the fact that there are actually permit holders out there that commit crimes. When I state that fact you imply I'm "whining." It's called "telling it like it is".

The gist of your comment appears to be that licensed carriers are no more law abiding than anyone else (we both know better but it fits the narrative you've created)

Not what I implied at all. I mentioned my personal experience as a LEO with permit holders who were involved in criminal activity or irresponsible behavior, hence my apprehension to treat them as safer than anyone else. Are the vast majority law abiding? sure. Am I willing to bet my life on it? No. Your personal experience probably involves hanging out with fellow carriers, all of whom you probably know personally or made acquaintance with. I don't have that luxury. I don't take the risk of letting my guard down just because the person was able to pass a background check and a 4-8 hour class. I don't treat them any different than anyone else. So if you want to quote me directly (instead of implying things to fit your agenda) you can say that I don't set anyone with a carry permit to a higher standard (whether from TN or anywhere else).

Should for some unfathomable reason I be stopped by you on the highway and you run my license plate and driver's license, you won't know if I'm a licensed carrier and I'm not likely to divulge that information.

Well I hope I can sleep better tonight.

As far as TN and the presumption of criminality based upon observation of a firearm. Sorry,that just gets a big shrug from me. Assuming I'm licensed, I show it, laugh and go on my merry little way

Good for you.

...And you're welcome for the case cites. Westlaw had dozens more but I don't plan on spending hours looking at every single case that has gone before dozens of courts with different fact patterns. From what I researched thus far the general consensus of state and federal courts in their interpretation of Hiibel is that during a valid Terry stop LEOs can identify you and there can be criminal repercussions for refusing to let them (in case you didn't get that). If you want to test it be my guest.

 

[davidmcbeth]

http://www.convergenceculture.org/weblog/doingitwrong.jpg

They're doing it wrong.

 

[OC for ME]

After reading SgtScott31's posts I will not OC in TN. But, for the sake of discussion....

A TN cop approaches me and demands ID while I am OC. Me showing my MODL will not confirm if I am "legal" to carry in TN. In fact, it seems that I can not be held in any other light but as being in possession with a gun without a license. Being from MO, I do not have a TN "pistol permit." In MO we do not need permission from the state to carry a pistol. The MO CCW endorsement is not a "pistol permit" and as such does not seem to meet the requirements to carry a pistol. A MO CCW endorsement exempts a MO resident from the no CCW law(s).

SgtScott31 has clearly indicated that TN cops are unlikely, depending on the situation as they see it, to stop a OCer. This is good. For his own safety, SgtScott31 must view each citizen he comes into contact with in the most suspicious of lights. Good, as long as a TN cop is not a jerk. Unfortunately most cops are not very good at looking for indicators (facts) that most citizens they contact are not a threat based on observable facts at that time. They maintain their suspicions until the end of a encounter. OK, no problem there as long as they are not a jerk. I do not fault any cop for being suspicious of me. I do fault cops who whine about me being suspicious of them.

SgtScott31, good luck, thanks for the lesson regarding TN firearms law, and please be safe. I must conclude that TN is not the liberty respecting state that I misguidedly assumed it was.

 

[Fallguy]

After reading SgtScott31's posts I will not OC in TN. But, for the sake of discussion....

A TN cop approaches me and demands ID while I am OC. Me showing my MODL will not confirm if I am "legal" to carry in TN. In fact, it seems that I can not be held in any other light but as being in possession with a gun without a license. Being from MO, I do not have a TN "pistol permit." In MO we do not need permission from the state to carry a pistol. The MO CCW endorsement is not a "pistol permit" and as such does not seem to meet the requirements to carry a pistol. A MO CCW endorsement exempts a MO resident from the no CCW law(s).

<snip>

I would think whatever you may have to show to a MO LEO to show that it is legal for you to carry a handgun, whatever it may be called, would suffice for a TN LEO.

Some states issue a separate permit/license, so may simply show it as endorsement on the DL.

All TN law requires for out-of-state permits/licencees is for them to be valid on their face and does not require them to be able to be checked through a computer database, although I would wager many LEOs don't know that.

 

[independence]

After reading SgtScott31's posts I will not OC in TN. But, for the sake of discussion....

A TN cop approaches me and demands ID while I am OC. Me showing my MODL will not confirm if I am "legal" to carry in TN. In fact, it seems that I can not be held in any other light but as being in possession with a gun without a license. Being from MO, I do not have a TN "pistol permit." In MO we do not need permission from the state to carry a pistol. The MO CCW endorsement is not a "pistol permit" and as such does not seem to meet the requirements to carry a pistol. A MO CCW endorsement exempts a MO resident from the no CCW law(s).

SgtScott31 has clearly indicated that TN cops are unlikely, depending on the situation as they see it, to stop a OCer. This is good. For his own safety, SgtScott31 must view each citizen he comes into contact with in the most suspicious of lights. Good, as long as a TN cop is not a jerk. Unfortunately most cops are not very good at looking for indicators (facts) that most citizens they contact are not a threat based on observable facts at that time. They maintain their suspicions until the end of a encounter. OK, no problem there as long as they are not a jerk. I do not fault any cop for being suspicious of me. I do fault cops who whine about me being suspicious of them.

SgtScott31, good luck, thanks for the lesson regarding TN firearms law, and please be safe. I must conclude that TN is not the liberty respecting state that I misguidedly assumed it was.

I agree that the way the TN law is written is such that we are not a liberty respecting state. By law, just the fact that you are OCing (or CCing!) makes you a crime suspect. Only by showing a stupid piece of plastic (permit) can you have any hope of legal defense. And by the way, according to 39-17-1351, you must show them your permit if asked for it. I don't let that stop me, however. I OC often and have not had an negative LEO experiences, as of yet.

Until TN gets Constitutional carry and allows the state to preempt laws regarding local parks, we will be no where near respecting firearms liberties. But that'll likely never happen...

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

How about getting back on track? This is a TN forum, not Georgia. I guess it was too much to expect that when I'm speaking of a driver's license in my state it would be a TN one when referencing whether I know you have a permit or not.

Yes, by all means let's 'get back on track'. Your statement was, "I will know when I run your license whether you have a HCP or not. Although you're not required by law to inform the officer you're armed, I think it's respectful and courteous to do so."

You didn't say "If I run your Tennessee license ..." you made a sweeping statement that included 49 other states as well.
You were called on that statement and it was proven false.



It's not like there aren't plenty of reasons to visit Tennessee or anything.....

(Just kidding with the last one, folks.)

 

[OC for ME]

I would think whatever you may have to show to a MO LEO to show that it is legal for you to carry a handgun, whatever it may be called, would suffice for a TN LEO.

Some states issue a separate permit/license, so may simply show it as endorsement on the DL.

All TN law requires for out-of-state permits/licencees is for them to be valid on their face and does not require them to be able to be checked through a computer database, although I would wager many LEOs don't know that.

I have nothing that shows that my carrying a pistol (OC or CC) is legal in TN. There is no requirement to prove such in MO, a "carry a pistol (firearms) license" does not exist in MO. My CCW "permit" applies only to the act of CCing a pistol in MO and those state that recognize my MO CCW endorsement. Reading 39-17-1307 I am in violation of this law when I enter TN while armed.

I will need to determine a route to South Carolina from MO that does not require me to transit through TN. Sad, beautiful state TN is.

 

[Fallguy]

I have nothing that shows that my carrying a pistol (OC or CC) is legal in TN. There is no requirement to prove such in MO, a "carry a pistol (firearms) license" does not exist in MO. My CCW "permit" applies only to the act of CCing a pistol in MO and those state that recognize my MO CCW endorsement. Reading 39-17-1307 I am in violation of this law when I enter TN while armed.

I will need to determine a route to South Carolina from MO that does not require me to transit through TN. Sad, beautiful state TN is.

Me as TN resident with a HCP is in violation of 39-17-1307 if I leave the house armed. Having a HCP is a defense against that law as later stated in it.

Also 39-17-1351 says any facially valid permit/licenses/etc issued by ANY other state will be recognized as the same as a HCP issued by TN.

So I'm still not sure what your problem is?

 

[independence]

I have nothing that shows that my carrying a pistol (OC or CC) is legal in TN. There is no requirement to prove such in MO, a "carry a pistol (firearms) license" does not exist in MO. My CCW "permit" applies only to the act of CCing a pistol in MO and those state that recognize my MO CCW endorsement. Reading 39-17-1307 I am in violation of this law when I enter TN while armed.

I will need to determine a route to South Carolina from MO that does not require me to transit through TN. Sad, beautiful state TN is.

But TN honors any permit from any other state...? Did I miss something here?

 

[OC for ME]

39-17-1351. Handgun carry permits.

(r) (1) A facially valid handgun permit, firearms permit, weapons permit or license issued by another state shall be valid in this state according to its terms and shall be treated as if it is a handgun permit issued by this state; provided, however, the provisions of this subsection (r) shall not be construed to authorize the holder of any out-of-state permit or license to carry, in this state, any firearm or weapon other than a handgun.

(2) For a person to lawfully carry a handgun in this state based upon a permit or license issued in another state, the person must be in possession of the permit or license at all times the person carries a handgun in this state.

A MO CCW endorsement does not meet the requirements of this portion of the statute.

Based on TN's reciprocity web page my MO CCW endorsement is not recognized by TN. Mo recognizes a TN HCP. That is anti-liberty and so is TN.

http://www.tn.gov/safety/handgun/reciprocity.shtml

Bye bye TN, not one more dime to you. I'll be passing this along to my fellow Missouri citizens.

 

[independence]

A MO CCW endorsement does not meet the requirements of this portion of the statute.

Based on TN's reciprocity web page my MO CCW endorsement is not recognized by TN. Mo recognizes a TN HCP. That is anti-liberty and so is TN.

http://www.tn.gov/safety/handgun/reciprocity.shtml

Bye bye TN, not one more dime to you. I'll be passing this along to my fellow Missouri citizens.

Can you clarify? Are you saying that you have an endorsement on your MO driver's license instead of a separate plastic card, thereby not meeting the requirements?

 

[OC for ME]

Can you clarify? Are you saying that you have an endorsement on your MO driver's license instead of a separate plastic card, thereby not meeting the requirements?

No. I did not address how my endorsement. I am stating that a MO CCW Endorsement only applies to the act of carrying a concealed pistol (weapon). 39-17-1307 does not distinguish OC from CC, thus a MO CCW "permit" can not be used as a defense to a violation of 39-17-1307 charge in TN.

If I were to be detained by SgtScott31 on suspicion of violating 39-17-1307 by OCing, or he getting a peek at me CCing, SgtScott31 is authorized to place me under arrest for violating 39-17-1307, because my CCW from MO is not a valid defense in TN. So, me showing him my MODL does nothing and my endorsement does not meet the requirements of 39-17-1351 as a defense.

MO does not issue permits to carry a pistol, or any firearm for that matter, TN does. A TN HCP permits the carry of a pistol, and does not distinguish between OC or CC, if what I have read is correct.

I will passing this information along to my fellow Missourians.

 

[independence]

No. I did not address how my endorsement. I am stating that a MO CCW Endorsement only applies to the act of carrying a concealed pistol (weapon). 39-17-1307 does not distinguish OC from CC, thus a MO CCW "permit" can not be used as a defense to a violation of 39-17-1307 charge in TN.

If I were to be detained by SgtScott31 on suspicion of violating 39-17-1307 by OCing, or he getting a peek at me CCing, SgtScott31 is authorized to place me under arrest for violating 39-17-1307, because my CCW from MO is not a valid defense in TN. So, me showing him my MODL does nothing and my endorsement does not meet the requirements of 39-17-1351 as a defense.

MO does not issue permits to carry a pistol, or any firearm for that matter, TN does. A TN HCP permits the carry of a pistol, and does not distinguish between OC or CC, if what I have read is correct.

I will passing this information along to my fellow Missourians.

I think that may not be correct. Hold up before you pass this on...Let's make sure we got this right.

Now I didn't read everything that SgtScott31 wrote. Was this detail about a MO permit in his posts? If you tell me yes, I will go back and read every word he wrote. (I just don't want to take the trouble to read all that unless I have to...)

I'm still not following you, though. Can you lay it out simply for me? Call me stupid, but I don't get how the fact that a CC only permit from another state is not recognized by TN. That doesn't make sense. If you said it was because it is a DL endorsement in MO instead of a separate card that was the problem, I would get that. But I don't get what you are saying right now. Please clarify further.

EDIT: See my next post where I think I got it right....

 

[independence]

No. I did not address how my endorsement. I am stating that a MO CCW Endorsement only applies to the act of carrying a concealed pistol (weapon). 39-17-1307 does not distinguish OC from CC, thus a MO CCW "permit" can not be used as a defense to a violation of 39-17-1307 charge in TN.

If I were to be detained by SgtScott31 on suspicion of violating 39-17-1307 by OCing, or he getting a peek at me CCing, SgtScott31 is authorized to place me under arrest for violating 39-17-1307, because my CCW from MO is not a valid defense in TN. So, me showing him my MODL does nothing and my endorsement does not meet the requirements of 39-17-1351 as a defense.

MO does not issue permits to carry a pistol, or any firearm for that matter, TN does. A TN HCP permits the carry of a pistol, and does not distinguish between OC or CC, if what I have read is correct.

I will passing this information along to my fellow Missourians.

Okay, I think I'm with you now. You are saying that 39-17-1308 provides 39-17-1351 as a defense to 39-17-1307 and that 39-17-1351 does not include non-residents....Did I get it right this time?

 

[independence]

Okay, I think I'm with you now. You are saying that 39-17-1308 provides 39-17-1351 as a defense to 39-17-1307 and that 39-17-1351 does not include non-residents....Did I get it right this time?

Hold up...According to 39-17-1308, the only defense to 39-17-1307 is 39-17-1351 which states (as you said):

(r) (1) A facially valid handgun permit, firearms permit, weapons permit or license issued by another state shall be valid in this state according to its terms and shall be treated as if it is a handgun permit issued by this state; provided, however, the provisions of this subsection (r) shall not be construed to authorize the holder of any out-of-state permit or license to carry, in this state, any firearm or weapon other than a handgun.

How is that a problem? Your MO permit is recognized in TN, bro.