Fallguy

Let me address this in reverse order... First you are liable for "collateral damage" even if you are packing legally and act legally. 39-11-622(a)(1)(. Now the other point. As in my above post the Castle Doctrine 39-11-611 says three times "Notwithstanding 39-17-1322" In parts 39-11-611((1), 39-11-611((2) and 39-11-611(d)(3) I admit I'm not sure what "Notwithstanding" means in this context. Does it mean 39-11-1322 does or does not apply? If it means does not, then one could say even if you just parked illegaly (double parked, etc...) and a car jacker attacks you could not use deadly force since you are "engaged in unlawful activity".

The were several similar bills introduced. The final bills that passed where SB0011 and HB1907 The law went into effect 5/22/2007 Here is a page with the signatures. The new lawT.C.A. 39-11-611 The law that says they can't sue..T.C.A. 39-11-622 You are still liable of any property damage or injury to an innocet bystander.

I'm getting old and slow...lol T.C.A. 39-11-611((1) & (2) also mention "Notwithstanding 39-17-1322"

The safe harbor statute is still on the books. T.C.A. 39-17-1322 It says… 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. To clarify…â€this part†means Part 13, of Chapter 17, of Title 39 or bascially any law that starts T.C.A 39-17-13xx The new Self Defense law T.C.A. 39-11-611(d)(3) says… 39-11-611. Self-defense (d) The presumption established in subsection © shall not apply, if: (3) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, the person using force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; I admit, as much as I’ve been reading T.C.A. lately, I’m not sure what the “Notwithstanding†means. I do think the idea behind that part was to prevent the meth dealer from being able to shoot anyone that came around. But if it basically means T.C.A. 39-17-1322 no longer applies to any of the laws in T.C.A. 39-17-13xx then that is bad. I 100% agree that all the laws on this need to be reworked! On another point… I have been deeply involved in the misdemeanor arrest debate in another thread. Basically a LEO can not arrest you or press charges on a misdemeanor if he doesn’t see you commit it. However and citizen that witnessed the violation can arrest you/press charges and then transfer custody to a LEO. So if you pass that bus…all it takes is the driver to be willing to press charges…and Hello driving school.

Overall not a bad piece. It's good for the exposure of the Castle Doctrine and HCPs. At the end they did correct and say Carry Permit instead of license. The only things a little misleading... There has never been a duty to retreat in TN You can use deadly force ANYWHERE if you are in fear of your life or serious bodily harm. If you in your Residence, a Dwelling or your Vehicle the law presumes you are in fear of your life whether you truly are or not. But the do link to the new law, so maybe some will read it for themselves.

The middle one of course. J/K I too agree being intoxicated and armed not a good idea.

That's great to hear bulletproof.

Good question, I realy don't know for sure. As worded it seems you may be right. As you noted "clubs" can sometimes do things that are otherwise against the law and are not open to the general public. Where I live is a dry county, but a private club can sell liqour by the drink and the Elks Club does just that.

For those interested here is an exhange... ---------------------------- From: John Harris [mailto:JohnHarris@mail.TennesseeFirearms.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 2:09 PM To: Sharon Walden Subject: Re: Further thoughts on AG Opinion 07-148 Mr. Fall's question addresses what may seem to be a conflict in the law but in reality is not. The original posting law addressed "post or announce" and existed in addition to the similar but distinct law of criminal trespass. Under the version of 39-17-1359 which existed, an "announcement" could be made in many ways which often did not require actual notice such as TWRA announcing its position in hunter guides which a hiker or camper may not see. Thus, TFA lobbied for and removed the "announcement" provision and the law was changed to require actual posting of the property. Mr. Fall's concern is that this amendment may limit the property owner's ability to rely on criminal trespass. It does not be criminal trespass requires actual notice to the individual, which may be verbal, but in all instances actual notice is required. John Harris Executive Director Tennessee Firearms Association, Inc. --------------------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Fall To: JohnHarris@mail.TennesseeFirearms.com Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 3:58 PM Subject: Your correspondence Ref: T.C.A. 39-17-1359 and AG opinion 07-148 Mr. Harris, Ms. Walden of Rep. Steve McDaniel's office forwarded me your e-mail about my latest question. If you don't mind I would like to clarify something. My main concern is that the property owner can prohibit all future entrance onto their property by simply saying once, "Never come back as long as you are armed." Are you saying that in absence of sign under T.C.A. 39-17-1359 that he would have to tell you every time to leave and not be able to make such all encompassing statement? To be honest, if it is a property owners intention to ban weapons I want him to have to post a sign for all to see so that even those that may not carry know this persons does not support the rights of those who do carry. Thank you for your time in this matter. Respectfully, Steve Fall ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Fall Under current law, a property owner has to post the property at each public entrance to be effective under 39-17-1359. The owner/manager can no longer simply "announce" their intent. However, a property owner/manager can give an individual a criminal trespass notice verbally or in writing (a sign would work) and if someone violates that notice, then the person could be charged with criminal trespass which is a crime separate but similar to from 39-17-1359. John Harris -------------------------------------------------------------------- So the way it looks to me, even with out a sign a property owner can still efectivly ban you from his property while armed under the trespass statute.

They're both right. In general you can not, T.C.A. 39-17-1307(a)(1) but you can if you have taken a class and have a certificate. T.C.A. 39-17-1308(a)(9) My trouble is I took the class over 15 years ago and have no idea where my certificate is...lol

Actually the fees are $7.00 for a short from and $12.00 for the long form. If you order additional copies of the same record at the same time the additional copies are only $4.00 for short or long forms. However there is an additional $10.00 fee for ordering them online. TDOH Vital Records Online

Sorry to hear this James. By law T.C.A. 39-17-1351(k) they should sent you a written notice within 10 days with exact information as to why. Depending on what is in the letter, maybe you can appeal.

After reading some discussion on a few forums and some thought on my part. I had some additional problems with the answers to questions 5 & 6 of the opinion. Here is a copy of another e-mail I sent to my Rep. Representative McDaniel, After some further thought there is another issue I would like to address in Attorney General’s Opinion No. 07-148 in reference to questions/answers 5 & 6. Prior to July 1, 2000 T.C.A. § 39-17-1359(a) stated, in part that a property owner could announce his intention to ban weapons on his property. To my knowledge what “announce†meant was never legally defined. However in 2000 the legislator amended the statute and removed the announce provision. Now the statute says, in part…â€Notice of the prohibition shall be posted.†It would seem to me Attorney General’s answers that a property owner can simply verbally tell a person, he is banned from the property if he is armed, would be in conflict with T.C.A. § 39-17-1359(a) especially after being amended July 1, 2000 to remove the announce wording. Again thank you for your attention and feel free to forward this message to Mr. Harris. I would like to hear his opinion as well. Respectfully, Steve Fall

A few weeks ago I asked my state rep to submit some questions about various weapons laws to the Attorney General, he did. Let me say...my rep. changed up my wording of the questions a little (after my approval) but then the AG even changed them up a little more on his opinion, but what I wanted to know was still in there. To be honest...I didn't totally agree with all of the AG's answers to the questions. So yesterday I sent an e-mail back to my state rep. about my thoughts and opinions on the answers. Haven't heard back from him yet. I would like your thoughts and ideas as well. (Warning...my repsponse to my Rep. was a little long.... Link to TN AG Opinon No. 07-148 My response.... Representative McDaniel, First I would like to again thank you and Ms. Walden for the help you provided in submitting the questions for me to the Attorney General. I’m not sure what, if any, recourse there is if someone disagrees with an Attorney General’s opinion. I also admit my skills at reading and interpreting the law are much less than yours and the Attorney General’s. However, I would like to discuss some of the answer received in the Attorney General’s Opinion Number 07-148 The reason for questions 1 and 3 are that both T.C.A. § 39-17-1306 and T.C.A. § 39-17-1311 neither specifically mention a handgun being banned from the locations in the two statutes. But rather a list of weapons enumerated in T.C.A. § 39-17-1302(a), of which a handgun or long barrel rifle or shotgun (firearms) are not mentioned. Other statutes such as T.C.A. § 39-17-1305 and T.C.A. § 39-17-1309 both use the term “firearm†as being prohibited at the locations in the those statutes rather than referring to T.C.A. § 39-17-1302(a). T.C.A. § 39-17-1307 uses the term “firearm†as an unlawful weapon to carry. Statutes T.C.A. § 39-17-1319 and T.C.A. § 39-17-13-1321 even use the term “handgun†to address the item illegal to posses in those statutes. So it would seem to me if the intent was to ban handguns or firearms in general, from the locations in T.C.A. § 39-17-1306 and T.C.A. § 39-17-1311 the terms handguns and/or firearms would have been used rather than referring to T.C.A. § 39-17-1302(a) and that as written the two statutes are somewhat confusing when compared to the others. On question number 1 though…I would agree that the general public does not need to go armed in to a room where judicial proceeding are taking place. It can be a highly emotional place where peoples on opposite sides of an issue can be in close proximity to each other. I would say that T.C.A. § 39-17-1306(a) may need to amended to be more clear on handguns and/or firearms. On question number 3…I do not see the need to prevent someone that has gone through the requirements of T.C.A. § 39-17-1351 from going armed and being able to defend themselves in the places listed in T.C.A. § 39-17-1311. If T.C.A. § 39-17-1311(a) was to be amended to specifically prevent handguns and/or firearms from being carried onto the locations in the statute, I would like to see T.C.A. § 39-17-1311((1) amended to add those with a handgun permit issued under T.C.A. § 39-17-1351 to the list of people that T.C.A. § 39-17-1311(a) does not apply to. I admit I’m not sure how that would affect T.C.A. § 39-17-1311©(1) or what would need to be done. It is also my understanding you have already been contacted by another person that does not agree with the Attorney General’s opinion on this matter, he may have had a much more reasonable and compelling point of view. On questions 5 and 6…I do think that I reasonably understand the trespass law in T.C.A. § 39-14-405. Also while maybe not legally, I feel, in general there is a difference between private property such as one’s home or personal property and private property that is open to the public such as a convenience store or shopping center. However I would say though in light of the Attorney General’s Opinion on these two questions, it renders the requirements of a property owner to ban weapons on their property under T.C.A. § 39-17-1359 moot. If a property owner can simply tell you, “I don’t want you to come back in here armed.†why would he need to post a sign under T.C.A. § 39-17-1359? Also if you look at the analysis to question 1 in Attorney General’s Opinion number 07-43 it says, “Owners of private property may prohibit the possession of handguns and other weapons on their property. To be effective, the owner must post a written notice that satisfies the requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. T.C.A. § 39-17-1359(a)†Also in referring to a property owners rights the Attorney General references cases several court cases (which I can not research). I would say though that a property owner, especially one with property open to the public, does not have absolute control over his property. I’m sure there are property owners that would like to allow smoking on their premises, but now, by state law, they can not. So it is possible for the legislature to regulate the owner’s use of his private property. In some states the property owner of a location that is open to the public can not prohibit someone who is legally armed from entering their property. I’m not sure if TN needs to go that far, but rather if the only reason a property owner doesn’t want someone armed on their property that they must post a sign under T.C.A. § 39-17-1359(a) for all to see. On question 7…I admit this is probably a rather small point overall. I would guess most property owners would ban weapons entirely or not at all as opposed to worn in a certain manner. However, if the property owner does not intended to ban weapons on his property I don’t think he should be allowed to determine the personal choice of the permit holder on how to carry his handgun. Again as in the paragraph above I would say a property owner does not have absolute control over his property. What if a property owner (open the public) told people, “You must wear your shirt tucked in to enter here.†Or “I do not allow people with brown hair to shop here.†While legally a property owner may be able to that, I don’t think it would generally accepted as proper by people. I understand schools have dress codes and some restaurants can make clothing requirements. However to not obey those are a violation of policy and not law. Thank you for taking the time to read my opinions and thoughts on the above. I would truly love to hear any idea, opinion or thoughts you have on the Attorney General’s Opinion or on my thoughts and opinions. Also, while are discussing laws pertaining to handguns. What is your opinion on amending T.C.A. § 39-17-1305 to where places like restaurants were not included in the statute? It is already illegal for someone to posses a handgun and be intoxicated, T.C.A. § 39-17-1321. I also agree that there is not a compelling need for the public to go armed into a “tavernâ€, “nightclub†or places of the like. However as it is now a permit holder can not go into any restaurant if it serves alcohol for onsite consumption, even if the permit holder is not consuming any alcohol. Some restaurants have a separate bar area (the even get a separate score from the TN Dept. of Health), the bar area of those restaurants could still be off limits. I would say it is even possible if a person has not been to a restaurant previously they may not even know if they serve alcohol and could find themselves in violation of the law with no intent. Let’s take Sparky’s in Lexington for example, they serve alcohol, so as it is now, a permit holder can not carry in there. But if they didn’t serve alcohol they could. As long as the permit holder is not consuming alcohol himself, what is the difference whether the restaurant serves alcohol or not? I know bills like this have been introduced before and I remember seeing a news segment where Speaker Naifeh was asking how was the restaurant worker supposed to know if customer was armed or not if the customer was to order some alcohol. I would say the restaurant worker doesn’t necessarily have to know. How do they know now? Again I would say anyone that has gone through the requirements of T.C.A. § 39-17-1351 to be able to carry a handgun can be trusted to obey the law as much if not more than the general public, at least when it comes to firearms. What prevents the general public or a permit holder from going armed in to places already off limits? I would say the persons desire to not violate the law. A permit holder, to me, even has a great incentive to not violate the law in these cases in that in addition to any punishment for violating the statute he/she could loose their permit and the right to carry. I know Speaker Naifeh doesn’t necessarily care what other states do when it comes to the law, but did you know some states, such as Virginia, simply do not allowed concealed carry in places such as those in T.C.A. § 39-17-1305 but they do allow open carry. That way people do know who is armed and who isn’t. However, even though it is legal in TN and practiced by some, since open carry is not common in TN, I’m not sure that would be the best solution. Ok…I have taken enough of your time and this letter has become longer than I intended. Again thank you for all your help and time. Having meet and talked with you a couple of times in person and corresponding via e-mail, you have made me truly feel as if my opinion matters to you and that you care. That is greatly appreciated. Respectfully, Steve Fall Also I got a call form Rep. McDaniel's office 11/19/07. He has been in contact with John Harris, a lawyer in Nashville and the director of Tennessee Firearms Association. Mr. Harris is the person that first contacted Rep. McDaniel about the AG opinion when it was issued. Rep. McDaniel forwarded my e-mail to Mr. Harris and Mr. Harris is supposed to contact me and I guess we'll go from there. It seems Mr. Harris' opinion and mine are simillar in that all the TN laws about weapons, permits, etc... need to be reworked. When ever there is more I'll let you know.

I have myself once Yep...that is why I have been in contact with my Rep in Nashville. Why I look up TN law. Why, through my Rep I have submitted questions to the AG. But Mike.357 is right in that we make up a very small part of constituants. According to a story done by WBIR in Knoxville, there are 177,881 permit holders in the state. I think that is roughly 3% of the population. But that doesn't mean we have to silent. But there are also some that feel the way we do even though they may not own a firearm or have a HCP. I have a co-worker like this. Not to side track the thread, but that is one reason if a business truly wants to ban handguns on their property I want them to post the proper sigh....so all can see that don't support a persons right to defend themselves and patrons can make up their mind whether to do business with that place.

No, TN is not that much different. An officer has some discretion on a misdemeanor. It goes back to those 8 reasons. The officer also has to site which of those 8 reasons as to why the person was "booked" instead of issued a citation. But I think it is more likely that a person that was assulted would "press charges" and make a "citizens arrest" than a person who saw someone armed in a place that may be off limits. Most people want the police to make the charges, not themselves. 1) A person can be arrested for a misdemeanor, but the person that makes the arrest (LEO or citizen) has to witness the misdemeanor. 2) In most cases the person that commited the misdemeanor will be cited into court rather than taken to jail. So back to the orginal topic of the post. If an armed person enters a business that does not have a proper sign or no sign at all...that person has NOT violated any law. If he asked to leave though, he must do so, if he doesn't he is then in violation of the law. If you are a gambler, even if you have entered a place with a properly posted sign, if you leave before the police show up, the person (owner of who ever) who saw you entered armed will have to be the one to file the charges since the law that was broke was a misdemeanor. So it would all depend on how much that person wanted to push the issue. If it is a security guard, then I would say the chances are higher that the issue would be followed through with and you could be arrested by them and detained until the police arrive. Also...anything I have said, is not to be taken as sound legal advice. I am not a Law Enforcement Officer or a Lawyer. I am not advising anyone to take any course of action and certainly not advising anyone to break the law. These are simply my opinion and views of the law as I see them in my limited capacity.

Ummmm, Thanks, I think:), Dave. But still that doesn't mean the perp is going to jail that night. I know everyone is probably tired of be quoting statutes, but. T.C.A. 40-7-118((3)(D) says a person may be issued a citation in lieu of arrest for Assault or battery. 40-7-118. Use of citations in lieu of continued custody of an arrested person. ((3) A peace officer may issue a citation to the arrested person to appear in court in lieu of the continued custody and the taking of the arrested person before a magistrate if a person is arrested for: (D) Assault or battery as those offenses are defined by common law, But there are 8 reasons listed in T.C.A. 40-7-118©(1)-(8) that an officer can continue custody instead of issuing a citation. Some are judgment calls and in the above restaurant manager situation could allow for the continued custody or the perp. strickj... You are right in that many people, including some LEO's don't know the law. That is why many people who carry keep copies of releveant laws on their person.

AMEN +1

What usually happens on something like that is, the officer asks restaurant manager if he, "Wants to press charges?". If he does then in effect the restaurant manager has arrested the perp and transfered custody to the police. T.C.A. 40-7-109 and T.C.A. 40-7-113

I don't think there is supposed to be a charge for a criminal warrant. A civil one yes, but not criminal. But I also don't think that Joe Sheep is going to take the time to go to the courthouse, swear out the warrant and appear in court over most matters either. The security guard might because that could be considered part of his job. But the above is very informitive. What you could basically say on misdemeanor arrest is, an officer can arrest you without a warrant if he sees the offense. Otherwise he needs a warrant that has been sworn to be true by someone. ...and even then in most cases you should be cited into court (like a traffic ticket) rather than detained in jail. Also as in Mars post....if you did go to court you could have a jury trial rather than have the judge decided it. ...and as we all know jury's can do strange things... Of course.....just don't violate the law.

First it is not illegal to carry into a bank in TN, unless it has a sign posted pursant to T.C.A. 39-17-1359 Secondly according to Tennessee Attorney General's Opinon No. 04-006 he can not detain you, without your consent, unless he arrest you. So if there is a properly posted sign, you would be in trouble. If there is not a properly posted sign, you have not violated any law until when and if they ask you to leave and you don't. Then you have trespassed under T.C.A. 39-14-405

Well stated Luke. Also as Mars said...if you did witness the guy with the joint yourself or the ever evil jaywalker (Andy Griffith:)) you can file charges yourself. Also if an officer investigates the complaint he may get the persons information so you can file the complaint yourself if you don't know the person since the officer can't file the charge.

Well both of the above state "in the officer's presence". So he may be able to arrest on any misdemeanor, but other than situations listed, the misdemeanor has to occur in the officer's presence. At least that is they way I read it.

T.C.A. 40-7-103(a)(1) Grounds for arrest by officer without warrant. — (a) An officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (1) For a public offense committed or a breach of the peace threatened in the officer's presence; Also T.C.A. 40-7-118((1) Use of citations in lieu of continued custody of an arrested person. ( (1) A peace officer who has arrested a person for the commission of a misdemeanor committed in the peace officer's presence, or who has taken custody of a person arrested by a private person for the commission of a misdemeanor, shall issue a citation to the arrested person to appear in court in lieu of the continued custody and the taking of the arrested person before a magistrate. If the peace officer is serving an arrest warrant or capias issued by a magistrate for the commission of a misdemeanor, it is in the discretion of the issuing magistrate whether the person is to be arrested and taken into custody or arrested and issued a citation in accordance with this section in lieu of continued custody. The warrant or capias shall specify the action to be taken by the serving peace officer who shall act accordingly. Of course there are some misdemeanors in which an officer can make an arrest because the offense is ongoing, such as a DUI, and some other listed in the rest of the statutes above.