Fallguy

Can't argue with that...

Here is the actual law... 39-11-622. Justification for use of force — Exceptions — Immunity from civil liability. (a) (1) A person who uses force as permitted in §§ 39-11-611 — 39-11-614 or § 29-34-201, is justified in using such force and is immune from civil liability for the use of such force, unless: (A) The person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in § 39-11-106 who: (i) Was acting in the performance of the officer's official duties; and (ii) Identified the officer in accordance with any applicable law; or (iii) The person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer; or ( The force used by the person resulted in property damage to or the death or injury of an innocent bystander or other person against whom the force used was not justified. ( The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by a person in defense of any civil action brought against the person based upon the person's use of force, if the court finds that the defendant was justified in using such force pursuant to §§ 39-11-611 — 39-11-614 or § 29-34-201. From: http://www.michie.com/tennessee So it does say in part (a) if you are "justified in using such force" that you are "immune from civil liability" but AFAIK it has never been determined for sure or tested in court if that if simply not being charged by the DA or a No Bill returned by a Grand Jury is enough to establish "justification" for a civil trial. There have been several court rulings that say a law can not block a persons access to the courts, In other words 39-11-622 couldn't say a person "Can not sue" because that would be blocking the persons access to the court system. Of course the civil court judge could dismiss it right away I guess. My line of thought has been no attorney of any caliaber would take the civil case if you have already been cleared criminally. Because if they loose at the civil trial, not only do that not get any thing, they have to pay all your expenses etc... as covered in part ( So it's not really a "let's roll the dice and see what happens" situation like some lawsuits are...

+1

All I can say is.... http://state.tn.us/sos/acts/106/pub/pc0101.pdf

If so it would seem the instructor either doesn't know the law and/or is violating it. However I can believe that, when the law changed that allowed us to carry loaded (minus one in the chamber) long guns in private vehicles, I talked with an instructor that had no idea. I don't guess there is a means for the state to notify instructors of law changes and it is up to them to educate themselves like anyone else.

Yes, it seems renewals (and new permits for that matter) are being processed much faster than they used to be. As far as your edit...that seems to be something new within the last few years as well...I know in the past when I renewed the new permit was good for 4 years from the date of issue, even if that was later than the original expiration date. However now it seems the expiration date stays the same.

Well said... ...and as far as Castle Doctrine/Self-Defense and your car go.... Yes, if someone is trying to break into your car while you are in it, the same presumption applies as if they were trying to break into your house. But the law still does not allow you to have a loaded firearm in your car without a HCP. Also the law allows property owners to prohibit the carry/possession of firearms and to my knowledge no property owner has ever been held liable for any damages because of that.

Yep... http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/newsworthy-reports/51487-glock-sales-surge-after-az-shootings.html This one closed

I am moving this from the Carry Prohibited Locations sub-forum until it can be confirmed in person by someone. When/if that is done, a new post can be created that conforms to the format suggest in the Read First: http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/carry-prohibited-locations/41564-faq-how-sub-forum-works.html post.

One problem at a time now... Have you tried clicking anyway though? Should still open the thread. I did think it was a forum software thing and not a broswer thing though....

No need to leave this one open...

I like 'em too. How are they a problem? Just don't mouse over the link..... ...and keeping the cursor to the right should help....

LOL...actually got a e-mail for your post. I'm also subsribed to a few sub-forums and sometimes get their daily e-mail and sometimes not. I know Dave says the system is sending them out and I don't doubt that, but just figure if it was my ISP or spam filter or something like that on my end, it would be blocking all of them, not just some.

I don't think a notice for that is sent out...but not sure. Oh...and I didn't get an e-mail there was a new post in this thread, although I have at other times....

I tend to agree. Until the law change Handgun info was recorded and the state did have rules in place for those that wanted to "qualify" with another handgun, so how else to do that but to offer it.

Wow....maybe that is what my problem was. Got to where it was faster for me to scroll to the top of the page than click the "Top" button at the bottom of the thread, becaues it seemed like the page reloaded. Thanks!! I use FB all the time and do TGO, but usually don't crossover much.

Perhaps Me either, early 1997 for me.

If they even ask for it they are breaking the law, so I hope they don't ask for it or record it anywhere. Where does it say that a handgun must be double action? I don't think it says that in the law or rules anywhere. Don't see how now, since there is no record of the type gun you used to get your permit., But this has been discussed at length in other threads. No, not just you does seem to be a hot topic at times...lol

To be fair in the Handgun Safety Course rules http://www.tennessee.gov/sos/rules/1340/1340-02/1340-02-03.pdf Rule 1340-2-3-.05(10) says: Qualification with more than one (1) handgun: (a) If, while undergoing the handgun safety instruction, a student desires to qualify with a different make, model or caliber of handgun, they are required only to take the four (4) hour range instructional portion of the Handgun Safety Course; and ( A certificate of completion will be completed under the provisions of 1340-2-3-.11. Now whether that rule will change in the next revision I'm not sure. The copy of the rules online are from 2001 and don't include the new Alcohol Awarness requirment in the class. So when they revise them, they may remove the above rule.

Necessary No. ...and to be honest I never saw the point. But as others have pointed out the law has changed and now there is no information about the handgun you used in the HCP class, so for those that have got one after that point don't see how it could come up later.

Very good points!! (all 3 )

Well I don't have a bazooka anyway... ...lol Also in the spirit of full disclosure my carry weapon is 100% stock as well. While I don't want anyone to have to shoot anyone and then attempted to be sued, it would be nice if there was some precident, ruilng or something that no criminal charges in a SD shooting automatically kicked in the civil protection in 39-11-622.

Yep...definetly a difference in the burden of proof in a civil trial and criminal trial. Also don't disagree with you said. Just more of my naive thinking though.....if I can show the jury I was in reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm or death.....it really doesn't matter what I've done to the weapon of even if I used a bazooka......right? Another thing that has been debated and I still don't know if there is a clear cut answer is...If a DA decides not to prosecute and/or a Grand Jury returns a No Bill is that enough for the purposes of 39-11-622 to be considered a justified shoot already?

Nah, It's happened to me as well. lol