Fallguy

Oops...you're right...it now says 9 months instead of 15. Guess it subject to change until POTUS acutally signs it.

Hmmmm...I didn't see that, where was that at? I was going by Sec 403 of the bill that says it and all of the amendments to it would go into effect 15 months after it is enacted.

In the article it says he was found guilty. Also I don't see anything in the appellate ruling that says he pleaded guilty to anything then, just says he was charged with carry of weapon on schools grounds and filed a motion to dismiss based upon 39-17-1322. The first trial judge granted that, but the appellate court overruled him and sent it back. He was finally sentenced to 20 days, plus anger management and can not handle or possess a weapon in the last trial. However I would say you are correct in that he can appeal the conviction, since the other appeal was by the state for the dismissal. But too, not sure what the grounds for the appeal would be. If you have ever read and appellate court ruling they say they look at the case most favorable to the state (when a defendant appeals) since the case has already been adjudicated. So you have to show that the judge, DA or someone really screwed up to have the guilty ruling changed...not just because you didn't like it.

Welcome

If you like you can see the ruling of the appellate court here. It has info about the orginal trial. Also Justice Thomas T. Woodall wrote a separate, but concurring, opinion that directly addresses 39-17-1322. It can be read here.

This case was sent back to the trial court from the appelate court. The orginal trial judge did dismiss the case based upon 39-17-1322 and that the guy did use his gun in self-defense. The state appealed that ruling. The appleat court found the trial judge erred in dismissing. The appleate court said the "self-defense" would have to be detemined at trial and not in a pre-trial motion and reffered the case back. What is posted here is the results of the second trial. I agree that he "displayed" it in self-defense. However in the article the judge is quoted as saying the guys own testimony said he did not display or touch it in self-defense. If he did say that...he pretty much shot his case right there.

HB0959/SB1126 passed the house on 05/04/09, but there hasn't been any action on it in the senate since 04/01/09.

It could be, if the possesion fell under 39-17-1309( which is the intent to go armed subsection. I have to admit I still don't fully understand what constitutes that or if having a HCP is always a defense to that.

LOL...I'd be more apt to read a book like that than write it. I have had no legal training of any sort. Most of the time I am just giving my opinion and or inturpriation of things. This sort of stuff just interest me so I have read things from various sources and other's inturpriation of things, have spoke with legislators and lawyers, read AG opinons and so on. Unfortunately many times the law is not black and white. You not only have the statute, but case law, legislative intent plus you never know what a LEO, judge or jury will do. Between me and others I'm sure we'll post some sort of legislative round up of what was passed and signed into law this year.

Thanks for posting...I had wondered how this case turned out...

The law about the firearm and school doesn't say operating, but under the control. If you have the keys, IMO, you are in control of the vehicle whether you are in it or not. You have the means to unlock it and/or make it go. No one else (by legal means) can do it. You can't have it both ways, if the car and weapon belong enough to a person for them to be charged in your opinon, it is under their control enough for them to be covered in my opinion. If it is not under their control how could you have enough proof it was theres to charge them?

I'm not really famillar with Cherokee National Forest. AFAIK carry in a National Forest is not prohbited by Federal Law, however I keep hearing that TN has a law against carry in National Forest, but I have never been able to find anything that specifically says that. As far as TN law on Wildlife Refuges that is addressed in 70-4-117

Yeah........I don't see that passing for several sessions, if ever. Still have hope for HB1806/SB1622 if West is back next year...neve know, he might even get some sympathy votes....

That is basically correct (IMO), just like you can be charged with DUI even if you are in the back seat asleep. Even though you can not normally operate a vehicle while in the back seat and/or asleep.

Already posted... http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/national-politics-legislation/19147-free-nra-membership.html

Long debates on several bills it seems....

Just announced they would recess at 1:00 pm and roll the rest of the calendar till next Tuesday.

I've been away.... Just now checking they are still in session, looks like they are on item 22 of 47 on the Regular Calendar. HB0716 is Item 3 on the Message Calendar which is usually done after the Regular Calendar. Figure they will break for lunch in a little, so could be quite a bit later this afternoon before the get to it.

Correct, that is in part ((1) which says.... Other than listing a few more weapons and including the phrase "intent to go armed" parts ( and © seem to be very simillar. Although violation of part ( is a E felony and violation of part © is B misdemeanor. I still really think since part © is only addressing firearms and gives an exception in the second half of it....it is legal for a non-student adult to leave a firearm in their car as long as the don't handle it or allow it to be handled. But it would be nice for the above bill to pass and simply clarify that.

LOL...true.....guess I'll stop holding my breath on that then......

State and local Parks bill on House Message Calendar for today!!! According to the bill's status page

The national bills seems to only cover National WMA's There is a bill in the state legislature (HB0747/SB1802) that would allow carry in TN WMAs and National Forests in TN. But it doesn't appear to be moving.

That is correct and is covered under 39-17-1310(4) However I believe he is talking about the second half of 39-17-1309©(1) which says... Which seems to address a longer stay and leaving your vehicle.

Mainly going by what I have read on Handgunlaw.us See Question 6 on this page.