Nashville Lemonade Stand AK

[Sunfish]

7 hours ago, btq96r said:

Something like 1.5 million background checks have denied a gun purchase since the Brady Bill came into effect, and even taking out the administrative errors, that's a lot

This really has dookey dripping off of it. I guess over around MTSU it's believed that if you say something enough times it becomes true. The truth is guns are obsolete when it comes to killing and universal background checks will not stop the headlines that nobody wants to see. Band aids don't work on gun shot wounds and laws have no effect on people who decide they are going to take away life before losing their own.        

[300winmag]

Yeah if you let people call into TICS without a FFL and allow people with carry permits use those as substitutes, I would not have near the problem as I do with most background check bills.  Most background check bills are modeled after California where everyone, including people with carry permits, must run everything through an FFL.  California also has handgun and long gun registration.  That is nothing more than universal gun registration in order to make some poor attempt at knowing who has guns and what they have.

[Omega]

Screw all that, why is there so much infringement on the 2nd when the 1st can be as, or more, dangerous than the 2nd?  I don't support background checks, none period.  Instead of hassling EVERY law abiding citizen when buying a gun, why not a list of those not allowed to buy guns such as the no-fly list?  If they run your ID and you are not on a list, no background check and no fee.  If you are on a list, by name, then a background check to make sure it is you that can't purchase one and not someone with your name. BTW, it should be by court order that your name appears on said list, not by some random organization and no adjudication. Hassle the criminals, make it a harsher sentence if they are caught using weapons for crimes, or in possession if not allowed to have one. 

At this point though, I do think it should be an option to have access to TICS, for those that want the extra security blanket when selling a gun in a personal transaction, but not made mandatory.   And, instead of having us pay a fee to use TICS, it should be free because it is an infringement on our rights.  If the state wants to infringe, then it should cost them to do so, not having us pay for that "privilege"

[mikegideon]

1 hour ago, Omega said:

 

At this point though, I do think it should be an option to have access to TICS, for those that want the extra security blanket when selling a gun in a personal transaction, but not made mandatory.   And, instead of having us pay a fee to use TICS, it should be free because it is an infringement on our rights.  If the state wants to infringe, then it should cost them to do so, not having us pay for that "privilege"

I would vote for that, and would use it. I rarely sell a gun to somebody I don't know. I have no desire to sell one to a criminal.

[btq96r]

6 hours ago, Omega said:

And, instead of having us pay a fee to use TICS, it should be free because it is an infringement on our rights.  If the state wants to infringe, then it should cost them to do so, not having us pay for that "privilege"

This I concur with 100%.  It's in the interest of society to have a vetted and armed segment out there for purposes that are axiomatic.  The state should support that by not making us pony up a fee for willing to be that needed group. 

[300winmag]

After paying for a handgun carry permit, we should not have to pay again for TICS even at an FFL.  Quite a few states just use the FBI NICS and do not charge for it.  Also quite a few states' handgun carry permits are substitutes for FBI NICS.  You are never called in if you have a Mississippi concealed pistol license when you buy a gun from an FFL in MS.  

If you have a handgun carry permit, you should be good to buy a gun without a background check.  The state does have a process for people who become felons to surrender their permits.

[Garufa]

Carry permits are pulled on a regular basis. What's going to keep a permit holder from buying a gun after it is revoked  before the next renewal...the only time a background check is performed?

[Omega]

1 hour ago, Garufa said:

Carry permits are pulled on a regular basis. What's going to keep a permit holder from buying a gun after it is revoked  before the next renewal...the only time a background check is performed?

Why, the no-buy list of course. Once a permit is pulled, by adjudication, then it's probably a safe bet they did something to put them on the list.

[mikegideon]

This thread is gonna prevent so many killings when we finally figure it out

[300winmag]

Probably 99.9% of people with handgun carry permits can pass a background check anytime.  The process works in a good bit of states when people with carry permits buy at an FFL and don't have background checks run.  Why would that not work in Tennessee?  And then also why should we all be hassled with paying for TICS because the courts didn't do their job of taking permits fast enough of the 0.01% that get revoked.   There is lag time in anything with the legal system and someone without a permit could pass a background check but lie on the dealer paperwork before info is submitted to NICS.  Should 99% of people be inconvenienced by a month long waiting period to take that into account?

[DaveTN]

10 hours ago, Omega said:

Why, the no-buy list of course. Once a permit is pulled, by adjudication, then it's probably a safe bet they did something to put them on the list.

The Tin Foil Hats aren’t going to go along with that; they don’t want their name put in a computer when they are buying a gun. They don’t even want to sign a bill of sale on a private sale.

I don’t care one way or the other about background checks. But I think they are here to stay. I just think the failure rate of the TBI is too high and they need to be taken out of the picture. I also think if the state wants them; that’s fine, but they need to be free. They serve no purpose other than giving some folks a warm fuzzy feeling and helping some legislators try to convince their followers they are doing all they can. Common sense tells us that they will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Now how about some real legislation; making Tennessee the next Constitutional Carry state.

[Omega]

28 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

The Tin Foil Hats aren’t going to go along with that; they don’t want their name put in a computer when they are buying a gun. They don’t even want to sign a bill of sale on a private sale.

I don’t care one way or the other about background checks. But I think they are here to stay. I just think the failure rate of the TBI is too high and they need to be taken out of the picture. I also think if the state wants them; that’s fine, but they need to be free. They serve no purpose other than giving some folks a warm fuzzy feeling and helping some legislators try to convince their followers they are doing all they can. Common sense tells us that they will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Now how about some real legislation; making Tennessee the next Constitutional Carry state.

It already gets submitted, but yes there is an element out there that won't care for it.  I'm with you on the Constitutional Carry, I get tired of hearing about TN being "Free" and pro gun, pro outdoorsman yet have all these laws shot down at the starting gate.

[Worriedman]

1 hour ago, DaveTN said:

Now how about some real legislation; making Tennessee the next Constitutional Carry state.

As long as the Republicans are in a supermajority situation in Tennessee, it will never happen.  Our State government with respect to these issues, is controlled by the Chamber of Commerce and the Sheriff's Association, neither organization is in favor of granting that loss of control from the Police State, neither believes in individual responsibility.

 

[DaveTN]

1 hour ago, Worriedman said:

As long as the Republicans are in a supermajority situation in Tennessee, it will never happen.  Our State government with respect to these issues, is controlled by the Chamber of Commerce and the Sheriff's Association, neither organization is in favor of granting that loss of control from the Police State, neither believes in individual responsibility.

 

You may be right, but I just don’t believe that. The Tennessee legislature passed the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act, and recently passed legislation allowing having guns in cars for everyone. Sure, the TFFA got slapped out of existence by the Feds right out of the gate; but it was passed.

It’s just my opinion that too much time is being wasted with nonsense like forcing private business owners to recognize a right that the state doesn’t recognize, or allowing us some kind of free pass on buying a gun because we are a “special” group.

The state recognizes the 2nd amendment as a right; or they don’t. I believe we are at a point where we need that answered.

[Worriedman]

10 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

The state recognizes the 2nd amendment as a right; or they don’t. I believe we are at a point where we need that answered.

That has been answered three years in a row!

 

[mikegideon]

3 minutes ago, Worriedman said:

That has been answered three years in a row!

 

Yep

[300winmag]

This state is not very 2nd amendment friendly.  You have to remember that pure possession of a firearm for self defense is assumed to be illegal unless you fall under a set of exceptions.  Tennessee is not like most states where the concealing of a weapon is illegal but having it in the open is legal.  I've been under the impression that the state politicians want to appear 2nd amendment friendly but truly do not trust people, even people who buy the state's permits.  It's quite obvious when the state government makes it illegal to carry with the state's permit in a bunch of state owned buildings by having a criminal offense behind the goofy 'no gun' signs. 

[JayC]

On 4/8/2017 at 2:32 PM, 300winmag said:

This state is not very 2nd amendment friendly.  You have to remember that pure possession of a firearm for self defense is assumed to be illegal unless you fall under a set of exceptions.  Tennessee is not like most states where the concealing of a weapon is illegal but having it in the open is legal.  I've been under the impression that the state politicians want to appear 2nd amendment friendly but truly do not trust people, even people who buy the state's permits.  It's quite obvious when the state government makes it illegal to carry with the state's permit in a bunch of state owned buildings by having a criminal offense behind the goofy 'no gun' signs. 

I think the majority of republicans in the legislature would pass most of these gun bills...  Just a hand full lead by Beth Harwell are preventing the bills from coming to a floor vote.

[Worriedman]

22 hours ago, JayC said:

I think the majority of republicans in the legislature would pass most of these gun bills...  Just a hand full lead by Beth Harwell are preventing the bills from coming to a floor vote.

All it takes is the Chairman of the Civil Justice committee to be under her control (every Chairman is under her control, else they would not be Chairmen) to keep these bills off the House floor.

And, the majority of the House voted to elect her, so they must be in agreement with her wishes, or, afraid to buck her.  Either way, she rules...

Edited April 10, 2017 by Worriedman