Can someone please explain “with the intent to go armed� to me?

[Guest glocklocker19]

I just got my newly issued HCP yesterday and as a responsible individual, I feel it is my duty to educate myself to the fullest extent of the where, how, and when I can and can not carry. I have read a lot of so far, but this statement from TCA 39-17-1307 is confusing to me:

 

(a)  (1) A person commits an offense who carries with the intent to go armed a firearm, a knife with a blade length exceeding four inches (4''), or a club.

 

Then lower below it states:

 

(e)  (1) It is an exception to the application of subsection (a) that a person authorized to carry a handgun pursuant to § 39-17-1351 is transporting a rifle or shotgun in or on a privately-owned motor vehicle and the rifle or shotgun does not have ammunition in the chamber. However, the person does not violate this section by inserting ammunition into the chamber if the ammunition is inserted for purposes of justifiable self-defense pursuant to § 39-11-611 or § 39-11-612.

 

So if I interpret this correctly, I am commiting a crime just by carrying but my defense is that I am an HCP holder? I'm just trying to determine that if I'm carrying even though I am a lawful, HCP holder if I could still be arrested and charged under the letter of the law as I interpret it. 

 

I also read something about some cities here in Tennesssee having there own ordinances in place concerning concealed carry, so I went and looked up mine (Johnson City), and what I found was not only confusing as well, but also comical:

 

11-134. Carrying concealed weapons.  Except where permitted by state

or federal law, no person shall carry publicly or privately for the purpose of

going or  being armed, any bowie knife, Arkansas toothpick, dirk, or razor

concealed about his person, or any sword cane, Spanish stiletto or pocket pistol,

revolver, or any kind of pistol, except the army or navy pistol, usually used in

warfare, which shall be carried openly in the hand; or any loaded cane, nun

chaku,  shearkens,  machete,  slingshot,  brass  knuckles  or  other dangerous

weapon.  (1985 Code, § 16-38)

 

I really like the part that says "except the army or navy pistol, usually used in warfare, which shall be carried openly in the hand;" Umm so yea... that's great, do I intepret this to mean I can go get an olive drab 1911 pistol and carry it around openly, but can't carry my Glock 27 concealed!!!??? 

 

I'm new to all this, so I'm trying to learn as much as I can. Input appreciated. 

 

 

[Oh Shoot]

You'll not find a definition of it in TCA, but suffice it to say that possessing a loaded firearm is always "intent to go armed" in TN, simple as that. With other implements that can be used as weapons it becomes a grayer area, but not with firearms. And note that having an unloaded gun, but ammo immediately accessible, let alone on your person, is not "unloaded".

 

That archaic law you found is duplicated in many cities throughout TN since the 1870's; Knoxville has it also. In short, it's simply not enforced, last incident of that according to MTAS was in 1912.  Can say quite a bit more about it, but in short, that's all you really need to know as far as being legal, simply ignore it.

 

It was brought up in this recent thread also, if you want to see a bit more about it:

 

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/61203-carry-prohibited-without-sign-being-posted/

 

- OS

Edited February 22, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[daddyo]

I'd like to hear a lawyer explain this.

[Guest glocklocker19]

A loaded firearm is always "intent to go armed" in TN, simple as that. With other implements that can be used as weapons it becomes a grayer area, but not with firearms. And note that having an unloaded gun, but ammo accessible, let alone on your person, is not "unloaded".

So if I'm carrying with a magazine in my gun, even though it may not be cocked and loaded, is this a criminal offense at this point even though I have an HCP? Could I be arrested and charged with a crime? 

 

That archaic law you found is duplicated in many cities throughout TN since the 1870's; Knoxville has it also. In short, it's simply not enforced, last incident of it according to MTAS was in 1912.  Can say quite a bit more about it, but in short, that's all you really need to know as far as being legal, simply ignore it.

 

It was brought up in this recent thread also, if you want to see a bit more about it:

 

http://www.tngunowne...n-being-posted/

That was an entertaining read, what a dumb law. I thought it may have been just specific for us, but apparently not. I don't know that I'd be willing to test the theory of enforcement though, but it's just plain crazy. 

 

Confused :/

[dralarms]

My brother who lives in NC summed it up as this: You get stopped by the cop and get arressed for "intent to go armed", When you go in front of the judge go ahead and tell him that heck yea I was intending to be armed, that's why the gun was loaded.

 

The intent to go armed law is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of.

[dralarms]

And no, if you have the HCP you can't be charged with ITA, unless you are somepace where you ain't supposed to be with a gun and then I think it's another whole ball game then.

[Oh Shoot]

So if I'm carrying with a magazine in my gun, even though it may not be cocked and loaded, is this a criminal offense at this point even though I have an HCP? Could I be arrested and charged with a crime? 

 

HCP is an "defense" to the law. There are others.

 

Unlike many states, TN starts with the premise that it's illegal to possess a loaded firearm, period -- and then gives "exceptions" and "defenses" to that. Best to bone up on TCA weapons law yourself.

 

http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/tncode/

 

Can't give exact URL to the section the way that site is coded, but you want 39-17-13xx.

 

- OS

[monkeylizard]

You're reading the letter of the law correctly. By the letter of the law, yes you can be arrested for being armed and then have to present your HCP to the judge to get out of it.

 

In "reality" that's not going to happen for a whole host of reasons, not least of which is that no cop wants to have to explain to his captain or the judge why he's wasting everyone's time for no reason.

 

As I understand it, the nuance of TN making an HCP a "defense" to an unlawful act is that it opens up options for Law Enforcement to do things legally such as confiscate the weapon during a stop. You're breaking the law by having the loaded gun, so they can take it from you while they check out your "defense" in the form of an HCP. Basically, they get to treat you like a criminal until they have solid proof that you aren't, because by the letter of the law, you are a criminal by being armed.

 

If the law against being armed was worded to be null and void for HCP holders rather than just a defense to that law, then law enforcement probably couldn't legally do that since you wouldn't actually be breaking any laws. They could still stop you and ask for your permit if they saw the gun, but could not take it during the stop.

 

Again, that's just as I understand it, but the reality is that with an HCP you're good to go as long as you're not in a prohibited place.

 

As OS said, read up on 39-17-13xx.

[Guest glocklocker19]

You're reading the letter of the law correctly. By the letter of the law, yes you can be arrested for being armed and then have to present your HCP to the judge to get out of it.

 

In "reality" that's not going to happen for a whole host of reasons, not least of which is that no cop wants to have to explain to his captain or the judge why he's wasting everyone's time for no reason.

 

As I understand it, the nuance of TN making an HCP a "defense" to an unlawful act is that it opens up options for Law Enforcement to do things legally such as confiscate the weapon during a stop. You're breaking the law by having the loaded gun, so they can take it from you while they check out your "defense" in the form of an HCP. Basically, they get to treat you like a criminal until they have solid proof that you aren't, because by the letter of the law, you are a criminal by being armed.

 

If the law against being armed was worded to be null and void for HCP holders rather than just a defense to that law, then law enforcement probably couldn't legally do that since you wouldn't actually be breaking any laws. They could still stop you and ask for your permit if they saw the gun, but could not take it during the stop.

 

Again, that's just as I understand it, but the reality is that with an HCP you're good to go as long as you're not in a prohibited place.

 

As OS said, read up on 39-17-13xx.

 

Thank you :) I believe to have a clearer understanding of it now, after reading about this yesterday I was really confused and then I started wondering why I just spent $165.00 going through my carry class and application to get something that might not even matter!!! Didn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but does now. 

[Guest 270win]

Here is my understanding of intent to go armed:

 

It is not illegal to possess a firearm on its face value.  It is what you 'intend' to do with that firearm or how you want to use it.  If you have a firearm, and your purpose is to have it for offensive OR defensive use, then that is illegal.  If you read the law carefully, having a loaded or unloaded gun is not illegal.  It is having a firearm or other weapon with 'intent to go armed'.  Such as you could have an unloaded firearm but intend to use it for protection against a person at the time, with your intent to use it for protection you are 'intending to go armed'.  Now if you have that firearm to go shoot cans or targets, that is not intent to go armed.

 

You have the defenses to 'intent to go armed' and they INCLUDE:  having a handgun carry permit, a LEO, a judge, armed guard, hunters while hunting, fishing, camping. of course at your own business or home or property AND then having an unloaded gun separate from the ammo.

 

Of course on the side of the road your average LEO will not know this stuff and will just assume if you have a loaded firearm then you have intent to go armed, even if you do not have intent to go armed.

[tnhawk]

Thank you :) I believe to have a clearer understanding of it now, after reading about this yesterday I was really confused and then I started wondering why I just spent $165.00 going through my carry class and application to get something that might not even matter!!! Didn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but does now. 

The instructor should have explained this during the class.

[Oh Shoot]

Here is my understanding of intent to go armed:

 

It is not illegal to possess a firearm on its face value.  It is what you 'intend' to do with that firearm or how you want to use it.  ...

 

Carrying a loaded firearm is always "intent to go armed" in TN.  Period. And you must qualify for exception or defense to possess one.

 

You get caught with a loaded firearm on your person or in your vehicle, sans any of the exceptions or defenses, the state does not have to prove you "intended" anything. The cartridges define your "intention".

 

- OS

Edited February 22, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[JayC]

BTW, take the time and call your state legislators...  1 simple word change in 39-17-1308a fixes most of this silliness with it being criminal to ever handle a loaded firearm in the TN.  Change the word defense to exception (like the above quoted loaded long gun exception).

 

As for your quoting the local law, you'll not that it's illegal unless you're carrying under state law, an HCP would meet that exception.  There are some cities that did not have that exception in their laws, those laws are still valid.  Again call your legislators and demand they remove pre-1986 laws from the preemption law, as it's been stated nobody has been charged in 100 years so clearly we don't need those laws anymore to protect us from anything.

Edited February 23, 2013 by JayC

[daddyo]

Why is the "intent to go armed" verbage even necessary? If you're carrying a weapon, what else would it be? Seems unnecessary to me.

[robbiev]

Why is the "intent to go armed" verbage even necessary? If you're carrying a weapon, what else would it be? Seems unnecessary to me.

 

At the very least, you can have a weapon on you without the intent to go armed.  Don't quote me, but I believe that is at least part of it.  I can be carrying a 6 inch knife on my person which in Tennessee is illegal if I have the intent to use it as a weapon.  However, if I'm on my way fishing and my intent is to use it to skin fish, that isn't intent to go armed. 

 

It seems a little less plausible with a handgun, but you could argue, at least theoretically, that you were on the way to the range and just happened to have a gun on you.  I doubt that would carry much weight, but I THINK that's the concept of intent to go armed.

Edited February 23, 2013 by robbiev

[Oh Shoot]

At the very least, you can have a weapon on you without the intent to go armed.  Don't quote me, but I believe that is at least part of it.  I can be carrying a 6 inch knife on my person which in Tennessee is illegal if I have the intent to use it as a weapon.  However, if I'm on my way fishing and my intent is to use it to skin fish, that isn't intent to go armed. 

 

It seems a little less plausible with a handgun, but you could argue, at least theoretically, that you were on the way to the range and just happened to have a gun on you.  I doubt that would carry much weight, but I THINK that's the concept of intent to go armed.

 

Yeah, that can certainly figure into other named weapons like knives and clubs (a ball bat can be just a ball bat or it could be a "club", depending),  but a loaded firearm simply needs no further proof of "intent".

 

- OS