Fallguy

I am running Windows XP Media Center Edition. I used the add and remove programs function to remove it, but I was able to use system restore to get it back, it appears I have all my old e-mails and address book. It for some reason just thinks that it is not installed...or at least not for me. So it's starting to look like reinstalling is going to be my only shot, huh? Guess I'm just going to have keep digging for the disk.

Funny you should ask, that is part of the long explanation. The computer came with Outlook Express on it. I later purchased a PDA and it came with Outlook 2002 to install on the PC. So I installed it. When I was removing programs, I thought I was removing the Outlook Express and would be leaving the Outlook 2002, but apparently it got all of it. I have seen the webpage you posted, but one of the instructions is to "reinstall" which I don't think I can do until when/if I can locate the install disk.

The other day in an effort to clean up the hard drive a bit, I accidentally removed Outlook (don't ask...it's a long explanation) Well today is the first day I had a chance to do anything about it, thankfully the system restore function created a restore point. Had a bit of trouble getting it restored until I booted into Safe Mode and ran System Restore and got it back. The trouble is now when I open it. I can see my old e-mails, but at first it appeared to be trying to install again. I went into Add and Remove programs > Windows components and fixed that, but.... Now after I open it I just get an error message that Outlook is not installed for the current user and it closes. I am looking for my install disk, but after the 2 moves in the last few months and the boys moving back in with me...it is God knows where. Is there anything else I can do to fix this situation? Thanks in Advance!!

Don't want to turn this into a citizens arrest thread, but the law says you "may use force reasonably necessary to accomplish the arrest of an individual who flees or resists the arrest", but not deadly force. 39-11-621. So the question becomes would handcuffing be reasonably necessary? All that being said, I'm not sure I would have tried to detain the guy in this situation, restrained or not..

Done

My point exactly, there may not be a need to shoot them....and if there isn't and you do anyway, there could be consequences. It is not my intention to argue, but to discuss.

I'm not saying anyone will go to jail. Also remember, I'm the guy that thinks it should be legal to use deadly force to protect property. I'm just saying that you need to think and assess the situation (like the OP) for just a second before you shoot. And that just because they are in your home doesn't "automatically" mean everything will be ok.

First TN is a "stand your ground" state anywhere you have a legal right to be, not just in your home. Secondly, the "Castle Doctrine" is just a term for carry and self-defense laws. There is no universal rules for the "Castle Doctrine" you must look at and apply the specific carry and/or self-defense laws for the situation. Like in TN you don't have to think the person is there to commit a felony, like in NC.

As the lawyer said, it is only a presumption that you were in fear. If the police and/or DA doesn't think it was a reasonable fear and that they can prove it, they very well can charge you and convict you. You do not have an "automatic right" to gun down someone no matter what the situation. Even if they feel it was a good shoot, there are going to be very many questions asked. Do you really think the police are going to show up, see someone shot and not ask any questions?

No, I think the proposed change to 39-17-1305 is much easier than trying to change the restaurant law. Also it has the benefit of allowing carry in places that are not restaurants, such as bowling alleys, theaters, etc.... that also serve alcohol.

I could be wrong, but I doubt this bill has much of a chance of passing. But it may very well serve a couple of purposes. One, if you think there is a problem with guns and alcohol in the same room, maybe the alcohol is equally the problems as well as the gun. Not that I think either is, but it could make a few think. Secondly, I wonder if it is just a tool to help the new restaurant carry bill have a smoother track. Don't oppose the new bill and I won't push this bill. Saw a clip on WBBJ last night with Curry. Had to laugh at a few that said it was their "right" to drink. Not that I disagree, but it's funny how now in TN drinking is seen more favorably that carrying a firearm. The even contacted the local PD...their take was that more crimes happen after dark, not just after midnight. Now this is the same PD that wanted to charge local "bars" a fee so they could post patrol cars out front at closing because of all the problems. But anyway... ....and for the record, I do partake of adult beverages.

Way, way wrong!! See below. Excelent post sir!

To the OP, very good job sir!

I know it's frustrating, but this is not out of the norm. At the first of the year there usually more bills on a committee's calendar than they can here in one sitting, so all the ones that aren't got to are deferred to a later date. I really doubt it was the only bill rolled. When they publish the calendars for next week we'll have to see where it is and will have a better idea if it will get brought up then or not. Of course even if it is brought up and discussed, it is not uncommon for it to get rolled again if there are any questions members want to research further. In all honesty by the time it is voted on in the committee, there will be little to any discussion and the sponsor will probably know the vote or he won't let be voted on.

From the first page link you posted if you click on on the actual bill number HB 1806 in blue, it takes you to the actual text of the bill. What you posted from the calendar just shows that on 01/27/2010 action was defered on the bill until 02/10/2010, today. Today the bill was defered (rolled) until next Wed 02/17/2010.

In the part where it is talking about "operated" is where it is telling what the current law is. Well...the current law does contain operated. As we have discussed the current law contains two violations, felony and misdemanor, depending on the circumstances. This bill would create an exception for both if you have HCP and the gun is in any private vehicle, not just one operated by you. So not sure what the problem with the bill is. Did you read the actual text of it here? http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/106/Bill/HB1806.pdf Sec 2 of the bill removes that second half of ©(1) which is what is causing all of us to debate this. Sec 1 of the bill creates a new exception under part (e)...which makes exceptions for both (-felony and ©-misdemeanor sub-parts, for those with a HCP as long as the gun stays in the car. There is no need to address the dropping off or picking up of people as that is already covered in 39-17-1310

That is what courts are far...in this case all may be charged and the court decided who the operator is. ...but I would like to try and stay out of court if possiable.

Not that I know of. It is simply a defense to a violation of 39-17-1307, not 39-17-1309 or any other law under part 13. I agree

IMO the one with the keys in their posession at the time.

No, but you can be the person who did operate it, therefor the operator of that vehicle even though you may not be currently operating it.

I can't remember how many shots it is, but there are a certain number of shots that is the instructors choice. Way back in the 90's when I took mine also, we did shoot our last set of shots with our weak hand from the 3yd line.

I think that is what he said. In TN you can not carry in your car without a permit, like you can in some other states. So his point was that no matter what state you are from or where you may or may not have a permit, that you need one to carry in your car in TN.

Ok....looks like we starting to confuse 3 different areas of the law on school carry. There is the Pick-up and drop-off under 39-17-1310 Posession with the intent to go armed 39-17-1309( and Posession with out the intent to go armed, 39-17-1309©. 39-17-1310 IMO is not intened to include yourself as a passenger or even leaving the vehicle. It is soley for parents dropping off or picking up kids and as someone else said, more or less driving through. There is an exception under 39-17-1309© but 39-17-1309( so in that case it would depend on whether your carry/possesion is with the intent to go armed or not.

Yes. According to 39-17-1351®(3)( you have 6 months after you have become a resident to obtain a TN permit. To me obtain means have in hand, not just apply for. But for those 6 months you can carry on your out of state permit. It depends on which state you already have a permit in what the requirments are to get a TN permit. See Handgun Carry Permit Application Requirements

Of course the plain words you speak of say it is not an offense under subsectin © it does not mention subsection (, which is the felony. So the exception in the second half of 39-17-1309©(1) only applies to subsection © which is not the intent to go armed part. As I said in my first post if the gun is loaded, there could be an argument that is your intent to go armed, in that case you are in violation of subsection ( the felony, and there is no exception for leaving it in your car for that subsection.