How is "with the intent to go armed" defined???

[CSS Hunley]

Let me know when you find an IWB attorney holster.

I don't want an attorney inside my waistband!

[jughead]

since when are black talons illegal in tenn.???????????????????

[Oh Shoot]

...

On a similar note, I have friends who load the old synthetic hollow points and know they are illegal. I question WHY. If you have to shoot, they will know what you were shooting and a Black Talon isn't so much better than a Corbon that you should risk it.

You have some real misunderstanding of Black Talons.

They are not, nor never were, illegal in TN. Or any other state, as far as I know.

By "synthetic", if you mean the Black Talon coating, it was simply for barrel lubrication, and is actually still in use on some of their rifle bullets.

- OS

[Oh Shoot]

since when are black talons illegal in tenn.???????????????????

They aren't.

- OS

[Guest Muttling]

Thanks for the info. The 2 guys I know who have them called them synthetic and said they were illegal.

I just know them from all the hub bub when they first came out.

[Oh Shoot]

Thanks for the info. The 2 guys I know who have them called them synthetic and said they were illegal.

I just know them from all the hub bub when they first came out.

It was all just an unfounded uproar from the media. "Armor piercing, cop killers". All BS.

Winchester took it off the market voluntarily.

Their current SXT line is essentially the same thing without the evil looking black coating.

- OS

[Fallguy]

It was all just an unfounded uproar from the media. "Armor piercing, cop killers". All BS.

Winchester took it off the market voluntarily.

Their current SXT line is essentially the same thing without the evil looking black coating.

- OS

I didn't know that......may have to make an order.

.....and we can start up the old debate about what effect the type of ammo you use and/or caliber of weapon you carry may have on a civil suit.

NOT

Edited August 2, 2009 by Fallguy

[leroy]

First off, MAJOR cudo's to the members of this site. You guys are GREAT at linking actual laws and rulings that get right down to it. I really appreciate it.

I have heard that "carrying with the intent to go armed" isn't well defined by the law and have never really heard a good explanation of what it means. Can any of you legal whiz kids give me a better understanding of this law?

I have wondered about this wording too. It has been around for a long time. I would almost bet it is from the Reconstruction Era right after the Civil war. My guess is that it was INTENDED TO PROHIBIT civilians from going armed, by making it a "crime" to be caught out with a gun. Said another way, only law enforcement and military could go armed. I would love to hear a history/law scholar weigh in on this subject, as it is a direct suppression of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Food for thought,

LEROY

[Guest Muttling]

I have wondered about this wording too. It has been around for a long time. I would almost bet it is from the Reconstruction Era right after the Civil war. My guess is that it was INTENDED TO PROHIBIT civilians from going armed, by making it a "crime" to be caught out with a gun. Said another way, only law enforcement and military could go armed. I would love to hear a history/law scholar weigh in on this subject, as it is a direct suppression of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Food for thought,

LEROY

This opinion paper from the Tennessee AG in 1996 gives an interesting bit of history on the law and some of the early cases.....

AG 96-080

Article I, Section 26 of the Tennessee Constitution states "That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime." Tennessee case law explains the purpose of the last clause.

The additional clause in the Constitution of 1870 was adopted to remove all doubt as to the power of the Legislature to regulate the use of the arms which the citizens had a right to keep. It was not intended that the keeping or using of such arms should be prohibited, but that the use thereof by wearing or carrying about the person might be so regulated by law as to prevent crime. It was crime resulting from the habit of wearing arms, or of going armed, which the Convention sought to prevent, by expressly conferring this power of the Legislature.

The State v. Wilburn, 66 Tenn. 47,62 (1872).

Andrews v. The State, 50 Tenn. 165 (1871) is probably the most important case on Article I, Section 26. The Andrews case explains that the object of the provision is the efficiency of the people as soldiers. The Court indicated that the use of these arms can be regulated in order to prevent crime. Their use can be "limited by the duties and proprieties of social life, and such arms are to be used in the ordinary mode in which used in the country, and at the usual times and places." Id., at 181-82. The Court explained that prohibitions against carrying arms to church or other public assemblages were valid since this was not an appropriate use for them or necessary for training.

So we may say, with reference to such arms, as we have held, he may keep and use in the ordinary mode known to the country, no law can punish [186] him for so doing, while he uses such arms at home or on his own premises; he may do with his own as he will, while doing no wrong to others. Yet, when he carries his property abroad, goes among the people in public assemblages where others are to be affected by his conduct, then he brings himself within the pale of public regulation, and must submit to such restriction on the mode of using or carrying his property as the people through their Legislature, shall see fit to impose for the general good.

Id., at 185-86.

1. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1307(a)(1) states that "a person commits an offense who carries with the intent to go armed a firearm," a certain kind of knife or a club. This statute does not prohibit owning or carrying a firearm. It prohibits the carrying of a firearm with the intent to go armed. Thus, the carrying of a firearm is prohibited only when it is carried in a manner so as to be "readily accessible and available for use in the carrying out of purposes either offensive or defensive." Kendall v. State, 118 Tenn. 156, 101 S.W. 189 (1906). This statute does not, in the opinion of this Office, infringe upon the citizen's "right to keep and bear arms for their common defense."

[DaveTN]

“Intent†is a state of mind that is required for prosecution in many crimes. It requires that the person purposely or knowing committed the act; which is different from knowing that the act is illegal. I think this law uses the phrase “Intent to go armed†to justify the higher penalty. I also think it is used to cover weapons other than a handgun. I can’t think of a situation where you are carrying a loaded handgun off your property without the intent to go armed. A club could be legal to carry without the intent to go armed; a loaded handgun could not. I also don’t think an HCP exempts you from this charge if it can be proven that you intended to, or did commit a crime while armed. (Think Domestic Violence)

“Intent†is critical in many laws even when it is not specifically stated. For example we see all the time on the internet where someone says that a cop committed “False Arrest†because their probable cause is brought into question. That is not the case; false arrest requires that the Officer knew or should have known that the person had committed no crime when they arrested them. Another is “impersonating a Police Officerâ€. Clipping one of those hokey HCP badges on your belt or putting markings on your car that imply you are a cop is not impersonating a Police Officer until you commit a specific act to make someone believe you are a cop. (Like trying to stop a car.)

The “reasonable person†also comes into play. Proving what your intent was may not be necessary; it may only be required to prove what a “reasonable person†would believe.

[Fallguy]

Pretty close to the mark I believe Dave...

[leroy]

This opinion paper from the Tennessee AG in 1996 gives an interesting bit of history on the law and some of the early cases.....

AG 96-080

Muttling:

Many thanks for the scholarly research and information.

Kind regards,

LEROY

[ngoeser59]

I believe having a HCP is an "affirmative defense" for the violation of carrying with the intent to go armed, i.e., you are in violation of that law but having a HCP permits you to violate this law.

Let me see if I understand this.....If you have a HCP then you CAN carry with the intent to go armed. I mean, otherwise what good is the gun in the first place if it is not armed? No better then having a rock in your pocket. HCP holders are always allowed to go "armed" whever it is legal correct?

[Tim Nunan]

Let me see if I understand this.....If you have a HCP then you CAN carry with the intent to go armed. I mean, otherwise what good is the gun in the first place if it is not armed? No better then having a rock in your pocket. HCP holders are always allowed to go "armed" whever it is legal correct?

Correct. A HCP is not an exception to the law but a valid excuse for violating the law. Note, I'm not a lawyer but have had one explain this to me.

[Fallguy]

Correct. A HCP is not an exception to the law but a valid excuse for violating the law. Note, I'm not a lawyer but have had one explain this to me.

That is what I think as well.

You have defenses and exceptions.

A defense is just that, as said it is a defense to breaking the law.

Exceptions mean that if you fall within the exception you are not violating that law. Like having a HCP is an exception to carry in a park 39-17-1311 and in a restaurant that serves alcohol 39-17-1305.

However having a HCP is a defense against violation of 39-17-1307

That is why in TN if you are OCing you will probably be asked for your HCP by a LEO. Because as far as he knows you are violating the law until he sees your HCP.

Of course in states where OC is legal without a permit, it is a different story. You are not violating the law and have nothing to defend yourself against and should not be stopped by a LEO unless he beileves you involved in some other crime.....or he just wants to say Hi.