Worriedman

I am. It is not like the felons are not carrying already...laws do not stop behavior, they simply criminalize it.

In the back woods of TN, and for much longer than the internet has existed, it was a rite of passage when a young man turned 12 or so for his family to present him with his own weapons.  I was personally given a .22 single shot rifle at that age by my grand father.  A couple of years later he handed down his Stephens pump 12 gauge to me.  At 16 he presented me with my very own .38, out of his stable of firearms.  He and my Father ascertained if I had the presence of mind and ability to control myself to be allowed "behind" them with a loaded weapon.  They had duties and obligations to their families, they were not heedless in making those determinations. I knew men that they did NOT trust in that position. Never used any of them in anger, never committed a crime with any of them.  I was taught that they were tools, and like many others, their caress use had dire consequences.  We were sharecroppers by station, and every day of my young life there was a loaded 12 gauge double barrel standing by the kitchen door, for use on predators that might attempt to take the chickens from the back yard.  We knew not to handle it except in case of need, it was like the "good" chopping ax or Grand Pa's crosscut or rip saws. More is the pity that in today's world it is the belief of many that to possess a firearm requires government to provide "training' instead of that being the province of family, when the prescription stated in the 2nd Amendment is that the federal government shall not infringe on the right to keep and bear them and that to own and carry firearms is a Right of every Tennessean.  Our peers have decided that the mentally insufficient and felons (I personally believe that if one has proven a proclivity to violence and harm to their fellow Citizens, they should be put away from society, not just denied the right to have or carry arms, but then those who subscribe to such behavior do not obey laws, that however is for others to manage) shall not be able to possess firearms, have never seen a law that could achieve the preclusion of an act.

There are maybe 5 legislators who have any desire to move firearms legislation, Sen, Mae Beavers is the most active, and Lt. Gov. Ramsey has done everything but put her in irons, (put that Piss ant Kelsey in her Chairmanship spot on Judiciary) as she "is not a team player" and keeps sponsoring real firearms legislation.   We (TFA) stay tuned in and active in attempting to move decent legislation, and lots of times, fighting dumb a** moves by the NRA.  With the current leadership, (Harwell, Ramsey and Haslam) it would take Merlin to get anything of worth through.

The 'guns in trunks" bill you reference was purchased by "big business" from the legislature, as it still allows the permit holder to be fired if there is a written policy stating such by an employer, so the employer can still ban the practice of keeping a handgun in a private vehicle..

Assuming that you mean by "They" that you mean schools (if I can follow your syntax), I have a question for you.  Are you being serious?   The average government school is in the business of pushing agendas, training the sheep to get in line and take direction without question.  Preparing a generation to go through the TSA line at the airport without so much as a thought of the breech of Liberty occurring is more the target (to gild the lily here).  To posit that the use of firearms, safe or otherwise might be remotely included in a curriculum today is past the pale.  

Yes, actually I do, and Jefferson agreed: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms".  Hamilton went so far as to say: "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."  Patric Henry would be in my corner were he still kicking as well: "The great object is, that every man be armed. [...] Every one who is able may have a gun." You, on the other hand remind me of  the statement by Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis when he said: "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding."  I give the benefit of the doubt about the "well meaning" part...  

Sadly, it happens every day.  In many cases it is not "what you know, but who you know" that lands that position.

jh225, what about when I have to drive from Jackson to Clarksville for work.  I have to leave at 2:30 A.M. for the schedule I am required to keep, and I return to my home on average at 11:00 P.M. I am driving half way across the State (and back), from the 3rd most dangerous small municipality in the Nation to a location that is posted.  To work the 8-10 hour day, I have to leave my vehicle parked off site and ride in with some of my on site employees, leaving my personal vehicle parked at their house, as I can not even have a firearm in my vehicle on their parking lot (thanks Ramsey). By your reasoning, I should simply quit my job I guess, giving up 20+ years in seniority and at my advanced age, probably having no chance at picking up other employment because of my age and my wife's serious health problems. I think I will keep my own council, as yours seems less than prudent for my needs, and I agree with TMF, you seem less than concerned with your fellow Citizen's well being.  

Don't think I offered an opinion, I did ask a few questions of you, and stated some facts.   Once again, as you evidently did not get it, I will pose one of the questions, the most salient.  Where is it written in the Constitution that ANY amount of training is necessary to enjoy the right to keep and bear arms.  If there is no text that you can provide, then your statement about training being necessary is an opinion, is it not?

Should those that hunt be required to prove training?  Just in weapons, or should they be tested on knowledge of the game they propose to pursue, if you deem that necessary to require. Not too long ago I read where a high up LEO shot and killed his friend whilst turkey hunting, bet you he had a lot of "formal" training with firearms.   I do not remember any statutory requirement to be proficient in the use of arms to be guaranteed the right to posses them in any Constitution, Bill of Rights or Declaration of Rights I have read yet. Can a parent teach a child the proper use and safe handling of a firearm, or does it require the State to be effective?  I am around numerous shooters between the age of 10 and 12 that I would trust with a weapon around me far more than some adults I know, and they have had no "formal" training, but they have enought sense to pour pee out of a boot with directions on the heel, which is more than I can say about some adults I know that are paid to carry firearms for a living.  

Was HB 1407, the Senate version (SB 1496) passed 26-7, Establishment killed the House version by summarily taking the bill off notice, though Goins, (sponsor) was present and prepared to move the bill. In my years of watching the legislature and the various bums rushes dolled out, (including Naifeh and his tribe), this is the single worst travesty I have seen visited on the firearms owners, and the legislature to be frank, ever.

Well, if you can get M. Santos to deign to meet with or speak to a Tennessean who is a non-legislator we might be able to get that done, but as for now, he is being led by the Establishment Republicans to do what they want, at their schedule, which is nothing in the vein of furthering firearms Rights in this State.  I can attest also, that the NRA has not reached out to Sen. Beavers, not once all year, though I can promise, the offer from her to speak was made, as I was party to it.

Well, actually JayC, the Union Troops were not involved in the re-writing of the Constitution, that was handled by the Democrats that were in effect still in charge of the Tennessee political scene.  Union Troops were Republican for the most part, (Party of Lincoln, remember?) and they did in fact hammer away at the GA from time to time, but, they were not involved in giving the GA the power to regulate arms, that was the KKK's buddies. 

That thing is sweet.  They came out with it after i bought the one I have, or I would have picked it instead, though, I am very happy with the ease of set up and use of the the one I have.

Picks on the trap?  Then I read till the end of the thread...

Do yourself a favor, (if you are bothered by those who don't know anything about TN gun laws) never go to LP and do a walk around and talk to the legislators, I have never met a group with less knowledge of the laws than that gaggle.

Representatives voting no were: Alexander, Armstrong, Brooks K, Camper, Fitzhugh, Harrison, McCormick, McDaniel, Odom, Roach.

I have some age on me, and I am getting more brittle by the day.  "Cold" working is what makes brass brittle, plus I suppose age could deteriorate the brass itself, but annealing seems to "bring it back" for me.  I got one of the machines, as I do so much wildcat case prep. http://www.bench-source.com/id81.html

Bring them by the house, will take us 15 minutes.

Bill is having a cold one and laughing up his sleeve, he and Michael did a conference call yesterday and virtually high-fived each other.  THIS is what our supermajority is giving us.

Actually, a closer study of the factors and players of the time, show that Southern insurrection was not the reason for the Jim Crow genre of laws, but was rather, the result of Democrats still in positions of power across the Southern States making sure that the recently freed slaves were not afforded the opportunity to arm themselves.  The Jim Crow laws are all State, not Federal, issues.   And you were 100% correct, we still have our Jim Crow laws on the books in TN, TCA 39-17-1307 or the "intent to go armed" clause is the snake in the grass put there to criminalize all but Sheriff's friends and political buddies who could and did get around the laws with respect to carrying firearms.

Don't forget, Madam Speaker is involved as well, it is not just a Haslam thing, the Three Amigos (Haslam. Harwell and Ramsey) are all in bed on all this (eww, that sounds nasty).

Well, can't help you. Doubt anyone can.

Actually no, we got hammered in 1870, when the "Intent to go armed" clause was introduced, and the Citizens of Tennessee lost their Right to bear arms, all in one fell swoop as they say.

All the more reason for the People to line up and support him.  It has been proven that when that occurs, the Establishment gets to wear egg on their face.