Posted: 6/12/2009 2:38:52 PM EDT
|
HB0390
by Fincher As introduced, permits handgun carry permit holders to possess or carry a loaded rifle, loaded shotgun, or loaded magazine or clip therefore while in a motor vehicle. Signed by Governor. 06/12/2009 HB0716 by Niceley As introduced, allows any resident who has a valid handgun carry permit to possess a handgun while within the boundaries of any state park. Signed by Governor. 06/12/2009 SWEET!!!!!!!!!! When do they become law and when can I start carrying my shotgun in my car and going to parks?!?!?!?!! |
|
They take effect upon becoming law. He signed them, they're law, right? Time to put my AR in my truck and go to a park.
From the TN Legislature website: "The most common effective date clause is "This act shall take effect upon becoming a law, the public welfare requiring it." this indicates the bill will take effect upon signature by the Governor or 10 days after it reached the Governors desk if he takes no action." |
|
I have a feeling we lost something.
Some compromise must have been reached on the budget or somewhere. He waited until a few hours before it would become law, and signed it into law. I don't trust him. I think we lost something somewhere else. We'll probably never know. |
|
Quoted:
I have a feeling we lost something. Some compromise must have been reached on the budget or somewhere. He waited until a few hours before it would become law, and signed it into law. I don't trust him. I think we lost something somewhere else. We'll probably never know. Well several things could have happened. The budget probable..... I think he did it because he knew a veto override was going to happen. The reason he did it is when he comes up to be re-elected he will say " I signed this gun law and that gun law. Trying to appease to the gun owners out there. I dont trust any politician. Especially a democrat. |
|
Would of been happier if could have a loaded rifle/shotgun in vehicle, but guess this is close enough for now:
(e) It is an exception to the application of this section that a person authorized to carry a handgun pursuant to § 39-17-1351, is transporting a rifle or shotgun in or on a privately-owned motor vehicle, and the rifle or shotgun does not have ammunition in the chamber. However, such a person does not violate this section by inserting ammunition into the chamber if the ammunition is inserted for purposes of justifiable self-defense pursuant to §§ 39-11-611 or 39-11-612. Just means nothing in the "pipe" but otherwise ready to go. |
|
Quoted:
Would of been happier if could have a loaded rifle/shotgun in vehicle, but guess this is close enough for now: (e) It is an exception to the application of this section that a person authorized to carry a handgun pursuant to § 39-17-1351, is transporting a rifle or shotgun in or on a privately-owned motor vehicle, and the rifle or shotgun does not have ammunition in the chamber. However, such a person does not violate this section by inserting ammunition into the chamber if the ammunition is inserted for purposes of justifiable self-defense pursuant to §§ 39-11-611 or 39-11-612. Just means nothing in the "pipe" but otherwise ready to go. I wouldn't have kept one in the chamber anyway, but who are they to say I can't? The bill works for me as it is. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Would of been happier if could have a loaded rifle/shotgun in vehicle, but guess this is close enough for now: (e) It is an exception to the application of this section that a person authorized to carry a handgun pursuant to § 39-17-1351, is transporting a rifle or shotgun in or on a privately-owned motor vehicle, and the rifle or shotgun does not have ammunition in the chamber. However, such a person does not violate this section by inserting ammunition into the chamber if the ammunition is inserted for purposes of justifiable self-defense pursuant to §§ 39-11-611 or 39-11-612. Just means nothing in the "pipe" but otherwise ready to go. I wouldn't have kept one in the chamber anyway, but who are they to say I can't? The bill works for me as it is. Easier to poach with one in chamber. Just kidding!! Doesn't take much to make it "Go" So this is still good. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Would of been happier if could have a loaded rifle/shotgun in vehicle, but guess this is close enough for now: (e) It is an exception to the application of this section that a person authorized to carry a handgun pursuant to § 39-17-1351, is transporting a rifle or shotgun in or on a privately-owned motor vehicle, and the rifle or shotgun does not have ammunition in the chamber. However, such a person does not violate this section by inserting ammunition into the chamber if the ammunition is inserted for purposes of justifiable self-defense pursuant to §§ 39-11-611 or 39-11-612. Just means nothing in the "pipe" but otherwise ready to go. I wouldn't have kept one in the chamber anyway, but who are they to say I can't? The bill works for me as it is. I wouldnt have kept one in the chamber either, I knew a guy who kept a loaded rifle under his seat and he hit a bump, something hit the trigger and now he has no leg! |
|
I just read in an Article That the carrying in parks wont happen till Sept. 1.
So dont go to the park with your AR in your trunk loaded till then! I dont know when the carrying a rifle in your trunk takes effect. |
|
Quoted:
I just read in an Article That the carrying in parks wont happen till Sept. 1. So dont go to the park with your AR in your trunk loaded till then! I dont know when the carrying a rifle in your trunk takes effect. State parks are good to go, local parks take effect Sept 1. (a) For purposes of permitting municipalities or counties to elect to prohibit the
carrying of handguns in parks pursuant to § 39-17-1311(d), this act shall take effect upon becoming a law, the public welfare requiring it. (b) For purposes of it being lawful for persons authorized to carry a handgun pursuant to § 39-17-1351, to carry in places owned or operated by the state or federal government that are designated in Section 1 of this act, this act shall take effect upon becoming a law, the public welfare requiring it. (c) For purposes of it being lawful for persons authorized to carry a handgun pursuant to § 39-17-1351, to carry in places owned or operated by municipalities or counties that are designated in Section 1 of this act, this act shall take effect on September 1, 2009. |
|
Quoted:
I just read in an Article That the carrying in parks wont happen till Sept. 1. So dont go to the park with your AR in your trunk loaded till then! I dont know when the carrying a rifle in your trunk takes effect. Considering that the article also states "A proposal to allow handguns to be carried in city or county parks in Tennessee has been signed by the governor." (No mention of state parks.) "On Thursday, the House sponsor said he was abandoning the provision in exchange for Bredesen's commitment not to veto a separate bill about weapons in restaurants." (Didn't Bredesen already veto that bill?) I suspect the author of the article has no clue what is going on with this legislation. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I just read in an Article That the carrying in parks wont happen till Sept. 1. So dont go to the park with your AR in your trunk loaded till then! I dont know when the carrying a rifle in your trunk takes effect. State parks are good to go, local parks take effect Sept 1. (a) For purposes of permitting municipalities or counties to elect to prohibit the
carrying of handguns in parks pursuant to § 39-17-1311(d), this act shall take effect upon becoming a law, the public welfare requiring it. (b) For purposes of it being lawful for persons authorized to carry a handgun pursuant to § 39-17-1351, to carry in places owned or operated by the state or federal government that are designated in Section 1 of this act, this act shall take effect upon becoming a law, the public welfare requiring it. (c) For purposes of it being lawful for persons authorized to carry a handgun pursuant to § 39-17-1351, to carry in places owned or operated by municipalities or counties that are designated in Section 1 of this act, this act shall take effect on September 1, 2009. Thanks for the clarification. Looks like they're giving the local governments plenty of time to 'opt out'. |
|
Quoted:
"On Thursday, the House sponsor said he was abandoning the provision in exchange for Bredesen's commitment not to veto a separate bill about weapons in restaurants." (Didn't Bredesen already veto that bill?) My understanding of this is: In Memphis and perhaps Nashville the councilmen decided they wouldn't renew anyone's beer permits if they didn't display the "you can't carry guns here" sign. In effect, they will force restaraunts to put up signs prohibiting carrying firearms in the restaraunts. There was some legislation proposed to prevent local governments from making these demands and overriding the intent of the state legislature. I believe that new piece of legislation is what is being referred to here. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
"On Thursday, the House sponsor said he was abandoning the provision in exchange for Bredesen's commitment not to veto a separate bill about weapons in restaurants." (Didn't Bredesen already veto that bill?) My understanding of this is: In Memphis and perhaps Nashville the councilmen decided they wouldn't renew anyone's beer permits if they didn't display the "you can't carry guns here" sign. In effect, they will force restaraunts to put up signs prohibiting carrying firearms in the restaraunts. There was some legislation proposed to prevent local governments from making these demands and overriding the intent of the state legislature. I believe that new piece of legislation is what is being referred to here. The Nashville council dropped that plan, earlier this week, after their own lawyer told them it was illegal and would result in the city being sued. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"On Thursday, the House sponsor said he was abandoning the provision in exchange for Bredesen's commitment not to veto a separate bill about weapons in restaurants." (Didn't Bredesen already veto that bill?) My understanding of this is: In Memphis and perhaps Nashville the councilmen decided they wouldn't renew anyone's beer permits if they didn't display the "you can't carry guns here" sign. In effect, they will force restaraunts to put up signs prohibiting carrying firearms in the restaraunts. There was some legislation proposed to prevent local governments from making these demands and overriding the intent of the state legislature. I believe that new piece of legislation is what is being referred to here. The Nashville council dropped that plan, earlier this week, after their own lawyer told them it was illegal and would result in the city being sued. Someone in the Metro Nashville council finally realized they cannot control the world. Good. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"On Thursday, the House sponsor said he was abandoning the provision in exchange for Bredesen's commitment not to veto a separate bill about weapons in restaurants." (Didn't Bredesen already veto that bill?) My understanding of this is: In Memphis and perhaps Nashville the councilmen decided they wouldn't renew anyone's beer permits if they didn't display the "you can't carry guns here" sign. In effect, they will force restaraunts to put up signs prohibiting carrying firearms in the restaraunts. There was some legislation proposed to prevent local governments from making these demands and overriding the intent of the state legislature. I believe that new piece of legislation is what is being referred to here. The Nashville council dropped that plan, earlier this week, after their own lawyer told them it was illegal and would result in the city being sued. Someone in the Metro Nashville council finally realized they cannot control the world. Good. lol, no joke...it would be pimptastic if they allowed people to carry in hooters, applebees etc. every time i go into a place like this i wonder if some wack job will come in and rob the place or start shooting like they did here in knoxville  ..am i paranoid?, maybe. or just sick of low lifes
|