macville

I was gonna say, Dick's here in Knoxville had PLENTY of 9mm, just no .380. Matthew

Try this...here's what was originally written for the 2d amendment. I think it's QUITE clear what they meant (notice what was dropped and what was kept.) "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." If you look at this link (Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) under the "Conflict and compromise in Congress, the Bill of Rights" you'll see that what they mean was that having and bearing arms AND having a regulated militia were BOTH protected as a right. Basically, they said you can keep and carry arms and be part of a militia as it's a right. People who don't take the wording at face value just don't want us to have any gun rights. It's that simple. Matthew

Your talking about my writing? Not sure anyone (especially my wife) has ever said that before! I posted above what I got back from him the first time. Here's my response to his response and then his very last email as of this morning. Senator Jackson, thank you for taking the time to write me back. I truly appreciate your effort in getting the original law passed, and what you are doing to try and get the law reinstated. What exactly do you think will come up in the committee that will be a concern for blocking unrestricted carry? Do you have, or be willing to write up a list of people who voted for the original restaurant law but who you think wouldn't vote for an all encompassing carry law? If you don't feel like that wise for you to do, I totally understand, just let me know and I will contact each person who voted for the law and ask them personally if they would vote for such a clear law. I know that the talk at tngunowners.com and tfaonline.org has been that every rep & senator who has been asked about such a law said they would support it as written. So you might be surprised at the support you might get for such a law. I understand what you are trying to do with the law, but I, and every single person I've talked to, think if it's written as you described in the report, it will be even more confusing than before. Therefore, because it seems to be more confusing, it has great chance struck down just like the old law. Just for kicks and giggles I looked up the Knoxville Civic Center the other night before I went to a hockey game to see if carry would be allowed to carry there if your bill got passed. It took me quite a while to find liquor licenses on the state website (that would have to be fixed), but low and behold, it seems like it would be legal to carry there because they operate under a liquor license--even though they only sell beer at the games. To me, that's pretty confusing considering what you said. Now granted, I haven't see the wording of what you are proposing, so that technically may not be covered, but right now at face value it seems very confusing. But I think that's why people are riled up about. Both our Federal gov along with our State gov are shrouded in secrecy and confusion. To be honest, I think if you actually released the wording you are proposing, you might actually help us get a ground campaign going to get a truly "clean" law ultimately passed. The mood among all the other permit holders I've talked to right now is go for broke. We feel that almost all the dems and repubs who voted for the original law can be talked into voting for such a law if it will get up for a vote. But again, as I said above, we need to know exactly what the concerns are in committee so we can hammer away on those point. Civic centers and sports arenas are issued liquor licenses under a separate statutory provision and are not covered by the proposed bill or the previous restaurant carry law. Issues and concerns of many members and the public are numerous and obvious. I advised John Harris to discuss it with Speakers Ramsey and Williams. Unrestricted carry would be an unattainable political goal at this time.......but then again, what do I know? So while he's more certainly on our side, he's not going to push the issue far enough. It seems silly to not push at least for all the way and then if it absolutely will not get passed, then settle for what he's proposing. What he's doing now, I'm afraid will get us absolutely nothing. It seems strange to me that technically we got a clean bill last time even though amendments were added then removed (the time restrictions taken off, etc.)and he doesn't think we can get a clean bill through this time. That's why it's VERY important that we find out where people stand on a clean bill. They may all think like Jackson that it will never get passed--not realizing that they have plenty of support for it. Matthew

I'm not sure how helpful that information is. I can't remember if the law got more restrictive or less as it went through the process. I guess it probably means that the law got "loser" as it went through as these people voted no against it: Ford, Ford, & Stewart and these are the people who simply didn't vote the for the override (probably couldn't make the vote) Bunch, Southerland. As for the reps none that voted for HB0962 on May 7th switched their votes. The extra votes that were added against the override seem to be votes of people who simply where not at the original vote, and that's true for both sides as we GAINED a few votes for the law. Here's the thing, the vote before doesn't tell me if they would support such a wide carry law. Jackson may be right that some of these people would not support such a law. That's why I think, to be frank, that we are going to have to ask everyone who supported the override if they would support such a change. If they don't, then we target them heavy and don't waste our time on people who are already on our side. Matthew

I brought that very point up. Here's what I wrote him addressing that very point: Dear Senator Jackson, I just watched the news report on WSMV's website about you introducing a new "carry where alcohol is served" law for the next session and I wanted to let you that what you described I find FAR more confusing than the struck down law. What you are proposing makes restaurants which are truly "restaurants" in dry liquor counties (like Rhea County) or outside the city limits in a county (like Yea Old Stake House in Knox County or Big Ed's in Oak Ridge which can only serve beer) off limits to those of us with permits when they were not before. I ask you, why should I be able to carry in Applebees, but not Yea Old Stake House or Big Ed's? Because if what you propose goes through, that's exactly what would happen. In my mind, here's what it boils down to. Alcohol is alcohol, correct? Liquor, wine, and beer are just different flavors of alcohol. If I am not allowed to drink while carrying, why does it matter what flavor of alcohol is served or where it is served? If a permit holder is going to drink while carrying, none of it really matter because it will still have the same exact effect on the person and they will still be breaking the law. If you are going to trust us to not drink in some places, then what is so magical about these other places which serve the same alcohol that would somehow entice us to drink? If you answer anything in this email, I would love to hear you explain that because simply put, if you can trust us in one place, you should be able to trust us any place alcohol is served. This is why I want to see no restrictions on carry where alcohol is served. John Harris of the Tennessee Firearms Association has come up with great wording for fixing the law. It so simple that anyone who can do all the paperwork/class/etc for an HCP can figure out, not to mention LEO's, AD's, Judges, and owners of businesses that serve alcohol. Simply add to 39-17-1305 section "C" the following, "(3) authorized to carry a weapon pursuant to TCA 39-17-1351." That would allow those of us with permits to legally carry anywhere alcohol is served. Nothing else is needed. In regards to those restaurant owners, like Austin Ray and Randy Rayburn who sued over the law, you, and the rest of our elected officials, need to tell them that you're not there to wipe their butts. They are adults and can figure out that TN 39-17-1359 allows them to post against legal carry in their restaurants. If they CAN NOT figure that out, then should they really hold a liquor or beer license? Also, about what you said for stiffing penalties for drinking while carrying. The law needs to be better defined before we start stiffing penalties. Currently, the law only says it's illegal to carry if "under the influence of alcohol." But what does that exactly mean? Under the DUI law, it clearly states that you are only "under the influence" if you have a BAC of .08% or more. Does the law mean if I am at home, drink one beer, and then go out an hour and a half later to the store that I am committing a crime since I possibly could still be "under the influence", even though I was never legally drunk and not even close to it? We let people operate vehicles after drinking up to a certain amount, and there are FAR more people who drive than legally carry a gun. What about someone taking communion at church with wine? If the judge thought the old restaurant law was vague, what does this law mean? Let me put it this way, if I had a beer and you couldn't smell my breath, could you tell I had been drinking at all? The very definition of "influence" says that it is, "things to be a compelling force on or PRODUCE EFFECTS on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc." If you can't tell through physical or auditory signs that a person has had anything to drink, then are they under the influence? It just strikes me as totally illogical that we will let people drive a device that weighs over 1 ton with a BAC of .08%, but so it seems that having a BAC of even .01% is illegal with a HCP--even if you are walking down a street harming no one. It makes absolutely no logical sense to me. I'm not saying that we should make it legal to drink and carry (although, that's legal in Utah up to BAC .08% and I haven't found a single report of an incident from the entire state), but we should examine what "under the influence" actually means. Thank you for your time and I look forward to your response.

I bought my wife a Bersa Plus .380 in July (I know, I know, I should have just bought a 9mm for her, hindsight is 20/20) and she has only put 10 rounds through the blasted thing because we've only been able to get 1 box of ammo for it. I did find it at wal-mart one time, but they wanted way too much for the ammo. Matthew

Here's the response I got from Doug Jackson when I asked him to simply make the law open to all permit holders where alcohol is served: I agree with you. If I had my way, permit holders could carry anywhere. Law abiding citizens should not even have to obtain a permit in order to carry but that is not politically possible. Now, can you and John clear the committee hurdles, get 50 votes in the house and 17 in the senate, then override a veto? Understand that there are political considerations to achieving progress for gun owners. I have 24 years of experience in the legislature. What I am proposing is the most prudent way to proceed, in my judgement. Do you want to give up carry in restaurants with liquor licenses just because beer only establishments are not included? Beer taverns and honky tonks will be a hard sell to some members who have supported restaurant carry. It gives our opponents a powerful argument to defeat us. Doug Jackson I am going to email him back asking for a list of reps/senators who voted for the old law, but wouldn't vote for a blanket carry where alcohol is served. If we get a list we can start targeting those people and hopefully get other reps/senators to help nudge them in the "right" direction. Matthew

I think I've accepted that if I need more than the 17+1 rounds my 9mm holds, that God didn't intend for me to live through that gunfight. I would just look for a mag holder that you can slip on your belt. Matthew

Gun lobby is stronger at an avg citizen level. All these other organizations are for/about business where as we are just for simple rights. Matthew

How how I would LOVE to see that. However, how many of these places that already don't post properly do you think will actually post properly? Do you think A. they will be too lazy to change their signs? B. Too stupid to realize they need real signs. C. Actually change signs? Matthew

Bad bad bad idea. If someone wants to trample on my rights, then they should have to be accurate on their sign. Not to mention that some places only post those gun buster type signs to please the stupid liberals and know that the signs are not "legal" (although, I'd say 95% of people who post those signs don't have a freakin clue, they just think they have to post some kind of sign.)

Ahhh I see. Campfield posted it on his own blog, but it was written by another rep. Matthew

He's my state rep also and what you said couldn't be anything further than the truth. Stacy Campfield was the ONLY state rep/senator who actually came down and tried to help us fight the City of Knoxville when it came to allowing/banning carry in city parks. So you wrong. In fact, he's pretty vocal about issues and has been very pro carry every time I've heard him speak. Matthew

I don't know where you read that NC doesn't allow OC. NC is actually a better OC carry state than TN as you can without a permit. Maybe you are thinking of SC which is a non OC state (along with AR, OK, TX, IL, NY & FL). HOWEVER, according to handgunlaw.us state parks & NP's are off-limits in NC. The question is, does NC state law encompass federal park land? This is what the code says: "SECTION .0900 - FIREARMS: EXPLOSIVES: FIRES: ETC. 15A NCAC 12B .0901 FIREARMS: WEAPONS: EXPLOSIVES (a) No person except authorized park employees, their agents, or contractors, or officers of the state shall carry or possess firearms, airguns, bows and arrows, sling shots, or lethal missiles of any kind within any park." So would "within any park" apply to the NP? It seems to me that it very well might. Matthew

Okay, I just found the text that was passed and it says NOTHING about concealed weapons. The original order that Bush pushed through before he left office talked about state's CCW permits, which is more of a general term instead of what some states (such as TN) have, which is a HANDGUN carry permit, not a CCW. So under Bush's order, it was kinda vague considering how permits were referred to. As you will see under the new law, you will be able to open/conceal carry & have a rife in your car with ammo in the gun, but not chambered. As far as going into buildings that are WITHIN a NP or NWRF, that's another question. I don't know if "(1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the firearm; and" means "felons" and other people restricted by federal law, or if it means the other federal law which bans entering federal buildings/property with a firearm. Hopefully, it means the first because it's a little absurd to have to leave your firearm in your car to go into a restroom to pee (especially if you are camping!) SEC. 512. PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM VIOLENT CRIME. (a) Congressional Findings- Congress finds the following: (1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution provides that ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’. (2) Section 2.4(a)(1) of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, provides that ‘except as otherwise provided in this section and parts 7 (special regulations) and 13 (Alaska regulations), the following are prohibited: (i) Possessing a weapon, trap or net (ii) Carrying a weapon, trap or net (iii) Using a weapon, trap or net’. (3) Section 27.42 of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, provides that, except in special circumstances, citizens of the United States may not ‘possess, use, or transport firearms on national wildlife refuges’ of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (4) The regulations described in paragraphs (2) and (3) prevent individuals complying with Federal and State laws from exercising the second amendment rights of the individuals while at units of-- (A) the National Park System; and ( the National Wildlife Refuge System. (5) The existence of different laws relating to the transportation and possession of firearms at different units of the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System entrapped law-abiding gun owners while at units of the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System. (6) Although the Bush administration issued new regulations relating to the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens in units of the National Park System and National Wildlife Refuge System that went into effect on January 9, 2009-- (A) on March 19, 2009, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted a preliminary injunction with respect to the implementation and enforcement of the new regulations; and ( the new regulations-- (i) are under review by the administration; and (ii) may be altered. (7) Congress needs to weigh in on the new regulations to ensure that unelected bureaucrats and judges cannot again override the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens on 83,600,000 acres of National Park System land and 90,790,000 acres of land under the jurisdiction of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (8) The Federal laws should make it clear that the second amendment rights of an individual at a unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System should not be infringed. ( Protecting the Right of Individuals To Bear arms in Units of the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System- The Secretary of the Interior shall not promulgate or enforce any regulation that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm including an assembled or functional firearm in any unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System if-- (1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the firearm; and (2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the law of the State in which the unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System is located.

Can you find the text for that? Everything I read said carry would only be subject to the state's laws and that you wouldn't be able to carry into buildings (which I guess would include restrooms?) Therefore, since it was subject to state laws, open carry in TN would be legal. But I want to see the text. Let me rephrase that...hick, southern redneck accent. Matthew

Huh? Try rewriting that because it makes no sense. Heck no. Open carry it is. The liberal hippies (I guess that's kinda redundant...) have shoved all their crazy laws down my throat that make me uncomfortable and poorer, so I am going to shove one down there throat. However, I will be super polite to everyone I meet to show that people who carry guns are not just rednecks (plus, I look pretty far from a redneck and have no accent.) Matthew

You should email him back and tell him he's wasting his time and someone's money appealing. Simply rewrite the law come Jan and by the end of the month pass it and have a better law in place that allows carry anywhere alcohol is served. Matthew

If they have a license as a education facility, but I don't think they do because then they would be a SCHOOL and not a DAY CARE. Last time I checked day care was for kids who were not old enough for school. If they were a school, wouldn't they have to have licensed teachers? This is why we need to push for a law that either removes all the crap about privately own schools, or makes it legal to carry in these private schools if they are not posted like they are supposed to be (which is probably 90% of private schools.) That way, a private school could make it legal to carry there by simply not posting. Matthew

Why? Does it need to be any other way to get the law as it should be? I don't see how they could make the law any looser and it certainly doesn't need to be any tighter. So I'd just flat up tell them this is what the law SHOULD be. I believe Doug Jackson is the one writing what's going to be introduced in Jan, so I may write him to see what he's thinking. Matthew

Hey guys, I did some leg work to find all the Reps and Senators who voted for the original bill or for overriding the veto. Please ask them to add the text below to TN code 39-17-1305 under part C: "(3) authorized to carry a weapon pursuant to TCA 39-17-1351." Here are the people who voted FOR the veto override so you have easy access who to contact. House rep.judy.barker@capitol.tn.gov rep.eddie.bass@capitol.tn.gov rep.mike.bell@capitol.tn.gov rep.stratton.bone@capitol.tn.gov rep.willie.borchert@capitol.tn.gov rep.harry.brooks@capitol.tn.gov rep.kevin.brooks@capitol.tn.gov rep.stacey.campfield@capitol.tn.gov rep.joe.carr@capitol.tn.gov rep.glen.casada@capitol.tn.gov rep.jim.cobb@capitol.tn.gov rep.ty.cobb@capitol.tn.gov rep.jim.coley@capitol.tn.gov rep.charles.curtiss@capitol.tn.gov rep.vince.dean@capitol.tn.gov rep.vance.dennis@capitol.tn.gov rep.bill.dunn@capitol.tn.gov rep.jimmy.eldridge@capitol.tn.gov rep.joshua.evans@capitol.tn.gov rep.chad.faulkner@capitol.tn.gov rep.dennis.ferguson@capitol.tn.gov rep.henry.fincher@capitol.tn.gov rep.richard.floyd@capitol.tn.gov rep.dale.ford@capitol.tn.gov rep.george.fraley@capitol.tn.gov rep.jim.hackworth@capitol.tn.gov rep.curtis.halford@capitol.tn.gov rep.mike.harrison@capitol.tn.gov rep.david.hawk@capitol.tn.gov rep.ryan.haynes@capitol.tn.gov rep.joey.hensley@capitol.tn.gov rep.matthew.hill@capitol.tn.gov rep.curtis.johnson@capitol.tn.gov rep.phillip.johnson@capitol.tn.gov rep.ron.lollar@capitol.tn.gov rep.susan.lynn@capitol.tn.gov rep.mark.maddox@capitol.tn.gov rep.debra.maggart@capitol.tn.gov rep.judd.matheny@capitol.tn.gov rep.jimmy.matlock@capitol.tn.gov rep.joe.mccord@capitol.tn.gov rep.gerald.mccormick@capitol.tn.gov rep.steve.mcdaniel@capitol.tn.gov rep.michael.mcdonald@capitol.tn.gov rep.steve.mcmanus@capitol.tn.gov rep.richard.montgomery@capitol.tn.gov rep.gary.moore@capitol.tn.gov rep.jason.mumpower@capitol.tn.gov rep.frank.niceley@capitol.tn.gov rep.gary.odom@capitol.tn.gov rep.bob.ramsey@capitol.tn.gov rep.barrett.rich@capitol.tn.gov rep.dennis.roach@capitol.tn.gov rep.donna.rowland@capitol.tn.gov charles.sargent@capitol.tn.gov rep.david.shepard@capitol.tn.gov rep.tony.shipley@capitol.tn.gov rep.eric.swafford@capitol.tn.gov rep.john.tidwell@capitol.tn.gov rep.harry.tindell@capitol.tn.gov rep.curry.todd@capitol.tn.gov rep.eric.watson@capitol.tn.gov rep.terri.lynn.weaver@capitol.tn.gov rep.ben.west@capitol.tn.gov rep.john.windle@capitol.tn.gov rep.eddie.yokley@capitol.tn.gov speaker.kent.williams@capitol.tn.gov Missing from website Curt Cobb (resigned in July for another gov job and I don't know who replaced him) Brian Kelsey (see below, switched to Senate) Republicans missing in action. rep.beth.harwell@capitol.tn.gov (voted against the bill the first time!!!) rep.pat.marsh@capitol.tn.gov (doesn't have him ever voting for the bill either way) rep.jon.lundberg@capitol.tn.gov (voted for the original bill, probably wasn't there for the override) Senate sen.tim.barnes@capitol.tn.gov sen.mae.beavers@capitol.tn.gov sen.diane.black@capitol.tn.gov sen.tim.burchett@capitol.tn.gov sen.rusty.crowe@capitol.tn.gov sen.mike.faulk@capitol.tn.gov sen.lowe.finney@capitol.tn.gov sen.dolores.gresham@capitol.tn.gov sen.roy.herron@capitol.tn.gov sen.doug.jackson@capitol.tn.gov sen.jack.johnson@capitol.tn.gov sen.bill.ketron@capitol.tn.gov sen.randy.mcnally@capitol.tn.gov sen.mark.norris@capitol.tn.gov sen.doug.overbey@capitol.tn.gov lt.gov.ron.ramsey@capitol.tn.gov sen.jim.tracy@capitol.tn.gov sen.bo.watson@capitol.tn.gov sen.jamie.woodson@capitol.tn.gov sen.ken.yager@capitol.tn.gov It has Paul Stanley in the vote, but he's resigned and Brian Kelsey won his seat. Brian voted FOR the bill in the house. His email should be: sen.brian.kelsey@capitol.tn.gov Republicans missing in actiont: (However, it doesn't list that they voted against it, so they may have not been there for the vote as it doesn't say they voted "present") sen.dewayne.bunch@capitol.tn.gov sen.steve.southerland@capitol.tn.gov So really we only have one republican (Rep. Beth Harwell) who has gone on record as being anti-gun carry. The others probably missed the vote as they voted for the bill the first time. So there is the list of people you need to write. Matthew

I still don't understand why the lib idiots say, "oh gun carrying was only supposed to be for militias." Okay, fine. Have it your way. Hey turds, I have a one person militia called ME. So since I am my own militia, then I can carry all the firepower I want. Suck on it. Seriously! How stupid is that argument!!! Matthew

Bingo! Under the influence is as vague as "substantially similar" in -1359! What does under the influence mean???? It simply says under the "influence" of alcohol. Here's what the dictionary says in regards to that: 1. the capacity or power of persons or things to be a compelling force on or produce effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc., of others: He used family influence to get the contract. 2. the action or process of producing effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc., of another or others: Her mother's influence made her stay. 3. a person or thing that exerts influence: He is an influence for the good. So the question is, does one beer, one shot, or even one sip of communion wine put me under the "influence"? I would argue that it does not. I would argue that for for pretty much anyone, one drink an hour doesn't change them at all. The most "influence" it has on me is that I "feel" better, but how can you measure that as I normally feel better after putting a drink inside me--the same if it's beer, soda, tea, or water. The driving law is very clear what "influence" means, but this is not. What if you take some cough medicine? NyQuil has alcohol in it right? Last time I changed it didn't do anything besides make me a little sleepy (which is FAR more dangerous if you are driving than walking around with a handgun!!!) It would be great to clear up the law and make carrying a handgun legal with alcohol in your system as long as you were not over the legal limit. That way you'd be able to enjoy a beer with a dinner and not have to choose between a beer (which strangely enough our founding fathers were able to enjoy while carrying..) and your safety. Also, I still say that getting "drunk" is used as an excuse for doing stupid things. I've been drunk before and I still knew exactly what I was doing. People just want use as a cop-out because the things they do while "drunk" aren't normally accepted "sober". Matthew

Uhhh... Michie online is always a few months behind in updating the law. I think it was just a month or two ago that they actually got the law up on there. Matthew

So does this mean we are going to ban all soda and beer since it contains CO2???? Matthew