GKar

Still kinda hoping Bass moves to suspend the rules and bring the House bill directly to the floor. It wont make it, for sure, but at least there will then be a recorded vote to which each representative will be accountable.

Ironically, two of the truest 2A supporters in the GA over the last few years were Rep. Bass and ex-Sen. Jackson...both from the "wrong" side of the aisle, some would say. Makes for a pathetic view of the ( R )s...

That's where this issue has been mis-framed all along: its not "prop vs 2A", but rather "prop vs prop". At what point does a lot owner's prop rights extend into the interior of your personal vehicle and dictate the content thereof, particularly when such content is otherwise legally owned and transported in same vehicle? If the lot owner doesn't like rap music, he can certainly prevent you from playing it audibly - but can he also prevent you from having a Snoop Dogg CD stuck inside the glove box? Indeed, I believe a proper argument can be made that the current situation itself constitutes a violation of property owners rights - those of the vehicle owner.

The Dems that voted to move it to the floor (including Sen Kyle, who tried to get the Sentae to suspend the rules and allow the Senate verson to go straight to the floor by-passing the Calendar cmte) likely had several motivations. The one openly stated was that they wanted a chance to go on record by vote as opposing the bill - and there's some degree of truth and utility there, most certainly. I suspect the far greater desire was to get it to the floor so the whole world could watch the cluster as Repub leadership ran around trying to keep a lid on everything they didnt want aired in public (ie, smoke out what was said in the "secret ballot" meeting). Nothing quite as entertaining, and politically positive, as watching your opponent eat itself...

I went a couple of years ago. Only took about 15 minutes to see virtually everything there. Kinda kiiled any interest in returning.

The Cal cmte video is worth watching, if for nothing more than to see Turner's outburst (~11:00). It so very obvious that the Repub leadership wanted to shovel dirt over this one as fast as possible...Dunn's reaction to Bass's request for a roll call vote is soooooo very telling. And then Dunn (at 16:00) promises that a bill will come back next year that everybody can get behind...or was that just an echo from year's past?

Gotta second R_Bert on that. Better a predicatable enemy than an unscrupulous friend. BTW, just in case Santa is making his list, here's the breakdown on the House Calendar vote that sent HB3560 to "summer consideration": Representatives voting aye (send to summer study) were: Brooks H, Casada, Cobb, Dunn, Harwell, Haynes, Johnson P, Maggart, McCormick, McDaniel, McManus, Niceley, Ramsey, Roach, Sexton (15). Representatives voting no were: Eldridge, Fitzhugh, Matheny, Montgomery, Naifeh, Sargent, Towns, Turner M (8).

The 2010 version went to summer session...and, IIRC, so did its predecessor.

Will be interesting to see if Sen Kyle carries through on his promise to once again move to suspend the rules in todays 1pm Senate session and bring SB3002 to the floor for a Wednesday full Senate vote. The vote breakdown on that motion from last night went as follows: Yes (suspend the rules and bring the bill to the Senate floor): Barnes, Beavers, Bell, Berke, Campfield, Finney, Ford, Harper, Haynes, Henry, Herron, Kyle, Marrero, Norris, Overbay, Stewart, and Tate (17) No (do not suspend, the rule stays buried in Calendar Cmte): Ramsey, Watson, Summerville, Roberts, Burkes, Ketron, Johnson, Gresham (8) Present, not voting (same effect as a no in this instance): Kelsey, Massey, McNally, Tracy, Yeager (5) No response: Faulk, Crowe, Southerland It takes a 2/3rds majority of those voting (PNVs count, apparently) to suspend the rules, so with 30 voting, it needed 20 yes votes. Ramsey did not seem a happy camper during this discussion.

Just now from Ramsey's FB page: "Getting ready to start the last Monday session of the year. Looking forward to finishing the people's business deliberatively and efficiently this week." How convenient - sorry folks, we just ran out of time.

Supposed to follow the same rules: yes. Do they....suffice it to say that in a recent conversation RE pending legisaltion in the GA, a local representative told me that it was just easier to "do what you need to do, like I do" rather than actually change the law.

...and them

Thanks much!

House bills 3559 and 3560 rolled to the next House Calendar committee.

What a moron... http://www.timesnews.net/article/9045481/police-kingsport-man-arrested-for-lining-up-his-students-firing-blank-shots-from-gun From the link: (purportedly, how he dealt with somehat rowdy students, so I am told) "An investigation reportedly discovered Dillow "gathered" the attention of the 12 students in his welding class and lined them up near a garage door in the shop. "He then pulled a 'blank firing handgun,' black in color, from the back waistband of his pants and discharged the weapon between four and ten shots in the direction of the line of the students," states a Wednesday afternoon press release. "The 'report' of the firearm was similar to that of a firearm that fires a projectile, thus placing the students in fear, according to statements. No students were physically injured as a result of the incident."

Interesting to watch on the other side of the hall...Sen Faulk is Chair of the Senate Calendar committee. One would think he'd like to see his own bill brought to the floor. One problem might be the vice-chair: Norris. He is also leader of the Repub Caucus in the Senate, I believe...and as such may be in the "leadership" sphere of influence. In my conversation with Ramsey on Sunday, he passed along a comment supposedly made to him by Harwell that the Senate's actions were making the House look like a bunch of moderates - to which he laughed and said to me that there was a good reason for that. But, if the House bill does survive Calendar and goes to the floor, while the Seante bill does not, guess the boot goes on the other foot, doesn't it? Richard - where do you find the Calendar cmte calendar? I've never managed to stumble upon it.

And so today we have this: http://www.tennessean.com/article/20120418/NEWS0201/304170061/Guns-trunks-bills-advance-Haslam-Ramsey-don-t-expect-passage?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s Quoting from the article: “I am not interested in passing a bill this session just to pacify one group or another,†Ramsey said in a statement. “I am interested in finding a balance and resolving this issue for good. Whether it is in this General Assembly or another, it will be.†Gov. Bill Haslam also mentioned the legislation Tuesday at an event with Volkswagen officials. When asked if he would make sure the bills don’t pass, he laughed and said, “That’s a pretty good summary.†David Smith, a Haslam spokesman, later confirmed that the governor does not expect either bill to reach his desk. So once again, leadership deems it knows more about what is right and correct for the state than the entirety of assembled body we the voters sent to the GA. Fascinating display of sheer, unadulterated arrogance, that is. If this came to a floor vote in each body and was defeated by either, thats a different story - but to prevent the elected body from ever freely considering it on its own merits...wait, damn, that sounds like Obama...

Sam/Richard - as I read the amendments placed today, HB 3560 now differs from SB 3002 only in the proviso including those 21 and over who hold valid TN hunting licenses. And it seemed as thought the rep from NRA indicated in his podium coments that an agreement had been reached to limit the original bill to HCP holders initially, with the future goal of adding those holding hunting licenses in the future - which sounds in concert with HB 3560 as amended. So, would the process then be to call the Senate bill to the floor and sub the House version for it at that time, or would it just be amended from the Senate floor (assuming the House bill as it currently stands is indeed the target)? Also - any feeling at all for how many of those Reps signing on as co-sponsors of the original House bill continue to support the amended version? And overall level of support from the floor of each chamber? (All assuming, of course, that leadership doesn't manage to torpedo their coming to the floor with enough time to actually consider them.) Also an interesting thought: Faulk has nothing to lose by pushing the bill ahead. He's already announced that he will not be seeking another term in the upcominog election this year.

I heard an interesting take on this issue recently: I hate rap music. I wont allow anyone to play it on my property. But, do I also have a reasonable expectation of preventing them from having a rap CD (otherwise lawfully owned) in the CD sleeve on their sun visor?

I was pleasantly surprised today that Sen Ramsey sought me out and made time to talk with me. He indicated that he had not seen my earlier emails, but was told by his staffer that I had called. While not idrectly commenting on Harwell's statement, he did indicate that he had not made up his mind yet on the current version of SB3002, and he was very hopeful that some version of the bill, perhaps even the current version, would find action by both houses before adjournment. He also indicated that his major hangup with the bill was his struggle to balance his property rights beliefs, which I would characterize as far-reaching, with his belief in 2nd amendment rights. He asked how I would balance the two - and I explained that I felt Rep Bass had done a pretty good job with that in the brief time he spoke before the subcommittee. I dont see a contradiction between the two, in that the bill's provisons of protection do not extend beyond the locked vehicle, and only acknowledge and allow an otherwise legal possession within said vehicle (private property of the firearm owner) that by defnintion remains passive - the bill does not allow any "actions" to be taken by the firearm owner, but rather invisible possession within an otherwise locked and inaccessible vehicle. To the idea that, as a property owner, I would not have to allow the exercise of First Amendment rights, I contend that the very exercise of First Amendment rights, be it verbal, in writing or similar vehicle, by definition is an active process: the ideas relayed by the exercise are visibly, actively made available to others in the immediate area regardless of their efforts to ignore, and thus they are affected even if unwilling. Such is not the case with this bill: by its very definition, the legal possession of a firearm under its auspices MUST not be visible to another person, the vehicle MUST be locked thus preventing anyone else from gaining any type of access to it (and thus being affected by its presence), and the weapon MUST NOT be removed from the vehicle. So not only are others in the vicinity not UNWILLINGLY affected by its legal presence, they are also UNAWARE of its presence even it they were to try and ascertain it. Sen Ramsey indicated that he would take my thoughts under advisement, and welcomed hearing the htoughts of others - so yeah, make those calls! He then passed along an interesting characterization of a meeting with NRA earlier in the session wherein the NRA rep indicated that they (the NRA) would only "allow" the bill to be amended to limit it to HCP holders, and that no other limitations would be "allowed". Suffice it to say that I dont think the use of the term "allow" by a party that technically doesnt have a vote in the process was taken too well...

"The problem we face is coming up with a definition of truly public parking lots that respects both property and gun rights." Read - "the problem we have is coming up with a broad-enough way to define public parking areas that can be exempted so that all of my corporate sponsors, and those of my fellow legislators, are covered."

Hmmm...he hasn't gotten around to sending me any kind of response. Maybe he's gonna wait and hand-deliver it...

That's totally unjustified medical practice, IMHO (not a Dr, but involved heavily in health care for >35 years). Read the prescribing information for either drug - there is no way those quantities can be reconciled against the recommended dosing for either drug unless his roommate is terminally ill with advanced carcinoma or similar condition. Unfortunately, Drs do not have to follow the prescribing information approved by the FDA - to force them to do so is considered inconsistent with their practice of the "art" of medicine. The aggravating thing is they can totally ignore approved dosages, but will almost never bear any responsibility for the problems arising from such. And woe indeed be to the pharmacist who might question such a prescription...they will most assuredly get a heavy does of the "I'm a doctor and you're not" holier-than-thou crap.

Slightly OT, but it speaks to just how far the low-lifes will go. We now see regular reports of druggies trying to identify anyone who may have been prescribed a Fentanyl patch (similar to a nicotine patch: it is stuck to the body for a period of perhaps several days to provide a steady state release of fentanyl, a very potent synthetic opiate). These morons will dig through the patients trash can to find used patches - which they promptly put in their mouth and chew in an effort to get to any residual drug left in the patch matrix. If you'll chew a band-aid thats been stuck to someone's butt for 3 days, there's likely no bounds to what else you'll do, eh?

+1.