Last month we reported on the arrest of a Tennessee Permit Holder who violated a “Gun Free Zone”.  Almost everyone we spoke to, law enforcement and attorneys, said it never should have happened but it did.  Now, we report on the final chapter that was played out in court on September 30,1997. 

To recap, the permit holder took a friend into the emergency room entrance of a local hospital.  On the outside of the emergency room doors, there were no notices about no “firearms” on the premises.  However, as the permit holder entered the hospital, he noticed a “no guns on premise” inside on the wall.  When he saw this notice, he left his friend in the hospital and he went out of the building to his vehicle where he left his “carry” gun.  His vehicle was parked on a public street not in the parking lot of the hospital.  The permit holder did not go back into the hospital but stayed outside of the emergency room doors since he still had a small derringer in his pants pocket.  He felt since the pocket derringer was small, no one would suspect he was carrying it.  However, while outside the hospital he was confronted by local police who asked him if he had a firearm.  When he said he did, they put cuffs on him, patted him down, took the derringer and told him he was under arrest.  When he told them that he had a legal permit to carry, they told him that someone had seen him inside the hospital with a gun on.  He told them that he only saw the notice when he entered the emergency room door and when he saw the notice, he went to his vehicle and left his carry gun.  This did not help.  He was arrested and taken to jail where he stayed for five (5) hours.  When someone finally asked him if he wanted to post bail, he said he could have done it five hour ago since he had enough cash on him to do it.  He posted bond with his own funds, instead of a bondsman, and was released.  He was not given his two guns back since they would be used as evidence in court.  In addition to the derringer they took from his pants pocket, they also went into his auto and retrieved his .38 caliber carry gun. 

On September 30, 1997, he appeared in court with his attorney.  His attorney had already asked the District Attorney if the charges could be dropped since the individual tried to comply with the notice as soon as he viewed it.  He also wanted the DA to know that his client was legally armed when he was arrested.  The charge of carrying an illegal weapon and “intent of going armed” should be dismissed because his client was legally armed and had his permit in his possession when charged.  It didn't make any difference to the DA, he was not going to dismiss the charges.  Upon reading the statures, the permit holders attorney asked his if he wanted to plead guilty since the maximum fine was $ 500 and he might receive a class “A” misdemeanor but, he probable could get his guns back and not loose his license.  The permit holder wanted to fight the issue but, he was told how much it was going to cost and how long it might take to fight the charges.  The permit holder asked his attorney to speak to the DA and see if the fine could be small and, if he would get his guns back.  The deal was struck with a small fine, a class “B” misdemeanor and, subject to the whims of the judge, he should get his guns back.  The permit holder was concerned about the remark about the judge since he knew the law stated that the judge could not keep his guns.  His attorney stated that this particular judge was not up for re-election and he was never prone to give any guns back.  This is when the permit holder asked us to speak to the DA through his attorney since we seemed to know more about this law than his attorney did.  When we asked the DA if he would be satisfied with one (1) of the guns, if we could get the judge to agree to it.  The DA said that was fine with him but, he did not think the judge would do it.  When the permit holders attorney asked for the guns back since the permit holder agreed to plead guilty and accept a fine and misdemeanor, the judge refused.  The attorney said the this was an individual who had a legal permit to carry guns issued by the Tennessee Department Of Safety.  The judge said that the attorney should have told him he worked for the “Corrections Department”.  The attorney said he was not with Corrections but just an average citizen who was legally armed at the time of his arrest.  The judge had no idea what the attorney was talking about, if he was not in law enforcement he should not have guns!  When his attorney stated that the DA would be happy with just one of the guns, the judge asked which one was in the vehicle and that was the gun the permit holder could keep.  The derringer was given to the DA to be destroyed.  The permit holder was not happy but, since the agreement had already been signed, there was not much he could do.  We felt he was lucky to get out of the courtroom alive with this judge on the bench. 

This one case should make it clear to all of us how carefully we need to be while carrying a weapon.  No one seems to care about self-protection, this judge didn't care about state law, and it is the legally armed permit holder who is at risk of loosing in a court case.  We must address the situation of the posting of the notices.  Currently the burden is on the legally armed individual in Tennessee to seek out any “Gun Free Zone” notice.  Under current state law, there is no mandated requirement on an organization as to where the notices have to be posted, what language, size of notice, or anything at all.  In addition to this, it should be added to our Tennessee Codes that a valid Tennessee permit should be a defense to the charge of “with the intent of going armed”!!!!  If this were in the codes at the time, this permit holder may not have faced this situation at all.  What happened in this incident could happen to any permit holder.  ¶