Non lethal defence for wife

[deerslayer]

Whatever the case, I'm glad he/she was at the right place at the right time.

[Guest db99wj]

Whatever the case, I'm glad he/she was at the right place at the right time.

No doubt.

[Fallguy]

I have sent an e-mail to a state Rep that has helped me in the past with laws and even obtaining AG opinions. I will post in a new thread his response. But to me "any person" simply means "any person"

FWIW Here is the e-mail I got back...

Following is the response we received from a member of our legislative legal staff in response to your inquiry. I hope this information is helpful. ...Steve McD

To me it is clear that you do NOT have to be a law enforcement officer to carry a baton if you are trained under § 39-17-1308(a)(9). Law enforcement officer is not even used in that provision. Rather, as Mr. Fall points out, it says "By any person". I know the company that did my handgun training course for a permit also did baton training and I don't recall any mention of it being limited to law enforcement officers or security guards. So, in my opinion, it clearly applies to any person who has had the proper training and, the language itself, does not require that it be the same kind of baton with which you trained. Although if it was a kind you had not trained with, that may be a problem for the reason discussed in the next paragraph.

All § 39-17-1308(a)(9) does is give the person a defense to the criminal charge of unlawful carrying or possessing of a weapon under § 39-17-1307. It is not nearly the same as a handgun carry permit. It means that if you are charged with that offense, you can raise as a defense that you had this baton training. It is not an absolute defense as the jury may not believe you took the correct kind of training or that you were not prohibited from purchasing a firearm. So it is not like the permit in that if you have one you have been licensed to carry by the state. Rather it is just something you can raise if you are charged with unlawfully carrying a firearm. It may or may not keep you from getting arrested and charged and having to get a lawyer and make bail and miss work time. So a defense to a crime is not nearly as safe as having a license to engage in that conduct.

[Punisher84]

FWIW Here is the e-mail I got back...

All § 39-17-1308(a)(9) does is give the person a defense to the criminal charge of unlawful carrying or possessing of a weapon under § 39-17-1307. It is not nearly the same as a handgun carry permit. It means that if you are charged with that offense, you can raise as a defense that you had this baton training. It is not an absolute defense as the jury may not believe you took the correct kind of training or that you were not prohibited from purchasing a firearm. So it is not like the permit in that if you have one you have been licensed to carry by the state. Rather it is just something you can raise if you are charged with unlawfully carrying a firearm. It may or may not keep you from getting arrested and charged and having to get a lawyer and make bail and miss work time. So a defense to a crime is not nearly as safe as having a license to engage in that conduct.

That sums up what I said earlier about it only being a defense and that is what my Instructor pointed out to me. So kinda in the middle ultimately. I guess it depends on who the Officer is when you get popped carrying one around.

[Fallguy]

That sums up what I said earlier about it only being a defense and that is what my Instructor pointed out to me. So kinda in the middle ultimately. I guess it depends on who the Officer is when you get popped carrying one around.

I can completely agree with that.

[Guest db99wj]

Awwww, ain't ya'll cute.....agree'n and all!:stir:

[Punisher84]

I can completely agree with that.

Why is life like wheel of fortune? LOL Spin the wheel and take your chance!

It'd be nice if one day a legislator would go "Hey let's allow people who don't break the law to defend themselves!"

[Fallguy]

Awwww, ain't ya'll cute.....agree'n and all!:stir:

[Punisher84]

Awwww, ain't ya'll cute.....agree'n and all!:stir:

Who let you out of your hobbit hole this late? Gandalf know you're runnin around?

[Fallguy]

Why is life like wheel of fortune? LOL Spin the wheel and take your chance!

It'd be nice if one day a legislator would go "Hey let's allow people who don't break the law to defend themselves!"

I can agree with that as well...

[Guest canynracer]

Who let you out of your hobbit hole this late? Gandalf know you're runnin around?

now THAT is funny stuff right there!!!! ROFL

[Guest db99wj]

now THAT is funny stuff right there!!!! ROFL

[Punisher84]

double post.

Edited January 8, 2009 by Punisher84

[Punisher84]

AWW! It's ok. I'm skinny, you're short, it make a the world go round.

Put us together and I can slip through cracks while you headbutt people in the nads!

[Guest db99wj]

AWW! It's ok. I'm skinny, you're short, it make a the world go round.

Put us together and I can slip through cracks while you headbutt people in the nads!

Allright there kung fu panda.

[Punisher84]

Allright there kung fu panda.

I thought I was Tactical ballerina?

[Guest db99wj]

I thought I was Tactical ballerina?

If you insist.

Thanks for the sig!

[Punisher84]

If you insist.

Thanks for the sig!

Oh it's on now sucka!

[Guest canynracer]

I thought I was Tactical ballerina?

If you insist.

Thanks for the sig!

[Guest Ggun]

Quote:

Following is the response we received from a member of our legislative legal staff in response to your inquiry. I hope this information is helpful. ...Steve McD

To me it is clear that you do NOT have to be a law enforcement officer to carry a baton if you are trained under § 39-17-1308(a)(9). Law enforcement officer is not even used in that provision. Rather, as Mr. Fall points out, it says "By any person". I know the company that did my handgun training course for a permit also did baton training and I don't recall any mention of it being limited to law enforcement officers or security guards. So, in my opinion, it clearly applies to any person who has had the proper training and, the language itself, does not require that it be the same kind of baton with which you trained. Although if it was a kind you had not trained with, that may be a problem for the reason discussed in the next paragraph.

All § 39-17-1308(a)(9) does is give the person a defense to the criminal charge of unlawful carrying or possessing of a weapon under § 39-17-1307. It is not nearly the same as a handgun carry permit. It means that if you are charged with that offense, you can raise as a defense that you had this baton training. It is not an absolute defense as the jury may not believe you took the correct kind of training or that you were not prohibited from purchasing a firearm. So it is not like the permit in that if you have one you have been licensed to carry by the state. Rather it is just something you can raise if you are charged with unlawfully carrying a firearm. It may or may not keep you from getting arrested and charged and having to get a lawyer and make bail and miss work time. So a defense to a crime is not nearly as safe as having a license to engage in that conduct.

The staff guy did a pretty good job until he indicated that a jury "may not believe you took the correct kind of training". The law clearly states:

"who holds a certificate that the person has had training in the use of a club or baton for self-defense that is valid and issued by a certified person authorized to give training in the use of clubs or batons..."

Once you affimatively prove the above the jury would not be permitted to deliberate whether you took the correct kind of training.

[Fallguy]

But you haven't really proved it one way or the other till the jury rules....right?

I think what he meant is like if you took training from a trainer for type/brand A baton, but you actually had type/brand B baton. Even if types A and B were practically the same thing... A DA wanting to push the issue might convince a jury that you didn't meat the training requirement.

[Guest ProguninTN]

But you haven't really proved it one way or the other till the jury rules....right?

I think what he meant is like if you took training from a trainer for type/brand A baton, but you actually had type/brand B baton. Even if types A and B were practically the same thing... A DA wanting to push the issue might convince a jury that you didn't meat the training requirement.

To back up Fallguy, I am baton certified. I was trained in the use of straight and expandable batons. My class did not cover the use of side-handle type batons, such as the Monadnock PR-24. A DA could bring that up that fact if I'm in a situation and I use a side-handle style baton.

[Guest DoDFire]

Been wanting to get something for the wife,,,,Thanks for the info, I'm going tomorrow to purchase the kimber spray if they have it on the shelf.

[Oh Shoot]

Been wanting to get something for the wife,,,,Thanks for the info, I'm going tomorrow to purchase the kimber spray if they have it on the shelf.

Where here in Ktown?

- OS

[Guest DoDFire]

Where here in Ktown?

- OS

W.D Sporting Goods on Alcoa Hwy. is the nearest store according to Kimbers web site. If they don't have it I'll go to the next store which appears to be Coal Creek. If none of them have it I guess I'll order from Cabelas.