TN State law

[Guest bazookazilla]

Can anyone tell me where I can look up state law regarding self/home defense using a firearm. I know there must be clearly stated legislation, but I don't know where to go to find it. I would like to read it myself in hopes of clearing up any grey areas. I welcome any direction as well as thoughts and comments. Thanks

[Guest GlocKingTN]

www.tennessee.gov

Or lexisNexis

[K191145]

Tennessee code 39-11-611. Self-defense

39-11-611. Self-defense. -- (a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The person must have a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury must be real, or honestly believed to be real at the time, and must be founded upon reasonable grounds. There is no duty to retreat before a person threatens or uses force.

( Any person using force intended or likely to cause death orserious bodily injury within their own residence is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury to self, family or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

© The threat or use of force against another is not justified if the person consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other individual.

(d) The threat or use of force against another is not justified if the person provoked the other individual's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:

(1) The person abandons the encounter or clearly

communicates to the other the intent to do so; and

(2) The other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the person.

(e) The threat or use of force against another is not justified to resist a halt at a roadblock, arrest, search, or stop and frisk that the person knows is being made by a law enforcement officer,unless:

(1) The law enforcement officer uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest, search, stop and frisk,or halt; and

(2) The person reasonably believes that the force is immediately necessary to protect against the law enforcement officer's use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

[Acts 1989, ch. 591, { 1; 1990, ch. 1030. { 8.]

[K191145]

Also,

Tennessee has the Good Samaritan Act of 1999. Tennessee Code 29-34-201.

(a) Any person who is injured while committing a felony on the real property of another is barred from recovery of actual or punitive damages resulting from injuries, either accidentally or intentionally inflicted by the owner, lawful occupier or tenant of such property, which the person recieves while committing or attempting to commit a felony.

( A person who accidentally or intentionally causes property damage to or inflicts injury or death upon the perpetrator of a criminal offense is absolutly immune from civil liability for the payment of monetary damages from such persons actions if at the time such damage, injury or death occured.

© The offenses for which such immunity applies are:

1. any criminal homicide,

2. aggravated rape,

3. kidnapping,

4. aggravated kidnapping,

5. especially aggravated kidnapping,

6. especially agravated burglary,

7. aggravated robbery,

8. especially aggravated robbery,

9. carjacking, and

10. attempt to commit first or second degree murder.

[Guest jackdog]

Anyone know if TC 29-34-201 has been tested in the courts?

[Donnie]

Anyone know if TC 29-34-201 has been tested in the courts?

I don't know if it's been tested or not, but I'll put it to the test if anyone is found roaming around in my house in the middle of the night.

[Guest Hyaloid]

Anyone know if TC 29-34-201 has been tested in the courts?

I would imagine a case exists somewhere by now...

Remember, they have to be charged with one of those "aggravated" or "especially Aggravated" charges... I am not sure what makes those, I would guess the prescense of a weapon on the criminal.

So, just shooting someone looting your kitchen drawer may turn out badly civilly under this statute. Not saying *I* wouldn't shoot, if there in my house and I don't know them, it probably won't turn out well for the bad guy, but it *may* open you to civil damages.

This will likely also depend on where you are tried... East TN probably would be less likely to award civil damages than most Memphis juries.

IANAL, IMHO of course.

[saintsfanbrian]

Hyaloid,

( Any person using force intended or likely to cause death orserious bodily injury within their own residence is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury to self, family or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

This would cover you if some one was "looting" in your kitchen drawer.

[jgrauman]

it all comes down to keeping your mouth shut when the cops arrive. Get a lawyer and go over your story. Don't say, "well officer, he had his hands in my grandma's china drawer and she just loves that china, so i shot that SOB." This might open you up to civil suit more than anything.

[Guest Hyaloid]

Hyaloid,

This would cover you if some one was "looting" in your kitchen drawer.

[/font]

Certainly that covers the use of deadly force, but does not make you immune in and of itself from a CIVIL case being brought against you.

Criminal prosecution would be covered, but not civil. Not saying at all they'd win the civil case, but it doesn;t make you immune from them bringing a case against you.

[Guest jackdog]

I was wondering about the car jacking aspect, more than the home invasion.

[saintsfanbrian]

State congress is working on a new carjacking bill that would for protecting yourself from a carjacker with deadly force. After all, it is illegal to shoot at or from a vehicle.

[Guest jackdog]

A castle law could and would solve these issues.

[Guest Len]

Easy access to TN Code Annotated:

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

[shaftbass]

it is illegal to shoot at or from a vehicle.

Even in self-defense situations? Do you have a link to the code that states this? I'm not calling you out, I just haven't heard of this law and like to read it for myself.

I just don't see how it can be called "illegal" if you are in your car, with a car directly in front and back of you blocking any chance you have of escaping (not that you have to try to escape as TN doesn't require you to retreat when faced with deadly force), and some thug puts a gun in your face, and you shoot the guy. That would be clear-cut self-defense, whether it's illegal to shoot from a vehicle or not.

[saintsfanbrian]

I don't recall the exact location but I do remember the instructor for my class telling me this.

[molonlabetn]

Tennessee -

SB 0011*

HB 1907

Use of deadly force for self-defense. Expands the circumstances under which a person using deadly force for self-defense is considered immune from civil liability. Permits the use of deadly force for self-defense when there is reasonable belief of death in not only a person's residence (current law) but also in such person's dwelling or vehicle. Defines residence to include any dwelling or building within the curtilage of one's residence. (S: Jackson; H: Rinks) Set for Senate Judiciary Committee 03/27/2007. Set for House Judiciary Criminal Practice Subcommittee 03/28/2007.

------------------------------------

Here's a few others worth watching, as well:

CRIMINAL LAW

SB 0187*

HB 0668

Castle Doctrine - self-defense and justified use of force. Expands concept of using reasonable force to protect self or others to dwellings other than residence and vehicles. Specifies that person is immune from criminal prosecution or civil liability for justified use of self-defense. (S: Stanley; H: Swafford) House Judiciary amendment 1 specifies that this provision includes only motorized vehicles. Set for Senate Judiciary Committee 03/27/2007. Set for House Judiciary Committee 03/28/2007.

SB 1065

HB 0862*

Use of force in self-defense. Specifies when use of deadly force in self defense is justified. Expands the circumstances under which a person using deadly force for self-defense is considered immune from civil liability. Permits the use of deadly force for self-defense when there is reasonable belief of death in not only a person's residence (current law) but also in such person's dwelling or vehicle. Defines residence to include any dwelling or building within the curtilage of one's residence. (S: Tracy; H: Johnson C.) Set for Senate Judiciary Committee 03/27/2007. Referred to House Judiciary Civil Practice Subcommittee.

SB 1609

HB 0411*

Use of force in self defense. Specifies when use of deadly force in self defense is justified. Expands the circumstances under which a person using deadly force for self-defense is considered immune from civil liability. Permits the use of deadly force for self-defense when there is reasonable belief of death in not only a person's residence (current law) but also in such person's dwelling or vehicle. Defines residence to include any dwelling or building within the curtilage of one's residence. (S: Norris; H: Todd) Set for Senate Judiciary Committee 03/27/2007. Set for House Judiciary Criminal Practice Subcommittee 03/28/2007.

SB 1684*

HB 2297

Use of force in self-defense. Specifies when use of deadly force in self defense is justified. Expands the circumstances under which a person using deadly force for self-defense is considered immune from civil liability. Permits the use of deadly force for self-defense when there is reasonable belief of death in not only a person's residence (current law) but also in such person's dwelling. Defines residence to include any dwelling or building within the curtilage of one's residence. (S: Herron; H: Maddox) Set for Senate Judiciary Committee 03/27/2007. Referred to House Judiciary Criminal Practice Subcommittee.

SB 1864

HB 0171*

Civil immunity for persons using force in self defense. Specifies when use of deadly force in self defense is justified. Expands the circumstances under which a person using deadly force for self-defense is considered immune from civil liability. Permits the use of deadly force for self-defense when there is reasonable belief of death in not only a person's residence (current law) but also in such person's dwelling or vehicle. Defines residence to include any dwelling or building within the curtilage of one's residence. (S: Johnson J.; H: Casada)

Senate Co-Sponsors: Tracy; Stanley Set for Senate Judiciary Committee 03/27/2007. Referred to House Judiciary Criminal Practice Subcommittee.

[shaftbass]

I don't recall the exact location but I do remember the instructor for my class telling me this.

Well it's illegal to hunt from your vehicle, unless you are on private land and it can't be moving or registered for highway use (four wheeler, etc). Otherwise, it's not allowed.

I never heard of a specific law saying it's illegal to shoot from your vehicle. I think reckless discharging of a gun would cover it, since it would apply to you no matter where you are. Of course that is waived should you need to shoot in self-defense.

[Guest Hyaloid]

My state rep and senator got this e-mail, Matthew Hill was the only one to respond... Here is a cut and paste of the exchange:

Hyaloid (name changed),

Thank you for your e-mail. Please know that I am 100% in favor and in full support of these pieces legislation. I enjoy my A+ NRA rating, I enjoy the 2nd Amendment more.

Rep. Matthew Hill

From:Hyaloid (*name changed)

Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 7:41 PM

To: Matthew Hill; Rusty Crowe

Subject: Please support these bills...

Dear Sirs,

HB1143/SB1885:

Firearms and Ammunition - Authorizes person with handgun carry permit to possess handgun within the confines of a restaurant licensed to sell alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises provided such person is not consuming alcohol while in the restaurant. - Amends TCA Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13.

HB2184/SB2143

Handgun Permits - Allows any resident, who has a valid handgun carry permit, to possess his or her handgun while within the boundaries of any state park. - Amends TCA Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13 and Title 70.

HB0132/SB0053

Game and Fish Laws - Authorizes persons with handgun carry permits to possess firearms in all public hunting areas, refuges, wildlife management areas, and national forests managed by the state. - Amends TCA Title 70.

HB0067/SB0153

Firearms and Ammunition - Prohibits employers and nongovernmental entities from prohibiting persons possessing a handgun carry permit from transporting and storing a firearm out of sight in a locked vehicle on any property set aside for vehicles. - Amends TCA Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13.

I wanted to ask that you please support the pro 2nd Amendment bills that are currently coming up in this legislative session, which I have listed above for your reference. I am a handgun permit holder, and as such, many of these will directly affect my personal day to day life. As a population, handgun permit holders are law abiding citizens who have passed a background check and a mandatory eight hour course to allow the open or concealed carry of a handgun on their person. These bills would loosen or eliminate restrictions that are currently in place on permit holders. Currently I have to disarm myself anytime that I wish to eat out at a restaurant with my family, even though I do not drink. This leaves us vulnerable while in the restaurant, and while walking to and from the establishment. Furthermore, while I dine unarmed, the weapon is secured in my vehicle instead of on my person, which makes it a better target for thieves.

Thank you for taking the time to listen to a constituent. I can be reached by replying to this e-mail, or at the phone numbers below.

Hyaloid (name changed)

[Guest Hyaloid]

This was sent a little while ago, and by molonlabe's post, looks like I missed a couple of biggies...

time to draft another e-mail!

[towerclimber37]

I have had to shoot only once here..but it was on my property, and it was a warning shot.

there was a fella, who loved to hunt coons...well..since my brother owns a small parcel of wooded land (about 45 acres) and my sister in law loves to watch the deer in the morning, I put up a bunch of no trespassing/poaching signs with the family name on them (looked up the legal specifications of said sign and complied with state laws).

The fella in question was used to hunting on the property and had permission from the former owner...my sister in law clearly told him after he'd lost his coon dog on the property that hunting was not allowed on her property..

he proceeded to lose his dog 3 more times after that.

then around 9:30 in the evening, she woke me up and said that someone had parked down the hill, behind the garage...and there was a dog running the deer.

I pulled my pistol and walked out onto the front porch and fired a shot into the hillside where I knew no one would be and after it got REALLY quiet, I said "take your dog, get off the property, because the next sound I hear, I'm going to blow a hole in it."

I heard the fella whistle for his dog, the truck fired up and he left.

the next day, I called the local game warden and he pretty much told me that He wasn't involved in that, as he knew the fella and didn't believe he'd poach like that. He also said that guy had called him earlier about someone shooting at him...I informed the game warden that if I was shooting at him, I'm pretty sure he'd be making that call from a hospital...and that the fella was welcome to come and discuss the matter with me as long as he was unarmed...which he wasn't at the time he was running the deer...about 500 feet from the driveway.

The next day, the man came to visit. I was in OPEN CARRY, on the property (it was my 1911).

the man proceeded to tell me that A. I was NOT allowed to shoot him or his dog when on my property (false, when given prior warning and when that person is armed, which he was..he was poaching).

I told him that I WOULD shoot him then next time he came on the property, for any reason and to consider himself warned. I also told him that I would make 2 calls. 1 would be to the kingsport sherrifs' office to come get his carcass and that of his dog..the next would be to the Game Warden's boss at the regional level, to ask him why the local game warden didn't save that mans' life.

about that time, my sis in law came out and spoke with the man and told him "my brother in law is a combat veteran and he WILL shoot you if he says so...please don't make the mistake he's bluffing you".

since then, I've seen neither hide nor hair of him, which is nice!

[Guest jackdog]

Tower you devil you. It amazes me how some people just can't take a hint.

Jackdog

[towerclimber37]

*sigh* why do I have the feeling that I've got a big L on my forehead?