Bills Passed Today

[Fallguy]

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.

It seems the amendment to HB0070 pretty much make deadly force for protection of property only available if you would already be allowed to use deadly force.

I remember seeing the debate about this amendment last week....and I agree it seems to be more confusing now than ever.

[Fallguy]

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.

LEOs can also ingnore 39-17-1359 signs.

From what I can tell there is just one certain judge that is wanting to do this for some reason. I mean judges can already legally carry even without a HCP.

[Fallguy]

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

Very true....and I think I understand it a bit more.

But not sure anyone, including LEOs & judges, would fully understand without watching the discussion from today.

From what I can get....if someone is stealing your car or other property that may be in a public place, you could not use deadly force...but if someone was stealing property from within the curtliage area of your residence or from an out building on your property, you could, because it would fall under 39-11-611 and this bill simply removes any chance that a prosecutor might use 39-11-614© to prosecute you.

Does that sound about right Mr. Stegall?

..and also that it is still simply a statutory presumption that you were in imminent fear of serious bodily injury or death and if a DA feels he can prove that fear was unreasonable, you could still be charged and possible convicted...right?

Edited March 18, 2009 by Fallguy

[Mark@Sea]

That's a pretty Garand! Hey Mike, you see this?

[Mike.357]

That's a pretty Garand! Hey Mike, you see this?

Dang it Mark!

[Guest Revelator]

Yeah that's what I was thinking. Practically it doesn't seem to change much from what's already there.

[Fallguy]

Yeah that's what I was thinking. Practically it doesn't seem to change much from what's already there.

Nope, not really.

As the sponsor said, it's more to just close a loophole that a DA could have used to still prosocute you if while defending yourself you were also defending property.

Oh well.....there's still TX.

[Oh Shoot]

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.

And a school/college, and a federal building, and anyplace that is correctly posted, and ...

- OS

[Fallguy]

And a school/college, and a federal building, and anyplace that is correctly posted, and ...

- OS

Actually I don't think even local LEOs can carry in a federal building. At least I know I remember being told by some they were told they couldn't at the federal courthouse in Jackson.

[Machman]

Current code:

39-11-614. Protection of property. —

(a) A person in lawful possession of real or personal property is justified in threatening or using force against another, when and to the degree it is reasonably believed the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

( A person who has been unlawfully dispossessed of real or personal property is justified in threatening or using force against the other, when and to the degree it is reasonably believed the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property, if the person threatens or uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession:

(1) The person reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when the other dispossessed the person; and

(2) The other accomplished the dispossession by threatening or using force against the person.

© 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.

[Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1.]

Now, my take on what you do by removing © is to allow for not just the use, but the threat of deadly force to terminate a trespass / stop a theft.

What I've heard (but don't know if this is right, so if someone does know for sure, correct my faulty knowledge) is that under current law if you come out of your house with gun in hand for the "get off my lawn" or "put down my tools" event, you're technically in the wrong as they have not (yet) threatened your life and © says you can't use deadly force in this case. (Of course, when they heft the pry bar and come towards you when you make this request.. That's another show.)

By removing ©, I almost think they're allowing you to come out with gun in hand and make the request to cease and desist. Which, in my opinion, is actually going to make for fewer injuries and more peaceful endings on these situations. Come out unarmed, and the trespasser / thief is just as likely these days to try to physically challenge you as they are to leave without incident. Come out with the 12 GA, pumping a shell into the chamber as you clear the doorway, and then ask them to leave? Yeah. (Is there ANYTHING more bowel-loosening for a thief than the sound of a pump shotgun being cycled, especially if they can't tell EXACTLY where it came from?)

Or am I completely off base?

[Tobashadow]

Current code:

39-11-614. Protection of property. —

(a) A person in lawful possession of real or personal property is justified in threatening or using force against another, when and to the degree it is reasonably believed the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

( A person who has been unlawfully dispossessed of real or personal property is justified in threatening or using force against the other, when and to the degree it is reasonably believed the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property, if the person threatens or uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession:

(1) The person reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when the other dispossessed the person; and

(2) The other accomplished the dispossession by threatening or using force against the person.

© 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.

[Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1.]

Now, my take on what you do by removing © is to allow for not just the use, but the threat of deadly force to terminate a trespass / stop a theft.

What I've heard (but don't know if this is right, so if someone does know for sure, correct my faulty knowledge) is that under current law if you come out of your house with gun in hand for the "get off my lawn" or "put down my tools" event, you're technically in the wrong as they have not (yet) threatened your life and © says you can't use deadly force in this case. (Of course, when they heft the pry bar and come towards you when you make this request.. That's another show.)

By removing ©, I almost think they're allowing you to come out with gun in hand and make the request to cease and desist. Which, in my opinion, is actually going to make for fewer injuries and more peaceful endings on these situations. Come out unarmed, and the trespasser / thief is just as likely these days to try to physically challenge you as they are to leave without incident. Come out with the 12 GA, pumping a shell into the chamber as you clear the doorway, and then ask them to leave? Yeah. (Is there ANYTHING more bowel-loosening for a thief than the sound of a pump shotgun being cycled, especially if they can't tell EXACTLY where it came from?)

Or am I completely off base?

Thats my thoughts on it after you read the entire law.

I hope they hurry up and pass it since i will most likely have to pull a get off my lawn with a ak in my hands move on the local arsonist thats been playing in my woods if i spot him.

No shotgun sorry, i got involuntary relieved of it by a theif a few years back.

[jhnpeterman]

I think I saw that HB0390 (loaded long guns in vehicle with HCP) has been placed on the House calendar for tomorrow. Does anyone know what happened with HB0962 (restaurant carry)?

[waynesan]

HB0962

Placed on cal. Calendar & Rules Committee for 03/19/2009

[Fallguy]

Now, my take on what you do by removing © is to allow for not just the use, but the threat of deadly force to terminate a trespass / stop a theft.

But with the amendment they are not removing ©, just changing the wording.

© Unless a person is justified in using deadly force as otherwise provided by law, 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.

[Guest FroggyOne2]

If that is the case.. why even fool with it?

[Machman]

But with the amendment they are not removing ©, just changing the wording.

[/left]

Ah, crap. I thought they were pulling © completely.

If that is the case.. why even fool with it?

Gotta agree..

[Fallguy]

If that is the case.. why even fool with it?

Well....let's say you were in your car and someone tried to carjack you. The self-defense law (39-11-611) says it is presumed you are in fear of imminent serious bodily harm or death. So you shoot the guy and prevent the carjacking. But....39-11-614 says you can't use deadly force to protect property...and for whatever reason (doesn't like HCP holders, you shot his brother-in-law, whatever...) the local DA may decided to charge you under 39-11-614 saying you used deadly force to protect property (your car).

This bill simply makes it where the DA couldn't prosecute you under 39-11-614 in the above example. Which is a good thing, I think.

From listening to the discussion in the committee on this bill, it never was really the intent of the bill to allow citizens to use deadly force to protect property, but simply remove a loophole a DA could use when you were defending yourself and your property at the same time.

[Guest justme]

LEOs can also ingnore 39-17-1359 signs.

From what I can tell there is just one certain judge that is wanting to do this for some reason. I mean judges can already legally carry even without a HCP.

But if they are in a private business, and are not on legitimate police business, the business owner if he chose to could ask them to leave their weapons outside or leave altogether. Not likely to happen I know, but it could.

[Guest SouthernSaltine]

Well....let's say you were in your car and someone tried to carjack you. The self-defense law (39-11-611) says it is presumed you are in fear of imminent serious bodily harm or death. So you shoot the guy and prevent the carjacking. But....39-11-614 says you can't use deadly force to protect property...and for whatever reason (doesn't like HCP holders, you shot his brother-in-law, whatever...) the local DA may decided to charge you under 39-11-614 saying you used deadly force to protect property (your car).

This bill simply makes it where the DA couldn't prosecute you under 39-11-614 in the above example. Which is a good thing, I think.

From listening to the discussion in the committee on this bill, it never was really the intent of the bill to allow citizens to use deadly force to protect property, but simply remove a loophole a DA could use when you were defending yourself and your property at the same time.

I have to agree with you there. Thats what I take from © as-well. If this is the case then I am all for it it. Close that Loop-hole.

[Fallguy]

But if they are in a private business, and are not on legitimate police business, the business owner if he chose to could ask them to leave their weapons outside or leave altogether. Not likely to happen I know, but it could.

I agree...

...got into a LONG discussion about that in another thread.

[Guest 2HOW]

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...

Animals are considered property, I would dam sure light someone up if my animals were in danger

[Punisher84]

Animals are considered property, I would dam sure light someone up if my animals were in danger

I wonder how that would work considering there are animal cruelty laws. Like saying you tried to effect an arrest on someone that was hurting your dog, they then tried to kill you, so you used deadly force.

Long shot I know, but I agree I'd ruin someone's day that was trying to hurt my dog.

[Guest slim]

My dogs are family members and if you try to hurt any members of my family!

Well, you know!

[GLOCKMEISTER]

live stock would be different... imho

[Guest slim]

live stock would be different... imho

Pets are not live-stock, but if a farmer owns a cow or horse:bat: which surely isnt cheap and someone hurts it! Well, you know:rolleyes:.