Your qualifying handgun?

[Guest canynracer]

LMAO...call them and ask...

[creeky]

LMAO...call them and ask...

I can't... I'm afraid they'll start laughing at me! LOL!!

I guess I now change my postion. There is a vaild reason

to qualify with another gun!!!!

[Im Neero]

Good stuff Creeky

[DaveTN]

I have absolutely no plans to "add a gun" to anything, that being said, I remember a criminal case a few years back from Phoenix Arizona, in which the shooter was convicted largely based on the fact that he used hollow points in the shooting. It was supposed to be a self defense shooting, it was ruled otherwise, but that's not the real point. The point is after the trial at least one member of the jury was interviewed and said that the fact that the guy used hollow points was why he convicted the guy of murder, because hollow points are designed to kill people.

When a jury is involved the law only counts for so much.

Edit: Here's the quote from the juror:

Elliot: The whole hollow point thing bothered me. That bullet is designed to do as much damage as absolutely possible. It’s designed to kill.

That was the case of Harold Fish. He shot an unarmed man to death on a hiking trail.

The jury convicted him of second degree murder. They believed that he overreacted and the use of deadly force was not justified.

Sure they made comments on the fact that he used hollow point ammunition, that he shot the victim three times and that he used a 10mm. But from reading the rest of the information I doubt the outcome would have been much different if he shot the guy with .380 wad cutters. It had bigger hurdles that his attorney obviously didn’t get him over.

Here’s the whole story if anyone wants to read it. No matter what you think the outcome should have been there is some good information in it. His case also helped change the law in Arizona on whom the burden of proof is on in a deadly force case.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15199221/

[Guest Mugster]

That was the case of Harold Fish. He shot an unarmed man to death on a hiking trail.

The jury convicted him of second degree murder. They believed that he overreacted and the use of deadly force was not justified.

Sure they made comments on the fact that he used hollow point ammunition, that he shot the victim three times and that he used a 10mm. But from reading the rest of the information I doubt the outcome would have been much different if he shot the guy with .380 wad cutters. It had bigger hurdles that his attorney obviously didn’t get him over.

Here’s the whole story if anyone wants to read it. No matter what you think the outcome should have been there is some good information in it. His case also helped change the law in Arizona on whom the burden of proof is on in a deadly force case.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15199221/

That is scary stuff. In tennessee who has the burden of proof? I guess the castle doctrine forces it to the bad guy in certain situations, but what about out on a trail?

I'm wondering why they didn't prosecute under 'negligent homicide'. That would seem more reasonable to me...I'm guessing the DA that prosecuted was looking for headlines. Must have been an election year.

[Guest Cap and Ball]

Criminally it won’t make any difference. But if you try to shoot a perp and kill an innocent bystander the lawyer for the family of the innocent person will hammer on the jury to increase the “punitive damages†they are already awarding because you were not qualified with the weapon you were carrying.

If you try to shoot a BG and you kill a innocent bystander the lawyer for the family is going to try and nail you anyway you go, I guarantee in this situation it does not matter what weapon you used what matters is you killed a innocent bystander

[Im Neero]

I have to agree on this one as well. If you kill an innocent bystander, what gun you qualified with is the least of your problems.

[Marswolf]

I think we have gotten out of the realm of conclusion and into the realm of opinion on this.

My view is that the level of competence demonstrated by the firearms qualification part of the carry permit course is so low as to be meaningless. Whether a jury would see it that way is a matter of speculation. I suspect you would be in a better legal situation if you could demonstrate that you could qualify to the level of a law enforcement officer.

[Fallguy]

It's been a while since I got my permit, but if I recall correctly you aren't "qualifying" with the gun. It is a "safety" course to show you know the basic operation of a handgun not how well you shoot. You don't even have to own a gun to get an HCP you can borrow or rent one.

[Marswolf]

It's been a while since I got my permit, but if I recall correctly you aren't "qualifying" with the gun.

Well, you have to get a certain score to pass the class. In that sense you are qualifying. But I think your point is well taken.

[Fallguy]

Well, you have to get a certain score to pass the class. In that sense you are qualifying. But I think your point is well taken.

True...and trying to remember for sure again, but it seems we started out close to the target and moved back...and that you could almost if not for sure, get the passing "score" from the 3yd line.

I'm really not trying to be a trouble maker, but to be honest, I can't even remember what gun I used in my safety course and I have owned several different ones since then. The one I carry know wasn't even available when I took the course. I really don't think if you use your handgun in a self-defense situation it is going to matter whether it is the same or similar gun you used in the safety course.... Even if a third-party is injured. I mean are you supposed to go take a new safety course every time you purchase a new handgun, or long gun for that matter. ...and even if you do, where would you submit the paperwork? Orginally it is part of what you turn in with your application for your HCP. The law even says you do not have to take any course to renew your permit.

Of course I could be wrong and I admit...I wouldn't want to be the test case.

[DaveTN]

I really don't think if you use your handgun in a self-defense situation it is going to matter whether it is the same or similar gun you used in the safety course.... Even if a third-party is injured.

I agree. It won’t matter in a criminal case. I don’t think anyone can post any examples of where a person was on trial in criminal court because of the weapon or the ammunition they used. They had bigger problems that that or they would not have been at trial.

Now… in a civil case everything matters. Your weapon, your ammunition, your training, your intent, your other options; they will all be questioned. And if you have shot someone that the jury decides didn’t need shooting; you are screwed. They can’t put you in jail, so they will destroy you financially. I truly don’t think (from what I see posted on some of the forums) that a lot of people think about that.

[Fallguy]

Believe me after reading about what happened to Mr. Fish in Arizona, what can happen in court has been on my mind a lot lately. Although it was criminal in his case and not civil (yet).

As far as I know this hasn't been tested in TN yet, but I "hope" if a shooting is ruled justified, then T.C.A. 39-11-622 would prevent any "decent" lawyer from taking the case to sue the shooter. Or that the judge would throw it out. But you never know what a judge and/or jury will do.

Just too add...I do understand T.C.A. 39-11-622 does NOT protect if you injury or kill a innocent third-party. But I agree with Cap and Ball that you are in for a long haul regardless.

[DaveTN]

Believe me after reading about what happened to Mr. Fish in Arizona, what can happen in court has been on my mind a lot lately.

Everyone should be aware of cases like that. The “chance†of getting your azz kicked does not justify deadly force against an unarmed assailant. I can get over an azz kicking.

[Guest SUNTZU]

What about the man being choked at the Rush in Knoxville? He defended himself with his firearm and the police did not press charges because he had a HCP.

[andersmg]

What about the man being choked at the Rush in Knoxville? He defended himself with his firearm and the police did not press charges because he had a HCP.

I would think at that point the azz kicking was over and the killing had begun if he was being choked, at that point he feared for his life so he should have been justified in the shooting...

[DaveTN]

What about the man being choked at the Rush in Knoxville? He defended himself with his firearm and the police did not press charges because he had a HCP.

There is not a lot of information about what happened in that case. But I don’t think the fact that he had a HCP had much to do with charges being filed. This was a continuation of a bar fight. And I would guess (and it’s only a guess) for that reason that if the guy that got shot would have died this would be going to a jury.

The guy was on the ground and being choked. Apparently the DA felt that he was unable to get out of that situation and was justified in using deadly force.

[Guest SUNTZU]

Members at The Rush Expelled After Locker Room Shooting

KNOXVILLE, TN -- A shooting in the locker room of The Rush Fitness Complex facility in Knoxville, TN, has resulted in the membership cancellation of both men involved, according to the Knoxville News Sentinel.

Local police say that Kristopher Kitts, 29, shot Erik Knight, 29, once in the stomach last Wednesday night with a .22-caliber pistol during a fight in The Rush’s locker room. Knight was taken to a local hospital with a non-life threatening wound and was listed in critical condition. No charges are expected against Kitts, a police spokesman told the newspaper.

Officials at The Rush told the newspaper that Knight wanted to get even with Kitts after a recent bar fight.

Larry Gurney, president and CEO of The Rush, says the memberships of Kitts and Knight were canceled. Guns and other weapons are banned from The Rush locations. An exception is made for police officers who must show their badges at the front desk and tell staff they have guns, Gurney told the newspaper.

Police say a man was shot during a fight with another man at the Rush Fitness Complex in the Knoxville Center Mall.

Police say according to their investigation and witness statements, Erik Knight approached Christopher Kitts, 29, and started a fight, taking him to the ground and beginning to choke him.

Kitts pulled out a small .22 caliber revolver from his pocket and shot Knight once in the stomach.

After discussions with the district attorney general's office, no charges will be filed against Kitts. He has a permit to carry a handgun.

Investigators say charges may be filed against Knight, who was taken to UT Medical Center.

These are the two articles from fitness pro and local news. The cancellation of membership for Kitts is just wrong. How would the Rush like to have a murder in their establishment?

[DaveTN]

The cancellation of membership for Kitts is just wrong. How would the Rush like to have a murder in their establishment?

You mean as opposed to a shooting between two members in the locker room?

They are scrambling to protect themselves from the civil action that could follow. Both men signed a contract that contained a “no gun†clause.

I’m really curious to hear “the rest of the story†about this case. This was a continuation of a bar fight. Unless Kitts was attacked with no provocation; there should have not been guns involved. If you are an active participant in a fight and you find yourself losing; you don’t get to turn it into a gun fight. So either he really lucked out with the DA or he was attacked without cause.

But being pro gun and believing that law abiding citizens should be able to carry (whether they have a permit or not) this is not a case that I would want to hold up to the public as justifying handgun carry.

I’ll play the devils advocate here and say that because he knowingly violated the contract he had with the club, if the club can prove a financial loss because of this incident, they have grounds for civil action against Kitts as an innocent third party.

Here’s a link to another story about it; although it doesn’t give much more info.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2007/nov/29/gym-shooter-wont-be-charged-police-say-victim-star/

[Guest SUNTZU]

Thanks for the length, I did not know it was in the contract. The article said that Knight, the guy who was shot, attacked Kitts to get even from a bar fight, sounds like he lost the bar fight as well. I bet theres not anymore locker room fights at the Rush for awhile.

[Marswolf]

I suspect the reason Kitts didn't get into trouble with the DA was the choking part.

[saintsfanbrian]

I will agree and disagree. If the fight at the bar was a few days earlier and things ended, then Kitts is justified (IMHO) because he was removed from the situation. Other dude brought the fight back and escalated it to near death. Kitts protected himself. Expel him from the club - Sure, charge him-no.

[Guest witchdr]

I was looking at the rangusa site today and saw a course they teach called "add a gun". The deal is you are supposedly only qualified with the gun you used to get your handgun carry permit.

I don't remember this as the way my class was taught. I remember my instructor telling us that we could carry any handgun we wanted as long as it was a legally obtained and registered handgun, I also recall him telling us we could carry as many as we wanted as well.

What about it folks, what does the law say about this???

the instructers may tell you that your carry gun must be registered but what the law actually reads is you must be legally in possession of it.By that it doesn't have to be registered ,it doesn't even have to be your gun ,it could be one you borrowed.Borrowing a gun may not be a great idea,unless you know the gun wasn't stolen,but it woukd be legal

[Guest dotsun]

Yeah, I think the guy was correct in using deadly force when he was being choked. I assure you that you are in danger of death or serious bodily harm if someone correctly applies the technique. Furthermore you have less than 20 seconds to do something about it before it's lights out.

It's no different then if the guy he was in a fight with suddenly pulled a weapon, either way the guy used deadly force against the shooter. I fail to see how this wasn't a justified shoot.

[DaveTN]

It's no different then if the guy he was in a fight with suddenly pulled a weapon, either way the guy used deadly force against the shooter. I fail to see how this wasn't a justified shoot.

It’s totally different if you are a willing participant in a fight. If you pull a gun and shoot the other guy when you discover you are losing; it’s murder. And most DA’s would charge accordingly.