SHTF Situation??

[Fallguy]

Fixed it for you...heheheh

Wrong...the laws that say you can't carry in certain places are 39-17-13xx laws (39-17-1305; 39-17-1306; 39-17-1309; 39-17-1311 & 39-17-1359) and are covered under 39-17-1322

[Guest canynracer]

I edited while you posted...see above...used your word....trespass.

[Guest Ggun]

LOL...what is you do again where YOU ARE??

OK all the legal mubo jumbo crap had me reading...What about this....here is the law for self defense...

( (1) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before 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.

(2) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, if: blahblahblah,,,,,

lets for a second forget the "Notwithstanding" part away...and bring this part "and is in a place where the person has a right to be "

If youre carrying illegally, you have no right to be there.

Where in any of the above statutes does it mention justifiable self- defense? In section 1322, where does it mention anything about duty to retreat?

Two different theories. This can't be this hard.

[Guest canynracer]

Where in any of the above statutes does it mention justifiable self- defense? In section 1322, where does it mention anything about duty to retreat?

Two different theories. This can't be this hard.

here we go...ok, how bout you answer the question that was directed to YOU...

LOL...what is you do again where YOU ARE??

the above statutes are sniped FROM the self defense law 39-11-611 which is where we are bringing up the "NOTWITHSTANDING"...YOU continue to bring up self defense...so apparantley, it IS this hard.

Edited January 3, 2009 by canynracer

[Guest Chip Holland]

It says, "Notwithstanding 39-17-1322, ..." which is another way of saying "The rest of what I say past this point does not change what is said in 39-17-1322..." Or "The rest of what is said does not with stand 39-17-1322"

It doesn't mean that 39-17-1322 does not with stand what is said, but just the opposite.

The term is notwithstanding. One word not three.

not⋅with⋅stand⋅ing 

–preposition

1.in spite of; without being opposed or prevented by: Notwithstanding a brilliant defense, he was found guilty. She went to the game anyway, doctor's orders notwithstanding.

–conjunction

2.in spite of the fact that; although: It was the same material, notwithstanding the texture seemed different.

–adverb

3.nevertheless; anyway; yet: We were invited notwithstanding

in spite of the provisions of 39-17-1322

without being opposed by the provisions of 39-17-1322

without being prevented by the provisions of 39-17-1322

[Fallguy]

Chip...all I can is I think you are wrong...but I know...who am I to say that...I admit, no one inparticular.

I trust what I was told, by whom I was told. You trust what you were told by whom you were told.

I'll also say, if I happen to be carrying in an off-limits place and situation comes up where I feel I need to use deadly force to protect myself...I will and then the chips can just fall wherever they do. If anyone feels they don't want to take that chance, they should not carry in any off-limits place.

[Guest db99wj]

It depends on whether the shooting is ruled justified or not. That is the first issue. In a nutshell, it goes like this:

Justified = no charges

Unjustified = lots of charges

You know, maybe it's just me but the language in -1322 is pretty darn clear that you will not be charged with a violation under part 13 if you use your weapon in justifiable self defense. I don't know. That's what it looks like it says. To me, anyway.

My assumption is that it was a justified shooting.

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?

See what you started!!!!!

You would be a hero, you could possibly get charged with possession of a firearm in an unauthorized location, either a felony (like at a school), or misdemeanor (like a restaurant that serves alcohol). Would you be charged if you were a hero? Probably not, I don't see an elected DA going after a hero that took out a bad guy that was hell bent on killing everyone in site. Civil, I am guessing you could be sued by the bg's family.

This is what I think would happen in reality, but I don't really want to be the test case, nor could I guarantee any of this.

Edited January 3, 2009 by db99wj

[Guest SUNTZU]

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?

This is how I would feel if I was Mr. sitting at the bar having a drink and was confronted with the dilemma of taking down the bad guys.

I think I might be doing the right thing by taking down the bad guys, but it might blow up in my face.

[Guest shortfri]

11 pages for a simple answer. That tungston basically answered. Like it or not it's just this simple.

If you carry in a non-carry place you could go to jail.

if you don't carry in a non-carry place you could die.

The if you do and if you don't can go on and on.

But it's real simple. If you feel the need to carry then do, if you don't then don't.

I myself decide if i do or don't on the surrounding area. If i don't know that area then i carry.

To stay out of jail these are the people that you'll have to convience that you needed to carry

The arresting officer.

The D.A.

12 grand jury members

12 jury members

Thats a total of 26 people that if one decides that you are not guilty, then you walk.

And i'm almost one hundred percent sure that you'll find at least one if you have to shot some crazy person.

[Guest Ggun]

here we go...ok, how bout you answer the question that was directed to YOU...

the above statutes are sniped FROM the self defense law 39-11-611 which is where we are bringing up the "NOTWITHSTANDING"...YOU continue to bring up self defense...so apparantley, it IS this hard.

You really need to know that the legislature knows how to repeal a law. Notwithstanding that some LEOs, prosecutors, lawyers, and judges in some local community ALL think this law has disappeared, it's still right there. Sounds like some don't like handgun ownership.

[Punisher84]

You really need to know that the legislature knows how to repeal a law. Notwithstanding that some LEOs, prosecutors, lawyers, and judges in some local community ALL think this law has disappeared, it's still right there. Sounds like some don't like handgun ownership.

Memphis and Jackson are pretty big "local" communities. You still haven't answered the man's question ya know.

[Guest tarheel78]

I want to comment on what shortfri said above, quoted in part:

"To stay out of jail these are the people that you'll have to convience that you needed to carry

The arresting officer.

The D.A.

12 grand jury members

12 jury members

Thats a total of 26 people that if one decides that you are not guilty, then you walk.

And i'm almost one hundred percent sure that you'll find at least one if you have to shot some crazy person."

This is actually some pretty plain common-sense wisdom here.

Its always better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6. If you can show (in court or grand jury) you exhibited a good faith fear of your life, or that of another in your presence, you have a pretty good jury argument in Tennessee. Further existence of a CCW permit shows good faith to be trained, record checked, and to stay within State laws. No guarantees, but our system has several safeguards built in, listed above. DAs usually don't try cases in Grand Juries, but will present cases for the record. Most cases presented get a "true bill" voted. If the GJ votes a "no bill" on a case, thats it, its over, charges dropped. If this step fails, the defendant can take his chances before a jury of 12 Tennesseans, not say, a group of libs from the San Fransisco suburbs, etc. This itself is comforting in a hypothetical "righteous" situation as was presented in the first posting of this thread. Any shooting is a bad situation, but you use all weapons available in your defense, too, at court. At least you're alive to present your side of the story.

[Guest nraforlife]

ALIVE and BROKE, but ALIVE

[Guest HexHead]

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."

Carrying in a restaurant is a misdemeanor. Most likely you'd just be fined at most.

[Guest Chip Holland]

You really need to know that the legislature knows how to repeal a law. Notwithstanding that some LEOs, prosecutors, lawyers, and judges in some local community ALL think this law has disappeared, it's still right there. Sounds like some don't like handgun ownership.

The law is still there. It only disappears when you become a criminal. The law (and the tremendous protection it provides) is still there for law abiding citizens. It is when you choose to disregard the law (any law) that the Legal system turns against you. Also, if you will read my earlier post you will see that I teach the Handgun Permit Class every week and there is well over a thousand Handgun Permit holders with my name on the bottom of their certificate. I strongly believe in a person's right to protect themselves and the people they love and care about. I actively seek the input from those people you listed above so I can provide my students with the most up to date and valid information that is available. I don't try to pick and choose which law or parts of a law fit what I want to believe and then put it out as fact.