MikePapa1

Maybe I missed something but wasn't this guy the school superintendent? You know the guy in charge of schools. I can't understand the desire here to suggest that one size fits all. What would be the advantage to anyone if the Superintendent had been arrested and prosecuted? I guess I'm missing it but I don't see the outrage here. DaveTN has expressed the common sense way of looking at it. Most cops I know would have handled this the same way. Do we really want School Superintendents arrested, jailed and prosecuted for something the the consensus here is a stupid law? I just don't see it.

Sonny' very firearm friendly.

I was just using Safari. I never adjusted to Tapa so I don't use it. I posted this from an iPad so it works ok. I'll try the iPhone again later to see if the problem persists.

Such a search as the OP described would be illegal. I'd be happy to fight it, for a fee.

I tried to post from my iPhone yesterday and it told me I wasn't "privileged" to do so. Can you tell me why?

Lawyers have a name for people who ask these sorts of questions: clients.

As usual, Mike's right but I love my P238, too.

Great advice.

In addition to Fallguy's comment, the LE exception applies only to those LEOs in the line of duty. A Special Deputy would not be entitled to carry unless he could show that he was on duty, conducting police business. As mere spectators in court, LEOs are no more entitled to carry as someone with an HCP.

JayC, I agree this is largely an argument surrounding angels on the head of a pin, and I'll defer to your expertise regarding legislative intent. Frankly, I rarely concern myself with legislative intent because if you look at the TCA you'll find many mutually contradictory provisions. It might, however, be interesting to speculate what the language might be if we weren't talking about arbitrary confiscations based upon a seat belt violation and those based upon homicide or aggravated assault. My guess is the language might be a tad different. "If you're correct (and you very likely are) then there is nothing preventing a police department from confiscating a HCP holders handgun at anytime because the officer believes you pose a threat to yourself, others or officer. If they can do it for a homicide what stops them from confiscating a handgun during a traffic stop for the exact same reason? What is the burden of proof on the officer to justify his concern that your a threat, but doesn't have probable cause for an arrest under any statue?" While I think you meant this as a rhetorical question, I feel compelled to answer it because I think it is the crux of the argument. Homicide is a world different than a traffic stop. As with many things in criminal law, and, frankly, in life in general, it comes down to reasonableness. If the officer confiscated the gun at a traffic stop, his burden of showing the reasonableness of his actions would be, well overwhelming. At the scene of a homicide, I think the reasonableness would be quite simple. To me a scene where someone has discharged a firearm and it's unclear whether or not the shooting was justified, it is very easy for me to believe the person who did the shooting poses a threat. As a lawyer and someone who regularly sets as special judge on criminal cases and as someone who considers himself "gun friendly," I can assure you that the majority of lawyers and judges I know do not turn a blind eye to either Constitutional or statutory violations by the police. I will tell you that in a case of homicide, where it is unclear whether it was justified, I wouldn't hesitate to allow the officer to take the weapon as evidence. I don't believe that's a violation of the statute because it's clearly not arbitrary nor done out of malice. Frankly, I think it's perfectly reasonable, under the totality of the circumstances to do so. I would find it wholly irresponsible not to do so as if it were determined later that the shooting was unjustified failure to do so would lead to suppression of the weapon as evidence and make the case virtually impossible to prosecute. I find nothing in the statute or the 2nd Amendment which makes me see that as the least bit unreasonable. Let me give you a fact situation which illustrates my belief. You are a home owner and call 911 to report that you've shot and killed an intruder. The law presumes, under those facts that such a shooting in justified. Based upon that the police don't take the weapon into evidence and it subsequently "disappears." Further investigation shows that the "intruder" had, in fact, been invited into your home under the ruse that you wanted to discuss repayment of the $10,000 you owe him. The police suspect, at that point, that you fibbed to them and decide the shooting is murder. They get their warrant and try to find the gun, which, as I said, has disappeared. Based upon the inability to find the gun, any prosecution of you for the murder would be seriously compromised. Is that the way our justice system ought to work? Here we'll assume that in addition to having your HCP, you had the Castle Doctrine presumption. Should the police really leave that weapon in your possession until they determine the facts? My answer would be that it's perfectly reasonable for them to take it as evidence and wholly unreasonable not to, regardless of the fact they didn't arrest you on the spot. Other people are free to differ, but I don't find taking a weapon into evidence in a homicide investigation at all unreasonable.

Same as OS for me.

These used to be fairly common here under Sheriff Vandercook, doled out to those he saw as political supporters or wanted to be. I had one, for example. They were discontinued by Sheriff Barker when he took over and continue to be gone under Sheriff Weatherford. They are viewed as a BIG source of liability for the Sheriff's Office and the county. There remains a Reserve Deputy program but they all must be POST certified.

Well, JayC, I guess I read §39-17-1351(t) a bit differently than you do. I read it to say, in essence, that a permit holder cannot arbitrarily have his pistol taken by law enforcement. It does talk about arrest, yes, but it also talks about that it can be retained until the holder is determined not to be a threat to himself or others. If the police believe you committed an unjustified homicide or there is a question about its justification, it appears the statute specifically allows the police to retain the weapon until that determination is made. You don't read it to say that? Taking the weapon into evidence is part of the process by which LE would determine whether the permit holder is, or is not a threat to himself or others, don't you think? Look, I'm a conservative and in most cases a libertarian and am only too familiar with the flaws in the criminal justice system. I do not consider it a flaw that the police keep a weapon involved in a homicide until they complete their investigation. To do otherwise, you are reading the statute to say, if we don't have enough evidence to charge you on the spot, but have reason to believe you've committed an unjustified homicide, they have to return the murder weapon to you. I'm sorry, but that makes no sense to me.

Wyatt, I’m pressed for time before court and while I understand your points I don’t live in Utopia, I live in the real world. In the real world, as has already been noted here, homicide is a crime and self defense is an exception to that crime. If you shoot someone the default setting is it’s a crime. Let me see if this analogy helps. You have a driver’s license and car registration for your car. If you hit and kill a pedestrian, the police are going to impound your car until they complete their investigation. This is to determine if your story matches the physical evidence. This isn’t an infringement of your Constitutional rights, merely proper investigation to determine whether you committed a crime. Nothing about a firearm or having an HCP changes that. If you think that’s unreasonable, great. Organize your friends and elect people that agree with you and get it changed. Until then, that is the way it will be done. On a personal note, I deal with cops all the time. Most are great people genuinely interested in serving and protecting you and your rights. Most cops are gun people as well, who have faced self defense situations. They are not going to act as jackbooted thugs out to destroy your rights. I see the attitude you’ve shown here and I’ll give you some free legal advice. I’ve seen FAR more people talk their way into jail than talk their way out. If you’ve genuinely done nothing wrong, having a chip on your shoulder, being belligerent and uncooperative make you look guilty and may well bring you far more scrutiny for your actions than being cooperative. There are times to pick a fight but after a homicide, justified or not, is hardly the time to pick a fight with the police.

I have a 2Sum in 9. I like it as well as I like any DAO. Nice trigger for example. I prefer DA/SA but do occasionally depending on dress carry the 250SC as a good imtermediate between my 220 and my 238.

Right on the money.

I think, Fall, if they didn't take it they were either wrong or had already determined that the owner committed no crime or they decided they simply weren't going top prosecute. Last year, here in Gallatin, a homeowner came home to find miscreants in his home and he chased them out followed them shooting at the car. There was a thread here with video on this incident. In that case I don't think the homeowner's weapon was taken into evidence because the lead detective determined on the scene that they were not going to file any charges against him. I talked to the detective and asked about it because it clearly went beyond self defense and clearly outside of the Castle Doctrine. The detective told me, in essence, that because the suspects were armed and because the homeowner's actions assisted in their capture "there's no way in Hell, we're going to charge him." Technically, his gun should have been taken and awaited the DA or Grand Jury's determination, but the Gallatin PD exhibited common sense under the circumstances. Other locales might well differ under the exact same circumstances. If the weapon is not taken, as a defense attorney I can tell you that any charges against the shooter that might later be determined to be appropriate would be worthless because the State's evidence couldn't be secured to guarantee a conviction. If the weapon is returned there's no way to assure from an evidentiary standpoint that it wasn't altered to affect the results of testing. The State would have to subsequently get it by warrant and I'd be happy to argue that they couldn't prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt because they would be unable to establish a proper chain of custody. I said must because I believe unless it is taken the State's ability to get a conviction later would be decidedly difficult. Evidence to be properly used must be immediately obtained and safeguarded so that a chain of custody can be established to rule out tampering. I stand by that regardless of statutory wording regarding HCP.

In 28 years of practicing criminal law, I love the client who insists he "knows" his rights and wants to assert them regardless of either common sense or reality. It always allows me to double my normal retainer because I know that the case will have to be tried and that my client will alienate all of the law enforcement personnel from the police through the DA to the Judge. If the gun is involved in a shooting it MUST be taken into evidence until a determination can be made whether a crime has been committed. Everything else is nonsense.

I divide the Duke into two categories: War and Western, though he had some weird stuff thrown in as in The Red Witch and The Conqueror. War: Sands of Iwo Jima or They were Expendable Western: Ford's Cavalry trilogy (I watch them every time they're on), Chisum, or The Searchers (TCM's restored version is fabulous in HD.)

I'll be more serious as I assume since you put this in preparedness, you're talking about camo in a survival context. Frankly, in my experience the old woodland pattern works very well in Tennessee. Otherwise one of the commercial products like Realtree blend in very well. The ACU is, well, worthless except as urban camouflage here.

To be honest, if I'm charged in a homicide even my Sig will be a minor concern as I'll be far more concerned about a stay in TDOC.

Thank you for the update, he remains in my prayers.

Let me admit I read the first several pages and then, frankly, lost interest. As the thread continues I thought I'd add my two cent's worth. If you are involved in a self defense shooting unless the facts are immediately determinable, your gun will be held as evidence until the DA or the Grand Jury determines charges are not appropriate. It really is that simple. All the arguing aside, that's what's going to happen.

I, too, recommend the live trap method. I used it to get some small possums out of my crawlspace and basement. Unfortunately there was an adult who was too big for the trap who left this earthly pale by means of subsonic .22lr rounds in a Sig Mosquito. It took, however, four to kill it and when another wandered out from the crawlspace to get some cat food put to lure it out, I happened to have my carry gun and shot it once with my Sig 220 with Hornaday Critical Defense 230 grn hollow points. It only took a single shot but left quite a mess. I might recommend an intermediate round. Holes where critters came in all patched now so no further critter issues. By the way, the CD round mushroomed wonderfully and still had enough energy to split the composite decking I have on my back porch. Not really the way I wanted to test it, but I have far more confidence in my carry rounds now.

I'd met Sgt Cooley though I can't say I know him. He has my prayers.