GKar

Just an interesting, possibility related aside: several health care facilities in this area are now "No tobacco use" property wide. For a period of time after initial appearance of that policy, the facilities insisted that also meant that tobacco use was not allowed inside an employees car when parked in the parking garage, lot, etc. - anywhere on the facilities' property. Recently, however, that has been re-stated as not allowed EXCEPT if inside your own vehicle. I do not know why the change, nor any circumstances surrounding it...just that it occurred.

The math for the dollar figure is laid out quite plainly in the fiscal note: apparently, TBI estimates 10% of HCP holders will purchase a firearm in a given year. There are 307,000 HCP holders at present: .1 x 307,000 x $10 = $307,000. The wording of the sentence, however, is a train wreck...which gives rise to another possibility, I guess. If TBI told the preparers they figured 10% of firearms purshases were made by HCP holders (what the wording seems to imply), then the preparers of the note used the wrong number: shoulda been .1 x $10 x [#firearms purchases/yr], not #HCP holders. Who knows? More of govt's finest at work and play...

If it is, TBI can blame no one but themselves...they provided the data upon which the fiscal note was derived. I'm wondering if TBI's concerns are elsewhere. If one somehow loses their HCP, is it physically confiscated in a reliable, timely manner?

And, as earlier mentioned, the bill has laready been vetted past Finance, Ways and Means and passed 10-0.

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Fiscal/SB0306.pdf The fiscalnote was issued last Feb...kinda late to just start thinking about it. Proj state revenue loss of $307,000.

Well, Southerland moved it back to the calendar without any discussion or debate. Not a full calendar today (only 7 items), nor anything else that seemed to be a particularly contentious issue...oh well.

And McNally has proposed an amendment to add $6 to both the HCP application fee and the renewal fee to cover the potential loss of revenues from the resulting loss of TICS check fees.

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/SB0306.pdf Is #5 for consideration on the Senate's Regular Floor Calendar for the 8:30am session today, Feb 1. As written, would exempt handgun carry permit holders from criminal background check requirement when purchasing a firearm. Passed Sen Fnc Ways and Means 10-0 at the end of the previous session. Might give an interesting read on this chambers attitudes and intents going forward...

But that would be consistent with the practices of a REAL journalist, and thus likely disqualify you from contributing to this and similar fishwrappers.

So far, it hasn't picked up a Senate sponsor...not even sure Marrero would touch this one.

The ones you are referring to are SB 2992 and 3002 by Faulk (and their House counterparts by Bass). There's another thread for those two. This Southerland/Miller bill differs substantially from Faulk/Bass. Personally, I believe Faulk/Bass are much better bills...but I fear that we're gonna see the same dynamic as in the Evans-led trainwreck last session, and either Southerland/Miller or a very similar bill by Campfield/Evans will be the survivor to the floor...if anything survives to the floor.

Talk about establishing a class differentiation: HB 3681: Handgun Permits - As introduced, exempts from having to take a handgun safety course those applicants for a handgun carry permit who have been a member of the Tennessee general assembly within five years prior to applying for such permit. - Amends TCA Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13 "SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-17-1351(e), is amended by adding the following language as a new, appropriately designated subdivision: ( ) Been a member of the Tennessee general assembly; SECTION 2. This act shall take effect July 1, 2012, the public welfare requiring it." Give me strength, Lord. Just because you've been in the General Assembly sometime in the last 5 years, you are exempt from a handgun safety class? I've seen the video clips of some of these people...egad!

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/SB3451.pdf Prevents employer from prohibiting possession by employee in their privately owned vehicle (gun out of sight, vehicle locked, regular working hrs for employee) unless: "..an employer has designated an employee only parking lot that contains all of the following features: (A) A wall, fence or some physical barrier that prevents unauthorized access by non-employee vehicles; ( A guard or other security personnel who checks all vehicles entering the parking area for proper identification or credentials; © A policy or regulation that permits vehicle searches that is applicable to all vehicles entering the parking area and that is applied on a uniform and frequent basis; and (D) A notice or sigh is conspicuously posted at all entrances to the parking area informing that it is; (i) An “Employee Only Parking Areaâ€; (ii) Firearms are prohibited on the premises pursuant to § 39-17-1359; and (iii) All vehicles in the parking area are subject to being searched. Gonna need a scorecard pretty soon. Again, this one reeks of big business capitulation (almost typed "copulation", which may not have been that far off the mark, I guess). While this one is more palatable than the Campfield/Evans POS, I'm still favoring the Faulk/Bass bills.

Very true...a moniker of "bipartisan support" might be a desirable thing when push comes to shove.

Like I said, I very possibly am mis-interpreting the portion that I quoted...

Another interesting offering this week: http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/HB3499.pdf From the caption: "As introduced, defines and clarifies the terms "intent to go armed" and "purpose of going armed" when determining if person is in violation of law prohibiting a person from carrying a firearm with the intent to go armed under certain circumstances." Need the better legal-eagles to weigh-in, but this one appears to offer a possible avoidance of the criminal aspect of carrying past a posting in part ((7): ( A rebuttable presumption exists that a person lacks the “intent to go armed†or the “purpose of going armed†in violation of this part if: (7) The only evidence of a possible violation of this part is the person’s possession or carrying of a weapon in a place where this part prohibits the person from possessing or carrying a weapon with the intent to go armed or purpose of going armed. We'll see....

Just noticed that. Also noticed that Evans has signed on as House sponsor for Campfield's watered-down big-money-condescending version (SB 2941). I've contacted my area Reps about supporting 2992/3002...will anxious await hearing back from them. One is very reliable about responding: the other, not so much after we disagreed about his stance in last sessions HB 2021 fiasco. He wanted the politically motivated pseudo-victory that had no teeth and no benefit other than his being able to say, "See, I supported a gun bill!"

Yeah, my first thought after reading this one was "If this is the best you can do, then please stop trying". So now, we get an almost identical bill, SB 2941, that Evans has signed on as co-sponsor: http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/SB2941.pdf I totally agree that the two offerings by Faulk are far more deisrable, as they actually address the core issues. My fear by Evans junping onto the 2941 bandwagon is that this somehow signifies a back-door deal with the big money opponents...we've certainly seen his camp play that game before in very recent history...

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/SB2700.pdf Campfield filed this one Monday...so far no House sponsor. Before I comment, I'd like to hear from others to see if my perception is just off.

No longer matters: Faison withdrew it from the House. Next...

On further review...if asked "Do you own a gun?", I can honestly answer no...I own several...or is that many....ah, semantics!

+1 on this...she sure does!

IIRC, last session's HB2021 (before it was gutted and reduced to pomp and circumstance by numerous RINOs in the waning days of the session) was worded such that the posting status of the employer's property was irrelevant ("Notwithstanding [the relevant TCA citation for posting..." - 1359,maybe?] as to keeping a firearm locked and out-of-sight in a vehicle (for those having a valid HCP).

Hey, I've lied to my doctor before...