Fallguy

Safe trip.....and will do if I'm ever that way. ...and by no means don't feel like you can't keep on posting and contributing on the board...

That is correct, even though you live in another state, if you work for 30 hours a week or more, for 6 months ore more in TN, you can apply for TN carry permit. Not to say they're might not be a way around this. Not all are like that....you see a list of all states that issue non-resident permits and the requirments here

LOL...interesting as well. But I think he dose have a NC permit, doesn't he? But anyway...lol Off topic on both accounts. Wonder how much TN LEOs know and/or have had to deal with non-resident permits?

Welcome

I can't believe there is this much discussion about him...but doesn't have a NC DL? He is going to school here, but he is not legally a resident. As far as what he has or has not done...I couldn't really care less.

Other than the constant use of "registered gun owner(s)" by the news station, good video.

I agree... ...got into a LONG discussion about that in another thread.

Watched a little while ago myself...and I agree. I hate to say it...but I am almost at the point now, to either totally allow or totally disallow carry in local parks. I admit at one time I thought it might be a good idea to let local governments control carry in local parks (if that was the only way to get it passed) but it sounds like you won't really know where you can and can't carry when this is all said and done. Especially if they don't have to post.

Well....let's say you were in your car and someone tried to carjack you. The self-defense law (39-11-611) says it is presumed you are in fear of imminent serious bodily harm or death. So you shoot the guy and prevent the carjacking. But....39-11-614 says you can't use deadly force to protect property...and for whatever reason (doesn't like HCP holders, you shot his brother-in-law, whatever...) the local DA may decided to charge you under 39-11-614 saying you used deadly force to protect property (your car). This bill simply makes it where the DA couldn't prosecute you under 39-11-614 in the above example. Which is a good thing, I think. From listening to the discussion in the committee on this bill, it never was really the intent of the bill to allow citizens to use deadly force to protect property, but simply remove a loophole a DA could use when you were defending yourself and your property at the same time.

I tend to agree....and that is one reason that even though I am a proponent of OC, I don't often. Because I don't always feel like educating people or being an advocate. But if you do OC you should be willing to at least basically explain the law and why. Of course in states where OC is legal without a permit, you still don't need to act like an azz, but at the same time no explanation is really required either.

Yes, KY issues a CC permit/license but that is because you can OC in KY without a permit. So if you wanted to OC you would be perfectly legal. On long guns, I'm not 100% sure, but from what I can see in KY law there is no prohibition against loaded long guns.

On Question 1, I'm not sure there is any case law to truly define what "substantially similar" is. IMO I would say that at the very least it would need to reference 39-17-1359 and state what weapons (if not all) and where (if not everywhere) they are banned. On Question 2, the actually doesn't say just all entrances, but all entrances primarily used by people entering the property. If a place was to property post all the primary entrances to the parking lot, then they wouldn't have to post the actual building because it would be illegal to go past the signs, even into the parking lot. If a place is not properly posted, then yes, all they can really do is ask you to leave. As far as the mall you referenced, I do not think I would tell an officer I entered through a non posted entrance because that could imply you are aware that some entrances are posted. If I said anything I would say there was not a sign (I did not see a sign) at the entrance I used.

But with the amendment they are not removing ©, just changing the wording.

Actually I don't think even local LEOs can carry in a federal building. At least I know I remember being told by some they were told they couldn't at the federal courthouse in Jackson.

Nope, not really. As the sponsor said, it's more to just close a loophole that a DA could have used to still prosocute you if while defending yourself you were also defending property. Oh well.....there's still TX.

Very true....and I think I understand it a bit more. But not sure anyone, including LEOs & judges, would fully understand without watching the discussion from today. From what I can get....if someone is stealing your car or other property that may be in a public place, you could not use deadly force...but if someone was stealing property from within the curtliage area of your residence or from an out building on your property, you could, because it would fall under 39-11-611 and this bill simply removes any chance that a prosecutor might use 39-11-614© to prosecute you. Does that sound about right Mr. Stegall? ..and also that it is still simply a statutory presumption that you were in imminent fear of serious bodily injury or death and if a DA feels he can prove that fear was unreasonable, you could still be charged and possible convicted...right?

LEOs can also ingnore 39-17-1359 signs. From what I can tell there is just one certain judge that is wanting to do this for some reason. I mean judges can already legally carry even without a HCP.

It seems the amendment to HB0070 pretty much make deadly force for protection of property only available if you would already be allowed to use deadly force. I remember seeing the debate about this amendment last week....and I agree it seems to be more confusing now than ever.

Very good point!!

Welcome

Mr Stegall, esq. has it 100% correct....39-11-612 says you can use the same force to defend a third person as you can yourself in 39-11-611. Now, you have no legal duty to act to defend a third person, if that is what you mean by a "moral situation". Also a closer look at TN law will show you do not have to conceal.

Welcome

Welcome

Welcome back

That is correct. If your permit allows you to carry in that state, you can carry concealed in a National Park in that state. On Tribal land, carry is determined by tribal law. From Handgunlaw.us