Worriedman

You would be surprised how compliant the average person is to government infringement, the great majority of folk just figure to let someone else carry the water...

I suspect that GKar is on point.   The thing I find curious is that Coley is a Prime co-sponsor of the bill, and that is troubling in and of itself.  I have personally watched as he stabbed Campus Carry in the back when Andy Holt ran the bill, it was one of my first up close and personal views of deceit in government.  they called Holt on his cell, when the stepped outside to take the call, Coley sent his bill to Summer Study, and never even told him they had killed it, let him sit the rest of the committee hearing to find out that they had shanked him.

Our friend Chairman Jim Coley (House Subcommittee-Civil Justice) rolled HB1407 to a "later date for a firearms calendar".  Hmmm.

I have a friend who is an Engineer with them who is GETTING to move with them.  He is elated actually, as he is a gun guy.

HB's 1404-1405 will sail through with nary a hitch.  They will pass so the Administration can say they fixed the problems with last year's Parking Lot bill, even though they do not preclude being fired if your firm has a policy.

Would be interested in your reasoning on that statement.  They tried to get a "local Opt out" on Restaurant Carry, but failed, no City gets to write a local ordinance on that. The wording of the bill is straight forward, sans amendment, (which appears to be less than likely) this has the earmarks of a substantial improvement.   The governor and his 40 paid henchmen were out in force prior to the committee meetings. It sailed in the Senate, actually the discussion was one of the best in the favor of lawful gun owners in many years in the Senate Judiciary.  Only Debbie Downers were Finney and the admin hack Overby, (who in his regular practice works for municipalities, not real Citizens).

Noticed that our Mayor Gist (Jackson) no longer appears on the list, he was there just last year.  Hmmm, could the constant mention on the radio have brought about a change of heart?

I think there is a good chance this makes it to his desk, and if he vetoes, it gets overridden.  Remember all it takes is the same number of votes to override that it took to pass it.   Sen. Stevens' statements lead me to believe there has been a paradigm shift, it is election year after all. His statements about the Constitutionality of the bill gives me hope.   Maggartize is a phrase that has meaning now. The governor, Lt. Governor and Speaker of the House supporting MS Maggart did not save her hinney, I think that there is a chance that standing on principal may appear to be a survival tactic this year...

Time for Justified.

Gun control with or without Congress.

Give America a raise!

Out of Senate Judiciary (with an amendment re signs) 6-2.  Overby and Finney the only two to vote no.

Actually, he appears to believe it, they seem to have this mutual admiration society going.

If you change the State, you can change the things it does.

Why thank you, thank you very much!

Maybe all is not lost after all...   http://bearingarms.com/connecticut-scrambles-for-amnesty-plan-after-realizing-that-citizens-are-refusing-to-register-their-assault-weapons-and-high-capacity-magazines/     From the article:   Seems things may not always be as they appear, or at least as the government would like them to...

I would bet that the old "If you can't beat them join them." mantra will be fully invested here.  Expect to see "Emanuel's Heaters on the Square" the time requested being used to make it profitable for the Friends of Rahm!

There are about 4 or 5 State reps that have a clue about Radical Islam, I believe he (Womick) would be counted in their number.  The Caucus at large is a bunch of blather set up to provide negative pressure on the Chambers' protrusion, and though I have argued with Rep. Womick on a few issues, normally he has his head on straight and does not run at their (Caucus) direction without question.

There should be a "Poll Test" in place to weed out those who do not understand this single most important principal.  If you do not have a grasp of the issue of jury nullification you do not ever need to vote or serve on a jury.

I know Rick Womick personally, this is the biggest load of crap I have ever seen. See Rep. Womick's reply:   http://www.rickwomick34th.com/news/details.php?PRKey=98

There my friend we agree wholeheartedly.

No, it is not now, but, the whole thing was begun that way.    It is simply a case now of legislators not wanting to relinquish control over anyone, (race, gender etc be damned, all are to be put under the thumb, the 132 vs. US), as their control has value (which can be haggled with lobbyist)...all the times I have discussed firearms issues with the legislators, the question of whether an act will reduce crime is NEVER discussed from their viewpoint, and it is the only thing that should matter.

Looks like someone has had enough.   http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/01/23/ukraine-opposition-gives-president-election-ultimatum/?intcmp=latestnews     Hmmm...

6.8, bad as I hate to say this, you are pretty far off base with that ascertation.  Until 1870, the Constitution of Tennessee related to the ability to bear arms read thus:   1796 version. Article 11 Section 26  "That the free men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence."   1835 version Article 1 Section 26 "That the free white men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence."   The 1870 version of our Constitution (put in place by the then Democrats) changed the location and intent of the Article dealing with Rights to keep and bear arms to: “That the citizens of this state have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.” and has remained thus since that time.  In accordance with this change in the wording and intent of the clause, the TCA included for the first time the "intent to go armed" clause.  Both modifications were in fact, "Jim Crow" style changes to prevent the freed black slaves from having the ability to carry arms.  Never before had the legislature been invested with the power to regulate where a citizen could carry arms, and the carrying of a "club" was not a crime prior to this. Andrews v. State challenged the fledgling new arrangement, and the Supreme Court of TN found in favor of the Citizen's individual Right to keep and carry arms, chiding the legislature to hold to its charge of requiring a law regulating the wearing of arms (note, there is no prescription in the document giving the legislature power to regulate the keeping of arms, ONLY the wearing of them) and citing that "Any such enactment, however, “must be guided by, and restrained to this end, and bear some well defined relation to the prevention of crime, or else it is unauthorized by this clause of the Constitution." (Article 1 section 26), however, "Good Old Boyism" ruled for a long time in TN, if in fact it has ever gone out of style... From 1871 to 1989, Tennessee was a limited “open carry” state, limited to “army or navy” pistols but only if such pistols were carried openly in the hand, no holsters and no concealment for the average Citizen.  Becoming a special deputy or receiving a special police commission (these were costly in dollars and political capital as well) was the only method to carry a handgun that did not fit the “army or navy” designation. These commissions were also necessary if the individual wanted to carry the weapon concealed or holstered, and these were normally not recognized outside of the County of issue. In 1989, "May issue" permits were allowed via the legislature under the authority of County Sheriffs, the law did not require that Sheriffs issue civilian permit, it did however allow for that possibility. That changed in 1994, the "Shall issue" permit law was passed in 1994 ("the sheriff may issue such a permit..." to "The sheriff shall issue such a permit..."). In 1996, the change from Sheriff's Department authority to Department of Safety occurred, very akin to what we have now, standardizing  the process, and removing as much colloquial control as possible. The change to the structure of carrying arms was agreed upon by the Citizens, they ratified the changes to the Constitution in 1870, with a wink and a nod they accepted giving the legislature the power to control the carrying of arms. That power morphed into control of what once was a Right and is now (and I must agree with DaveTN here) a purchased privilege, and as always, it matters who governs, they have your Rights in their possession.

Well here is your chance.  HB 1885 by Dennis is the first attempt I have seen to bring about Constitutional Carry.  (Of course I really believe it is merely an attempt to appear in favor of such a thing, as there is no Senate Sponsor for it, but that is neither here nor there for this discussion). Write all the legislators in the State and see where they stand on this issue.  I can provide you with video of the Governor stating he will sign it if it makes it to his desk (chuckle).  Let's see where the Caucus stands, a Super-majority exist in the House, Senate and they hold the mansion, they can have this done in two weeks.