concealed carry online course questions

[Refleks]

Watched someone take the concealed carry online course, and it raised more than a few questions.

1.  Admittedly I've only seen one of these many available online courses, but based on the formatting on some of the slides it appears as though some slides were provided by the state of TN to show, implying there's a certain baseline of information the state of TN wants people to see.  Presumably, private companies are able to throw in their two cents in addition to this.   If this is the case and the state mandates certain slides are shown at a minimum, what is the rationale for the state of TN not simply coming up with their own course and offering it for free, such as what they did with the boaters safety course, allowing people the option to self-study and simply take the exam and print a certificate?

2. Early in one of the slides it implied that if you were found justified in using deadly force from the criminal aspect, you were also immune from civil litigation by the criminal and/or those suing you on behalf of the criminal such as the criminal's family (though you are still potentially civilly liable for innocent bystander injuries and 3rd party damages).  This was my understanding per the sit-in class I took years back.   However, later it seems to contradict this and says you may be subject to civil liability (implying on behalf of the criminal here, not bystander).  So which is it?

3. The course said if you have even a sip of alcohol in an establishment you are of course in violation.  I don't drink, but I was curious because I know some who do with the attitude that if you are under the legal BAC limit and the state considers you to have sound enough judgement to drive, then you're fine to carry. The course only mentioned drinking in an establishment, not on your own property, or carrying to a place you have a right to be after having a drink on your own property (ie, going to the store).

4. I understood the state of TN to have a safe harbor statute which stated that if you were found justified in using deadly force, you could not be charged with carrying past a no-carry sign. Is this still the case?  The course didn't mention anything about it.

5. The course didn't mention anything about reciprocity at all, much less whether or not the concealed carry permit qualifies.  My presumption is that it does (and is part of the reason the legislature had the initial bill changed to ensure you actually got a card for your wallet rather than just having a certificate) but that's just a presumption...
 

Edited March 11, 2020 by Refleks

[chances R]

Too many questions, and I am sure there are more from yourself and others.  That is why the CC permit is a terrible idea/product.

[DaveTN]

I haven’t seen the online course, but…

There is no law that would make you “immune from civil litigation” in so far as not having to get an attorney. You could be immune, but to the best of my knowledge that would require the DA saying you were justified (highly unlikely) or a ruling by a judge. I doubt the fact that you haven’t been charged will suffice. Also, without going back and reading it, I think it allows for a judgement against the person filing it (For attorney fees etc.). Good luck collecting that.

Going by the BAC limits for driving a car is wishful thinking on some people’s part. There is no BAC limit stated in laws involving liquor or guns.

If the DA decides you are justified in using deadly force; they won’t charge you with weapons charges.

The course doesn’t talk about reciprocity because that’s up to the state you are in, not Tennessee.

However, keep in mind in discussing all these questions; every case is handled on its details.

 

Edited March 11, 2020 by DaveTN

[chances R]

IF you case is adjudicated in your favor, then yes there is a law where a civil case cannot be filed.  BAC not only is '0', simple act of taking a sip, or even on breath can march you down the path of possession of a firearm while consuming alcohol.  If one has used deadly force in a legitimate fashion, then other laws that may have been broken are waived by the state. (ie, possession by a felon, sign laws, etc.)  Don't have the citations at the tip of my fingers but noted in the law for each point.

Edited March 11, 2020 by chances R

[DaveTN]

This issue has been discussed here many times. There are those that believe if they acted legally they can’t be sued. I’m not an attorney and don’t play one on TV, but I don’t believe that is true. So, let’s look at the actual law…

Quote

 

39-11-622. Justification for use of force — Exceptions — Immunity from civil liability.

(a)

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in §§ 39-11-611 — 39-11-614 or § 29-34-201, is justified in using such force and is immune from civil liability for the use of such force, unless:

(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

(ii) Identified the officer in accordance with any applicable law; or

(iii) 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) The court shall 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 the person based upon the person's use of force, if the court finds that the defendant was justified in using such force pursuant to §§ 39-11-611 — 39-11-614 or § 29-34-201.

 

I don’t see any immunity from civil action. What I see is immunity from liability, and a clause that allows for a judgement for compensation of attorney fees, etc. after justification has been determined. While that is better than nothing; a judgement against someone that doesn’t have the ability to pay, really means nothing. You are still stuck paying the bills.

I have always thought that should be changed and if the Judge determines that the attorney that filed the case knew, or should have known, the force was justified; they could be held liable as well. Of course, with attorneys making the laws, I doubt that will ever happen.

[Refleks]

Thanks all!