Otherwise legal shooting in gun free zone?

[Guest cstandi1]

So if you were involved with a shooting, say a VT type scenario, would you be prosecuted for carrying in a gun free zone? Considering of course that all other aspects of the shooting were legal.

I know alot of people believe that in in gun free zones concealed is concealed, but what if you actually had to defend yourself? What are the consequences?

My personal belief lies with its better to be judges by 12 than carried by 6.

[Guest bkelm18]

39-17-1322. Defenses

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.

[Guest Verbal Kint]

39-17-1322. Defenses

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.

Deja Vu.

[Guest cstandi1]

lol that didnt take long...I was looking all over the tca for that and just missed it. thanks

[Guest bkelm18]

Deja Vu.

Copy and paste baby.

[Punisher84]

39-17-1322. Defenses

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.

Keep in mind that is only a defense and does not exonerate you by any means. There is still debate over what "notwithstanding" means in the new laws that went into effect concerning that statute.

The law can be interpreted in many ways. If the DA decided to go ahead and charge you, you'd be then using that defense to make your case to the judge and jury. It can go either way from there.

[Guest bkelm18]

Keep in mind that is only a defense and does not exonerate you by any means. There is still debate over what "notwithstanding" means in the new laws that went into effect concerning that statute.

The law can be interpreted in many ways. If the DA decided to go ahead and charge you, you'd be then using that defense to make your case to the judge and jury. It can go either way from there.

Well yes, you are always at the mercy of the courts.

[Guest Revelator]

You must be talking about TCA 39-11-611 which, just for everyone's info says "Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury; if..."

Obviously, if you're sitting in a restaurant that serves alcohol and you're packing then you are engaged in unlawful activity.

But the laws deal with different situations and can coexist. -1322 just says you won't be prosecuted for a violation under this part--part 13. So you wouldn't be charged with carrying in a place that serves alcohol or even for carrying without a permit. -611, meanwhile, says despite-1322--a law that says you won't be prosecuted for unlawful possession of a weapon--you could still be prosecuted for homicide (or less) if we find you had a duty to retreat and didn't.

I believe these laws deal with completely different situations and that the "notwithstanding" in -611 does not in any way limit -1322. But -611 is confusing the way it's written. Also, and I just realized this, if they find you did have a duty to retreat you'd lose the protection of -611, then they'd also find it was not a justifiable shooting and you wouldn't get -1322 either.

[Guest GLOCKGUY]

I wouldn't care. I would rather be prosecuted for carrying in a gun free zone, then be dead. Just my two cents

[Fallguy]

You must be talking about TCA 39-11-611 which, just for everyone's info says "Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury; if..."

Obviously, if you're sitting in a restaurant that serves alcohol and you're packing then you are engaged in unlawful activity.

But the laws deal with different situations and can coexist. -1322 just says you won't be prosecuted for a violation under this part--part 13. So you wouldn't be charged with carrying in a place that serves alcohol or even for carrying without a permit. -611, meanwhile, says despite-1322--a law that says you won't be prosecuted for unlawful possession of a weapon--you could still be prosecuted for homicide (or less) if we find you had a duty to retreat and didn't.

I believe these laws deal with completely different situations and that the "notwithstanding" in -611 does not in any way limit -1322. But -611 is confusing the way it's written. Also, and I just realized this, if they find you did have a duty to retreat you'd lose the protection of -611, then they'd also find it was not a justifiable shooting and you wouldn't get -1322 either.

According to my State Rep you are 100% correct.

I actually thought the debate was over on that...

[Guest unreconstructed1]

Keep in mind that is only a defense and does not exonerate you by any means. There is still debate over what "notwithstanding" means in the new laws that went into effect concerning that statute.

The law can be interpreted in many ways. If the DA decided to go ahead and charge you, you'd be then using that defense to make your case to the judge and jury. It can go either way from there.

of course, IANAL, but the way that I take it to read is that despite 39-17-1322 being a defense of a criminal activity, you still lose protection under 39-11-611.

the way I read it, it is basically nullifying -1322 as a defense.

How does one go about contacting the attorney general in regards to getting an attorney generals opinion on a specific law? That's about the only way someone can get it clarified without actually being in front of a jury.

I personally agree with the better to be judged by 12 theory myself.

[Fallguy]

the way I read it, it is basically nullifying -1322 as a defense.

How does one go about contacting the attorney general in regards to getting an attorney generals opinion on a specific law? That's about the only way someone can get it clarified without actually being in front of a jury.

See DAS's post and mine above.

I had a lawmaker tell me that the protection of 39-17-1322 is still in place. I think that is a pretty good opinion.

[bteague2]

ha, standifer is that you?

[Guest unreconstructed1]

See DAS's post and mine above.

I had a lawmaker tell me that the protection of 39-17-1322 is still in place. I think that is a pretty good opinion.

Ok, I was writing my post when you made your, and didn't see that part.

thanks for clearing that up.

[Fallguy]

Ok, I was writing my post when you made your, and didn't see that part.

thanks for clearing that up.

No Problem...

I have missed things like that myself when a post is made while I am typing mine.