SHTF Situation??

[memphismason]

Punisher, I hate to see you bow out. I have really enjoyed reading this thread. It has caused me to rethink a few things, and I can can see both sides of the coin.

Both sides bring up very good points. I haven't posted what my thoughts are because I have enjoyed sitting back and learning from the information posted here.

Even though it is "she said he said stories" or "stories from lawyers and trainers"....they still cause thinking to be done. Carrying a firearm daily is a big decision, and this thread may cause people to put a little more thought into why they have made that choice, and where to draw the line in the sand. Yours is at obeying the law, and others is at defense no matter the laws.

Any who....I can see both sides clearly and would not call either side right or wrong.

I just really chimed in to say, I have really enjoyed this thread.

[Guest truthsayer]

Not to say state legislators are supreme source for law information either, but if you doubt them not sure who else to cite about something.

Until I see a citation from the actual LEOs and the DA that will be handling my case should the worst ever happen, I'll be forming my own opinion based on input from the people I choose to trust. The funny thing is that everyone involved in this discussion has done just that: formed an opinion based on who and/or what they believe in and trust.

[Fallguy]

Until I see a citation from the actual LEOs and the DA that will be handling my case should the worst ever happen, I'll be forming my own opinion based on input from the people I choose to trust. The funny thing is that everyone involved in this discussion has done just that: formed an opinion based on who and/or what they believe in and trust.

Very true.... and fair enough.

[poak]

Pssssh...

I'm glad I'm immune to prosecution of the law, unlike all you posers.

[Guest wordsworth]

Does anyone know of an actual case in which an HCP holder "got caught" carrying in unauthorized places? I would think it wouldn't be more than a low level misdemeanor. I've heard punishment range from being asked to leave, being issued a citation, serving a year or two in a minimum security prison, to serving up to 25 years in prison with hardened criminals. Has anyone ever heard of anyone getting caught and charged with carrying in unauthorized places?

[Guest tnelson]

Pssssh...

I'm glad I'm immune to prosecution of the law, unlike all you posers.

And how are you able to accomplish that?

[Oh Shoot]

Does anyone know of an actual case in which an HCP holder "got caught" carrying in unauthorized places? I would think it wouldn't be more than a low level misdemeanor. I've heard punishment range from being asked to leave, being issued a citation, serving a year or two in a minimum security prison, to serving up to 25 years in prison with hardened criminals. Has anyone ever heard of anyone getting caught and charged with carrying in unauthorized places?

Well, if you READ the statues, most are misdemeanors, and some are felonies (being on school property and at judicial proceedings).

And the penalty for carrying on legally posted property is not actually specified, although the level of fine is, which indicates it is also a misdemeanor.

- OS

[poak]

And how are you able to accomplish that?

I'm the mayor of Awesometown.

[Guest tnelson]

I'm the mayor of Awesometown.

Got room for one more? LOL

[robbiev]

Does anyone know of an actual case in which an HCP holder "got caught" carrying in unauthorized places? I would think it wouldn't be more than a low level misdemeanor. I've heard punishment range from being asked to leave, being issued a citation, serving a year or two in a minimum security prison, to serving up to 25 years in prison with hardened criminals. Has anyone ever heard of anyone getting caught and charged with carrying in unauthorized places?

I personally know of several (four that I can recall right off hand) instances where someone was caught in a alcohol-serving restaurant. In three of the instances, the person was either asked to leave, or to lock the gun up in the car, except one particular incident where the officer simply asked to see the person's permit and then left him alone. In that particular incident, the person was actually sitting at the bar in a Chili's, but wasn't drinking alcohol, only eating food.

Also, in all four of the incidents, the person was made because they did something silly. One went into the restroom and took his coat off while standing at a urinal, one got out of his car then put on his concealment garment as he was walking across the parking lot, and the other two took off their coats before sitting down at the table.

None of that proves anything. I'm just answering the question.

ETA: I know of one person who was made while in a liquor store, a few years ago when that was still illegal. He was issued a citation, if I remember correctly, but I'm not sure. He was "made" because he went into the liquor store without a concealment garment on.

Edited December 31, 2008 by robbiev

[G27]

I'm the mayor of Awesometown.

And they have strong mayor powers in Awesometown. It's a pretty awesome town, I'm told.

[Guest Ggun]

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.

State v. Clark, 2008 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 355 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 10, 2008).

This case holds that the defense is still very much alive. You have to prove self defense, which means a trial by jury. In the *Clark* case the defendant was indicted for carrying on school property. He sought pre trial dismissal through a motion in Trial Court, claiming he was a victim using self defense. The Trial Court dismissed, the Appellate Court reversed, held that the indictment was still valid, that the self defense had to be proven in Court.

Hopefully Punisher will get his *Company Lawyers* to have a gander...

Edited January 1, 2009 by Ggun

[Punisher84]

State v. Clark, 2008 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 355 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 10, 2008).

This case holds that the defense is still very much alive. You have to prove self defense, which means a trial by jury. In the *Clark* case the defendant was indicted for carrying on school property. He sought pre trial dismissal through a motion in Trial Court, claiming he was a victim using self defense. The Trial Court dismissed, the Appellate Court reversed, held that the indictment was still valid, that the self defense had to be proven in Court.

Hopefully Punisher will get his *Company Lawyers* to have a gander...

Thanks for proving my point for me. The Appellate court reversed the decision and he had to go to trial correct?

As far as "my company lawyers" maybe you could strap on your big boy pants and add something halfway useful to a discussion before you jump in here and start spouting crap.

At least the people here that have disagreed with me can offer a halfway intelligent response. Every post I have seen from you is inflammatory. You just like to start crap or are you just that damn stupid?

Go play with someone who gives a damn kid.

[Guest Ggun]

Thanks for proving my point for me. The Appellate court reversed the decision and he had to go to trial correct?

As far as "my company lawyers" maybe you could strap on your big boy pants and add something halfway useful to a discussion before you jump in here and start spouting crap.

At least the people here that have disagreed with me can offer a halfway intelligent response. Every post I have seen from you is inflammatory. You just like to start crap or are you just that damn stupid?

Go play with someone who gives a damn kid.

Here is what you said:

"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 is flat out wrong: The CASE I cited, not some dippy Hospital Lawyers, holds that you CAN claim self defense, Bucko. It's a Court Case that is USEFUL You were wrong, strap that on big boy.

[Punisher84]

Here is what you said:

"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 is flat out wrong: The CASE I cited, not some dippy Hospital Lawyers, holds that you CAN claim self defense, Bucko. It's a Court Case that is USEFUL You were wrong, strap that on big boy.

Hospital lawyers aren't what I was referring to bucko. I'm not wasting my time with you. You want clarification of my opinion ask Fallguy.

[Guest Ggun]

Hospital lawyers aren't what I was referring to bucko. I'm not wasting my time with you. You want clarification of my opinion ask Fallguy.

Hey, no problem. But your guys were dead wrong. The Court of Appeals said that a claim of self defense, if proven, is valid to defeat a conviction of prohibiited carry. They should look at the case I cited if they continue with their opinion that it isn't.

Sorry you took offense, but I'm just saying to the forum here that the proposition your guys have taken has been struck down by the Court of Appeals in Tennessee. And that is a good thing.

Happy New Year!

[Guest Astra900]

There is no REAL way to predict the way a jury or judge will rule, law or no law.

Illegal carry is STILL ILLEGAL carry, and illegal carry is always an unwise decision.

[Guest canynracer]

State v. Clark, 2008 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 355 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 10, 2008).

This case holds that the defense is still very much alive. You have to prove self defense, which means a trial by jury. In the *Clark* case the defendant was indicted for carrying on school property. He sought pre trial dismissal through a motion in Trial Court, claiming he was a victim using self defense. The Trial Court dismissed, the Appellate Court reversed, held that the indictment was still valid, that the self defense had to be proven in Court.

Hopefully Punisher will get his *Company Lawyers* to have a gander...

Whats your point??? you telling me you can PROVE self defense if your carrying in a bar?

also, having trouble finding the case, please post a link to it

[TGO David]

CGun... keep it civil. Only warning. Thanks.

[Fallguy]

Whats your point??? you telling me you can PROVE self defense if your carrying in a bar?

also, having trouble finding the case, please post a link to it

Here is a link to the case he is talking about.

Also to clarify my posistion...it is that 39-17-1322 is still available. That is also what my State Rep told me. The "Notwithstanding" part in the self-defense law means that, that part of the self-defense law does not with stand 39-17-1322, or that 39-17-1322 trumps that particular part.

But one thing to notice about this case is, it is a good example of you can be arrested and go to trial for something I think the most of us to be legal, even the judge thought it to be legal, but the DA pushed it and even appealed the dismissal and won to get a retrial.

Edited January 1, 2009 by Fallguy

[Guest 423aaron]

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 someones head threatening to kill them, and you shoot the creep, no jury will convict you of wrongdoing.

Steve G

I can verify that this judge did give this instruction in classes. I had a husband and wife report this to me. The judge told them that "it was just a misdemeanor".

Which is all well and good if you are a judge. I fear the LEO's may not see it the same for the rest of us.

Aaron

[Guest tnelson]

"It's a Court Case that is USEFUL You were wrong, strap that on big boy" GGun

All this talk about strap ons.... www.strapon.com/ ?

Just kidding..

Happy 2009 Guys

[Guest Ggun]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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 someones head threatening to kill them, and you shoot the creep, no jury will convict you of wrongdoing.

Steve G

I can verify that this judge did give this instruction in classes. I had a husband and wife report this to me. The judge told them that "it was just a misdemeanor".

Which is all well and good if you are a judge. I fear the LEO's may not see it the same for the rest of us.

Aaron

Plus, the Judge was wrong as well to imply in general terms that carrying in a place you shouldn't "is just a misdemeanor".

[Guest db99wj]

Quote:

Plus, the Judge was wrong as well to imply in general terms that carrying in a place you shouldn't "is just a misdemeanor".

First of all, your posts are hard to read, select the at the lower right of the post you want to quote, a window will open with a box to type in, then type your response below the quoted material, and your quoted material will be in the grey box, mine is grey anyway, and it will be more clear of what you are responding to.

Here's something I have thought about, I am armed on school grounds everyday that school is in session, which is legal according to

It is not an offense under this subsection © 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.

I drive into the drop off line, let the kids out of the truck and continue on my way to work. My firearm is in my truck. Say I am saying my goodby's to my kids and I see some guy getting out of his car and pulls out a shotgun, racks it and starts to aim down on kids. I pull my gun and take the guy out. Since we are making assumptions here, lets say after the invistigation, the guy was a crazy disgruntled divorced husband who lost custody of his kids and was of the mindset that if he can't have his kids, no one should and that all wives are evil and they should die. This is all from a letter.

Ok back to what I did, I broke the law, a Class E felony, for handling my firearm on campus, either open or concealed. If I would left it alone, I would not have broken the a law. But I did to take out above mentioned nutjob. Would I be charged? Would I be convicted?

I don't know for sure, but I would bet that I wouldn't be convicted or even charged. Could be wrong. I wonder if that was the judges intent of that statement. It is hard to determin since we were not there to understand the whole context of his statement.

I could see my above scenario happing at Applebee's, you are sitting with your family with your handgun, which is a Class A misdemeanor and some crazy guy comes in and starts shooting, you return fire possibly saving many many lives. Will you be charged? I don't thinks so. I might be naive, but that is what I think.

So what this Judge said is not the black and white truth, but under those circumstances he mentioned and I mentioned above, I would bet no jury would convict, I would go out on a limb and say you would not even be charged.

Disclaimer: I am not a fortune teller, I am not a lawyer, judge, proscecuter, these are What if's and assumptions that I made with no case law, no newspaper articles or read a story about a guy whos brothers, roomates cousines girlfriends dad's brothers mothers grandson's nephew had this happen. Assumptions are like *******s, we all have one.

[Guest canynracer]

Here is a link to the case he is talking about.

Also to clarify my posistion...it is that 39-17-1322 is still available. That is also what my State Rep told me. The "Notwithstanding" part in the self-defense law means that, that part of the self-defense law does not with stand 39-17-1322, or that 39-17-1322 trumps that particular part.

But one thing to notice about this case is, it is a good example of you can be arrested and go to trial for something I think the most of us to be legal, even the judge thought it to be legal, but the DA pushed it and even appealed the dismissal and won to get a retrial.

after reading that case...I would say that this discussion is crazy...

In the case, the dude had an unloaded gun...hardly worth the issues he is facing. which BTW is a FELONY...if he was in IMINENT fear, he would not have described to the assailant that he is a HCP holder....he would not have placed the gun gently on the seat. He could have very easily got in his truck and locked up. Whether the defense works in all situations or not, it is risky.

this court reversed the dismissal..and now the dude is defending his right to OWN A GUN (Felon)...let alone CARRY one...

I bet that the CLOSE friends of this guy know he had other options.

my point? it isnt worth it...carry pepper spray, you do not need to get into the altercation...you need to get away from it...fight till the threat is gone, or you can get away from the threat.

we are arguing the point of carrying a baton...lol...seriously folks, if I saw the dude walking through the mall with a baton on his hip... I would laugh.

each person needs to decide for themselves if the pros outweigh the cons, and they need to seriously think through the possible ramifications and responsibility of carrying said weapons...this is a personal choice.