Thundar
Regular Member
How can that be a defence to a crime? What you describe is an affirmative defence.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Look Who Made The News Again
- Thread starter John Pierce
- Start date
How can that be a defence to a crime? What you describe is an affirmative defence.
Kingfish
Regular Member
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.
Kingfish
Regular Member
Yeah sure, whatever...
OC for ME
Regular Member
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.
OC for ME
Regular Member
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.
DocWalker
Regular Member
"It seems that the cops could be at risk."
I finally get were you are going with this.....Officer Safety.
_____________________________________________
"reasonably armed"
We should trust the goverment to dictate this for us I guess.
_____________________________________________
I'm usally pro LEO but I wouldn't trust most of them just on face value. If the law said they can do something like this one does I would error on the side of caution that they will even if at this time most don't. This is where they say we have a law but we are not going to enforce it...the fine print reads until we decide it is time too.
I guess I'm a little more of a sckeptic when the wolf tells the sheep to go to sleep he will look out for us.
A loaded firearm is always intent to go armed in TN. The defenses include HCP, sporting activity, on your own property, etc. 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.
Correct. Though nowhere in TCA is "going armed" defined as "loaded firearm", that is de facto the definition when it comes to guns.
No, it isn't. Only possession with intent to go armed. Which means loaded. And loaded also means having ammo readily accessible.
And I don't understand the comments regarding a cased firearm as being a defense. It is just as illegal to walk around with a loaded cased rifle as an uncased one. If locked, it may bring up other issues regarding necessity of a search warrant, but the fact that it it cased, or locked, is not a defense for having it on your person, or even in your vehicle.
Even the federal "Safe Passage" part of FOPA does not exempt you from prosecution for a loaded firearm in a locked case.
- OS
Last edited:
SgtScott31
Regular Member
Doc what you fail to see is that state law specifically also says "it's a defense to prosecution...." involving firearm defenses. LEOs, even if they're ticked off (or whatever) do not go around arresting people for the heck of it. When we arrest, we're prosecuting someone for a crime. When the person has a defense to said prosecution (on site) we normally do not go any further. That would tick the prosecutors off and the officer would likely get disciplined for it. I know many do not like how are laws are written, but you will find that TN IS one of the more laid back states with gun ownership carry.
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. If it is unloaded, it is a defense to prosecution (under 39-17-1308) just as possessing a handgun carry permit is. The actual text of 39-17-1307 says "....who carries w/the intent to go armed a firearm...." If it said "loaded" firearm then you would be correct, but it doesn't say that. Again semantics, but it's the text of that law.
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. If it is unloaded, it is a defense to prosecution (under 39-17-1308) just as possessing a handgun carry permit is. The actual text of 39-17-1307 says "....who carries w/the intent to go armed a firearm...." If it said "loaded" firearm then you would be correct, but it doesn't say that. Again semantics, but it's the text of that law.
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
Last edited:
eye95
Well-known member
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!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
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!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
I assume that's responding to me.
Yep, a cop can arrest you for anything. There's also wrongful arrest alternative in return for frivolous ones, some of which pay off handsomely.
Certainly not uncommon in TN:
https://www.google.com/search?q=wro...rest+tennessee&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official
- OS
Last edited:
eye95
Well-known member
In my experience, wrongful arrests that do not result in a payday far outnumber those that do. Jonathon Norris, and two poor souls in VA come to mind. St. John is an exception to the rule. I hope Roy Call is also.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
I'm sure that's true, but some cases are clearly beyond the pale, hence the payouts. In the same vein, very few LEOs arrest folks for circumstances unwarranted by law in the first place, and I'd include arresting someone for intent to go armed with an unloaded firearm in the likely to pay category.
- OS
SgtScott31
Regular Member
Ok I misunderstood you were referring to a long gun on the first part.
As far as the second I highly doubt you will find case, but that doesn't mean if an officer did arrest involving an unloaded firearm he would be incorrectly charging someone with 39-17-1307. There are certainly circumstances I can see it happening (i.e. gang banger with no HCP carrying an unloaded pistol). He could use the unloaded part as a defense, but...
eye95
Well-known member
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."
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
Wasn't even comparing this to Kwik's situation, only responding to you in general. It would only be applicable to Kwik's escapade if LEO's had clear evidence that no offense had occurred and arrested him anyway.
Showing registration for the suppressor and still be arrested for it, in point. He also wouldn't let them absolutely ascertain that the firearm was unloaded either, so seems they would have been safe enough to arrest him for unlawful carry too.
- OS
Last edited:
eye95
Well-known member
Just trying to make sure the the idiotic actions of the subject carrier did not get lost in the theoretical rhetoric.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
SgtScott31
Regular Member
That's my whole point. I'm trying to fathom why he intentionally gets arrested by refusing to provide proof that what he's doing is legal, then turns around and files a lawsuit on actions that were completely legal on the part of the law enforcement officers on scene. If that's his way of pushing gun rights his elevator isn't going to the top.
eye95
Well-known member
And his actions do not further the cause of gun rights. They make a mockery of it, making the rest of us look moronically thuggish.
I detest all that he does. He will end up in jail or dead--and I probably won't think it an injustice.
I detest all that he does. He will end up in jail or dead--and I probably won't think it an injustice.
SFCRetired
Regular Member
Just as a little note to this: I learned of his latest escapade while scanning through CopBlock. He had quite a nice little writeup for himself.
As for his elevator not going to the top, from what I have followed of his exploits, it doesn't even get out of the basement. Sad, but I really do think something is not right with him and I definitely agree with eye95 that he is either going to end up in jail or dead. All it would take for the latter is to have someone, either cop or armed citizen, feel sufficiently threatened by, or misread, his actions.
Disclaimer: No, I am not a CopBlock fan. Far too many of their stories appear to be either made up or attempts to provoke.
As for his elevator not going to the top, from what I have followed of his exploits, it doesn't even get out of the basement. Sad, but I really do think something is not right with him and I definitely agree with eye95 that he is either going to end up in jail or dead. All it would take for the latter is to have someone, either cop or armed citizen, feel sufficiently threatened by, or misread, his actions.
Disclaimer: No, I am not a CopBlock fan. Far too many of their stories appear to be either made up or attempts to provoke.