JayC

First, the effect of taking this 'evidence' when the office doesn't have enough probably cause for an arrest is the person not being arrested is disarmed. You can smear a bunch of makeup on the pig, but it's still a pig. Second, I've quoted a statue that clearly says HCP holders must either be arrested or have their firearm returned to them when discharged from the scene, yet you talk about conjecture over and over again... So it's simple show me a statue that backs up your claim. Show me a single case where a court has ruled 1351t does not apply in the case of a self defense shooting. I very well may not be right, but 1351t is there to protect pre-screened law abiding citizens from being disarmed unless they are arrested for a reason, and it provides no exceptions for investigations or possible crimes that might have been committed with that firearm.

That's just not a fact, there are documented cases of non-HCP holders who didn't have their firearms collected as evidence at a justified self defense shooting scene. It only took me a few minutes of searching to find one from just a few months ago.

Read 39-17-1351t and tell me where it is limited in anyway other than arrest. Have you bothered to read the statue?

Single mom... hopefully cute... personally if I wasn't married I'd forget the hourly rate and go help her out in hopes of another form of compensation In all seriousness, if she's really a friend and you've got the spare time, go help her out as a friend... Kinda wrong to ask for money to do the right thing and help her out.

I can't prove a negative, I have shown a state law that is supposed to prevent the disarming of a HCP holder unless they're being arrested... I'm not aware of any law short of some form of court order/search warrant that would allow the police to take custody of that handgun. I and a number of others have stated it's our belief that having an HCP does place you in a different category than someone who does not... for example if you shoot somebody in your home, even if you're not required to have a permit to carry a loaded firearm, you're still required under state law to display your permit upon request. So yes there are different standards under the law for certain things for a HCP holder vs someone without a permit IMHO. As I've said 39-17-1351t isn't going to stop a police department from taking the handgun, only that it appears that short of a court order/search warrant it does prevent them from legally taking the handgun of a HCP holder is carrying without charging the HCP holder with a crime. I can't find an example of case law on point either way... Would be pretty sad if some murderer got away because the handgun was tossed out as illegally obtained. I would argue that 1351t is there to allow officers to disarm you while detaining you in the name of "officer safety", but requires them to return the firearm in all circumstances, other than a single exception for arrest... I don't see exceptions for investigations of any level. I don't have access to a copy of Tennessee Evidence Law, Sixth Edition here at the house, I know from my own experience working with federal law enforcement, even if they are given permission to enter a house, see evidence of a crime, and the suspect then revokes the permission to be there, the feds will pull back (also barring the occupants from stay), and wait for a search warrant before re-entering and removing any evidence from the crime scene. Now the examples I personally were involved with didn't involve possible victims that needed medical attention, but my guess is barring somebody laying in the floor dying, they'd do the same if you started to crate a stink about them being in your house without your permission to make sure nothing got kicked from court. If I'm involved in a self defense shooting, the fact that my firearm is illegally held as evidence isn't going to be in my top 100 issues list... I'll go to the safe and pull out a backup firearm and start carrying it... if they take them all, I'll get a family member or friend to loan me a firearm to carry until I can get my returned or purchase a new one. If the police don't arrest somebody at the scene, then they shouldn't be allowed to disarm them... it's not like a DA can't go dance for a search warrant an hour later and recover the firearm, there is no reason to not arrest a person, yet have a need to disarm them without due process of law.

Really, because it says the only way a police officer can disarm a HCP holder is under 39-17-1351t, this law was passed with the intent to prevent police departments from disarming otherwise law abiding citizens, so the language of must return the firearm or arrest the person was added. I remember a couple of departments playing some games with disarming HCP holders and keeping their firearms for various reasons and this law was added to prevent that. So, under what law short of a court order/search warrant does a police officer take an HCP holders handgun? Because if there isn't allowing allowing it, it's prohibited. I don't see an investigation exception to 39-17-1351t do you?

Yeah I know around here shocking I'm a big enough boy to pay my taxes and carry a firearm, but I need the government telling me who can and can't cut my hair? Install my carpet? Heal my broken arm? Defend me in court? Drive me to the airport? It's all a big corporate welfare program, to create barriers from entering the free market, to pad the pockets of a select few, etc... There is very little we need the government to do for us in our day to day lives. But, hey it's ok The government is our friend (not).

39-17-1351t - show me where it's limited to just checking the status of your permit? The law is very clear, a police officer can disarm you, but he must return the firearm or arrest you. As for people without permits, or other types of firearms other than handguns, I'm guessing it's up to the police if they take it as evidence or not... What stops an over zealous officer from taking all your firearms in the house to make sure they aren't the firearm used in the shooting? Nothing. Lets be honest 39-17-1351t isn't going to stop them from taking the firearm if they want it... they'll go and get a warrant/court order for the firearm, or they'll just take it violating the law and hope you don't know any better. Yet another problem with 39-17-1351t there is no criminal charge for violating the law. But at least with a permit, you'd stand a good chance of forcing the return of the handgun in short order.

Jewelry Store owner shoots suspect, police don't take the sotgun used: http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/general-off-topic/63825-smyrna-jewelry-store-clerk-shotguns-passenger-side-robbers-getaway-car-2.html I'm aware of at least 2 other cases where firearms were returned at the scene of an obvious self defense shooting, one involving a man walking in on a gas station hold up which happened in North Nashville about 3 years ago, and another involving a car jacking case from about 12 years ago, where the car jacker was shot while getting into a car. I don't have time to find the news articles... I'm sure if the police department wants your firearm, they'll have no problem getting a warrant for it... but the law is very clear that HCP holders must have their firearm returned when released from custody unless they are being arrested.

You'll note it doesn't say anything about evidence in that law... A HCP permit holder maybe disarmed by a law enforcement officer, but the firearm must be returned to the HCP holder once the HCP holder is no longer detained unless the HCP is under arrest... Seems pretty cut and dried to me... I can also point to a number of news articles where HCP holders had their firearms returned to them at the scene of what appeared to be a justified shooting... Personally I don't like 39-17-1359t as it's too broadly worded in allowing an officer to disarm you.... but the one saving grace is the officer has no choice but to arrest you, or return your firearm before leaving.... no exceptions short of a court order to collect the firearm as evidence.

Me choosing to purchase a bond, insurance, or self insuring my business is great, I personally like insurance... The government requiring insurance or a bond is a form of corporate welfare... it costs money and only government approved insurance companies or bond companies can provide you those products... and there is a cost related to that government mandated insurance. I think customers who need protective services are smart enough to look for somebody with more training than the person you're using as an example. Why do we need the government pre-screening for us? I'm not able to check to make sure the security person/company I hire has insurance and what I consider proper training? There maybe a market for low cost armed security... as long as the security guard doesn't commit fraud, why can't I as an informed consumer choose who I'm going to hire to perform my security?

If you have an HCP and are not arrested, they are required by law to return your firearm to you. TCA 39-17-1351t So unless they go and get a court order to seize the firearm, under TN law unless you're arrested, you get to keep the handgun.

ie corporate welfare.

I just looked over the 'training' material... then called a buddy of mine who has one... It's only slightly more 'tough' than the HCP course here... I'm not sure it's a significant hurdle that would prevent just about any of us from taking the course and passing it. The licensing around it is more corporate welfare for gun ranges and instructors, and taxes hidden as fees in keeping the license... It's not there to protect us.

One has already commented, MikePapa and offered to defend such a case for a fee of course

The Castle doctrine requires a forced entry to kick in... they have to open the unlocked car door, break a window, etc to official meet the requirements of the TN 'Castle statue'. If they force entry into the vehicle it's assumed under the law you have a reasonable fear of death of serious bodily injury. If they're still outside the vehicle, the standard reasonable person test still applies, would a reasonable person fear death or serious bodily injury. As a matter of common sense, if 2 armed men approach you with a baseball bat and a knife displayed, and are within 21 feet you're going to be hard pressed to find a DA in TN who would charge you with a crime.

No reported cases... no easy way to see... there are no records I could find of a 39-17-1359 trial or conviction in Lexus Nexus.

I just don't know how wise it is to ask the current AG anything about guns? This is the same guy who says you can be convicted of a felony for carrying in an otherwise unposted public park because unknown to you a school is using the park for a sporting event. An opinion completely unsupported by the letter of the law. Maybe it's best we don't mess up what appears to be a pass given to business owners and their families (which I know some are using today) just to settle an online forum bet. Even though I'm sure I'm right j/k

OhShoot, You've tossed a hand grenade in the ring... but show us a definition of 'place of business' which has ownership as a requirement. I'm aware of a number of cases where family businesses have access (ie sitting next to the cash drawer) to loaded firearms, and all family members did not have an HCP. In some cases with minor family members having access to the loaded firearm. Again, how can the owner of a business allow a minor to carry a loaded firearm, but an adult family member who works there can't?

Well 1319 for minors, and 1308 for adults Just encase somebody looks up the exact law

I'm just pointing out, the legislature in theory (and probably giving them too much credit) included the place of business defense for a reason, because it covers locations not covered under the premises defense. Premise to my laypersons knowledge includes all real property that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise under the control of a person. That obviously include any business location owned or leased by a person, so again why include the place of business defense if it doesn't cover more.... 1. I think it's clear that the legislature did intend that minors would be allowed to posses including concealed firearms in a business under 39-17-1319. 2. As I understand it, possession of a firearm includes ready access to a loaded firearm. If your friend with an HCP places a loaded gun in his car within easy reach of the driver, and you drive the car knowing the vehicle contains the weapon, that would appear to be possession of a firearm. The same would be said for a handgun sitting under the counter loaded and ready to be used for protection. 3. Maybe, maybe not... I don't think there is good case law on the subject... I seriously doubt somebody is going to get arrested for carrying a firearm at work with the owners permission... unless the person carrying the firearm is doing something very stupid... most officers realize business owners/employees need to be able to protect themselves. My point is this, minors can carry loaded firearms on real property that is under control of an adult who gives permission and their parent also gives permission... real property clearly includes businesses, among other locations, residence is clearly covered as a separate defense under the law. No way that legislative intent was to prohibit a wife of the owner from carrying a pistol without a permit, but allows the owners minor child to carry. I also contend, that place of business defense obviously covers more than just the owner of the property... but neither of us will know who is right until there is case law on point.

If the owner of a business can give a minor permission to carry a loaded handgun.... TCA 39-17-1319d1F Yet somehow an adult has more restrictions under 39-17-1308? Using your logic... The owner of a business has a daughter who watches the cash register at their family restaurant... while 17 and under she is allowed to have access to a loaded pistol, but the day she turns 18 she is violating the law having access to that same pistol... when she turns 21 and gets an HCP all of a sudden she's allowed access to the pistol again, until her father (unwisely) posts the building, then she can not longer legally have access to the pistol. Even if his intent is not to disarm his family running the business. Because if you're right and the 39-17-1308 'place of business' defense doesn't cover family members and employees that is the outcome you're describing. I know TN gun laws are messed up, but I don't even think they're that messed up. OhShoot, if residence and premises cover virtually all business situations, why did the legislature include a third defense of one's place of business? What case does place of business cover that residence and premises don't if only the business owner, not his family or employees is covered? Why did they add it?

OhShoot, A posting under 39-17-1359 only impacts HCP holders, and has no impact what so ever on the legality of employee carry under a 39-17-1308a3 defense. 39-17-1359a2:

This would have been in late 86 or very early 87. I think freelancers, or folks who do work for others don't qualify under the place of business defense... Your house that I show up at once isn't my regular place of business... my shop or garage that I keep my supplies in would be my place of business. Again I would point to the common definition of a 'place of business' - I'm just a layperson but that would seem to prohibit most vehicles since a vehicle normally isn't an establishment. I know this does open to door for some strange exceptions to the rules... for example motor homes are they vehicles or are they homes when it comes to TN gun laws? Another example would be a 'roach coach', is that a place of business or a vehicle? I have no clue what the case law is on these types of situations. Also, as to your wouldn't this cover schools question... the law against having firearms in schools is separate from the general prohibition of carrying loaded firearms in TN - the place of business defense doesn't cover the school carry section of the law. Second, I don't think a school or any other government building could be considered a place of business under the common definition, but again that is my opinion. I think this is yet another example of of how poorly our handgun laws are written. Why shouldn't an adult be able to carry a gun at his place of business (including employees) without a permit? If the employer doesn't want people to carry they can fire anybody who does, but it shouldn't be a criminal act.

I think we can all agree an owner doesn't need a HCP to have a firearm in his business, and thus is not impacted by a 39-17-1359 posting. There is some question about employees, but I think the general consensus is that an owner can carry without a permit on his property.