TN - Safe Harbor under attack

[Guest nraforlife]

The so called 'Safe Harbor portion of the carry law; section 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.”

is being 'worked over' by the Court of Appeals in Nashville - see State vs. Tracey C. Clark - M2007-00496-CCA-R3-CD.

I have contacted all of my reps and suggested that the wording to changed to something like “A person shall not be arrested, prosecuted, indicted, or charged with a violation under this part, whether civil or criminal, 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.”

The court is somewhat right in that how can you be convicted if you are not first charged, so lets remove that grey area from their purview. The way ths law is worded a person can do the right thing and still end up thousands of dollars out of pocket defending themself in court.

Edited May 4, 2008 by nraforlife

[Fallguy]

The trouble is your wording "shall not be arrested, prosecuted, indicted, or charged" still wouldn't help because the word "or" is in there.

This case was discussed on another thread, I'm not sure if you've read the court case, but it has more to do with a procedural error of the trial judge instead of an attack on 39-17-1322.

The appeals court is simply saying for 39-17-1322 to apply a ruling of self-defense has to be made first and that no such ruling was made before the judge dismissed the charge of carrying on school property.

The defends argument was he should have never been charged in the first place. I do agree with this..IMO the only reason he was is the LEO on the scene probably didn't know it was legal for him to have the gun in his vehicle and/or did not know of the safe harbor law. Also I guess the local DA must have felt some reason to pursue the case.

But 39-17-1322 says "A person shall not be charged with or convicted of..." The DA says since it has "or convicted of" it means that in some situation a person could be charged...the appellate court agreed with that.

Now if it the "or convicted of" part was removed and it simply said "A person shall not be charged with a violation of this part...." that would be better to me.

[Guest SomeGuy]

The wording of the law was fine. The court simply is corrupt and wanted to find a way around it, so they twisted simple plain English.

If I tell you do not have sex with my son OR daughter, it does NOT mean it is OK in some circumstances to do one. The law made a list of things, and effectively says " A B or C shall not happen" Courts are saying A is sometimes OK, which is pretty obviously wrong.

We need to get rid of these liberal idiots in black robes.

[Mark@Sea]

The intent of the law seems plain enough to me. What we need to be able to do is indict or sue the prosecutor for abuse of his office.

[Guest SomeGuy]

Mark, Do not forget the jurists who are complicit as well.

[Guest kwikrnu]

For the most part jurists do what the judge tells them they can do.

[Guest nraforlife]

Want to stir it up a little? If called to serve on jury duty show up reading the book Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine by Clay Conrad and Clay S. Conrad available on Amazon.com

Our second president, John Adams, said "it is not only the juror's right, but his duty, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, even though in direct opposition to the direction of the judge."

[Tim Nunan]

Want to stir it up a little? If called to serve on jury duty show up reading the book Jury Nullification: The Evolution of a Doctrine by Clay Conrad and Clay S. Conrad available on Amazon.com

Our second president, John Adams, said "it is not only the juror's right, but his duty, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, even though in direct opposition to the direction of the judge."

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

[Guest SomeGuy]

I misposted earlier. I meant judge who is complicit as well.

[Fallguy]

I misposted earlier. I meant judge who is complicit as well.

Jurist is a correct term for a judge.

Look at this judge....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354863,00.html

[Guest SomeGuy]

FG, it appears I did not mispost after all. Glad to know I used the right term, and other posters misunderstood.

That is a great read. Talk about a judge who is whacked out.