Worriedman

The Association will be opposed to HB0535/SB0780, regardless of the fact that many of the Sheriff's would individually support it.  Part of the quid pro quo that passes back and forth with the Oligarchy is support of Administration issues that work against the Right of the People to keep and bear arms, unless they pay and play to the Administration's tune.  The permit system makes a large amount of money for the State, they will not give up that cash or the control it allows them easily.

I do not think they are going to be against Goins' Bill (HB 0274), but will find out for sure.

Spoke with three different Sheriffs about this bill today, they say it is DOA as far as they are concerned.  These are three that have their heads on straight too, Sheriff's Association is out against it.  Main concern is Billy Bob would think he is off duty LE... That carries a lot of weight in LP.  Legislators might get caught drinking and driving with a gun in their car, they (legislators) will do as the Association wishes.

For those wishing assistance with the necessary steps and verbiage to contact BATFE.   http://www.usrkba.org/fire-mission/atf-ammo-ban-2015

Well, some may sit on their hands, but I sent my e-mails to ATF and my elected federal reps, of course I think maybe it was all wasted, but I did my best to affect what I could.

Second consideration, will there have to be a court case to decide if TN Judges think 1309 (schools), 1310 (school defenses), 1313 (parking lots on schools) and 1311 (parks) bills would be effectively nullified under the bill's auspices.  I think they might be, but only if a court concluded that the amendment of 1350 was done with the specific intent of effectively voiding those statutes relative to 1351 permit holders.  Who takes that case to get it heard?

The bill talks about "permit issued pursuant to this section", would this void reciprocity agreements with other States as their permits are not issued under 1351?  

Would like to get a read on LE's take on this bill.  After some study, it does not do a whole lot, "off duty" officer is basically a citizen, granted not a felon if they are on the force, but not sure this is what I thought it was to start with.  I will be asking Sheriffs I know what they think.

Mae Beavers has filed in the Senate, lets see who gets on board as prime co-sponsors.

Knocks out parks issue as well.

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction.  The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes." Cesare Beccaria via Thomas Jefferson. When will the AG decide that water is too dangerous a substance to be allowed in the individual's control...

Extends liability for civil damages to public and private employers who take adverse employment action against an employee who lawfully transports and stores a firearm in a motor vehicle. The last bill gave full coverage to business owners for any act committed by a legally owned firearm, this is the flip side. I met Senator Bowling for the first time last week, she is the real deal folks.  She granted me nearly an hour to discuss firearms issues, was gracious and sharp as a tack with respect to understanding the machinations of the current administration's proclivity to run from the issues via the committee system (Naifeh syndrome). I am convinced that Mae Beavers has help now.

We now have a Senate sponsor, Sen Paul Bailey (SB0628).  Both filed for intro, here we go.

OK Search foo is weak today, but, LexisNexis appears to have changed a bit in the last few days (either that or my computer has been hacked) all I get now are the text titles, e.g. Offenses Against Public Health, Safety and Welfare, no chapter numbers...

Had not seen this one either, kicked it up to some Senate folks who might be amenable.  It is not Constitutional Carry, but I'd like to move the ball this much on Haslam's defense...

Problem there is Oh Shoot, money comes into play, and the elected folks pay more attention to those who have lots than those who not.  You are correct, "bearing" and "wearing" ARE the same, the TN legislature through the Chamber of Commerce, Fed Ex, Farm Bureau and such don't want you (or me) for that matter, to do either.

Of consideration: King Billy is term limited, and as such will not be able to fly cover for Madam Speaker much longer (and, her wanting his still warm seat).  Cash still being king we understand, but the ability to make appointments and such give great strength, however when such power is waning (lame duck and all) Madam Speaker may just want to drum us some bona fides re conservatism of her own and allowing a few gun bills though might buy her some rednecks...and Ramsey, why he is the most 2nd Amendment friendly guy out there (cough). We may have the A Team in place and not know it yet.

No case, as evidently no one has wanted to breech the walls of the General Council's rules. https://www.etsu.edu/humanres/documents/FirearmsOnCampus.pdf

We do write legislation, seek sponsors and cosponsors and meet with legal to vet them, and, ride the fiscal note pony to boot.  If you think that your membership dues buy you a bunch of bills, I nor anyone else can help you much.  I pay my money, do all those things, plus donate to the PAC, volunteer my time, get on the radio, drive across the State to speak where people want to listen on my dime, and take no gratuities, (and yes, a few do care to hear what I have to say).  I give to GOA and am an Endowment Member of the NRA, all on a concrete finishers wages, all while working a full time job and caring for aged parents, a very sick wife, plus play with my grand kids when I can.  I have more to do than sit on my can and carp. I get it, that nobody else is responsible for my safety or my future, but me.  If I am not willing to do the heavy lifting why the hell would I expect anybody else to?  

Sun Tzu would tell us now is the time to scale the walls, embolden the masses to gather the troops for an assault while the enemy is disheveled and searching for answers to wth just happened to the Oligarchy: “If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected .” Though it is wise to remember the wounded bear is the more dangerous.

Safe commute was never about "carrying" on the owner's property, simply an act of "keeping" inside one's "castle" as determined already by the State via 39-11-611, out of sight, unhandled, yet available for use if necessary for the trip home to wherever (or wherever to work), as the SCOT determined in Andrews v. State:   "The right to keep arms, necessarily involves the right to purchase them, to keep them in a state of efficiency for use, and to purchase and provide ammunition suitable for such arms, and to keep them in repair. And clearly for this purpose, a man would have the right to carry them to and from his home, and no one could claim that the Legislature had the right to punish him for it, without violating this clause of the Constitution. (Article 1 § 26)" Now before Dave jumps in to tell me we have LOST the Right to wear/bear arms in Tennessee under the 1871 "intent to go armed" clause, I do not disagree, but, this is not about wearing/bearing arms, it is about "keeping' them in our own castle as defined by Statutory law in Tennessee, and I have seen nothing that says I may not keep them.   The issue has been beat to death, and is moot, as the current TCA allows business owners to deny the Citizens ability to keep a firearm in their private vehicle, using the ability of a worker, ( and spare me JayC about quitting a job if you don't like your current employer's rules, with nearly 20% real unemployment, one must hit their knees if they have a job in today's economic environment) to feed their families as the cudgel to enforce their will.

You are correct as usual sir.  I have just had a permit for so long that I forget that not everyone does.

.    

Actually, it is not a criminal matter anymore, no one who can legally posses a firearm, and legally pilot a vehicle is subject to criminal charges for having a loaded weapon in their vehicle, if it (vehicle) is where the operator has a right to be. Loosing your job for violating a written Company policy or being kicked out of college is still OK.

I get the tilting at windmills thought process, but you will never know if you do not ask!