TN HB 0508/SB 0445

[300winmag]

This bill will basically make 39-17-1359 no gun postings NOT apply at local and state government properties as long as you do not walk past through public entrances with armed guards and metal detectors.  So you will be legal carrying at your local airport (of course not past TSA), city library, local and state government buildings, etc that in many cases are posted right now in Memphis and Nashville.   Recreational facilities are of course still legal under the parks law and not changed by this bill.

The bill does not legalize carrying at public schools or public colleges like HB 0363.

This bill is not as good as HB 0363, but it is a big improvement over what we have now.  The bill has been presented in both the house and state senate.  It also has quite a few co sponsors, so I'm guessing this bill is the one that might have a change if it doesn't get killed with finance notes. 

[300winmag]

It looks like Bloomberg's group is at the House subcommittee meeting and spoke but a representative from the NRA has not spoken about this bill.  Where is the NRA? 

[Worriedman]

On 3/8/2017 at 2:15 PM, 300winmag said:

Where is the NRA? 

Yes, where is the NRA?

Fiscal note:
Total Local Impact Assumption: The total permissive one-time increase in local expenditures is estimated to exceed $200,000 ($100,000 + $100,000). The permissive recurring increase in local expenditures is estimated to exceed $1,000,000.

[monkeylizard]

How in the world can it cost 200K and $1m/year after that to remove some stickers? Heck...I bet we could get a TGO clean-up crew to take them down for free.

They know good and well that no city is going to put armed guards and metal detectors at the local library, nor should they.

An easy way to fix that and remove the fiscal note would be to remove the armed guards and metal detectors exception.  See...so simple a cave man can do it.

Edited March 10, 2017 by monkeylizard

[300winmag]

Yeah it is pretty pathetic at a committee hearing when the only positive comments on a pro gun bill are coming from the bill sponsor.  No wonder why pro gun bills have such difficulty getting through our legislature.  Odds stacked heavily against anything pro gun.  After glancing at the bill it looks like whoever wrote it is taking the long complicated way instead of what could be accomplished in a couple sentences by just decriminalizing these silly no gun signs.  The park carry and college faculty carry bills were similar messes.   

I'm guessing the NRA feels like they are pretty safe in TN donations wise and don't want to spend the time or money on influencing these committees to bring pro gun bills to floor votes.  The NRA better wise up because groups like Bloomberg's can cause potential problems because that group at least showed up to the meeting and the politicians heard their viewpoint.  When mom's against guns starts donating major money to committee chairs' political campaigns, lt governor, and house speaker, we're going to have problems.

[Worriedman]

On 3/10/2017 at 10:37 PM, 300winmag said:

  After glancing at the bill it looks like whoever wrote it is taking the long complicated way instead of what could be accomplished in a couple sentences by just decriminalizing these silly no gun signs. 

Find an Establishment Rep. and Senator to write and carry those bills, (preferably a Senator who sits on Judiciary, and the House sponsor on Civil Justice) and then get Legal to allow them in the simple form you espouse, nothing to it but to do it!

You might have to get a new Governor and Speaker of the House to get those sponsors though, they are a pretty tight knit group...and raise enough money to outspend the Chamber of Commerce...but hey, every House member is all about the 2nd Amendment, just listen to the stump speeches each election cycle.

If any bill goes to Senate Judiciary, just remember the NRA endorsed Overbey, Stevens and Lundberg, the three Republicans you can count on to vote against every gun bill...

[300winmag]

I saw that both the house and senate bill 0508/0445 made it through a house and senate committee today.  Hopefully that is good news.

[300winmag]

It looks like this bill has now been considerably watered down and does not apply to buildings that house police agencies, hospitals, court house buildings, and libraries.

It also appears that the bill just applies to locally owned buildings and not state owned buildings.

So, a city or county can still make it illegal to carry at your local airport terminal (most house police agencies) and your local library.  The state of Tennessee can also still post 'no guns' signs for all the state owned buildings.  This will all still fall under the 'no gun' sign misdemeanor.

The bill also automatically makes it illegal (sign or no sign) in the whole building where a court proceeding takes place.  Presently it is illegal to carry in a room where there is court.  That will be a felony charge.

After reading more of the revised bill, it does not fix much with the carve outs made for all state owned buildings, buildings that have a LEO agency (Nashville and Memphis airports both have their own police force), medical facilities, courthouses, and even libraries.

Edited March 23, 2017 by 300winmag

[Worriedman]

No decent firearms issue bill is going to pass this legislature, TFA does not have the money and NRA is not interested in getting involved at this time.

[JAB]

I recently had to go to the Roane County Courthouse.  I was going to the Register of Deeds office and the County Clerk, not setting foot in a courtroom.  The guards at the door, manning the metal detector, asked where I was going.  When I told them, they said to just come on through.  I wasn't sure what the deal was going to be so I wasn't carrying but if I had been - as long as I wasn't going to a courtroom - I would have been good to go.  Based on 300winmag's post, it sounds like this bill would make it illegal to carry there, at all.  That is a step backward, not forward.  Sounds like this bill has turned into good intentions paving the way to hell, to me.  Leave it to our current 'oh, you gun owners have to elect us because we are sooooooooo pro gun' Republican controlled congress to turn a pro carry rights bill into an anti carry rights bill.  Screw 'em, I'm sick of them all.

Edited March 28, 2017 by JAB

[300winmag]

Yep, this bill amendment basically makes a whole courthouse illegal to carry in under the courtroom weapons law.  It is in the last part of the state senate amendment.  You could get a felony charge, not the misdemeanor sign violation.  

That would affect a lot of less populated places where everything is in one county or city owned building. 

I just think it is funny and pathetic that the politicians in these committee meetings claim they have been working on this bill since last summer.  It literally takes these guys months on end to even come up with this bill that doesn't help much and in one area makes worse.  I mean who thought that library buildings should still be able to post?  What makes a library any different than any other locally owned building?  Of course in the senate amendment they purposefully made this bill just apply to city and county owned properties and not state owned properties along with several other carve outs.

The bill just went through a house committee today.  An amendment was added and I'm guessing that it mirrors the senate amendment.

[Worriedman]

Now you begin to understand the way this tripe occurs.  As long as Bill Haslam and Beth Harwell have ANYTHING to do with our governance it will not change.

Diane Black, Randy Boyd, Mark Norris, Bob Corker are all cut from the same cloth.

I have not seen one other person at Legislative Plaza this year in a committee hearing or walking the halls advocating for these issues, the cockroaches can feed in the middle of the room as no light is being turned on them.

We have met the enemy, and he is us!

[300winmag]

You would think an NRA rep would at least show up to speak at the committee meetings when I'm guessing they played a part in writing this bill, since it has lawsuit money going basically to the NRA.   I'll give the Moms Against Guns credit, they do show up to the meetings and advocate for their cause.  Tough to justify supporting the NRA when they don't show up to the meetings and then support these types of crummy bills as pro gun.

 

 

[Radlink54]

On 3/24/2017 at 4:26 PM, Worriedman said:

No decent firearms issue bill is going to pass this legislature, TFA does not have the money and NRA is not interested in getting involved at this time.

Right.  Not dealing with the simple issue of decriminalizing the gun sign mess in TN, tells me that the NRA is not really interested in helping TN gun owners.    More importantly, none of the so called pro second amendment Republicans are interested either. Speaking as a lifetime NRA member.  But no longer a Republican.  Libertarians where are you?

 

 

[300winmag]

Exactly.  The problem could be quietly fixed with a two sentence change in the law from a criminal penalty to a denial of entry as a consequence for violating the signs.  No need for involving lawsuits against the local governments and no need for property owners to feel like they have no ability in asking people with guns to leave.  You would then have folks just quietly concealing and going about their business legally and those that can't conceal their guns would be asked to leave if seen.

Instead we have a three to four page bill that awards gun organizations lawsuit money, may increase properties using metal detectors, and still leaves quite a few properties illegal to carry at.  Something that should be so simple to fix sure has turned into a complicated mess.

[Sunfish]

Everything is always good until you ask someone to do their job. There is always going to be the were not budgeted for that backstop, not to mention the million reasons between yes and no lip service. It's been my observation that doing nothing has become quite popular as it's nearly impossible to make a mistake. Has anyone else noticed that the large Bills that pass have so many different issues that no sane person could say yes to all of it.      

[300winmag]

It looks like public utility districts and human resource agencies have been added to the growing list of carve outs to this bill.  These clowns are going to add so many carve outs that they are just wasting time even passing this bill.  So now you have locally govt owned medical facilities, police stations, airports (i'm assuming because they all have local police in them..need someone to verify), public libraries, and all state government owned properties in addition to the public utilities and HR agencies.

Just about all the states around us are getting or have college carry and we are can't even carry legally at some libraries.  What a joke.

Edited April 4, 2017 by 300winmag

[Worriedman]

On 4/4/2017 at 9:51 AM, 300winmag said:

It looks like public utility districts and human resource agencies have been added to the growing list of carve outs to this bill.  These clowns are going to add so many carve outs that they are just wasting time even passing this bill.  So now you have locally govt owned medical facilities, police stations, airports (i'm assuming because they all have local police in them..need someone to verify), public libraries, and all state government owned properties in addition to the public utilities and HR agencies.

Just about all the states around us are getting or have college carry and we are can't even carry legally at some libraries.  What a joke.

But, our General Assembly is the most Gun friendly in the nation, just ask Mike Carter...

[300winmag]

I was looking today and it appears that these clowns have added another carve out to this bill.  The new carve out looks like places prohibited by federal law and also places that receive federal funds contingent on banning guns.  Now how in the world am I going to know that a property receives federal funds and is supposed to ban guns in order to receive federal funding?

Is it really that difficult for these clowns to just add a couple of sentences to the law that states something like this:

"Carrying of a concealed firearm in a location specified in subdivisions (1) to (17) of subsection 1 of this section by any individual who holds a concealed carry permit issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121, or a concealed carry endorsement issued prior to August 28, 2013, shall not be a criminal act but may subject the person to denial to the premises or removal from the premises."     Missouri  

You could do that with the schools, colleges, and places with no guns signs and then everyone can have their no gun policies but if you are concealing your handgun and being quiet about it you won't be breaking the law.  If your gun is seen by someone and you are breaking the property's policy, then you can be asked to leave.

That would be so much easier than the motions these guys are going through in Nashville but would benefit us quite a bit.

It's a really simple concept that I am very surprised has not been proposed VS a bill with lawsuits, metal detectors, and several carve outs to have to remember.  I'm still guessing the NRA played a big part in writing this crummy bill because it allows for gun rights orgs to win lawsuit money from counties and cities.

 

 

Edited April 11, 2017 by 300winmag

[300winmag]

It looks like this bill has moved past the House finance committee and will probably go to the full House for a floor vote.  It still needs to be heard by the Senate finance committee.

The bill was amended in the house finance committee to add more locations that this bill will not apply to and 'no gun' signs can still result in a criminal violation.  Those locations now are:

1.  court houses and not just the court room.

2.  Local government hospitals and mental health facilities.

3.  Any local government building that contains a police agency.  From reading, not sure if this includes airports.

4.  local government libraries.

5. facilities that administer Head Start.

6. All state owned facilities that do not fall under the rec property.

Too bad that after all this time the politicians had to draft a crummy bill that just adds more gray to where we can't legally carry instead of just modifying the 'no gun' sign law and making it just allow property owners to remove/trespass. 

[Chucktshoes]

As another resident of a rural county that does not prohibit carry inside our single municipal building, only inside the courtroom, this bill is a huge step back for my wife and I. Awesome. 

[300winmag]

Absolutely this bill is a step backwards for a lot of people because it makes carry inside a whole courthouse building a FELONY VS right now the courtroom during court.

I'm still curious what gun organization helped write this silly bill because it is three pages of garbage that could have been much better accomplished with a two sentence revision of the no gun sign law changing the violation from a misdemeanor to a deny entry/removal from property. 

[JAB]

14 hours ago, 300winmag said:

Absolutely this bill is a step backwards for a lot of people because it makes carry inside a whole courthouse building a FELONY VS right now the courtroom during court.

I'm still curious what gun organization helped write this silly bill because it is three pages of garbage that could have been much better accomplished with a two sentence revision of the no gun sign law changing the violation from a misdemeanor to a deny entry/removal from property. 

I have come to believe that a certain well known gun rights organization operates kind of like the firefighters we hear about every once in a while who start fires so that they can be 'heroes' by putting them out.  If things swing too far in gun owners' direction it might put them out of business so they have to periodically create a problem so that they will have something to lobby against a few years down the road.

[Chucktshoes]

8 minutes ago, JAB said:

I have come to believe that a certain well known gun rights organization operates kind of like the firefighters we hear about every once in a while who start fires so that they can be 'heroes' by putting them out.  If things swing too far in gun owners' direction it might put them out of business so they have to periodically create a problem so that they will have something to lobby against a few years down the road.

Oh, the boys at Negotiating Rights Away absolutely operate like that. There's too much money at risk otherwise. 

[300winmag]

Yeah I have thought for a while that this bill was sponsored by the NRA because it includes lawsuit money that the organization can receive if a town or county violates the pre emption law.  That is probably why a simple law fix could not be done by just removing the criminal offense of the no gun signs because the NRA would not have the potential to make money from it.

It looks like there will be a floor vote in the House tomorrow.  Folks in small towns where all county/city business is done at the court house are about to get hurt carry wise by this bill unless it is amended on the House floor.  Carry inside the WHOLE court house is going to be made a felony offense, even with a permit.  You might want to bring this up with your state senators and state representatives.

I think the NRA does decent work at the national level but they sure don't help this state out much at all.