Bills Passed Today

[waynesan]

The following bills were voted on and approved today to be placed on the calendar for Thursday 3/19/09:

2. *HB0046 by *Evans, *Bass, *Todd, *Rich, *Dennis, *Watson, *Haynes, *Ramsey, *Brooks K, *Shipley, *Carr, *Weaver, *Halford, *Bell, *Matheny, *Kelsey, *Maggart, *Faulkner, *Lundberg, *Hensley, *Hawk, *Hill, *Fincher. (SB0032 by *Tracy.)

Handgun Permits - As introduced, prohibits department of safety or any department approved handgun safety course employee from requiring applicant for handgun carry permit to furnish any identifying information concerning any handgun the applicant owns or possesses. - Amends TCA Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13.

3. *HB0070 by *Fincher. (SB0474 by *Berke.)

Criminal Procedure - As introduced, deletes subsection in self-defense law providing that a person not justified in use of deadly force to prevent or terminate trespass on real property or unlawful interference with personal property. - Amends TCA Title 39, Chapter 11, Part 6.

5. *HB0390 by *Fincher. (SB0578 by *Jackson.)

Handgun Permits - As introduced, permits handgun carry permit holders to possess or carry a loaded rifle, loaded shotgun, or loaded magazine or clip therefore while in a motor vehicle. - Amends TCA Title 39, Chapter 17.

9. HB0082 by *Shaw, *Fincher. (*SB0019 by *Gresham, *Ford, O..)

Firearms and Ammunition - As introduced, authorizes current and retired judges who possess a handgun carry permit to carry a firearm under same circumstances and conditions as law enforcement officers and correctional officers. - Amends TCA Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13.

If you want to watch the video where these were discussed you can watch it here:

http://tnga.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=4&clip_id=634

[memphismason]

Nice. Hopefully this is an indication of good things to come....cough.... restaurant carry....cough

[Guest 2HOW]

Not really clear on this one, can anyone clarify ?

3. *HB0070 by *Fincher. (SB0474 by *Berke.)

Criminal Procedure - As introduced, deletes subsection in self-defense law providing that a person not justified in use of deadly force to prevent or terminate trespass on real property or unlawful interference with personal property. - Amends TCA Title 39, Chapter 11, Part 6.

[G27]

Not really clear on this one, can anyone clarify ?

3. *HB0070 by *Fincher. (SB0474 by *Berke.)

Criminal Procedure - As introduced, deletes subsection in self-defense law providing that a person not justified in use of deadly force to prevent or terminate trespass on real property or unlawful interference with personal property. - Amends TCA Title 39, Chapter 11, Part 6.

Hrmm, IANAL, but that sure sounds like a massive increase in the castle doctrine, allowing you to protect your property with deadly force...

[Volzfan]

Hrmm, IANAL, but that sure sounds like a massive increase in the castle doctrine, allowing you to protect your property with deadly force...

That's what I thought too. I didn't realize that was up for consideration.

[Guest onthesquare]

Yea!

[Guest jdavis]

finally doing their job. maybe that is a sign of good things in the future, hope so anyway.

[memphismason]

Hrmm, IANAL, but that sure sounds like a massive increase in the castle doctrine, allowing you to protect your property with deadly force...

Kinda the way I took it too. Maybe Patrick can enlinghten us.

[Guest Revelator]

That's pretty much it. This would let you use deadly force to protect property. They say it's deleting a subsection of the self-defense law, but that is incorrect. The law they're talking about is called Protection of Property, and it has its own section (39-11-614). Self defense is in section -611. They should know that. Anyway, the law currently reads "A person is not justified in using deadly force to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on real estate or unlawful interference with personal property." This bill would remove that. However, while it says they are removing the prohibition on using deadly force to protect property, it does not say that it will actually put in new language making it ok to use deadly force. I think it would make the law more clear if they did.

[memphismason]

Thanks Patrick!

This could give a whole new meaning to:

Get Off My Lawn!

[Guest Revelator]

Brad: I'm not sure if this would be an expansion of the Castle Doctrine. The way the CD works is this: first, in order to use deadly force in this state you need a reasonable belief of an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. The TN CD says you are presumed to have held that belief if the threat is in your residence, business, dwelling, or vehicle. I don't think this bill is saying that if you catch someone stealing your car or coming onto your land that you are presumed to have had a reasonable belief of...etc. It's letting you use deadly force, but it's not giving you the presumption. For instance, when you're out in public you don't get that presumption--unless you happen to be sitting in your car.

[Jamie Jackson]

5. *HB0390 by *Fincher. (SB0578 by *Jackson.)

Handgun Permits - As introduced, permits handgun carry permit holders to possess or carry a loaded rifle, loaded shotgun, or loaded magazine or clip therefore while in a motor vehicle. - Amends TCA Title 39, Chapter 17.

I was completely unaware that this was being considered. And I try to keep up with such things...hence my joining this forum...

I think this is an excellent move on the part of our State.

I have lived and/or worked in states where this is legal, I've never heard of it being a problem.

I've only lived in TN a few years and not being able to carry a long gun in my POV has been a concern. There are times and circumstances when only a long gun can deal with the problem.

Great News that this is in the works!

Prag

[Tim Nunan]

9. HB0082 by *Shaw, *Fincher. (*SB0019 by *Gresham, *Ford, O..)

Firearms and Ammunition - As introduced, authorizes current and retired judges who possess a handgun carry permit to carry a firearm under same circumstances and conditions as law enforcement officers and correctional officers. - Amends TCA Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13.

Oh goody, another special class of citizens.

[Guest Revelator]

On second thought, maybe this does expand the castle doc. If someone is taking your car it's going to be hard to show you had that reasonable belief of imminent danger and all that. So perhaps if this becomes law it will give you that presumption, because without it the bill doesn't make much sense. We'll see.

[G27]

Brad: I'm not sure if this would be an expansion of the Castle Doctrine. The way the CD works is this: first, in order to use deadly force in this state you need a reasonable belief of an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. The TN CD says you are presumed to have held that belief if the threat is in your residence, business, dwelling, or vehicle. I don't think this bill is saying that if you catch someone stealing your car or coming onto your land that you are presumed to have had a reasonable belief of...etc. It's letting you use deadly force, but it's not giving you the presumption. For instance, when you're out in public you don't get that presumption--unless you happen to be sitting in your car.

Ahh, thanks.

So nice to have a real lawyer around...

hehe

[G27]

On second thought, maybe this does expand the castle doc. If someone is taking your car it's going to be hard to show you had that reasonable belief of imminent danger and all that. So perhaps if this becomes law it will give you that presumption, because without it the bill doesn't make much sense. We'll see.

The reason I figured it would fall under CD is because it sounds like some of the laws that have been so talked about in Texas (among other places).

I guess we'll just have to wait and see - I'm not one who would shoot someone over property unless the world was very different than it is now...

[waynesan]

Not really clear on this one, can anyone clarify ?

3. *HB0070 by *Fincher. (SB0474 by *Berke.)

Criminal Procedure - As introduced, deletes subsection in self-defense law providing that a person not justified in use of deadly force to prevent or terminate trespass on real property or unlawful interference with personal property. - Amends TCA Title 39, Chapter 11, Part 6.

If you'll follow this link from the OP:

http://tnga.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=4&clip_id=634

and click on HB0070 under the video screen you can watch the discussion on this bill and what it actually means. It was the most discussed bill today and I think there is still confusion about how it will apply.

[dralarms]

Oh goody, another special class of citizens.

The only thing I see this doing is allowing judges to carry while court is in session. The bill clearly states "has handgun permit".

The only place that a cop can carry that I can't is a courthouse (while court is in session), and a resturant that serves booze.

[dralarms]

If you'll follow this link from the OP:

http://tnga.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=4&clip_id=634

and click on HB0070 under the video screen you can watch the discussion on this bill and what it actually means. It was the most discussed bill today and I think there is still confusion about how it will apply.

That's fun to watch. and most enlightening as to their intended meaning.

[EMTRN]

The only thing I see this doing is allowing judges to carry while court is in session. The bill clearly states "has handgun permit".

The only place that a cop can carry that I can't is a courthouse (while court is in session), and a resturant that serves booze.

It depends on the court. We are not allowed to carry in court in my city.

[dralarms]

If you'll follow this link from the OP:

http://tnga.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=4&clip_id=634

and click on HB0070 under the video screen you can watch the discussion on this bill and what it actually means. It was the most discussed bill today and I think there is still confusion about how it will apply.

It depends on the court. We are not allowed to carry in court in my city.

What are you supposed to do with a freak that is bent on killing someone?

[Punisher84]

What are you supposed to do with a freak that is bent on killing someone?

Kill him with kindness??

[EMTRN]

What are you supposed to do with a freak that is bent on killing someone?

We are supposed to think happy thoughts and hope that the bailiff has fired his weapon in the last 10 years and will rescue us all.

[Guest slim]

Local TV station channel 9 in chatt. tn. had a segment about some of these proposed laws on at 5:30 pm and the way it looks, we will finally be on the same par on gun laws, with GA!:tough:

I had never really thought about it, but all the times i went to the range and had mags in the pockets of the canvas gun case, i was doing a no-no when the mags were loaded!

[waynesan]

I had never really thought about it, but all the times i went to the range and had mags in the pockets of the canvas gun case, i was doing a no-no when the mags were loaded!

Until this bill first got submitted, I didn't realize I was breaking the law either. And from talking with several of my shooting buddies neither did they.

Local TV station channel 9 in chatt. tn. had a segment about some of these proposed laws on at 5:30 pm and the way it looks, we will finally be on the same par on gun laws, with GA!:tough:

OH HAPPY DAY!!! I sure hope that's right.