JayC

In all fairness, you can get caught out at odds times without violating the rule of dumb. We had an alarm go off at one of our businesses 3 weeks ago, and I got a call and had to drive down there at 2am to meet the police and let them in. False alarm, but I still had to go. I didn't need to stop for gas, but I could have. So there are rare times responsible adults have to be out late at night.

I disagree, Harwell would have a lot harder of a time holding back 2nd amendment laws that could be used to win political capital forcing the governor to veto the bill, and the legislature over riding the veto. But you're right, getting rid of Harwell needs to be the goal, and depending on who gets elected as Governor the next time around she may well fall out of favor.

Or elect a democratic governor, so the republican legislature can use 2nd amendment laws as a wedge issues.

What DA is going to want to go to bat on a death ruled justified by the county coroner? Can you imagine the field day a defense attorney would have? Unless there was something very strange going on I think that would pretty much guarantee reasonable doubt.

IANAL, but to echo what David said, but since they don't define residence requirements in the carry law, it most likely means the requirements under their voting law/drivers license law. I'm pretty sure as a full time student she's not required to become an AL resident, although it might not be a 'bad' idea if it reduces her in state tuition, getting a permit in AL is much easier than getting a permit in TN. So if it's advantageous to become an AL resident, getting an AL permit would be the last of my worries.

I don't think that is true.. If you found a republican with a name starting with a letter before H, and made some stink about her anti-gun record and desire to increase taxes, she'd probably loose. Then who cares if we hold the seat in the general or not.

IANAL, but under TN state law, unless it's YOUR home and curtilage, it's still illegal to carry a firearm, concealed or openly. The chances you'll get arrested are slim and none, but if something goes wrong why risk the extra charge being added on? Curtilage generally means the house, porch, fenced in yard, and any outbuildings meant for human use.

Yeah something is not right about this picture at all...

Two things, the TFA poisoned the well with the current legislature, by pushing to create a 'protected' class of employee. Second, all we need to do to fix the current log jam, is have somebody primary Beth Harwell and then loose to a democrat in the general election. Problem solved.

IANAL, carrying on private land even with the owners permission is generally considered illegal, there are a number of exceptions but without more information it's impossible to say if any of them would apply. But, asking a bunch of people to show up armed some of which are LEO's seems odd. Are you training, protecting livestock, or otherwise involved in a sporting purpose? Because those would be your best bet for legally being armed. At work is another story, there is a provision in the law to carry at your 'place of business', without a permit, this was used by businesses to allow their employees to be armed back before the HCP law, without knowing more details it's likely you qualify under that provision of the law but it's limited to your 'place of business'. Why not just go get a permit and be done with it?

I'm not suggesting that any sane DA would go to bat on any of those cases, but without a doubt the way the law is currently written, carrying a firearm would be a violation of the law. I've been complaining to my state Senator for 5 or 6 years about the need to fix this law, because of having a business in close proximity to a large private university. If we look at previous AG opinions on similar matters involving school activities at public parks, those opinions appear to be wide in scope and clearly would include a sports team spending the night in a hotel, or a restaurant where the school bus stopped for lunch on the way back from a field trip. One example used was a park was a no carry zone because students where allowed to eat lunch in the park on nice days, and during those times the park was considered 'in use' by the school. The law is very poorly written, just about any change would make it a marked improvement.

State law only allows for firearms to be used for instructional and ceremonial purposes but, I'm splitting hairs, I'm sure some 'competitive' shooting could be instructional in nature and might be covered. The instructional exception to the law is meant to allow Hunter Safety course (the shooting part) to be allow in school, it's my understanding that is the legislative intent.

Doesn't matter according to state law as currently written any land in use by a school, or college (public or private) is off limits to regular firearms use. There are only 4 exceptions that your average person would fall into: 1. You have an HCP and leave the handgun in your vehicle when visiting the event. 2. You have an HCP and are dropping off/picking up a student and stay in the vehicle while in possession of the firearm. 3. You are handling the firearm for the purpose of sanctioned event instruction students on it's use (ie the Hunter Safety exception) 4. You're handling the firearm as part of a school sanctioned ceremony (ie the color guard exception) 5. You're a member of JROTC/shooting team then you're allowed to handle firearms are part of your class/team duties. While there are lots of other exceptions, most are for law enforcement, special school security guards, and other authorized employees. Long and short, school sanctioned event, including stopping to eat lunch, or having a birthday party at a local restaurant (with only adult teachers present) are roving felony zones under current state law.

IANAL, but the plain reading of the law clearly makes it illegal to have and use a firearm on the property while a school event is being conducted. As you said 39-17-1309b1 clearly includes any land in use by the board of education, school, or college: Not knowing the exact make up of the event's students, this is the only exception that would seem to apply in anyway shape or form (other than the general law enforcement performing their official duties). 39-17-1309e5: The adults providing instructions to the students are probably safe, the students themselves are safe, anybody else carrying or using a loaded firearm is at risk under the current wording of the law. As currently written there are roving no gun zones that no reasonable person could know about, and it's worded in such a way that not just activities by teenage aged students that cause these zones, official college club activities, and employee birthday lunches at a restaurant could in theory be counted as well. Now, the chances a DA goes to bat on any of this? Slim to none, but I wouldn't want to be the test case.

It was my turn, you've caught a couple of mistakes... Truth is we probably know state firearm laws better than 90% of attorneys in TN

39-17-1314b2: 39-11-611 and 39-17-1322 both allow you to expressly use a firearm for self defense. While some might argue that 39-17-1322 only protects you from state charges, I'd argue that since the state allows cities and counties to have laws against discharging a firearm under 39-17-1314, activities protected by 39-17-1322 are exempted from the purview of the cities/counties. Either way 39-11-611 allows you to use deadly force or the threat of deadly force, which would clearly be covered under 1314b2 removing the ability of cities to charge you if you're involved in a self defense shooting.

Not really.

Doesn't stop them from checking the TDOS HCP list which is public record. And I believe appeals records are kept for longer than 48 hours and this is legal under the law, but I maybe mistaken on that. Agreed, I stand corrected.

1. Scaring somebody away IS a valid form of self defense. You're allowed to use both deadly for and the THREAT of deadly force if you have a reasonable fear of imminent death. Shooting into the air is clearly a threat of deadly force, just as pointing a firearm at somebody is. How do we know this, if you come to my house and start to break in and I yell down I've got a gun, and I'll shoot you, no crime. If I walk up to you on the street and say I've got a gun, and I'm going to shoot you, there is a crime. 2. We're talking about the same case, and the judge ruled because he didn't remove the gun from the holster he didn't employ it under 39-17-1322, went on to say in that ruling that if the man had removed the gun from the holster and had a reasonable fear of imminent death he would have been covered. But the fact he did not unholstered the firearm the judge believe no such reasonable fear existed. 3+4 39-11-611 appears to cover the truck and trailer, otherwise what vehicle do you know of other than a trailer is designed to only transport property?

IANAL, but I can read Ok, so lets bring out the law and look at it. 39-11-611a9 defines a vehicle as: While I can't find any case law on the subject a trailer connected to a truck is considered a single vehicle, and both the parts able to carry people and property are protected by the 39-11-611. Who knows how the judge rules, but by plain reading of the law is 39-11-611 would seem to apply. The DA is free to attack the Presumption but it's a very high road to climb, and in this case would be virtually impossible IMHO, since all the defense has to say, is look they had a gun, they came back and shot him, if he had used less force they might have shot him right away. Remember DA has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he wasn't in fear for his life, kinda hard when these guys SHOT at him. We have case law that says just clearing the holster is an act of self defense under 39-17-1322, clearly shooting in the air was intended to make the threat run away, and therefore remove the threat. It was clearly a STUPID way to remove the threat, but it sure looks like an act of self defense to me. As for shooting people for stealing your stuff, you're right... but if they break into my garage and I catch them unlawful in my garage on or my curtilage, it's the same as if I found them in my house trying to steal. It's assumed under the law that I have a reasonable fear of imminent death. The fact that they're stealing out of my car/garage/home does not remove their presumption under the law. If the shooting was self defense, he can't be charged under the local ordinance because of state preemption. But my guess is this guys attorney will tell him to pay the fine which can't be more than $50 to $100 and not risk a judge ruling the shooting into the air wasn't self defense, pissing off the local DA and the DA deciding to go to bat on more chargers. My point is why STUPID shooting into the air is probably still considered self defense under state law.

1. I don't think a DA can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the truck driver wasn't in fear of his life. That is a very hard hill to climb legally. See below why this standard of evidence probably applies. 2. Pulling a firearm out of a holster is considered self defense under TN case law (note not even point it at the suspect), firing at the suspect (while dumb) and not hitting them is obviously covered as self defense. I don't see how firing warning shots - into the air or ground, etc isn't self defense, and in general it seems to have worked, because the bad guys ran away, and only later returned. I'd think it would be pretty easy to make the case to a judge firing into the air was meant to chase the threat off. 3. See above I don't see how you find a judge with current case law that would rule firing a firearm with the intent to case away a bad guy wasn't a form of self defense. And there is some VERY good case law going back 50 years on police officers firing warning shots being ruled self defense in nature. 4. DaveTN is wrong IMHO, a vehicle under state law is the same as your home, if the bad guys forcible entered the vehicle (opening an unlocked window or door is forcible entry) then the castle doctrine kicks in under state law, and he would be presumed to have a reasonable fear of his life. Keep in mind you don't have to be IN the car or house at the time entry is made, only that you have a reasonable belief that an unlawful entry WAS made. That appears to be the case here. Remember that state law was changed 2 years ago to better clarify that while you can shoot somebody to ONLY protect property, just because they're stealing your property does not remove your self defense protections under both castle doctrine AND stand your ground doctrine. Finally, while most of us feel shooting shots into the air is stupid and a bad way to protect yourself, what do you think the chances are you going to find a jury of average citizens who think shooting into the air isn't self defense. Remember we just got rid of a sitting Vice President that gave a speech stating that shooting 2 blasts of a shotgun into the air was all the self defense most people need. I just don't think the DA really wants to go to bat over this case, the likelihood of a not guilty verdict is pretty high, or worse a judge rules the shooting into the air was an act of self defense and the DA has a near impossible task of proving there was no fear. We'll have to wait and see.

Then why doesn't the TBI look at HCP data and only flag items that have dates more recent than your last HCP renewal? They have access to that data. The point is TICS has a much higher false positive rate than the national system, which doesn't cost $10 per firearm.

If you or your wife is in the car, and have possession of the firearm in question is clearly lawful and there is no risk of charges. The fact he's driving and you're riding is no different under state law than you driving and carry and he's riding as a passenger. Technically speaking if you are accompanying your son and teaching him the use of a handgun in self defense, he could be openly carrying a handgun, although I would recommend it because a lot of our police officers do not understand the finer points of TN firearm laws. The in the car exception to 39-17-1307 probably does NOT apply to a minor since they are restricted from purchasing firearms by state law.

30 states not 14 allow carrying of firearms without a permit in some way shape or form.

I have a buddy who has a valid TN HCP, and every time he goes to buy a firearm in TN he gets rejected, and he has to appeal. When TBI gets the appeal it's approved every time without them requesting that he provide any documentation, that is except for the couple of times they just loose the appeal, and he has to call and hound them to process it. Now how exactly does he get a HCP but can't pass the background check to purchase a firearm? BTW, never been arrested, no warrants ever issued, no valid reason what so ever to deny him. But he's grow so accustom to the problem that he warns the gun dealer before starting the purchase that it will get denied and it's a mistake, the appeal will go through in 7 to 10 days. His main frustration is that they can't be bothered to update their records to note the 'issue' has been resolved in a previous appeal?!?! And we all get to pay extra for firearms in TN for this crappy service? BTW which is likely unconstitutional under the state constitution!