Here's Your Sign Case

[Fallguy]

Any speculation why Ricks was charged with Felony part of 39-17-109 and Mallick the Misdemeanor part?

Since Ricks was earlier...I was just wondering if the DA may have told them to charge differently.

There isn't really any information in Mallick's affidavit as compared to Ricks'.

[Stegall Law Firm]

Any speculation why Ricks was charged with Felony part of 39-17-109 and Mallick the Misdemeanor part?

Since Ricks was earlier...I was just wondering if the DA may have told them to charge differently.

There isn't really any information in Mallick's affidavit as compared to Ricks'.

I don't know. That felony should be a misdemeanor I think. It'll probably get reduced.

[Fallguy]

I don't know. That felony should be a misdemeanor I think. It'll probably get reduced.

[TMF]

I don't know. That felony should be a misdemeanor I think. It'll probably get reduced.

Is there any requirement from the prosecution to prove intent here? I understand that negligence and ignorance aren't a defense either, but for something to be a criminal act I thought there had to be an intent there to actually commit the offense. If he just had it in there by accident he didn't intend to break the law at all.

[Stegall Law Firm]

Is there any requirement from the prosecution to prove intent here? I understand that negligence and ignorance aren't a defense either, but for something to be a criminal act I thought there had to be an intent there to actually commit the offense. If he just had it in there by accident he didn't intend to break the law at all.

This law (39-17-109) is kind of strange. In the misdemeanor part, it's a crime to either "knowingly trespass or unlawfully enter upon an aircraft, air carrier, foreign air carrier or air operations area or sterile area of an airport serving the general public, if the trespass or entry is in violation of or contrary to security requirements established by federal regulation." Obviously there is a culpable mental state in the "knowingly trespass" part but there is not with "unlawfully enter." Simply walking up there not realizing your gun is in your bag is enough. So that is strict liability and there is no requirement to prove intent. With the felony provision they have to prove intent to commit an act that would be punishable as a felony under state or federal law.

Generally in criminal law there is a requirement of both act and mental state, but there are exceptions. DUI, statutory rape, and the felony murder rule, for example.

[TMF]

Well hopefully for his sake he comes out clean. He certainly should know where his weapon is at all times, but I think it would be very unfortunate that he get a criminal record for this. There are so many low-lives out there that get away clean after committing real offenses against innocent victims. I live next door to one.

[Chucktshoes]

As far as Ricks the crappy part for him and hopefully something that will work in his favor come court time is that earlier that day his car was hit by a runaway semi that ran into a gas station. He had no intention of flying until he was unable secure a rental. Under those circumstances I might be a little more willing to forgive the guy for forgetting about his gun.

[JayC]

I think I said (or strongly hinted) in that thread that if they were really charging HCPers with 1307 for merely carrying past sign in non-security part of the airport, a first year law student at the legal clinic surely could get that thrown out and get it changed to 1359 at the worst.

1307 Class A is much worse, what with fine, possible jail time, and loss of HCP for duration of sentence. Of course, 1359 (perhaps) with the still as far as we know untested gotcha provision in 1352 could also jerk your permit, temporarily or permanently, who knows, more gray.

- OS

I don't think the 1352 provision is untested... there are at least 2 known cases where it was used to revoke permits. For less than a violation of 39-17-13xx, so my bet is a charge under 1359 means you'll loose your permit for sure, how long is up to some bureaucrat at the TDOS so who knows on that.

[JayC]

Yeah. Oddly, it's the one time that a non-permit holder could have a loaded gun on him legally in TN, meaning with ammo in direct proximity to gun. Though there's actually no exception for this in TCA. And I guess you'd be technically guilty of unlawful carry anyway, and certainly so BEFORE you entered the terminal, eh?

- OS

The locked case, ammo stored in a box not in a magazine, placed inside yet another bag part would probably keep any sane DA from trying to charge you with intent to go armed.

[Oh Shoot]

I don't think the 1352 provision is untested... there are at least 2 known cases where it was used to revoke permits. For less than a violation of 39-17-13xx, so my bet is a charge under 1359 means you'll loose your permit for sure, how long is up to some bureaucrat at the TDOS so who knows on that.

Kwik and what other example?

Kwik's was not pulled for having "violated any other provision of §§ 39-17-1351 -- 39-17-1360"

- OS

[JayC]

Kwik and what other example?

Kwik's was not pulled for having "violated any other provision of §§ 39-17-1351 -- 39-17-1360"

- OS

There is another case of 1352 usage documented over at TFA about 2 years ago, I don't remember the persons name but it should still be on their forums.

[Oh Shoot]

There is another case of 1352 usage documented over at TFA about 2 years ago, I don't remember the persons name but it should still be on their forums.

Well, my point is that we can't find any case yet of 1351 conviction for instate resident with TN HCP, so we also don't know if that violation has cost the person his HCP also.

Kwik's was nuked under different provision in 1352.

- OS

Edited December 12, 2011 by OhShoot