SHTF Situation??

[Guest tnelson]

Ok guys, I got one for you. This is probably a stupid question and has been asked before.

Say you are concealed carrying somewhere you should not be.. (ie..bar, place that sells liquor, state park, college campus, workplace that doesn't allow it, post office LOL ..you get my point )

Some guys comes in with an ak-47 or some sort and starts robbing the place and/or shooting people. You being Mr. sitting at the bar having a drink when it all happens. Mr. so happen to have a .357 Sig - engages in and takes down the bad guy(s).

Would you be the hero of the scene - or would you be a 5 minute hero by the lives you safed until the LEO arrives and places you under arrest?

[Magiccarpetrides]

I would say in that situation they would turn the other cheek but if things happened like they did for my friend at Hooters the guy sitting on the stool would take a fast one to the head and everyone else would get wounded and then there you would be laying in a pool of your own blood with a holstered gun at your side.

[mightymouse]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they recently pass a law that basically clears you of packing in prohibited areas if you use your gun in a self defense situation?

[poak]

I would say in that situation they would turn the other cheek but if things happened like they did for my friend at Hooters the guy sitting on the stool would take a fast one to the head and everyone else would get wounded and then there you would be laying in a pool of your own blood with a holstered gun at your side.

Huh? What happened, Magic? Was this a post I missed?

[BigPoppa]

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.

[Acts 1994, ch. 943, § 1.]

Note- this is the legal defense, not necessarily the best tactical response.

Edited December 30, 2008 by BigPoppa

[Guest tnelson]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they recently pass a law that basically clears you of packing in prohibited areas if you use your gun in a self defense situation?

Then what's the friggen point of prohibited areas then? LOL So if you are carrying while sititng at a bar and nothing "happens" it's unlawful?

If you are carrying while sititng at a bar and Bad Guys come in - it's ok LOL

I thought that was the purpose of carrying. Who knows when these things will happen.

[Guest Traumaslave]

There was a case in Cincinnati where a bar patron shot and killed a perp. He got off.

[mightymouse]

Then what's the friggen point of prohibited areas then? LOL So if you are carrying while sititng at a bar and nothing "happens" it's unlawful?

If you are carrying while sititng at a bar and Bad Guys come in - it's ok LOL

I thought that was the purpose of carrying. Who knows when these things will happen.

Kinda my thoughts as well. And it looks like BigPoppa found the law I was referring to. That's why when we go to O'Charleys I just deep conceal and go on.

[Magiccarpetrides]

Huh? What happened, Magic? Was this a post I missed?

Year or so back my friend was the manager at the Knoxville Hooters when some guy off his meds decided to use it as a shooting gallery. My friend took a .40 to the shoulder and a bar patron took one in the head (died instantly). They later found the shooter and he pulled a gun on the police and was killed.

Edited December 30, 2008 by Magiccarpetrides
spelling

[Guest tnelson]

Kinda my thoughts as well. And it looks like BigPoppa found the law I was referring to. That's why when we go to O'Charleys I just deep conceal and go on.

Sounds like that's what I "would do" I'm not saying I do; but I didn't say I don't either. LOL I said would.

I'm sure some of your guys carry concealed EVERYWHERE....regardless of signs LOL

Like i probably would ..

I doubt mall security would stop you and go...is that your gun or are you happy to see me??

[Punisher84]

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they recently pass a law that basically clears you of packing in prohibited areas if you use your gun in a self defense situation?

No they passed the Castle Doctrine laws.

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.

[Acts 1994, ch. 943, § 1.]

Note- this is the legal defense, not necessarily the best tactical response.

Fallguy and I argued over this for about 20 pages back in the day over what the new laws said about that defense. The terminology is "Notwithstanding 39-17-1322..." Everyone I have talked to says this means that defense is no longer available now under the new laws that say you CANNOT be committing a criminal act and claim self-defense. Carrying in a prohibited location would be a criminal offense.

That doesn't mean you couldn't make a case to a jury, but that defense is not an ace in the hole either.

[Fallguy]

Then what's the friggen point of prohibited areas then? LOL So if you are carrying while sititng at a bar and nothing "happens" it's unlawful?

If you are carrying while sititng at a bar and Bad Guys come in - it's ok LOL

I thought that was the purpose of carrying. Who knows when these things will happen.

That's about it

[TGO David]

Massad Ayoob says it best... "It's better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6"

[Punisher84]

Massad Ayoob says it best... "It's better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6"

Yea and there is some truth in that, but when it comes to advocating breaking the law for something like this I have to say...

"It is better to not eat at Chili's, then to be butt raped in prison for 25 to life."

[ftncityfatboy]

Massad Ayoob says it best... "It's better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6"

+1 as long as the 12 are not some of those who think all guns are bad, therefore anyone having a gun (let alone carrying a gun) is bad, left wing - booger eating, bed wetting liberals! just my tcw

[Guest Astra900]

Just another reason I drink Thorogood style.

..I drink alone

[Guest bipe215]

We had a local judge speak to our HCP class about this. He said to 'always obey the law'. He also said if you carry into a place you shouldn't carry, and some creep is there holding a gun at someone's head threatening to kill them, and you shoot the creep, no jury will convict you of wrongdoing.

Steve G

[Punisher84]

We had a local judge speak to our HCP class about this. He said to 'always obey the law'. He also said if you carry into a place you shouldn't carry, and some creep is there holding a gun at someone's head threatening to kill them, and you shoot the creep, no jury will convict you of wrongdoing.

Steve G

It's nice thinking, but you want to bet your life on one man's opinion?

[Guest Astra900]

We had a local judge speak to our HCP class about this. He said to 'always obey the law'. He also said if you carry into a place you shouldn't carry, and some creep is there holding a gun at someone's head threatening to kill them, and you shoot the creep, no jury will convict you of wrongdoing.

Steve G

I believe you when you say he told you that. I do NOT believe him when he said that. He may be a judge, but I ain't buying those odds.

[creeky]

"It is better to not eat at Chili's, then to be butt raped in prison for 25 to life."

Guys... this really needs to be quoted and mentioned again in this thread... it is THAT funny!!! BWAHAHahaahaha!!

That would be great in a fortune cookie!

[Punisher84]

Guys... this really needs to be quoted and mentioned again in this thread... it is THAT funny!!! BWAHAHahaahaha!!

That would be great in a fortune cookie!

I'm glad you enjoyed it

[Oh Shoot]

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.

[Acts 1994, ch. 943, § 1.]

Note- this is the legal defense, not necessarily the best tactical response.

It is my understanding on this, that it ONLY refers to 39-17-1321.

Meaning, carrying while under the influence.

Note the "under this part".

Not a defense against any of the other prohibitions against carrying (schools, parks, place serving liquor, etc).

DoubleAfterSplit?

- OS

[Oh Shoot]

No they passed the Castle Doctrine laws.

Fallguy and I argued over this for about 20 pages back in the day over what the new laws said about that defense. The terminology is "Notwithstanding 39-17-1322..." Everyone I have talked to says this means that defense is no longer available now under the new laws that say you CANNOT be committing a criminal act and claim self-defense. Carrying in a prohibited location would be a criminal offense.

That doesn't mean you couldn't make a case to a jury, but that defense is not an ace in the hole either.

And whether that is true or not, note my take in other post, that this "defense" is only intended to pertinent to carrying under the influence, not carrying in a prohibited area.

- OS

[Punisher84]

And whether that is true or not, note my take in other post, that this "defense" is only intended to pertinent to carrying under the influence, not carrying in a prohibited area.

- OS

From what I understood that defense was usable as kind of an ace in the hole before the new laws went into effect. There was a situation here in memphis a few years ago where an ex-con shot a home intruder. His gun was confiscated due to the fact that he shouldn't have had one, but he wasn't charged due to that defense.

Now, it seems you can't claim that defense any longer.

[Oh Shoot]

From what I understood that defense was usable as kind of an ace in the hole before the new laws went into effect. There was a situation here in memphis a few years ago where an ex-con shot a home intruder. His gun was confiscated due to the fact that he shouldn't have had one, but he wasn't charged due to that defense.

Now, it seems you can't claim that defense any longer.

He might not have been charged just because the DA didn't charge him, not because of the law. Sense of fairness, whatever, not because of 39-17-1322.

I still maintain that 39-17-1322 is only written in as a defense to 39-17-1321, and not any of the preceding carry prohibition statutes.

- OS