In the previous post (which I was going to talk about before he beat me to it), Linoge said:
On a more topical note, I am not entirely sure why the shooter was released… Tennessee does have an “affirmative defense” concerning carrying firearms in prohibited locations (specifically: if you do so, and you have to lawfully defend yourself, the state cannot charge you with carrying in a prohibited location), but that is predicated on actually having a perimt – I am not sure how it works if you lawfully defend yourself (assuming what the shooter did was lawful) with a concealed handgun that you did not have a permit to carry.
The answer is that the law doesn’t care if you have the permit or not. Here’s the actual text, TCA 39-17-1322:
A person shall not be charged with or convicted of a violation under this part if the person possessed, displayed or employed a handgun in justifiable self-defense or in justifiable defense of another during the commission of a crime in which that person or the other person defended was a victim.
The “part” mentioned is part 13, which is weapons offenses as a whole. Basically they would have to let him go the second they realized the shooting was justifiable. Note also that this would cover the shooter even if he had been drinking, so he can’t be charged under 39-17-1321.
IANAL, YMMV.
Ahah! Finally beat you to a topic.
Thanks for clearing that up, though. Guess I should have paid more attention to the law when I was reading through it – that certainly explains why the police let him go.
put it in print
As a follow-up to the bar shooting in Tellico Plains, it is looking like the shooter really, honestly, and truly did not have a handgun carry permit: “He doesn’t have a permit for the gun as far as we know,”…