Fallguy

Well I think he is basically right, other than you saying you can't do anything if they are in your yard with your property. 39-11-614 clearly says you can use force to protect property, just not deadly force. On the other...sort of reminds me of what may dad used to say, "Shoot 'em in the yard and drag them in the house." ....not serious of course...

Thank you sir....and not a half-bad slogan...

Well...all I will say is, I am not going to just watch someone steal my property, I will confront them and try to get them to stop and I will more than likely be armed when I do. If that causes me legal trouble, so be it But I do expect to see at least one or two people from here in the court room every day supporting me...

Maybe....but I wouldn't suggest the beer and the firearm both be visible in the picture.... Although I do keep meaning to taking a pic of me with my "Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a convenience store and not a Federal Agency shirt" on while smoking a cigar and holding a bottle of JD in one hand and my AK in the other....

Since Memphis is listed as your location in your profile, I assume these places are in that general area????

I understand... I was just making sure selling it to a FFL doesn't create a new starting point on a trace. Or in other words you wouldn't be by passed during a trace on it. Glock makes the weapon and it ships to FFL A, they sell it to citizen A, who sells it to citizen B, who sells it to citizen C, then citizen C (The OP in this case) sells it to FFL B, who then sells it to citizen D. Then for whatever reason the ATF starts a trace...they are still going to go to Glock then FFL A and go from there and not start with FFL B and bypass Citizen C.

IMO he provoked the incident by trespassing on my property.

Done

They take two sets...one set is sent to the TBI the other set to the FBI. What those places do with them after a check is done I'm not 100% sure, but I assume they keep them on file.

If you're not armed of course....

Well I really do feel the opinion only applies to parks and recreational facilities, not just any place and really only when the school is using the facility for a school function, not just when students are there. But I agree there are those that could try to twist it. Perhaps another good effect of this opinion will be some better worded laws.

I really feel that deadly force should be allowed for protection of property. Does that mean shooting is always the answer? No. Does it mean that I would shoot someone over a pen? Of course not. But if someone was stealing my car, my lawn-mower, etc... and deadly force was the only way to stop them and keep my property with me...then Yes I would use deadly force, if it was legal. For those that say is my property worth the the thief's life.....well he is the one that made that choice when he decided to steal, not me.

It seems in the above, you sort of blend self-defense and protection of property together. If the thief has a gun, that introduces a new element..and if he makes any attempt for it, you might have a decent argument for self-defense. However as a victim of theft I do feel your pain.

Well yes and no. I can see both sides using it to their advantage. If they want to prohibit carry they will just say it is easier if carry is prohibited all the time. If they want to allow carry they can point out that it doesn't prevent schools from using it. You know this sort of brings out another quirk in the law. The AG has said a permit holder can leave his/her handgun in his/her car on school grounds and at a park that is being used for a school function....but there still is no provision in 39-17-1311 for a permit holder to leave his handgun in his/her vehicle in a park where the local government has opted out. It really would seem if we can be trusted to leave our handguns in our vehicles at schools, we could trusted at parks, our place of employment and any other place that may attempt to post even their parking lot.....

I want to agree with logicprevails in that use of a facility doesn't simply mean school children are there, such as a field trip etc... But I have to agree with JayC that the law and the AG opinion does sort of muddy the waters a bit and really doesn't clarify things that much. The schools in Milan do not have baseball fields, they use the ball fields at the city park. However little league games are also played on those fields. If I want to go walking on the walking track (far away from the ball fields) how am I supposed to know if it is a school team playing or a little league team playing? Or anyone else not there for the ballgame for that matter? About the only good thing in this opinion is, it seems to clarify that a firearm locked in a vehicle, by a non-student adult, on school grounds is legal.

The new law doesn't change the part about that you can use force or what kind or limit it from the previous version. Now you can use deadly force as long as you are covered under self-defense, before you couldn't use deadly force at all to protect property, technically even if your life was in danger. Using force that happens to result in death is not the same as using deadly force (see definition above) If you tackle someone and they happen to somehow die from injuries resulting from that tackle, that is not the same as using deadly force. Because the tackle was not likely or intended to cause death or serious bodily harm. I actually think the new law simply clarified a discrepancy in the law and did nothing to limit the amount of force you could use in protection of property. However I admit that could just be the way I am reading it.

I didn't from yours....it has been mentioned in other post, so I was just clarifing.

AFAIK there is no legal definition of brandishing in TCA. IMO there is a difference between OCing a handgun and/or holding a long gun and opening your coat to revel a concealed handgun or aiming a long gun at someone. So I don't think being armed or letting the BG know your armed is threatening the use of deadly force. Otherwise OC would be illegal. Just a note, 39-11-614 says you can threaten or use the amount of force necessay....but can not use deadly force, it doesn't say you can't threaten it. But that is my very non-legal opinion.

Don't forget to be reaching for it so you can give it to him....... Jokes people...just jokes...

How do you think it gives you less? (No sarcasm, serious question) It really doesn't change anything. It was to remove a loophole an overzealous DA could have used to prosecute you. One example is...Self-Defense law allows you to use deadly force to stop a carjacking. However...that could have also been looked at as using deadly force to protect property (car) under 39-11-614 and a DA may have tried to charge you. Now the law just says that if you were using deadly force as authorized under self-defense you can't be charged under 39-11-614.

I do believe that is correct. But IMO that is more for when you come home and enter your home and someone is in there. Not if they are standing in the yard.

Welcome

Not 100% sure if it is posted or not, but a search for Rendezvous on the board shows a few members mentioning it and saying anything about it being posted. Hopefully someone that has been there recently will post soon.