Fallguy

If you are dropping off and/or picking up your child and remain in you vehicle, the law is pretty clear that it is legal. If you exit the vehicle and leave the weapon in your car, it is a little more grey.

But to be legally binding notice is supposed to be posted at all entrances used by the public.

Going to ask for an update this week.. But in the meantime you may want to check with the Maine officials since you own land there, you may can apply for a resident permit there. But even if not, Maine does issue non-resident permits.

Good deal!

Thank you. You are correct, the Carry Prohibited Locations is just a database for looking up posted locations. Any thread for discussion should be started in this sub-forum.

99.9% of the places I've ever heard about being called said carry was not allowed when asked. Whether it was legally true or not.

I think you are the one that has said over and over it is different for LEOs and citizens with a HCP. 39-(look it up yourself) says LEOs can may use or threaten the force necessary to accomplish an arrest. It then goes on to establish criteria for actually using deadly force. So in my lay, non-LEO, non-Attorney, non-informed, non-reference to case law opinion it seems LEOs can threaten deadly force to make an arrest without being able to use it unless other criteria are met. But it doesn't seem the self-defense law does the same for non-LEOs. But all are free to interpret things on their own and I would never recommend any believe anything I say let alone follow it as some type of advice.

I appoligize. I was a smarta** I just hate when officers or those that are supposed to be in the know, can't give a straight answer. "It's illegal, but I won't charge you." really isn't as good as "It is legal". I mean he can't really speak for every officer....

I'm not sure there is a definition of deadly force per se. But there is sections ((1) and ((2) of the self-defense law. (1) talks about force and then (2) talks about force "intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury". If pointing a gun at someone isn't threatening force intended to cause death or serious bodily injury, then I am wrong...

You can use force to prevent a property crime but the law (won't cite the TCA so it doesn't look like I'm trying to impress anyone) specifically says you can only used deadly force if it falls under self-defense. The self-defense law says you cant threaten or use deadly force unless there is a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. And I guess I am just dumb in that I can't see how someone breaking into your car when you or no one else is in it is a causing a an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to you. I'm not saying I like it...remember I'm the guy that wishes the law was like TX where you could use deadly force for property crimes.

Are we talking about someone trying to take your wallet after showing a gun or you walking out of Wal-Mart and seeing someone trying to unlock your car? If it's the wallet, I say draw. If it is the unlocking the care, then Yes, "I" think you are guilty of Aggravated Assault if you point a gun at them. However others may not....maybe even those others that would actually be making the charge if there was one.

Not the way I read the law.... 39-11-611((2) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, if: (A) The person has a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury; ( The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury is real, or honestly believed to be real at the time; and © The belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds. The way I read it you can't threaten or use deadly force unless the above 3 things are met. I'm not sure someone breaking into your car qualifies, but I'm pretty sure your pointing a weapon at them qualifies as Aggravated Assault. 39-11-614 says you can't use deadly force to protect property unless it would fall under self-defense (see above) Even if you were trying a citizens arrest, 39-11-621 also says you can't use deadly force except under self-defense. 

I'm not sure if a single punch in the face ever justifies pulling a gun. But what I'm saying is...if you cut someone of (but didn't know it) stop at your destination, the other person jumps out and starts yelling at you and as you try to walk of they grab you and punch you....I think you could punch back. But it sounded to me (at least it used to) that many were saying since you were armed it is better to just keep trying to run away. I wonder if some think that because if the other guy is physically stronger and didn't stop or grabbed some type of weapon at later point...there may become a point where you are in fear of death or serious bodily harm and because you didn't walk away earlier you wouldn't be justified in using deadly force. I don't agree with that either.

Ok...I got ya I think. Although I thought pulling a weapon in general did require you to be justified in using deadly force. At least if you drew it in front of them.

Remember everyone...parking lots are not off-limits by law unless they entrance to the parking lot is posted. Not sure I've seen any State or Local government parking lots posted...at least not where I've been. Also unless posted, it is not a violation of the law if you have a firearm in your car, just company "policy" So while a law protecting your employment would be nice....it is not necessary in 99% of the cases to legally allow you to have it in your car. As far as refusing a search and employment status etc... above I agree you don't have to let them, but you'll probably be gone.

Yes, I was talking about being physically assaulted. I agree you should avoid an altercation if you can, but sometimes the other party just may make it impossible. To me it seems that some have said you just have to take it and/or run away. ...but perhaps I have misunderstood others.

Thanks all. Just really never felt many in Nashville cared much about those of us with HCPs and got to wondering why some states honored us and others didn't...and just thought I'd push a little. Guess it does pay to. I have attached the PDF I got from Washington Fall_TN_Response (Redacted).pdf

Besides going through my Rep to press the Dept of Safety I had been in contact with Washington myself. I was planning on checking with my Rep's office Monday for a follow up so I sent a copy of the e-mail (attached PDF on letterhead) to my Rep. Depending on what they say about Maine I may contact them directly as well. From reading Maine's law it is the Head of the State Police that makes the decision there. His e-mail address is on their page. One down (WA), one coming (WI) and one more to go (ME) and TN permits will be honored in every state that honors other state's permits!!!

I got a response from Washington today. THEY WILL HONOR TN PERMITS!!!! Not 100% sure when it will be offical. Below is a copy of what I got.

Wonder how well that would hold up in court. Your honor I read on an internet gun forum that another member was told by a Deputy (with a wink and a nod) that concealed carry meant concealed carry. Also if by "yutes" he meant those under 18 or even under 21 they won't have a HCP and be able to legally carry regardless.

Me too..... lol As others have said, I think most would find it reasonable that you would be in fear of your life. Therefore IMO you'd be justified in drawing your weapon. What happens next depends on what he does. If he turns and runs that is where I imagine some opinions would change. I say let him go (while still being ready), some may argue that if turns back he is still a threat. If he starts to draw...well....I don't think there is any doubt any more. I "think" Dave meant to say that threatening deadly force "is" the same as using it in TN. Because there is no brandishing law in here.

Apparently I didn't make myself clear. I am not talking about using the firearm or even displaying it. If it is concealed properly I am talking about no one ever knowing you are armed unless the law shows up and you tell them. I am talking why can't you defend yourself with equal force that is used against you? So many on here make it sound if someone punches you, that just because you are armed, you have to run and hide and can't hit back. (NOT SAYING USE YOUR FIREARM!!) If someone hits me I will punch back. If I go to court, so be it. I didn't start carrying a firearm to feel like more of a victim if someone attacks me.

I think I understand. I guess with the "I accept" screen.....there is no way to link directly to a statute because before a person views it, they want them to accept the terms. Oh well, don't guess it hurts someone to go through the main page if they really want to look it up themselves. Would be nice if they could just get the "I accept" page and then go directly to a linked statute....

(Talking in general, not about this incident) I agree you shouldn't go around looking for trouble, acting like a bada** or starting trouble. But I've never thought just because you are armed, you have to just let someone slap in you in the face and do nothing either. Because you have a firearm doesn't mean you have to or even need to use it. Self-defense is just that...if someone attacks you, you can defend yourself. Self-Defense does NOT equal deadly force...it is just a level of self-defense. So again just because you are prepared for a higher level of self-defense, I don't understand why you have to let everything less than that go...... But that's just me.....

Hmmm, it's not for me. For me it's going directly to the code. Now I am confused.