JayC

Exactly

Get the name of the instructor and file a formal complaint. There is no law in the pipeline currently that would require (or even allow) a psych test as part of the permitting process.

The similar language I'm talking about is 40-7-109 thru 40-7-112 which basically gives private citizens the ability under the law to arrest persons for felonies and other public charges (committed in their presence).... Elsewhere it's stated that you can only use reasonable force, not deadly force to effect a citizens arrest (I'm sure Fallguy has already posted this more than once so I won't go over it again). Dave was making the argument that a police officer is not making a threat of deadly force when they pull a gun on a suspect because there is no 'intent' for the officer to commit a crime... I'm trying to point out that line of thinking is incorrect, that whenever ANYBODY points a firearm at another person it's a threat of deadly force (sometimes referred to under the law is threat of death or serious bodily injury), and the situation along with who is pointing the weapon makes the threat either lawful or unlawful. Why is this even important? It answers the OPs original question, every time somebody points a gun at another person it is considered a threat of death or serious bodily harm under the law, there are no exceptions to that, it's ALWAYS a threat. There is no exception for police officers, or for citizens, it's always considered a threat, the question then becomes whether the threat is lawful or unlawful, and that is where police officers have a few exceptions that regular citizens do not. I know it's putting a fine point on the law, but the distinction is critical in this case.

Was it posted per 1359 or 1311 if you remember?

No, I'm sorry but Dave's point and yours are incorrect and the law you cite proves it... 40-7-108 states: and You'll note that I've said repeatedly that officers are given a FEW extra cases where deadly force (and therefore the threat of deadly force) is allowed to be used that citizens are not. This section of the law is an example... the civilian version of A is almost exactly worded the same as citizens arrest powers, but section B gives the officers a much wider lawful use of deadly force than a regular citizen. BUT, in all cases when an officer or anybody points a weapon at you, it's a threat of death of serious bodily injury under the law... there are no exceptions to the fact that pointing said weapon is a threat... The difference is whether that threat is lawful or unlawful, which depends on the situation and who is holding the weapon. Clearly there are cases where a police officer may threaten deadly force lawfully that a citizen can not, but in ALL cases the pointing of said weapon is still a threat of deadly force under the law. Again this is not a negative towards police officers in any way, only that all persons pointing a gun at you under TN law are threatening death or serious bodily injury, the question is whether the threat is lawful or not.

Montana law requires the AG to defend any citizen (and the AG has said he will do so).

I'm not going to speak for him, but I serious doubt John Harris was involved in scheduling the speaker for the Memphis monthly meeting.

Sorry in Wilson County's case I know it's on county owned property.

Unless the city owns and/or operates (in whole or in part) the fair grounds then the city would have no say. In most cases it will depend on what the county government said and the city will have no say what so ever.

Well that is good information to know.

I don't think we're describing the same situation here, I agree a bad guys breaks into your house with a gun, and then runs out the front door and away from your property before you shoot him - that is going to be a hard situation to say the shooting was justified. On the other hand if you see somebody breaking into your car/garage/whatever on your property, you go outside and then they produce a firearm and threaten you with it, and in the process you shoot him, that seems like a clear self defense shooting. DA is going to have a tough time arguing to a jury that you should have stayed inside your house when somebody is breaking into your car... And if in the process of confronting a person who is breaking into your car, that person produces a firearm, it's going to be a pretty clear case of self defense. I do agree that chasing somebody from inside to outside and off your property is pushing the limits of the castle and no retreat laws to their limits (and very well beyond).

Ok so the buses are not posted, and they allow both CC and OC?

No clue... Never rode on one before, but a few of us are talking about running a small event and wondered if we could use the MTA buses while carrying or not.

My understanding of current TN self defense law is that a DA could not make the argument in court you should have stayed inside the house and taken cover. You're legally allowed in your own front yard, and therefore, have no duty to retreat from it... Shooting a suspect in the back with a weapon in hand, is probably going to be considered self defense in every county in TN. Suspects in the process of committing a crime while armed and then pull a gun out, all reasonable people would consider that a threat. If you go back and look at some of the self defense shootings here in TN since the law was passed, you'll notice that a lot of 'questionable' shootings we talk about here on the forums result in no charges in real life. For example, sometime in the last year there was a robbery here in Middle TN (cell phone store) where a HCP fired on the get away vehicle as it drove away... No charges were filed against the HCP holder, this was in public location and the bad guys were armed but never fired a shot. Honestly, I'm not recommending that you push the envelope but sometimes I wonder if we on the forums really see it the same as the police and DAs seem to sometimes.

Yeah, I knew the law allows it.... and I'm curious if 39-17-1359 even applies since it doesn't appear to cover vehicles...

I'm sorry, but again read my post... Your intent when you point a gun at somebody is to threaten death or serious bodily injury.... There is no exception to this fact for anybody in the law... even a police officer when he points a firearm at a person is making a threat of death or serious bodily injury, the law does not make an exception for that act... BUT, the law does say when you may legally use deadly force (and the threat of deadly force)... and LEOs do have some limited cases where they're allowed to use deadly force and a regular citizen is not under the law. So lets go over this again... 1. Yes pointing a firearm at a person is considered a threat of death or serious bodily injury (aka deadly force). 2. There are no exceptions to this in the law, no matter who is pointing the gun it is always considered a threat of deadly force. 3. Whether the threat of deadly force is lawful or unlawful depends on the situation. Dave, let me be clear, I'm not indicating that LEOs are breaking the law or committing a crime when they draw their weapon, but pointing out that every time they do so is a threat of "deadly force". Who is behind the gun does not change the threat, only whether that threat is lawful or not. So, just like I can point a firearm at a person and that action can be lawful or unlawful depending on the details of the situation, every time I do so, I am threatening the use of deadly force or serious bodily injury, the fact that my actions are lawful or unlawful doesn't change the fact that I am still threatening said force. This also holds true for a police officer, when they point a gun at you, that act is a threat of 'deadly force', again whether that threat is lawful or unlawful is defined in the law, police officers do have situations where they are allowed to use 'deadly force' (and therefore the threat of deadly force) where regular citizens are not... Back to point #1, the threat is there no matter who is pointing the gun at you, the only question is whether it is lawful or unlawful but in both cases that doesn't change the fact that you're being threatened with deadly force.

I'm probably blind, but their website doesn't mention anything... Does anybody know if carried is allowed on Nashville MTA buses?

You should check with the TWRA... The vast majority are opened to the public nearly year round (a good number close to just hunters - with correct permit and/or quota permit - during certain parts of deer season for example). There are a couple of WMAs which are closed to the public at this time (waterfowl wildlide refuges - I can't remember the name of one off the top of my head). My suggestion is read the newest version of the hunting guide from the TWRA or call them but unless it's a federal Forrest Service managed WMA, if you can legally be there you can carry with a HCP.

True, but it's my understanding that there are only a few federal Forrest Service managed WMAs in TN. The vast majority are state owned and operated.

I'm pretty sure that is not the case anymore... State owned land which is a WMA is open for carry if you can legal be inside the WMA, whether hunting or not (again as long as you can legally be there)... TWRA has gone so far as to say you can even carry while bow hunting (which may not be legal per the current law?)... WMAs which happen to also be National Forrest controlled land, are a maybe since the Rangers can issue general orders prohibiting carry. But, all state owned WMAs are required by law to allow carry if you're legally allowed to be on/in the WMA there is no exception to that law.

The law still does not allows carrying of a firearm during bow hunting... As far as I can tell this is the only exception to when you can legally be in a WMA but can not carry a handgun for protection. The bill to remove this language is still working it's way through the legislature the last time we checked. Although it does appear the TWRA is going to give us HCP carry while bow hunting which is very interesting indeed.

Pointing a gun at somebody is clearly a threat of force intended to cause death or serious bodily injury... Now that is a long sentence to type out, so many of us laypersons just shorten it to threat to use deadly force... The law clearly spells out when you're allowed to use said force (or the threat of said force), and when you're not - and when you're allowed to use reasonable force or the threat of reasonable force, but NOT deadly (and while it doesn't say so, the implied threat of death or serious bodily injury).Now, as I stated there are a few times LEOs are allowed to use (and therefore threaten) the use of deadly force that regular citizens cannot, but that does not change the fact that anytime somebody points a firearm at you it's a threat of force intended to cause death or serious bodily injury... Now that threat (or it's use) is allowed under the law in some limited situations for both citizens and police officers (who again have a few situations where they can legally threaten or use force that citizens can not). But, nowhere in the law does it state that because somebody is a police officer their pointing a gun is not a "threat of force to cause death or serious bodily injury" (from here now refereed to as threat of deadly force). So, YES when you point a weapon at somebody you are threatening death or serious bodily injury (and there is no exception for LEOs), and you best be doing so within the law or you can be charged (and agg assault with a deadly weapon seems like the charge that would normally apply) Again, this is not anything negative about LEOs, only that them pointing a gun at you is a threat of death or serious bodily injury, just like me pointing at gun at you would be the same, who is pointing the gun does not change the threat under the law. It very well MAY impact whether the threat is legal or not but not that it is a threat. So long and short, YES when you point a gun at a person it is a threat to cause death or serious bodily harm (threat of deadly force) and the law limits when that threat can legally be used who you are doesn't change that it is a threat only whether it's legal or not.

Fallguy is right, as long as he is in pursuit of the criminal it's still part of the intial crime and chasing him down and using reasonable force to detail him is allowed under the law (IANAL). Now, if Fallguy lost sight of the criminal then went to criminals house 4 hours later... that would be a different story... But just because the criminal runs doesn't mean you can't chase him (even if he drops the stuff you still witnessed him commit a crime and under TN law can still effect a citizens arrest - not that I suggest you do that)... People need to remember that citizens arrest powers have different rules from self defense... If I attack you then retreat you no longer can use deadly force in self defense, but you sure can grab a hold of me and hold me until the police come as a citizen arrest (since in this case I assaulted you).

I'm sorry can you point to the law that allows a LEO to point a weapon at you and not be considered a threat of deadly force? Last time I checked, legally they largely play under the same rules we do except they're allowed to use deadly force in a few more situations than we are. But them pointing the weapon IS a threat to use deadly force under the law as I understand it.

There is nothing in state or federal law that would prevent you from owning bean bag rounds, tear gas rounds or other types of specialty shotgun rounds as far as I'm aware. Also, I know a source for said rounds where they do not require an agency letter, but be warned they are expensive. Toss me a PM if you need their information