Fallguy

I believe we have decided that based on the fine violation of 39-17-1359 is a Class B misdemeanor. That in-and-of-itself is not enough to get you HCP suspended. However there are a few "catch alls" in the law that could be used. But even a conviction of Class A misdemeanor only suspends your HCP for the duration of the sentence and you can apply to have reinstated after the sentence is complete.

Chip this has already been discussed and checked with several state legislatures. 39-17-1322 still applies, the use of "Notwithstanding" in the context of 39-11-611 means that 39-17-1322 still applies. I think it has to do with the fact there is a comma (,) after it. Also for the record the parts you cite don't mean if you are violating the law, that you can't claim self-defense. It just means the no duty to retreat part does not apply. If they had intended for you not be able to defend youself period, it would have been under sub-part (e) where it list the situations where force is not allowed.

I'm about done with this..... There is not a law against carry without a permit. There is a law against carry, PERIOD. Then there is a seperate law that says if you have a HCP, are on your property etc.... it is a defense against the application of the law against possesion. Yes, you have to have a license to drive. But there is no law that says the act of driving in-and-of-itself is against the law. If there is, please show it to me. On firearms... 39-17-1307 says it is illegal to posses a firearm. PERIOD 39-17-1308 gives a list of defenses to 39-17-1307. So if you have a HCP or are on your property or the other things you can use those things to defend yourself to a LEO that you are not violating 39-17-1307 On driving 55-50-301 does say you must have a lisense to drive, but it is not a defense to a violation of another law. There is no law that says the act of driving is illegal. Everyone keeps saying that it is the same...and it is not. If it is the same show me the motor vehicle law comprabable to 39-17-1307 on weapons. The law that says driving is an illegal act (Just like 39-17-1307 says firearms possesion is an illegal act) and that having a DL is a defense to that illegal act (like 39-17-1308) http://www.michie.com/tennessee Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13 Weapons Title 55, Chapter 50, Part 3 Application, Examination, and Issuance

Regardless of right/privilege there is a law against the possession of a firearm. So it reasonable for a LEO to assume someone that is armed is breaking the law, until they can show they fall into one of the defenses. There is no law against driving, so there is no assumption someone is breaking the law by driving.

Agree

Although OC (with a permit) is allowed in TN, there is still a general law against firearm possession in TN. Having a HCP is simply a defense to that law. So unlike NM where OC without a permit is legal, therefore no law possible being broken by simply possessing the gun, in TN a LEO can detain you long enough to see your HCP. After that you should be free to go unless you are suspected of something else.

New Mexico is in the 10th US District and Wisconsin is in the 7th. http://www.uscourts.gov/images/CircuitMap.pdf

Welcome

I only know of one court case where it has come up. The orginal trial judge did dismiss the charge of carrying on school property because he felt it was in self-defense. The state appleaed because of the judge's ruling and the appleate court said the trial judge could not determine himself at a pre-trial hearing that it was self-defense an ordered a new trial. ...at the new trial the guy changed his story and said he didn't actually display it in self-defense, so he was found guilty. So it really wasn't 39-17-1322 that didn't hold up, it was the fact the a judge couldn't determine if it was self-defense in a pre-trial hearing. The appelate court also said the wording of 39-17-1322 was very stange.

Welcome

Have you read 39-17-1322? That is exactly what it says. It says if you used the handgun in justifiable self-defense you shall not be charged or convicted of any violation under this part. This part meaning Part 13 weapons of Chapter 17, Title 39 Or in other words any 39-17-13XX law. Which includes 39-17-1359.

Beat me to it again....lol

Only if it would fall under self-defense.

Hmmm...wonder if it was because of his other illegal activity that he was charged with shooting? Doesn't look like GA law says you have to always wait till they get inside.

Got you on the color. So there is no quick/simple way to see all the members listed with the same zip code, correct?

What do the different colors mean? Does have anything to do with how many people are associated with that location? Like I know myself and on other "TGO Member" are located in Milan, but there is only one pin. Click on it one time and it shows him click again and it shows me. Is there a way for it to show all people associated with that one city/location?

Why does it group those close to each other but in different cities?

FWIW I take it to mean that since there is still a general prohibition against firearms in parks, and having a HCP is just an exemption it does not violate the TN constitution to allow local governments to opt out. If however 39-17-1311 would have been repealed it may have been unconstitutional to allow local governments to opt out because the final determination would have been incomplete. To be honest seems like a bit of double talk....but when is legal talk not...lol

If one can prevent combat by a show of force prior to any action, isn't that preferable?

So when a business has a sign that says, "Management not responsible for any accidents" and something happens to you or your property, that is the Management's fault, your not going to sue because of some sign that carries no legal weight?

No If the LEO feels it is self-defense you probably won't even be charged. But even if you are charged, if it is ruled you acted in self-defense you shouldn't be convicted.

Not sure it went any further than some other scenes, did it? Definitely looks like the upcoming season is going to be another good one.

Welcome

Welcome

But how many have actually bought and posted new signs? I'm sure Nashville has and Memphis has or will. But on the news report about Trenton opting out, they mentioned how now they won't have to change their parks rules signs. One of those signs where like rule 5 is no weapons. They didn't mention anything about buying and posting new signs. I would be willing to wager 90%+ of these smaller governments have no idea they must post 39-17-1311 signs and/or just aren't going to anyway. But if the legislature did want to remove the opt out option, I'd be willing to chip in few bucks to pay for bought signs, if it would help....lol