TN Code 39-17-1322

[Guest sbrooks]

39-17-1322

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.

Any lawyers or people who stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night out there ??

To me this defense basically says: "We don't want you to carry your pistol in any of these places, but IF you do anyway, and IF it turns out that you really needed your pistol after all - Then all is forgiven"

Kindof a get-out-of-jail-free card ?

So you're only in trouble if you get caught when you don't need the gun, but not in trouble if you need it ?

Thoughts ? Interpretations ? Opinions ?

Thanks much!

[Guest bkelm18]

39-17-1322

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.

Any lawyers or people who stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night out there ??

To me this defense basically says: "We don't want you to carry your pistol in any of these places, but IF you do anyway, and IF it turns out that you really needed your pistol after all - Then all is forgiven"

Kindof a get-out-of-jail-free card ?

So you're only in trouble if you get caught when you don't need the gun, but not in trouble if you need it ?

Thoughts ? Interpretations ? Opinions ?

Thanks much!

I've heard it referred to as the Safe Harbour Act a couple times. From what I've read, if you have to use you gun in a prohibited location and are justified, you won't be charged. That's how I read it. I'm sure someone will come along and clear it up.

[Fallguy]

I've heard it referred to as the Safe Harbour Act a couple times. From what I've read, if you have to use you gun in a prohibited location and are justified, you won't be charged. That's how I read it. I'm sure someone will come along and clear it up.

Pretty much the way I take it as well.

The only problem there "might" be is the wording in the "Castle Doctrine"/Self Defense law. This wording is why some pro-gun people acctually opposed the Castle Doctrine in TN.

T.C.A. 39-11-611 Parts ((1), ((2) and (d)(3)

( (1) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before 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.

(2)

Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322

, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, if:

(A)

The person has 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 is real, or honestly believed to be real at the time; and

©

The belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds.

(d) The presumption established in subsection © shall not apply, if:

(3)

Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322

, the person using force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity;

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

I would love a solid Lawyer interpreted response to this as well. i was not aware of that Statute.

[Fallguy]

I would love a solid Lawyer interpreted response to this as well. i was not aware of that Statute.

Me too, but I have already asked my Rep to submit quesions to the AG for an opinon once...guess I could again, but don't want to over do it I guess...lol Also last time I did, most of the answers I didn't like and now there is an AG opinion out there on those matters.

[Guest jcramin]

I would love a solid Lawyer interpreted response to this as well. i was not aware of that Statute.

LOL is there such a thing as a SOLID LAWYER INTERPRETATION when it can actually come down to 12 idiots making the actually interpretation ?

J

[Fallguy]

Personally...I don't see why the Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322 part needed to be in there. I "think" I understand their intent...they didn't want the drug dealer, the guys at the crack house, the armed robber etc... being able to claim self-defense. But 39-17-1322 only clears you for crimes under "this part" Which means Part 13, of Chapter 17 of Title 39 or any law that starts 39-17-13xx not any of the others I mentioned.

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

LOL is there such a thing as a SOLID LAWYER INTERPRETATION when it can actually come down to 12 idiots making the actually interpretation ?

J

Touche'

[Guest 270win]

It is interesting to note how the safe harbor law covers only handguns in the event you are in an off limits location. Rifles and shotguns do not seem to be covered, or other deadly weapons like switchblades, blackjacks, and brass knuckles. Leave those toys at home!

[Guest bkelm18]

It is interesting to note how the safe harbor law covers only handguns in the event you are in an off limits location. Rifles and shotguns do not seem to be covered, or other deadly weapons like switchblades, blackjacks, and brass knuckles. Leave those toys at home!

Well it doesn't bother me none since I don't plan on bringin my AK or my shotgun to Chili's.

[dodo]

if someone could clear this up.

if you are caught carrying in a place that serves alcohol and aren't drinking you could only get charged with a misdemeanor and it wouldn't be enough to get your carry permit revoked or unable to renew. is this correct or incorrect?

[Guest bkelm18]

if someone could clear this up.

if you are caught carrying in a place that serves alcohol and aren't drinking you could only get charged with a misdemeanor and it wouldn't be enough to get your carry permit revoked or unable to renew. is this correct or incorrect?

Yes it is a Class A Misdemeanor, however if caught, you will likely lose your carry permit.

http://michie.lexisnexis.com/tennessee/lpext.dll/tncode/e501/ed40/eff5/f077?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm&2.0#JD_39-17-1352

39-17-1352. Suspension or revocation of license. —

(f) (1) If a permit holder is convicted of a Class A misdemeanor offense, the permit holder shall surrender the permit to the court having jurisdiction of the case for transmission to the department.

[Fallguy]

Here is legal defintion I found for "Notwithstanding".

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/N/Notwithstanding.aspx

In spite of, even if, without regard to or impediment by other things as stated.

Clear as mud now, right?

Also, just to clarify from my first post...I have not asked me Rep to submit a question to the AG about this issue...it was for other things and AG OP 07-148 was issued.

[Guest 270win]

I assumed the permit would be suspended but not revoked upon actual conviction for a class a misdemeanor.

I have a feeling, if you have the right lawyer, you can make such a conviction not even happen by giving up your gun and paying a fine. If crazy women can kill their husbands asleep, run to another state, and then be put in the county lockup for a couple months and a mental institution and released, a class a misdemeanor should be no problem.

[Guest bkelm18]

I assumed the permit would be suspended but not revoked upon actual conviction for a class a misdemeanor.

I have a feeling, if you have the right lawyer, you can make such a conviction not even happen by giving up your gun and paying a fine. If crazy women can kill their husbands asleep, run to another state, and then be put in the county lockup for a couple months and a mental institution and released, a class a misdemeanor should be no problem.

You can get away with anything with a good lawyer. Even murder.

[DaveTN]

It’s not a legal interpretation; but in this case no charges were filed.

Armed Kidnapper Shot

commercialappeal.com - No permit, no crime, no charge, Killing at bank lot was an act of self-defense.

After being kidnapped by 2 men and forced to drive to a bank to withdraw money, Jacob Evans, a sanitation worker, pulled a .357 magnum from under the seat of the car and killed one kidnapper while the other was in the bank.

Evans' gun - for which he paid $75 - jammed when the 2nd guy came back. These same guys had robbed him of $465 the week before, and he purchased the gun from a friend. He only regrets he didn't get the 2nd guy. But for $75 he was happy. "Well, it took care of me yesterday," he said.

He had no permit to carry the weapon, but will not be charged with anything. (Justifiable self-defense trumps the need for permit in Tennessee.) In fact, he said that the police were treating him "like a king."

I would say "Good Guys 1, Bad Guys 0" except for the one that got away.

http://wheelgun.blogspot.com/2005/08/armed-kidnapper-shot.html

[Guest canynracer]

sounds like he needs to clean hs gun

[strickj]

sounds like he needs to clean hs gun

Evans' gun - for which he paid $75 - jammed whe