GKar

The House has not amended the bill at this point: they are still considering the original version that has removed signage verbiage.  It is that version that has the fiscal note attached.  There is (rightly) a reluctance to attach the Senate amendment due to the 39-17-1309 reference in that amendment (truly does create a possible felony entrapment scenario), but I cannot fathom why a simple amendment adding language allowing current signage to remain until otherwise requiring replacement was not attached during Civil Justice hearings.  The fiscal note was attached Jan 20 - it wasn't like they couldn't see this coming.  Given the press to adjourn ASAP after budget finalization (so our precious legislators can go home to start convincing us that they are worthy to remain in in our employ), I'd bet god money that this one is dead.  If you watch other parts of the Fnce Subcmte meeting, the chair and various sponsors were practically joking about the consequences of being "placed behind the budget".  The chair even told a few sponsors that he thought their bills were good ones, and admonished them to be sure and bring them back next year...

The bill as filed did away with all sections of the current 39-17-1311 relating to municipal opt-out, including those pertaining to prohibitory signage.  The Senate amendment (SA0569) that inserted the "school's law"  language (39-17-1309) also reinstated the language of TCA 39-17-1311 (e), which was the operative language allowing the signs to stay up until future maintenance activities would take them down - that's how it avoided the fiscal note on that side and thus didn't have to go to Fnce Cmte.  Makes one wonder if that was the trade-off Campfield had to make in order to get the bill thru Jud Cmte...

It was placed behind the budget due to the fiscal note predicting a one-time cost to the state of approx $38,000 (for taking down current signage prohibiting carry)...basically, requiring funding in the budget before the bill can be re-considered.  Which is just another example of the incredible hypocrisy in Nashville - some $11 million in reserves collected from the permit process has been earmarked for use to balance the budget this year.  Just another eloquently deceitful tool in the hands of our "supermajority" establishment leadership...   On a related note:a House subcmte (Civ Justice, I think) yesterday killed another bill that would have dropped the cost of a permit from $115 to $100, and renewals from $50 to $40.  The reason?  A fiscal note that demonstrated that it would...decrease state revenues.  Heaven forbid!  Mr Lundberg, my Rep and corporate shill extraordinaire, asked the sponsor - "Do you really want to waste our time with this bill?"...

Keep in mind that each of the 'shortcomings' described above ("privately-owned" vehicle, no coverage extended to passengers, etc) was identified during deliberations on the ORIGINAL bill passed last session, and remedies were proposed - and promptly rejected by the same leadership that pushed this one ( and a few others by Green) at lightspeed this session.  Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain...

BINGO!   Remember - leadership in both chambers has been consistently driving their intent for adjournment as quickly as possible. Got a ways to go here: somewhere between two and four House committees to go, with the last being Calendar (where we've seen bills die before  - last year, for example).  IF the House version does indeed make it to the floor UNAMENDED, and is approved there, it must then be reconciled to the Senate version, which has already been passed in the Senate as the AMENDED version.  IF that happens, and the bill makes it out UNAMENDED, it goes to the Gov for a possible veto - which will take several more days at minimum to overturn, assuming GA leadership has the stomach for it.  So, there's more than ample opportunity for the GA's rush to get home and campaign to bury this one.

I loved Stewart's comment "your constitutional argument aside'...yep, that's exactly where he'd like to place and keep the constitution (US and state).   Looks like it goes to full CJ committee next week.

Prayers for you and your family.

  Indeed - current leadership is too damned scared about keeping the unholy alliances that got them the "supermajority" to give a rats ass about anything they may have promised RE 2A or related initiatives.  TMK, Harwell has only voted to support a single bill that could be considered (not by many, albeit) to 'advance' 2A - and that was McCormick's HB1405 this session.  She had no choice to vote affirmative on that one, given the sponsor and the reason for that travesty being pushed through as it was.  They are just hoping to toss us enough scraps that their handlers find sufficiently unoffensive to eventually make us shut up and go away, happy that we got a pittance.

I find it interesting that Dennis is the lone House sponsor.  After having won his seat so very narrowly last year, you'd think he would be careful to have lots of backing on things he brought up...well, unless you consider HB1885 as anything more than a publicity stunt.  I realize that he and Bell teamed on the previous iteration, but still...   Looks like only about 27 Senators made it in today...only 82 in the House. 

Whoa, folks:  several of you are mistakenly looking at the Bill Summary section 6, instead of the actual Bill language (found here: http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/108/Bill/HB1883.pdf).  The summary does not reflect the Bill's actual Sections 1-6 in its list - rather, it simply presents six bullet points summarizing the overall features of the bill.  The amendment does NOTHING to change the initial Bill's effect on being able to order, purchase, possess, etc switchblades or knives over 4" long - see my post #532 (just about 6 above this one) for an accurate description of the effect of the amendment, which is merely to delete the proposal that use of such a weapon would constitute a new Class D felony.

The amendment removes section 6 as noted - and in doing so, removes what would have been a potentially problematic fiscal note.  As amended, teh bill now carries a "not significant" fiscal note, which should greatly enhance its chances in Finance Cmte.   The text from Section 6: SECTION 6. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-17-1307, is amended by adding the following new subsection (e) and by redesignating accordingly: (e) (1) A person commits an offense who employs a switchblade knife during the commission of, attempt to commit, or escape from a dangerous offense as defined in § 39-17-1324. (2) A violation of this subsection (e) is a Class D felony   The fiscal note attached to this now-deleted section indicated that there was a possible increased state expenditure of $5000/incarceration stemming from the new felony, with no significant increase in revenues coming into the state tied to any portion of the bill.  This "negative cash flow" is usually very unpalatable to Finance Cmte unless it is already contemplated in the budget - which is not the case here.  Therefore, removing Section 6 removes the new felony, thus removing any new incarcerations and the resulting projected costs.

Looks like it is also scheduled for a floor vote in the Senate on Monday, March 3 (5pm CT).  Follow here:  http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/default.aspx?BillNumber=HB1883&GA=108

At that particular moment, nothing.  Not too much later in the conversation, he informed me that the Second Amendment was as outdated as slavery and women's suffrage.  Later, in public session while championing Bristol's opt-out of parks carry, he proclaimed that he was a gun owner, hunter and Second Amendment supporter - but that a handgun had only one purpose, and that was to kill.  Fortunately, the citizens of Bristol finally saw fit to can his ass in the last elections, and the current iteration of council overturned the op-out in Dec 2013.  I saw him in a restaurant just a few days after that vote, and if looks coulda killed...well, I wouldn't be writing this.

  I live in Bristol - so the "state just north of us" is literally only 300 yards from my house.  And you are correct about the legality of non-concealed carry there.  I made this same argument to our mayor during the uproar over TN's restaurant carry law in 2009 - we were standing on the TN side of State Street, and I pointed to an alcohol-serving restaurant across the street in VA and asked him just what it was about TN citizens that made us unable to live incident-free under the same rules that those less than 30 yards from us could?

  Every now and then its fun to be the pisser instead of the pissee...

Its been referred to the Senate Delayed Bills Committee as of Feb 13.  The makeup of that committee:  Ron Ramsey (Chair), Jim Kyle and Mark Norris.  This committee is "Responsible for initial consideration of resolutions calling for joint conventions and study committees and late filed bills and resolutions."  The fat lady has sung.   Think about it for a minute.  The House sponsor won his seat by 4 votes in the last election.  In the House, its been scheduled in Coley's Civ Just Subcmte for March 5 - his self-proclaimed "Gun Bill Day" - where it will have to compete with several other firearms bills, including the parks bill, for precious time in a one-to-two-hour session that's bound to be contentious to begin with.  Dollars to donuts it will be dispensed as "the sponsor takes it off notice" within the first ten minutes of the meeting.  The bill languished for weeks without a Senate sponsor, and was sent to the dead letter office in the Senate the day after it was finally picked up by Campfield (who, bless his heart, just can't seem to find his ass with both hands most days).    But Dennis walks away with a talking point for November, where he can proudly proclaim that "he tried"...like hell he did...this was never intended to be anything more thatn a carefully orchestrated publicity stunt to save another RINOs ass.

  A Dennis defeat would hit Ramsey kinda close to home - he's indicated more than once that he takes pride that he (Ramsey) got Dennis initially elected .

Had to look up the Senate Delayed bills Committee.  Chair - the beloved Lt Gov Ramsey.  Other members - Norris and Kyle.  Any 2A bill going there is already past the event horizon of a black hole...

  And these are the games our "supermajority" is playing now.  Chameleons, every damned one of them.

It likely means Coley/Harwell ( and you can bet dollars to donuts that Harwell has Haslam's back on this one) haven't mustered enough opposition to this one yet to kill it, or to modify it to re-instate some level of "local control"...they need more time to let the media run with the "Big Four Mayors'" objections.

The Senate version can go to the floor for vote whenever the calendar committee decides to send it.  The House counterpart has yet to be calendered for consideration by the Civil Justice Subcommittee.  From there, it will then go to the full CJ Cmte, and eventually to the House floor.  

Passed the first hurdle.  Sen Jud Cmte passed the bill 6-2 (Overbey and Finney voted nay).  Bill was amended to avoid a fiscal note (returned the language regarding municipalities' requirement to REPLACE any old signs prohibiting carry).  Discussion pointed out that 13-09 continues to prohibit carry in a municipal park if that park is being used by a board of education for a 'school event', regardless of this bill.   Discussion was interesting:  http://tnga.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=269&clip_id=8383   Finney basically upheld governor's stated objection that decision should remain at local level. Overbey objected, saying he supported 2nd Amendment rights, but he felt local municipalities should be able to post just like a property owner could.  He likened it to "Federalism on a state scale". Campfield countered that argument noting that this is a constitutional issue where the legislature is clearly given the authority to regulate, and no option to pass that option down.

Thanks, Capbyrd.  Very helpful!

Bell has it in the Senate (co-sponsored by Summerville) and Dennis has it in the House.  It is not yet calendered before any committee - hope one of the sponsors puts it on notice soon.  The committees are making noises like they want to get things done very quickly this year so folks can hit the campaign trail.

Formerly proposed as SB1438, this one is now SB1771(Bell, Summerville)/HB1883 (Dennis):  "As introduced, makes lawful the sale, transfer, ownership, possession and transportation of switchblade knives and knives with a blade length in excess of 4"; increases from $3,000 to $6,000 the maximum fine for possessing a switchblade knife with the intent to employ it during commission of a dangerous felony; creates Class D felony of employing a switchblade knife during commission of dangerous felony."   Actual text of the bill here:   http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/108/Bill/SB1771.pdf