JayC

It's called wanting to get re-elected in 2012... ATF does something silly, and gun owners will be much less likely to vote for him... He needs blue collar voters to win in 2012.

Under the law state issued ID's are drivers licenses without the driving endorsement. There is room on them to include the carry permit endorsement.

I don't think that is correct.... The restaurant bill just removed the law against carrying in a restaurant/bar. Thus the only reason it's illegal today to carry into a restaurant or bar without a permit is the general law that prohibits carrying in general. Since this bill would remove that law for anybody 21+, then they'd be able to carry in restaurants and bars with serve alcohol, as I understand the bill in it's current form.

Guys, if you've never had a license from the TABC you can't understand just how bad government can be. Trust me, of the list of stuff they make you do that is no authorized by law, putting up that old sign is the least of a owners worry. The question you need to be asking yourself, is why do we need a TABC at all? What useful purpose do they really serve?

Boy Ayn Rand called it pretty clear so many years ago.

I'm pretty sure 1351t is worded the way it is because some LEOs took/confiscated some firearms from permit holders before it was passed. That language wasn't in place from day 1 of the permit process. Requiring reasonable articulate suspension to disarm would be a good compromise, something I could live with I'd like for them to add the word illegal or unlawful into the 1307a wording.

Fallguy, Thanks, I wanted somebody else to look at the bill, it's changing a bunch of sections, and I agree my first read was a bit off... It seems as written it's constitutional carry of all firearms, including rifles and shotguns (very good)... I miss read the 39-17-1307e change, it looks much better now that I've re-read it... I agree it would require permits for most visitors, but anybody currently employed in the state would seem to be covered. As for 39-17-1351t, as you know I'm not very fond of that statue... but it does require that officers must return a firearm to the permit holder unless they arrest the permit holder on the spot... my only concern with removing that part of the law, is that officers could legally confiscate a firearm and require you to jump through hoops to get it back. With 1351t in place, that can't happen... While I think the law should be changed to prevent disarming of permit holders unless they're being arrested, if my choice is between 1351t, and no requirement that firearms are returned on the spot, then I'd rather see 1351t stand. While we're at it, how about removing the April 1986 clause from 39-17-1314a? It'd be nice to have true state wide preemption. Also, should this pass, remember every bodies favorite draco pistol totting, 6 shot revolver carrying buddy will be allowed to carry again

Well there are some serious problems with this law... first it would remove the ability for us to have loaded (but not chambered) long guns in our vehicles... second it would strengthen the prohibiting of firearms in parks, by changing the language in 39-17-1311... It would make it a crime to handle any firearm even on your own property after drinking any alcohol, or any drug (legal or illegal)... This could have possible issues with our 'castle' laws. Not sure about this one, maybe one of the lawyers could comment and see if my reading is correct? I'm not exactly sure whats going on here... Maybe Fallguy could read through this and give his opinion... at first glance it sounds like constitutional carry, but I don't see where they do away with the class, test, finger prints or anything else? Am I missing something?

There is little data on civilian carry to begin with... and even less on OC vs CC data... There just isn't enough information publicly available either way. My gut tells me that the concern is way over blown, and the risks to being unarmed far out weight OC. But, whether the intent of this was to become a debate or not is mute, it's turned into one

Wow, yet another open carry debate... Here is my personal take on the subject... The reason this keeps popping up, is that anytime somebody mentions open carry somebody else comes along and says it's not safe because of reason X (normally that you'll be the first person targeted by criminals)... And open carry folks take offense to this generalization. How about we all agree on these simple facts: 1. Where legal, carry a gun for self protection. 2. When practical, carry it concealed. 3. It's better to OC than to go unarmed. Frankly, I think we can all agree on those 3 statements, and stop arguing about this.

Buildings in a state park should be state buildings, under state law the entire park is legal, I think that would include all the buildings in said park. Also from the wording of 39-17-1359, those buildings can not be posted.

39-17-1308a4 covers "shooting sports" which would cover ranges IMHO.

As I read the law, you're only allowed to carry at your residence, place of business or premises (read TCA 39-17-1308a).... So your neighbors property is not covered, unless it's also your place of business, unless you have an HCP. There are a couple of other defenses listed in 39-17-1308, but it's unlikely they'll cover what you're talking about.

Punisher, it was meant as a set of rhetorical questions, instead of trying to put you on the spot

Silly peasant, those laws are for you common folks, not for us nobility

I know this won't be a popular point of view... but it seemed to me he was asking the question at what point does a 'law' which violates a basic inalienable right become null and void... which in my opinion is a very valid question... I never felt he was advocating illegal carry, only stating that he felt no requirement to follow a law which he felt clearly violated his inalienable rights. Punisher, at what point does a "valid" law become one you will not follow? One where you would advocate civil disobedience or out right rebellion? When they ban guns all handguns? All semi-auto rifles/shotguns? All guns? When they start herding x class of citizen into cattle cars? Just remember the Holocaust was a legally enacted solution carried out under the color of law. So where is the line in the sand?

Again, show me examples of at least 1% of people who attend a HCP permit course who don't pass said course. We're spending all this money, time, and effort into the permitting process when a simple NICS background check would accomplish 99+% of the current result. We already have laws in place making the ownership illegal for criminals... why do we need a law to prevent otherwise law abiding citizens from carrying a gun unless they're willing to dedicate 12 hours of their time, and $150-200 of their money to the process? Where 99+% of those who apply get the permit.

Cost of certification, and ammo required to complete the class... It might be a few dollars high.. lets say $200 even still an absurd amount of money that does very little to stop bad guys from carrying guns.

But, while the permit itself may not be a Constitutional issue, the cost of the permit is... SCOTUS has ruled over and over again that even a $5 soliciting permit fee is a violation of the 1st Amendment... but a $150-250 'fee' to get a permit isn't a violation of the 2nd? You're right, you probably can't win a lawsuit using logic like that... but that is the fundamental problem with our government. It no longer respects the limits we the sovereigns placed on it.

The fleeing car was heading straight for his wife... Defense of a 3rd person... Known criminals fleeing the scene of the crime in a vehicle heading straight towards another person, is a threat of death or serious bodily injury IMHO... As for the following, he didn't fire after leaving his property... he only followed and reported to police, even after the bad guys wrecked their car, it's my understanding he stayed in his vehicle and waited for the police. I'm sure he was upset that they broke into his house, and then tried to run his wife over, but it sure sounds like he kept a level head through the entire event.

The parks posting law requires the sign be a certain size or larger. 39-17-1359 has never had that requirement.

ADA... Had the instructor give him the test orally, and a legally blind man can pass the shooting test Truth be told, as a joke we wanted to see if a blind person could pass the HCP test... so we took a buddy and blind folded him... he passed on the first try... now he shoots so much you'd think he was born with a pistol in his hand... but the point is clear, even somebody who can't legally drive a car could easily see well enough to hit the big black blob 70% of the time.

Don't give Congress any ideas

IANAL, but I think the issue isn't firearms (although that probably doesn't help), but the context of the training... If you start a militia, and start teaching military tactics, and some members of the militia talk about their desire to overthrow the government, or some other non-sense... Then the training could be considered inciting civil disorder. In theory if you were teaching people how to use swords it would have the same result If you're training is self defense related, re-enactment related, or sporting event related it's an exception under that same law... so IMHO it's safer... As for the uniform, again some people are picky about that... but I look at it this way... if it was illegal for me to own camo, then why is the US Government selling it to surplus stores for me to buy? I wouldn't worry about that too much... I would just stay away from wearing name tapes that say US ARMY, rank, or skill badges I hadn't earned... and you're likely not in violation of the federal law (again IANAL).

They can check your background for free using the NICS system.... Some money goes to an outside firm to do fingerprinting.... but is that really even needed?