A wrap up on this session's gun bills....

[Guest SigVol]

Quick question:

What about defending the family dog or livestock? If you can stop someone from killing your dog, can you do so with deadly force or do you simply have to watch them kill your dog?

[Fallguy]

Quick question:

What about defending the family dog or livestock? If you can stop someone from killing your dog, can you do so with deadly force or do you simply have to watch them kill your dog?

As far as the law is concerned an animal is property, so you can not use deadly force against a human in defending an animal.

You can use deadly force against another animal to protect the life of your animal.

Basically the killing of an animal is like theft of property. So you can use force, just not deadly force.

39-14-205 Intentional killing of animal.

(a) (1) (A) It is an offense to knowingly and unlawfully kill the animal of another without the owner's effective consent.

(

A violation of subdivision (a)(1)(A) is theft of property, graded according to the value of the animal, and punished in accordance with §

39-14-105

.

(2)

In determining the value of a police dog, fire dog, search and rescue dog, service animal or police horse under §

39-14-105

, the court shall consider the value of the police dog, fire dog, search and rescue dog, service animal or police horse as both the cost of the animal and any specialized training the animal received.

( A person is justified in killing the animal of another if the person acted under a reasonable belief that the animal was creating an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury to that person or another or an imminent danger of death to an animal owned by that person. A person is not justified in killing the animal of another if at the time of the killing the person is trespassing upon the property of the owner of the animal. The justification for killing the animal of another authorized by this subsection ( shall not apply to a person who, while engaging in or attempting to escape from criminal conduct, kills a police dog that is acting in its official capacity. In that case the provisions of subsection (a) shall apply to the person.

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.

[K191145]

As far as the law is concerned an animal is property, so you can not use deadly force against a human in defending an animal.

You can use deadly force against another animal to protect the life of your animal.

Basically the killing of an animal is like theft of property. So you can use force, just not deadly force.

The act of killing someones animal requires violence and most often a weapon of some kind. If someone is trying to shoot my dog I would also have a reasonable fear for my own life which should justify the use of deadly force.

[Fallguy]

The act of killing someones animal requires violence and most often a weapon of some kind. If someone is trying to shoot my dog I would also have a reasonable fear for my own life which should justify the use of deadly force.

Not so sure a jury would see it that way.....

[RinTN]

The act of killing someones animal requires violence and most often a weapon of some kind. If someone is trying to shoot my dog I would also have a reasonable fear for my own life which should justify the use of deadly force.

That's pretty much my thought too. If someone is nuts enough to come on my property and kill one of my pets right in front of me, then I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that they are coming after me next.

[Fallguy]

That's pretty much my thought too. If someone is nuts enough to come on my property and kill one of my pets right in front of me, then I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that they are coming after me next.

I agree on the coming on your property.

Guess I was thinking of if it happened out in public somewhere.

Edited June 29, 2009 by Fallguy

[K191145]

Not so sure a jury would see it that way.....

That's pretty much my thought too. If someone is nuts enough to come on my property and kill one of my pets right in front of me, then I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that they are coming after me next.

It all depends on the situation, if they are armed with a baseball bat and are 100 feet away from you they don't have the ability to harm you. If they are 10 feet away they do have the ability to harm you, you just have to convince the jury they had the intent and as RinTN says, if they are crazy enough to commit the act they are the violent aggressor. Now if they bring a firearm on your property with the intent to shoot your pet, I bet most juror's would side with you. At the worst it would be a hung jury.

Regardless, if someone tresspasses on my property with the intent to kill my pet they will be confronted with a firearm, then it's up to them to leave or escalate the situation. I'll take my chanches with a Cheatham Co. Tennessee jury if I have to. I think we all will agree I have a better chanch of winning than if it were a California or New England jury.

[Guest rj8806]

o.k., trying to read and understand all of this is making my head hurt....can someone please clarify, in plain english, can you now legally carry in a state park or national forest?

What I thought I read back in the OP was that it was signed and is law....am I mistaken?

[Fallguy]

o.k., trying to read and understand all of this is making my head hurt....can someone please clarify, in plain english, can you now legally carry in a state park or national forest?

What I thought I read back in the OP was that it was signed and is law....am I mistaken?

Yes, you can legally carry in a state park. (Even though there may still be signs posted against carry)

On National Forest there is no TN state law, federal law or federal regulation that prohibits carry in a National Forest. However the ranger that has control over a National Forest can issue a "special order" relative to the forest under his control to prevent carry, such as has been done in LBL. So on National Forest, you may want to check with the ranger at that forest. Also...any Federal Buildings in a National Forest would be off-limits still.

[Guest rj8806]

Yes, you can legally carry in a state park. (Even though there may still be signs posted against carry)

On National Forest there is no TN state law, federal law or federal regulation that prohibits carry in a National Forest. However the ranger that has control over a National Forest can issue a "special order" relative to the forest under his control to prevent carry, such as has been done in LBL. So on National Forest, you may want to check with the ranger at that forest. Also...any Federal Buildings in a National Forest would be off-limits still.

So was there a waiting period until you could "start" or can I go tonight, for instance, and be legal?

Being that I moved here only 4 years ago from Florida, forgive my ignorance here, but does Cherokee National Forest fall under the "I can legally carry there" ? Or is that one where as you said, I should check with local ranger?

Would I be smart to print out a copy of this bill and carry it with me in case?

[Fallguy]

So was there a waiting period until you could "start" or can I go tonight, for instance, and be legal?

Being that I moved here only 4 years ago from Florida, forgive my ignorance here, but does Cherokee National Forest fall under the "I can legally carry there" ? Or is that one where as you said, I should check with local ranger?

Would I be smart to print out a copy of this bill and carry it with me in case?

The state parks were legal the moment the Governor signed it...so yes, you would be legal tonight.

Oh me...Cherokee National Forest....there is another thread discussing it (see here, starting about post 33). From what I can tell (not my area of the state) Cherokee National Forest is also a state WMA. Right now state WMAs are off-limits (Governor got the bill today to make them legal).

So Cherokee National Forest may still be off-limits, but because it is also a state WMA. It also doesn't seem anyone at CNF knows the answer for sure though, see this post.

As far as carrying a copy of the new law...I have been known to do that depending on the situation.

[K191145]

Yes, you can legally carry in a state park. (Even though there may still be signs posted against carry)

On National Forest there is no TN state law, federal law or federal regulation that prohibits carry in a National Forest. However the ranger that has control over a National Forest can issue a "special order" relative to the forest under his control to prevent carry, such as has been done in LBL. So on National Forest, you may want to check with the ranger at that forest. Also...any Federal Buildings in a National Forest would be off-limits still.

The parks I care most about is Montgomery Bell State Park, and Harpeth State Park aka(Narrows of the Harpeth). I often avoided a nice drive through them because I always have my handgun with me but no more.

Let's celebrate the laws that go into effect today.

House Bill 70, sponsored by State Representative Henry Fincher (D-42) and State Senator Andy Berke (D-10) removed the prohibition against using deadly force in protection of personal property. It expands the right to self-defense to include a place of business. HB 70 will take effect Wednesday, July 1.

House Bill 254, sponsored by State Representative Glen Casada (R-63) and State Senator Mark Norris (R-32), eliminate the requirement to provide a thumbprint as part of the background check process when purchasing a firearm. HB 254 will take effect Wednesday, July 1.

House Bill 390, sponsored by State Representative Henry Fincher (D-42) and State Senator Doug Jackson (D-25), allows handgun carry permit holders to possess or carry a rifle or shotgun with a loaded magazine -- provided the firearm does not have a round in the chamber -- while in a private motor vehicle. HB 390 takes effect Wednesday, July 1.

So what long gun is everybody going to install in their vehicle now? I've been thinking about my 10-22 behind the truck seat. I never had any real desire to carry a long gun unless I was going to the range or hunting, it would be funny to see some people freak out at the sight of an AK or AR with a mag in a window gun rack of a pickup but I wouldn't reccommend it. IMO that would be like putting stacks of 100 dollar bills in open view in your vehicle, also if your pulled over for a speeding ticket you may have a service weapon and or shotgun drawn on you, made to lay down and get handcuffed while they run your information.