Locked up in school parking lot

[hickok45]

HI,

Over at tngunowners.com (http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/showt ... hp?t=18653) there's an interesting thread on leaving a gun locked up on school grounds. Attorneys and others seem to disagree. One or two folks working with schools there admit to doing it regularly while others think it's not legal. Can folks here weigh in on this issue? The business of dropping off and picking up is pretty clear; it's the person working at a public or private secondary school wanting to have protection to and from campus. To me it's just not clear one way or the other whether a person is okay if he unloads it and locks it up before entering the campus, and then locks up the car, of course.

Thanks for any clarification on this issue from folks in the know.

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/showt ... hp?t=18653

[falcon1]

Well, first off, here is this:

TCA 39-17-1309. Carrying weapons on school property. —
(a) As used in this section, “weapon of like kind” includes razors and razor blades, except those used solely for personal shaving, and any sharp pointed or edged instrument, except unaltered nail files and clips and tools used solely for preparation of food, instruction and maintenance.
(b) (1) It is an offense for any person to possess or carry, whether openly or concealed, with the intent to go armed, any firearm, explosive, explosive weapon, bowie knife, hawk bill knife, ice pick, dagger, slingshot, leaded cane, switchblade knife, blackjack, knuckles or any other weapon of like kind, not used solely for instructional or school-sanctioned ceremonial purposes, in any public or private school building or bus, on any public or private school campus, grounds, recreation area, athletic field or any other property owned, used or operated by any board of education, school, college or university board of trustees, regents or directors for the administration of any public or private educational institution.
(2) A violation of this subsection (b) is a Class E felony.

(c) (1) It is an offense for any person to possess or carry, whether openly or concealed, any firearm, not used solely for instructional or school-sanctioned ceremonial purposes, in any public or private school building or bus, on any public or private school campus, grounds, recreation area, athletic field or any other property owned, used or operated by any board of education, school, college or university board of trustees, regents or directors for the administration of any public or private educational institution. It is not an offense under this subsection (c) for a nonstudent adult to possess a firearm, if the firearm is contained within a private vehicle operated by the adult and is not handled by the adult, or by any other person acting with the expressed or implied consent of the adult, while the vehicle is on school property.
(2) A violation of this subsection (c) is a Class B misdemeanor.

Then, there is this:

TCA 39-17-1310. Affirmative defense to carrying weapons on school property. —
It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under § 39-17-1309(a)-(d) that the person's behavior was in strict compliance with the requirements of one (1) of the following classifications:
(1) A person hunting during the lawful hunting season on lands owned by any public or private educational institution and designated as open to hunting by the administrator of the educational institution;
(2) A person possessing unloaded hunting weapons while transversing the grounds of any public or private educational institution for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting with the intent to hunt on the public or private lands unless the lands of the educational institution are posted prohibiting entry;
(3) A person possessing guns or knives when conducting or attending “gun and knife shows” and the program has been approved by the administrator of the educational institution; or
(4) A person entering the property for the sole purpose of delivering or picking up passengers and who does not remove, utilize or allow to be removed or utilized any weapon from the vehicle.

IANAL, but here is my take:

1). If you conform with national "peaceable journey" provisions (i.e., lock the firearm in one locked container inside the vehicle and the ammunition in another, separate container), you probably do not violate TCA 39-17-1309 (b) (1). Please note, if my interpretation is incorrect, it's a Class E felony. The real question is "What does intent to go armed mean?" Perhaps an attorney can tell us where it is defined in case law in Tennessee. I fear the judge will determine its meaning at the time.

2). If you comply with TCA 39-17-1309 (b) (1), you certainly comply with section (c) (1). If you leave it loaded, you are still okay with section (c) (1), but again, you are more likely to be violating (b) (1).

3.) TCA 39-17-1310 [b](4) does an employee no good, because an employee is not entering school grounds for the sole purpose of delivering or picking up passengers.

4). Regardless of the law, until we have a "parking-lot law" similar to those that other states have passed which apply to governmental entities as well as private employers, the local board of education will fire the employee for violating board policy if the firearm is ever discovered.

These opinions are worth what you paid for them.

ETA: In addition to being fired, a school board might choose to go to the next step, which would be to seek to have the employee's teaching credential (if such exists) revoked on the grounds of insubordination (since a firearm is involved, a board might choose to see it as egregious misconduct). I don't know that the board would succeed, but then again....

[johnharris]

The law enforcement and courts will, in my experience, read b(1) broadly to cover any loaded firearm which includes unloaded weapons capable of being readily loaded.

I think (c) would likely be limited to incidental possession (e.g., gun in a case perhaps a locked case) that the vehicle occupant was merely and clearly transporting (e.g., on the way home from the range or from a gunsmith).

If the weapon is even remotely considered a carry weapon (e.g., teachers), I think law enforcement would apply (b) and the individual risks a felony charge.

[Tangle]

I'm stunned! A year or so ago, I copied and printed out a code that in essence stated that it was not an offense for a non-student to carry a firearm in their car as long as it was not handled, etc. and not carried on the person.

I gave several copies of this section (copied from TCA) to friends and when they read it, they said it was quite clear.

I did a cursory search of the TCA today and could not find it. What happened????

[Tangle]

Ahhh, here it is:

from the Handgun Carry Permit T.C.A. Codes website:

Handgun Carry Permit Related Laws

39-17-1309. Carrying weapons on school property. —

c) (1) It is an offense for any person to possess or carry, whether openly or concealed, any firearm, not used solely for instructional or school-sanctioned ceremonial purposes, in any public or private school building or bus, on any public or private school campus, grounds, recreation area, athletic field or any other property owned, used or operated by any board of education, school, college or university board of trustees, regents or directors for the administration of any public or private educational institution. It is not an offense under this subsection (c) for a nonstudent adult to possess a firearm, if the firearm is contained within a private vehicle operated by the adult and is not handled by the adult, or by any other person acting with the expressed or implied consent of the adult, while the vehicle is on school property.

So, am I missing something here? I suppose it could be construed to mean that the adult has to be in the car at all times, but that sure isn't stated.

[johnharris]

The entire school grounds issue is poorly written and we have been trying to change it now for 15 years.

The problem arises under the distinction(s) if any between 39-17-1309 subsections B and C. B is almost always applied by law enforcement and DA's to bolster the position that knowing possession on school grounds, even in a car, is a felony. C has, in my experience, only been used when a firearm is discovered in a vehicle and law enforcement believes that at the time the driver was unaware that it was in the vehicle.

[Tangle]

That's disappointing, but many thanks John.

[Tangle]

After thinking about this a bit, it appears that law can be misleading, ambiguous, contradictory, and subject to broad interpretation. E.g. it makes no sense to say it's illegal in parts a & b and then say it isn't illegal in part c??? Hence one would look for what's exceptional about c. The only thing that is exceptional is the not handling part - 'not knowing' is not mentioned.

Not questioning you at all John, I believe you, it's just frustrating to have something that says one thing and means something else - just venting a bit.

One other thing, there was, don't know if it's still there, something about a person could have a gun on school property if he is delivering or picking up someone or something.

[David Lewis]

[johnharris]

[Tangle]

John,

Thanks again! Pardon my frustration and venting; I'm just disappointed to learn Part C is interpreted beyond what it says by DAs and LEOs. If they intended Part C to bolster parts A & B, then it should have included something about it not being illegal to unknowingly bring a weapon in a vehicle on school property and/or it is still illegal to knowingly bring a gun via a vehicle onto school property.

I don't know that it helps much to know why/how wording/law gets in the shape it does, but as a twenty year plus college professor (engineering technology) I do understand the problem of accurate communication. While I don't teach english/grammer, I don't ignore poorly written reports, etc. either.

In my field, clear communication has always been important and is becoming moreso, so I find myself teaching communication even though it's not my field. An example I use to illustrate how important sentence structure is: "I painted the barn red with my brother." One can just see the guy dipping his brother into the paint and swiping the barn with him.

I just hope HB 1806 (assuming it passes into law - big assumption) won't be interpreted in some way that still doesn't allow one to knowingly, (current interpretation of Part C seems to be pivotal on "knowing") possess a gun in a vehicle on school property.

[johnharris]

As part of my law practice, I have had the occasion from time to time to write patent applications. I think one could say that writing a patent is a very precise type of communication with a very limited yet highly defined vocabulary. If we required the same level of precision of our legislators as they require of us in the area of patent communications, our laws would be much shorter, there would be significantly less litigation about what a law "means", and fewer people would need the services of attorneys who are paid to disagree over what the "plain language" of the statute intends.

[Tangle]

Wow, John, you are fast this morning!

Yep, you are 100% right about that!

One thing that really bothers me is that we as citizens are expected to know the law, i.e. ignorance is no excuse, but it seems that sometimes the true meaning of the law is not clear until a judge renders a ruling on the meaning of the law. So we could be doing something we thought was legal by our understanding of the law, only to find after a judge reaches a decision, we had misunderstood the meaning and now we are guilty in spite of all our intentions to obey and comply with the law.

Ron