Interpretation of Castle Doctrine Law.....

[Guest httytddy]

Some of you may be confused on this like I am.

The recently passed "Castle Doctrine" law says that there is immunity from civil liability for a person who uses lawful deadly force in defense of self or others ........but then right after that, it also says that the court would award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by a person in defense of any civil action brought against him.

To me, this seems contradictory. As a result, I sent an e-mail about two weeks ago to my both my state rep and senator, as well as one of the senators sponsoring the bill. Simply asked....(1) "Can one still be sued in civil court for using deadly force in self-defense, or does this law completely eliminate that?", and (2) If you can still be sued, "who is considered 'the court' if you are found not guilty in civil court and will be reimbursed for your legal defense expenses?"

I have not yet received a response from any of the three, but will post their answer(s) on this board if and when I do hear something back.

[towerclimber37]

it sounds to me like this:

if a person was found innocent in criminal court and has to go to civil court, then he will be reimbursed for his time and money by the people that want to sue him

[DaveTN]

Just like with Florida’s legislation you will have people running around yelling that you can’t be sued if you are justified in a shooting. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

All this legislation does is allow you a possible avenue for recovering legal fees if a civil court finds that you were justified in the shooting. There are some problems with this.

1. Most good shootings never go to criminal court. The fact that you were not charged criminally in a shooting does not mean that you were justified; you can certainly be devastated in a civil trial.

2. If a dirt bag or his family sues you, you still have to pay a lawyer to handle your case. You may win your case and the Judge may award you a judgment for your costs. But as anyone that is familiar with civil courts can tell you winning a judgment and you getting paid are two tally different things.

Wanting this to be legislation that blocks unjustified civil action (as we all do) does not make it fact.

I can see where this may be a step in the right direction, but is really nothing to get excited about. Legislation with some teeth would be that you could recover costs from the attorney that filed the case and not just the dirt bags that don’t have anything anyway.

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney nor do I play one on TV. I also did not sleep at a Holiday Inn last night, but this is just how I see it.

[TGO David]

But as anyone that is familiar with civil courts can tell you winning a judgment and you getting paid are two tally different things.

Emphasized because, well... it can't be emphasized enough. Truer words have rarely been spoken in regard to civil settlements. You can essentially expect that the likelihood of ever seeing your money again is inversely proportional to how much of a dirtbag the perp was and his family members are.

[The Rabbi]

I sued a guy for back rent and won a judgement of $1000 and put a lien on his house. I have yet to get paid a nickel. That was 4 years ago.

[Guest httytddy]

Some of you may be confused on this like I am.

The recently passed "Castle Doctrine" law says that there is immunity from civil liability for a person who uses lawful deadly force in defense of self or others ........but then right after that, it also says that the court would award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by a person in defense of any civil action brought against him.

To me, this seems contradictory. As a result, I sent an e-mail about two weeks ago to my both my state rep and senator, as well as one of the senators sponsoring the bill. Simply asked....(1) "Can one still be sued in civil court for using deadly force in self-defense, or does this law completely eliminate that?", and (2) If you can still be sued, "who is considered 'the court' if you are found not guilty in civil court and will be reimbursed for your legal defense expenses?"

I have not yet received a response from any of the three, but will post their answer(s) on this board if and when I do hear something back.

........It's been about five weeks since I sent the e-mails to the state rep and two state senators. Have not heard anything back from any of them. I assume it's one of two things: Either (a) they don't check their e-mail when not in session, or ( they have no idea of the answer. If it's the second, that's kind of ridiculous that they are up there passing legislation which they don't understand.

This is the first time I've ever written any General Assembly members with any comments or questions. For those of you that have......do you usually get no response or answer? Is this the norm?

[SkWaShDeM]

They might be waiting for the Attorney General to send them an opinion on it. That could take a while if the AG's office is backed up on requests and what not. I don't know though, I usually get a response from my state congresscritters within 2 business days.

[Donnie]

The Castle Doctrine is just words on a piece of paper. I would rather be alive and getting sued than be dead.

[Guest damenace]

I have just found out about the Castle Doctrine Law and have a question about the "vehicle" part. I have read about some other states that have the same or similar law and that says a person may carry a loaded weapon within reach in vehicle without having a CCW permit, does this sound right? I do not carry as of yet, but do intend to at some time. I understand that in this state you have to transport weapons locked away from within reach and unloaded.

[Guest damenace]

I need to clarify that weapon within reach is not to be out in the open. Sorry about that.

[DaveTN]

How and where you can carry a firearm have nothing to do with “Castle Doctrine†type laws.

<O:p</O:p

I read that <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:State>Texas</st1:State> was trying to get legislation for vehicle carry without a permit.

I would love to see <st1:State>Tennessee</st1:State> get it; but I don’t see them giving up any of the money they are getting now.

<O:p</O:p

I think some states allowed carry in a vehicle; but I have never lived in any.

<O:p</O:p

[The Rabbi]

Ditto.

If you arent on your own property you need a permit to carry a handgun or have it close at hand in a functional state.

[Guest SomeGuy]

The law is poorly written, and it is for that reason that I opposed the one we had in this session. (I think the actual TFA did to, but the answer to why it passed is below.)

If it's the second, that's kind of ridiculous that they are up there passing legislation which they don't understand.

If told to vote a certain way by someone with the power, they vote. As I understand, the NRA pressured some to vote, and sadly, the NRA has a bigger club than pretty much anyone in the gun-rights arena, even when they are making mistakes.

The other reason it passed, was it is viewed as a pro-gun bill. If you want to be known as pro-gun, you vote pro-gun, even if you haven't read the bill and found out it is a bad bill.

[dariks]

I have just found out about the Castle Doctrine Law and have a question about the "vehicle" part. I have read about some other states that have the same or similar law and that says a person may carry a loaded weapon within reach in vehicle without having a CCW permit, does this sound right? I do not carry as of yet, but do intend to at some time. I understand that in this state you have to transport weapons locked away from within reach and unloaded.

If you do not have a HCP then you man NOT have your weapon loaded while in the vehicle, regardless of whether or not it is in reach. The weapon must be unloaded and the ammunition kept seperate (out of reach?) of the weapon.

If you have your HCP then, of course, your firearm may be loaded and within reach (on your hip )

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe it matters whether or not the firearm is in sight or not. Since TN is not a concealed only state and open carry is legal.

[Guest damenace]

That is what I thought but wanted to ask to be sure. Thanks.

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

On a side note, Kentucky allows you keep a loaded gun the the glovebox (explicitly not console) without a carry permit. Also their carry permit is a permit to carry all weapons, So if I move to kentucky, I'll keep my pistol on my left hip and my katana on the right.

If I ever had to leave this great state, I would move there because their gun laws are even more lax than ours, and moonshine is legal.

[Guest Phantom6]

If I ever had to leave this great state, I would move there because their gun laws are even more lax than ours, and moonshine is legal.

Do you mean to tell me that drinkin' a touch of shine aint really legal in this state? Well, all I can say at this point is ... oops!

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

Well, you know the TN legislature is tax dollar hungry. They'd never legalize it without taking their cut, which they can't do, so it's illegal.