Thundar
Regular Member
And now you are starting to get it. You are 100% correct. This is what a defense to a crime means.
How can that be a defence to a crime? What you describe is an affirmative defence.
And now you are starting to get it. You are 100% correct. This is what a defense to a crime means.
You don't have the whole story and this thread is only one of MANY.I reserve judgement as I also see he is doing something to bring attention to these invasive laws.
Yeah sure, whatever...How can that be a defence to a crime? What you describe is an affirmative defence.
Agreed. But, until the law is changed it is up to LE to be reasonable. It seems that those cops were trying to be reasonable. Thus my view regarding LE simply giving the benefit of the doubt to "reasonably armed" citizens and not "following" the law and arresting first asking later. Once again, well done TN LE.I agree but a TN LEO has PC to stop, ...
Well, according to the news reports and the city counsil in those reports, that specific gun in-hand incident was not exactly in violation of local code, nor does it seem to have been a violation of state law. The city nixxed the whole of their gun laws as a result of that incident it seems, based on a reason that the cops would use state law anyway. The other antics, including the gun in-hand incident, certainly seems to confirm his words to harm gun rights.You don't have the whole story and this thread is only one of MANY.
Do some research on "Radnor Lake" (where he carried a slung "AK" handgun and moved it from his back to ready position seconds before encountering a ranger)
"Kwikrnu"
"Brentwood Library" (where he carried to an off limits location)
"Belle Meade" (this one where he carried a handgun in his hand while walking around town).
And then read HIS WORDS where he says he will work AGAINST the cause of gun rights.
Agreed. But, until the law is changed it is up to LE to be reasonable. It seems that those cops were trying to be reasonable. Thus my view regarding LE simply giving the benefit of the doubt to "reasonably armed" citizens and not "following" the law and arresting first asking later. Once again, well done TN LE.
The exact nature of the "wired shut" will be key here. It seems that the cops could be at risk. The allegation that a "wired shut", no magazine inserted, firearm must be loaded may be difficult to gain a conviction. If he has all of his defenses are valid then he will not be convicted.
This will be a interesting case to follow.
Nothing here mentions a LOADED firearm. The law you have cited only mentions that it is illegal to go armed with a firearm. It says nothing about a loaded or unloaded firearm. Did you leave some of the statute off?
It does not mention "loaded." However, it does mention "intent to go armed"; and one of the defenses is that the firearm was "unloaded" (as per the definition of TN law). As such and as I understand it, someone has the intent to go armed based on case law if they have a loaded firearm and if none of the exemptions under section 1307 or other defenses under section 1308 apply.
Yes. The carrying or possessing of ANY firearm is a crime.
Hell, you can't even have one in your vehicle unless you have an HCP, and can't have one in chamber even then.
No, it isn't. Only possession with intent to go armed. Which means loaded. And loaded also means having ammo readily accessible.
....That is incorrect. You can have a round chambered if you have a HCP.
Actually Kingfish is correct, although it is possession w/intent go go armed, the handgun doesn't have to be loaded for the charge to be applicable. ...
While most officers will not arrest if they know the suspect has a defense, some decidedly WILL.
It is just as wrong to you to imply that all officers won't as it is for the LEO-bashers to imply all officers will!...
In my experience, wrongful arrests that do not result in a payday far outnumber those that do.
I said, "But nowhere is there an exception to having a loaded long gun on your person in public. Hell, you can't even have one in your vehicle unless you have an HCP, and can't have one in chamber even then."
Thus I repeat, no round chambered in long gun in vehicle, HCP or not. Only exception is in justifiable self defense.
I'd like to see reference to a case where someone was convicted (or even charged) with 39-17-1307 (a)(1) (the "intent to go armed" part) for an unloaded firearm.
But nonetheless, my statement still is valid, a loaded firearm is always a de facto definition of intent to go armed, and one needs an exception or defense to counter that.
- OS
Let's also remember that the subject of this thread did not do anything to let the cops know that he had any defense (assuming that he does) to the PC of the crime that they witnessed. This arrest was clearly not "beyond the pale."