GKar

This bill just popped up in the TN General Assembly session for 2012: http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/HB2670.pdf If I interpret it corrrectly, it places a limitation on copying/reproducing HCP records to 15 per day by any one person, while allowing a larger compliation to be provided only if it is redacted of names, adresses and other identifying information. Response to LEO request for investigation or prosecution is not limited, but cannot be publically disclosed except as evidence. Interesting. Seems to be an attempt to avoid the much-ballyhooed FOI arguments certain media types have promulgated in response to earlier efforts...a limit of 15 documents per day is reasonable, and in line with similar limitations one encounters in other FOI requests made of govt agencies. At the same time, it makes maintenance of a database like seen in West Tennessee bird cage liners an expensive and time-consuming effort...hate it for 'em. Will be interesting to see if the House Speaker allows this one to progress...

My wife and a female friend of hers both have the 9mm version, and love them...scary accurate at times. I've got the oh-so-slightly-bigger brother (Micro-Compact) in .45, andhave been completely pleased with it as well. Unfortunately, we're even further up the road than sshrick...but if you are in the Tri-Cities area, give a holler and we'll go for a test drive...

Contacted two representatives from my area. One (who stayed on the sideleines as a freshman during last session's fracas) has indicated his support, and has signed on as co-sponsor to HB 2021. Havent heard from the other yet...was disappointed in his support of the watered-down version last year. Will track down my senator after church one Sunday soon.

My Dad and my uncle, Tom Crosby. First went squirrel hunting with a Stevens-Savage 59B .410 bolt-action shotgun handed to me by my uncle (that gun is now with my son, and is waiting on my grandson). Dad and I then started hunting with several church friends, which led to my purchase of an Ithaca Model 37 20ga (which also still sits in my safe today). Like much else, these are values passed within the boundaries of relationships...not education.

Seems Memphis might be looking for theirs: Up to 200,000 rounds of ammo missing from police training academy in Tennessee- Kingsport Times-News

Have owned and shot the EMP in both 9mm and .40, as well as its .45cal brother. Very accurate, essentially trouble-free, and have yet to find the personal protection round they wont feed. Springfield CS was very good, too - had to return one of the two original magazines that came with the .40 EMP, and they sent me two mags for my trouble. Good folks.

Bristol, TN did indeed adopt the resolution banning carry in city parks. Some time passed, no signs erected. So, I called the person on Council who was the most outspoken proponent of that resoution an inquired as to when they were going to follow through on the rest of their commitment (ie, proper signage). He didnt know what I was talking about - I referred him to that portion of the law requiring proper signage at entrances. He belly-ached about the cost, and I reminded him that he was the one who so vigorously pursued the ban, and perhaps he'd rather publically admit he never considered the cost and put the process into place to rescind the resolution. After a couple of calls to the city attorney, he finally ordered the Parks dept to erect the correct signage...and I went to every park in the city to check, having to remind them of a few places they missed. Do I want the parks posted? No...but neither do I want to see some poor unsuspecting race fan (we get an influx of about 100,000 folks twice a year) or music festival visitor get charged or put into an uncomfortable positon because idiots like David Shumker wet their diaper at the thougt of anyone legally possessing a firearm. So if they want to play the game, they need to be held accountable for their responsibility to play the WHOLE game...thats the cost of their decision.

Maybe something like this, then? ( An employer required to permit possession of a firearm in the parking area ofthe employer's property under subsection (a) shall not be liable in any civil action for damages resulting from or arising out of any occurrence involving the firearm on the employer's property unless the employer committed a criminal act involving the use of the firearm, the employer knew that the person in possession of the firearm planned to commit a criminal act on the property, or the employer was otherwise prohibited by state or federal law or regulation from permitting firearms on the property. Strangely enough, those employers didn't seem the slightest bit interested...

Yeah, if you watch his reactions when his next bill was called, you could see the frustration even more. Would love to know what he was considering there for a moment or two... The real hypocrisy occurs when you have legislators indicate to you that THEY don't follow the rules RE firearms in the parking bldg..

Campfield's spiel was pretty good...TBR dude looked like he really wanted a place to hide when he realized what was going on. Yeager looked pretty bad, though, by misstatingthe bill...and Ford...well, 'nuff aid. She purports to have been a deputy? Wow...

+1,000. I watched most of both sessions, and can only say that I would not be astonished if some of these folks couldn't find their rear ends with both hands.

Well, looks like it waits till next year. Apparently, Chrmn Watson announced right off the bat that it was being sent back to subcommittee...audio feed was a bit unclear, but given it never was mentioned again, next year seems a safe bet.

Yes, it is. The campus carry bill was sent to summer study earlier in the committee meeting. Gonna be some very tired legislators by the time they get to 2021. Discussion on some of these others had been incredibly long.

During today's proceedings, a vote was taken on a motion to table Rep. Bass's amendment. That motion failed 51-35: it will be interesting to see who voted for and against that motion. From statements made on the floor, it seems a sure bet that Rep. Dennis voted for tabling Bass' amendment, while Nicely voted against tabling it... Upon failure of Evan's motion to table Bass' amendment, Evans immedaitely withdrew the bill from the floor and sent it back to Judiciary committee. And since Judiciary appears to be no longer meeting in this session, its on to next year...again. EDIT: Or maybe not. It seems this one may come up in Judiciary next week. That could be rather interesting.

Bass held his ground, and Evans took it back to the committee. Disappointing to see that level of disintegrity played out for all to see...

Well, we shouldn't have long to wait - it is item #1 on today's regular floor calendar. Unfortunately, I'm gonna miss the first thirty minutes or more of the session due to a work meeting.

In a previous life, I was part of a NASCAR Winston Cup/Grand National/Late Model Sportsman race team. Things could get a bit hairy right before race time, depending on what all was going on...but by and large, the folks down on pit road were very respectful, standing attentive with hand over heart. This was long before the NASCAR-mandated "everybody line up on the pit box lines and play good for the camera" days...we meant it. Those who were intent of doing otherwise often found themselves uncomfortably isolated, and usually figured out the error of their ways rather quickly. I contrast that to recent years, where the student section at the local high school football games sometimes stays fairly rowdy, while the rest of the stadium stands respectfully...presumably hoping that, someday, those kids will figure it out.

Back to the original thread for a moment: e-conversations with some reps has been, well, interesting. They were declarative of their support for the original/amended bill, seemed to be unsure of Evans' intent or motivations, but uniformly asserted they didnt believe the votes were there for the original/amended bill. However, they were fascinatingly non-commital (frankly, non-responsive) to the direct question of whether the original/amended bill would see their support reflected by their vote... As to the rest of the thread...can somebody just get out a ruler and settle this for good?

Thinking ahead to what could occur in tomorrow's House session gives rise to a procedural question. If amendment #2 (by Bass) passes, Evans has purportedly indicated that he would take the bill back to Judiciary committee (and ultimately withdraw it from consideration). Is it possible for that action to be blocked or challenged by one or more of the recently added co-prime House sponsors of the bill (should, of course, any of them actually desire to keep it alive in its amended state)? In that Bass is one of those co-prime sponsors (along with Dennis, McDonald, Rich, Weaver, Hill, Holt, Lundberg, Matheny, Watson and Faison), such a possibility, if it exists, it could make for some interesting wrangling...

Yes, you're right. You're always right, as has been proven in this thread.

Placing the hyperbole aside, a careful read of my post would suggest to most that I'm not stating that a moderator/administrator should not have an opinion; indeed, if that were the case, you'd never have anyone volunteer for that role, cause they'd not care enough to do so. What I was trying to point out, perhaps less than successfully, was that a moderator cannot fully and reasonably expect folks to ignore their status as such just because they say so. I was also trying to illustrate that the perception is an artifact of the account used and/or its presentation, and that, being the presentation used here is common to many forums, it is widespread. As for adding to the topic of the thread: HB 2021 is still scheduled to come to the House floor tomorrow. In a statement actually primarily dealing with another topic, both Haslam and Ramsey have indicated that this legislation is the one "gun" legisaltion that they would like to see pass in this session.

Two thoughts: First, I'm not sure about all of the discourse on this thread being "on-topic" in the the strictest sense, in that, AFAIK, the reasons for Evans' amendment, as well as the reasons for Bass' action/inaction et al are nowhere stated...by any of the players. So, the dialogue RE opinions on rights, etc, while perhaps entertaining to some, educational to a few, and persuasive to...well...fewer yet...is pretty much speculation nonetheless. Maybe its on-topic, maybe not...but I'm not gonna be so presumptious as to say I know what Sky King meant or did not desire as a course for the thread. Second...purely an observation from experiences as a moderator on other sites. Anyone who takes on a moderating/administration function on a forum such as this cannot simply "speak now as a non-moderator" when that red tag "Super Moderator" (or any other identifiying moniker that a poster is somehow involved in moderating or administering a site) is clearly displayed. Others, rightly or wrongly, will often continue to ascribe those attributes they associate with the moderator/administrative status to their processing of the opinions from that account (sometimes conciously, but most of the time unconciously). Its not necessarily right or wrong, it just is. And that's not to say that doing so as a moderator/administrator is right or wrong..but just to say all those holding such functions need to remember that, as hard as they may try to distance themselves from that position (and all the perceptions that come with the responsibility) in certain situations, they cannot effectively do so in the minds of many/most of the participants. I've been in forums that assign moderating responsibilities onto the participants existing accounts, and I've been on ones where all moderator/administrative accounts were seperate from the personal ones...both have their plusses and minuses.

+1. The only thing proven is that it is virtually impossible to keep a thread on track about the bill itself, even when there are already an ample number of other threads already littered with the same opinionss from largely the same group of folks.

To Sky King's last post: That's been the amusing thing about much of the theoretical rhetoric peppering this thread. The fate of this bill will not be determined by anyone's stance on "rights", "business vs personal" or any of the other buzzwords in the previous 17+ pages of discourse...rather, it will lie pretty much soley upon legislators' interests vis-a-vis the 800lb gorilla. Much of the above has, with regards to the actual bill and its fate, been "Ready-shoot-aim"...

If anyone still cares about the actual bill that began this somewhat exhaustive re-discourse, it is now scheduled to be brought to the House floor on Wed., April 27.