JayC

How are the feds going to know you have a locked box hidden under your seat to begin with? And Federal law allows the transporting of firearms... I can't imagine anybody getting charged for an unloaded firearm (with the ammo stored separately) in a locked safe out of reach of the driver.

The truth is it's a form of a poll tax today... If the state would issue a voter registration card with a photo on it for free, then the Democrats would have not leg to stand on... but today photo IDs cost money and that is really a form of a poll tax.

I don't want to get too far off topic... but Lincoln was by far the worse President this country has ever seen, and it disgusts me to see his name attached to the Republican party... next people are going to be telling me Teddy Roosevelt was a conservative

Lincoln didn't abolish slavery, he allowed slaves freedom in occupied territory (ie the south), there were slaves legally in the north when he died. It was an attempt to get slaves to rise up in the south, and nothing to do with Freedom. Lincoln was just about the worse President this nation has ever seen, a tyrant and a despot... We'd do well to try and distance ourselves from Lincoln as a party.

Says who? Math would seem to argue with you... there are some VERY strange anomaly's in the voting records in a number of states... enough to push the state towards one Senator or Presidential candidate or another. Is it voter fraud? I'm not sure... but to sure looks funny... And there are cases of voter fraud all the time which are proven, the head of the IN Democratic Party just resigned this week over a voter fraud case in my home town of South Bend, IN involving the election of President Obama delegates in 2008.

There is another case of 1352 usage documented over at TFA about 2 years ago, I don't remember the persons name but it should still be on their forums.

The locked case, ammo stored in a box not in a magazine, placed inside yet another bag part would probably keep any sane DA from trying to charge you with intent to go armed.

I don't think the 1352 provision is untested... there are at least 2 known cases where it was used to revoke permits. For less than a violation of 39-17-13xx, so my bet is a charge under 1359 means you'll loose your permit for sure, how long is up to some bureaucrat at the TDOS so who knows on that.

There are a number of articles and books by good lawyers on that subject... How collected will somebody be to remember all of that right after having to shoot somebody or die? I don't know... My hope would be to tell the officer I was in fear for my life, and tell him I'm too upset to give any further statement at that time... and ask if I could be given sometime to collect my thoughts before giving an official statement, then call my lawyer and wait for them to get there. In my personal case, the attorney I'd be calling (who I know will pick up my call at 3am) isn't an expert in self defense shootings, so I suspect he would be very cautious until he could get ahold of an expert in that area of law and either get some advice or get that attorney at the scene to handle the statement. I'm just a layperson, but my guess is when and what you tell the police is very fact dependent on the exact circumstances of the shooting you're involved in, and no one size fits all statement is going to work. I have to work with attorney's almost everyday, and while it's fun to have a rigorous debate on TGO about the merits of a certain situation, I know when the rubber meets the road there is a reason you pay good lawyers hundreds of dollars an hour to solve problems... because they can.

Dave, You're twisting my words... The sad state I'm referring to isn't that the police will take a handgun used in a self defense shooting, but in the sad situation of our 'justice system'. Trust me given the opportunity to really impact change I would be more than happy to place myself in danger, but I'm not going to go looking for that opportunity... As I said, the system will have to be changed from external forces and over the course of our life times is not fixable from within.

If I'm not mistaken... full autos after 1986 have to be owned by the department, not by the individual officers... if thats not correct, I'm finding me a reserve deputy program tomorrow

Or even better yet, go back to a nearly all volunteer force and save the tax payers lots and lots of money

Well I'm basis my opinion in part of legislative intent, 1351t was modified after a number of police departments had used the 'officer safety' provision in the previous version to seize handguns for crimes which did not result in arrest (minor traffic violations, seat belt stops etc). The legislature came back and amended 1351t to add the arrest requirement language... I was at the time following second amendment legislation very closely and sat through some of the committee hearings for this act and clearly remember testimony from the sponsor that it would prevent officers from confiscating a handgun without arresting the HCP holder for a crime, before allowing them to leave the scene. That combined with my reading of 1351t: As I read that statue, they may disarm you, but unless they have PC that you've violated a provision in 39-17-13xx or they arrest you, they are required to return your handgun when discharging you from the scene. Now, I don't think there is any case law on point, I'm almost certain there is no AG opinion letter on point, and frankly I don't want to be the test case But, my understanding from sitting through those hearings, the legislative intent was to prohibit officer discretion in confiscating handguns from permit holders, forcing them to arrest or let the holder go with their handgun, and that jives with my laypersons reading of the statue as written. "The officer shall shall return the handgun to the permit holder before discharging the permit holder from the scene" If you're correct (and you very likely are) then there is nothing preventing a police department from confiscating a HCP holders handgun at anytime because the officer believes you pose a threat to yourself, others or officer. If they can do it for a homicide what stops them from confiscating a handgun during a traffic stop for the exact same reason? What is the burden of proof on the officer to justify his concern that your a threat, but doesn't have probable cause for an arrest under any statue? Now, with all of that said, lets be honest, this is a discussion over the number of angles on the head of a pin... until case law is found on point, none of us really know how any judge would rule on my logic but again I have no interest in being the test case either In the case of a homicide investigation the police are going to do what they do, and if you start making a fuss, they're going to use their discretion to make your life hard. I think you'd agree with this... It's the fact that lawyers, judges, and the public in general accept this and turn a blind eye, which disgusts me, and convinces me that the problem is largely unfix-able within the current legal system and will require external forces to correct. Mike is clearly the expert here, and he's right attempting to make a fuss is only going to cost you in a long run... the safe answer is to keep your head down and don't cause the system to hammer you down. I just don't like the fact that I have to accept that sad state.

Bahh, don't let my libertarian leanings fool you, I know how messed up the courts are In the event that I'm in involved in a SD shooting, I'm going to do the same thing you would... I'm going to call a lawyer with 28 years of experience and do exactly what they tell me to do Because I know that is the cheapest and least risky move. We're not going to change the court/legal system in our life time from within, it's taken about 120-150 years to mess it up to this point, and best case it's going to take 3+ generation to fix it from within. Our only hope of seeing real change with how poorly our government and the courts behave is going to be an external change that is likely to be more bloody than our second revolution.

Mike, I know I'm tilting at wind mills here I know if they want the gun their going to get it, and if involved in a self defense shooting the location of the firearm is the least of my worries Time to ask for a lawyer is all I'm going to be worried about. I'm just saying the plan reading of 39-17-1351t would seem to prohibit taking a handgun from an unarrested HCP holder by the police without some external court order or warrant, which lets be honest they'd hold you at the scene and go get with no problem before releasing the weapon to you. I may argue points online, but I'm smart enough to know pissing the police off when their the one's talking to the DA about charging you isn't a good plan But it still doesn't make it right that the courts and our state and federal government corrupt and ignore our God given rights and the protections of those rights in the Constitution. But, average guys have little or no chance to change that, until our population is better educated by just how perverted our 'justice system' is

Arresting somebody and bringing them before a judge who rules on whether to hold them or not... my understand that is what we do today. Taking their property into custody when you arrest them is fine... Although you shouldn't be able to hold that property if the judge orders them released without a court order to keep the property. We're talking about when the police don't arrest anybody, they should be required to get a search warrant or court order to seize property owned by somebody who they're going to release. Apples and oranges between finding somebody you're going to arrest from probably cause that they have committed a crime, and not having probable cause to arrest anybody, but wanting to seize their property. I'm not saying you're wrong that current case law allows the police to take things... but it's wrong in the respect that our God given rights prohibit that, and the Constitution protects those rights, and the current government (both state and federal) as well as the courts disregard both our God given rights and the Constitution.

The difference there being 'the people' should be free unless otherwise defined in a statue... where as public servants performing their official duties should be completely restricted unless otherwise defined in statue.

I think we would define legally and reasonable as involving due process of law, ie a judge ruling on the seizure before it takes place.

The 5th amendment is more of an issue in this case... a handgun is property and the 5th amendment says the government can not deny you of your property without the due process of law... Unless the police have a search warrant/court order they shouldn't be allowed to collect property without the owners consent... There should be almost no exceptions... Police can contain a crime scene and prevent destruction of evidence while waiting for a judge to sign off on the seizure. I know that doesn't jive with current case law, but it's another example how our God given rights are being trampled on, how the Constitution is largely ignored, and how we live with more tyranny than our forefathers did under British rule who wrote the Constitution to protect us from abusive governments.

I must have missed that post Fallguy, can you link back to it?

Reread the statue, you'll notice that pesky AND word... It means that condition X and condition Y must both be valid, condition Y is the arrest of the permit holder, no arrest no keeping the handgun. Otherwise when you're stopped for a traffic violation, and the officer felt you posed a threat to him or others he could keep your firearm. I think virtually everybody is in agreement that would violate 39-17-1351t.

It's more limiting than preventing an officer from confiscating the weapon for officer safety, it prevents the officer from confiscating the weapon unless an arrest is made. That is a key part of the statue. I wouldn't suggest that HCP holders have more rights, but they do have more privileges under the law, those privileges are mostly defined in 39-17-13xx, including 39-17-1351t. Can we agree on some facts? 1. There is no known case law on the subject of whether 39-17-1351t prevents confiscation of a handgun at the scene of a self defense shooting where the HCP holder is not arrested? 2. There is no AG opinion letter directly on point? 3. There maybe a statue allowing the confiscation of evidence without a warrant at certain crime scenes (sure would be nice for somebody to locate this statue) 4. Until 1 or 2 are found or happen, there is no way to resolve this disagreement? I've repeatedly stated, if they want the firearm as evidence they're going to get it, there is nothing we as HCP holders can do to stop it today. I'm also saying the intent of the legislature when they wrote 39-17-1351t was to remove the officers ability to use judgement in cases of weapons confiscation from HCP holders. They can temporarily disarm permit holders, but unless they arrest the permit holder they're required to return the firearm before discharging the holder from the scene.

So under normal circumstances (say a traffic violation) if you're detained and disarmed, he must return the handgun to you unless you're being arrested. I think there is general agreement that a police officer in TN can't keep your handgun unless they arrest you as a result of a traffic stop. (Or a violation of 39-17-13xx) While a self defense shooting is significantly more serious of an interaction with the police than a traffic stop, where in the law does that officially change the status of the 39-17-1351t protection? There is no AG opinion or case law on point anybody has brought up... so it's a disagreement that can't be resolved... I've repeatedly said if they want the handgun they'll get it... either through a court order or just taking it in violation of the law... 1351t does not contain any criminal/civil liability for an officer who violates the statue, so they have little to fear from it later being determined to be an illegal seizure. The legislature placed this blanket protection in the law because a number of departments were violating the spirit of the disarm for officer safety provision in just the manner you're describing.

Read the entire thread... there is a dispute on whether TCA 39-17-1351t prevents an officer from seizing a HCP holders handgun as evidence unless the HCP holder is arrested at the scene. The plain wording of the law would seem to prohibit the confiscation, others believe that law doesn't prevent it. Although nobody has been able to find case law/statue on point either way.

Not that it will end this disagreement, but 1351(t) is only listed in one AG opinion letter: http://harrislawoffice.com/content/areas_of_practice/tennessee_firearms/agopinions/ag_05-154.pdf I still can't find any case law on the subject... until we have an AG opinion on point or case law continuing to argue I'm right is a waste of time