Castle Doctorine in Tennessee

[cknight8]

I didn't know which forum would be best to post this is or where it would get the most attention, so I guessed at putting it here. If an admin thinks it best somewhere else, please accept my apologies and guide me to the right place. 

I did a search for "castle doctorine" and only got one result, so thought I'd post and ask. Basically I know TN has CD that allows people with no permit to carry in their car, deeming the vehicle is an extension of their castle. Does this apply to long guns? If so, does this apply to HCP holders when in possession of a loaded long gun in the vehicle? Once the long gun is brought out of the vehicle, are other laws being broken at that point since one is no longer in their "castle"?

 

[Steelharp]

MY understanding... and I'm probably wrong... is that with an HCP, you are allowed to have a chambered long gun in the vehicle. If you don't have an HCP, the long gun cannot be chambered.

[GlockSpock]

MY understanding... and I'm probably wrong... is that with an HCP, you are allowed to have a chambered long gun in the vehicle. If you don't have an HCP, the long gun cannot be chambered.

With HCP, I don't think traditionally you could have a round chambered in a long gun but it could be "loaded with the intent to go armed" in your vehicle, again just not chambered.

Now with the new vehicle statute, anyone, with or without permit, can have any legal gun (long, short, skinny or fat) chambered in their vehicle, which is of course just an extension of your castle.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[conn_air7]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[monkeylizard]

Anyone who is not otherwise prohibited from possession of the firearm (handgun, rifle, shotgun, all good to go) and is in lawful possession of the motor vehicle, may have it loaded in the vehicle. TCA 39-17-1307 ( e )

(note that an employer may prohibit firearms in a company-supplied vehicle)

Edited July 18, 2016 by monkeylizard

[Omega]

8 minutes ago, monkeylizard said:

I think you're misunderstanding Castle Doctrine and vehicle/home carry. The two are related in some ways, but Castle Doctrine generally means that within your home, you're presumed to have been in fear of your life* if you use lethal force. Away from home, you have to prove that you were in fear of your life. The vehicle does not afford you that presumption of innocence.

Anyone who is not otherwise prohibited from possession of the firearm (handgun, rifle, shotgun, all good to go) and is in lawful possession of the motor vehicle, may have it loaded in the vehicle. TCA 39-17-1307 ( e ) (note that an employer may prohbit firearms in a company-supplied vehicle)

 

*or seriously bodily harm or the same for another person

 

I'll have to look at the TN specific law but the term Castle Doctrine in some jurisdictions do apply to your vehicle. 

Here is what one site says about TN law:

http://www.gunlaws101.com/state/law/tennessee/stand-your-ground

Quote

In Tennessee a person is justified in using deadly force in defense of themselves, of others if the believe that there is an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to themselves or another. There is no duty to retreat when this occurs in the person's place of business, home, or vehicle.

 

---

 

[Oh Shoot]

58 minutes ago, Omega said:

I'll have to look at the TN specific law but the term Castle Doctrine in some jurisdictions do apply to your vehicle. 

Here is what one site says about TN law:

http://www.gunlaws101.com/state/law/tennessee/stand-your-ground

 

Better to simply get the law from the horse's mouth, TCA.

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

The self defense/force statutes including "castle doctrine" are in 39-11-601 thru 622

Weapons section is 39-17-1301 thru 1364, carry in vehicles specifically in 39-17-1307 and 39-17-1313.

Quick summation of that is that there is now in general no difference for carrying of loaded weapons in personal vehicle for a permit holder or non-permit holder EXCEPT in regard to possession in posted parking areas or school parking areas, which still requires a permit.

- OS

Edited July 18, 2016 by Oh Shoot

[monkeylizard]

Thanks. I updated my post. I didn't realize that 39-11-611 had been changed to include vehicles.

Edited July 18, 2016 by monkeylizard

[JayC]

25 minutes ago, monkeylizard said:

Thanks. I updated my post. I didn't realize that 39-11-611 had been changed to include vehicles.

It's covered vehicles for 2 or more decades.

[Oh Shoot]

28 minutes ago, monkeylizard said:

Thanks. I updated my post. I didn't realize that 39-11-611 had been changed to include vehicles.

The "vehicle" part was already in there all along.  That was the irony, that the "castle doctrine" covered your car, yet unlike your home,  you couldn't legally carry in it without a permit.  AFAIK, this was the main argument for opening up carry for everyone in vehicle, to bring it in line with what the statute already claimed to give you.

Have also always thought that 39-17-1322 was a partial and wimpy concession of that, such that at least you wouldn't be charged with illegal carry if you had to defend yourself in the vehicle.

- OS

[cknight8]

I really appreciate all the replies! Perhaps I was calling it castle doctorine and really meant vehicle carry, that's my bad.  So, if I'm reading this all correctly...with or without a permit, a person can keep a loaded firearm in their vehicle, provided that they can legally posses said firearm and that they are in legal possession of the vehicle because of TCA 39-17-1307?

I really do appreciate all the replies!

[monkeylizard]

That pretty much sums it up with the caveat that if the vehicle is government or employer supplied, said employer can ban firearms.

[Oh Shoot]

10 minutes ago, cknight98 said:

I really appreciate all the replies! Perhaps I was calling it castle doctorine and really meant vehicle carry, that's my bad.  So, if I'm reading this all correctly...with or without a permit, a person can keep a loaded firearm in their vehicle, provided that they can legally posses said firearm and that they are in legal possession of the vehicle because of TCA 39-17-1307?

I really do appreciate all the replies!

 

6 minutes ago, monkeylizard said:

That pretty much sums it up with the caveat that if the vehicle is government or employer supplied, said employer can ban firearms.

But you still have to have a permit to be able to have in vehicle in any posted lot, including employee parking. Same for school property.

The blanket allowance under 39-17-1307 does not cover you regarding the prohibitions in other statutes. It only exempts you from illegal possession under that one statute.

- OS

Edited July 18, 2016 by Oh Shoot

[monkeylizard]

I'm going back to sleep......  

[A.J. Holst]

4 hours ago, monkeylizard said:

 

(note that an employer may prohibit firearms in a company-supplied vehicle)

As my Cali based company does.

No guns and no pre-employ drug testing 

[gregintenn]

Is a boat considered a vehicle in this instance?

[Oh Shoot]

11 minutes ago, gregintenn said:

Is a boat considered a vehicle in this instance?

No. Unless possibly while being towed on the highway.

" "Motor vehicle" has the same meaning as defined in § 55-1-103 "

- OS

Edited July 19, 2016 by Oh Shoot

[quietguy]

10 minutes ago, gregintenn said:

Is a boat considered a vehicle in this instance?

I don't think so.  Boats are treated completely differently in TN law.  The aren't titled as personal property, but do have to be registered.   

[monkeylizard]

What about a house boat?

[crossfire]

20 minutes ago, monkeylizard said:

What about a house boat?

[Randall53]

1 hour ago, monkeylizard said:

What about a house boat?

Or boat houses.....'cause technically they are on TVA property.     

[bersaguy]

I carry while in my Skeeter every time I am on the water and have been checked several times by TWRA for safety equipment and I open carry in the boat and TWRA has never asked for my carry permit or said a word about me being armed. So I cannot say either way about boats by law but I feel if I was breaking any laws the Game Watdens would have surely brought it to my attention or arrested me...............jmho