Barb Sturgeon Case

[300winmag]

A bad law that needs to be fixed.  Someone with a permit should not have to worry about this.

[Jamie Jackson]

A bad law that needs to be fixed.  Someone with a permit should not have to worry about this.

 

 

And this was my original point. It is a bad law.

 

As gun owners, and I assume for the most part "Gun Carriers", we perceive the need to be armed. I know we have frequently discussed "Gun Free Zones" as being primary targets of those with felonious intent.

I don't know the "politics", if any, behind this particular case. But a permit holder should be able to carry into many more places than the current laws allow. Anyone ever read Guiduck's "Terror at Beslan"? Newtown was that long ago either.

 

I definitely agree posting how and when you carry on Social Media is simply begging for problems.Stupid is as stupid does... But we still need to work at bringing the current laws into a more realistic realm.

 

:2cents:

[JayC]

They can only ask to see your permit, there is no legal obligation to answer whether you're armed or not under TN law.

 

She has an HCP; unless she is going to lie they didn't need to search her, just ask if she was carrying.

 

[JayC]

You realize the building in question isn't a school, that no students are ever at this building under any normal circumstances?  No classes are taught there, it only houses administrative staff members, support services, vehicle repair etc?

 

I've been complaining for YEARS about the poorly worded gun free school zone law here in TN, and this is a perfect example of it being abused just like I said it could be against anyone of us.  People know not to walk into a school with a gun, but what about a church on Sunday or a government office building that happens to house some school board employees?

 

Hopefully the legislature will act this time and get rid of these roving felony zones that follow not only school children around, but teachers and staff as well!

 

There is a sign on every school building, at the drive way onto the parking lot as well.

I do not know the exact wording, but you are on their property you are gona be searched if needed.

I have to work at schools sometimes, the signs are there.

The story I heard is someone saw the pistol in her bag and made a call.

Franklin is growing very leftest these days.

 

[leroy]

My guess (...as others have opined...) is political targeting... Politics is a dirty business at every level... Look at the Thad Cochran thing in Mississippi...

 

leroy

[DaveTN]

They can only ask to see your permit, there is no legal obligation to answer whether you're armed or not under TN law.

There is a legal obligation to surrender your weapon when asked to do so.
 

Any law enforcement officer of this state or of any county or municipality may, within the realm of the officer's lawful jurisdiction and when the officer is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties, disarm a permit holder at any time when the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the permit holder, officer or other individual or individuals. The officer shall return the handgun to the permit holder before discharging the permit holder from the scene when the officer has determined that the permit holder is not a threat to the officer, to the permit holder, or other individual or individuals provided that the permit holder has not violated any provision of this section and provided the permit holder has not committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the permit holder.

[E4 No More]

There is a legal obligation to surrender your weapon when asked to do so.
 

One has to know in order to ask, and there are a lot of clauses to that.

[Omega]

There is a legal obligation to surrender your weapon when asked to do so.
 

There needs to be a clear reason for doing so, like threatening to harm or kill oneself or others or otherwise presenting a threat while armed.  Just being armed is not being a threat to anyone, and as I understand it, she was cooperative with LE so I do not see her as a threat, do you? 

[300winmag]

We need to either fix this for the regular handgun carry permit or have an enhanced permit like Mississippi has so that we do not have to worry about this problem.  This needs to be on the 2015 agenda for the legislature.

[tnguy]

I'm looking at 39-17-1309. I believe she's being charged under section b. Section c seems a lot more lenient but it doesn't seem like you would be able to be under section c without being under section b in any case (from what people have been saying about "intent to go armed" in other threads). Can someone explain the logic to me?
 
I'll paste them here:
 
 
 

( b ) (1) It is an offense for any person to possess or carry, whether openly or concealed, with the intent to go armed, any firearm, explosive, explosive weapon, bowie knife, hawk bill knife, ice pick, dagger, slingshot, leaded cane, switchblade knife, blackjack, knuckles or any other weapon of like kind, not used solely for instructional or school-sanctioned ceremonial purposes, in any public or private school building or bus, on any public or private school campus, grounds, recreation area, athletic field or any other property owned, used or operated by any board of education, school, college or university board of trustees, regents or directors for the administration of any public or private educational institution.

(2) A violation of this subsection ( b ) is a Class E felony.

( c ) (1) It is an offense for any person to possess or carry, whether openly or concealed, any firearm, not used solely for instructional or school-sanctioned ceremonial purposes, in any public or private school building or bus, on any public or private school campus, grounds, recreation area, athletic field or any other property owned, used or operated by any board of education, school, college or university board of trustees, regents or directors for the administration of any public or private educational institution. It is not an offense under this subsection (c) for a nonstudent adult to possess a firearm, if the firearm is contained within a private vehicle operated by the adult and is not handled by the adult, or by any other person acting with the expressed or implied consent of the adult, while the vehicle is on school property.

(2) A violation of this subsection ( c ) is a Class B misdemeanor.

Edited December 9, 2014 by tnguy

[Oh Shoot]

I'm looking at 39-17-1309. I believe she's being charged under section b. Section c seems a lot more lenient but it doesn't seem like you would be able to be under section c without being under section b in any case (from what people have been saying about "intent to go armed" in other threads). Can someone explain the logic to me?
 
I'll paste them here:
 

 

In TN, a loaded firearm (or ammo in immediate vicinity) is always intent to go armed if desire is there to charge, simple as that. With other "weapons" it's much grayer.

 

- OS

Edited December 9, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[tnguy]

That's kinda my point. If that's the case, clause c is irrelevant or redundant, no? Edited December 9, 2014 by tnguy

[Oh Shoot]

That's kinda my point. If that's the case, clause c is irrelevant or redundant, no?

 

No. Unloaded possession is a lesser charge. It also contains the exemption for non-student adult to have unloaded firearm stored in vehicle on school property.

 

Though "unloaded" is not specifically in the wording, has always seemed obvious to me that is the intended difference between the two paragraphs, one being while "going armed" and one not.

 

- OS

Edited December 9, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[JayC]

That's not what the law says.

 

39-17-1351t allows an officer to disarm a permit holder, it places no requirements on the permit holder at all.  I agree probably you can't resist their attempts to disarm you...  you probably can't lie to an officer because that would probably be obstruction...  but you're under no obligation what so ever to confirm or deny if you're armed, or help the officer in anyway shape or form under the TCA 39-17-13xx.

 

39-17-1351t:

Any law enforcement officer of this state or of any county or municipality may, within the realm of the officer's lawful jurisdiction and when the officer is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties, disarm a permit holder at any time when the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the permit holder, officer or other individual or individuals. The officer shall return the handgun to the permit holder before discharging the permit holder from the scene when the officer has determined that the permit holder is not a threat to the officer, to the permit holder, or other individual or individuals provided that the permit holder has not violated any provision of this section and provided the permit holder has not committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the permit holder.

 

There is a legal obligation to surrender your weapon when asked to do so.
 

Edited December 9, 2014 by JayC

[tnguy]

No. Unloaded possession is a lesser charge. It also contains the exemption for non-student adult to have unloaded firearm stored in vehicle on school property.

 

Though "unloaded" is not specifically in the wording, has always seemed obvious to me that is the intended difference between the two paragraphs, one being while "going armed" and one not.

 

- OS

 

 

OK, that explains it. Though I'll have to take your word about it being obvious as it is certainly less-than-obvious to me. I guess I see what was meant previously about it being poorly worded.

[DaveTN]

One has to know in order to ask, and there are a lot of clauses to that.

You are in a state where carrying a loaded gun is a crime. A permit is a privilege we buy from the state; not a right. My understanding is someone called the Police on her specifically and said she was carrying a gun. Seems pretty straight forward to me. “Ma’am, are you in possession of a firearm?”  
 

There needs to be a clear reason for doing so, like threatening to harm or kill oneself or others or otherwise presenting a threat while armed.  Just being armed is not being a threat to anyone, and as I understand it, she was cooperative with LE so I do not see her as a threat, do you?

They have been called there on a person with a gun. If you ask them and if they deny it, refuse to answer, invoke the 5th or decide to turn into an attorney that didn’t sleep at a Holiday Inn last night; they will pat you down for weapons.  
 

That's not what the law says.
 
39-17-1351t allows an officer to disarm a permit holder, it places no requirements on the permit holder at all.  I agree probably you can't resist their attempts to disarm you...  you probably can't lie to an officer because that would probably be obstruction...  but you're under no obligation what so ever to confirm or deny if you're armed, or help the officer in anyway shape or form under the TCA 39-17-13xx.
 
39-17-1351t:

Of course the Officer can’t make you tell him anything. Try that and let us know how it works.

[tnguy]

 
Of course the Officer can’t make you tell him anything. Try that and let us know how it works.

 

Well, considering that if you do tell him, you're looking at a class e felony...

 

When the law pits cops against good guys, things start going wrong.

[300winmag]

This is why we need a well spoken legislator with facts, not emotion, to promote a bill or bills to fix some of these problems.  Facts that could be pointed out are that it is legal in many states with a license to carry on K-12 schools and many more where it is legal to carry on college property.  Also point out that it is already for other people ,such as school sport team shooters and armed guards, to have guns inside schools.  What would it hurt for people with handgun carry permits to have the same exemption that armed guards have while working?  Both go through training and background checks.  If you are scared of handgun carry permit folks carrying in schools then you better exclude armed guards too. 

[DaveTN]

Well, considering that if you do tell him, you're looking at a class e felony...

Or being told to go put the gun in your car. (They are going to find the gun no matter what you say.)
 

When the law pits cops against good guys, things start going wrong.

Exactly, but our state legislators have seen fit to make carrying a gun a privilege; not a right.

[E4 No More]

You are in a state where carrying a loaded gun is a crime. A permit is a privilege we buy from the state; not a right. My understanding is someone called the Police on her specifically and said she was carrying a gun. Seems pretty straight forward to me. “Ma’am, are you in possession of a firearm?”  
 

You have the right to question your accuser. If you have an annonymous caller you have nothing unless they tell on their self with the above question. The questionee is free to tell the questioner absolutely nothing, and you'd better have more than good looks for PC.

 

EDIT: Unless there's a right to search sign at the building.

Edited December 10, 2014 by SWJewellTN

[tnguy]

Or being told to go put the gun in your car. (They are going to find the gun no matter what you say.)

Just like happened to Barb Sturgeon? And they may find the gun anyway but that would be from a search done without probably cause. The question is would you rather take your chances with a cop or (possibly) the courts?
 

Exactly, but our state legislators have seen fit to make carrying a gun a privilege; not a right.

It's still a right, just abrogated. Legislators only make laws. Edited December 10, 2014 by tnguy

[DaveTN]

And they may find the gun anyway but that would be from a search done without probably cause.

Someone calls the Police and says a person has a gun. They give the person’s name, description and tell them where the gun is. That is RAS to approach and question them. A pat down for weapons is okay, looking in a purse that they have access to and may contain a weapon is okay.
The gun will be found. An attorney can make the unlawful search claim in a motion to the court.

[tnguy]

Yep. Best to leave it to the court. Telling the police that someone has a gun may be PC, telling someone that you saw they had a gun next to their purse on facebook, not so much.

[JayC]

If you're sitting somewhere with a firearm, and you might be committing a felony...  I'd make the officer perform a search, because you may well win that motion in court...  you for sure aren't going to win the motion if you give them permission to search or tell them you are committing a crime.

 

Bad law, so this charge might just force the legislature to change the law..  nobody should be getting charged for being in a 'school zone' if there are never any students present.

 

Someone calls the Police and says a person has a gun. They give the person’s name, description and tell them where the gun is. That is RAS to approach and question them. A pat down for weapons is okay, looking in a purse that they have access to and may contain a weapon is okay.
The gun will be found. An attorney can make the unlawful search claim in a motion to the court.

[monkeylizard]

You have the right to question your accuser.

 

In court, not on the side of the road.

 

 

Someone calls the Police and says a person has a gun. They give the person’s name, description and tell them where the gun is. That is RAS to approach and question them. A pat down for weapons is okay, looking in a purse that they have access to and may contain a weapon is okay.
The gun will be found. An attorney can make the unlawful search claim in a motion to the court.

 

Dave's right on this one. A call from a citizen informant establishes PC as long as the facts being provided by the informant are within their direct knowledge (not hearsay, etc.) and no reasonable suspicion about the informant's reliability on that particular report is known.

 

That doesn't mean a good lawyer can't bring up the unlawful search though, and I think JayC may be right about shutting up and adding to the chances of getting the search tossed out.

 

 

1351n says we have to present the permit at the request of an officer. It doesn't say that we have to disclose if we're carrying or not. I wouldn't think that having a permit establishes PC to think a person is carrying anymore than having a Drivers License is PC to think a person is driving a car.

Edited December 10, 2014 by monkeylizard