JayC

My class was just like any other, the handgun instructor was a good guy, but the fact is the class was a complete waste of my time... And in my case the class was 100% free, I was helping the range out with an issue, and they provided me the class among other items in trade. My father went to a class run by the Mt Juliet PD, I think the cost was $25 and they covered the exact same information that the gun range covered, the difference is the range charged $75 more for their class. The only difference I could see is some instructors might be better at keeping you awake during the 8 wasted hours. As for corporate welfare, it's exactly that, else why not allow other certifications cover the firearms part of the test, or place the written portion of the test online, or given at TDOS when you apply for the permit? Why do you have to pay an instructor and a range to sit through videos that have already been paid for and technically are public domain? If you've already jumped through hoops to get your hunters safety card, which requires firearms training, or have a NRA handgun course certificate etc? The simple answer is because the HCP program brings a lot of money into local ranges. How much, a lot, 100+ million dollars over the last 15 years of money has been spent just to meet the requirements to apply for an HCP. That doesn't count the extra classes a range sells to applicants during the 8 hour sell-a-thon, or extra firearms, or accessories they sell on those nights. And how do we know the training is a complete waste? Because virtually nobody fails the class. Compare that to the TN drivers test which has a failure rate 100+ times higher than HCP class failure rates. The HCP class requirements provides little to no value to the citizens of TN inside the state of TN.

Basics all of which were covered in his NC, how much more is he really going to get out of a top of the line $$$ class vs the cheapest one he can find? Nothing. Again, this isn't about practice, or even self defense firearms training, if he was asking about such a class, I'd agree there is a big ddifference between instructor A and B. But he's asking on how to convert his NC permit to a TN permit, and the fact is the cheapest class gets you the same place as the most expensive. My experience with permit classes is they either provide you with incorrect or misleading information on TN laws concerning handgun carry and self defense. If you're interested in detailed knowledge in that submit, a HCP course isn't the right place to find it. The HCP source is nothing but corporate welfare for ranges and instructors, it provides little to no value. What little value it might provide could be done with a simple website with videos and a 10 question true/false test at the end. For 3 years people have been allowed to carry concealed loaded firearms in their vehicles, and the streets are running with blood, there is absolutely no reason what so ever to require a permit to carry a firearm, now I'm not suggesting we do away with the permit system for those residents who want to carry in other states, but to make somebody with an NC permit have to re-take the course here is just silly. Don't fall for the gimmicks, HCP course is a complete waste of time, take the cheapest course you can find, get your permit, and then get the correct amount of training to become comfortable with carrying and self defense laws.

Why the TFA doesn't move for an emergency injunction is beyond me.

Find the cheapest place that is licensed to give the course. Sometimes local police departments or sheriff's office will offer a deeply discounted course for residents. The fact is it's a PITA waste of time, and all that matters if finishing the course which a blind monkey can do.

Not that I'd suggest knowingly breaking the law.... but nobody gets charged under 39-17-1359 unless they try to carry into the security zone at an airport, and that has only happened a couple of times. It's a bad law, so is the prohibiting school carry, and we have examples of that law being abused for political reasons. We should focus on removing the school carry law first, or drastically limiting it. 39-17-1359 just isn't being used as a weapon yet, and unlike the school law you won't loose your gun rights forever over making a mistake.

It's covered vehicles for 2 or more decades.

Requiring trigger locks in the home were ruled unconstitutional in Heller. I don't see how these requirements will be upheld.

I'd just wait until the lawsuit is settled, because the Knoxville Zoo sits on property owned by the city and is almost for sure considered a 'Park' under the law. It might take another year to get this resolved but once it is, a lot more places will be open to carry where they're trying to play these games.

No updates since April, justice is slow around these parts.

What about oath keepers?

Yet somehow anytime they near 'gun control' they're smart enough to rush out and buy firearms like they're about to be banned. I think people are a lot more aware of what people in Washington are up to, but don't talk about it in public because it makes them look like a gun nut.

Or better yet, do give in at all?

Barely 90% of the population believes NASA landed a man on the moon...

How about we not give up anymore of our fundamental rights, instead of allowing the NRA to Negotiate Rights Away.

Here we go again, Negotiate Rights Away strikes again... It's a violation of every conservative principal to deny a person a fundamental right without being found beyond all reasonable doubt guilty of a crime by his peers. Here we have a list where you don't know if you're on it, and can't get yourself off of it, even if you're completely innocent. 400,000 Americans are on these lists, even the most restrictive the no-fly list have 25,000+ Americans on it, and it's full of errors. And just in case you think that is a minor issue, here is a news article how a widely known conservative journalist (Weekly Standard) was added to the no fly list and took months to get himself off of the list, how long would it take you or I get off that list if it took him so long? http://www.npr.org/2014/09/28/352290026/how-a-journalist-ended-up-on-a-terror-watch-list

Gun confiscation wouldn't work. We can track down 20 million illegal immigrants and deport them. How on earth are roughly 1 million law enforcement officers going to go door to door removing guns from 100 million households. If you sent a single officer to 1 house a day it would take more than 3 months. You just can't collect all the guns. And in the process you'll turn 1-3 million otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals who no longer believe the government is empowered to govern.

The states would be entering the data, not the FBI. It doesn't technically violate current federal law IMHO.

I can't find ANY documented case of a modern pistol AD unless the trigger was pulled, or the firearm had been modified. The chances of this happening with a police department issued firearm should be virtually zero. Glocks, Sig's H&K's, Beretta's, etc just don't have the ability to AD without something pulling the trigger or modifying the firearm in a non-standard way.

When was the last time you saw a firearm fail in such a way as to allow the firearm to fire without the trigger being pulled? Only cases I've seen in the last 20+ years were related to modified triggers in some bolt action rifles.

Preaching to the choir ;)  

IANAL,  But my understanding of 39-11-622 is this:   If you're involved in a self defense shooting, and a lawsuit if filed against you, then the judge in the civil suit makes a determination if the shooting was justified under that section of law.  My understanding is that this would use the preponderance of evidence method, so were you more likely than not.  Of course if they have any money what so ever you'd be able to recove some or all of your costs.   Because of this high bar that you must cross most attorney's aren't likely to take on a civil case involving a self defense shooting on contingency, which means more times than not the person moving forward with a lawsuit would have money, or you the shooter are really in the wrong.   Obviously if you hit something under 622b all bets are off ;)   The law appears to be working, we rarely hear about what appear to be justified shootings ending up in civil court.

IANAL but the plain reading of the law is very clear, and there are no cases that anybody can cite where somebody wasn't completely drunk getting charged under this law.   I've never seen anybody suggest that a single sip on alcohol means you're 'under the influence' of it.  Not even the scary (and bad) video from TDOS suggests that any level of consumption in general is unlawful.  Only in relationship to drinking in a public establishment.   I'm all for being a law nazi, remember I'm the one that complains that under current state law you are committing a felony if you happen to be carrying in a restaurant and the local school cross country is holding having dinner in the back room.  Now that is a scary bad law ;)  But even I'll admit nobody has ever been charged, and the chances that it happens to you are virtually zero.   If your interpretation that a single sip of alcohol while carrying is a violation of the law, then we should work to change the law because it's overly broad.   Either way I'm not going to be the test case, because I don't drink.  

Simple way to solve this, make it a crime for employees of MT or TN or any subdivision to provide material support to ATF agents in any way shape or form.  And remove immunity in all cases where they violate said law.  

You're right OhShoot, I misspoke.  You'd only loose your permit for the length of the Class A misdemeanor.  I stand corrected.  

Dave,   I think you're flat out wrong...  You can have a drink of alcohol and not be 'under the influence of alcohol'.   Websters Dictionary -under the influence: "affected by alcohol: DRUNK - was arrested for driving under the influence"   Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Edition defines 'under the influence of alcohol' to be: "The term applied to a person who has ingested alcohol to render them incapable of discretion and sound judgement."   Very few adults are rendered incapable of discretion and sound judgement from drink a single beer.  While I agree most people who are drunk or have had a few might well have problems remaining silent, you're basically saying a single sip of alcohol makes you 'under the influence' and is therefore illegal.  And that just doesn't meet the common definition of 'under the influence' as commonly used today - or in the more recent past when that section of the law was last updated by the legislature.   Again, it's NOT against the law to drink and carry a gun, unless you're in an establishment that serves alcohol and drink inside that establishment.  In general it's only against the law in TN to drink to the point you're 'under the influence' of alcohol and carry a gun.   Now, I personally don't drink, haven't for years, not because I have a problem but because I just don't like to...  And I think we can all agree that none of us want somebody who is drunk, or even 'buzzing' to be wondering around with a loaded handgun on them, and very likely in those situations those folks are breaking the law as we understanding it.     But, lets not scare people with trying to say a single sip of alcohol in your home while carry a firearm is illegal, because that just isn't what state law says...  nor does it say after you've had that single sip of alcohol you can't go outside armed either.  But that being 'under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance' while carrying a handgun is a crime.   Now, the funny thing is, if you want to be armed take a rifle with you, because there is no law against being drunk and having a rifle in your possession :)  And as long as your the passenger in the vehicle, you can have an open beer and a loaded rifle in your lap in TN, and there is nothing anybody can do about it :)