Castle doctrine question

[JsLangley]

Hey guys. I started a conversation previously regarding handgun laws and I got great answers that helped a lot. But I have one more question that I didn't think of but would've been helpful to know today. The castle doctrine extension enables me to carry a loaded handgun in my vehicle without an HCP as long as I am not unable to own a handgun by law and if I'm in lawful possession of the vehicle. My question is....if someone I am riding with (friend,relative etc.) is in lawful possession of their vehicle, would that be covered by the castle doctrine? Or is it only if I myself am in possession of the vehicle and am driving? Thanks for the help!

Edited February 1, 2017 by JsLangley

[JsLangley]

I just found something on http://smartgunlaws.org/guns-in-vehicles-in-tennessee/ that says a person can legally have their loaded handgun in "A LAWFULLY POSSESSED VEHICLE" which tells me it doesn't have to be MY vehicle. Not sure whether that's a reliable website or not. Just thought maybe that would help in your replies

Edited February 1, 2017 by JsLangley

[Oh Shoot]

You could have just read the statute itself; unlike many, it's pert durn clear.

"Is in lawful possession of the motor vehicle." is the key phrase. Ownership is not mentioned except in case of biz or govt. entity which provides the vehicle and prohibits possession.

- OS
 

Edited February 1, 2017 by Oh Shoot

[zybysco]

I've read that you can't have it on your person in a vehicle without a permit. 

Do you have a link to the actual code?

[Oh Shoot]

11 minutes ago, zybysco said:

I've read that you can't have it on your person in a vehicle without a permit. 

Horse pucky on whoever wrote it.

Quote

Do you have a link to the actual code?

http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/tncode/

Direct links don't work the way the frame site works, because you have to accept terms every time you visit.

You want 39-17-1307

but what the heck, I'll paste whole statute, pertinent to thread in red:

------------------------------------

39-17-1307.  Unlawful carrying or possession of a weapon.

  (a)  (1) A person commits an offense who carries, with the intent to go armed, a firearm or a club.

   (2)  (A) The first violation of subdivision (a)(1) is a Class C misdemeanor, and, in addition to possible imprisonment as provided by law, may be punished by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500).

      (B) A second or subsequent violation of subdivision (a)(1) is a Class B misdemeanor.

      (C) A violation of subdivision (a)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor if the person's carrying of a handgun occurred at a place open to the public where one (1) or more persons were present.

(b)  (1) A person commits an offense who unlawfully possesses a firearm, as defined in § 39-11-106, and:

      (A) Has been convicted of a felony involving the use or attempted use of force, violence, or a deadly weapon; or

      (B) Has been convicted of a felony drug offense.

   (2) An offense under subdivision (b)(1)(A) is a Class C felony.

   (3) An offense under subdivision (b)(1)(B) is a Class D felony.

(c)  (1) A person commits an offense who possesses a handgun and has been convicted of a felony.

   (2) An offense under subdivision (c)(1) is a Class E felony.

(d)  (1) A person commits an offense who possesses a deadly weapon other than a firearm with the intent to employ it during the commission of, attempt to commit, or escape from a dangerous offense as defined in § 39-17-1324.

   (2) A person commits an offense who possesses any deadly weapon with the intent to employ it during the commission of, attempt to commit, or escape from any offense not defined as a dangerous offense by § 39-17-1324.

   (3)  (A) Except as provided in subdivision (d)(3)(B), a violation of this subsection (d) is a Class E felony.

      (B) A violation of this subsection (d) is a Class E felony with a maximum fine of six thousand dollars ($6,000), if the deadly weapon is a switchblade knife.

(e)  (1) It is an exception to the application of subsection (a) that a person is carrying or possessing a firearm or firearm ammunition in a motor vehicle if the person:

      (A) Is not prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm by 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) or purchasing a firearm by § 39-17-1316; and

      (B) Is in lawful possession of the motor vehicle.

   (2) As used in this subsection (e):

      (A) "Motor vehicle" has the same meaning as defined in § 55-1-103;

      (B) "Motor vehicle" does not include any motor vehicle that is:

         (i) Owned or leased by a governmental or private entity that has adopted a written policy prohibiting firearms or ammunition not required for employment within such a motor vehicle; and

         (ii) Provided by such entity to an employee for use during the course of employment.

(f)  (1) A person commits an offense who possesses a firearm, as defined in § 39-11-106(a), and:

      (A) Has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 921, and is still subject to the disabilities of such a conviction;

      (B) Is, at the time of the possession, subject to an order of protection that fully complies with 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8); or

      (C) Is prohibited from possessing a firearm under any other state or federal law.

   (2) If the person is licensed as a federal firearms dealer or a responsible party under a federal firearms license, the determination of whether such an individual possesses firearms that constitute the business inventory under the federal license shall be determined based upon the applicable federal statutes or the rules, regulations and official letters, rulings and publications of the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives.

   (3) For purposes of this section, a person does not possess a firearm, including, but not limited to, firearms registered under the National Firearms Act, compiled in 26 U.S.C. § 5801 et seq., if the firearm is in a safe or similar container that is securely locked and to which the respondent does not have the combination, keys or other means of normal access.

   (4) A violation of subdivision (f)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor and each violation constitutes a separate offense.

   (5) If a violation of subdivision (f)(1) also constitutes a violation of § 36-3-625(h) or § 39-13-113(h), the respondent may be charged and convicted under any or all such sections.

---------------

- OS
 

Edited February 1, 2017 by Oh Shoot

[Oh Shoot]

Also note that this is an exception to this statute only. Doing same on school property, posted property, or against employer policy still requires a permit.

Edited February 1, 2017 by Oh Shoot

[Oh Shoot]

rats, double post

Edited February 1, 2017 by Oh Shoot

[zybysco]

12 minutes ago, Oh Shoot said:

rats, double post

Thank you.  I knew you could point me straight to it.  It's hard to search on a cellphone.

[JsLangley]

Thanks for posting the statute oh shoot. U know how the laws are. So many technicalities. 

[raildog]

When in Doubt about Tennessee firearm laws just ask Oh Shoot. Sometimes I think he is the guy writing the dang things as much as he knows.

Oh Shoot I would like to think you for all that you do for our group.

[Oh Shoot]

31 minutes ago, raildog said:

When in Doubt about Tennessee firearm laws just ask Oh Shoot. Sometimes I think he is the guy writing the dang things as much as he knows.

Oh Shoot I would like to think you for all that you do for our group.

Um, well,  garsh, thx. Note that about half of what I note about them are the gray areas though, so don't take anything from me as legally authoritative in any way, eh?

And if I were writing them, there'd be few if any of them there gray areas.

- OS

Edited February 2, 2017 by Oh Shoot

[Ugly]

Seems to me that a simple statement such as "wherever you are is your castle"  would give us the freedom to protect ourselves at all times. 

Other than that it's just complicated  law to make law abiding citizens possible lawbreakers. 

Of course, it's for the children!

[joe4vol]

When the OP asked about riding in someone else's vehicle isn't that a huge gray area? Does Castle Doctrine cover all passengers or only the owner? Same thing with a residence?

[Omega]

16 minutes ago, joe4vol said:

When the OP asked about riding in someone else's vehicle isn't that a huge gray area? Does Castle Doctrine cover all passengers or only the owner? Same thing with a residence?

That's actually a good question, but I  would ask it this way; as a passenger,  are you in possession of the vehicle?  Though I believe if you are driving,  whether you own it or not, you're covered, I'm not sure a passenger would be.

[Oh Shoot]

1 hour ago, joe4vol said:

When the OP asked about riding in someone else's vehicle isn't that a huge gray area? Does Castle Doctrine cover all passengers or only the owner? Same thing with a residence?

Who is in lawful possession of the vehicle? Certainly the owner, or anyone the owner allows to use it. Doesn't matter who actually owns the guns, the one in lawful possession of the vehicle is the one who is "carrying" them; I'm sure the term is not meant to limit that to being "on the person".

I suppose that if your buddy doesn't want firearms in his vehicle, it's his responsibility to determine whether you have any before giving you a ride, or letting you borrow his car. Like that. Same thing in a residence. Certainly the the owner or "possessor" of the residence can ban firearms within it. Hell, landlords can even legally specify that in a lease in this state, at least private ones can.

Even so, as far as the vehicle, the driver/owner isn't committing an unlawful act carrying your firearms, even if he doesn't know about it. And of course as long as you have a permit, you certainly aren't either, even if you know you're doing it against his will. In short, I think you're postulating a problem that simply hasn't and won't arise.

- OS

 

Edited February 2, 2017 by Oh Shoot

[JsLangley]

Thanks for the help. I just want all bases covered. I believe I would be covered seeing that the definition of "possession" by Merriam-Webster is: "control or occupancy of property without regard to ownership" therefore i, being an occupant, am in possession of the vehicle. And lawful just means it's not stolen or I am not prevented by law from being in possession of that vehicle. So I would be in lawful possession as would my friend

[DaveTN]

Keep in mind that Castle Doctrine is not really laws, but a legal principal.

The actual law in question (possession in a vehicle) does not differentiate between actual possession and constructive possession. If the intent was for it to be your vehicle; the law would state that.

9 hours ago, Ugly said:

Seems to me that a simple statement such as "wherever you are is your castle"  would give us the freedom to protect ourselves at all times. 

Other than that it's just complicated  law to make law abiding citizens possible lawbreakers. 

Of course, it's for the children!

I don’t think it’s complicated. In every state I have been in, and I assume all others, you are justified in the use of deadly force if a reasonable person (jury) would believe you were in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm. Duty to retreat may be an issue in some states but we don’t have that in Tennessee (and never have as far as I can tell) and it usually isn’t going to be an issue in most deadly force confrontations.

Castle Doctrine helps, but it isn’t a pass for a free kill. If you have a bad shoot you could still have issues.

It gets complicated when someone shoots a person that was not an immediate threat to them or they were an active participant in a situation that escalated to a shooting.

I would like to complicate that even more by bringing back the laws that allowed a fleeing forcible felon to be shot.

[conn_air7]

I was also under the impression that given the new vehicle law, you weren't allowed to have a firearm on your person while in the vehicle.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ugly]

well, the powers that be must think it's safer to have the firearm laying on the seat, or dash, or under the seat, somewhere unsecured where it could freely move about. 

While the castle doctrine may not be that complicated, it sure seems like they are trying to make it  complicated inmo.  

[DaveTN]

2 hours ago, conn_air7 said:

I was also under the impression that given the new vehicle law, you weren't allowed to have a firearm on your person while in the vehicle.
 

I don’t know who put that note in there, but the statute clearly says it is an exception to (a)(1), and uses the words carrying or possessing.

[monkeylizard]

Agreed. That comment is untrue. The statute says nothing about on-body carry in a vehicle.

[conn_air7]

Agreed. That comment is untrue. The statute says nothing about on-body carry in a vehicle.

Who knows, wouldn't apply to me anyway since I have my permit. However, I have always felt confident in handgunlaws.com, so I'm starting to wonder what that is about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[conn_air7]

I don’t know who put that note in there, but the statute clearly says it is an exception to (a)(1), and uses the words carrying or possessing.

It does specify carrying or possessing "in a vehicle" though, not on your person. I'm certainly no expert in interpretation, nor does it matter to me, I suppose curiosity is my motive here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[monkeylizard]

If it's on me, and I'm in a vehicle, it too, is in a vehicle.

[DaveTN]

3 hours ago, conn_air7 said:

 

It does specify carrying or possessing "in a vehicle" though, not on your person. I'm certainly no expert in interpretation, nor does it matter to me, I suppose curiosity is my motive here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Well I’m not an attorney and don’t play one on TV, but it says you are exempt if you are carrying or possessing in a vehicle. As a former cop if I was arresting someone for having the gun on them I would need some language in the statute telling that was a violation; there isn’t any.

However… the only person responsible for knowing what the law is, in the state you are in is you. So if anyone has concerns; they should check a source they trust.