SHTF Situation??

[Guest Ggun]

after reading that case...I would say that this discussion is crazy...

In the case, the dude had an unloaded gun...hardly worth the issues he is facing. which BTW is a FELONY...if he was in IMINENT fear, he would not have described to the assailant that he is a HCP holder....he would not have placed the gun gently on the seat. He could have very easily got in his truck and locked up. Whether the defense works in all situations or not, it is risky.

this court reversed the dismissal..and now the dude is defending his right to OWN A GUN (Felon)...let alone CARRY one...

I bet that the CLOSE friends of this guy know he had other options.

my point? it isnt worth it...carry pepper spray, you do not need to get into the altercation...you need to get away from it...fight till the threat is gone, or you can get away from the threat.

we are arguing the point of carrying a baton...lol...seriously folks, if I saw the dude walking through the mall with a baton on his hip... I would laugh.

each person needs to decide for themselves if the pros outweigh the cons, and they need to seriously think through the possible ramifications and responsibility of carrying said weapons...this is a personal choice.

The original on point discussion centered around whether one can legally ASSERT the law of self defense if the person is violating the weapon carry control laws. The cited case held that the statute in question cannot be used to DEFEAT a charge, but indicates that the statute can be used to AVOID conviction.

An interesting sidenote is that I said the case INDICATES that the statute can be used. The State apparently didn't argue that point.

[Guest Chip Holland]

The case that GGun uses happened (01-30-2006) before the law relating to self-defense and deadly force (39-11-611) was changed (05-22-2007). You have to use the laws that were in effect at the time of the offense.

The law now states "Notwithstanding the provisions of § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where such person has a right to be has no duty to retreat"

Notwithstanding is a lawyer’s way of saying "despite" so what it is telling you is that if you are doing something illegal you do not have the protection of 39-17-1322. It will not apply to you because you are a criminal. It takes self-defense away from you.

This is not just my opinion, I have researched it. I have gone to sitting judges and the prosecutors who make the decision to indict a person or not and gotten their opinion. I teach the HC class at least once a week and I have had criminal and civil lawyers, prosecutors, cops and judges in my classes and they have all agreed with this analysis.

I would be careful who I get information concerning my freedom (or lack thereof). Far too often I have listened to or read people give information that I know is wrong and would result in an arrest. I offer this as an opinion, an informed opinion, but still an opinion.

[Guest truthsayer]

The case that GGun uses happened (01-30-2006) before the law relating to self-defense and deadly force (39-11-611) was changed (05-22-2007). You have to use the laws that were in effect at the time of the offense.

The law now states "Notwithstanding the provisions of § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where such person has a right to be has no duty to retreat"

Notwithstanding is a lawyer’s way of saying "despite" so what it is telling you is that if you are doing something illegal you do not have the protection of 39-17-1322. It will not apply to you because you are a criminal. It takes self-defense away from you.

This is not just my opinion, I have researched it. I have gone to sitting judges and the prosecutors who make the decision to indict a person or not and gotten their opinion. I teach the HC class at least once a week and I have had criminal and civil lawyers, prosecutors, cops and judges in my classes and they have all agreed with this analysis.

I would be careful who I get information concerning my freedom (or lack thereof). Far too often I have listened to or read people give information that I know is wrong and would result in an arrest. I offer this as an opinion, an informed opinion, but still an opinion.

Welcome to TGO, Chip. I'm glad to see you here.

[tnfan]

Thanks for the clarification.

[Fallguy]

The case that GGun uses happened (01-30-2006) before the law relating to self-defense and deadly force (39-11-611) was changed (05-22-2007). You have to use the laws that were in effect at the time of the offense.

The law now states "Notwithstanding the provisions of § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where such person has a right to be has no duty to retreat"

Notwithstanding is a lawyer’s way of saying "despite" so what it is telling you is that if you are doing something illegal you do not have the protection of 39-17-1322. It will not apply to you because you are a criminal. It takes self-defense away from you.

This is not just my opinion, I have researched it. I have gone to sitting judges and the prosecutors who make the decision to indict a person or not and gotten their opinion. I teach the HC class at least once a week and I have had criminal and civil lawyers, prosecutors, cops and judges in my classes and they have all agreed with this analysis.

I would be careful who I get information concerning my freedom (or lack thereof). Far too often I have listened to or read people give information that I know is wrong and would result in an arrest. I offer this as an opinion, an informed opinion, but still an opinion.

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.

[Guest Ggun]

The case that GGun uses happened (01-30-2006) before the law relating to self-defense and deadly force (39-11-611) was changed (05-22-2007). You have to use the laws that were in effect at the time of the offense.

The law now states "Notwithstanding the provisions of § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where such person has a right to be has no duty to retreat"

Notwithstanding is a lawyer’s way of saying "despite" so what it is telling you is that if you are doing something illegal you do not have the protection of 39-17-1322. It will not apply to you because you are a criminal. It takes self-defense away from you.

This is not just my opinion, I have researched it. I have gone to sitting judges and the prosecutors who make the decision to indict a person or not and gotten their opinion. I teach the HC class at least once a week and I have had criminal and civil lawyers, prosecutors, cops and judges in my classes and they have all agreed with this analysis.

I would be careful who I get information concerning my freedom (or lack thereof). Far too often I have listened to or read people give information that I know is wrong and would result in an arrest. I offer this as an opinion, an informed opinion, but still an opinion.

I would be careful too. As to 1322, it has not been repealed, is still on the books. I haven't seen any Court decision that holds that the new law relating to duty to retreat in certain situations destroys the specific wording the legislature enacted in 1322.

My understanding is that the new law regarding duty to retreat, etc., was to conform TN law to the "true man" defense under the statutory situations listed, vs. the "against the wall self defense" prevalent in some jurisdictions.

Also, I don't believe that one who is violating a law is legally excluded from asserting self defense. The person would just not get the added protection from the statutory schemes enacted.

But, again, all I'm doing is staying at a Holiday Inn Express tonight...

[Guest Chip Holland]

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.

Remember that it is the State lawmakers that have written these laws in such a clear and concise manner that it anybody can easily understand.

I base my opinion on the views of the men and women that will arrest you, the District Attorneys that will indict you, the Defense Attorneys that will defend you and the Judges that will oversee your trial.

[Guest canynracer]

I would be careful too. As to 1322, it has not been repealed, is still on the books. I haven't seen any Court decision that holds that the new law relating to duty to retreat in certain situations destroys the specific wording the legislature enacted in 1322.

My understanding is that the new law regarding duty to retreat, etc., was to conform TN law to the "true man" defense under the statutory situations listed, vs. the "against the wall self defense" prevalent in some jurisdictions.

Also, I don't believe that one who is violating a law is legally excluded from asserting self defense. The person would just not get the added protection from the statutory schemes enacted.

But, again, all I'm doing is staying at a Holiday Inn Express tonight...

I am not sure how we got to this point....maybe I missed the thread drift to where we switched from "Can I carry a baton" to "Is it self defense."

I am not a laywer, I am not a LEO, I am not a security guard, I am a computer nerd.

From what I understand, I, a computer nerd, a private citizen cannot carry a baton/club in public, not IN self defense...FOR self defense (if necessary).

can someone tell me if I am right or wrong?

Edited January 3, 2009 by canynracer

[Guest db99wj]

From my understanding, if you are in applebee's armed, badguy comes in, you defend your self, you could be charged with possession of a firearm in an unauthroized place, which is a class A misdemenor. You could not be charged with murder, or attempted murder or anything else, if you were found that you were defending yourself or someone else, like your family or friends. You could however, be taken to a civil trial.

That is what I have always thought anyway.

Cayn, keep your back on topic post out of here!

[The Average Joe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Punisher84

"It is better to not eat at Chili's, then to be butt raped in prison for 25 to life."

Guys... this really needs to be quoted and mentioned again in this thread... it is THAT funny!!! BWAHAHahaahaha!!

That would be great in a fortune cookie!

Man, that quote is just plain marketable...I'm seein' bumperstickers, t-shirts, coffee mugs...and those little rubbery bracelets they pass out at church retreats.

[Guest Ggun]

I am not sure how we got to this point....maybe I missed the thread drift to where we switched from "Can I carry a baton" to "Is it self defense."

I am not a laywer, I am not a LEO, I am not a security guard, I am a computer nerd.

From what I understand, I, a computer nerd, a private citizen cannot carry a baton/club in public, not IN self defense...FOR self defense (if necessary).

can someone tell me if I am right or wrong?

I will. Your wrong, the discussion is whether the state has legislated the right to defeat conviction of carrying a weapon, say in a bar, if the person used or displayed A HANDGUN in justifiable self defense and the person is a victim.

Some say yes, some say no.

There is a state law that says so.

But, that's an interesting point, because 39-17-1322 doesn't give the same protection if you use your baton.

[Punisher84]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Punisher84

"It is better to not eat at Chili's, then to be butt raped in prison for 25 to life."

Man, that quote is just plain marketable...I'm seein' bumperstickers, t-shirts, coffee mugs...and those little rubbery bracelets they pass out at church retreats.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! I'll cut you and Creeky in for a slice since you two have give me the will to carry it on.

I think to sum this all up, regardless of what we each think, or think we know, there isn't alot of case law on either the baton or 39-17-1322 item in the past year. As Chip pointed out, the lawmakers aren't exactly making things super easy to understand. I mean give me a law that says, "If you carrying you gun somewhere you ain't s'posed to, but som crazy sum bitch comes in cappin' asses and you cap his, we ain't chargin ya".

Edited January 3, 2009 by Punisher84

[Guest canynracer]

I will. Your wrong, the discussion is whether the state has legislated the right to defeat conviction of carrying a weapon, say in a bar, if the person used or displayed A HANDGUN in justifiable self defense and the person is a victim.

Some say yes, some say no.

There is a state law that says so.

But, that's an interesting point, because 39-17-1322 doesn't give the same protection if you use your baton.

youre right, i mixed threads...thanks for straightening that out.

now, I will reply to the if I carry a handgun...

No, because its against the law... I feel that the defense says if you are not doing something illegal to begin with, you can use the defense. But, when you walked in armed...you broke the law.

So....that being said...who wants to test against my theory...

I ask, because...the LIKELYHOOD that you will have to use that gun for self defense in the resturaunt is low, yes, its there, but it is VERY low...on the other hand...the LIKELYHOOD of someone seeing your gun while you are breaking the law, is much much higher.

again, my opinion...and my choice. I carry pepper spray into these types of places. And, I will bug the hell outta my reps to change the law.

[Guest Revelator]

From my understanding, if you are in applebee's armed, badguy comes in, you defend your self, you could be charged with possession of a firearm in an unauthroized place, which is a class A misdemenor. You could not be charged with murder, or attempted murder or anything else, if you were found that you were defending yourself or someone else, like your family or friends. You could however, be taken to a civil trial.

That is what I have always thought anyway.

Cayn, keep your back on topic post out of here!

It depends on whether the shooting is ruled justified or not. That is the first issue. In a nutshell, it goes like this:

Justified = no charges

Unjustified = lots of charges

You know, maybe it's just me but the language in -1322 is pretty darn clear that you will not be charged with a violation under part 13 if you use your weapon in justifiable self defense. I don't know. That's what it looks like it says. To me, anyway.

[Guest canynracer]

Thanks Patrick!!

OK, so now that we all agree that IF you used it in Self Defense you might be alright....lets take the self defense out of it.

carry in resturaunt= illegal

probability you will get "caught" if not REALLY CAREFULLY CONCEALED = high

**Side note to Patrick- new site looks awesome!!!!

[Punisher84]

It depends on whether the shooting is ruled justified or not. That is the first issue. In a nutshell, it goes like this:

Justified = no charges

Unjustified = lots of charges

You know, maybe it's just me but the language in -1322 is pretty darn clear that you will not be charged with a violation under part 13 if you use your weapon in justifiable self defense. I don't know. That's what it looks like it says. To me, anyway.

See the thing that hangs me is the "notwithstanding". It's like it's saying despite what this law SAID, this new laws trumps the old. That, as well, is just my take.

[Guest Revelator]

Like I've said before (twice, I think), the self defense law does not in any way limit -1322. I know you feel differently, and apparently others do too, and that's fine. Well, not really, but I'm not going to argue about it. It's something that none of us will probably ever have to worry about.

[Guest Ggun]

Remember that it is the State lawmakers that have written these laws in such a clear and concise manner that it anybody can easily understand.

I base my opinion on the views of the men and women that will arrest you, the District Attorneys that will indict you, the Defense Attorneys that will defend you and the Judges that will oversee your trial.

Yea, well, that's oppressive I see. But, it doesn't seem sane that the entire legal community where you are sees that the legislative intent to enact T.C.A 39-17-1322, with SPECIFIC language is nullified by a GENERAL reference to it in another section of the legislative code.

I'm just saying...it's a specific exception to the offenses set out in that part for those carrying a handgun, it reflects public policy of self defense and defense of others, and it is the intent of the legislature.

How hard is this? Hard.

[Guest Chip Holland]

See the thing that hangs me is the "notwithstanding". It's like it's saying despite what this law SAID, this new laws trumps the old. That, as well, is just my take.

That is exactly what it says. Could it raise a Consitutional question. Can the State legislate your right to defend yourself away. I don't know and that is the question I get from defense attorneys. It has a great potential for appeal but in order to appeal you have to be convicted and that could mean time in jail and the courts do not move swiftly. Do you want to risk being the one who sits in jail waiting to be the test case?

I tell my classes to "do what is right and obey the law"

[Punisher84]

It's something that none of us will probably ever have to worry about.

That was pretty much where I stood. What bothers me is someone looking at that provision as some ace in the hole to break the law and came out ok, because like Canyn said, the chance for someone to just be caught carrying and prosecuted is much greater.

Each their own, at least those that disagree are just going on the side of caution as opposed to advocating breaking the law in general.

[Punisher84]

I tell my classes to "do what is right and obey the law"

[Guest canynracer]

Yea, well, that's oppressive I see. But, it doesn't seem sane that the entire legal community where you are sees that the legislative intent to enact T.C.A 39-17-1322, with SPECIFIC language is nullified by a GENERAL reference to it in another section of the legislative code.

I'm just saying...it's a specific exception to the offenses set out in that part for those carrying a handgun, it reflects public policy of self defense and defense of others, and it is the intent of the legislature.

How hard is this? Hard.

LOL...what is you do again where YOU ARE??

OK all the legal mubo jumbo crap had me reading...What about this....here is the law for self defense...

( (1) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.

(2) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, if: blahblahblah,,,,,

lets for a second forget the "Notwithstanding" part away...and bring this part "and is in a place where the person has a right to be "

If youre carrying illegally, you have no right to be there.

Edited January 3, 2009 by canynracer

[Fallguy]

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.

Edited January 3, 2009 by Fallguy

[Guest canynracer]

LMFAO..... :confused:HUH??

oh, NM you edited it..hehehehe

Edited January 3, 2009 by canynracer

[Guest canynracer]

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.

Definitions of Trespass on the Web:

• enter unlawfully on someone's property; "Don't trespass on my land!"
  
• make excessive use of; "You are taking advantage of my good will!"; "She is trespassing upon my privacy"
  
• break the law
  
• sin: commit a sin; violate a law of God or a moral law
  
• a wrongful interference with the possession of property (personal property as well as realty), or the action instituted to recover damages
  
• transgress: pass beyond (limits or boundaries)
  
• entry to another's property without right or permission
  wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
  
• Trespass (Fr. trespas, a crime, properly a stepping across, from Lat. trans, across, and passus, step, cf. ...
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trespass
  

Edited January 3, 2009 by canynracer