GKar

Things in the office must be getting a bit testy. Just got off the phone with them, where I specifically asked for an answer to a simple question: are Rep Harwell's characterizations of Sen Ramsey's intent to prevent SB3002 from coming to the Senate floor accurate? She stopped short of sayin he supported the bill: only that he supported the rights of Tennessee citizens to be able to protect themselves, and that he'd made press releases about his thoughts on the bill. Then I got the whole runaround about how he hasn't yet made up his mind about the bill yet, he is a champion of 2A rights, he was influential with bringing right-to-carry to Tennessee, he's trying to balance 2A versus property rights, he wants to hear his constituents thoughts...ad nauseum. She asked my thoughts about the property rights issue: I told her I thought Rep Bass did a good job addressing that in the brief time he was allowed in the House subcom - this bill goes no further than the contents of a locked private vehicle, which is my property, and that once a weapon leaves that specified environment it also leaves the protections afforded by this bill. She intoned that he and his staffers have been busy working with the sponsors to try and come up with a compromise, but it was getting late in the session - I asked why, with the bill being filed in late January, it was only now coming under that level of scrutiny? I continued to press about getting an answer to my original question, and that, without any answer fromSen Ramsey, I and the public would simply have to make assumptions based upon Harwell's statement - she finally said that she could not answer that because she was not the Lt Gov. , and would I like to leave a message? I told here that, since the opening of the session and the filing of these bills, I have sent several emails (3? 4?) to Sen Ramsey asking similar questions, including two recent ones asking my specific Harwell question,and have yet to receive a reply, so yes, I would like to leave a message for him: just answer the question. She took my name and phone number - we'll see.

If my understanding of GA procedures is correct, Sen Ramsey can't formally take any actions on the House bill, which will be going to the full House C&E committee next week. His stated intentions, however (if Ms Harwell is to be believed), would seem to suggest he will (and can) prevent the Senate Calendar committee from scheduling the Senate version of the bill from ever appearing on the Senate floor ( the Senate version having already passed all other necessary committees in the Senate). That he can do regardless of the fate of the House bill...of course, if the House bill dies some other death, its a moot point.

Yep, that was what I was trying to convey: the difference between Ramsey the candidate and Ramsey the legislator. Although it seems that trait is certainly not limited to Mr Ramsey...our legislators are eaten up with it.

You would be correct, Worriedman - Ramsey is my state Senator. I have emailed him several times throughout this GA session seeking his comments on these bills, particularly with regard to "prior" statements such as the one you have relayed above. I have yet to receive a response. Therefore, I am left with no recourse but to assume his most recent statements as relayed by Spkr Harwell are indicative of his present position - I even pointedly and specifically asked about those, but again was met with silence. Ron is an active auctioneer - my guess is that we have been outbid. Wait - I just noticed something. The response you quoted is from "teamronramsey", not "lt.gov.ron.ramsey". Therein, methinks, lies the difference... I have again today asked this question. We'll see...

Interesting subcom meeting this morning. White was like a worm in hot ashes - while I am glad he allowed the bill(s) to proceed to full committee, the manner in which he did so was, frankly, atrocious. For the first time, I find myself agreeing with GA Hardaway...at least on the manner in which this was done. Our elected officials at their finest... http://tnga.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=127&clip_id=5323

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20120331/NEWS0201/303310024/Bristol-track-seeks-TN-aid

Oh, add getting the state to bankroll Bruton Smith and Bristol Motor Speedway to the tune of $1 million to Ramsey's list of things that DO need to get done before going home.

Excluding hunters makes almost as much sense as excluding fenced lots (another position I've heard Ramsey espouse). Which reminds me...seems I remember a Ramsey campaign flyer with him decked out in hunting gear. Selective memory, I suppose...

Ahhh...the Chamber as in Chamber of Commerce, rather than in reference to the full House body (which is how I initially read it - hence, my comment). Got it. IIRC, the Chamber was also staunchly opposed to the restaurant legislation: weren't they on the bandwagon for the "if you pass this, tourism dollars will dry up and conventions will go outside the state" line?

I'm hoping this is akin to a Freudian slip...but alas, you may speak truer than you know.

Watched a well-choreographed bull session of a subcommittee meeting today. Managed to address every bill on their 16-item agenda except HB 3560 and its variants. White seemed absolutely beside himself with glee when Matlock made a motion to adjourn...he couldn't bang the gavel quick enough. Death by subcommittee... Its supposedly moved to next weels subcpommittee meeting...like it has been every week for over a month now. Dollars to donuts it appears last on the calendar again...and they run out of time...again.

CMP currently has Greek HXP surp 200 rnds for $98 (packed loose in a .30 cal ammo box).

From a previous post, quoting a response from Ramsey [emphasis added] : " I believe the state must balance both gun owners' right to bear arms as well as business owners' right to control their own property. This is why I support making it legal for handgun carry permit holders to keep their guns in their car in most public parking lots." Weasel words. They are becoming more prevalent in his vocabulary as his association with Haslam and Harwell continues. Sad, and disappointing.

Yeah, most certainly. One would think that, if sincere, as chair of the parent committee he would have some degree of persuasion with White. We'll see....yeah, I'm afraid we'll really see. A question for those with better feelers within that cesspool in Nashville: any sense of the sincerity of the movement of the bill within the Senate? It seems Ramsey just wants to distance himself from it altogether. But is there a real desire within the Senate to move forward, versus this rather obvious skittishness in the House? Or is the Senate playing the "OK, House, we placated them/tossed em a bone, now you kill this thing so we can all go home" game?

Just received this from Jimmy Eldridge: -------------------------------------------------- Thank you for taking the time to contact me with your concerns. I have signed on as prime co-sponsor of HB3560/SB3002 and am very supportive of this legislation. I have always been very supportive of our 2nd amendment rights, especially regarding law-abiding, hard working citizens. Again, thank you for contacting me about this matter. If I can ever be of assistance please do not hesitate to contact me. Have a great day! Jimmy Eldridge --------------------------------------------------- Rep Eldridge is chair of the Consumer and Employee Affairs parent cmte - presumably, the bill's next stop if it gets out of the subcomittee headed by White.

Last night, sent a communication to Rep White, as well as the vice-chair of the subcom, the chair of the parent comittee and my local reps, and copied Rep Bass. Asked almost the exact thing as in Worriedmans post - that any Naifeh-esque tactics simply be avoided and allow the full House to consider HB 3560. Strangely, my inbox is still empty. The Rep for my half of town, Scotty Campbell, has already annonced that he is not running for re-election (after only his first term!). The Rep for the other half of Bristol is Lundberg...whom, I suspect, is deep in business pockets given his recent actions. Also interesting...Sen Ramseys FB page of late has been trumpeting the various achievements of the Legislature, and pushing various pieces of legislation. Strangely silent RE SB 3002, though... Saw a pic of he and a couple of other legislators at the recent NASCAR race in Bristol, and couldn't help but think how ironic...sponsorship and all...

Osaka in Bristol (VA side of town) is very good. They have a satellite restaurant in Johnson City, but haven't been there in a while.

<<As for limitations that focus on the facilities itself, I have issues with that. We can do little to nothing in regards to facilities that are specifically restricted by state or federal law. However just because a facility has a fence and or a gate, is a nuclear facility or whatever, has NO impact on the circumstance encountered during my commute. The whole point of this bill is spelled out in the title of the legislation, SAFE COMMUTE. What does the fact that where I may work being a nuclear facility have to do with THAT? Am I suddenly mysteriously exempt from violent attack on my way home from work just because the place I just LEFT has a fence?>> I noted this same observation in an email to Gov Haslam, Rep Harwell and Sen Ramsey (copying Faulk and Bass, as they are the bill's sponsors), and asked each to please provide their interpretation of how the various proposed amendments referenced by each in media statements serve to augment the bill's expressly-stated purpose. That email went out 8 days ago. The crickets are still chirpin in Ramsey and Harwell's offices, while I got a form letter response from Haslam caying my questions had been referred to his legislative coordinator (or somesuch drivel).

SB 3002/HB 3560 are now scheduled for the Senate Judiciary Cmte on 3/20 and the House E&CA Sub on 3/21. HB3660 (McCormick) is also scheduled for teh House E&CA Sub on 3/21. Let's see how JimmyBeth Harwellfah deals with em this go-round.

So in 46 minutes of actual meeting time, the House E&CA Subcomittee managed to address a whopping 4 bills out of a 19 bill agenda...and agenda upon which the Bass/Faulk bills were #s 18 and 19, while the McCormick abomination was scheduled as #9. Sure seemed like Casada was in a gawd-awful hurry to move for adjournment.

615

Good riddance, indeed. But it appears that he's been cloned and once again sits in the Speaker's chair...

I've stayed out of the private property rights argument by and large...I have my beliefs, as does everyone else, and all the threads concerning them have done is to galvanize the fact that folks aren't likely to change their opinions about it...which is cool. RNs comment above, however, gave pause to a truth that I knew, just never had vocalized: while the property rights arguments makes for interesting Constitutional debate, it really has NOTHING to do with the reality of the opposition to the proposed legislation. Its just a convenient diversion...a red herring. And one that has been excellently played by the oppositon, I might add...it was swallowed hook, line and sinker.

I've tried to catch Sen Ramsey at or after church the last several weeks in order to set up a time to speak with him about this...to no avail, unfortunately (as much my fault as his on that point). Finally resorted to an email Sun night in which I expressed my puzzlement and disdain at his recent comments RE "compromise"...statements which run directly countercurrent to statments he has made directly to me in past conversations and in campaign literature, etc. Not surprisingly I guess, I have yet to receive a response. I have had even less success with attempts to converse via email with Rep Lundberg. Several attempts have yet to result in any form of acknowledgement from him - likely because I expressed by disappointment with his support of the Evans fiasco last session, Given his past experiences (prior to life politik), I do not find it surprising at all that he would take comfort in the FedEx nest.

"Support" might be a rather strong word. If you go by body language, and look/listen to the statements she and Maggart made on video, you are hard-pressed to find any inkling of "support" of the current bill...and fairly clear indications that any such bill they might consider acceptable will be significantly modified, including ionsertion of a proviso to exclude businesses with sufficiently 'private' parking lots (as yet to be defined, but fences seem to be prominently mentioned). This latter idea sadly seems to have wandered into Lt Gov Ramsey's latest statement, as well...