Extended Castle Doctrine is law

[Guest Kingfish]

I can't find a news story on it, but the bill shows "Signed by Governor"

http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/bills/currentga/asp/WebBillInfo/BillCompanionInfo.aspx?billnumber=SB0011

"Extends circumstances under which there is a legal presumption that a person using deadly force in self defense had a reasonable belief of death and confers civil immunity upon person properly using self defense. - Amends TCA Title 39, Chapter 11, Part 6."

Allows no retreat and assumption of fear of threat to life in any building or vehicle either yours or you are lawfully in as an invited guest...Car, house, shed, vehicle (of any type(Scooter hijacking?)), even a tent (Law specifically includes tents.)

"SECTION 4. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law, the public welfare requiring it."

[Guest GT_Rat]

Scooterjacked!

Good to hear it's law.

[Guest Kingfish]

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/Releases.aspx?ID=9499

Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen Signs Castle Doctrine Bill Into Law

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 Fairfax, VA - Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen has signed into law the National Rifle Association (NRA)-backed “Castle Doctrine” bill (HB 1907) bringing common sense self-defense protections to law-abiding Tennesseans.

“Gov. Bredesen and Tennessee lawmakers recognize the value of ensuring that law-abiding citizens have the option and the right to protect themselves when criminals attack,” said Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist. “This is a victim’s rights measure that puts the law on the side of victims, who don’t have the luxury of time when confronted by a criminal. This law removes any mandate of forcible retreat set either in state statute or in case law.”

The “Castle Doctrine” bill passed in both chambers with unanimous bipartisan support. This legislation allows an individual to use force to protect him or herself wherever they have a legal right to be. The bill also provides civil immunity for those who defend themselves from criminal attack.

“On behalf of NRA members in Tennessee, I applaud Representative Randy Rinks (D-71), and Senators Doug Jackson (D-25) and Paul Stanley (R-31), for their diligence in passing this important bill into law,” concluded Cox. “The Castle Doctrine bill is about putting the law back on the side of the victim the way it’s supposed to be.”

[dralarms]

Ok, when does it go into effect? Is this one of those laws that we have to wait 6 months before it's active or was it active the minute the Gov. signed it?

[Guest Hyaloid]

LINK TO BILL SUMMARY

Information on this page is generally current to within an hour.

*SB0011 by *Jackson, *Stanley, *Tracy, *Norris, *Marrero B, *Ramsey, *Kilby, *Beavers, *Black, *Bunch, *Burchett, *Burks, *Cooper, *Crowe, *Crutchfield, *Finney R., *Finney L, *Ford, O., *Harper, *Haynes, *Henry, *Herron, *Johnson, *Ketron, *Kurita, *Kyle, *McNally, *Southerland, *Tate, *Watson, *Wilder, *Williams, *Woodson. (HB1907 by *Rinks, *McDonald, *Johnson C, *Fincher, *Hardaway, *Dean, *Litz, *Pitts, *Bibb, *Bone, *Baird, *Turner M, *Moore, *Sargent, *Roach, *Matheny, *Bass, *Eldridge, *Jones U, *Hood, *Fraley, *Pruitt, *McManus, *Coleman, *Maddox, *Miller L, *Fitzhugh, *Campfield, *DuBois, *Bell, *Hensley, *Ferguson, *Mumpower, *Hill, *Favors, *Sontany, *Yokley, *Hawk, *Odom, *Hackworth, *Coley, *Williams, *Johnson P, *Watson , *Ford, *Dunn, *Tidwell, *Lollar, *Niceley, *McCormick, *Montgomery, *Rowland, *Lundberg, *Floyd, *Maggart, *Harrison, *Armstrong, *Brooks H, *McDaniel, *Cobb J.)

Criminal Procedure - Extends circumstances under which there is a legal presumption that a person using deadly force in self defense had a reasonable belief of death and confers civil immunity upon person properly using self defense. - Amends TCA Title 39, Chapter 11, Part 6.

Fiscal Summary for *SB0011 / HB1907 Decrease State Expenditures - $46,000/Incarceration

Bill Summary for *SB0011 / HB1907

This bill revises present law governing self-defense.

PRESENT LAW

Under present law, a person is justified in threatening or using force against another individual when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary for self-defense. 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.

Under present law, any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within the person's 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 individual, 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 BILL

This bill rewrites the present law provisions governing self-defense.

Under this bill, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where such person has a right to be would have no duty to retreat before:

(1) 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; or

(2) Threatening or using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury if the person has 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 is real, or honestly believed to be real at the time, and the belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds.

Under this bill, there would be a presumption that a person who used force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within any residence or dwelling (as opposed to just that person's own residence as under present law) held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury to self, family, a member of the household, or a person visiting as an invited guest. This presumption would apply when the force is used against another person who is not a member of the person's family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence or dwelling.

This above presumption would also apply when the force is exerted within an occupied vehicle if:

(1) The force is used against a person who unlawfully and forcibly enters the vehicle;

(2) The person using defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred; and

(3) Possession of the instrument used, if any, by the person to inflict defensive force did not violate any state or federal law.

The above presumption would not apply under the following circumstances:

(1) The person against whom the force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle;

(2) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to remove a person who is in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of the person against whom the defensive force is used;

(3) The person using force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(4) The person against whom force is used is a law enforcement officer who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of the officer's official duties and the officer identified himself in accordance with any applicable law, or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

Under this bill, the threat or use of force against another is not justified:

(1) If the person using force consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other individual;

(2) If the person using force provoked the other individual's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless the person using force abandons the encounter or clearly communicates to the other the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the person; or

(3) To resist a halt at a roadblock, arrest, search, or stop and frisk that the person using force knows is being made by a law enforcement officer, unless the law enforcement officer uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest, search, stop and frisk, or halt, and the person using force 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.

This bill provides immunity from civil liability for a person who uses lawful force in defense of self, others, or property except when the force is used against a law enforcement officer acting in an official capacity who identified himself or when the person using the force knew or should have known that the person against whom force was used was a law enforcement officer.

The court would award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by a person in defense of any civil action brought against the person based upon that person's use of force if the court finds that the person's use of force was justified.

ON APRIL 26, 2007, THE HOUSE ADOPTED AMENDMENT #1 AND PASSED HOUSE BILL 1907, AS AMENDED.

AMENDMENT #1 applies the presumption that a person who used deadly force against an intruder who is not a member of the person's family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence or dwelling held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury to situations where the intruder entered a motorized vehicle that is designed for use on public highways.

This amendment specifies that civil immunity for the use of justifiable force would not apply if the use of force resulted in property damage to or the death or injury of an innocent bystander or other person against whom the force used was not justified.

[Guest Kingfish]

Ok, when does it go into effect? Is this one of those laws that we have to wait 6 months before it's active or was it active the minute the Gov. signed it?

"SECTION 4. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law, the public welfare requiring it."

The bill tells us when the bill will become law after the governor's signature. This one went into effect as soon as his pen left the paper.

[Guest Hyaloid]

Here's my uneducated attempt at analysis:

PRESENT LAW

Under present law, a person is justified in threatening or using force against another individual when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary for self-defense. 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.

Under present law, any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within the person's 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 individual, 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 BILL

This bill rewrites the present law provisions governing self-defense.

Under this bill, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where such person has a right to be would have no duty to retreat before: [Not sure I like this blanket "unlawful activity statement.. too open ended. If you are engaged in unlawful activity, I guess you have the duty to retreat ]

(1) 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; or

(2) Threatening or using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury if the person has 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 is real, or honestly believed to be real at the time, and the belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds.

[Reasonable grounds according to who? A jury of your peers I assume...]

Under this bill, there would be a presumption that a person who used force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within any residence or dwelling (as opposed to just that person's own residence as under present law) held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury to self, family, a member of the household, or a person visiting as an invited guest. This presumption would apply when the force is used against another person who is not a member of the person's family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence or dwelling.

[so, if you shoot your crazy Uncle Manson when he crashes through your door because he's "family", the presumption does not hold? That's silly]

This above presumption would also apply when the force is exerted within an occupied vehicle if:

(1) The force is used against a person who unlawfully and forcibly enters the vehicle;

[so the bad guy/gal has to enter the vehicle... does a fist through the window count? Or, do they have to sit next to you in the passenger seat. And, they have to use force, so it's not enough they are in your vehicle unlawfully.]

(2) The person using defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred; and

(3) Possession of the instrument used, if any, by the person to inflict defensive force did not violate any state or federal law.

The above presumption would not apply under the following circumstances:

(1) The person against whom the force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle;

(2) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to remove a person who is in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of the person against whom the defensive force is used;

(3) The person using force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

[if some overzeaolous DA charges you with attempted murder, does that count as an "Unlawful Activity", and therefore negate your defense?]

(4) The person against whom force is used is a law enforcement officer who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of the officer's official duties and the officer identified himself in accordance with any applicable law, or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

[Can you say No Knock?]

Under this bill, the threat or use of force against another is not justified:

(1) If the person using force consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other individual;

(2) If the person using force provoked the other individual's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless the person using force abandons the encounter or clearly communicates to the other the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the person; or

(3) To resist a halt at a roadblock, arrest, search, or stop and frisk that the person using force knows is being made by a law enforcement officer, unless the law enforcement officer uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest, search, stop and frisk, or halt, and the person using force 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.

[i'd hate to be the first to use this defense, as it would probably be posthumously, but at least there is language acknowledging excesive police force. And who gets to define "greater force than necessary"]

This bill provides immunity from civil liability for a person who uses lawful force in defense of self, others, or property except when the force is used against a law enforcement officer acting in an official capacity who identified himself or when the person using the force knew or should have known that the person against whom force was used was a law enforcement officer.

[so, are the police a specially protected class here? Just seems like a dangerous precedent]

The court would award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by a person in defense of any civil action brought against the person based upon that person's use of force if the court finds that the person's use of force was justified.

ON APRIL 26, 2007, THE HOUSE ADOPTED AMENDMENT #1 AND PASSED HOUSE BILL 1907, AS AMENDED.

AMENDMENT #1 applies the presumption that a person who used deadly force against an intruder who is not a member of the person's family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence or dwelling held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury to situations where the intruder entered a motorized vehicle that is designed for use on public highways.

This amendment specifies that civil immunity for the use of justifiable force would not apply if the use of force resulted in property damage to or the death or injury of an innocent bystander or other person against whom the force used was not justified.

[be EXTRA sure of your target, and what is beyond]

[Guest Kingfish]

Hyaloid, I agree mostly... You may want to use the actual law instead of the summary- http://tennessee.gov/sos/acts/105/pub/pc0210.pdf

[so, if you shoot your crazy Uncle Manson when he crashes through your door because he's "family", the presumption does not hold? That's silly]

You need to know your target ALWAYS. You still have no duty to retreat but the "presumption" clause just doesn't apply.

This above presumption would also apply when the force is exerted within an occupied vehicle if:

(1) The force is used against a person who unlawfully and forcibly enters the vehicle;

[so the bad guy/gal has to enter the vehicle... does a fist through the window count? Or, do they have to sit next to you in the passenger seat. And, they have to use force, so it's not enough they are in your vehicle unlawfully.]

The summary is a little off....

...who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered

the residence, dwelling or vehicle, and the person using defensive force knew or had

reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

(1) The person against whom the force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle;

The right to defend is still in place with no duty to retreat but the "presumption" clause just doesn't apply.

(4) The person against whom force is used is a law enforcement officer who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of the officer's official duties and the officer identified himself in accordance with any applicable law, or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

[Can you say No Knock?]

Can you expound on this?

[be EXTRA sure of your target, and what is beyond]

ALWAYS!!!!!

[TGO David]

John Harris of the TFA has spoken about his own concerns regarding this new law. He too was worried about some of the open ended language used, and having read it myself now, I am also. This introduces several slippery slopes that did not exist under the previous law.

(3) The person using force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

This looks like something the DA would hang you with if you were carrying where you weren't supposed to (restaurant that serves beer, for example) and you had to use deadly force against someone who came in and started shooting the place up.

It was my understanding that there was formerly a provision in the law that said a person in this situation wouldn't be convicted of carrying illegally if the shooting was deemed to be justifiable self defense. If that were the case, it would see that this law undoes that provision. Even if it were not the case, this law certainly gives the DA rope with which to hang you in that situation.

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

Under this bill, the threat or use of force against another is not justified:

(1) If the person using force consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other individual;

"Excuse me sir, would you steal my wallet and threaten death or serious bodily injury?" BANG!!!..... Unjustified

ALSO, back to the "unlawful act" situation. First off, I hight doubt a jury would find you guilty on the grounds of a misdemeanor.

So, in other words, if you are carjacked at 80mph and use deadly force, you are not justified because you were committing an "unlawful act"

We could even go farther to the Memphis law that makes pretty much every female driver out to be committing an "unlawful act".

[Guest Hyaloid]

Just a note, I am really trying to hash out my opinion, and am doing so here on this public forum so that maybe others can help me wrap my little brain around everything... and maybe others may benefit from my inept attempt at analysis.

Hyaloid, I agree mostly... You may want to use the actual law instead of the summary- http://tennessee.gov/sos/acts/105/pub/pc0210.pdf

[so, if you shoot your crazy Uncle Manson when he crashes through your door because he's "family", the presumption does not hold? That's silly]

You need to know your target ALWAYS. You still have no duty to retreat but the "presumption" clause just doesn't apply.

[right, that's what I think is silly.]

This above presumption would also apply when the force is exerted within an occupied vehicle if:

(1) The force is used against a person who unlawfully and forcibly enters the vehicle;

[so the bad guy/gal has to enter the vehicle... does a fist through the window count? Or, do they have to sit next to you in the passenger seat. And, they have to use force, so it's not enough they are in your vehicle unlawfully.]

The summary is a little off....

...who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered

the residence, dwelling or vehicle, and the person using defensive force knew or had

reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

[Either way, it still states an unlawful AND forcible entry... so one or the other wouldn't pass the test, and when are they considered "entered" sufficiently to shoot them? Splitting hairs, but that's what is likely going to be done to hang us out to dry.]

(1) The person against whom the force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle;

The right to defend is still in place with no duty to retreat but the "presumption" clause just doesn't apply.

[After reflection, DV situations are often a bit more complex... maybe they SHOULDN'T be a presumption...still formulating my opinion there.]

(4) The person against whom force is used is a law enforcement officer who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of the officer's official duties and the officer identified himself in accordance with any applicable law, or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

[Can you say No Knock?]

Can you expound on this?

[i hate using it, but it's late and I am tired... WIKI Definition

So, as long as they shout "POLICE" as they ram your door in at 2 am, you do not have the presumption on your side.

[be EXTRA sure of your target, and what is beyond]

ALWAYS!!!!!

[Guest Hyaloid]

And you are right. Shoulda linked the actual law. Thanks for posting that!

[Guest Kingfish]

Just a note, I am really trying to hash out my opinion, and am doing so here on this public forum so that maybe others can help me wrap my little brain around everything... and maybe others may benefit from my inept attempt at analysis.

Hey, I totally agree. I was just hashing with ya. And I bet my brain is more littlerer than yours.

[The Rabbi]

I dont understand the law or the need for it. It was already law here that there was no duty to retreat. It was already law that you could not be sued civilly for using force against a BG. I dont see a difference.

If the legislature and NRA wanted to do something good, they could remove every prohibited place to permit holders and stop requiring those silly fingerprint cards at gun sales.

[Guest Hyaloid]

I dont understand the law or the need for it. It was already law here that there was no duty to retreat. It was already law that you could not be sued civilly for using force against a BG. I dont see a difference.

If the legislature and NRA wanted to do something good, they could remove every prohibited place to permit holders and stop requiring those silly fingerprint cards at gun sales.

I agree with the last bit there, that is certainly a more pressing issue.

I think the main thrust of this law was giving the "presumptions" part. IMHO, that shouldn't be necessary (you know, innocent until proven guilty and all), and it's a sad state that they felt they had to enumerate the instances in which the presumptions were valid.

Also, I do think it was a grievious error to have the "unlawful" portions added, as that would include carrying in prohibited locations as Tungsten astutely pointed out.

[The Rabbi]

It was clear to me that the unlawful language was meant to apply to, e.g. breaking into someone's house where the crook could not claim self defense if he shot the homeowner when the HO threatened him. And in this state I cannot imagine a prosecutor bringing charges or a grand jury indicting or a petty jury convicting anyone under the circumstances outlined where a permit holder used his gun where he shouldnt have had one. Thank Gd, this isn't Massachusetts or something.

[saintsfanbrian]

This presumption would apply when the force is used against another person who is not a member of the person's family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence or dwelling.

Crazy Uncle Morris who doesn't live with you is not a member of your family or household, and if he broke in to your house, that would qualify for grounds to shoot him.

The reason I say this is because in my family, we have an estranged mother. She is not welcome in my home at ANY time.

[Guest Hyaloid]

This presumption would apply when the force is used against another person who is not a member of the person's family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence or dwelling.

Crazy Uncle Morris who doesn't live with you is not a member of your family or household, and if he broke in to your house, that would qualify for grounds to shoot him.

The reason I say this is because in my family, we have an estranged mother. She is not welcome in my home at ANY time.

My point was, again, definition is key... who defines "family"... is it immediate blood relatives, 2nd cousins, grandparents? This law doesn't make a distinction between those who are welcome vs those who aren't.

It was clear to me that the unlawful language was meant to apply to, e.g. breaking into someone's house where the crook could not claim self defense if he shot the homeowner when the HO threatened him. And in this state I cannot imagine a prosecutor bringing charges or a grand jury indicting or a petty jury convicting anyone under the circumstances outlined where a permit holder used his gun where he shouldnt have had one. Thank Gd, this isn't Massachusetts or something.

I agree in principle... however, we all know what the road to Hell was paved with... Unfortunately, intentions aren't always what prosecutors will argue against you. Maybe not now, but what about 50 years from now?

[Guest jackdog]

Well it is the law now so we have to live with it. Hope none of becomes the first test case, for this law.

[Guest Hyaloid]

Well it is the law now so we have to live with it. Hope none of becomes the first test case, for this law.

Couldn't agree more...

[Punisher84]

I'm happy as a pig in hooey! The new law really paves the way for alot of things to get better for gun owners in TN. It was an almost unanimous vote that this law be passed, so maybe we'll get more soon.

[Guest Voodoo_1]

I'm happy as a pig in hooey! The new law really paves the way for alot of things to get better for gun owners in TN. It was an almost unanimous vote that this law be passed, so maybe we'll get more soon.

I'm with you Punisher, get the law passed (which it did) and adjust the wording down the road.

[Guest jackdog]

hey no argument from me.

[DaveTN]

John Harris of the TFA has spoken about his own concerns regarding this new law. He too was worried about some of the open ended language used, and having read it myself now, I am also. This introduces several slippery slopes that did not exist under the previous law.

This looks like something the DA would hang you with if you were carrying where you weren't supposed to (restaurant that serves beer, for example) and you had to use deadly force against someone who came in and started shooting the place up.

It was my understanding that there was formerly a provision in the law that said a person in this situation wouldn't be convicted of carrying illegally if the shooting was deemed to be justifiable self defense. If that were the case, it would see that this law undoes that provision. Even if it were not the case, this law certainly gives the DA rope with which to hang you in that situation.

Did the prior law put their stamp of approval on you carrying illegally if the shooting was justified? I don’t know; my common sense tells me that probably isn’t the case.

The unlawful activity language is used in most deadly force laws I have seen. It keeps the criminal from claiming any rights or protection. You can’t bog down good legislation because someone committing a criminal act my get in the way.

As responsible gun owners or carry permit holders we have a responsibility to follow the letter of the law; there are way to many people waiting for mistakes to be made so they can use them to get rid of or further limit carry laws.

If the prosecutor wants to charge you for committing a crime that you knowingly committed; that is not only his privilege but his responsibility.

If you are knowingly violating your carry privilege by carrying in a restaurant that serves liquor; you have made the decision that carrying in that situation is more important to you than your carry permit. Regardless of what we think the anti-gun people will put pressure on the Prosecutor to charge you and have your permit revoked.

[TGO David]

Did the prior law put their stamp of approval on you carrying illegally if the shooting was justified? I don’t know; my common sense tells me that probably isn’t the case.

I don't know and I forgot to ask John Harris about this at the last meeting. I had read somewhere that there was a "safe harbor" provision that kept you from being charged for carrying illegally (only if the location made it a misdemeanor offense, not a felony) if you used the weapon in legitimate self defense.

I do not know if that is true or not!!! <-- Disclaimer, very important!

Now I can't even remember where I read it.