Public Chapter 210 Deadly Force Law

[Guest 270win]

I have read previous threads on this website stating that if one is carrying a handgun where possession is prohibited, such as places that serve alcohol or beer on site, then using a handgun to defend oneself would make your claim of self defense useless.

Recently, i printed a copy of the revised House Bill 1907 that became law from the Tennessee legislature's website. The new law does seem to honor the provisions of the Safe Harbor Law (39-17-1322) previously enacted in the 1990's and refers to the law in the legislative act.

Under my reading of the new law, one would be legal using deadly force to protect himself in an otherwise prohibited location, such as schools or restaurants that serve alcohol.

On a side note, i am surprised of the misinformation that seems to be spread about carrying a handgun in a public park or civic center. 39-17-1311 refers to weapons such as switchblade knives, short barrelled shotguns, suppressors, but not handguns when you look at 39-17-1302(a).

This is a great website and very helpful. Be glad you live here instead of Arkansas, where there is a list of about TWENTY places you can't carry a handgun. It was quite a relief moving here last year regarding carrying a handgun. I just miss being able to carry a loaded long gun in the vehicle like in Arkansas. Mississippi isn't that far from me, where it is legal!

[Marswolf]

Here's the TCA:

39-11-611. Self-defense. —

(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another person when, and to the degree, the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The person must have a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury must be real, or honestly believed to be real at the time, and must be founded upon reasonable grounds. There is no duty to retreat before a person threatens or uses force.

( Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within the person's own residence is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury to self, family or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

© The threat or use of force against another is not justified if the person consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other individual.

(d) The threat or use of force against another is not justified if the person provoked the other individual's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:

(1) The person abandons the encounter or clearly communicates to the other the intent to do so; and

(2) The other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the person.

(e) The threat or use of force against another is not justified to resist a halt at a roadblock, arrest, search, or stop and frisk that the person knows is being made by a law enforcement officer, unless:

(1) The law enforcement officer uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest, search, stop and frisk, or halt; and

(2) The person reasonably believes that the force is immediately necessary to protect against the law enforcement officer's use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

[Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 1990, ch. 1030, § 8.]

[dariks]

That last section (e) is interesting. I wonder if it has ever been successfully used as a defense to the charge of resisting arrest.