This is a discussion on Carrying at work...and you're a school superintendent within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; The background story on this is that the school superintendent carried a gun holstered on his hip. He has a carry permit. As the prosecution ...
The background story on this is that the school superintendent carried a gun holstered on his hip. He has a carry permit. As the prosecution stated, he pretty much knew the law and just chose to ignore it.
Here's the surprising ending to the story...
http://www.jacksonsun.com/article/20...nclick_check=1
"The superior man, when resting in safety, does not forget that danger may come." ~ Confucius
Array
Yeah, he knew the law and chose to ignore it. I'd like to think the jury was making a statement about the stupidity of the law forbidding CC permit holders not being allowed to carry on school property.
Well, it's pretty obvious that if he had a carry permit and carried a gun, he intended to go armed. He didn't just accidentally carry to work. So, the jury chose to ignore that. It's a small town. The school resource officer refused to do anything about it. The sheriff testified in his defense. The prosecution had to do something because one of the parents complained and this was the end result.Originally Posted by Littlestone
It does, however, set a precedent the next time the issue comes before a court. When I first read the story, before it went to the jury, I was sure the guy would get a felony conviction. This result was a pleasant surprise.
However, before anyone else tries this, I should point out that your results may vary.
"The superior man, when resting in safety, does not forget that danger may come." ~ Confucius
Array
While I'm pleasantly surprised with the results, I hope this doesn't fool people into trying their luck.
My blog
WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.
Array
Some of us value our lives over our jobs, and would be willing to take the lumps if they come.
Array
Shoulda kept his mouth shut.
I'm not sure his mouth had all that much to do with it. From the news reports that I've read, I think he pretty much open carried. I could be wrong, but that was certainly my interpretation.
"The superior man, when resting in safety, does not forget that danger may come." ~ Confucius
Array
Always carry ,,,,, never tell. Forgot the last part.
"It is better to remain silent and appear stupid, than to speak and remove all doubt."
"I fear the day when technology overlaps with our humanity, and the world will only have
a generation of misinformed idiots," Albert Einstein
Good on the jury.
Vietnam Vets, WELCOME HOME
Crossman 760 BB/Pellet, Daisy Red Ryder, Crossman Wrist Rocket, 14 Steak Knives, 3 Fillet Knives, Rolling Pin-14", Various Hunting Knives, 2 Baseball Bats, 3 Big Dogs and a big American Flag flying in the yard. I have no firearms; Try the next house.
Array
Doesn't the "intent to go armed" mean he had intentions of using it? For instance in the case of a child who is bullied and brings a gun to school would have the intent to use the gun against those who had been harassing him/her. In this case he had a gun but made a reasonable case that he did not intend to use it.
You are correct. Intent plays an important part, at least in this state.
It is not illegal to carry a weapon. It is against the law to carry a weapon with the intent to go armed. If an individual carries a pistol without the intent of going armed he does not violate the law. Biggs v. State, 207 Tenn. 603, 341 S.W.2d 737, 1960 Sams v. State, 210 Tenn. 16, 356 S.W.2d 273, 1962.
Without the intent or purpose of going armed there is no violation, and the mere carrying of a weapon does not deprive a defendant of the presumption of innocence. Cole v. State, 539 S.W.2d 46, (Tenn. Crim. App. 1976).
Intent to go armed cannot be presumed from mere possession of a weapon and it is improper to instruct a jury regarding such a presumption. Liming v. State, 220 Tenn., 371, 382,417 S.W.2d 769, 774 (1967)
"The superior man, when resting in safety, does not forget that danger may come." ~ Confucius
Array
I may be misunderstanding legal terms here, but "intent to go armed" would seem to me to mean "intent to go (somewhere) while in possession of a weapon." Armed does mean in possession or control of a weapon, right?
My blog
WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.
That's the way I would have thought, but apparently not. In the above situations,apparently you have to have the intent of actually using the weapon.
If there is no intent on your part, and you just carry the weapon for the reason of your choice, then you have not violated the law.
It's an interesting concept from a legal standpoint. It should be fun to watch how it plays out.
"The superior man, when resting in safety, does not forget that danger may come." ~ Confucius
Intent to go armed...Mmmmm???
I believe there was another confusing statement made years ago, "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is...
"That I cannot do."
"Give this to, uh, Clemenza. I want reliable people, people who aren't going to be carried away. After all we're not murderers in spite of what this undertaker thinks."
***********************************
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member
Array
Hope he loses his permit. People just can't go around acting like obama and just ignore laws.
Posting Permissions
7Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
