Fallguy

Of course in Jester's case he wasn't actually armed (unloaded and in computer case in back seat) and it sounds like he didn't even really have time to say much of anything.

LOL....reminds me of the sheriff where worked once. When somebody told him that their taxes paid his salary he said he would "Mail their damn quarter back to them!" then slammed the phone down.

"Life tax"...that's pretty good.

Let's be careful and not start a general "cop bashing". I would also add to my previous post, this why I have moved my HCP in wallet to the back. The condition that you were currently carrying the gun didn't even require a HCP. Also having a HCP does not always mean your armed. Who really knows what his reasoning was.

Sounds like the very reason why some people have a recording device in their car and turn it on during any traffic stop.

You might also check the "DST Correction Option:" is set to "Automaticly detect DST settings"

Welcome I do not think WMAs are covered as part of 39-17-1311, but they are addressed in 70-4-117

Welcome back

Welcome

Welcome

Chip...all I can is I think you are wrong...but I know...who am I to say that...I admit, no one inparticular. I trust what I was told, by whom I was told. You trust what you were told by whom you were told. I'll also say, if I happen to be carrying in an off-limits place and situation comes up where I feel I need to use deadly force to protect myself...I will and then the chips can just fall wherever they do. If anyone feels they don't want to take that chance, they should not carry in any off-limits place.

Wrong...the laws that say you can't carry in certain places are 39-17-13xx laws (39-17-1305; 39-17-1306; 39-17-1309; 39-17-1311 & 39-17-1359) and are covered under 39-17-1322

It says, "Notwithstanding 39-17-1322, ..." which is another way of saying "The rest of what I say past this point does not change what is said in 39-17-1322..." Or "The rest of what is said does not with stand 39-17-1322" It doesn't mean that 39-17-1322 does not with stand what is said, but just the opposite. 39-17-1322 only gives you protection from laws in Part 13 of Chapter 17 of Title 39 not any other violation of the law. So if you are breaking a 39-17-13xx law and it is a justifiable self-defense situation you should be covered. If your Trespassing, cooking meth, running a brothel, etc....you would not be covered.

This has been discussed at length before. It is saying that 39-17-1322 is still in effect. It means that specific part of the law does not withstand the protection in 39-17-1322. In general if you are commiting a crime you can not claim self-defense except for the protection provided in 39-17-1322 which only protects you from laws of where you can carry and other laws of that part, not any other illegal activites. Now I admit besides my opinion I am mainly going by what a state law maker told me when I asked him speicifically about this.

That's not exactly correct. If it's a felony, it does not have to be witnessed by the person, althought I would say you are open for a lot of liabilty. ..and you could take them before a magistrate yourself. ...and on the use of force On a felony you can even break in to a place if need be I AM NOT recomending any follow any course of action, this is simply posted for information sake.

Without getting into technical terms, I agree.

That is why I had used civilian myself up to this point.

I don't think he meant LEOs don't have training that others don't. I think he was just refering to the term civilian. Definitions of Civilian on the Web: a nonmilitary citizen associated with civil life or performed by persons who are not active members of the military; "civilian clothing"; "civilian life" wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn A civilian under international humanitarian law is a person who is not a member of his or her country's armed forces. ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian A person who isn't a member of the military armed forces; That which is not related to the military armed forces en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Civilian Anyone not on active duty in the military. www.agd.state.tx.us/rr/learn_guard_terms_glossary.htm Private citizen, as distinguished from a person belonging to the armed services. public.findlaw.com/library/pa-military-law.html A citizen not part of the state through participation in the military or police force. www.apheda.org.au/campaigns/burma_schools_kit/resources/1074040257_16812.html persons who take no part in hostilities, and who, while they reside in the zones, perform no work of a military character. www.bippi.org/bippi/menu_left/definitions.htm Only one mentions police along with militaty as not being civilians and it is from Australia. As far as powers, private citizens have arrest powers as well. LEOs are just paid for it.

Welcome You may want to check this post. While this won't answer all questions, it is a good start.

I would like to apologize to all, especially Punisher. My actions were not in-line with a general member let alone a Mod. I think of myself as normally able to carry on a debate and have a civilized discussion over a difference of opinion. However it seems this time I was not capable of that. This is really too little too late and I understand. I have stated my point and the reasons why and I will no longer keep on and on. May this thread carry on in peace and harmony with out me.

My point is I believe God himself could come down and tell you it is legal, but as long as these others are advising you that it is not, you will keep telling people it is illegal even though you have told me yourself that in your opinion you don't think it is. So far you have not backed up anything they have told you other than to say they have told you. Myself and others have least posted some reference material as to why we think it is legal. "ANY PERSON" Loyalty is a wonderful thing...as long as it doesn't blind you. ...and FWIW I really wasn't talking about you, since you have told me you personally think it is legal, but for those that you say keep telling you that it isn't.

Have a good trip!!

Shhhhhhh That goes against some very learned people in the Memphis area who are also instructors with lawyers and all kind of experience and cases behind them.

Here is a copy of the e-mail I got back from ASP when I asked them about civilian training. So it seems it us up to the instructor. However...there are other brands of expandable batons out there as well. Of course I know this is straight from the horses mouth, but still may not change the mind of some because someone else said different.

Here is a link to the case he is talking about. Also to clarify my posistion...it is that 39-17-1322 is still available. That is also what my State Rep told me. The "Notwithstanding" part in the self-defense law means that, that part of the self-defense law does not with stand 39-17-1322, or that 39-17-1322 trumps that particular part. But one thing to notice about this case is, it is a good example of you can be arrested and go to trial for something I think the most of us to be legal, even the judge thought it to be legal, but the DA pushed it and even appealed the dismissal and won to get a retrial.