Fallguy

+1 (or 2)

Legal posting? No, but see below.

Last time I contaced them they told me no weapons. When I went they patted down some people, others they didn't.

As long as the state has your current address you can carry regardless of what your HCP shows. If you want to get a HCP with your new address on it, you are correct you will need to apply for a duplicate, this is no big deal and you can carry until the new one arrives. When I changed my address online on the last step it gives you a page you can print out to show you have changed your address and to give to LEOs so they can verify it. Having a different address on your physical DL and HCP is no big deal, may have to explain a bit, but if the state database has your correct address shouldn't be any problem.

LOL...ok good point. Don't know how many times I've seen the officer tell someone they can go and they won't shut up and leave....

....and of course that is the flip side of living in a larger town/city...choice. While there aren't really very many positing in smaller towns (it seems) when there are, there may not always be an easy alternative, if one at all.

Funny!!

Guess that maybe an advantage of living in a smaller town, can't say I've really seen any difference...

Go to jail?!?! It's only a misdemeanor even if it is a valid sign. Punishable by fine only. But also as was said in another thread. Since it is a misdemeanor to even be cited in the first place the violation would have to happen in front of a LEO for him to cite you. If you were no longer in the posted area, there really isn't much he could do. Now the owner could prosecute himself if he chose to, but I say the odds of that are unlikely. But even if you are still in the posted area and the officer could cite you, I imagine he is going to ask the property owner what he wants, which is going to be for you to just leave 99.9% of the time in my non-professional information.

What he said...

Also it actually isn't up to the court to do anything to your HCP. They are just supposed to forward anything to the Dept of Safety for their action. It already seems some courts are lax at forwarding some information.

Maybe...I've always thought it was just most places were ignorant of the law....lol Asking is generally frowned upon because it may cause a place to legally post when they aren't currently. Also if the owner directly tells you he doesn't want you armed while there, you can't legally carry there regardless of whether it is posted or not. As I said, those signs never carried any legal weight to prohibit carry.

Oh I whole heartedly agree it could go to trial, especially a civil trial.

Actually they never had any legal effect to prohibit carry, only warned of the consequences of illegal carry. But as JayC said, not only had 39-17-1305 been repealed, but the laws that required those signs to be posted have been repealed as well.

Well isn't that when 39-11-622 would kick in? 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 So all that is needed for the immunity from civial liabilty in 39-11-622 to apply is that force in 39-11-611 (or the other SD laws besides 29-34-201) be justified. Which in your situation about the drunk intruder would seem to fit.

I'm sure if there was a way to prove some direct contribution to his actions, they would...

Totally agree...

Let's be careful on direct personal comments......

I agree thieving is a problem...and I hate a thief. Remember I'm one of the guys that wishes deadly force was an option to protect property (God bless TX), but in this case, how easy or difficult the owner made stealing the care is exactly the issue. Not as far as criminal responsibility, but civil liability. I just hope the owner is found with any liabilty....

Yeah, I've always thought the standard was whether it was reasoable for you in that situation to be in fear etc..... So yes, the you and the situation is different everytime and therefore what may or may not be reasonable...

Well remember the story of the guy who turned over his handgun at the PD (can't remember why now) for safe keeping and had a lot of trouble getting it back? So it's not unheard of to voluntarily give your handgun to LE and have trouble getting it back, let alone if it is given to them by EMS or someone else. Although I think this is the exception and not the rule.

This is not an "either or" situation... It's not like if you say the owner has some liability the thief has none. As a lawyer said earlier, TN is a shared liability state. It can be portioned out to each party. In this case they (jury) very well could say the thief is 99%-100% responsible and the owner is 1% to not at all, responsible. All this ruling did, is to allow the jury to decide, by reversing the dismissal against the owner. Again as a lawyer said, one reason it was reversed is because the owner's lawyer argued that the vehicle being stolen was not foreseeable by leaving the keys in it. For all of you that leave your keys in your car...don't you admit that it being stolen is possible? It is just a risk you are wiling to take. Had the owner's lawyer made some other argument for dismissal, it is possible the Court of Appeals may not have reversed the dismissal. I'm still betting the the owner won't be assessed much (if any) liability in this case.

Threads merged

Is this from experience? I ask because others above didn't seem to have the same problem. However the reason you state is probably what the OP was thinking when asking about giving to a Significant other or family member before your transported etc...

Hmmm, never know what happens sometimes. Yep, I usually renew at least 3-4 months out myself.