JayC
-
Posts
3,135 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6 -
Feedback
0%
Content Type
Forums
Events
Store
Articles
Posts posted by JayC
-
-
4 hours ago, Worriedman said:
You would never know the difference.
I disagree, Harwell would have a lot harder of a time holding back 2nd amendment laws that could be used to win political capital forcing the governor to veto the bill, and the legislature over riding the veto.
But you're right, getting rid of Harwell needs to be the goal, and depending on who gets elected as Governor the next time around she may well fall out of favor.
-
On 3/16/2017 at 11:59 PM, Worriedman said:
Tennessee's Governor does NOT support such bills.
The NRA is only interested in access to the Speakers, if you want bills to pass, you must have different legislators who will elect different Speakers who will stand up to the governor. To do that you must turn out the incumbents.Or elect a democratic governor, so the republican legislature can use 2nd amendment laws as a wedge issues.
-
1
-
-
What DA is going to want to go to bat on a death ruled justified by the county coroner? Can you imagine the field day a defense attorney would have? Unless there was something very strange going on I think that would pretty much guarantee reasonable doubt.
-
IANAL, but to echo what David said, but since they don't define residence requirements in the carry law, it most likely means the requirements under their voting law/drivers license law. I'm pretty sure as a full time student she's not required to become an AL resident, although it might not be a 'bad' idea if it reduces her in state tuition, getting a permit in AL is much easier than getting a permit in TN.
So if it's advantageous to become an AL resident, getting an AL permit would be the last of my worries.
-
1
-
-
56 minutes ago, Worriedman said:
Harwell can not be primaried, the liberals would cross over en banc to make sure she stays in power.
I don't think that is true.. If you found a republican with a name starting with a letter before H, and made some stink about her anti-gun record and desire to increase taxes, she'd probably loose. Then who cares if we hold the seat in the general or not.
-
9 hours ago, Cookies said:
I'm definitely not from new York. Blame att for that. I don't even have an interest in traveling north of I 40.
The events are mostly taking place on adjoining farms. His back hay field is flat and dry, so they approached him about using it for some vendors. The promoters are going to be responsible for all clean up, and give us all free passes and some goodies, but we're not extremely enthused about participating.
Drunks and meth heads sound worse than it really is, probably won't be a handful of idiots. I talked with the land owner and his deputy friend again last night, and the deputy agrees that being armed is not legal, but "concealed means concealed".
He also mentioned that if I kept myself to the home and it's curtilage it would be a different situation. After studying the legal definition of curtilage, I'm left almost as confused.
At least I found a site here with a wealth of knowledge during my search, so it's not a total bust.
IANAL, but under TN state law, unless it's YOUR home and curtilage, it's still illegal to carry a firearm, concealed or openly. The chances you'll get arrested are slim and none, but if something goes wrong why risk the extra charge being added on?
Curtilage generally means the house, porch, fenced in yard, and any outbuildings meant for human use.
-
1
-
-
Yeah something is not right about this picture at all...
-
17 hours ago, JAB said:
Unfortunately it appears that the only way to make this happen is to elect more Democrats so that the Republicans are back in the position of trying to fool...er...prove to gun owners in TN that they are on our side to get us to vote Republican next time. As it is, it appears that many of them, at least, feel secure in their control and have no need to deign to bother with the likes of us. I have said, before, that it seemed like more things of real benefit got done with an Illinois Democrat as Governor and and anti-gun Democrat as Speaker than we have seen with a so-called Repubican Governor and majority Republican State Legislature. The trick is to either not elect enough Democrats - or at least be careful not to elect staunchly anti-gun Democrats - so that we start going backward but to elect enough that the Republicans stop feeling so smugly safe in their jobs.
Two things, the TFA poisoned the well with the current legislature, by pushing to create a 'protected' class of employee. Second, all we need to do to fix the current log jam, is have somebody primary Beth Harwell and then loose to a democrat in the general election. Problem solved.
-
10 hours ago, Cookies said:
I ask for 2 reasons. First, I'm scheduled to attend an event on a farm that will be attended by several LEO and many permitted civilians. The landowner is a dear friend of mine, and has asked that everyone come armed. He is under the assumption that his permission is enough, but I'm not so sure. There will be no sport shooting, he just prefers that I am armed.
The second part, I work for a very small company, just 4 of us, and I am the only one without a carry permit. My employer desires for everyone to be armed while on payroll, I definitely have his consent as well, but I'm concerned with the legality of my situation.
IANAL, carrying on private land even with the owners permission is generally considered illegal, there are a number of exceptions but without more information it's impossible to say if any of them would apply. But, asking a bunch of people to show up armed some of which are LEO's seems odd. Are you training, protecting livestock, or otherwise involved in a sporting purpose? Because those would be your best bet for legally being armed.
At work is another story, there is a provision in the law to carry at your 'place of business', without a permit, this was used by businesses to allow their employees to be armed back before the HCP law, without knowing more details it's likely you qualify under that provision of the law but it's limited to your 'place of business'.
Why not just go get a permit and be done with it?
-
On 2/28/2017 at 6:55 PM, chances R said:
A school bus stop for lunch will not pass muster IMO. One could expand that to a State swim meet, track, football etc at a motel. Will continue to carry in such instances and take my chances. You also note "any firearm use" this would seem to include students.
I'm not suggesting that any sane DA would go to bat on any of those cases, but without a doubt the way the law is currently written, carrying a firearm would be a violation of the law.
I've been complaining to my state Senator for 5 or 6 years about the need to fix this law, because of having a business in close proximity to a large private university.
If we look at previous AG opinions on similar matters involving school activities at public parks, those opinions appear to be wide in scope and clearly would include a sports team spending the night in a hotel, or a restaurant where the school bus stopped for lunch on the way back from a field trip.
One example used was a park was a no carry zone because students where allowed to eat lunch in the park on nice days, and during those times the park was considered 'in use' by the school.
The law is very poorly written, just about any change would make it a marked improvement.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, peejman said:
Was it limited to schools only, or were school teams competing in an event open to non-school groups?
State law only allows for firearms to be used for instructional and ceremonial purposes but, I'm splitting hairs, I'm sure some 'competitive' shooting could be instructional in nature and might be covered.
The instructional exception to the law is meant to allow Hunter Safety course (the shooting part) to be allow in school, it's my understanding that is the legislative intent.
-
9 hours ago, chances R said:
Being private property could be an exception. Not sure of the status of the property in question. A TWRA range, for example, would be different than a commercially ran sporting clays facility IMO.
Doesn't matter according to state law as currently written any land in use by a school, or college (public or private) is off limits to regular firearms use. There are only 4 exceptions that your average person would fall into:
1. You have an HCP and leave the handgun in your vehicle when visiting the event.
2. You have an HCP and are dropping off/picking up a student and stay in the vehicle while in possession of the firearm.
3. You are handling the firearm for the purpose of sanctioned event instruction students on it's use (ie the Hunter Safety exception)
4. You're handling the firearm as part of a school sanctioned ceremony (ie the color guard exception)
5. You're a member of JROTC/shooting team then you're allowed to handle firearms are part of your class/team duties.
While there are lots of other exceptions, most are for law enforcement, special school security guards, and other authorized employees.
Long and short, school sanctioned event, including stopping to eat lunch, or having a birthday party at a local restaurant (with only adult teachers present) are roving felony zones under current state law.
-
15 hours ago, Capbyrd said:
This was posted on Facebook this weekend in the TFA group and hasn't really had any discussion going. John Harris just said "read the code..." which hasn't cleared up anything. The purpose of this was a discussion and that didn't happen so I'm borrowing the guy's words and bringing it here.
IANAL, but the plain reading of the law clearly makes it illegal to have and use a firearm on the property while a school event is being conducted.
As you said 39-17-1309b1 clearly includes any land in use by the board of education, school, or college:
QuoteIt 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, operated, or while in use 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.
Not knowing the exact make up of the event's students, this is the only exception that would seem to apply in anyway shape or form (other than the general law enforcement performing their official duties). 39-17-1309e5:
QuoteAny pupils who are members of the reserve officers training corps or pupils enrolled in a course of instruction or members of a club or team, and who are required to carry arms or weapons in the discharge of their official class or team duties;
The adults providing instructions to the students are probably safe, the students themselves are safe, anybody else carrying or using a loaded firearm is at risk under the current wording of the law.
As currently written there are roving no gun zones that no reasonable person could know about, and it's worded in such a way that not just activities by teenage aged students that cause these zones, official college club activities, and employee birthday lunches at a restaurant could in theory be counted as well.
Now, the chances a DA goes to bat on any of this? Slim to none, but I wouldn't want to be the test case.
-
2 hours ago, Oh Shoot said:
Thanks, that extra phrase in the "discharging in city limits" part of state preemption statute hadn't stuck in my brain pan. That pretty well covers it within with the rest of the self defense statutes I'd think.
- OS
It was my turn, you've caught a couple of mistakes... Truth is we probably know state firearm laws better than 90% of attorneys in TN
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Oh Shoot said:
Minor point. In the weapons section (39-17-13xx), justifiable self defense only exempts one from any state charges within that part, not local ones or charges in any other part of TCA.
If there something else in the self-defense section?
- OS
39-17-1314b2:
QuoteThe discharge of firearms within the boundaries of the applicable city, county, town, municipality or metropolitan government, except when and where the discharge of a firearm is expressly authorized or permitted by state law;
39-11-611 and 39-17-1322 both allow you to expressly use a firearm for self defense. While some might argue that 39-17-1322 only protects you from state charges, I'd argue that since the state allows cities and counties to have laws against discharging a firearm under 39-17-1314, activities protected by 39-17-1322 are exempted from the purview of the cities/counties. Either way 39-11-611 allows you to use deadly force or the threat of deadly force, which would clearly be covered under 1314b2 removing the ability of cities to charge you if you're involved in a self defense shooting.
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, CZ9MM said:
TN HCP list was made private a few years back wasn't it?
Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkNot really.
-
On 2/20/2017 at 0:33 PM, DaveTN said:
TBI would probably like nothing better than to be able to keep records. My understanding is (although I haven’t checked) it’s illegal.
They should HAVE to explain to him why he is being denied. But they don’t.
Doesn't stop them from checking the TDOS HCP list which is public record. And I believe appeals records are kept for longer than 48 hours and this is legal under the law, but I maybe mistaken on that.
On 2/20/2017 at 7:48 PM, Oh Shoot said:Just for pedantic accuracy, it's $10 per 4473, not per firearm.
- OS
Agreed, I stand corrected.
-
22 hours ago, JAB said:
1. Again, the very fact that he didn't shoot at the bad guys but, instead, shot into the air - which indicates trying to scare someone, not defending against a perceived threat - will probably be used against him.
2. No, drawing a firearm from a holster is not automatically self defense. In some cases, such activity could be considered 'brandishing'. Unless I am mistaken (and maybe someone else can fill in the details) there was a case a few years back where two men got into a verbal confrontation at a school event. One man followed the other to his car. Upon arriving at his car, the latter showed the man who had followed him that he had a gun in order to get the other man to back off. He was charged for having the firearm on school property. It is my understanding that a judge refused to drop the charges based on the claim that the man acted in self defense and, by the law, could not be charged for having been discovered to have had the firearm in a location where it would, otherwise, be against the law. The judge ruled that, as the defendent did not actually shoot the aggressor, he was not acting in self defense. Basically, he told the defendant that if he had actually shot the other guy then he would have been justified and likely would not face any charges but as he did not shoot the other guy - or even shoot at him - it was not considered a case of self defense under the law. Anyone else remember that and can provide more details? I really don't think I dreamed it.
3. Again, self defense involves a reasonable fear of death or serious, bodily injury. Perhaps the driver's lawyer will successfully argue that firing a gun into the air indicates his client had such a fear. More power to him if he does but I find it very doubtful. If I really and truly think that someone is going to try and kill me then I am going to be shooting at them, not at the sky. Showing a would-be robber that you have a weapon in order to scare them away is one thing. Firing bullets into the air - bullets that have to come down, somewhere - is something else, entirely.
4. As DaveTN has already addressed, it sounds like the bad guys were breaking in to the cargo trailer area of the truck and not the cab where the driver was sleeping. Would a court find that - even though the trailer is a separate area with no access to the occupied cap - it is still a 'part' of the vehicle while the two are hooked up? Maybe but I don't think that is necessarily as clear cut as you are arguing.
As you said, we'll have to wait and see.
1. Scaring somebody away IS a valid form of self defense. You're allowed to use both deadly for and the THREAT of deadly force if you have a reasonable fear of imminent death. Shooting into the air is clearly a threat of deadly force, just as pointing a firearm at somebody is. How do we know this, if you come to my house and start to break in and I yell down I've got a gun, and I'll shoot you, no crime. If I walk up to you on the street and say I've got a gun, and I'm going to shoot you, there is a crime.
2. We're talking about the same case, and the judge ruled because he didn't remove the gun from the holster he didn't employ it under 39-17-1322, went on to say in that ruling that if the man had removed the gun from the holster and had a reasonable fear of imminent death he would have been covered. But the fact he did not unholstered the firearm the judge believe no such reasonable fear existed.
3+4 39-11-611 appears to cover the truck and trailer, otherwise what vehicle do you know of other than a trailer is designed to only transport property?
-
On 2/21/2017 at 5:34 AM, DaveTN said:
And IMHO you are wrong. A Castle Doctrine doesn’t create a free fire zone. A presumption could be there, but a Prosecutor is free to attack that presumption. From the story I am assuming they were in the trailer and not in the cab. From the pictures in the story there is no access from the trailer to the cab and the trailer is not permanently attached. Pretty tough to make an argument he was in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm.
However, if that wasn’t the case and they were entering the cab; you are right.
And where are you getting this part you are adding about not having to be in the house or car, only have a reasonable belief entry was made? I don’t believe that.
He couldn’t legally shoot them for stealing stuff from his trailer anymore than you could for someone stealing stuff from your yard or detached garage.
However, it’s all moot(other than the discharging charge if it goes to court). Because he was absolutely justified in shooting the guy when he came back with a gun; especially when he started firing. Either he didn’t want to shoot him or he didn’t have the ability to shoot him.
However, I’ll give the guy the benefit of the doubt on that because we don’t know any of the facts about that other than he was in the truck and the other guy didn’t just walk up shooting because there was a discussion about car keys. It would be interesting to know why he didn’t shoot the guy or even return fire while being shot at, and why no one was shot in an exchange that had to be just a few feet apart.
As I have said before, I remember when you could shoot fleeing forcible felons. We need that back. Our legal system shouldn’t be judging people that are defending themselves against criminals committing a felony. We also had far less felons run when caught in the act as compared to today when everyone runs; they have no reason not to.
IANAL, but I can read
Ok, so lets bring out the law and look at it. 39-11-611a9 defines a vehicle as:
Quote"Vehicle" means any motorized vehicle that is self-propelled and designed for use on public highways to transport people or property.
While I can't find any case law on the subject a trailer connected to a truck is considered a single vehicle, and both the parts able to carry people and property are protected by the 39-11-611. Who knows how the judge rules, but by plain reading of the law is 39-11-611 would seem to apply.
The DA is free to attack the Presumption but it's a very high road to climb, and in this case would be virtually impossible IMHO, since all the defense has to say, is look they had a gun, they came back and shot him, if he had used less force they might have shot him right away. Remember DA has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he wasn't in fear for his life, kinda hard when these guys SHOT at him. We have case law that says just clearing the holster is an act of self defense under 39-17-1322, clearly shooting in the air was intended to make the threat run away, and therefore remove the threat. It was clearly a STUPID way to remove the threat, but it sure looks like an act of self defense to me.
As for shooting people for stealing your stuff, you're right... but if they break into my garage and I catch them unlawful in my garage on or my curtilage, it's the same as if I found them in my house trying to steal. It's assumed under the law that I have a reasonable fear of imminent death. The fact that they're stealing out of my car/garage/home does not remove their presumption under the law.
If the shooting was self defense, he can't be charged under the local ordinance because of state preemption. But my guess is this guys attorney will tell him to pay the fine which can't be more than $50 to $100 and not risk a judge ruling the shooting into the air wasn't self defense, pissing off the local DA and the DA deciding to go to bat on more chargers.
My point is why STUPID shooting into the air is probably still considered self defense under state law.
-
6 hours ago, JAB said:
The DA can very easily prove that the truck driver was not in fear for his life. If he had been in fear for his life he would have shot/shot at the bad guys and not into the air. As for him having a reasonable fear after they came back and shot at him, obviously - but the way the article is written it seems he fired shots into the air before the bad guys shot at his truck, not after. Finally, IANAL but I don't believe that state preemption applies because shooting into the air is not a 'self defense' shooting - shooting or shooting at the bad guys is self defense shooting. If the situation was such that the driver felt okay giving warning shots then he wasn't in that great of an amount of fear for his life.
As DaveTN said, the real problem is that the driver couldn't (legally) shoot someone for burglarizing his truck.
1. I don't think a DA can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the truck driver wasn't in fear of his life. That is a very hard hill to climb legally. See below why this standard of evidence probably applies.
2. Pulling a firearm out of a holster is considered self defense under TN case law (note not even point it at the suspect), firing at the suspect (while dumb) and not hitting them is obviously covered as self defense. I don't see how firing warning shots - into the air or ground, etc isn't self defense, and in general it seems to have worked, because the bad guys ran away, and only later returned. I'd think it would be pretty easy to make the case to a judge firing into the air was meant to chase the threat off.
3. See above I don't see how you find a judge with current case law that would rule firing a firearm with the intent to case away a bad guy wasn't a form of self defense. And there is some VERY good case law going back 50 years on police officers firing warning shots being ruled self defense in nature.
4. DaveTN is wrong IMHO, a vehicle under state law is the same as your home, if the bad guys forcible entered the vehicle (opening an unlocked window or door is forcible entry) then the castle doctrine kicks in under state law, and he would be presumed to have a reasonable fear of his life. Keep in mind you don't have to be IN the car or house at the time entry is made, only that you have a reasonable belief that an unlawful entry WAS made. That appears to be the case here.
Remember that state law was changed 2 years ago to better clarify that while you can shoot somebody to ONLY protect property, just because they're stealing your property does not remove your self defense protections under both castle doctrine AND stand your ground doctrine.
Finally, while most of us feel shooting shots into the air is stupid and a bad way to protect yourself, what do you think the chances are you going to find a jury of average citizens who think shooting into the air isn't self defense. Remember we just got rid of a sitting Vice President that gave a speech stating that shooting 2 blasts of a shotgun into the air was all the self defense most people need. I just don't think the DA really wants to go to bat over this case, the likelihood of a not guilty verdict is pretty high, or worse a judge rules the shooting into the air was an act of self defense and the DA has a near impossible task of proving there was no fear.
We'll have to wait and see.
-
1 minute ago, Reservoir Dog said:
That's because the background for the HCP is more thorough, and less likely to get a false positive. TICS checks go off your name, DOB, SSN; so someone with a criminal record that has a similar name, DOB, and SSN can trigger a denial. In addition to those identifiers, HCP backgrounds use your fingerprints, which is a much more reliable method of checking for criminal records.
Then why doesn't the TBI look at HCP data and only flag items that have dates more recent than your last HCP renewal? They have access to that data.
The point is TICS has a much higher false positive rate than the national system, which doesn't cost $10 per firearm.
-
On 2/16/2017 at 11:02 AM, sschrick said:
So my oldest son is 15 and has his Driver's Lerners Permit. Will be getting his restricted license in a few months. I know TN law now allows loaded handguns to be carried in a vehicle without an HCP. Both my wife and myself have our HCPs, so that is not really an issue.
Does the TN law discern or appoint ownership of who is driving as to what is in the car? If he is driving and I am in the car, can the gun still be in the car?
Now, I am pretty sure once he turns 16, he cannot drive with the gun in the car without either my wife or myself, is this correct?
He just informed me today that he learned in Driver's Ed at school, that if he is driving, there can be no alcohol in the car whatsoever. Not unopened container, not in the trunk, not even empty cans or bottles. News to me.
If you or your wife is in the car, and have possession of the firearm in question is clearly lawful and there is no risk of charges. The fact he's driving and you're riding is no different under state law than you driving and carry and he's riding as a passenger.
Technically speaking if you are accompanying your son and teaching him the use of a handgun in self defense, he could be openly carrying a handgun, although I would recommend it because a lot of our police officers do not understand the finer points of TN firearm laws.
The in the car exception to 39-17-1307 probably does NOT apply to a minor since they are restricted from purchasing firearms by state law.
-
On 2/17/2017 at 7:22 AM, Worriedman said:
30 states not 14 allow carrying of firearms without a permit in some way shape or form.
-
1
-
-
On 2/17/2017 at 4:32 PM, Pain103 said:
I wonder sometimes if it could be a partial match that causes the failures. I know I've ran people for warrants through NCIC and will get a hit from a partial match something like DOB match, alias matches this person's real name, or some other stupid stuff and you have to read through like two pages of crap because a date of birth matched the wanted person is who named something crazy when the person stopped is named Tom Smith.
I have a buddy who has a valid TN HCP, and every time he goes to buy a firearm in TN he gets rejected, and he has to appeal. When TBI gets the appeal it's approved every time without them requesting that he provide any documentation, that is except for the couple of times they just loose the appeal, and he has to call and hound them to process it.
Now how exactly does he get a HCP but can't pass the background check to purchase a firearm? BTW, never been arrested, no warrants ever issued, no valid reason what so ever to deny him. But he's grow so accustom to the problem that he warns the gun dealer before starting the purchase that it will get denied and it's a mistake, the appeal will go through in 7 to 10 days.
His main frustration is that they can't be bothered to update their records to note the 'issue' has been resolved in a previous appeal?!?!
And we all get to pay extra for firearms in TN for this crappy service? BTW which is likely unconstitutional under the state constitution!
Ok, so lets bring out the law and look at it. 39-11-611a9 defines a vehicle as:
Question raised in carry permit class.....
in Handgun Carry and Self Defense
Posted
In all fairness, you can get caught out at odds times without violating the rule of dumb. We had an alarm go off at one of our businesses 3 weeks ago, and I got a call and had to drive down there at 2am to meet the police and let them in. False alarm, but I still had to go. I didn't need to stop for gas, but I could have.
So there are rare times responsible adults have to be out late at night.