<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: More on TN&#8217;s committing felonies while armed law</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/12/28/more_on_tns_committing_felonies_while_armed_law/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/12/28/more_on_tns_committing_felonies_while_armed_law/</link>
	<description>Remember, I do this to entertain me... not you.</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:55:16 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Rivrdog</title>
		<link>http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/12/28/more_on_tns_committing_felonies_while_armed_law/#comment-192808</link>
		<dc:creator>Rivrdog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Dec 2007 05:58:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/12/28/more_on_tns_committing_felonies_while_armed_law/#comment-192808</guid>
		<description>My statement stands as well, unless you can show me language from the TN Constitution which prohibits affirmative defenses, or specific language in your CHL law which states that the law does NOT provide an affirmative defense.

Wouldn't that be your first motion on such a criminal defense, Counselor? Tactics are also a part of criminal defense, as I was frequently reminded during my 25 years behind the badge. If a defense attorney was able to get a charge tossed at a Probable Cause hearing (because the PC didn't match the law), then I was back to Square One in my investigation, but if that same attorney decided to go the Constitutional Challenge route, his client usually rotted in jail for years until the case finally hit the Court of Appeals (on a serious felony, of course). 

Had I continued with the Pre-Law studies I started at the Mizzou "Law Barn", I would have probably been a defense counsel. To me, their work is the most fascinating of all the branches of law.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My statement stands as well, unless you can show me language from the TN Constitution which prohibits affirmative defenses, or specific language in your CHL law which states that the law does NOT provide an affirmative defense.</p>
<p>Wouldn&#8217;t that be your first motion on such a criminal defense, Counselor? Tactics are also a part of criminal defense, as I was frequently reminded during my 25 years behind the badge. If a defense attorney was able to get a charge tossed at a Probable Cause hearing (because the PC didn&#8217;t match the law), then I was back to Square One in my investigation, but if that same attorney decided to go the Constitutional Challenge route, his client usually rotted in jail for years until the case finally hit the Court of Appeals (on a serious felony, of course). </p>
<p>Had I continued with the Pre-Law studies I started at the Mizzou &#8220;Law Barn&#8221;, I would have probably been a defense counsel. To me, their work is the most fascinating of all the branches of law.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nathan Moore</title>
		<link>http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/12/28/more_on_tns_committing_felonies_while_armed_law/#comment-192795</link>
		<dc:creator>Nathan Moore</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:43:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/12/28/more_on_tns_committing_felonies_while_armed_law/#comment-192795</guid>
		<description>I think my analysis holds. that a concealed carry permit does not enable you to carry a gun and do something illegal. The new language in the statute simply expands what is illegal, in my view, beyond the bounds of rational public policy concerns. Surely the legislature didn't mean what they ended up saying. Unfortunately, they said it.

And unfortunately, I have to disagree with the assertion that the courts will fix it, especially in Tennessee, where the court of appeals tends to interpret statutes quite literally and aren't terribly activist, in either good or bad ways. 

That being said, as soon as I get a client charged under this particular provision, I'll be the first one challenging its constitutionality.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think my analysis holds. that a concealed carry permit does not enable you to carry a gun and do something illegal. The new language in the statute simply expands what is illegal, in my view, beyond the bounds of rational public policy concerns. Surely the legislature didn&#8217;t mean what they ended up saying. Unfortunately, they said it.</p>
<p>And unfortunately, I have to disagree with the assertion that the courts will fix it, especially in Tennessee, where the court of appeals tends to interpret statutes quite literally and aren&#8217;t terribly activist, in either good or bad ways. </p>
<p>That being said, as soon as I get a client charged under this particular provision, I&#8217;ll be the first one challenging its constitutionality.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rivrdog</title>
		<link>http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/12/28/more_on_tns_committing_felonies_while_armed_law/#comment-192790</link>
		<dc:creator>Rivrdog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Dec 2007 01:43:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/12/28/more_on_tns_committing_felonies_while_armed_law/#comment-192790</guid>
		<description>I think that this interpretation of your enhanced-penalty rule is incorrect. Possessing a valid CHL gives you what is known as an "affirmative defense" to any possession of concealed weapons charges arising out of such carriage (in lawful places, it wouldn't protect you in a court building, for example), and also to any penalty enhancement.

The first such case to come before your Superior Court will probably be tossed on motion of the defense attorney, or definitely when it hits your Court of Appeals, because the law is a back-door way of removing a civil right (the right to an affirmative defense is an absolute right), and the courts aren't supposed to allow these back doors to exist.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think that this interpretation of your enhanced-penalty rule is incorrect. Possessing a valid CHL gives you what is known as an &#8220;affirmative defense&#8221; to any possession of concealed weapons charges arising out of such carriage (in lawful places, it wouldn&#8217;t protect you in a court building, for example), and also to any penalty enhancement.</p>
<p>The first such case to come before your Superior Court will probably be tossed on motion of the defense attorney, or definitely when it hits your Court of Appeals, because the law is a back-door way of removing a civil right (the right to an affirmative defense is an absolute right), and the courts aren&#8217;t supposed to allow these back doors to exist.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: USCitizen</title>
		<link>http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/12/28/more_on_tns_committing_felonies_while_armed_law/#comment-192789</link>
		<dc:creator>USCitizen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Dec 2007 22:47:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/12/28/more_on_tns_committing_felonies_while_armed_law/#comment-192789</guid>
		<description>But think of how &lt;b&gt;safe&lt;/b&gt; we will all be when EVERYONE's in prison. /sarcasm</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>But think of how <b>safe</b> we will all be when EVERYONE&#8217;s in prison. /sarcasm</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
