Welcome to TNGunOwners.com

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

JsLangley

Castle doctrine question

51 posts in this topic
19 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

However… the only person responsible for knowing what the law is, in the state you are in is you. So if anyone has concerns; they should check a source they trust.

That is the same person that will suffer the consequences.  There are few absolutes and no guarantees with the law.  The color of justice is most often 'green'.  As I pointed out in another thread, "permitless carry" is addressed by the DOS in the new HCP power point.  After several discussions I can assure you that the DOS considers the regulation of an FFL per USC 922 valid reason for someone under 21 NOT to be able to possess a handgun in a POV.  I am not saying it is right or wrong, but the simple thing is to have a HCP and avoid having a handgun until permit is in hand.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, chances R said:

That is the same person that will suffer the consequences.  There are few absolutes and no guarantees with the law.  The color of justice is most often 'green'.  As I pointed out in another thread, "permitless carry" is addressed by the DOS in the new HCP power point.  After several discussions I can assure you that the DOS considers the regulation of an FFL per USC 922 valid reason for someone under 21 NOT to be able to possess a handgun in a POV.  I am not saying it is right or wrong, but the simple thing is to have a HCP and avoid having a handgun until permit is in hand.  

So… the Tennessee Department of Safety is looking at the Federal law pertaining to FFL's to apply a violation that our TCA does not have? Are they going to charge them under some Federal law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know......just the messenger.  Spoke to the ATF, KPD, several not wanting to be identified LEO, state's attorney, etc inside administration and that is the answer.  Simply did not make sense to me, nor is it the way I understand the state law.  But if I am going to teach the HCP class that is the song I sing.  As most things/laws, if you disagree, it will cost you to prove your point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chances R said:

Don't know......just the messenger.  Spoke to the ATF, KPD, several not wanting to be identified LEO, state's attorney, etc inside administration and that is the answer.  Simply did not make sense to me, nor is it the way I understand the state law.  But if I am going to teach the HCP class that is the song I sing.  As most things/laws, if you disagree, it will cost you to prove your point.

That's preposterous. By default, federal and state laws legislate adult behavior, either by proscription or prescription, unless specifically worded to affect juveniles. If 39-17-1307 were only for 21 year old adults instead of 18 year old adults, it would have to specify such.

And certainly, there's nothing in US 18 922 that you mention that is the least bit relevant to TCA 39-17-1307. And ATF has nothing to do with it. And any LEO who claims that is an idiot also, and could well get his department in real dutch for any arrests he might make on that basis. And frankly, I find it preposterous that any actual state attorney of any echelon would claim that either, but who knows.

IMNSHO, you seem to just be making a lot out of some state factotum's doofus glitch on a slide show regarding 21 year olds and handguns.

At any rate, rather than sing a sour song in your classes, get your state rep or senator to get an opinion from the AG and I'm sure he'll say it applies to any any adult in this state, resident or not.

- OS

Edited by Oh Shoot
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I’m not an attorney and don’t play one on TV, but it says you are exempt if you are carrying or possessing in a vehicle. As a former cop if I was arresting someone for having the gun on them I would need some language in the statute telling that was a violation; there isn’t any.
However… the only person responsible for knowing what the law is, in the state you are in is you. So if anyone has concerns; they should check a source they trust.


Good point, I'm with you on that.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

opps double

Edited by Oh Shoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Oh Shoot said:

That's preposterous. By default, federal and state laws legislate adult behavior, either by proscription or prescription, unless specifically worded to affect juveniles. If 39-17-1307 were only for 21 year old adults instead of 18 year old adults, it would have to specify such.

And certainly, there's nothing in US 18 922 that you mention that is the least bit relevant to TCA 39-17-1307. And ATF has nothing to do with it. And any LEO who claims that is an idiot also, and could well get his department in real dutch for any arrests he might make on that basis. And frankly, I find it preposterous that any actual state attorney would claim that either, perhaps you spoke to some paralegal or something.

IMNSH O, you seem to just be making a lot out of some state factotum's doofus glitch on a slide show regarding 21 year olds and handguns.

- OS

Well having made the recent contacts and relevant calls, as well as having a letter from a state's attorney, I will simply tell anyone that is the way DOS says it will be taught in the HCP class.  If you don't mind the time, trouble, and cost, go ahead and take a chance at carrying a loaded pistol in a POV if you are under 21 and see how it turns out.  You are mistaken about 1307 and the relevancy of 922.  Accordingly, the attorney says it prohibits a FFL selling handguns or handgun ammo to anyone under 21; that is the basis for their opinion/position.  I never said I agreed with it, but that is their position.  Got a problem with it........call the State.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, chances R said:

Well having made the recent contacts and relevant calls, as well as having a letter from a state's attorney, I will simply tell anyone that is the way DOS says it will be taught in the HCP class.  If you don't mind the time, trouble, and cost, go ahead and take a chance at carrying a loaded pistol in a POV if you are under 21 and see how it turns out.  You are mistaken about 1307 and the relevancy of 922.  Accordingly, the attorney says it prohibits a FFL selling handguns or handgun ammo to anyone under 21; that is the basis for their opinion/position.  I never said I agreed with it, but that is their position.  Got a problem with it........call the State.  

Interesting. If your District Attorney says an 18-20 year old can’t have a handgun in car because a FFL can’t transfer one to them, then they would probably also think one of our members in your area was violating the law by selling a handgun to them. What do you tell your students about that?

I’m the first person to say if you have a legal question ask the District Attorney or the Police Department Command Officers in your area. I’ve see DA’s and States Attorneys make some pretty wild twists of the law. I’m with OS on this; I think they are wrong. But even if you win in court; it costs a lot to be a test dummy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, I also agree with OS and you that they are wrong.  I have also mentioned in another thread about being careful with private transfers to the 18-20 group for this same reason.  I am just simply putting the info out from my research, not opinion.  Use it or not.  At the top of my class I state I am not an attorney and not all things are as they seem.  It is the best advice I have from training/ reading and trying to stay on top of a very fluid subject.  They should seek professional legal advice when concerned.  

Again I don't like not being able to be more specific and I am simply trying to be informative, not argumentative.  One step further, IMO, the DOS line of thought would fly counter to the military exemption for permits for 18-20yo but I don't want to muddy the water with reason.

Edited by chances R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, chances R said:

Look, I also agree with OS and you that they are wrong.  I have also mentioned in another thread about being careful with private transfers to the 18-20 group for this same reason.  I am just simply putting the info out from my research, not opinion.  Use it or not.  At the top of my class I state I am not an attorney and not all things are as they seem.  It is the best advise I have from traning/ reading and trying to stay on top of a very fluid subject.  They should seek professional legal advise when concerned.  

Again I don't like not being able to be more specific and I am simply trying to be informative, not argumentative.  One step further, IMO, the DOS line of thought would fly counter to the military exemption for permits for 18-20yo but I don't want to muddy the water with reason.

I’m not trying to be argumentative either, sorry if it comes across that way; it’s just a discussion.

I can understand why a Police Officer would not want to be identified; most Departments have rules against anyone other than Departments spokespeople giving advice or information to the public. But the DOS, and the DA should be more than willing to make public whatever their interpretation of the law is. If you have a letter from the DA, he obviously isn’t trying to keep anything secret. Does this letter address what we are discussing?

If someone in Knox County is going to be charged with transferring a handgun to a 20 year old in a private sale that would be a good piece of information to have as it has come up here multiple times. Do you have written information stating that? My question to them would be; what statute are they going to be charged under? I don’t pretend to be an expert on Federal law, but the only thing I can find on transfer by a non-licensee that addresses age specifically says 18. That’s just looking through the part of the United States Code that contains 922.

We can’t ask for an AG opinion, but if we have evidence that a local DA is putting out that information, maybe we can get someone that can ask to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has nothing to do with a local DA, only the DOS/ HCP division at the state.  My review of 1317 makes reference to 922 (g) specifically.  In turn (g) seems to specify only FFLs not private individuals.  Furthermore 922 as a whole mentions minors (<18) and seems to avoid specificity of 18-20.  I do have a letter that I will share with anyone in person, but not on a forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has everything to with a DA. The local DA or a Federal Prosecutor would be the only ones to file charges. Without them filing charges how would the DOS or the HCP division know about it to take any action?

None of us know for sure; hence the discussion. If you have proof that you want to keep secret; that’s fine, just post what they said and who said it. If they sent you a letter they obviously have no concerns about being identified.

I’m just trying to determine if this is a credible source (DA) or someone from DOS playing fast and loose with their interpretations of the law. If someone that has the authority to charge someone is saying this; or if it’s in a training presentation made by the state, we might be able to get a politician to request an AG opinion. Still not binding law, but as close as we could get.

Wouldn’t you like to know for sure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I have said, sources and a memo address this topic.  It is not addressed to me and was given to me with the specific request not to share it.  I may have already compromised that trust to a degree as my position is probably the same as yours and just wanted to let it be known.  My last post explained their position and why.  I am over 21 as are all of my students and really therefore not a big concern of mine.  Permitless carry is not a big concern of mine, but this forum may help keep someone out of hot water.  I also will mention that an ATF agent and a KPD officer had the same kneejerk reaction to an under 21 person in possession of a handgun.  How many have been arrested and charged is unknown to me.  I will tell you the memo was written by an attorney fwiw.  I would welcome a specific AG opinion on this, but how well has that worked out for the Knoxville Fair?  It would seem to me that permits for active duty/honorably discharged military would have been self-explanatory and by common sense make this not an issue.  Have also heard that may be tossed around during this session.  Maybe something legislatively in non-ambiguous language would be the real solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DaveTN said:

....

We can’t ask for an AG opinion, but if we have evidence that a local DA is putting out that information, maybe we can get someone that can ask to do it.

This sort of thing really pisses me off, some middle level drone making some judgement with absolutely no basis in law, federal or state. None.

Might be better for Chances to approach his rep/senator for any opinion since he is vested in the HCP process, but I'lll try through my rep first. He's not bad on gun stuff, though not exactly gung ho, and he has anwered all my emails in the past with personal response.

I'll see if he'll ask Slatery's official opinion on:

- is there any difference under TN law for and 18-20 year-old to possess a handgun than for a 21 year-old?

- does section (e) of 39-17-1307 (exception for firearm possession in vehicle) include all adults, or only those 21 years old?

- does section (e) of 39-17-1307 (exception for firearm possession in vehicle) make any distinction between long guns and handguns?

And I'll tell him what's up with the DOS training regimen regarding this, see if he or Slatery will do anything about it.

- OS

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Memo does state long guns permissible.  As we all know the law states 'firearms'. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh shoot that would be great. If they give u a few helpful answers I would greatly appreciate you sharing them on here

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Oh Shoot said:

This sort of thing really pisses me off, some middle level drone making some judgement with absolutely no basis in law, federal or state. None.

Might be better for Chances to approach his rep/senator for any opinion since he is vested in the HCP process, but I'lll try through my rep first. He's not bad on gun stuff, though not exactly gung ho, and he has anwered all my emails in the past with personal response.

I'll see if he'll ask Slatery's official opinion on:

- is there any difference under TN law for and 18-20 year-old to possess a handgun than for a 21 year-old?

- does section (e) of 39-17-1307 (exception for firearm possession in vehicle) include all adults, or only those 21 years old?

- does section (e) of 39-17-1307 (exception for firearm possession in vehicle) make any distinction between long guns and handguns?

And I'll tell him what's up with the DOS training regimen regarding this, see if he or Slatery will do anything about it.

- OS

 

That would be helpful to have an opinion on since I have some youngsters that will be in that age bracket soon. If you don't get any interest from your rep, I can bring it to mine. He takes a positive interest in 2A issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Wingshooter said:

That would be helpful to have an opinion on since I have some youngsters that will be in that age bracket soon. If you don't get any interest from your rep, I can bring it to mine. He takes a positive interest in 2A issues.

I'll get it done today, will report progress (or not). Judging by past communication my rep (Eddie Smith) should give me some indication of what to expect in a day or three.

- OS

Edited by Oh Shoot
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I emailed Senator Bill Ketron and Representative Bryan Terry this morning. Bryan Terry emailed back that he would forward the questions to the Attorney General.

The more people that ask, the better chance we have of getting an AG opinion.

You can find the legislators for your area here:

http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/legislators/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks DaveTN I emailed senator ken yager as well. I haven't gotten a reply yet but when I do I'll let everyone know what he says. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll give Eddie Smith a ping over the weekend just to make sure he did indeed contact Slatery with at least the 3 pertinent legal questions.

- OS

Edited by Oh Shoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

Connect With Us

The Fine Print

Tennessee Gun Owners (TNGunOwners.com) is the premier Community and Discussion Forum for gun owners, firearm enthusiasts, sportsmen and Second Amendment proponents in the state of Tennessee and surrounding region.
TNGunOwners.com (TGO) is a presentation of Enthusiast Productions. The TGO state flag logo and the TGO tri-hole "icon" logo are trademarks of Tennessee Gun Owners. The TGO logos and all content presented on this site may not be reproduced in any form without express written permission. The opinions expressed on TGO are those of their authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the site's owners or staff.
Before engaging in any transaction of goods or services on TGO, all parties involved must know and follow the local, state and Federal laws regarding those transactions. TGO makes no claims, guarantees or assurances regarding any such transactions.