Self Defense in a posted establishment?

[Guest Chip Holland]

Fallguy I respect you and what say. I lurk a lot and don't get involved in many discussion. You provide good information and I know you would not want somone to get into trouble based on your advice but it is the way members of the state legislatures that you reference write these laws that allows most of these discussion that takes place here. I have discussed this with 9 judges (7 sitting and 2 retired), 47 lawyers (criminal and civil), over 175 active law enforcement officers and 1000's of handgun permit students of various walks of life. All but 1 of the lawyers (he is a criminal defense lawyer) have agreed with me.

Why was 39-17-1322 even brought up if it didn't have something to do with it? Why was 39-17-1322 singled out of all the other codes? Why use a word that means "in spite of" right before the code?

I am not a grammar teacher but I don't think the comma placement is going to be a good alibi.

[Fallguy]

It was brought up so it could be excluded.

Believe me the type of puncuation (colon, semi-colon, comma or period) and it's location makes a large difference in the meaning of something, espeically a law.

I respect what the judges say and if you're in their courtroom then unless you appeal then that is it.

But let me ask this. Since 39-17-1322 only applies when used in self-defense, if they intended for it to no longer be a defense, why not simply remove it instead of mentioning it in another law.

As I read it, it means the rest of the subpart does not withstand 39-17-1322.

But you are right in that I don't want anyone to go by soley on what I say to keep them out of trouble with the law. I have uselly tried to post info to keep people out of trouble.

Also...I have never professed to have an above average knowledge of (or any understanding of for that matter) the law. People have posted asking what the law says about certain situations in the past and I have linked the law that I thought dealt with their question. Usually not trying to say it meant one thing or another. But then sometimes a discussion would arise and I would state why I thought whatever I thought. If it was challenged I would address those points. If had something from a reliable source I would post that information. But I have about decided that unless you have esq behind your name or a badge on your chest (not directed at you chip) no one thinks you can have any knowledge of the law. So I will quit addressing it in any of my future post.

[TNTitan]

...But I have about decided that unless you have esq behind your name or a badge on your chest (not directed at you chip) no one thinks you can have any knowledge of the law. So I will quit addressing it in any of my future post.

Dont sell yourself short, Fallguy.. you provide great links and insight.. and come to think of it, Patrick Stegall has an "esq" behind his name and he says:

Despite this language, you still get the protection of the self-defense law if you are carrying your firearm in a place where it is not allowed, such as a school or a restaurant that serves alcohol for on premises consumption, and you do actually use it in justifiable self-defense. LINK

[Guest 270win]

Yes, it is the purpose of the 'safe harbor' law to keep someone from being prosecuted for weapons violations, such as intent to go armed, who say shoots a car jacker in self defense but does not have a permit for carrying a handgun in public. The safe harbor law is not meant to protect a crack head from going to the pen who is committing multiple legal violations already who shoots his rival drug buddy. My home state of Arkansas does not have a 'safe harbor' provision on the books...even there a prosecutor would not dare waste time with someone with a clean record who is violating a minor weapons law, such as carrying a weapon (intent to go armed here), and shoots in self defense. The same goes for Tennessee....the sign law is a minor 500 fine...this is nothing you are going to go to jail or prison over. Prosecutors are elected in TN, just like Arkansas. It would be political suicide for one to go after someone over a stupid sign after a clear cut shooting. You'll have more worries about needing to see a doctor/mental health professional and lawyer after a self defense shooting than a silly sign. I wouldn't let a sign keep me from keeping myself safe. Concealment is absolutely important to avoid that problem. If someone tells you there's a sign and they don't like your gun....you're not doing your part in concealing.