Fallguy

Well at you included what "this part" means....

Yep...but I think he was saying the sheriff might could make him leave before an eviction order was issued. I find that a bit hard to believe....

Not necessarly 39-17-1322. Defenses. A person shall not be charged with or convicted of a violation under this part if the person possessed, displayed or employed a handgun in justifiable self-defense or in justifiable defense of another during the commission of a crime in which that person or the other person defended was a victim. LexisNexis® Custom Solution: Tennessee Code Research Tool

LOL...guess you could. But guess I always thought "on" was in there to cover motorcycles and other vehicles that may not have an interior. Although I admit when this first passed I was tempted to put a shotgun scabbard on my bike...

The F-ing thieves could have avoided it by keeping there sorry a....s of my property!!! That is half the problem with this world...many have abdicated all our responsibilities to someone else. It is NOT law enforcement's job to protect me or my property. It is their job to enforce the law...of course in the act of doing this it sometimes protects someones life or property and that is all well and good. But it is MY responsibility to protect me and mine and I will do so and the law allows me to. The law is clear...you can use force to protect your property....if it turns into a self-defense situation...you can use deadly force.

Good idea... Many times a simple letter from a lawyer can accomplish a lot with lawsuites, courts and so on.

When the HCP law first went into effect. The DOS did the fingerprinting themselves. You had to make an appointment to come and fill out the application and be finger printed. The closet place to me that did it (Jackson) literally had a waiting list WEEKS long. So between not wanting to wait and semi-seriously worried the 6 month limit on my safety class would expire, I made an appointment at one of the little more out of the way stations in Nashville and drove an hour and half (one way) to apply. So the process has got a lot better over the years...

Depends on what you mean about "the castle doctrine"... It is just a term used to generally talk about self-defense and defense of property laws and not an actually a law itself. So you always have to just look at the law for the situation you're talking about. Which can vary from state to state even if each state has "a castle doctrine" In TN (as in most, if not all states) you have to be in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm to use deadly force...period. This is regardless off where you are, inside your home, outside your home, on the sidewalk, at Walmart, at your friend's house etc..... Where the difference comes in is that in certain areas/situations the law "presumes" you to be in fear of death or serious bodily harm. Or in other words the prosecutor would have to prove that it wasn't reasonable for you to have that fear, not you have to prove that it was. One of those places where it is presumed you have that fear is if someone has forcibly and unlawfully entered your occupied home. It doesn't say which order that has to happen in and who else has to occupy by it besides the intruder (you, family member, friend etc..). So in the situation you desribed...if they unlawfully and forcibly entered your house and you stepped in (occupying it) then the law would presume you were in fear of death or serious bodily harm. Of course if was daytime and the person was clearly visible and that person in your living room was an elderly lady (saw a news story about that not too long ago) or a young teenager and both with no weapons....the DA might decide it wasn't reasonable for you to have that fear and charge you and try to convince a jury. If it was a night, the intruder had "something" in his hand that looked like a weapon etc.... then I think most would think the fear to be reasonable.

Whether you agree or not...now that's funny right there...I don't care who you are...

On my property I don't see it so much as enforcing the law as protecting my property (which the law allows). Also there are many property owners that don't have or need HCPs to have firearms on their property.

If the government didn't interfere with things.....then Yes, should be able to. But the government has decided in certain situations they can limit what a property owner can do or even dictate what he must do. So the Civil Rights laws say that he can not deny rental based on race. But so far nothing has forced them to allow firearms.

Got ya

IMO you would not be justified in using a firearm in the situation you described. You could tackle him and try to hold him there. If at some later point the situation changed and you would be justified under the self-defense laws, then you could use or threaten deadly force.

Think we were posting about the same time...

I believe the OP was talking about crimes occuring on his property, not ones occuring to someone else in public. I am NOT watching someone steal my stuff or damage it and not try to stop them. Maybe I've just had too much stuff stolen when I wasn't around....

Yes 40-7-109 is on point about making the arrest. But 39-11-621 addresses the use of force. 39-11-621. Use of deadly force by private citizen. A private citizen, in making an arrest authorized by law, may use force reasonably necessary to accomplish the arrest of an individual who flees or resists the arrest; provided, that a private citizen cannot use or threaten to use deadly force except to the extent authorized under self-defense or defense of third person statutes, §§ 39-11-611 and 39-11-612. http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/tncode/

There is no "brandishing" law in TN. Basically if you do something to make another person reasonably fear for their life that is assault, if you do it using a weapon, that is aggravated assault. So if you pull up your shirt and show someone your concealed handgun....if they reasonably feared for their life, you'd be in trouble. AFAIK AZ is the only state that has a specific law that allows for the showing of a weapon in an attempt to diffuse a situation.

You may use a vehicle as part of your business....but I don't think most would consider your place of business.

Opinions on here vary about this. Also it depends. IMO if you saw them doing something to your car, going into your shed or something like that where you or no one else was, technically No. You can use reasonable force to hold someone, but not deadly force...and from everything I've read "threating" and using deadly force is the same in TN law. Now if they broke into your house while you were there...then possibly so, since you could probably would have been justified in using deadly force. I have read cases in both situations though where it was done and nothing was done to the property owner. Of course there is always a first time....

Well there a couple more, sports shooting or protecting livestock.

I believe this is correct.

Yeah, if the mall security really thought he was carrying illegally he could have asked to see his HCP and that could have been the end of it then...or should have been. I also agree that if LE was going to be involved, sooner the better and not getting pulled over. I just wanting to say I don't think mall security can detain you just because they want to or not even for a violation of the law, unless they arrest you. ...and it's not a LEO that you need to give a rip, but an ADA. Yes they can say about anything...but if they can't reasonably back it up they could be in trouble. Granted the chances are slim...but unless the physically grab and hold on to you....how they going to keep you there if you want to leave?

Are you 100% sure? I know he can use citizen arrest powers and arrest you and hold you for the police. But I didn't think they could detain you (except under T.C.A. 40-7-116 for suspicion of theft) in general.

I haven't read any of the other post yet, but here are my answers to your questions.. 1) IMO just a barrel is not a firearm. But how campus police would feel about that, I have no idea. If they think it is, I guess the court would make the final ruling. 2) Yes the lease supersedes 39-17-1359 for anyone that signs it. There is even an AG opinion directly on this point. Without 39- 17-1359 signs, visitors could legally carry, until they were told to leave. They could also be instructed to never returned armed (even without signs) and if they did could be charged with trespassing. Also an AG Opinion directly on point. 3) In general No. Unless there was a specific problem they knew about or should have known about and didn't take reasonable steps to try and prevent it. 4) N/A 5) You will have to comply with whatever rules the Landlord sets forth. If he is willing to make any exceptions from the lease, make sure to get them in writing. When I looked at the lease agreement for the apt complex I moved to in Milan for a couple of years, they had "No Motorcycles" on it. Well I have a bike and asked her about it. She said it was something her parents had put in there back when they had the place and that she didn't care if I had one. I asked her if she would mind changing the lease to state that and she didn't have any problem. I didn't sign it till that was removed. As you are learning...if something isn't in writing...it pretty much didn't happen. Hope you can work something out.