Worriedman

They would get Al and Jesse.

One of the results of the current legislation would be an up-tick in the number of people who get their permits, and when that occurs, more folks will become involved. Several of the Fed Ex employees that I have talked with say they have not perfected their permits because they would still not be allowed to keep their weapons in their vehicles, so why pay the money and take the time? Once a person comes out of pocket for the class, and pays the vig to the State, they feel like they have skin in the game. The more permit holders we have, the better effect we can generate with the Legislature due to the numbers. There were a little over 600K voters in the last gubernatorial election, with half that number being permit holders, one would think that firearms owners would foster a certain amount of respect from the politicians. But, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and untill enough people make noise, the pols feel like they can slid it to us any way they want to. Yesterday I was the only person (excluding the NRA lobbyist) on the hall that was up there talking to the Senators and Representatives about the bills. There were over 100 people running up and down the halls to foster natural gas car engines, who do you think garnered more interest?

That the "Caucus" (Republican Majority) seems to somehow be against the bill is a wonderment to me, out of the House numbers, 30 or so caucus members are co-sponsors. Yet, we keep hearing that the caucus is not in favor of the legislation. Polled independently, I have found only a few House Members that are against the bill, but then to be honest, I have not spoken with may Democrats.

Yes sir, they were.

Tennessee pols who are in opposition to the Employee Safe Commute Act include the Governor and Lt. Governor: http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2012/apr/02/haslam-ramsey-wary-of-guns-in-parking-lots-bill/ I wonder how the hunting license holders of Tennessee are going to take the insinuation that they are not to be trusted leaving their hunting arms in their vehicles after going hunting in the morning, or planning to go after work?

No, I meant is as it was typed. The Chamber is a Big Business champion, and has been adversarial to this effort since day one. They also donate a lot of money to Legislators, so their presence in the "opposition" bears a lot of weight, hence the Leadership's demand that they be allowed to speak against the bill, intimidation at its finest.

Full E&CA Committee Chairman Jimmy Eldridge promises that HB 3560 WILL be heard in the Sub-committee on Wednesday next, and will get a hearing in the full committee. We are lining up folks for testimony in the full committee hearing, as we have been told Leadership is demanding that the Chamber be allowed to go against the bill. Watch the E&CA sub-committee schedule.

You are operating under the mistaken assumption that Legislators are in the business to serve the constituents. In reality, they are in the Power accumulation business. As individuals donate very little money to re-election campaigns, those individuals are very low in the pecking order of importance to a Legislator. building personal relationships on the Hill is important, making nice with the office staffs gets you tuned in to what is really going on, that is best accomplished right in those offices, plus, they see that you are truly concerned. I understand about burning vacation days, I would rather be deer or turkey hunting with mine, but my grandchildren are important enough that I opt to use them as I do. I will only be around a few more years, and in those I want to be as effective as I can in doing my best to leave the most free and Liberty minded society that I can for them.

I think you are spot on with your analysis across the board. As it stands, 300+ permit holders are basically 50% of the voters in the last gubernatorial race. Double that number, and it becomes a force to be reckoned with. Now, if we could 10% of the existing number to join in and contact the Legislature on important issues, we could make a difference right now. In my travels to the Hill, I find myself to be one of maybe 4 or 5 who actually take the time to go and visit, knock on doors, and press the flesh with our Senators and Congresspersons. If we could substantially increase that number, we could raise our effect, and not be able to be marginalized by those who would rule instead of serve.

QuiteDan, I too would like to see Constitutional Carry, but think it is about as likely to happen with the current Administration as closed Primaries and for the same reason, lack of Conservatives in the Junta. I would be OK with the Bill limiting the scope to Permit Holders at this time, (not that I think it is correct OR Constitutional) it would be the impetuous to increasing the number of those who perfect their Permits, and once they have skin in the game, it is more likely that pressure for true pro-firearms legislation would be supported by a broader base.

From the Guns and Leather Facebook Page: TN State Rep., Debra Maggart and Speaker of the House, Beth Harwell taking a class at our Hendersonville store with instructor Warren Smith (left). Our sales guy, Michael Stanley, wanted to get in the picture too! Now imagine that, two of the most virulent opponents to the Employee Safe Commute Bill, taking an opportunity to get some face time around guns. I am surprised one did not jump off the shelf and do something sinister...

Just got back. Actually went a little further down than Orlando, but was in and out of there a bunch. Awareness was heightened, by both the Police officers, and Citizens.

Did Zimmerman display his weapon prior to the fight? Did he tell the Officer on the 911 call that he was going to take his weapon out and hold the person till they arrived? I have not heard anybody, the girlfriend, or even Sharpton suggest that he did. If he did not display the weapon, how did Martin know he had a gun? If Martin knew Zimmerman had a gun, he must have had a death wish to approach him or do anything BUT run.

Do you suppose that the defendant had time to ascertain that the radio had been stolen from his truck, or was the mere fact that the perp was IN the truck enough to give him largess to chase what he perceived to be a thief? Unless the defendant is a world class sprinter, I suspect that he did not take the time to inspect his vehicle and see if anything was missing, because if he did, the thief would not have been caught inside a single block. I maintain that the actions which occurred at the END of the chase were the limiting factors, the swing of the bag of radios, which allowed the "stand your ground" defense to be used, the reason that the defendant and the perp were in proximity does not appear to the main focus of the court.

The problem is the Leadership in the House, (which gets its direction from the Governor). One must remember that Haslam and Harwell have been huge backers of Lamar Alexander in all his campaigns. (Proof that he is non supportive of firearms rights was his stance as the ONLY Republican Senator to vote against the permit holder's ability to carry in National Parks). Had we a Governor that championed this issue, it would be a foregone conclusion for passage, but currently we have one who, until just shy of the election for the seat, was a member of Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns. He has never been a supporter of Firearms Rights, and is a Big Business/Big Government proponent. We MUST show a win against the Statist Quo in Nashville. I perceive the best opportunity to achieve a beneficial win is to support Lt. Col. Courtney Rogers in her contest in House District 45 against Debra Maggart. Maggart is Caucus Chair, and is one of the legs of the tripod Harwell/Maggart/McCormick that has strangled the House actions relative to firearms issues. Take out one leg of a tripod and it can not stand. I feel that we need to point all our artillery at that one single race and fire for effect if we want to show that we are serious as grass roots organizations. I will be espousing this to the Tea Party groups across the State, and we need to get any and all who are sick and tired of the Liberal Republican Junta that thumbs their nose at the hundreds of thousands of gun owners who wish to see a return to Constitutional principals in Tennessee.

Not necessarily, case in point: http://latino.foxnew...d-as-justified/ From the article:

Be very careful about giving credence to co-sponsors, prime or otherwise. IF the inside track is to not let it come up for a vote due to death in the sub, anybody can co-sponsor without fear of failing their masters. Why do I hear faint laughter coming from the Hill...?

The burden in TN is on the State to disprove that self defense should be allowed, it precludes a DA from speculating as to the intent of the individual, requires proof that the actor was not availing themselves of the protection of the law, not the other way around.

I am sure that the other thread has this, but in case it does not, this is the "true man" doctrine codified in TN: TCA 39-11-611: (1) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. (2) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, if: A. The person has a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury; B. The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury is real, or honestly believed to be real at the time; and C. The belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds. In TN if one raises self defense, it is up to the State to prove it was not reasonable, per supreme court ruling re Kenmore.

It appears that House Leadership is putting pressure on Rep. Mark White (Chair of the Employee and Consumer Affairs sub-committee) to NOT bring HB 3560 up for a vote or action. Shades of Jimmy Naifeh, control the State and all its Citizens for the good of the pocket book of a select few, as the money is talking now. It is imperative that all who are interested in getting this bill to the floor for a vote contact your Representatives and ask them to demand consideration, let the People's House speak, for good or ill, to the passage or denial of the Bill.

What public discussion has taken place? Have our "Sunshine" laws been violated in view of the discussions taking place in whatever back room the Governor and the two Speakers have had regarding this issue?

At least he we was an avowed enemy of firearms issues, he did not lie and say he was our friend like the current crop.

They did not even have an Employee and Consumer Affairs Sub Committee meeting today, scrubbed it in its entirety. The House does not intend to deal with this issue, they are going to close out the year without a recorded vote, that way they can say they did not oppose it.

Of course they want to end their stay in Nashville, it is election year. The incumbents can not by law, raise money or campaign while they are in session. It is necessary that they get loose from their responsibilities as servants of the People so they can get about collecting their due by leaning on their Business partners whose plans they have so faithfully executed.

It was intimated to me today that there is a potential that HB 3560 will not even be given a shot at a sub committee vote on Wednesday, so that there will be no record of how it is treated with. Only chance for consideration is for Sub-committee Chairman Rep. Mark White to hear from lots of his constituents respectfully requesting that the Bill get an up or down vote in the sub committee.