NOT GOOD--In Tennessee

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 just received this Email from TFALAC: "Tennessee Firearms Association, Inc. Legislative Action Committee The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals has this week issued a ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 22
  1. #1
    VIP Member
    Array falcon1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    6,484

    Thumbs down NOT GOOD--In Tennessee

    I just received this Email from TFALAC:

    "Tennessee Firearms Association, Inc.
    Legislative Action Committee

    The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals has this week issued a decision regarding Tennessee Code Annotated Section 39-17-1322 which sadly eliminates the legislative intent and the protections offered by this safe harbor statute and leaves citizens and handgun permit holders are the whim of prosecutors and law enforcement officers.

    State vs. Tracey C. Clark - M2007-00496-CCA-R3-CD View
    Separate Concurring Opinion - View
    Williamson County - Appellee, Tracy C. Clark, was indicted by the Williamson County Grand Jury for possession of a weapon on school grounds. Appellee filed a motion to dismiss the indictment based on a claim of self-defense, averring that the facts would not support a conviction for the offense. The trial court dismissed the indictment after conducting a pre-trial evidentiary hearing and determining that Appellee could not be convicted because he acted in self-defense. The State filed an untimely notice of appeal. This Court, in the interest of justice, accepted the late-filed notice of appeal. Because we determine that the trial court improperly conducted a pre-trial evidentiary hearing on the motion to dismiss which essentially involved resolution of the question of Appellee’s guilt or innocence, we reverse the trial court’s ruling and remand the case for reinstatement of the indictment.

    This court of appeals decisions creates now the need to legislative address yet another issue that heretofore seemed pretty clear when the statute provides " shall not be charged" because the Court of Appeals clearly disagreed with the consequence of reading that clause literally!"


    Tennessee's firearms laws really do have some odd quirks. But when the courts will not follow the clear language of the statutes, I wonder if we really have a permit system at all?

    Here is TCA 39-17-1322's language:

    39-17-1322. Defenses. —
    A person shall not be charged with [emphasis added] 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.


  2. #2
    Senior Member Array FlyboyLDB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    864
    In State vs. Clark, where was the "commission of a crime" that Clark was claiming self defense from? Maybe I missed something.

  3. #3
    Member Array johnsr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    beaver creek texas
    Posts
    182
    not very clear, he was guilty of toating a weapon on school grounds, but claimed it was for self defence? wonder why he felt that way. wonder did he pull the weapon? must be other things involved. looks like he is using part of the law out of context and almost got away with it.. my2cents.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Array digitalexplr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Jefferson City, MO
    Posts
    914
    The way I read this, he was caught with a weapon on school grounds. He was not being attacked and using the weapon for self-defense. He then claimed he could not be charged because he was carrying the weapon for self-defense.

    Since handguns are not allowed on school property he was in possession of a handgun illegally. I don't see how he can then claim immunity from prosecution on the basis of self-defense when he was where he was illegally.

    I think the Appeals Court is correct on this one.

  5. #5
    Member Array rj112275's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    memphis
    Posts
    101
    I understand it like this...

    It is illegal to carry a firearm onto certain properties in Tennessee... places where alcohol is served, schools, areas posted, etc.

    However, if you choose to carry onto those properties, and end up using your firearm in the defense of your life, the state cannot charge you will illegal carry BECAUSE it was evident by your use of your handgun in the protection of life, it was necessary to have, and preservation of life overrules the restriction to carry.

    So, in this case, it sounds like he got caught with his gun in a place where he was not suppose to have a firearm. If that is the case, shame on him. Don't get caught! The only time folks should be aware of you carrying, is when it is used legally to defend life.

    Does that all sounds about right? I hope I'm close on this.

    +1 to digitalexplr

  6. #6
    Member Array jerbur6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    evansville indiana
    Posts
    16
    sounds like another case of big brother stepping where it shouldnt. and btw all these comments about he broke the law by defending himself since when do sheeple come in here?

  7. #7
    VIP Member Array Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    3,411
    Quote Originally Posted by jerbur6 View Post
    sounds like another case of big brother stepping where it shouldnt. and btw all these comments about he broke the law by defending himself since when do sheeple come in here?
    Whoa jerbu6, unless there has been some posts deleted here, I have read nothing indicating what you said referring to the sheeple in here.

    All any of us know is that he was in possesion of a handgun on school grounds. We don't know if he used it, OC'd, had a wardrobe malfunction, or was ratted out by someone.

    If it was a case of he was carrying in a "No Carry" zone, and got caught...I agree, it does sound like the defense lawyer is trying to skirt the language.
    Sticks

    Grasseater // Grass~eat~er noun, often attributive \ˈgras-ē-tər\
    A person who is incapable of independent thought; a person who is herd animal-like in behavior; one who cannot distinguish between right and wrong; a foolish person.
    See also Sheep

  8. #8
    VIP Member
    Array archer51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    21,539
    Actually there is not enough information to make a determination. Did he use a weapon in self defense while in a restricted zone? If so I would say he is covered under state law. If he had it in a restricted zone, and got caught with it on his person.......then I think he's trying to stretch the law. I'd have to read the story behind the charges before making a decision.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Array palmgopher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    tennessee
    Posts
    722
    well i would have to agree the law states it is only legal to have on school grounds as long as in your vehicle and it is not shown and only when dropping off or picking your child otherwise it illegal. if he got caught then he is stupid and deserves to get charged. he broke the law. but as many have said not enough info to tell for sure what this is all about.

  10. #10
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    I like it. It could almost turn into another DC vs Heller.

    If he had to use it for self defense, under the law posted, he cannot be charged or convicted(That's simple enough)

    If he did not have to use it and was guilty of a wardrobe malfunction(as it kind of seems), then the way the law is worded is kind of tricky. With a Pro-2A judge, it could almost be read that the burden is on the state to prove that he had no need of it for self defense.

    The law is silly, it's basically asking you TN guys to look into the crystal ball in the morning and decide if its worth breaking the law on the chance that you might need a gun, because if you do happen to need it then it is no longer against the law...
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

  11. #11
    Senior Member Array tankdriver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Posts
    656
    Quote Originally Posted by rj112275 View Post
    I understand it like this...

    It is illegal to carry a firearm onto certain properties in Tennessee... places where alcohol is served, schools, areas posted, etc.

    However, if you choose to carry onto those properties, and end up using your firearm in the defense of your life, the state cannot charge you will illegal carry BECAUSE it was evident by your use of your handgun in the protection of life, it was necessary to have, and preservation of life overrules the restriction to carry.

    So, in this case, it sounds like he got caught with his gun in a place where he was not suppose to have a firearm. If that is the case, shame on him. Don't get caught! The only time folks should be aware of you carrying, is when it is used legally to defend life.

    Does that all sounds about right? I hope I'm close on this.

    +1 to digitalexplr
    This is the key to the law. did he have to use it, or was he just caught carring it. If he used it, the law says he can not be charges. If he was caught just carring it, he can be charged.
    1942 M3 Autocar Half-track...M3A1 Diamond T Half-track...57mm Anti-Tank Cannon

    NRA Endowment Member...President West TN Military Vehicle Collectors...MVPA Member

  12. #12
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    Quote Originally Posted by tankdriver View Post
    This is the key to the law. did he have to use it, or was he just caught carring it. If he used it, the law says he can not be charges. If he was caught just carring it, he can be charged.
    Again, how was he supposed to know if he was going to need it or not? I guess the legislatures have better Magic 8 balls than I do.

    I say make the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no chance he would need it.
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

  13. #13
    Senior Member Array tankdriver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Posts
    656
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerbouchard View Post
    I like it. It could almost turn into another DC vs Heller.

    If he had to use it for self defense, under the law posted, he cannot be charged or convicted(That's simple enough)

    If he did not have to use it and was guilty of a wardrobe malfunction(as it kind of seems), then the way the law is worded is kind of tricky. With a Pro-2A judge, it could almost be read that the burden is on the state to prove that he had no need of it for self defense.

    The law is silly, it's basically asking you TN guys to look into the crystal ball in the morning and decide if its worth breaking the law on the chance that you might need a gun, because if you do happen to need it then it is no longer against the law...
    No it is not, it prevents us from being charged if I carry into a O Charlie's, where they serve drinks and need to protect myself. It states they can not go back and charge me with illegal carry.
    1942 M3 Autocar Half-track...M3A1 Diamond T Half-track...57mm Anti-Tank Cannon

    NRA Endowment Member...President West TN Military Vehicle Collectors...MVPA Member

  14. #14
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 14,650'
    Posts
    12,552
    Quote Originally Posted by falcon1 View Post
    The State filed an untimely notice of appeal. This Court, in the interest of justice, accepted the late-filed notice of appeal. Because we determine that the trial court improperly conducted a pre-trial evidentiary hearing on the motion to dismiss which essentially involved resolution of the question of Appellee’s guilt or innocence, we reverse the trial court’s ruling and remand the case for reinstatement of the indictment.
    Ignoring the legality of the act, the bold comment is really what bothers me. Deadlines are deadlines, whether it is homework for a first grader or an appeal to the SCOTUS.

    The State missed the deadline to appeal. End of discussion.

    Activist courts.....Yuk, but probably grounds for an appeal right there, dependent on state law.

  15. #15
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    Quote Originally Posted by tankdriver View Post
    No it is not, it prevents us from being charged if I carry into a O Charlie's, where they serve drinks and need to protect myself. It states they can not go back and charge me with illeagl carry.
    Sorry, perhaps I was not clear enough.

    The law IS silly. The reason the law is silly is because your legislatures recognize that you might come into harms way in a 'gun-free zone', and tell you that if you are forced to defend yourself in said gun-free zone, than they understand.

    But, if you don't happen to be attacked that particular day, then you are breaking the law.

    Hence the crystal ball/magic 8-ball comment. How are you supposed to know?

    Basically, it's a brandishing law. If you fail to conceal, you are breaking the law, unless you must use your firearm for protection.
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. GOOD: Tennessee: Alleged Piney Flats burglar in serious condition after being shot by
    By ctsketch in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: June 27th, 2010, 12:00 PM
  2. Good: Tennessee Jewelry Vendor Shoots Robbers -
    By Sejune in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: July 17th, 2009, 01:56 AM
  3. Good news for Tennessee?
    By SpringerXD in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: March 22nd, 2008, 10:54 PM
  4. Tennessee State Trooper Slain in West Tennessee
    By falcon1 in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: January 7th, 2007, 01:47 PM

Search tags for this page

39-17-1322
,
39-17-1322 tn law
,
explain tca 39-17-1322
,
tca 39 17 1322
,

tca 39-17-1322

,
tca 39-17-1322 updated
,
tenn 39-17-1322
,
tennessee 39-17-1322
,
tennessee code annotated 39-17-1322
,
tennessee code annotated defense shall not be charged
,
tn 39-17-1322
,
what is tca 39-17-1322?
Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors