Looking up court cases.

[Fallguy]

While this may not be the perfect or best way I have done some interesting reading this evening looking up TN court cases.

You can use a site specific search on google and search the TN Supreme court website.

In the search bar simply type

"(search term/s) site:http://www.tsc.state.tn.us"

Obviously replacing "search term" with what you want to look up. (and not using " marks)

Found at least two cases where someone was convicted under 39-17-1321 when they hadn't had a drink for hours. One case all it took was for the officer to say "he was under the influence".

One thing to remember is all of these cases are ones where someone appealed a decision by a lower court. So like in my example above there could be cases where someone had a beer in their hand, we're found not guilty, and the state did not appeal. Those cases wouldn't show up in this search.

FYI: I did search other terms, I just cited the above because of recent threads and just remembering a discussion on this in the past.

If you read any of these you'll see that when there is a conviction the presumption of innocence is gone, so the court looks at everything in a light most favorable to the prosecution.

One thing this proves is, you really never know what a jury is going to do.

[strickj]

Interwesting,vewwy interwesting.

Did it say anything about a HCP in any of them?

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

Class A misdemeanors can get pretty serious. And I had no idea that mere possession was a crime in that situation.

I use this as a reference quite often, though it doesn't provide case law:

http://michie.lexisnexis.com/tennessee/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&cp=

[Fallguy]

Interwesting,vewwy interwesting.

Did it say anything about a HCP in any of them?

Yes, some had them, some didn't. By no means did I read every case, but everyone that I did, this charge was in addition to another, not by itself. Such as DUI and possession while under the influence.

In one a guy was also convicted of carrying in a park (39-17-1311) by being in the parking lot of the J Percy Priest dam.

Hillbilly I use michie to look up TCA all the time, see my sig line and link to 39-17-1321 in my first post. It is a great source of the law, but not as it is applied.

You're right about Class A misdemeanors. Seems like a couple of the ones I remember they were sentenced to 11 months, 29 days, but only served 10 days and the rest was on supervised probation. I think that is a standard sentence for most first time Class A misdemeanors.

[Marswolf]

Yeah, when it comes to guns "under the influence" means any influence. Drunk driving laws don't apply to guns.

[R1100R]

Good info. Does it apply to LEO's? When I owned bars/restaurants, LEO's of all types

were carrying and drinking.

[Guest bkelm18]

LEOs are not exempt from the Alcohol+Firearms laws.

[Guest Boomhower]

http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/opinions/tcca/PDF/011/johnsonjeD.pdf

Found on the first page......

1 The constitutional right to bear arms provided in the United States Constitution means no more than this right shall not be infringed by Congress. See 79 AM. JUR.2d Weapons and Firearms § 4 (1975). The guaranty of the federal right to bear arms is not carried over into the Fourteenth Amendment so as to be applicable to the individual states. 79 AM. JUR.2d Weapons and Firearms § 4. Additionally, the United States Supreme Court has long held that “the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have ‘some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.’” Lewis v. United States , 445 U.S. 55, 65 n.8, 100 S. Ct. 915 (1980) (citation omitted). In this regard, the federal courts have consistently upheld the constitutionality of federal weapons regulations like 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) absent evidence that they in any way affect the maintenance of a well regulated militia.

hmmmmmmmmmm......

Edited April 27, 2008 by Boomhower

[Fallguy]

I read that case....

What you quoted was the footnote the judge provided as to why in his opinion the "Right to keep and bear arms" is not absolute.

Of course the overall best thing about it is he is writing in dissension on case that was ruled the other way.

Also it looks like SCOTUS is about to rule the 2A as individual right, not that of a group or "militia".

[DaveTN]

I read that case....

What you quoted was the footnote the judge provided as to why in his opinion the "Right to keep and bear arms" is not absolute.

Of course the overall best thing about it is he is writing in dissension on case that was ruled the other way.

Also it looks like SCOTUS is about to rule the 2A as individual right, not that of a group or "militia".

Well we will see how they rule…

But I have not heard anyone claim it is a right of a group or militia. They claim it is a protection for the states from the Federal government and not an individual right. This is clearly <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:State><ST1:pTennessee</st1:State>’s take on it. In <st1:State>Tennessee </st1:State>you have a “special group” that is 3% of the population; for the rest of the population carrying a firearm is a crime. That is not a right.

<O:p</O:p

If you think that the SCOTUS is going to rule that the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> is an individual right, what impact do you think that will have? Do you think their ruling will allow all Americans to keep and bear arms?

Good info. Case law is every bit as important as the written law.

<O:p</O:p

Edited May 3, 2008 by DaveTN

[Fallguy]

If you think that the SCOTUS is going to rule that the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> is an individual right, what impact do you think that will have? Do you think their ruling will allow all Americans to keep and bear arms?<O:p</O:p

I don't think it will have much in affect in TN no matter how they rule. The jist I got from listening to the oral arguments on DC v. Heller is that they will also say that is ok for the state to put "reasonable restrictions" on the keeping and bearing of arms. But it looks like they don't think a total ban on keeping of handguns is reasonable. So in theory it would take a court case on each type of restriction to rule whether it reasonable or not.

IMO almost all if not all restrictions on bearing would probably be considered reasonable. But maybe some from the state of IL will challenge that.

[Guest ProguninTN]

You're right about Class A misdemeanors. Seems like a couple of the ones I remember they were sentenced to 11 months, 29 days, but only served 10 days and the rest was on supervised probation. I think that is a standard sentence for most first time Class A misdemeanors.

Class A misdemeanor is the most serious misdemeanor. Any crime which carries a sentence of at least 1 year. (12 mos) is a felony.

[Fallguy]

Class A misdemeanor is the most serious misdemeanor. Any crime which carries a sentence of at least 1 year. (12 mos) is a felony.

True...all I was trying to say is that usually on a first offense you don't have to serve the whole 11 months 29 days in jail, some of it is suspended.

The funny thing is...anytime you are actually sentenced to serve in jail that is less than a year (11/29) you have to serve every day, but a felony (1 year+) you can serve as little as 30%.

I remember when I was working as a jailer letting someone out that had been sentenced to 3 years after serving less time that someone sentenced to 11 months 29 days.

[Guest ProguninTN]

Ah, I see. It's weird how that works.