Sky King

I had another interview with Channel 13 in Memphis. Airs on 10:00 news tonight, Wednesday April 24

Bert, The answer you got, in my opinion, shows arrogance. He voted his conscience? Well call me a hard liner but again in my opinion, his CONSCIENCE is NOT supposed to be a factor. He was sent there to represent a constituancy. The way I look at it, if he represents 100 people and 51 say "yes" and 49 say "no", then his vote is supposed to be "yes" because he is there to be the VOICE of the people who sent him and that voice said "yes". We have a representative form of government because getting 250 million people in Washington to vote on everything would be just a bit difficult. The same goes for the State. So you take small groups, elect ONE person to be their voice that that voice is supposed to say what the GROUP wants, regardless of what the single person who goes on their behalf wants. This caucus secret ballot crap should be illegal. There should be NOTHING our elected officials do that is done when doing the work of the people that should be allowed to be secret. In this setting, a secret ballot is for cowards, GROW a pair and be willing to stand up and be accountable for what you say and vote for. The Speaker is a MAJOR position in the government and the process to elect the person to that position should be PUBLIC!

Well the best I know is that he only has two real areas of expertise. One being guns, he would like to establish himself as a liason/gun czar/subject matter expert I guess. He knows the position of the Republican leadership in the General Assembly and so he is sucking up to it. If they wanted to allow everybody to have a .50 cal machine gun, he would agree so as to be in favor. He will go with what ever the flavor of the month is. His other area of knowlege, I don't think would do him much good in the General Assembly. From what I understand, he used to own a few topless adult clubs. I think he was in that business for several years. Again, being self employed, neither business gave him any health benefits. He reportedly has a good deal of money but hey, a real bad health issue for an elderly person can go through a lot of money fast. He wants a government backed health plan and he will sell you, me, the TFA, the NRA and TGO right down the crapper to get it. He is NOT to be trusted.

Right now may not be the best time for me to be posting. I am not happy with what could be transpiring today in the General Assembly at the direction of Governor Haslam. I called the Governor's office and advised them of my "feeling". As for Bob Pope. Bob is carrying out the acts of a desperate, lonely man. As he ages, with no family, he needs health care and he is doing everything he can to court the leglative leadership to get a government job. If I were to be asked to see things his way, I would have to say that I can not as I can't get my head that far up Ron Ramsey's ass. He will say anything and kiss anybody's ass to get a state job which will give him a state funded health package. He is getting older and he know it and health costs just go up as we get older. His comments in his latest email about my ability to park elsewhere do nothing but display his total lack of knowlege about the circumstances in Memphis. Of the secured lots in the airport area surrounding the FedEx facilities, only ONE is on a public street that allows for parking. ALL the others do NOT allow parking on the street and any parking elsewhere would be a considerable distance away. (oh by-the-way, the lot I park in is NOT on the street that allows parking.) Bob is a liar. But then again, desperate men do desperate things.

Done

Very well said Bert. Your letter is short, to the point and does it politely and in a non threatening way. I have a tendency to get a bit long-winded. If it is ok with you, I would like to use it.

Actually it is NOT scheduled to be heard on the floor. I wish it were, that is the hang up right now. Right now, the Senate version is stuck in the Calendar and Rules committee. That is where all bills go to be put on the full floor schedule after being passed in the earlier committees. When I say "stuck" I mean just that. Mike Faulk, the bill sponsor is ALSO the Chairman of the Calendar and Rules committee. I see no other reason for him to not put the bill on notice in Calendar and Rules other than Ramsey squeezing him hard. It HAS to get through THAT committee to get to the floor. NOW, what IS scheduled to be heard this week, (and this also is NOT on the floor) is the House version of the bill by Eddie Bass. That bill is in the House Calendar and Rules committee for the same reason. That committee determines WHEN the bill is to be heard on the floor of the House. We need a major push. Calls, emails, you name it, to Ramsey and Faulk. Also the members of the House Calendar and Rules Committee need to be contacted. Contact YOUR Senator and Representative and tell them you expect them to support the Safe Commute AND you want them to contact the Calendar and Rules committees of their respective chambers to tell them they want the bills on the floor. As for Ramsey himself. He will run unopposed as Worriedman pointed out. Just like Harwell, we will not be able to defeat either of them in the general election. What CAN be done is put serious challenges to a few of their support base. Maggart stands to face a very strong challenger and could be defeated. What has to be done is take away the support base of these hypocrits. It also sends a message to other vulnerable members that we will not tolerate another session with Harwell or Ramsey at the helm. We many not be able to get them out of the House or Senate but we can cause them to loose their postitions as Speaker and Lt. Governor by defeating their base. Again, we need a MAJOR onslaught of calls and emails tomorrow, MONDAY, the 23rd. And it certainly IS NOT too early to start hammering Governor Haslam on this. As hard as it has been to get these bills this far, it would be almost impossible to muster any veto override. He HAS to be convinced that a veto would be suicide. Most of us may not be able to actually cast any votes in regards to Ramsey or Harwell but we certainly CAN cast votes against Haslam

This approach was considered early this year and last year. It has some merit but allow me to play Devil's advocate for a minute. Suppose your boss suspects you to have stolen some company property and placed it in your car. Right or wrong, he can call law enforcement. Let's also say a fellow employee will support his claim and say you put the property in your car. Now there is probable cause for LAW ENFORCEMENT to search your car. So let's also say, (because you did not in fact commit the theft) the item searched for was not found. However, in the course of the search, it is found that you have a firearm in the car. Law enforcement will not care about the gun as long as you possess it legallly and have a permit. BUT your boss now KNOWS and even though it was not the object of the search, you will still be toast. The only way for something of that nature to work would be a law that prohibited an employer from making vehicle searches a term of employement so you could refuse to allow a search without loosing your job. Second, the employer or any of his representatives or persons acting on his behalf would have to be prohibited from being present during a search conducted by law enforcement and then law enforcement could ONLY report whether the object of the search WAS or WAS NOT found. Anything else found in the course of the search, provided it is legal, could not be reported. NEXT, if by some way the presence of a firearm was found out by your employer when it was NOT the object of the search AND your employer took ANY action relative to items found in your car, then the employee would have legal recourse against the employer. But I kind of doubt that if we can't get a parking lot bill passed, a law like this would never pass either. Second, as far as I am concerned, HCP holders have LONG SINCE proven their trust worthiness. The time for that has passed. We are approaching 20 years of Handgun Carry Permits in Tennessee. How long should we have to wait to be considered vetted.

I did a straignt copy and paste from the Florida statutes so I have NO idea how the "smiley sun face" got in there.

Here is Florida's. I particularly like paragraph (3) LEGISLATIVE INTENT; FINDINGS Title XLVI CRIMES Chapter 790 WEAPONS AND FIREARMS View Entire Chapter 790.251 Protection of the right to keep and bear arms in motor vehicles for self-defense and other lawful purposes; prohibited acts; duty of public and private employers; immunity from liability; enforcement.— (1) SHORT TITLE.—This section may be cited as the “Preservation and Protection of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Motor Vehicles Act of 2008.†(2) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section, the term: (a) “Parking lot†means any property that is used for parking motor vehicles and is available to customers, employees, or invitees for temporary or long-term parking or storage of motor vehicles. ( “Motor vehicle†means any automobile, truck, minivan, sports utility vehicle, motor home, recreational vehicle, motorcycle, motor scooter, or any other vehicle operated on the roads of this state and required to be registered under state law. ©â€ƒâ€œEmployee†means any person who possesses a valid license issued pursuant to s. 790.06 and: 1. Works for salary, wages, or other remuneration; 2. Is an independent contractor; or 3. Is a volunteer, intern, or other similar individual for an employer. (d) “Employer†means any business that is a sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, professional association, cooperative, joint venture, trust, firm, institution, or association, or public sector entity, that has employees. (e) “Invitee†means any business invitee, including a customer or visitor, who is lawfully on the premises of a public or private employer. As used in this section, the term “firearm†includes ammunition and accoutrements attendant to the lawful possession and use of a firearm. (3) LEGISLATIVE INTENT; FINDINGS.—This act is intended to codify the long-standing legislative policy of the state that individual citizens have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, that they have a constitutional right to possess and keep legally owned firearms within their motor vehicles for self-defense and other lawful purposes, and that these rights are not abrogated by virtue of a citizen becoming a customer, employee, or invitee of a business entity. It is the finding of the Legislature that a citizen’s lawful possession, transportation, and secure keeping of firearms and ammunition within his or her motor vehicle is essential to the exercise of the fundamental constitutional right to keep and bear arms and the constitutional right of self-defense. The Legislature finds that protecting and preserving these rights is essential to the exercise of freedom and individual responsibility. The Legislature further finds that no citizen can or should be required to waive or abrogate his or her right to possess and securely keep firearms and ammunition locked within his or her motor vehicle by virtue of becoming a customer, employee, or invitee of any employer or business establishment within the state, unless specifically required by state or federal law. (4) PROHIBITED ACTS.—No public or private employer may violate the constitutional rights of any customer, employee, or invitee as provided in paragraphs (a)-(e): (a) No public or private employer may prohibit any customer, employee, or invitee from possessing any legally owned firearm when such firearm is lawfully possessed and locked inside or locked to a private motor vehicle in a parking lot and when the customer, employee, or invitee is lawfully in such area. ( No public or private employer may violate the privacy rights of a customer, employee, or invitee by verbal or written inquiry regarding the presence of a firearm inside or locked to a private motor vehicle in a parking lot or by an actual search of a private motor vehicle in a parking lot to ascertain the presence of a firearm within the vehicle. Further, no public or private employer may take any action against a customer, employee, or invitee based upon verbal or written statements of any party concerning possession of a firearm stored inside a private motor vehicle in a parking lot for lawful purposes. A search of a private motor vehicle in the parking lot of a public or private employer to ascertain the presence of a firearm within the vehicle may only be conducted by on-duty law enforcement personnel, based upon due process and must comply with constitutional protections. ©â€ƒNo public or private employer shall condition employment upon either: 1. The fact that an employee or prospective employee holds or does not hold a license issued pursuant to s. 790.06; or 2. Any agreement by an employee or a prospective employee that prohibits an employee from keeping a legal firearm locked inside or locked to a private motor vehicle in a parking lot when such firearm is kept for lawful purposes. (d) No public or private employer shall prohibit or attempt to prevent any customer, employee, or invitee from entering the parking lot of the employer’s place of business because the customer’s, employee’s, or invitee’s private motor vehicle contains a legal firearm being carried for lawful purposes, that is out of sight within the customer’s, employee’s, or invitee’s private motor vehicle. (e) No public or private employer may terminate the employment of or otherwise discriminate against an employee, or expel a customer or invitee for exercising his or her constitutional right to keep and bear arms or for exercising the right of self-defense as long as a firearm is never exhibited on company property for any reason other than lawful defensive purposes. This subsection applies to all public sector employers, including those already prohibited from regulating firearms under the provisions of s. 790.33. (5) DUTY OF CARE OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE EMPLOYERS; IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY.— (a) When subject to the provisions of subsection (4), a public or private employer has no duty of care related to the actions prohibited under such subsection. ( A public or private employer is not liable in a civil action based on actions or inactions taken in compliance with this section. The immunity provided in this subsection does not apply to civil actions based on actions or inactions of public or private employers that are unrelated to compliance with this section. ©â€ƒNothing contained in this section shall be interpreted to expand any existing duty, or create any additional duty, on the part of a public or private employer, property owner, or property owner’s agent. (6) ENFORCEMENT.—The Attorney General shall enforce the protections of this act on behalf of any customer, employee, or invitee aggrieved under this act. If there is reasonable cause to believe that the aggrieved person’s rights under this act have been violated by a public or private employer, the Attorney General shall commence a civil or administrative action for damages, injunctive relief and civil penalties, and such other relief as may be appropriate under the provisions of s. 760.51, or may negotiate a settlement with any employer on behalf of any person aggrieved under the act. However, nothing in this act shall prohibit the right of a person aggrieved under this act to bring a civil action for violation of rights protected under the act. In any successful action brought by a customer, employee, or invitee aggrieved under this act, the court shall award all reasonable personal costs and losses suffered by the aggrieved person as a result of the violation of rights under this act. In any action brought pursuant to this act, the court shall award all court costs and attorney’s fees to the prevailing party. (7) EXCEPTIONS.—The prohibitions in subsection (4) do not apply to: (a) Any school property as defined and regulated under s. 790.115. ( Any correctional institution regulated under s. 944.47 or chapter 957. ©â€ƒAny property where a nuclear-powered electricity generation facility is located. (d) Property owned or leased by a public or private employer or the landlord of a public or private employer upon which are conducted substantial activities involving national defense, aerospace, or homeland security. (e) Property owned or leased by a public or private employer or the landlord of a public or private employer upon which the primary business conducted is the manufacture, use, storage, or transportation of combustible or explosive materials regulated under state or federal law, or property owned or leased by an employer who has obtained a permit required under 18 U.S.C. s. 842 to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials on such property. (f) A motor vehicle owned, leased, or rented by a public or private employer or the landlord of a public or private employer. (g) Any other property owned or leased by a public or private employer or the landlord of a public or private employer upon which possession of a firearm or other legal product by a customer, employee, or invitee is prohibited pursuant to any federal law, contract with a federal government entity, or general law of this state. History.—s. 1, ch. 2008-7.

You should have a copy of their law in the packet of information you got from me. If not, I am pretty sure I can get one to you. Florida's is much lengthier than the one we have pending. A lot of it would not be applicable in Tennessee, but I agree that it could serve as a good model to work from. I have felt for a long time that the Florida law was a good one and as you have pointed out more than once, it was one of the two laws that withstood Federal Appeals Court challenge. Actually, if I am not mistaken, a question about Florida's law was asked on this forum and I posted the entire law. I should be on here someplace. Also if nothing else, it can be found on line and printed. I'll see if I can find a link and post it.

If you have been following this closely, you will know that this has been a roller-coaster ride to say the least. With every phone call, email and forum post, I see something different. Right now I am taking this one step at at time. To speculate what will happen tomorrow on this is in my opionion foolish. All I know for sure is that as long as these bills are alive, I will keep working to get them passed.

Richard and I went to Nashville today and spoke in The Employee and Consumer Affairs Committee along with Darren LaSorte of the NRA in support of these bills. By now it is already old news that the bills did pass and are now set for the Calendar and Rules Committee for scheduling on the House Floor. What I DO find interesting, and is apparently a development that took place as Richard and I drove back home is the apparent decision by Senator Mike Faulk, (the companion bills sponsor in the Senate AND the chairman of the Senate Calendar and Rules Committee) to put the bills back in motion in the Senate. This is as reported by a Nashville TV station: http://www.wkrn.com/story/17510558/hous ... t-gun-bill If this report is accurate, and the bills DO get put on the calendar for the House and Senate, we will need a full scale email, phone call and visit assault on the members of The General Assembly to support these bills.

Well, I sent these emails to Senator Mike Faulk and Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey. I also plan to be in Nashville tomorrow. Senator Faulk, I have sent this email to Lt.Governor Ramsey. I support the Safe Commute bills as evidenced by my several trips to Nashville and testimony in the committees. It is now time for my voice to be heard again. This time through my elected senator on the Senate floor. However my voice will be squashed if the bill is not allowed to come tot he floor. I am URGING you, as the Charmian of the Calendar committee to place this bill on the calendar for a full hearing and vote by the full body. Please let the people of Tennessee decide rather than just one person, lt. Gov. Ramsey. All your hard work on this important legislation will be in vein if you allow this to happen. Thank you Sam Cooper Memphis Tennessee. --- On Mon, 4/16/12, Sam Cooper <n1bmxw3@bellsouth.net> wrote: From: Sam Cooper <> Subject: Usurping the will of the people To: lt.gov.ron.ramsey@capitol.tn.gov Date: Monday, April 16, 2012, 8:11 AM Lt. Governor Ramsey, You have taken it upon yourself to become a one person General Assembly. A body of representatives elected by the people to conduct the peoples business at their direction. By your direction, and yours alone, you are blocking legislation that has passed the entire committee process and is ready for the PEOPLE to speak via their elected representatives. The Safe Commute bills are those bills and it is time for the PEOPLE of Tennessee to be heard through their representatives. It is no longer up to YOU. By your actions, you have denied me the right and ability to be heard on this matter. LET THE PROCESS WORK. Allow SAFE COMMUTE to have it's day on the floor and let's see what THE PEOPLE of TENNESSEE want. Sam Cooper Memphis Tennessee

I have heard this from other sources but I can not nail it down as to when he suposedly said it.

I got the EXACT same response.

I agree with that. And for the regular representatives in the General Assembly, that is as it should be, BUT there are a few key positions that EVERY call SHOULD count. When a member serves in a position such as Speaker or when the member is serving on a committee or sub-committee, in that capacity, they are serving the entire state. The speaker of either chamber has control over the entire body and therfore should be accountable to the whole state. Also for issues before a sub or full committee, their actions determine whether or not a bill is ever heard by the whole body and therfore SHOULD remember that they too are working for the entire state. The problem is that THEY don't always seem to get that.

I just called Ramsey's office and asked pretty much the same thing however the response I got was NOT what you got. I was told that she could NOT speak to the issue but would be glad to pass my comments and concerns on to Lt. Gov. Ramsey along with my phone number. I'll fall over in a dead faint if I actually get a return call.

Well we have all heard the old saying, "don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you read". I was in Nashville yesterday with John Harris, Executive Director of the TFA and NRA lobbiest Darren LaSorte for the sub-committee hearing. All I can say is that this whole thing could not be more convoluted. I honestly believe that all of these mixed signals and messages are by design, to keep the constituants in cases like this confused. There has never been any question that the House leadership has opposed this legislation. Even though reports came out from time-to-time that Beth Harwell was not opposed to gun rights, all her actions did not support that claim. Lt. Governor Ramsey has always been a good supporter AND we have the email where he responded to an inquiry stating that he would support legislation of this nature. However this year we saw Lt. Gov. Ramsey do some major back peddaling by wanting to narrow the scope of the bill and provide exemptions to lots that are secured by a fence. Later reports said that Ramsey had communicated to Harwell that the bill will not clear the Senate as he was not going to let it get to the floor for a vote. This took the pressure off Harwell hand her trio of Second Amendment henchmen to stop the legislation because it would be stopped in the Senate. Repeated attempts by several people to contact Lt. Gov. Ramsey have failed as he has not returned phone calls or emails in resonse to inquiries about this. Most media outlets are saying that he is opposed to this bill as it is has been amended in the Senate. So I find it interesting that his office is now saying that is not true. Just because an amendment was put on the bill in committee does not mean it can't be removed on the floor and he knows that. The amendment offered by Stacy Campfield to also allow hunters is the major obsticle right now because it opens the door to too many people rather than limiting it to permit holders. While personally I don't have a problem with allowing hunters, the big objection in Nashville is that hunters have not been vetted, (background checks, training etc) as permit holders have. So that amendment can easily be removed on the floor and Ramsey knows it. The existance of the email has been made public and Ramsey certainly is well aware that it has surfaced and is being circulated publicly. I am sure he is not glad about that but, oh well. I can only speculate that may be why his office is saying what they are saying today. But as they say, the proof is in the pudding and Beth Harwells actions again tell the real truth about where she stands. We all know it was planned to have the House bills in the C&E sub-committee then immediately in the full committee on the same day. But rather than allow the chair of that committee, Jimmy Eldridge suspend the rules, which is NOT uncommon in the later days of the sessions, so the bill COULD be heard in full committee on the same day, she denied that request. I ask ANY of you to watch the video of the House floor session for Monday. NUMEROUS motions were made and PASSED for suspension of rules for bills so that they could be heard, but not this one. Why? Well we all know why, Harwell wants to drag it out hoping the session will end before any real action to get the bills to the floor for a recorded vote can take place. The REAL issue here is to get these bills to the Senate and House floors for recorded votes. I honestly think if that can happen, we have the votes to pass them AND I do not believe Haslam can refuse to sign it. No Republican or conservative wants to go into an election cycle with a bad report card from the TFA and NRA. History shows that to be detrimental to their campaign. Yesterday, while good to see the swift action of the sub-committee, was again frustrating for two reasons. First and most obvious was the fact that there would be no more action that day because of Beth Harwell and her stubborness. Second was again to see the lack of turnout of supporters for this. There were only four of us. Two we all expect to see, John Harris and Darren LaSorte. The other two were myself and one other person to whom I will have to appologize to for not remembering his name, I have met him before though. But that was it. There was no way I could count the number of people there in lab coats and others supporting issues concerning veterinarians. Doctors, vet techs, THEY EVEN HAD DOGS there. Who do you think got all the attention, us or the vets. I know it would have been a wasted trip for people because the bill was not heard, but we had no way of knowing that and the question is not whether or not the bill was actually heard, the REAL question is how many of you out there actually had any REAL intent to go. Keep up the calls and emails to Ramsey and Harwell. They HAVE to know that the heat is on.

Ok, the best I can tell, Tuesday, the 10h, we wil FINALLY have the House version of the Safe Commute bills heard in sub-committee AND the full committee. Worriedman pointed out that when he was there last week, there was over 100 people there walking in the halls with pins and buttons about natural gas cars. I repeat his question, which group do you think got the most attention? When there was only him and the NRA lobbiest there and over 100 for natural gas cars, it is a no brainer. I know people have to work but every time I go to Nashville, I see groups in large numbers there supporting their cause. I often ask myself about why we can't get a similiar turnout. Do we REALLY want our bills to be given serious consideration? Emails and phone calls are important but when you walk around Legislative Plaza and everywhere you go you see people with pins and signs for various causes I often wonder what is it going to take to get a similiar turnout for our cause. Folks, I can only ask just how badly do you want this legislation? With rare exception do I ever see or hear of anybody but Richard Archie, Kenny Crenshaw, John Harris and NRA representatives being present to lobby for these bills. The opposition is ALWAYS there, often in LARGE numbers. Which one do YOU think gets the attention? Anything worth having doesn't come for free. It makes an impression when people like you and me actually sacrifice our time to go to Nashville to support our cause. When you can go to your representatives office in person and say, "it was worth MY time to come here" it tells them it is important to you. Lobbiest are paid to be there, it is their job, there is no sacrifice on their part but for you and me it is different but it is going to take more than Richard, Kenny and John. Let's get a good number of people there Tuesday. Have something to put on, a sticker, button or something that says plainly "SAFE COMMUTE". Be seen outside Beth Harwell's, Ron Ramsey's offices and the committee hearing rooms. Stop in their offices and tell the recptionist that you are there to SUPPORT SAFE COMMUTE. Be IN the rooms for the hearings. If we get an opportunity AND if there is enough to make an impression, it would be good to ask those in support of this legislation to stand for the committee members to see. If there is only two or three or just a handfull, it acually looks bad. We need the room PACKED. DO NOT think you don't need to get involved because "somebody else will do it". That somebody else needs to be YOU. So much has been put into this legislation this year by just a few people. We have worked our butts off and I personally feel that with the effort that has been made, if we are not successful this year, I don't give it much hope in the future, big business will have won. For me, in my opinion, it is this year or bust. I borrow a line from the movie War Games, "I'd pi$$ on a spark plug if I thought it would help" I am making a personal appeal to all of you. Lord willing and the creek don't rise, I will be there. Show the committee just how important it is for you by being there.

This is what WE NEED to do. I know it is short notice and I really believe that the leadership does this on purpose. They know most of us have regular jobs and can not just drop stuff at the drop of a hat and travel to Nashville. BUT as many of us as can need to come to Nashville on Tuesday morning. We need buttons or something we can put on our clothes that simply says, "SAFE COMMUTE" and another that says, "NO FENCE". We need to be seen in strength outside Ramsey's office AND Harwell's office and IN the House committee meeting.

The Senate has bill passed the committees and is scheduled for the Senate floor but we still need phone calls and emails. Rumors still abound that there may be attempts to add bill killing amendments to it from the floor. Now for the House bills. All the communication I hear is that Representative Jimmy Eldridge, Chairman of the Consumer and Employee Affairs Committee where the bills are assigned, supports these bills and has said the bills will get a full and fair hearing in his committee. The problem is in the SUB-committe. Mark White is the Chairman of the sub-committee and the bills are set to be heard there first. Representative Mark White is NOT being very forthcomming about where he stands on the bills. We need a lot of calls and emails to Representative Mark White telling him that we want these bills heard. Also it would be good to contact the bills sponsor, Representative Eddie Bass and thank him for his support for this and other Second Amendment issues. While a Democrat, it would be hard to find a stronger supporter for our rights. Representative Bass has announced that he is not going to run for re-election. He has always been in our corner in the past and his presence will be greatly missed. I have met and spoken with him and he is a very down-to-earth, common sence regular person. Something the General Assembly could use a lot more of.

I agree with QuiteDan and Worriedman. As to the issue that RobertNashville raised. I truely understand the conundrum raised by the General Assembly schedule. Paid lobbiest are just that, PAID to be there and can go, knock on doors, presss the flesh and so on because it IS their job. The rest of us, for the most part, can not do that. While I am NOT trying to blow my own horn here, I am just really thankful that I have a work schedule that is more accomodating. Yes, there is a "BUT" here. BUT, I find it hard to believe that out of the 300,000 permit holders in this state, and of those, the thousands who are effected by this legislation that less that 6 can find the time to get to Nashville. Not everybody can go and of those who can many may be only able to make it once but folks I am pretty sure that the members of The General Assembly are getting pretty tired of seeing just Richard, Kenny and me. We need many more people to put REAL faces and personalities and personal LIVES on these bills. This legislation is about US and we need to let them know just who "US" are. After all, the General Assembly is supposed to be working for US.

Last year I told Rep. Vance Dennis that I would rather see the bill sponsored by Rep. Josh Evans totally die than see it pass in it's watered down version that it had become. For me, it was all or nothing. The bill that is now before us was on the verge of dying. Leadership in both chambers had commented on several occasions that there was no way the bill would make it unless the scope was narrowed. Ron Ramsey had also said that he wanted a provision exempting parking lots with fences. The amendment EXPANDING the bill to include licensed hunters could very well be the poision pill. Let me make myself VERY clear, I would like to include EVERY person who can LEGALLY possess a firearm but there is NO way that is going to pass. I have posted before that I do NOT consider handgun permit holders to be a special class because having a permit is a CHOICE. Essentially ANYBODY who can legally possess a firearm can get a permit. This is NOT like limiting a privilage to people in specific jobs such as law enforcement. Right now, unless you are commissioned law enforcement, military on duty, licensed security or a few other limited groups, you can NOT carry a firearm in Tennessee without a permit. While many of us would like to see that changed with a Constitutional Carry law but that does not exist right now. Efforts have been successful over the many years to expand the places handguns can be carried but they have been limited to permit holders and this is not going to be any different. WHEN the General Assembly finally recognizes the Constitutional right to carry by law abiding citizens, then we can get the laws changed to allow persons to carry in all the places that we have worked to allow permit holders. All I can do is ask if those who want to include others in this bill are willing to trade the ability for those other than permit holders to keep a firearm in their car for restrictions that prohibit EVERYBODY from keeping their firearms in their car if their employer has a fenced lot. That is where it is headed. The General Assembly leadership wants a narrow scope or this bill will die whether we like it or not. The rumor now is that Representative Campfield is planning to propose another amendment to the bill when it gets to the Senate floor. An amendment to exempt parking lots with a fence. So whether you are a licensed hunter or a permit holder, you won't be able to keep your firearm in your car if your employer has a fenced lot, so the expansion to include licensed hunters will be WORTHLESS. It may all be pointless anyway Campfields expansion to hunters kills the bill.

Ok, I got it to work from home. I was trying at work. It would take to the blog but I could not scroll up or down the page to see the whole thing.