Family Protection

[Guest nraforlife]

The protection and well-being of my family is MY responsibility NOT Naifeh's, yours or anyone else's. If the law is such that the ability to fulfill this responsibility is restricted and/or made into a criminal act well I guess you HAVE to follow the law, RIGHT...

[ZenDog]

This is a good point. It sure can get complicated at times. It is more serious than choosing to obey a speed limit or not, or choosing not to tell the absolute truth in every way on your income tax returns...

My wife and I are both in professions where if we get convicted of a felony we can lose our careers and our income. So, for example, if we were to illegally carry onto school property and were caught, arrested, charged, and convicted of a felony for carrying, bye-bye careers. On the other hand, if we don't carry onto school property and are unable to adequately defend ourselves one day we may be maimed or killed-- bye bye wife, life, career.

Since school is where one of our careers is- it presents a daily moral/ethical/legal dilemma.

Which risk is greater? To carry and risk prosecution, or to not carry and risk victimization?

I guess it is a choice we all have to make daily. Then we and our loved ones live (or die) with the consequences of our choice.

[Guest nraforlife]

This is a good point. It sure can get complicated at times. It is more serious than choosing to obey a speed limit or not, or choosing not to tell the absolute truth in every way on your income tax returns...

My wife and I are both in professions where if we get convicted of a felony we can lose our careers and our income. So, for example, if we were to illegally carry onto school property and were caught, arrested, charged, and convicted of a felony for carrying, bye-bye careers. On the other hand, if we don't carry onto school property and are unable to adequately defend ourselves one day we may be maimed or killed-- bye bye wife, life, career.

Since school is where one of our careers is- it presents a daily moral/ethical/legal dilemma.

Which risk is greater? To carry and risk prosecution, or to not carry and risk victimization?

I guess it is a choice we all have to make daily. Then we and our loved ones live (or die) with the consequences of our choice.

Anyone ever hear of Jury Nullification? Judges won't talk about it as it destroys their authority but to put it simply a jury can find you not guilty regardless of what the law states.

And having seen what transpires in some HS's here in TN, being armed isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[Tim Nunan]

Anyone ever hear of Jury Nullification? Judges won't talk about it as it destroys their authority but to put it simply a jury can find you not guilty regardless of what the law states.

And having seen what transpires in some HS's here in TN, being armed isn't necessarily a bad thing.

http://www.fija.org/ Fully Informed Jury Association

[Guest jackdog]

We all have to make that choice. I for one, made mine quite awhile back, and I'm at total peace with the route I have decided to follow.

[Guest nraforlife]

We all have to make that choice. I for one, made mine quite awhile back, and I'm at total peace with the route I have decided to follow.

Same here.

[robin48]

Same here.

Amen. Luckily we pulled out of public schools years ago, but the fact remains I will protect my family at all times, everywhere.

[strickj]

Same here.I carry everywhere,except the places that are illegal of coarse,me would never say that online

[Guest GLOCKGUY]

We all have to make that choice. I for one, made mine quite awhile back, and I'm at total peace with the route I have decided to follow.

same here

[Guest jcramin]

The protection and well-being of my family is MY responsibility NOT Naifeh's, yours or anyone else's. If the law is such that the ability to fulfill this responsibility is restricted and/or made into a criminal act well I guess you HAVE to follow the law, RIGHT...

The bad guys always fallow the law right ?

[saintsfanbrian]

I would love to see someone sue Naifeh for wrongful death or pain and suffering etc. for a family member killed or injured because they were unable to protect them self due to laws that he failed to allow to be voted on.

[Guest nraforlife]

Did y'all know about this

TN State Code annotated

*********************************************************************************************************************************************************************

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.”

******************************************************************************************************************

Note (All of the laws regulating the carrying of firearms are in section 13 – all of the 39-17-13XX )

[Guest TNDixieGirl]

Yes, it has been discussed at length in previous threads.

[Guest killemducks]

Excellent read folks! Thank you!!

Better to be tried by 12 than carried by six. Right?

________________________________________________________

But here is a question. What would happen to you if you defended yourself or your family in a public situation and was forced to kill to do it, AND you didn't have a permit to carry?

Should you...

A. not even carry, or...

B. should you let the fact that you can't afford or can't wait on the permit NOT keep you from carrying?

confsuionally wroded I konw......Hpoe yuo cna undesrtand.......

This may be a question you may not want to answer for yourself, but has it happened in the past and what was the outcome?

(I know, "confusionally" is not a word....)

killem

[Guest nraforlife]

Who is responsible for the safety of your family and yourself? Do what you got to do and LIVE for the consequences. LIVE is the key word as at least you or a family member were not killed.

A right is not a right if it requires a permit to exercise.

[memphismason]

A right is not a right if it requires a permit to exercise.

Wow! That should go down as one of the best quotes ever!

[Tim Nunan]

Did y'all know about this

TN State Code annotated

*********************************************************************************************************************************************************************

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.â€

******************************************************************************************************************

I believe this is related to the discussion though I could be wrong:

<!--StartFragment -->From TFA Executive Director, John Harris:

Tennessee Firearms Association, Inc.

Legislative Action Committee

The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals has this week issued a decision

regarding Tennessee Code Annotated Section 39-17-1322 which sadly eliminates the legislative intent and the protections offered by this safe harbor statute and leaves citizens and handgun permit holders are the whim of prosecutors and law enforcement officers.

State vs. Tracey C. Clark - M2007-00496-CCA-R3-CD _View_

(http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/OPINIONS/Tcca/PDF/082/clarktopn.pdf)

Separate Concurring Opinion - _View_

(http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/OPINIONS/Tcca/PDF/082/ClarkTraceyCCON.pdf)

Williamson County - Appellee, Tracy C. Clark, was indicted by the Williamson County Grand Jury for possession of a weapon on school grounds. Appellee filed a motion to dismiss the indictment based on a claim of self-defense, averring that the facts would not support a conviction for the offense. The trial court dismissed the indictment after conducting a pre-trial evidentiary hearing and determining that Appellee could not be convicted because he acted in self-defense. The State filed an untimely notice of appeal. This Court, in the interest of justice, accepted the late-filed notice of appeal. Because we determine that the trial court improperly conducted a pre-trial evidentiary hearing on the motion to dismiss which essentially involved resolution of the question of Appellee’s guilt or innocence, we reverse the trial court’s ruling and remand the case for reinstatement of the indictment.

This court of appeals decisions creates now the need to legislative address yet another issue that heretofore seemed pretty clear when the statute provides " shall not be charged" because the Court of Appeals clearly disagreed with the consequence of reading that clause literally!

[Guest Revelator]

I completely agree with the CCA. That judge had no right to conduct a pre-trial hearing on what is solely a question for a jury. Unless you opt to have a bench trial, the only people who should be determining facts that go to guilt or innocence are the jury. Shame on that judge for hearing it, shame on the defense lawyer for filing an improper motion to dismiss, and while I'm at it shame on the Staties for missing the cutoff for the appeal.

[Guest nraforlife]

Too much wiggle room in the wording. I have already emailed by rep and suggested it be reworded to - changes in bold

39-17-1322

“A person shall not be charged, indicted, arrested, prosecuted or any other criminal or civil procedures taken with ( take this out - 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.” Remove all the uncertainty from a judges mind on the intent of the law.

[Fallguy]

In reading the above with my limited legal understanding. It sounds like they are basically saying that since there wasn't evidence presented to determine whether it was self-defense or not, the judge couldn't dismiss the case since self-defense and as it (self-defense) is used in 39-17-1322 is required as a defense to the original charge of carrying on school grounds. But that if he or the jury said that they guy acted in self-defense he would not be guilty of carrying on school property.

IMO he should have never been charged in the first place. But also according to the court since 39-17-1322 says "shall not be charged or convicted" that you can be charged depending on the officer and/or DA's discretion otherwise the term convicted would not be in there.

Overall it sounds more like an attack on the actions of the judge instead of 39-17-1322, but I agree the legislature could address it to perhaps make it even more clear.

I bet you dollars to donuts that the officer on the scene didn't even know that 39-17-1322 existed or that had he not removed the gun from the his truck it wouldn't have been illegal period.

DAS I understand where you are coming from, but isn't somewhat standard for Defense Attorney's to file a motion to dismiss? Also while he may have procedurally done it wrong I think the trial judge made the right decision (although I agree maybe not his to make) and was trying to correct a miscarriage of justice done by the police and DA in brining the case in the first place. But I also think it should have never gone to the CCA since the state missed the cutoff for appeal. But this all IMO.

[Guest mw.]

that had he not removed the gun from the his truck it wouldn't have been illegal period.

This is one of the questions I have been meaning to ask. I have to work on school property at times.(land surveying) As long as I keep the gun secured in my vehicle I'm good, even if someone did find out about it?

[Fallguy]

This is one of the questions I have been meaning to ask. I have to work on school property at times.(land surveying) As long as I keep the gun secured in my vehicle I'm good, even if someone did find out about it?

IMO, Yes

Read the last half of below

39-17-1309©(1)

It is an offense for any person to possess or carry, whether openly or concealed, any firearm, not used solely for instructional or school-sanctioned ceremonial purposes, in any public or private school building or bus, on any public or private school campus, grounds, recreation area, athletic field or any other property owned, used or operated by any board of education, school, college or university board of trustees, regents or directors for the administration of any public or private educational institution. It is not an offense under this subsection © for a nonstudent adult to possess a firearm, if the firearm is contained within a private vehicle operated by the adult and is not handled by the adult, or by any other person acting with the expressed or implied consent of the adult, while the vehicle is on school property.

[Fallguy]

But if I remember reading the above case right...he was charged with a violation of 39-17-1309((1) not 39-17-1309©(1). Makes me wonder if he was charged under the right part to start with. ((1) has to do with the "intent to go armed", (39-17-1307) well he had a HCP which is a defense to the "intent to go armed" (39-17-1308(a)(2))

[Guest mw.]

Thanks.