Knives

[Underground]

Any thoughts on adding, or why there is not already an exemption to the knife size law for HCP holders? It's a bit silly to say that you can legally carry a firearm, but you can't legally carry a moderate size knife with it.

[macville]

[David Lewis]

[macville]

[David Lewis]

[Underground]

This is a bit of an exercise, I may be looking at this wrong, if so please point out where I am, but in re-reading the law it appears that one would be just as valid in carrying a knife or club with a HCP as you would any other weapon listed under 39-17-1307. 39-17-1308 is defenses to unlawful possession or carrying of a weapon. The way that reads in 39-17-1308 (2) it does not specify which weapon it is a defense to, so that implies it applys to all the weapons listed in 39-17-1307.

39-17-1307. Unlawful carrying or possession of a weapon.

(a) (1) A person commits an offense who carries with the intent to go armed a firearm, a knife with a blade length exceeding four inches (4"), or a club.


39-17-1308. Defenses to unlawful possession or carrying of a weapon.

(a) It is a defense to the application of § 39-17-1307 if the possession or carrying was:

(2) By a person authorized to possess or carry a firearm pursuant to § 39-17-1315 or § 39-17-1351;


Now in 39-17-1351 (r) it specifically exempts other weapons than a handgun, but only for out of state permit holders. Which since there is no contradicting code, could be construed to mean that in-state HCP holders could carry "other" weapons.

the provisions of this subsection (r) shall not be construed to authorize the holder of any such out-of-state permit or license to carry, in this state, any firearm or weapon other than a handgun

So the logical conclusion, unless there is some legal contrivance I'm not aware of, is that a TN HCP holder, in Tennessee, could legally carry a knife with a blade longer than 4" or a club without any further requirements. Does that make any less sense than concluding that it is legal to carry multiple handguns because it is implicitly allowed? Especially when the legislature has determined that a HCP is sufficient criteria that the person may be trusted to responsibly to carry a loaded rifle or shotgun in their vehicle as well?

[David Lewis]

[Underground]

(4) Incident to lawful hunting, trapping, fishing, camping, sport shooting or other lawful activity;

What weapons does this apply to? It doesn't specify, other than what was already listed earlier in 39-17-1307. I certainly consider going about my daily business a lawful activity, and it specifically lists camping.


Combining the carry reference into a single sentence,
It is a defense to the application of § 39-17-1307 if the possession or carrying was by a person authorized to possess or carry a firearm pursuant to § 39-17-1315 or § 39-17-1351;

It doesn't say "if the possession or carrying of the firearm was by a person authorized"

Person is carrying a knife with a blade >4".
Falls under 39-17-1307.
Was the possession or carrying (of the knife) by a person authorized to possess or carry a firearm pursuant to § 39-17-1315 or § 39-17-1351?
Yes.
Then it is a defendable action to the application of 39-17-1307.

I realize that is not how it has been applied, and I'm certainly not about to strap on a sword and go out in public, but this is what it says.

I also realize what you're saying about 39-17-1351 (r), but it specifically only addresses out of state permit holders. It's a logical jump from just that to say that because it is prohibited for them, it must be for in-state permit holders as well.

[Underground]

Bueller? Bueller? Not trying to be hostile, just engender a little discussion.