Going to Tenn for vacation, questiosn.

[Fallguy]

Guess maybe I should have done all of this in one long post, but was posting info as I looked it up or thought of it.

We know from the report Mallick had a TX carry permit (not sure about Ricks) so that is why I think he was charged with 1359 and not 1307. Now if didn't have a permit I could see 1307.

Also I would think the only reason they were charged with 109 is because if was at the Security Checkpoint...had been at baggage claim or any other common area...I would wager it would have been 1359 only.

 

[SgtScott31]

Well I was wrong about one thing...the airport in Memphis is posted.

There was a guy who just recently forget about a handgun in his backpack.

Although it doesn't say in the article, an attorney in Memphis on another board I'm on checked....and both of these guys were charged with 39-17-1359 not 39-17-1307 Just to note, there is one more additional charges on each person.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2011/dec/10/gun-left-in-bag-grounds-traveler/

Although both of these men were arrested, the attorney I mentioned above represented a man that was only cited for a 1359 violation (no other charges) and the case was dismissed on the first court date.

This happens almost weekly at BNA. We use 1307, regardless of permit status. The DA I spoke with (who still has not replied back with me about our 1359 inquiry..ugh), had mentioned that he thinks 1307 is more appropriate because of the amount of people around (i.e. public area). I have used 109 before regarding airport/aircraft security, but not involving a firearm. Technically we could hit them with both charges, but we don't. The 109 charge is basically a catch-all for anyone that attempts to enter the sterile area contrary to federal law. The only time I can recall using this involved someone who attempted to artfully conceal a knife or some other prohibited item to get on the airplane. They were not doing it with the intent to commit harm, but either to (a) get it past TSA (bad idea) or (b) didn't want to check it and took the chance to get it on the plane undetected. I could see artfully concealing a significant weapon, like a large knife or firearm would land them the felony charge.

With that said, it's not uncommon for a judge to dismiss the 1307/1359 charge or put the person on pre-trial diversion if the investigation revealed it was a legitimate mistake and no evidence of malice/foul play.

p.s. The 109 charge will apply if they attempt to gain access to any sterile area. That could be any entry point to the airfield, concourses, or terminal ramp. The only time I've used it involved the security checkpoint though.

 

[Fallguy]

I'm not sure why being in a public area with people would make 1307 more appropriate. 1307 can be an A or B misdemeanor depending on if people are around. But having a carry permit is for the very purpose to be able to carry in public. Also having a permit is a clear defense against 1307.

I do agree that 109 looks sort of like a catch all and if it looked like someone was actually trying to get past security with a weapon (not "I forgot") it being the felony charge. Also I do see that 109 can be used for trying to gain access to certain areas even without a weapon.

I sure wish that DA would get back to you with his 1307/1359 opinion and explination....

Is there an online resource for Davidson Co like the ones I used to look up the info in Shelby Co?

If so can you give me the name and/or date of the last person with a permit that was charged with 1307?

 

[Oh Shoot]

I'm not sure why being in a public area with people would make 1307 more appropriate. 1307 can be an A or B misdemeanor depending on if people are around. ...

Just a note: A, B, or C.

B is for repeat offenses of C ("non-public", like in your car or walking alone, whatever)
A is public.

- OS

 

[SgtScott31]

Although the HCP is a defense to 1307, technically the law is titled "unlawful" carry w/intent to go armed. If you're carrying unlawfully (by disobeying the sign), then it's applicable. At least I'm assuming that's how our ADAs see it. That's what we've always used. Here is the court link for Nashville/Davidson Co.:

http://ccc.nashville.gov/portal/page/portal/ccc/caseSearch/caseSearchPublic/caseSearchPublicForms

I can't give you the names of those where the cases have not been finalized, but I'll try to dig up one of my prior arrests. Since I'm on midnights, it's been quite a while since I've arrested someone at the checkpoint, but I'll try to get you one.

And you're right about 109. It goes for anything that TSA deems is "prohibited." If you try to sneak a bottle of water through, you could be charged or if you attempt to gain entry by other means (climb a fence, etc). Basically anything that contradicts what is permitted to get into a sterile area (ramp, AOA, etc).

 

[Fallguy]

I really don't think it is just the title of the law you go by, but what it what it says within it. If that was the case, when a person with a HCP carried in room where a judicial proceeding was taking place or in a park where the city opted out, they could be charged with 1307 also. But I think we agree, we disagree on this.

What I am trying to find is an actual case where someone with a permit was charged with 1307 just for being past a 1359 sign.

If/When I have the information on such a case, I am going to contact my State Rep to request an AG opinion (as I have in the past) because I said, I think it is the wrong application. But either way it needs to be clarified.