midtennchip

It sounds like you have a pretty good understanding of the so-called Castle Doctrine. Under the Tennessee version, if someone "unlawfully and forcibly enters" another person's residence, business, dwelling, or vehicle and the person defending himself knew of the "unlawful and forcible entry," the person defending him is presumed to have held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury. Obviously, the deputy didn't know the law in this case. For a more in-depth discussion of using self-defense in court, the following thread is a good start: http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/tennessee-politics-legislation/51654-has-tn-law-changed.html

In a self-defense shooting, be careful following the advice of the law professor in this video. I agree that in almost every other case, the prof is absolutely correct. However, in a self-defense case, I believe there are other considerations. Massad Ayoob, who I believe to be the most authoritative on this subject (even though he's not a lawyer), disagrees with the prof for a number of reasons that are very specific to a self-defense case. Unfortunately, because of the rules of ethics for lawyers, I do know want to elaborate too much. My suggestion would be to look into what Ayoob has to say and evaluate it for yourself.

I have a UTG on my Bushmaster and ran it through the CIS Carbine course. Absolutely nothing wrong with it, shooting approximately 1100 rounds in a weekend. As others have said, I am not sure what problem could arise with it. I don't see me ever using the rifle in any more of an extreme condition than it was used in the Carbine course and it performed flawlessly.

If you are even thinking of Trump as a viable Republican candidate, look at the link below. If he's contributing to Rahmie's campaign, there's a problem. Hollywood helps Rahm haul in $10.6M - Meredith Shiner - POLITICO.com

No, that is not at all what I mean. I self-defense case is much different than a regular first degree murder case. I would suggest looking into the issues that arise with using an affirmative defense (such as self-defense). In using self-defense, the defendant is actually admitting that he committed the act of murder. There is a risk to claiming self-defense because of this. For example, a defendant could claim the shooting was a accident (ie: gun malfunctioned, etc.), claim someone else shot the victim, etc. and not have to admit that he committed the act. However, with self-defense, the defendant HAS to admit to shooting the victim intentially, but the shooting was justified. At that point, the trial focuses on the justification factors. Because the defendant is in the position of having to show that he was justified in shooting the victim, the whole issue you are talking about is different than a typical murder case. The jury is not saying the prosecution couldn't prove the defendant murdered the victim (the prosecution doesn't have to prove it, the defendant admitted it). What the jury is asked to decide is whether the shooting was justified. The elements of proof are just different in a self-defense case.

Sorry guys, I missed this post before my last response. Keep in mind that self-defense is an affirmative defense. That is, you have to say "yes, I killed the person" (i.e., you committed a criminal offense), but you were justified in committing the offense. As a result, you must prove that you were justified to be found not guilty. It is very similar to a "not guilty by reason of insanity" defense. You have to admit to the crime and then prove you were justified. Because of this, I believe the criminal court findings would apply in the civil case.

I agree with Fallguy and Dave. There is no way to guarantee that a shooter will not face a civil lawsuit.

Section 39-11-622 just provides a deterrent to civil lawsuits. If there has been a criminal trial and the shooter was found to be justified, this deterrent is almost 100% effective. If there has been no criminal trial, then there has been no court determination that the shooter was justified. As a result, there are a lot of things to argue in court. However, if the plaintiff losses (i.e., the shooter is found to be justified), then the court SHALL award fees and expenses to the defendant/shooter. As Fallguy mentioned, not too many people will sue unless they are fairly certain they will win. Again, just a deterrent, not a guarantee.

Even the Noveske doesn't have a mag release for lefties. As much as I like Noveskes, I don't think he would spend that much on it.

I would assume it has something to do with all the lawsuits over a design defect that allegedly is causing accidental discharges.

My brother is looking into an AR, but is left-handed. I shoot ARs all the time, but I am wondering if any of our left-handed members could offer advice. I know Stag makes a left-handed AR, but they only change the ejection port and safety. To me, the mag release and charging handled are pretty important, too. My concerns: 1. how hard is it to learn to manipulate the mag release and charging handle as a left-handed shooter? 2. would a left-handed AR make that much difference with the charging handle and mag release still set up for a righty? 3. anyone have any experience with this( Ambi-Catch )? Thanks!

Mike, I agree with you to a point. I use trusts a lot with clients who have younger children. The trust are part of the will and generally only come into existence after the second parent dies and a guardian is needed. I just don't like leaving money (including life insurance proceeds) to the children directly or to someone else for the benefit of the children. I prefer to have the assets in a trust that has specific requirements for the trustee. Other than this and the NFA trusts, I rarely use trusts.

Well, the cost depends on who drafts it. Typically, the cost is going to be from $400 to $700, depending on the attorney and the complexity of the trust (they can get really complicated if you have multiple people contributing items or money to it). Maintaining the trust requires very little effort or money.

I haven't seen this posted yet, so here it is. In Monday's opinion in US v Huet, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right of a person who lives with a felon to keep a firearm as long as that person does not help the felon possess the firearm. Here's a lengthy discussion on the decision: The Volokh Conspiracy » Second Amendment Protects Gun Possession by the Housemates of Felons

While the question is legitimate, the answer is much more complicated than you might think. First, the premise is not accurate. Citizens often pay a fee or a tax to exercise constitutionally protected rights. For example, permits (which generally entail a fee of some sort) are often required for protest marches, running for government office, marriage, building on your own property, and many other constitutionally protected activities. Then, there is the big one, property taxes. In addition, poll taxes were constitutional until the 24th Amendment was ratified. Even then, it only applied to federal elections until 1966, when the case of Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections declared poll taxes in state elections unconstitutional. With poll taxes in particular, it took a specific Amendment to the Constitution to make them unconstitutional, so poll taxes are simply different. There certainly is an argument that firearms taxes (maybe of any kind) are unconstitutional, but I suspect that such taxes would have to pose a "substantial burden" to exercising 2nd Amendment rights before any court would make that decision. For those interested in such things, I would suggest reading the law review article below (the tax issue is only one of the issues addressed in it, though). http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2am.pdf

This issue has been heard in a couple of other Federal Appeals Courts in the last year or so. The Appeals Court for the District of Columbia found that long-term tracking like that violates the 4th Amendment, but also stated that short-term GPS tracking is similar to police/FBI/etc tailing someone (which is not a violation). Appeals Court Rules Against Secret Police GPS Tracking | dailyator.com Back in August, the 9th Circuit also found that planting a GPS device on someone's car in their driveway isn't a 4th Amendment violation: Chief Judge of 9th Circuit: The 3rd Circuit has also ruled (although somewhat vaguely) that certain types of cellphone tracking would not violate the 4th Amendment. This is a developing area of the law and really isn't as black-and-white has it might appear at first.

Are you saying that the 15-22 you are being offered is $700???? I paid $430 out the door for mine.

Here's the thread I started on mine. Still love it. I would just suggest that you check the springs on it (blue springs are the enhanced springs that were intended to correct the initial problems with the gun). http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/long-guns/41696-s-w-m-p-15-22-range-report.html

Well, Mas's full course is not available in DVD or book form, but a lot of the material Mas covers regarding the legal issues is available as a member benefit of the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network. When you join, you get 4 or 5 DVDs (not sure what is now being sent because I just received a new DVD in the mail last week that appears to now be included in the package). One of the DVDs is an hour-long discussion with Mas covering the basics of his thoughts on the legal side of carrying a weapon. Obviously, in a 40-hour course, Mas does a lot more than what is included in the DVDs, but it's a start.

As I understand it, eTrace does two things. It allows participating agencies (including some foreign goverments) to 1. submit gun trace requests; and 2. view previous traces. eTrace: Internet-based Firearms Tracing and Analysis As I understand it, this is not a huge database of all firearm owners. Just information on guns that have actually been traced.

Just to add to this thread, the ATF information sheet on this issue is available at the link below: Transfers of National Firearms Act Firearms in Decedents’ Estates This gives the details on how to handle the matter, step-by-step.

UPDATE - Got the rifles back on Monday (basically a two-week turnaround - door-to-door). Not bad. S&W replaced the bolt in all three rifles and honed the chamber in all three rifles. I finally got to shoot them tonight. Only had time to run a few rounds through each rifle, but so far, no FTEs. I will have to run the rifles a bit harder to be comfortable that the problem is solved, but I will (at least for now) consider the S&W customer service to be good. They also sent a new PMAG with each rifle. I would like to have received more detail on the work (nothing but a sheet of paper with "BOLT REPLACED" and "HONED CHAMBER" on it) and maybe a letter or something saying "sorry, but here's what we did." I think there's a better way than just the one sheet of typed info, but overall, I am satisfied. Hopefully, no more problems.

What you are looking for is a domestic relations attorney. However, with the potential mental issue, I would suggest contacting Legal Aid of East Tennessee as a first step. LAET - Legal Aid Of East Tennessee If they cannot help, they usually will try to find a pro bono attorney if the client meets the pro bono requirements set by Legal Aid. If that doesn't work, you could ask if there are any free legal clinics available in the next few weeks (I think the UT Law School runs one once school starts).

Well, I am assuming your are thinking of civil liability if the person you loaned a gun to shot someone with it. I'd be interested in hearing what redstategunnut and P.Stegall have to say, but I don't see it as being that much different than loaning a car to someone. You could be held liable in a civil suit if you were negligent in your decision to loan the gun. On another front, if the gun was somehow defective (and I know you wouldn't knowingly loan a defective gun) and something happened to the guy (or anyone else for that matter), you could also be held liable under a negligence theory. While your thoughts are pure, I always caution my clients that "no good deed goes unpunished."

Now, that's funny!! I just need a client willing to let me use it in court.