[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Law confirmed!!!! (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 12/16/2008 6:13:32 PM EDT
I spoke with John Harris, founder & President of the TFA, tonight & he has confirmed that it IS illegal to carry a loaded rifle in one's vehicle at ANY time regardless of HCP status. 
So, to those naysayers that doubted this bit of legality, feel free to take it up with him. 
|
|
Quoted:
I don't really have a reason to argue, but what makes this guy the defining authority? Wouldn't the Attorny General or somebody in an official position be the one to make that call? Just curious why his word is sacred. John Harris is the Executive Director of the Tennessee Firearms Association, usually their chief registered lobbyist, too (though not currently) and essentially wrote the current carry law. He's arguably done more for individual firearms rights in TN than anyone in the past 15 years or so. Check out the TFA's web site for more information. Tennessee's AG doesn't have the sense God gave a goose when it comes to interpreting anything. I don't think I'd trust the AG's opinion about sunshine if I were reading it on a sunny day. David |
|
Quoted:
I don't really have a reason to argue, but what makes this guy the defining authority? Wouldn't the Attorny General or somebody in an official position be the one to make that call? Just curious why his word is sacred. my point exactly in a previous thread. Tennessee law is FUBAR. Too many laws that leave the interpretation open to a prosecuter or judges whim. Just depends on who is interpreting. Castle doctrine should change that; but after listening to all this banter we're still FiretruCKED. |
|
did i miss the thread where someone was arguing it was legal? afaik, it's fairly well known fact that it's illegal.
it's bad enough that it's illegal to carry a loaded mag anywhere in the vehicle, even separate from the rifle (e.g. rifle in trunk, mag in glove box) but the most annoying thing is that the law reads magazines or clips, which would include things like stripper clips, and those stupid things you shove into garands. this law, afaik, is mostly supported by the wankers in the state gov trying to prevent people from hunting from their vehicles. TWRA is the group that needs recalibrated even more than the democrats |
|
Quoted:
did i miss the thread where someone was arguing it was legal? afaik, it's fairly well known fact that it's illegal. it's bad enough that it's illegal to carry a loaded mag anywhere in the vehicle, even separate from the rifle (e.g. rifle in trunk, mag in glove box) but the most annoying thing is that the law reads magazines or clips, which would include things like stripper clips, and those stupid things you shove into garands. this law, afaik, is mostly supported by the wankers in the state gov trying to prevent people from hunting from their vehicles. TWRA is the group that needs recalibrated even more than the democrats according to law the TWRA is the only LEA that can enforce this. Our laws are FUBAR; they contadict each other left and right. LEA's across the state are enforcing policies established by the twra; and using those policies to establish precident to the their own political agenda. Heres a quote from my post on the thread concerning carry in the Smoky mountain Nt'l Park. Castle doctine changes everthing because of what it says and implies. Legal, moron ,anti gunner marxist's  are nashing their teeth because their monopoly on the interpretaion of previous law; is loosing it's teeth...as suggested by the quote from myself below. All that being said we're still FUBAR.
Quoted:
Based on my personal experience with the Rangers in the Cherokee Nat. Forest, 99.99% of them are anti-gun for the unwashed masses. I do wish to add, that the new law DOES mean CONCEALED & NOT open carry!!!! it's not a law; it's a policy in the national park service. it was issued last year. States that allowed carry in "state parks" presented a quandry for the NPS. So they opted to honor each states law. Tennessee dosn't allow carry in state parks unless it is for quota hunts or transport thru the park for the purpose of getting to a hunt, private land or droping and leaving someone or something. That hasn't changed. The only thing that has changed is the "castle doctrine" signed by Phil Bredesen last year. The castle doctrine has apparrently begun to change even the anti-gunners; because it implies you have the right to defend yourself with deadly force(gun or stick) in any place you have the legal right to be in; with in the state of Tennessee. The new law specifically mentions vehicles; homes and public places. The law by it's nature implies you have the right to a loaded firearm of ANYKIND(and can use it)! on or around your person. Things are shaking up; but only time will tell how the the legal morons are going to try to interpret this.....seems common sense has all but left our country. Right now, according to our current laws we TECHNICALLY have the the right to carry anywhere, anytime. Period. I don't care what any Joe Blow says; that dosen't mean you won't be prosecuted; because we have conflicting laws that are diametrically opposed to each other. We're still firetrucked. Time to clean up this Bravo Sierra. Enforcer |
|
Quoted:
Tennessee law is FUBAR. Too many laws that leave the interpretation open to a prosecuter or judges whim.
Well, now that Naifeh is out of power, petition your new Republican majority to simplify the laws. Write letters, call, fax, email, carrier pigeon. This. We now have a chance to get some stuff done. That chance might only last until the next election, so dont waste it. |
|
Interesting topic...I would have thought hunting laws would have covered the long arm loaded in vehicle question. Seems a bit less cut and dry in TN.
On a somewhat related note...hunting law says that during archery and I think ML seasons youre not allowed to have a modern FA. Seems this would directly interfere w/ your CCW. I know I wouldnt go into the woods w/o my HG. |
|
Thats the problem; TWRA has specific restrictions regarding long arms; loaded and where they can be in your vehicle. It appears that these restrictions have been usurped and applied to other criminal statutes(even though they are not specifically mentioned) Ambiguity is our problem; it has led to biased and contrdictory interpretations. Contrdictory laws have also been passed which put all of us in a catch 22, even with a carry permit.
FWIW I'm not lumping John Harris into this mix; reading his interpretations on current gun laws over the last few years has done more to educate me than any source I have found. I'm also not trying to pick on any person on this forum; Just trying to point out that we have the right to carry and defend ourselves in this state. You just need to decide whether you want to be the first test case. I personally take more risk than the average Joe. Better to be tried by twelve than buried by six. |
| If the hunting laws say no loaded long guns in vehicle how do you differentiate that from non-hunting situations? So, I can understand why LE in general was happy to jump on the wagon. That said, when I lived in NH the animal cops routinely arrested hunters carrying concealed in situations where hunting law said it was forbidden. Finally, someone let their case go to court and won!!! Even after that the animal cops were somewhat less than cordial if they discovered you CCWing in the woods during archery/ML seasons. They also made it their business to arrest hunters doing open carry with the folds of their coats covering all or part of the HG. They lost that one in court too. I agree, the legislature needs to made it their business to make it all crystal clear. |
|
Quoted:
did i miss the thread where someone was arguing it was legal? afaik, it's fairly well known fact that it's illegal. Yes, a current arfcom member (whom is a FIRED in disgrace po-po) claimed that one could have a loaded long gun in their vehicle off their own personal property. In fact, he even advised this to another arfcomer whom was travelling thru TN on vacation. 
|
|
Quoted:
If the hunting laws say no loaded long guns in vehicle how do you differentiate that from non-hunting situations? Is one wearing camo? Is one wearing waterproof hunting boots? Is one unshaven & lacking deodorant? (I realize the last one covers many TN Billy-bob's in everyday appearance.  )
While it may be an oxymoron, it may well come down to a LEO's common sense & good judgement, IMO. Regardless, Mr. Harris did NOT mention TWRA, hunting or spotlighting when he adamently said it was ILLEGAL to have a loaded long gun in one's vehicle off one's own personal property. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
according to law the TWRA is the only LEA that can enforce this. Dare I suggest you be the test subject for your theory, sir???????
Since the laws are very confusing; we all agree that they need to be streamlined and made much clearer. As far as me being first test case? Who knows? As you pointed out we are at the mercy of a LEO's common sense. Hopefully my carry permit will cover in most situations. I usually don't carry long arms in my vehicle unless I'm hunting; going to the range or taking a long trip. Each situation has it's own risk benefit. I try to be as compliant as possible; but sometimes you must make decisions based on the current situation.(ie post 911). As I said before; better tried by 12 than carried by 6. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
If the hunting laws say no loaded long guns in vehicle how do you differentiate that from non-hunting situations? Is one wearing camo? Is one wearing waterproof hunting boots? Is one unshaven & lacking deodorant? (I realize the last one covers many TN Billy-bob's in everyday appearance. )
While it may be an oxymoron, it may well come down to a LEO's common sense & good judgement, IMO. Regardless, Mr. Harris did NOT mention TWRA, hunting or spotlighting when he adamently said it was ILLEGAL to have a loaded long gun in one's vehicle off one's own personal property. 
Yes, its up to the officer making the stop but if its 'policy' or widely accepted as illegal then I bet youre going to get arrested. That said if theres no explicite law saying you cant have a loaded long gun in your vehicle then Im not sure how the court could convict you. This is why I mentioned hunting law. |
|
There is no question that under previous law/code there were and are some restrictions on loaded firearms in your vehicle; TWRA and Federal restrictions on interstate travel more specifically. These are very clear and for the most part, difficult to debate. What is not so clear are the laws that govern outside these two specific areas. The other not so clear issue is, who actually has juridiction? There may be some simple explanation, but to date, no one has given a plausible explanation.
Throw in some fiction and lack of discretion on the part of AG's, DA's and judges past and present; the carry laws(and defenses that go with it); and the Castle doctrine; you begin to get a history of contradictions and interpretations that are devoid of common sense. I only raise the issue and offer that we may have more rights even under present law than most are willing to admit. Some of you may think I am reaching abit....but I do not believe so. I have contacted a person whom many of you seem to like and have posed these very questions and I am currently waiting for their reply. Once I recieve a answer, I will post it verbatim, including my questions. I have no expectation as to the response; however, If I have to eat crow, I'll man-up and do it
|
|
So would it be legal to have this?
1. AR15 unloaded in a locked (yes you need a key to unlock and open it) metal gun case. 2. have in the same case 3 to 4 empty magazines. 3. have in the same case 100 rounds of 5.56 in the original manufacturer cartons. 4. have this combination in the back of an SUV where you have to actually get out of the drivers seat to get to it. If not, would it be legal if the 5.56 was in a separate ammo box? |
|
Quoted:
So would it be legal to have this? 1. AR15 unloaded in a locked (yes you need a key to unlock and open it) metal gun case. 2. have in the same case 3 to 4 empty magazines. 3. have in the same case 100 rounds of 5.56 in the original manufacturer cartons. 4. have this combination in the back of an SUV where you have to actually get out of the drivers seat to get to it. If not, would it be legal if the 5.56 was in a separate ammo box? The key wording in the current law is ACCESSIBLE (sp?). I believe that if the rifle and ammo are not to the driver or passengers then your good to go. Being in a locked case as such denies access to persons in the vehicle. Now, if your rifle is laying on the front seat with loaded mags beside it then you are going armed. And BTW, TWRA is not the only agency who can enforce the going armed law. All arrest power LEOs in TN can enforce this law, I know this, because I have enforced this law on several occasions. Even after the Castle law went into effect. To use the Castle law defense, you must not be violating any other laws in TN and going armed would put people in violation of other laws, therefore making the Castle law no defense. Of course, there is always the local DAs understanding of the law that will apply too. |
| Can anyone explain why I shouldn't be allowed to carry a loaded long arm in my vehicle? In other words, whats the logic behind this? I really can't think of any offhand but then again Im not the fountain of knowledge either. If theres a good reason so be it.... To me it seems an infringement on 2nd amendments rights esp in light of CCW allowing a loaded HG. |
| Probably to stop hunting from your car, and drive by shootings. I mean you have to tell a criminal not to carry their rifle loaded in the car so they won't have any way to do a drive by rifle shooting. I don't know, I'm sure its because of some silly politician that started screaming incoherently. |
|
Quoted:
Can anyone explain why I shouldn't be allowed to carry a loaded long arm in my vehicle? In other words, whats the logic behind this? As I understand it, it delved from the anti-poaching & deer jacklighting laws. Could be this is yet another law that gets reviewed now that Naifeh is OUT as Speaker.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can anyone explain why I shouldn't be allowed to carry a loaded long arm in my vehicle? In other words, whats the logic behind this? As I understand it, it delved from the anti-poaching & deer jacklighting laws. Could be this is yet another law that gets reviewed now that Naifeh is OUT as Speaker.
I do hope so as Id like the option of having a loaded long gun in my truck and tractor. |
| LOL...well theres hope (or at least a faint expectation) our reps actually thought this thru and used some non-fictional basis for the law. I know thats a stretch but Id like to give them the benefit of the doubt. Then again just b/c its the law doesn't mean its wise or good...or will hold up in court. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
according to law the TWRA is the only LEA that can enforce this. Dare I suggest you be the test subject for your theory, sir???????
+1000000000000000000000000000000000000000. Arrested charged, and convicted dumbasses that believed that. So go ahead and claim it. You will be losing said long gun and having a little fine and possibly a few days of unpaid vacation to contemplate your ignorance. TCA: 39-17-1307. Unlawful carrying or possession of a weapon. — (a) (1) A person commits an offense who carries with the intent to go armed a firearm, a knife with a blade length exceeding four inches (4²), or a club. (2) (A) The first violation of subdivision (a)(1) is a Class C misdemeanor, and, in addition to possible imprisonment as provided by law, may be punished by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500). (B) A second or subsequent violation of subdivision (a)(1) is a Class B misdemeanor. (C) A violation of subdivision (a)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor if the person's carrying of a handgun occurred at a place open to the public where one (1) or more persons were present. Here are the ONLY Defenses to 39-17-1307. 39-17-1308. Defenses to unlawful possession or carrying of a weapon. — (a) It is a defense to the application of § 39-17-1307 if the possession or carrying was: (1) Of an unloaded rifle, shotgun or handgun not concealed on or about the person and the ammunition for the weapon was not in the immediate vicinity of the person or weapon; (2) By a person authorized to possess or carry the firearm pursuant to § 39-17-1315 or § 39-17-1351; (3) At the person's: (A) Place of residence; (B) Place of business; or (C) Premises; (4) Incident to lawful hunting, trapping, fishing, camping, sport shooting or other lawful activity; (5) By a person possessing a rifle or shotgun while engaged in the lawful protection of livestock from predatory animals; (6) By a Tennessee valley authority officer who holds a valid commission from the commissioner of safety pursuant to this part while the officer is in the performance of the officer's official duties; (7) By a state, county or municipal judge or any federal judge or any federal or county magistrate; (8) By a person possessing a club or baton who holds a valid state security guard/officer registration card as a private security guard/officer, issued by the commissioner, and who also has certification that the officer has had training in the use of club or baton that is valid and issued by a person certified to give training in the use of clubs or batons; (9) By any person possessing a club or baton who holds a certificate that the person has had training in the use of a club or baton for self-defense that is valid and issued by a certified person authorized to give training in the use of clubs or batons, and is not prohibited from purchasing a firearm under any local, state or federal laws; or (10) By any out-of-state, full-time, commissioned law enforcement officer who holds a valid commission card from the appropriate out-of-state law enforcement agency and a photo identification; provided, that if no valid commission card and photo identification are retained, then it shall be unlawful for that officer to carry firearms in this state and the provisions of this section shall not apply. The defense provided by this subdivision (a)(10) shall only be applicable if the state where the out-of-state officer is employed has entered into a reciprocity agreement with this state that allows a full-time, commissioned law enforcement officer in Tennessee to lawfully carry or possess a weapon in the other state. Po-Po |
|
Arrested charged, and convicted dumbasses that believed that. So go ahead and claim it. You will be losing said long gun and having a little fine and possibly a few days of unpaid vacation to contemplate your ignorance.
As silly as it is, to expect the police to be bound by the laws that govern us is a stretch. Those are for little people. Someone may be able to challenge it but the lawsuit would be ridiculously expensive and not guaranteed to succeed. And, generally, not a good idea. You also run the risk of establishing case law that gives more leeway in the law in the future. If you're going to do this, talk to a lawyer first. Don't do it then talk to a lawyer. Doesn't make it right but it is the reality. Your better bet is to take advantage of the recently turned legislature to get a new and more clear law to pass. |
|
Quoted:
Arrested charged, and convicted dumbasses that believed that. So go ahead and claim it. You will be losing said long gun and having a little fine and possibly a few days of unpaid vacation to contemplate your ignorance.
As silly as it is, to expect the police to be bound by the laws that govern us is a stretch. Those are for little people. Someone may be able to challenge it but the lawsuit would be ridiculously expensive and not guaranteed to succeed. And, generally, not a good idea. You also run the risk of establishing case law that gives more leeway in the law in the future. If you're going to do this, talk to a lawyer first. Don't do it then talk to a lawyer. Doesn't make it right but it is the reality. Your better bet is to take advantage of the recently turned legislature to get a new and more clear law to pass. I hate to tell you but unless the police chiefs directive on the back of his commission card says something like " is authorized to carry any and all firearms" instead of something like " is authorized to carry is service handgun" then a police officer is subject to the same laws as everyone else. Its just a matter of who's going to charge them? Po-Po |
|
Its just a matter of who's going to charge them?
That's kinda the point. Not being charged is the same as not applicable. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? In this case, I don't know that that applies. The argument seems to be: who is going to charge the guy carrying the rifle.
Answer: police but they lack the authority so what! try it, i dare you. no one points to a statute that authorizes it. aren't semantics fun? |
|
Quoted:
Its just a matter of who's going to charge them?
That's kinda the point. Not being charged is the same as not applicable. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? In this case, I don't know that that applies. The argument seems to be: who is going to charge the guy carrying the rifle.
Answer: police but they lack the authority so what! try it, i dare you. no one points to a statute that authorizes it. aren't semantics fun? In this case I think you guys are trying to be extremely nitpicky. I swore an oath to enforce the Laws of the State of TN. This is just one of the many statutes that is open for any LEO to enforce. THE one exception is State Troopers were for a long time the only LEO's who could walk up to you and demand to see your DL. There are certain circumstances where a particular LEA has PRIMARY jursdiction such as the TWRA and hunting laws. BUT unless I am mistaken as I have never done it other LEO's have secondary jurisdiction which can allow prosecution as the witness for primary agency.... IE I catch you poaching. I hold you for the Game Warden and then he lists me as the (CO)complainant and witness. Po-Po |
|
In this case I think you guys are trying to be extremely nitpicky.
well, wait until some smart ass with a damn good lawyer and more money than sense tries to challenge it
I'm still of the opinion that carrying the rifle is a legal no-no. But discussing why it is or isn't is still a valid discussion. I hold you for the Game Warden and then he lists me as the (CO)complainant and witness.
And that is why I still think it's a no-no. |
|
Quoted:
In this case I think you guys are trying to be extremely nitpicky.
well, wait until some smart ass with a damn good lawyer and more money than sense tries to challenge it
I'm still of the opinion that carrying the rifle is a legal no-no. But discussing why it is or isn't is still a valid discussion. I hold you for the Game Warden and then he lists me as the (CO)complainant and witness.
And that is why I still think it's a no-no. Sorry but I may have mistyped my intent. The nitpicky comment meant more that you are trying to look for something that's not there. IF someone can find a statute or court decision backing that I would love to see it. I am out of the LE business and left before my 15 yrs due to a non job related disability so I don't have the luxary of nationwide CCW. I obey the laws and do my job. Thats all. Po-Po |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
according to law the TWRA is the only LEA that can enforce this. Dare I suggest you be the test subject for your theory, sir???????
+1000000000000000000000000000000000000000. Arrested charged, and convicted dumbasses that believed that. So go ahead and claim it. You will be losing said long gun and having a little fine and possibly a few days of unpaid vacation to contemplate your ignorance. TCA: 39-17-1307. Unlawful carrying or possession of a weapon. — (a) (1) A person commits an offense who carries with the intent to go armed a firearm, a knife with a blade length exceeding four inches (4²), or a club. (2) (A) The first violation of subdivision (a)(1) is a Class C misdemeanor, and, in addition to possible imprisonment as provided by law, may be punished by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500). (B) A second or subsequent violation of subdivision (a)(1) is a Class B misdemeanor. (C) A violation of subdivision (a)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor if the person's carrying of a handgun occurred at a place open to the public where one (1) or more persons were present. Here are the ONLY Defenses to 39-17-1307. 39-17-1308. Defenses to unlawful possession or carrying of a weapon. — (a) It is a defense to the application of § 39-17-1307 if the possession or carrying was: (1) Of an unloaded rifle, shotgun or handgun not concealed on or about the person and the ammunition for the weapon was not in the immediate vicinity of the person or weapon; (2) By a person authorized to possess or carry the firearm pursuant to § 39-17-1315 or § 39-17-1351; (3) At the person's: (A) Place of residence; (B) Place of business; or (C) Premises; (4) Incident to lawful hunting, trapping, fishing, camping, sport shooting or other lawful activity; (5) By a person possessing a rifle or shotgun while engaged in the lawful protection of livestock from predatory animals; (6) By a Tennessee valley authority officer who holds a valid commission from the commissioner of safety pursuant to this part while the officer is in the performance of the officer's official duties; (7) By a state, county or municipal judge or any federal judge or any federal or county magistrate; (8) By a person possessing a club or baton who holds a valid state security guard/officer registration card as a private security guard/officer, issued by the commissioner, and who also has certification that the officer has had training in the use of club or baton that is valid and issued by a person certified to give training in the use of clubs or batons; (9) By any person possessing a club or baton who holds a certificate that the person has had training in the use of a club or baton for self-defense that is valid and issued by a certified person authorized to give training in the use of clubs or batons, and is not prohibited from purchasing a firearm under any local, state or federal laws; or (10) By any out-of-state, full-time, commissioned law enforcement officer who holds a valid commission card from the appropriate out-of-state law enforcement agency and a photo identification; provided, that if no valid commission card and photo identification are retained, then it shall be unlawful for that officer to carry firearms in this state and the provisions of this section shall not apply. The defense provided by this subdivision (a)(10) shall only be applicable if the state where the out-of-state officer is employed has entered into a reciprocity agreement with this state that allows a full-time, commissioned law enforcement officer in Tennessee to lawfully carry or possess a weapon in the other state. Po-Po First off insulting anyone on the board...including myself; is uncalled for. Thats the very arrogance that leaves a bad taste in the mouths of us the "unwashed"regarding LE. Second; I pose these questions, if for no other reason, to open public debate. I have found each person on this board to be more than capable of holding an intelligent discourse regarding interpretation of our laws. It certainly demonstrates that you DO NOT need to posses a law degree or a badge to interpret our gun laws. In fact, it is up to us....civilians.....to hold our elected and LE officials accountable. I have never backed away from that responsibility; and certainly don't intend to now. On to your quote; TCA 39-17-1308 is SILENT on vehicles. It dose not define or mention it. 39-17-1308 (a) (3) (A); (B); and (C) authorize that a lawful resident of tennessee may have a loaded firearm on his/her person or with in the vicinity. It is for this reason I believe the law has usurped it's authority and given definition to "vehicle" when it had no legal right to. Just because the general consensus says it is "illegal" dosn't make it so. The pendulem should have swung the other way. Moving to the castle doctrine( HB No. 1907; SB No.11) I am posting jpeg images of all 4 pages. This amendment to TCA 39-11-611 gives definition to "vehicle" and makes it lawful to defend yourself just as you would in "your home or business". If it is truly ILLEGAL to have a loaded firearm in your vehicle other than holding a carry permit; this new ammendment has no teeth. If on the other hand, our gunlaws have been stretched; to fit either a political or LE agenda; the castle doctrine, should and will, challenge the myths and possible illegal enforcement of previous law. 
The expediant thing to do would be to ammend TCA 39-17-1308, so that the language is consistent with the newly ammended TCA 39-11-611. I submit that any LEO who confiscates a weapon; from a vehicle; and the citizen was not involved in a criminal activity, now runs the risk of violating constitutional rights. As is always the case, time will tell how this is going to change "general consensus". I also submit that this is in the back of each DA's mind across the state; they would be foolish if it wasn't. It would be prudent for LEO's to give this pause as well. |
|
Quoted:
Arrested charged, and convicted dumbasses that believed that. So go ahead and claim it. You will be losing said long gun and having a little fine and possibly a few days of unpaid vacation to contemplate your ignorance.
As silly as it is, to expect the police to be bound by the laws that govern us is a stretch. Those are for little people. Someone may be able to challenge it but the lawsuit would be ridiculously expensive and not guaranteed to succeed. And, generally, not a good idea. You also run the risk of establishing case law that gives more leeway in the law in the future. If you're going to do this, talk to a lawyer first. Don't do it then talk to a lawyer. Doesn't make it right but it is the reality. Your better bet is to take advantage of the recently turned legislature to get a new and more clear law to pass. Amen |
 oops.
Im glad I havent been pulled over anywhere! I would be in large doo doo. I just talked to my brother LEO in florida and found out I coulda been in really large doo doo. I thought as long as your loaded mags where in the front and your rifle in the trunk you were alright. So your saying its not? About the florida thing, if you are carrying in Florida, if you get pulled over, have it in the glove box or on your person. NOT under your seat. Its a misdemeanor. Thats with or without permit. I had it under the seat, cause there is no way im driving 12 hours with a glock 23 on me! It starts hurtin bad when I get to Atlanta! |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
according to law the TWRA is the only LEA that can enforce this. Dare I suggest you be the test subject for your theory, sir???????
+1000000000000000000000000000000000000000. Arrested charged, and convicted dumbasses that believed that. So go ahead and claim it. You will be losing said long gun and having a little fine and possibly a few days of unpaid vacation to contemplate your ignorance. TCA: 39-17-1307. Unlawful carrying or possession of a weapon. — (a) (1) A person commits an offense who carries with the intent to go armed a firearm, a knife with a blade length exceeding four inches (4²), or a club. (2) (A) The first violation of subdivision (a)(1) is a Class C misdemeanor, and, in addition to possible imprisonment as provided by law, may be punished by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500). (B) A second or subsequent violation of subdivision (a)(1) is a Class B misdemeanor. (C) A violation of subdivision (a)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor if the person's carrying of a handgun occurred at a place open to the public where one (1) or more persons were present. Here are the ONLY Defenses to 39-17-1307. 39-17-1308. Defenses to unlawful possession or carrying of a weapon. — (a) It is a defense to the application of § 39-17-1307 if the possession or carrying was: (1) Of an unloaded rifle, shotgun or handgun not concealed on or about the person and the ammunition for the weapon was not in the immediate vicinity of the person or weapon; (2) By a person authorized to possess or carry the firearm pursuant to § 39-17-1315 or § 39-17-1351; (3) At the person's: (A) Place of residence; (B) Place of business; or (C) Premises; (4) Incident to lawful hunting, trapping, fishing, camping, sport shooting or other lawful activity; (5) By a person possessing a rifle or shotgun while engaged in the lawful protection of livestock from predatory animals; (6) By a Tennessee valley authority officer who holds a valid commission from the commissioner of safety pursuant to this part while the officer is in the performance of the officer's official duties; (7) By a state, county or municipal judge or any federal judge or any federal or county magistrate; (8) By a person possessing a club or baton who holds a valid state security guard/officer registration card as a private security guard/officer, issued by the commissioner, and who also has certification that the officer has had training in the use of club or baton that is valid and issued by a person certified to give training in the use of clubs or batons; (9) By any person possessing a club or baton who holds a certificate that the person has had training in the use of a club or baton for self-defense that is valid and issued by a certified person authorized to give training in the use of clubs or batons, and is not prohibited from purchasing a firearm under any local, state or federal laws; or (10) By any out-of-state, full-time, commissioned law enforcement officer who holds a valid commission card from the appropriate out-of-state law enforcement agency and a photo identification; provided, that if no valid commission card and photo identification are retained, then it shall be unlawful for that officer to carry firearms in this state and the provisions of this section shall not apply. The defense provided by this subdivision (a)(10) shall only be applicable if the state where the out-of-state officer is employed has entered into a reciprocity agreement with this state that allows a full-time, commissioned law enforcement officer in Tennessee to lawfully carry or possess a weapon in the other state. Po-Po First off insulting anyone on the board...including myself; is uncalled for. Thats the very arrogance that leaves a bad taste in the mouths of us the "unwashed"regarding LE. Second; I pose these questions, if for no other reason, to open public debate. I have found each person on this board to be more than capable of holding an intelligent discourse regarding interpretation of our laws. It certainly demonstrates that you DO NOT need to posses a law degree or a badge to interpret our gun laws. In fact, it is up to us....civilians.....to hold our elected and LE officials accountable. I have never backed away from that responsibility; and certainly don't intend to now. On to your quote; TCA 39-17-1308 is SILENT on vehicles. It dose not define or mention it. 39-17-1308 (a) (3) (A); (B); and (C) authorize that a lawful resident of tennessee may have a loaded firearm on his/her person or with in the vicinity. It is for this reason I believe the law has usurped it's authority and given definition to "vehicle" when it had no legal right to. Just because the general consensus says it is "illegal" dosn't make it so. The pendulem should have swung the other way. Moving to the castle doctrine( HB No. 1907; SB No.11) I am posting jpeg images of all 4 pages. This amendment to TCA 39-11-611 gives definition to "vehicle" and makes it lawful to defend yourself just as you would in "your home or business". If it is truly ILLEGAL to have a loaded firearm in your vehicle other than holding a carry permit; this new ammendment has no teeth. If on the other hand, our gunlaws have been stretched; to fit either a political or LE agenda; the castle doctrine, should and will, challenge the myths and possible illegal enforcement of previous law. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v87/caneyforkoutfitters/CDTN1.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v87/caneyforkoutfitters/CDTN2.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v87/caneyforkoutfitters/CDTN3.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v87/caneyforkoutfitters/CDTN4.jpg The expediant thing to do would be to ammend TCA 39-17-1308, so that the language is consistent with the newly ammended TCA 39-11-611. I submit that any LEO who confiscates a weapon; from a vehicle; and the citizen was not involved in a criminal activity, now runs the risk of violating constitutional rights. As is always the case, time will tell how this is going to change "general consensus". I also submit that this is in the back of each DA's mind across the state; they would be foolish if it wasn't. It would be prudent for LEO's to give this pause as well. What you don't seem to understand is that it is a defense if you use lethal force in your vehicle. The defense would be against a attempted murder, manslaughter, or other related charge. It does not say that you can legally carry carry a loaded rifle/shotgun in your vehicle in case you need it to defend yourself. It also states that you must not be violating other state laws either. If you are carrying a rifle/shotgun in your car and its loaded you are violating state law and there fore cannot rely on Castle as a defense. If you are carrying a handgun in your vehicle and its loaded and you do not have a HCP you are in violation of state law and cannot rely on Castle as a defense. The law is clear, you cannot be violating other state laws and rely on Castle. It says that in the first sentence. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
according to law the TWRA is the only LEA that can enforce this. Dare I suggest you be the test subject for your theory, sir???????
+1000000000000000000000000000000000000000. Arrested charged, and convicted dumbasses that believed that. So go ahead and claim it. You will be losing said long gun and having a little fine and possibly a few days of unpaid vacation to contemplate your ignorance. TCA: 39-17-1307. Unlawful carrying or possession of a weapon. — (a) (1) A person commits an offense who carries with the intent to go armed a firearm, a knife with a blade length exceeding four inches (4²), or a club. (2) (A) The first violation of subdivision (a)(1) is a Class C misdemeanor, and, in addition to possible imprisonment as provided by law, may be punished by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500). (B) A second or subsequent violation of subdivision (a)(1) is a Class B misdemeanor. (C) A violation of subdivision (a)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor if the person's carrying of a handgun occurred at a place open to the public where one (1) or more persons were present. Here are the ONLY Defenses to 39-17-1307. 39-17-1308. Defenses to unlawful possession or carrying of a weapon. — (a) It is a defense to the application of § 39-17-1307 if the possession or carrying was: (1) Of an unloaded rifle, shotgun or handgun not concealed on or about the person and the ammunition for the weapon was not in the immediate vicinity of the person or weapon; (2) By a person authorized to possess or carry the firearm pursuant to § 39-17-1315 or § 39-17-1351; (3) At the person's: (A) Place of residence; (B) Place of business; or (C) Premises; (4) Incident to lawful hunting, trapping, fishing, camping, sport shooting or other lawful activity; (5) By a person possessing a rifle or shotgun while engaged in the lawful protection of livestock from predatory animals; (6) By a Tennessee valley authority officer who holds a valid commission from the commissioner of safety pursuant to this part while the officer is in the performance of the officer's official duties; (7) By a state, county or municipal judge or any federal judge or any federal or county magistrate; (8) By a person possessing a club or baton who holds a valid state security guard/officer registration card as a private security guard/officer, issued by the commissioner, and who also has certification that the officer has had training in the use of club or baton that is valid and issued by a person certified to give training in the use of clubs or batons; (9) By any person possessing a club or baton who holds a certificate that the person has had training in the use of a club or baton for self-defense that is valid and issued by a certified person authorized to give training in the use of clubs or batons, and is not prohibited from purchasing a firearm under any local, state or federal laws; or (10) By any out-of-state, full-time, commissioned law enforcement officer who holds a valid commission card from the appropriate out-of-state law enforcement agency and a photo identification; provided, that if no valid commission card and photo identification are retained, then it shall be unlawful for that officer to carry firearms in this state and the provisions of this section shall not apply. The defense provided by this subdivision (a)(10) shall only be applicable if the state where the out-of-state officer is employed has entered into a reciprocity agreement with this state that allows a full-time, commissioned law enforcement officer in Tennessee to lawfully carry or possess a weapon in the other state. Po-Po First off insulting anyone on the board...including myself; is uncalled for. Thats the very arrogance that leaves a bad taste in the mouths of us the "unwashed"regarding LE. Second; I pose these questions, if for no other reason, to open public debate. I have found each person on this board to be more than capable of holding an intelligent discourse regarding interpretation of our laws. It certainly demonstrates that you DO NOT need to posses a law degree or a badge to interpret our gun laws. In fact, it is up to us....civilians.....to hold our elected and LE officials accountable. I have never backed away from that responsibility; and certainly don't intend to now. On to your quote; TCA 39-17-1308 is SILENT on vehicles. It dose not define or mention it. 39-17-1308 (a) (3) (A); (B); and (C) authorize that a lawful resident of tennessee may have a loaded firearm on his/her person or with in the vicinity. It is for this reason I believe the law has usurped it's authority and given definition to "vehicle" when it had no legal right to. Just because the general consensus says it is "illegal" dosn't make it so. The pendulem should have swung the other way. Moving to the castle doctrine( HB No. 1907; SB No.11) I am posting jpeg images of all 4 pages. This amendment to TCA 39-11-611 gives definition to "vehicle" and makes it lawful to defend yourself just as you would in "your home or business". If it is truly ILLEGAL to have a loaded firearm in your vehicle other than holding a carry permit; this new ammendment has no teeth. If on the other hand, our gunlaws have been stretched; to fit either a political or LE agenda; the castle doctrine, should and will, challenge the myths and possible illegal enforcement of previous law. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v87/caneyforkoutfitters/CDTN1.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v87/caneyforkoutfitters/CDTN2.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v87/caneyforkoutfitters/CDTN3.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v87/caneyforkoutfitters/CDTN4.jpg The expediant thing to do would be to ammend TCA 39-17-1308, so that the language is consistent with the newly ammended TCA 39-11-611. I submit that any LEO who confiscates a weapon; from a vehicle; and the citizen was not involved in a criminal activity, now runs the risk of violating constitutional rights. As is always the case, time will tell how this is going to change "general consensus". I also submit that this is in the back of each DA's mind across the state; they would be foolish if it wasn't. It would be prudent for LEO's to give this pause as well. What you don't seem to understand is that it is a defense if you use lethal force in your vehicle. The defense would be against a attempted murder, manslaughter, or other related charge. It does not say that you can legally carry carry a loaded rifle/shotgun in your vehicle in case you need it to defend yourself. It also states that you must not be violating other state laws either. If you are carrying a rifle/shotgun in your car and its loaded you are violating state law and there fore cannot rely on Castle as a defense. If you are carrying a handgun in your vehicle and its loaded and you do not have a HCP you are in violation of state law and cannot rely on Castle as a defense. The law is clear, you cannot be violating other state laws and rely on Castle. It says that in the first sentence. POINT #1 Ding Ding Ding Ding, WE have a winner. Just because you have the right of self defense after the fact does not give you the right to carry a loaded firearm with the intent to go armed. IF you are caught before any lethal encounters YOU are the criminal and are going to be treated according to that individual LEO discreation. As long as its a misdemeanor they can A) cite you and confiscate the weapon with a receipt filled out. B) Arrest you and book you with the receipt filled out or C) ignore it and let you go on your merry way. POINT #2 I was insulting no one directly or indirectly. I posted the black letter law. IF it goes against your opinion I hate it for you. I am treated no better and actually a little worse when I have dealings with LEO's now because for some strange reason they think that I could not "hack it" and got out. IF I did not have Muscular Dystrophy and could still run I would still be commissioned. As it is I am still certified by the State. The position I now have allows me to make about 2.5 times what I used to make and I still do everything that any Detective does except the actual physical arrest. So for those who got their feelings hurt. I am sorry. 
Po-Po |
|
I understand the "Law" perfectly; it's also against the law to have a club; a knife(blade) longer than four inches; an axe or machete/sword on your person or in the vicinity for the purpose of being armed. Before carry permits; the only "legal" way to defend yourself in your vehicle; would have been with bare knuckles or a pocket knife. If you used a firearm LOL; "legally" would have been as a club! with the ammo in the trunk; locked up. Or turn it around; the firearm in the trunk and then you could throw the ammo at your attacker. Give me a break. If you defended yourself with a longarm; you would have to prove that the firearm was carried legally.We know what a farce that is. Part of the reason LE was able to enforce confiscation of weapons from vehicles is because the law never established a vehicle as a persons legal PREMISE. The castle doctrine dose just that.
The Tenn. AG in 1996 offered this explaination that established the legality of the statutes we have in question QUESTIONS
Article I, Section 26 of the Tennessee Constitution provides for the right to keep and bear arms for the common defense. Do the following statutes violate this provision? 1. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1307(a), making it an offense to carry a firearm with the intent to go armed; 2. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1309, making it an offense to carry a firearm on school property; 3. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1311, making it an offense to possess or carry a firearm with the intent to go armed in a public park or recreational facility; and 4. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1305, making it an offense to possess a firearm on any premises where alcoholic beverages are sold. OPINIONS Each of these statutes is a valid exercise of the state's regulatory authority under Article I, Section 26 of the Tennessee Constitution and is therefore constitutional. ANALYSIS Article I, Section 26 of the Tennessee Constitution states "That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime." Tennessee case law explains the purpose of the last clause. The additional clause in the Constitution of 1870 was adopted to remove all doubt as to the power of the Legislature to regulate the use of the arms which the citizens had a right to keep. It was not intended that the keeping or using of such arms should be prohibited, but that the use thereof by wearing or carrying about the person might be so regulated by law as to prevent crime. It was crime resulting from the habit of wearing arms, or of going armed, which the Convention sought to prevent, by expressly conferring this power of the Legislature. I literally have no argument here; however, "Vehicles" has never been properly addressed; and is subject to scrutiny....both ways. Hence, the inconsistency to which it has been enforced. The castle doctrine(39-11-611) only went half way; it establishes your vehicle as part of your legal premise to which you can defend yourself, using deadly force. But the legislation didn't address the silence of 39-17-1308"defenses" in regard to "vehicles". Federal statutes address it while traveling on interstates and TWRA regulations address it regarding game laws. I understand this. However, the door is open regarding private, city, county, and state roads; parking lots etc. You can make an argument either way, again.......because of the laws silence. I submit that we have not been forceful enough on this issue both from a legal individual defense and legislative standpoint. We need to address our legislature and have them ammend TCA 39-17-1308 to include "vehicles" with home. property, business, and premise there of. We also need to be having these discussions with LEO's at every level, and let them know we are aware of the law; down to every semicolon and period. Hopefully we will redirect minds and perspective; even if current law is not changed. |
|
JLOWE and Policeman,
I have nothing personal with either of you; heck I don't even know you. It's obvious you both know the the TCA quite well; but I hope you can see my point. 39-17-1308 leaves the door open to inconsistent enforcement. Po Po proved it with his last post. Po Po, I took some offense to this: "Arrested charged, and convicted dumbasses that believed that. So go ahead and claim it." However, I don't hold grudges. All is well. I understand where you both are coming from, and I, like you do not want to encourage anyone to openly and knowingly violate the law. But when that law is unclear and has a history of being abused because of it's ambiguity; we should discuss it; hopefully in a rational manner. To each his own on this one. |
|
I do not see any opening to it. The law is very clear to me. It states that if you have a legal right to be there, are not violating the law, you have the right to defend your self without retreat. If you carry a rifle loaded, it is illegal, there is no if, ands, or buts about it. The inconsistent enforcement you fear is not going to happen.
I don't think that all people who carry unlawfully are dumbasses, people make poor decisions sometimes and get caught. |