Fallguy

Have created a new thread to continue this discussion.... http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/tennessee-politics-legislation/48243-wish-list-2011-2012-legislative-session.html

Yes...all these things can happen. But if an attorney of this caliber is willing to take the case in which if he looses his clients not only don't get anything, but are required to pay your expenses for defending the lawsuit, it probably wasn't a clear cut good shoot and maybe you shouldn't have fired in the first place and may deserve what happens next......

Me too... It may not be a good tale to you, but I would wager that out of those of use that voted for Perot, the majority would have voted for Bush has Perot not been on the ballot. Perhaps causing different results... Do I wish there were viable candidates besides a Dem or Rebp? YES!! Have I voted for non-Dem/Repb? Yes. Have I encouraged others to vote for who the feel the better candidate would be and not just one from one of the two major parties? Yes. But I'm afraid that for the near future....99% of the time it will be a D or R that gets elected. Even those that are "Tea Party" candidates have chose to run under the Republican banner and not Libertarian, Green or some other party or Independent.....

Something I've wondered myself....

Moved

I tend to agree with you....that a criminal ruling may help it does not eliminate a civil trial.

Well....Yes....since the suit would be needed to determine if it was justified or not. Also the courts have ruled that no law can prevent someones access to the courts....only what happens after a ruiling is made. However there is at least one attorney's opinon on this site (in a different thread) that has said, that a criminal courts ruling of it being justifed or the DAs decision not to file charges would carry weight in a civil court. But I admit I'd like to that proven in a court case first. ....as long as it's not "my" case...

Only if you learned anything over the last 27 years....

I agree, but am afraid it may be hard to get done. One fact alaways brought up when trying to allow carry somewhere (restaurants) has been they can always post....well if violation of a posted sign isn't seen as much of a detterent, then some may prefer to see more places off-limits by statute. Again...I agree, just afraid it could be a double-edged sword....

HvyMtl you're right in that the State could pretty much restrict the "right" to where it was almost impossiable to exercise (sound familliar?), but I think this an effort to block any future attempt to outright ban the practice. Whether any such attempt was going to be made, I'm not sure... ....and I have heard that use of PETA before...and is my personal favorite as well....

I understand Mike... But my point is that some would say the type of ammo you carry can bring more scutiny than plain ball ammo. I also agree you don't want to look like a "gun nut" if it goes to a trial.......

I think some of us may have different ideas of "modification". Technically a new trigger, barrel etc...are modifcations, but I don't think they woud carry the same type of scutiny that mods done for competition or the like would. Just as I don't think Hydra Schock, Hollow Point or other "standard" ammo would be like a homemade "hotload" So I think there are different levels here...each with their own ammount of extra liabilty they may or may not have... Just my $.02

I think you're probably right, which goes back to my whole opposistion to the OPs idea in the first place. Say....where did he go after his first and only post anyway?.... As far as a sign only preventing OC....the AG has said that a property owner can dictate the manner of carry on their property, however I'm not sure how legally binding a Non-OC sign would be. More that it just stated the owner's prefence...but as always he could tell you to leave and your would then have to.

I'm all for asking a place to remove a sign and explain my posistion etc......and would rather see a sign removed instead of asking another sign exempting HCP holders be posted...

Well I think the mention of handcuffs were because they were/are LE. Many think handcuffs carried by non-LE is a bit mall-ninja like.

I agree people can can half-baked ideas based on not having all the facts. But it seems to me posting your business to prevent the carry of firearms is a fairly straight foward thing. I mean even if they don't know the law on how to properly do it, their feelings/intentions are fairly clear.

http://www.njsp.org/info/pdf/firearms/062408_title13ch54.pdf

Here is the text of the law I mentioned above. While it doesn't prevent someone from filing a civil suit......if a criminal court has already ruled it a justified shoot...they have a very tough row to hoe... 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. .....and congrats on getting out of Jersey...

If you do not want to leave any avenue for a civil suit....don't own or use a firearm. However there is still a chance you could be sued.....if you live that is. Your best defense in a civil suit is going to be that you had a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm..... If that argument doesn't satisfy the jury, then I don't think it would matter what weapon you used or how it may have been modified.

Thoughts....well.... Private sale does not equal straw sale. A straw purchase is purchasing a firearm for someone you know can not legally purchase one themselves and then selling/giving it to them. There is not "registration" when purchasing a firearm from a FFL. Yes there is a record of the sale, but the gun is not registered. As I said above, if someone is this worried about being sued, they probably shouldn't have a firearm.

Are you famillar with T.C.A. 39-11-622? See http://www.michie.com/tennessee While no one should ignore the chance of a civil suit....if one is overly worried about being sued for the use of a firearm, carrying one and maybe even owning one isn't the thing to do. At least make peace with the idea you could be sued, so you're not thinking about it at the moment of truth....

....and I think that about sums it up...

I really don't see the purpose. The law prohibits anyone from carrying without a HCP, the only purpose for the gunbuster sign is to prevent HCP holders from carry. So if they have done that, why would they allow them to carry? If the did change their mind, all they need to do is remove the sign...not post an additional one stating an exception.

Yep... But it does seem he'll say what ever he thinks he needs to appease the person(s) in front of him at the moment, without thinking if it might contradict something he said to others earlier.

Yep...already a thread on it. This one closed.