GKar

http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/default.aspx?BillNumber=HB0118&GA=108   Go to that site - most everything you could want to know.  You can see the original bill if you click on the large "HB 0118".  The only amendment attached to the final version is Amendment 1 in the list under the tab "Amendments on the bill".   The bill states it will be effective July 1, 2013.

One of the amendments that were steam-rolled on the floor would have allowed possession in "any motor vehicle, as defined in § 55-1-103, legally owned or possessed and driven by the permit holder" (Pody, amendment 6).  Another phrased it as "“any motor vehicle, as defined in § 55-1-103, that the permit holder legally owns or possesses or in which the permit holder is an invited passenger”, with the added qualifier that "“Motor vehicle” does not include a motor vehicle provided to an employee by a public or private employer provided the business entity, public or private employer, or the owner, manager, or legal possessor of the property has a written “No Weapons” policy in place." (Windle, amendment 3).  Neither lasted much longer than the tie it took the clerk to introduce them.

House bill 118 passed floor vote as 72-22. Perhaps the only note of interest was the sponsor's statement that he would not consider any amendments that had not already been properly vetted by the committee process...a statement later echoed by McCormick. What he failed to menton was that the committee process steam-rolled the bills before anyone had a chance (or the will) to offer any such amenmdents. It seems the current R leadership learned at least one lesson from Mr Naifeh, and proudly carry on his traditions even today. McCormick assurances of promises he'd received from business and his assertion that he would propose legislative "fixes" should anyone be fired by their employer for possession in violation of a policy was both laughable and nauseating...as pretty much the entire GA has become of late.

Kind of an aside, but I do find this interesting: one of the major issues some had with the bill was how they could deal with the fiscal note estimate of $62K per incarceration.  So much so, it was seen as a death knell .  Yet, earlier in the day, HB1039 (whose senate sponsor just happens to be Kelsey), which creates a new crime of "especially aggravated assault", gets passed thru the Crim Just Cmte (and previously, the Crim Just Sub) with no hesitations about its fiscal note:of $1.7 MILLION per incarceration.  Its just money, right?   NOTE: the House version of SB250 is now rolled to next weeks subcmte meeting.  Surprise, surprise, surprise!

I thought Kelsey's grandstanding about TN LEOs being forced to shoot and kill Fed officials was a real class act...perfectly in line with his other classy acts RE procedure, etc.  What a tool!

  I'm not sure how he can make that argument with a straight face (other than the simple fact that he is a politican, and such shenanigans are normal course of business in that cesspool). If you write a bill that leaves out a significant portion of language froma previous bill (conveniently, one that you directed to die), does it never occur to you to think of the consequences of that omission? If it doesn't, maybe you are in the wrong line of work...auctioneering does indeed seem a better career choice... Yeah, he knew...he and others were just hoping the light of day wouldn't shine on it. Once it did, he had two choices: man up (which he didn't, but Faison did), or play dumb. Door number two please, Monty. Interestingly, I have yet to hear Faison try to reconcile his statements to the committee with Ramsey's espoused position.

  I meant the communications with "the Senator"...priceless!

Mine arrived today as well...mailed it Jan 31.

LOL, WM...I really, really had to sit on my hands watching that evolve...

The fact that the bill is brought on the Senate side by Mae Beavers couldn't possibly have anything to do with leadership's opposition, now could it?

There's now been a fiscal note tagged onto SB0250 that seriously derails any chance of passage in the bill's current form.  One legislator offered the opinion that an amendment that reduced the penalty from a felony down to a misdemeanor would nullify the note, thus breathing life back into chances of the bill's passing...but would not doing so significantly reduce (or eliminate) any possible deterrent value of this legislation?   Just to play Carnac for a moment - we should soon see an appearance in this thread of at least one opinion that the bill is worthless anyway, so why not let it die... :popcorn:

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020373291_westneat17xml.html   And both sponsors admit they really didn't read it, and blame the proverbial "unknown staffer"...  

It has been made abundantly clear that current legislation under consideration will not be allowed to be amended.

I've got the Mueller APV sitting stop the Ultra Lux.  I like it a lot, but will prolly look at an APT for the future.

Tennesseans - no.  Elected Tennesseans...damn straight I am.

Don't hold your breath.

Unfortunately Mr "Boots" was re-elected with no opposition in last year's cycle. so we're stuck with him for awhile.

  It is oh so funny to read this, after having heard these same legislators make just the opposite argument last year...right before they got a bad case of the "turtles" and pulled their heads back into a protected orifice.  Indeed, IIRC it was the attorneys for the FedExs, VWs and NIssans that made this argument, and were summarily brushed off by leadership - at first.  Gee...wonder what changed their mind?

+1 on the 452.  I have the Ultra Lux, but that long (28") barrel may not be a good woods gun.  I don't recall the exact price, but I bought it new in the Kingsport area well within your price range from a LGS.  The stock trigger is quite good, but don't hesitate to put a YoDave (or Brooks, if you can find it) trigger kit in it...at $18, its well worth it.

It's become my wife's everyday gun, replacing her beloved p238.  Shoots Ranger SXTs (which are 147gr) flawlessly...in ball, can be picky with 115gr stuff, but eats 124 grain Blazer Brass and Win without any problems.  Very accurate, comfortable carry.  She keeps the "extended" mag in it, has the shorty for a spare.  

Ramsey once told me that what was actually needed was legislation prohibiting at-will searches, and instead requiring a defined, supported cause esentially requiring a search warrant. Funny he didn't offer THAT legislation in conjunction with this stinker... Until then, this is a save-face effort. Nothing more, nothing less. The way it was handled should tell you that. They didn't want folks to know what it didn't do until the train was too far down the track...and that's exactly what they got. Why do that unless you KNOW you are selling folks down the river? Every legislator that spoke about the bill in public (including Johnson when he presented it to the Senate Jud cmte and the full body) pointedly avoided saying anything suggesting that the bill did NOT address policies until Sherry Jones forced Faison to finally do so in yesterday's committee meeting...if they are so damned proud of this bill, why approach it in that manner?

LOL...OS, my definition of "varmints" is perhaps more "all-encompassing" than most. Up here in the hill country,  I've always subscribed to the "reach out and touch someone" idea... Not had it long, and the weather up here has not been conducive to any quality range time.  But what few she's sent downrange so far have made me quite happy!

  Yeah, I heard the same thing from Faison several days ago.  His words today in response to Jones said a lot more than you could hear.  Lets see...we're still waiting on them to fix the city parks opt-out, aren't we?  But its only been four years...  I'd forgotten about the Evans bill and Dennis' goof-ball idea there - you're right, this one ends up in the same crapper.

Well, isn't that just comforting?  Nothing like a legislator with the backbone of a jellyfish...

Well, the Civil Justice Subcommittee rammed it through with nary a whimper.  The one positive spot: Sherry Jones' questioning finally brought into the public light (with the sponsor's admission) the fact that the bill intentionally steers away from any attempt to deal with employers policy...in fact, the sponsor sounded like the intent will never be there to do so.  But Mr. Tighe's explanation of the Senate amendment left me scratching my head...hopefully, someone can explain to me how the wording of the Senate amendment extends the proviso of the bill to cover instances of incidental exposure of the weapon while stored (which, unless I badly misunderstood his mumblings, is what he said it did)?