NOT GOOD--In Tennessee
This is a discussion on NOT GOOD--In Tennessee within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I agree with Mr. Kerbouchard on this one; A positive ruling in the Heller case will definitely set a precedent for a legal challenge on ...
April 12th, 2008 10:52 AM
I agree with Mr. Kerbouchard on this one; A positive ruling in the Heller case will definitely set a precedent for a legal challenge on those grounds.
After all, if you are legally licensed to carry a handgun for self-defense, should not every property owner who denies you this fundamental right be responsible for your protection?
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined". - Patrick Henry
April 12th, 2008 11:00 AM
I may be mistaken, but I seem to recall in this case the man did need to display his firearm to prevent an assault...perhaps I am merging it with another case?
Just checked, and nope, not merging it, although I cannot tell from the write-up how truly justified his display was (although the other party was convicted of carrying a knife on school property). Here is the link:
So, basically, as I understand the way the Appeals Court is interpreting the law, they are saying the language means "shall not be charged or convicted" really means "shall not be convicted" because the judge should not have conducted a pre-trial evidenciary hearing. Safe harbor means very little...you still have to hire an attorney an defend yourself in court. And, TCA 39-17-1310 doesn't really help, either:
"TCA 39-17-1310. Affirmative defense to carrying weapons on school property. —
It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under § 39-17-1309(a)-(d) that the person's behavior was in strict compliance with the requirements of one (1) of the following classifications:
(1) A person hunting during the lawful hunting season on lands owned by any public or private educational institution and designated as open to hunting by the administrator of the educational institution;
(2) A person possessing unloaded hunting weapons while transversing the grounds of any public or private educational institution for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting with the intent to hunt on the public or private lands unless the lands of the educational institution are posted prohibiting entry;
(3) A person possessing guns or knives when conducting or attending “gun and knife shows” and the program has been approved by the administrator of the educational institution; or
(4) A person entering the property for the sole purpose of delivering or picking up passengers and who does not remove, utilize or allow to be removed or utilized any weapon from the vehicle [emphasis added]."
The affirmative defense only applies if one is dropping off or picking up passengers, and even then, it may not apply if one does need to use a firearm in self-defense, because then one is no longer within strict compliance of the classification.
April 12th, 2008 11:28 AM
Attorneys, please feel free to weigh in, because definitely, IANAL!
April 12th, 2008 11:51 AM
After reading the courts ruling I don't agree with them. He was a victem of a crime and as such defended himself with his gun. The way I read the law he was legal to do so, and should not have been charged.
I also agree with Rock and Glock. The state did not appeal the decision within the specified time frame and because of that the apellate court should have not even reviewed the case.
I wonder if they would have reviewed it if the trial court judge had ruled against Mr Clark and his attorney had been late filing his appeal?
April 12th, 2008 02:21 PM
Look at the Appeals Court ruling this way: They have remanded the case back to the original court. The original court found that the gun owner was not subject to be charged. The Appeals Court just found issue with how the court reached it's ruling. Therefore it seems logicial that the original court will revisit the charges, follow the procedures the Appeals Court wants them to follow, and reach the same conclusion - the gun owner should not be charged. In which case the Prosecutor will probably appeal again.
This could very well end up with the state Supreme Court and/or SCOTUS.
April 12th, 2008 09:41 PM
While this would have been correct before, now that the "Castle Doctrine" law was re-enforced, it screwed this all up for us.
Originally Posted by rj112275
Th new castle doctrine law, as it was re worded and re-enforced, states that you can not be sued civilly for shooting someone in self defense so long as you are not breaking the law when you are forced to shoot. What this does is negate the safe harbor clause in the restaurant carry law because if you have to shoot in self defense in a restaurant, you broke the law bringing the gun in. No safe harbor, no protection.
There are some other aspects of this that screw it all up for us but that is the gist of it.
The TFA is working to get the updated castle doctrine law re-worded so the safe harbor clause will be in play again but I wouldn't count on it actually getting pushed through.
While I know that the original post was dealing with carrying a gun on school property, the basic premise is the same and I believe it applies the same to both situations.
April 13th, 2008 12:05 AM
I'm in Tennessee. From what I understand, yes, you have it exactly right; if you use a weapon in self defense that you otherwise weren't carrying legally, then it becomes legal. I know, it doesn't make much sense on the surface, but I guess it's a good thing with the implication that fear for one's life should supercede all else.
Originally Posted by rj112275
That's how it sounds to me, too. We can legally have the gun in our vehicle on school grounds, but we can't have it physically on our person.
Originally Posted by rj112275
"I practice the ancient art of Klik Pao."
By ctsketch in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Last Post: June 27th, 2010, 12:00 PM
By Sejune in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Last Post: July 17th, 2009, 01:56 AM
By SpringerXD in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: March 22nd, 2008, 10:54 PM
By falcon1 in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
Last Post: January 7th, 2007, 01:47 PM
Search tags for this page
39-17-1322 tn law
explain tca 39-17-1322
tca 39 17 1322
tca 39-17-1322 updated
tennessee code annotated 39-17-1322
tennessee code annotated defense shall not be charged
what is tca 39-17-1322?
Click on a term to search for related topics.