HB 0409 Civil Immunity

[Worriedman]

In the process of working through legal and  the opposition by the Sheriff's Association to amend original bill to something they will allow.

Intent is to wind up with no criminal conviction, no civil suit.  To get there it requires an affirmative duty on the part of LE to investigate any creditable Self Defense threat of the use of deadly force or the use of deadly force in a self defense situation.  Under current statues, one can be sued civilly as long as there is no determination of not guilty.  If you can prove some h ow that you were not guilty, they you can seek your legal fees back from the instigator of the civil suit. (good luck with that).

Spoke with the Governor an(he promised to consider it) d several legislators last night at the Reagan Day Dinner in Madison County last night, as well a a number of judges, LEs and our AG.

Hope to have a workable vehilce to move forward next week.

[DaveTN]

That’s a tough one. I don’t see a DA wanting to give affirmation in a case when they don’t need to; or its questionable. Without a criminal case; it seems the civil hearing would be the vehicle to make that determination. Do you have language you think will work?

The problem is there is never any responsibility or liability for the attorney that brings the case.

If the person that brings the case has nothing, then you can get all the judgements you want but you aren’t getting the fees you paid to your attorney back.

[Worriedman]

Yeah, the meth thugs that harassed my parents for 4 years, we finally got a judgement for the legal fees and they did not even take his new pickup to satisfy the judgement, got nothing.

A number of States have it, the best being Florida.  This lacks the affirmative duty to investigate.

 

005075-1.pdf

Edited March 2, 2019 by Worriedman

[DaveTN]

.

Edited March 2, 2019 by DaveTN

[Worriedman]

Amendment No.________________
_______________________________________
Signature of Sponsor
AMEND S e n ate Bill No. 1275 House Bill No. 409*
*05936352* *005075*
0593635218 - 1 - *005075*
FILED
Date _____________
Time _____________
Clerk ____________
Comm. Amdt. ______
__________________
by deleting all language after the enacting clause and substituting instead the following:
SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-11-622, is amended by deleting the section in its entirety and substituting instead the following:
(a)
(1) A person who uses or threatens to use force as permitted by §§ 39-11-611 - 39-11-614 and § 29-34-201 is justified in using or threatening to use force and is immune from civil action by the person, personal representative, or heirs of the person against whom the force was used or threatened if the civil action is based upon the use or threatened use of force.
(2) The civil immunity conferred by this section shall not apply if:
(A) The person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in § 39-11-106, who:
(i) Was acting in the performance of the officer's official duties and identified himself or herself as a law enforcement officer; or
(ii) The person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer; or
(B) The force used by the person resulted in property damage to or the death or injury of an innocent bystander or other person against whom the force used was not justified.
(b)
- 2 - *005075*
(1) If a civil action is brought against the person who used or threatened to use force as described in subdivision (a), the action shall be dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim unless the person against whom the claim has been made has been convicted of a crime involving the unlawful use of force that resulted from the same events as the civil action.
(2) A civil action may be brought against a person convicted of a crime involving the unlawful use of force and arising from the same incident as the civil action within one (1) year of the date of the conviction for the use of unlawful force resulting from the same events. Notwithstanding any other statute of limitation or statute of repose that might otherwise be applicable, the one-year statute of limitation established by this subdivision (b)(2) shall be tolled from the time force was used or threatened until the conviction for the unlawful use of force.
(c) The court in which the civil action is filed shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that:
(1) The defendant is immune from civil liability as provided in subdivision (a); or
(2) A claim is dismissed as provided in subdivision (b)(1).
SECTION 2. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-17-1322, is amended by adding the following language as a new, appropriately designated subdivision:
( ) A person who possesses, displays, or employs a firearm under circumstances permitted in §§ 39-11-611 - 39-11-614 and § 29-34-201 is justified in possessing, displaying, or employing the firearm and is immune from civil action as provided in § 39-11-622.
SECTION 3. This act shall take effect July 1, 2019, the public welfare requiring it

[Worriedman]

Goes before Constitutional Protections & Sentencing Subcommittee for 3/27/2019.

 

[Worriedman]

Spent  the day on the Hill, it will make it out of Sub, we will see what happens after that, sampling seems very positive in the House.

 

[Worriedman]

Moved forward out of sub committee, and on to Judicial Committe next week.

[Refleks]

I was under the impression that in TN if a shoot was justified and you were found not guilty of wrongdoing in criminal court that you could not be sued in civil court?  Was I mistaken or what does this add to that?

[E4 No More]

4 hours ago, Refleks said:

I was under the impression that in TN if a shoot was justified and you were found not guilty of wrongdoing in criminal court that you could not be sued in civil court?  Was I mistaken or what does this add to that?

Not criminal court. A court officer so the prosecutor would qualify IIRC.

[Worriedman]

You can be sued if you are not found not guilty now, then you can hire your own attorney and defend yourself. If you are found not guilty you can purse the opposite side for your legal expenses. There is no affirmative duty for LE to investigate and make a ruling either.  There is not stay on being sued in civil court if you are awaiting a criminal trial, you can have to afford council on two fronts.

This bill says is you are not convicted of a crime you can not be sued civilly.

 

Edited March 29, 2019 by Worriedman

[Worriedman]

We are at a point where we need badly for Citizens to contact their elected employees in Tennessee and  advocate for the passage of HB0409/SB1275.  It is not everything that I would like it to be, but, it was negotiated with the Sheriff's Association, Chiefs of Police and DAs and even has the approval of the NRA and as such has a real possibility of becoming a Public Chapter.

This is an opportunity to show some strength in numbers in moving a Rights restorative bill through the General Assembly.  This one  does not have the governor fighting it, has a real chance of success.  Getting a big number of calls will let the legislators know that as a group we are paying attention, they were shocked at the uproar over Dickerson's Red Flag bill, if we piggyback that same attention on this bill (which has a real chance of passage as is) it builds on our effectiveness.

[Worriedman]

This bill died because Mike Carter and William Lamberth do not fear the gun owners of Tennessee mostly because  no one contacted them.  

When you have to put a locked vault in your car, boat or House boat next year, well, you get what you deserve.