Fallguy

I'm afraid you're right about the Firearms Freedom Act and that "state's rights" was decided nearly 150 years ago. But I do think kwik would make a good test case. If you look up the statistics on TICS around 50% of denials that are appealed are overturned. Of course not all denials are appealed...so you have to wonder if it would be even higher then? It does make you wonder what is causing so many denials on the front end that end up reversed.

That's because some of the questions you have asked are not as simple as you may think they are. Very rarely are there simple black and white answers when it comes to the law. So I'd wager that many on here that have a HCP and carry daily would find it odd, that you find it odd that there aren't such clear cut answers.

I agree.... On my interpretation of Section I, Article 26 of the TN constitution there out to be very, very few restrictions on firearms. Pretty much if you can legally buy it you should be able to legally carry it without any interference from the state.

If you're LEO friend is still not sure....the law changed in July 2001 when SB0193/HB0227 passed and became public chapter 345 of 2001 See here

Not really a bad idea at all....

Granted a new law could be challenged again and this judge may have a personal bias against handguns around alcohol, but that was not the reason given as to why it was ruled unconstitutional.

I understand.... All I was trying to do is answer the question about "the castle doctrine" which is a term I hate....because there is no single document or doctrine, it is just a general term for a collection of self-defense and firearms laws and varies greatly from state to state. So I was just pointing out that the shooter probably wouldn't have the the automatic presumption of acting in self-defense in this case like he might in another situation. Another article I read said the guy that was shot didn't want to press charges. So it does seem there may be more to it than what is known now.

Well even if he had broke a door to "sneak in" doesn't mean you could shoot him in self-defense if he was just out on the dance floor with everyone else. The part of the law that presumes you are in fear of death or serious bodily injury...is just that a presumption. If the DA feels it wasn't reasonable for you to have that fear and thinks he can prove it, he can still charge you.

That is not exactly correct, what the law says on 3rd party defense is "Under the circumstances as the person reasonably believes them to be" So if it is determined that it was reasonable for you to think one thing (that justified self-defense), even if later it was shown that wasn't actually what was happening, you should be ok....if your lawyer can make the jury believe that.

Well the words may or maybe even probably are better used. Nothing is 100% sure...

If it came to it, would any of them introduce a bill like that?

There are very few, if any, clear shoot-don't shoot situations you can describe on an internet forum. There are just too many variables to try and consider when making a post about something.

The law that says you can't carry in a bar is the same law that says an owner can. See 39-17-1305©(2) Yes, it could very well still be self-defense. I'm just saying the presumption that you acted in self-defense (as provided for in 39-11-611©) would not apply.

That is very, very, very wrong. Many years ago it was illegal in places that both served and sold alchol, but that changed several years ago to only places that served it for onsite consumption. Also to note the law was changed this year to allow carry in restaurants that serve alcohol, but that law was ruled void by a judge, so it is again illegal to carry in places that serve alcohol for onisite consumption. See 39-17-1305 As far as the defense of others. So what is basically saying is if you feel that self defense under 39-11-611 would be justified you can use that force to protect a 3rd person. See 39-11-611 May also want to see http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/firearms-law-faq/13408-reference-material-some-basic-questions.html

It depends on what you mean exactly... 39-17-1305 says the owner of the bar can have a firearm in his posession. As far as what you are probably thinking....the presumption that he acted in self-defense would not apply in this case since the guy with the knife did not forciblly or illegaly enter the bar. But let's say it was after closing and a guy broke in on the owner while he was still there doing the books, then yes, the presumption could apply. It wouldn't make a difference if it was your house, a bar or a car dealership.

I don't think anyone that takes extra ammo thinks they are going to be in a north hollywood type shoot out. It's just if you are involved in something or maybe even find time to go the range, you will have ammo for the rest of the trip and or trip back. I don't carry extra ammo on my person when I take a trip, I just pack some so I wouldn't have to go buy some while I'm there.

Sent an e-mail to Mike Andrews, Website News Producer/Supervisor of WCRB suggesting that they check further on the charges against Mr. Knox.

I think you mean sued civily....any criminal charges would be up to the state. In addition to 39-17-1322 as posted above by Punsiher84 there is 39-11-622 that says if you are sued and the shooting is ruled justified, those that brough the suit must pay all your cost in defending the suit. So one would hope if it was a clear cut case of SD no respectable lawyer would take the case. But the TN supreme court has said 39-17-1322 doesn't automaticlly prevent you from being arrested. Also no law can block someone's access to the court, that is 39-11-622 only provides relief if you are sued and can not prevent you from being sued. With criminal charges being filed in this case...it is probably not so clear cut. I admit I'm not 100% sure, but I would think 39-17-1314 (the preemption law) would forbid any local government from requiring firearms to be registered. I haven't heard of any county/city requiring registration since 1989 at least. I do remember prior to that having to get the sheriff of your county of residence to sign some form to be able to purchase a firearm and they may have recorded it also....but not in the last 20 years at least. It wouldn't be the first time a news agency got something just totally wrong.

I have been known to put a box of ammo in the suitcase.....

You may want to check this thread http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/tactics-training/12664-tn-handgun-carry-permit-schools-instructors.html

I think that is a different check... TBI Instant Check System

I don't think the point ever was to remove the background check, just the $10 charge for it.

AFAIK the TICS/NICS check is on you, not the firearm. One reason it is $10 whether you are buying 1 or 15 firearms, as long as it as at the same time.

Happy Anniversary...