HB 3499 (Faison)/SB (Beavers) - intent to go armed re-defined

[GKar]

Another interesting offering this week:

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/HB3499.pdf

From the caption: "As introduced, defines and clarifies the terms "intent to go armed" and "purpose of going armed" when determining if person is in violation of law prohibiting a person from carrying a firearm with the intent to go armed under certain circumstances."

Need the better legal-eagles to weigh-in, but this one appears to offer a possible avoidance of the criminal aspect of carrying past a posting in part ((7):

(

A rebuttable presumption exists that a person lacks the “intent to go armed†or the “purpose of going armed†in violation of this part if:

(7) The only evidence of a possible violation of this part is the person’s possession or carrying of a weapon in a place where this part prohibits the person from possessing or carrying a weapon with the intent to go armed or purpose of going armed.

We'll see....

[Oh Shoot]

Another interesting offering this week:

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/HB3499.pdf

From the caption: "As introduced, defines and clarifies the terms "intent to go armed" and "purpose of going armed" when determining if person is in violation of law prohibiting a person from carrying a firearm with the intent to go armed under certain circumstances."

Need the better legal-eagles to weigh-in, but this one appears to offer a possible avoidance of the criminal aspect of carrying past a posting in part ((7):

(

A rebuttable presumption exists that a person lacks the “intent to go armed” or the “purpose of going armed” in violation of this part if:

(7) The only evidence of a possible violation of this part is the person’s possession or carrying of a weapon in a place where this part prohibits the person from possessing or carrying a weapon with the intent to go armed or purpose of going armed.

We'll see....

Makes no sense to moi.

If you have an HCP and are charged with carrying past a sign, "intent to go armed" isn't a consideration.

If you don't have an HCP, you're guilty of two charges. Unless they decide that carrying a loaded gun without a permit is legal. In which case we no longer need HCPs.

- OS

[GKar]

Like I said, I very possibly am mis-interpreting the portion that I quoted...

[hkgonra]

Makes no sense to moi.

If you have an HCP and are charged with carrying past a sign, "intent to go armed" isn't a consideration.

If you don't have an HCP, you're guilty of two charges. Unless they decide that carrying a loaded gun without a permit is legal. In which case we no longer need HCPs.

- OS

I think you meant to say unless they start recognizing the 2nd ammendment of the US Constitution.

[Oh Shoot]

I think you meant to say unless they start recognizing the 2nd ammendment of the US Constitution.

Yeah, you could put it that way to them, but the legislature would just get that glazed look in its collective eyes as if you were speaking Swahili.

- OS

[DaveTN]

Seems to me that “intent to go armed†applies to three groups of people. Convicted felons, people in the process of committing a crime other than carrying a gun, and illegals.

Seems to clear up the “mere possession†question.

(1) Prohibited from possessing a handgun by Tennessee or federal law;

(2) Attempting or engaged in any criminal activity; or

(3) Present in this state in violation of any state or federal law.

[Fallguy]

To me while it seems a bit long winded to accomplish this...it is to prevent someone with being charged with 39-17-1307 if they find themselves in a situation like the woman in New York city. Also to prevent someone from being charged with 39-17-1307 in addition to 39-17-1359 if they carry past a sign.

[Worriedman]

To me while it seems a bit long winded to accomplish this...it is to prevent someone with being charged with 39-17-1307 if they find themselves in a situation like the woman in New York city. Also to prevent someone from being charged with 39-17-1307 in addition to 39-17-1359 if they carry past a sign.

Fallguy, I think you have it sir. I spoke with the Sponsor, and that is precisely what his intent was, to preclude a situation like that which occurred with the nurse in New York.

[Oh Shoot]

Fallguy, I think you have it sir. I spoke with the Sponsor, and that is precisely what his intent was, to preclude a situation like that which occurred with the nurse in New York.

Still makes no sense. A permit holder is clearly not violating 1307 carrying past a sign, only 1359.

A non-permit holder would indeed be violating both.

To equate with NYC law is ridiculous -- I mean, worst case, illegal possession/carry for non HCP holder, is only a Class A 'meanor, even with repeated violation.

- OS

Edited January 27, 2012 by OhShoot

[Worriedman]

No one implied they would get it right, just what their intent was. "Innocence" as a defense.

[Fallguy]

Still makes no sense. A permit holder is clearly not violating 1307 carrying past a sign, only 1359.

- OS

I agree, but I know at least one LEO that doesn't.

[Fallguy]

Fallguy, I think you have it sir. I spoke with the Sponsor, and that is precisely what his intent was, to preclude a situation like that which occurred with the nurse in New York.

LOL...I must have been reading too many bills over the years if I'm actually starting to figure out what the intent of the sponsor is...

[Oh Shoot]

I agree, but I know at least one LEO that doesn't.

Yeah, you know that I know about that exchange.

But he ain't a DA, and if it comes to it (I doubt it really has, contrary to his claims), I'd say case law oughtta put the quietus on that.

- OS

[Fallguy]

Yeah, you know that I know about that exchange.

But he ain't a DA, and if it comes to it (I doubt it really has, contrary to his claims), I'd say case law oughtta put the quietus on that.

- OS

True...but sometimes it doesn't hurt to have a law that clarifies something.

[Oh Shoot]

True...but sometimes it doesn't hurt to have a law that clarifies something.

Well, then they shouldn't use "intent to go armed" as the basis. A term that isn't exactly already defined in the first place in TCA. Although in the case of firearms, it seems to be simply "loaded".

They should simply say that a violation of 1359 by a permit holder does not also constitute a violation of 1307.

Although I don't see any reason that a violation of 1359 would negate a violation of 1307 by a non-permit holder.

- OS

[Fallguy]

Well, then they shouldn't use "intent to go armed" as the basis. A term that isn't exactly already defined in the first place in TCA. Although in the case of firearms, it seems to be simply "loaded".

They should simply say that a violation of 1359 by a permit holder does not also constitute a violation of 1307.

Although I don't see any reason that a violation of 1359 would negate a violation of 1307 by a non-permit holder.

- OS

Why would they start using plain and simple language now? ...lol

[DaveTN]

They don’t need “intent to go armedâ€; do away with it. Simple illegal possession should be a misdemeanor. And I can’t think of any crime that you could commit with a firearm that wouldn’t already be a felony.

Or…. Be the fifth state to recognize the 2^nd amendment and the only people carrying illegally will be the criminals.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Seems to me that “intent to go armed†applies to three groups of people. Convicted felons, people in the process of committing a crime other than carrying a gun, and illegals.

Seems to clear up the “mere possession†question.

(1) Prohibited from possessing a handgun by Tennessee or federal law;

(2) Attempting or engaged in any criminal activity; or

(3) Present in this state in violation of any state or federal law.

Well, there is one other purpose for "intent to go armed". How about the

right to protect yourself?

[DaveTN]

Well, there is one other purpose for "intent to go armed". How about the

right to protect yourself?

I think I covered that while you were typing. But unfortunately Tennessee doesn’t recognize that right.

[hkgonra]

I think I covered that while you were typing. But unfortunately Tennessee doesn’t recognize that right.

Dave if you haven't seen this you should, the whole thing is good but the crucial part is from 5:30 to 6:20

[DaveTN]

Dave if you haven't seen this you should, the whole thing is good but the crucial part is from 5:30 to 6:20

Of course it’s ignorant.

I rant about it every opportunity I get. Every time I hear someone make reference to their “2nd Amendment Rights†I think “There’s someone that doesn’t have a clue.â€

I don’t hang my right to defend myself on a dog with no teeth like the 2^nd amendment. My right to bear arms is a natural right. Every citizen has the right to defend him or herself. When the bad guys are carrying guns and you can’t; you are dead. Unfortunately the courts do not now, nor will they ever agree with me unless the state legislature makes it law. I acknowledge and agree that States Rights trump the 2^nd Amendment; but they don’t trump natural rights.

“Patron State Of Shooting Stuff†“Tennessee is pro-gun†my azz, what a load of 5% of the population can legally carry a gun. For the other 95% it is a crime. Many people can’t afford an HCP; I guess their lives aren’t as important as those of us who can.

We all laugh and make fun of the HCP course. Yet the state has the audacity to think that because someone has been through that course; they can drive that down the throats of business owners. Sorry, but that is not going to cut it. If the state is going to force business owners to allow guns on their property it is going to have to be because citizens have a recognizable right; not because a select few sent the state money.

The Civil War knocked the teeth out of the 2^nd Amendment. That’s why the SCOTUS has ruled the way they have; they had no other choice (Without opening the door for a total ban on firearms).

You can argue all day long about the 2^nd amendment, talk about the intent of our founding fathers, argue language, or give your own personal interpretation of what the 2^nd amendment means. It’s meaningless. I only care about rights that are acknowledged and protected.

Unless it’s been canned, there is legislation on the table to allow citizens to carry. I would like to see language acknowledging the right under the Tennessee Constitution, but it is a step in the right direction. It will impact all these other laws about where and when you can carry; lets deal with it first.