What if...

[Guest FHTMcrt]

Question for the attorneys here: What if a person with a Carry Permit unwittingly entered an establishment that was properly posted, and later there was an incident in which the permit holder could (and did) resolve with his/her weapon....what are possible, and probable, outcomes for the permit holder?

[Guest bkelm18]

39-17-1322. Defenses. —

A person shall not be charged with or convicted of a violation under this part if the person possessed, displayed or employed a handgun in justifiable self-defense or in justifiable defense of another during the commission of a crime in which that person or the other person defended was a victim.

[Acts 1994, ch. 943, § 1.]

If you are in a posted establishment, and you do have to use your weapon and it is judged to be a justified self defense act, you will not be charged with possessing a weapon in an "off-limits" area.

[Guest FHTMcrt]

Thanks for the response. The best of all possible answers...

[Guest bkelm18]

That being said, it's just a defense. I'm sure they'd certainly try and charge you with something.

[LagerHead]

That being said, it's just a defense. I'm sure they'd certainly try and charge you with something.

I don't see how they could if it was deemed justifiable. It specifically says in the law:

"shall not be charged with or convicted of"

Of course, I am not a lawyer, I'm just sayin'.

[Guest bkelm18]

I don't see how they could if it was deemed justifiable. It specifically says in the law:

"shall not be charged with or convicted of"

Of course, I am not a lawyer, I'm just sayin'.

How can you be convicted of something if you aren't charged with it? Just another confusing law that I'm sure can be twisted to suit a prosecution's needs.

[Guest (BH)]

I've always thought that was such a great thing we have here in good ol' TN. Supposedly not being charged after an SD event is a good thing. Of course, you risk alot carrying in "no-zones." The likelihood of being spotted without the occurrence of any SD event, is much more likely than actually having to use said weapon.

While I feel very strongly about the stupidity of the whole "you can carry here, but not there" crap, I also feel pretty strongly about not carrying in the "crime free zones." My thoughts on it are as follows: I could carry in these places and feel safer, or I could feel less safe for the duration of the visit. If I was outed for carrying in a restricted area, I would probably never carry again (or at least for several years). Then I'd feel less than safe for a long, long time. It's just not worth the risks to me. I'd rather be unarmed for a few minutes periodically than permanently disarmed by The Man.

[DavidM]

Would we be banned from all the Woolworth's, or just the one Everett?

[Guest bkelm18]

Well, on the upside, if you are caught carrying in a posted business, really the most they can do is ask you to leave (which you should do). Carrying in a posted business is a misdemeanor and you can't be charged with a misdemeanor unless it occurs in the presence of a LEO. Not advocating breaking the law here, just putting a little perspective on it.

[Guest db99wj]

Well, on the upside, if you are caught carrying in a posted business, really the most they can do is ask you to leave (which you should do). Carrying in a posted business is a misdemeanor and you can't be charged with a misdemeanor unless it occurs in the presence of a LEO. Not advocating breaking the law here, just putting a little perspective on it.

. If you conceal in these instances, it can save you from being possibly hassled.

[Fallguy]

I don't see how they could if it was deemed justifiable. It specifically says in the law:

"shall not be charged with or convicted of"

Of course, I am not a lawyer, I'm just sayin'.

There has been a case (TN v Clark) before the TN Appeals court....they said despite the wording of 39-17-1322 you can be "charged" because it does say convicted of.

They admitted the overall wording of the statute was "strange"

Edited June 7, 2010 by Fallguy

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Laws are written, mostly by lawyers, some with political motivation, and a lot of

ambiguity is added. It would be nice to just have "plain english" written laws.

[mcurrier]

. If you conceal in these instances, it can save you from being possibly hassled.

Deep.

[Guest bkelm18]

Deep.

[Guest crotalus01]

There has been a case (TN v Clark) before the TN Appeals court....they said despite the wording of 39-17-1322 you can be "charged" because it does say convicted of.

They admitted the overall wording of the statute was "strange"

Huh. How did that case turn out?

From my understanding of legalese the word Shall (as in Shall Not) means they cannot legally charge you. Of course in the real world "they" can charge you with anything but a first year law student should be able to get it thrown out just on the inclusion of the "shall not"...

[Fallguy]

Huh. How did that case turn out?

From my understanding of legalese the word Shall (as in Shall Not) means they cannot legally charge you. Of course in the real world "they" can charge you with anything but a first year law student should be able to get it thrown out just on the inclusion of the "shall not"...

Well they way I sort of read it is, if the LEO thinks it's self-defense, he can choose not arrest you. But if does, and then the DA decides it's self-defense he doesn't have to charge you. But if he does...and the Judge/Jury deciedes you acted in self-defense you won't be convicted of any other part.....but anyway...

I'm not sure how the case turned out....I'm thinking of a case, but not sure if it is this one or not....