New TN CC requirements pass house and senate

[TN Native]

This bill is unexciting because it provides nothing new for existing permit holders.  After so many years of Republican control of the state, we should have constitutional carry already. The fact that we don't just shows you how useless political parties are.  

At the beginning of the new legislature, I suspected that the Governor would not want any "controversial" firearms bills in his first year. After the controversy surrounding the education bill, it seems that he was saving his efforts for that one. This new permit bill, passed at the last minute, was basically designed to be non-controversial precisely because it does not provide any substantial improvements. From what I have found, there was some minor griping from the usual suspects about the reduction in training time, but it was not the intense response we are likely to see if we ever get a constitutional carry bill (or even unrestricted carry for "enhanced" permit holders).

While the cost is often mentioned, the reduced training requirement is the point of this bill. It makes permits more accessible for those who (for whatever reason) are not currently getting permits because of the training requirements. While the bill is poorly crafted in regard to the enhanced permit, facilitating increased permit issuance probably is helpful to the overall acceptance of carrying in general.

I also would like to think that the legislators are strategically creating the "enhanced" permit without changes now so that when they start making actual enhancements in the next session, they will not be as controversial as they might have been. I still think most of them are terrified of controversial news coverage, because with the numbers they have, they could have passed anything they wanted. Ultimately, the Governor and the Speaker of the House are close allies, so anything passing the House will be only with the Governor's approval. 

[Cruel Hand Luke]

1 hour ago, gregintenn said:

When the constitution is changed to read 'The right to operate a motor vehicle on a public roadway shall not be infringed', I would say "Yes".

That is cute and all but shows a pretty basic misunderstanding of the fact that the state of TN retains in the state constitution the right to regulate the wearing and carrying of arms. So if you want to get the state constitution changed then call your legislators and lets get it started..... 

Edited May 3, 2019 by Cruel Hand Luke

[Omega]

2 hours ago, Cruel Hand Luke said:

I guess making people pass a driving test to be able to legally drive on public roads is an unreasonable imposition too? 

If people who have no interest in learning how to properly handle and use a firearm want to "bare arms" on their own property they are not really a danger to anyone but their own family (and maybe their next door neighbors). But if they then decide to carry out in the world then they now will potentially effect everyone out in public "down range" from them. If they don't know how to safely handle a gun on a "one way square range" is it really a great idea for them to try to learn it on the fly on a 360 degree "hot range" which is what the outside real world is. Fortunately we do not see many instances of accidental discharges reported (but how many people actually report that though?) but I do know of one in Chattanooga where a young woman was killed when a negligently discharged bullet came through the wall of her apartment and hit her. 

And before anyone thinks they are going to "question my commitment to the cause" I have carried a gun on my person on a daily basis an average of about 360 days a year for the last 26  years (before some people on this forum were even born). If I'm awake I'm armed unless I have to go through a metal detector or unless I am outside the US in a country where I can not take my gun. I have actually used a gun to defend myself in public. I'm a founding member of my church's security team. I've spent 20 years working in the firearms industry. I am an NRA member, I'm an NRA instructor. I am a TN Handgun Carry Permit Instructor who started teaching the class in 1999.  I have voted against anti gun candidates in EVERY single election since I turned 18 in 1990 and I not only shoot competitively as a hobby but also teach people to shoot and to defend themselves with firearms while working for a nationally recognized training company for the last 15 years. And before you even say it ...no... "profit motive".... is not the reason I suggest people actually learn how to safely and effectively handle firearms before they carry them in public. It is simply what conscientious adult humans do. They do not potentially willfully, arrogantly and ignorantly endanger themselves and others out in public. 

 I get it. We all want the 2A to be an absolute written on stone tablets handed down from on high never to be infringed with law of the land. But the other side of that is the old "with power comes responsibility" thing. IF you are going to carry loaded guns in public you really should also be civically minded enough to learn how to use and safely handle them. Not just so that you are far more likely to actually effectively hit the bad guy in a lethal force incident but also so that you are far less likely to hit anyone OTHER than the bad guys.... or not hit yourself or others accidentally from a negligent discharge while handling the gun. (We saw something a while back where some guy shot and killed himself holstering his pistol while sitting in his car. ) 

I come down on this side of the argument. People have an absolute GOD GIVEN natural law of nature right to defend themselves. Period. On the other hand if they are using projectile weapons that can kill or wound people outside their physical reach they REALLY need to learn the safe handling of the weapon and proper use of it. On their own property they are far less likely to endanger others. Out in public now everyone  within range of the weapon is potentially in danger if the carrier does not know how to safely handle the gun they are carrying. Part of being an adult is recognizing the world does not revolve around us and that other people are effected by our decisions and actions. As such it is imperative that we (as defenders of the 2A and frankly just as conscientious adults) learn to safely handle objects that can cause crippling injury and death if we are going to carry them and possibly use them out in public. 

What I'd rather see than this watered down sad attempt at "pro gun legislation" is a 2 tiered system where a minimal amount of safe gun handling is covered and a minimal accuracy standard is required for the "basic permit" and that might be only $25-$50 ....or heck maybe even free ? (not sure how that unfunded mandate would be carried out).  Then have a REAL enhanced permit that requires a bit more training that really is actually ENHANCED where you can carry ANYWHERE (signs or not) and go about your daily life without having to worry about whether it is OK to carry here or there or in this business or that business or in this park or that.

 At a bare minimum they should remove any legal penalty for carrying past signage for people with a permit. The signs have never stopped the bad guys from carrying so why should the good guys be disarmed if the bad guys are not and if the location is not providing armed security and limited access? If  businesses don't like it they can still "trespass" you if they ask you to leave and you don't.  THAT would be an actual PRO 2A piece of legislation.  

 

Sorry, but not being "trained" should not keep you from being able to protect yourself out in the street.  I agree that anyone should get training, but it should not be mandated.  I can train someone to be safe and lethal with a gun, though I hold no civilian certifications, as I am sure many here can.  Why should it cost hundreds of dollars, on top of the permit fees, to be able to defend yourself outside of your home?  I always hear this same argument, specially from those that teach these courses, which BTW I recommend for those that can afford it to take, but what of those that can barely afford their rent?

[AKVAT]

5 hours ago, Oh Shoot said:

Funny how two states dropped us as soon as the 18 year old exception was added, even though the training stayed the same.

Point being, there is no guarantee how other states will see this ... they might well simply lump all TN permits together as far as their decisions -- which might be to not honor them due to lack of training.  I can understand how a state wouldn't want to put up with their LE having to distinguish between two types of permits on the spot, eh?

Again, Nashville excels at doing badly what need not be done at all.

- OS

That’s a scary thought. It would be nice, as others point out, if this would put us closer to constitutional Carry. Still, reciprocity would be an issue either way.

[gregintenn]

post deleted

Edited May 3, 2019 by gregintenn

[Cruel Hand Luke]

Omega ,

There are varying degrees of "trained". Who said anything about "hundreds of dollars"? Hell I'm just arguing for the MINIMAL level that is already in the permit classes we already have...not lessening it.  While we all (anyone who knows any better) look negatively at the minimal amount of training the current HCP class provides , it is still FAR better than NOTHING. 

The reason you "always hear this same argument, specially from those that teach these courses "  is because we actually see first hand on a daily or weekly basis how abysmally bad the gun handling of many casual gun owners truly is.... 

 

 

Edited May 3, 2019 by Cruel Hand Luke

[AKVAT]

I just cannot imagine how much it is going to cost the State to implement a new process like this, process, computer systems, personnel, oversight, etc. 

[gregintenn]

19 minutes ago, Cruel Hand Luke said:

That is cute and all but shows a pretty basic misunderstanding of the fact that the state of TN retains in the state constitution the right to regulate the wearing and carrying of arms. So if you want to get the state constitution changed then call your legislators and lets get it started..... 

I stand corrected.

[300winmag]

There are states that do not even have training requirements for carry permits that have less carry restrictions than what we have in Tennessee for what will become 'enhanced' carry permits.   It is pretty pathetic what we are getting for our now enhanced carry permit compared to a lot of other states in the country.  The enhanced permit allows us to carry in a park where school groups are but the now standard permit does not in Tennessee is what I am reading?  How stupid to even have that sort of legal trap for honest people.  And this is how a Republican super majority helped people with a slightly cheaper carry permit instead of just getting rid of that law entirely?

[btq96r]

Now that they "did something" I expect they'll be resting on their laurels with regards to gun rights for a bit.

[Omega]

30 minutes ago, Cruel Hand Luke said:

Omega ,

There are varying degrees of "trained". Who said anything about "hundreds of dollars"? Hell I'm just arguing for the MINIMAL level that is already in the permit classes we already have...not lessening it.  While we all (anyone who knows any better) look negatively at the minimal amount of training the current HCP class provides , it is still FAR better than NOTHING. 

The reason you "always hear this same argument, specially from those that teach these courses "  is because we actually see first hand on a daily or weekly basis how abysmally bad the gun handling of many casual gun owners truly is.... 

 

 

This is only because the "gun culture" has gone by the wayside.  How many "accidents" do you think happened before we got all these ridiculous gun laws? When guns are treated like a tool, you will see less and less bad gun handling.  In Constitutional Carry States, is there a marked rise in gun "accidents"?  I was raised in Colorado, where exposed carry has been around for some time, at least outside Denver proper, and you hardly ever heard of someone getting hurt because of gunfire.  Sure, there are idiots everywhere, but I think you see more of them because of who the mystique of gun carry attracts; make it common and they will become the exceptions instead of the rule.

[owejia]

Just because some one passes the Tn driving test does not make them safe drivers. If that was all it took to make everyone a safe and responsible driver we would not need car insurance. You cannot legislate stupid out of people. Driving is a privilege bestowed upon us by our state government, not a Constitutional right.  Only the 2nd Amendment specifically states "shall not be infringed". If you are not happy about how your state rep or senator represents you, by all means let them know, or run for that office yourself. Just because the Republicans controlled both chambers and the Governors' office does not mean they support my view of the Constitution, for gosh sakes they are political animals, jocking for status, power , money or a combination of all three.

Edited May 3, 2019 by owejia

[chances R]

300win, I understand the language of the bill, but unless there is a change in the law, it remains illegal for any permit holder to carry on the grounds where a school function is being held

[Cruel Hand Luke]

8 minutes ago, owejia said:

Just because some one passes the Tn driving test does not make them safe drivers. If that was all it took to make everyone a safe and responsible driver we would not need car insurance. You cannot legislate stupid out of people. Driving is a privilege bestowed upon us by our state government, not a Constitutional right.  Only the 2nd Amendment specifically states "shall not be infringed". If you are not happy about how your state rep or senator represents you, by all means let them know, or run for that office yourself. Just because the Republicans controlled both chambers and the Governors' office does not mean they support my view of the Constitution, for gosh sakes they are political animals, jocking for status, power , money or a combination of all three.

So you think they'd be better or just as good drivers if there was no driving test to pass? 

Again, if you don't like the fact that the TN state legislature reserves the right to regulate the wearing of arms then you are gonna need to get the TN STATE constitution changed....

[chances R]

I have had several students fail the shooting portion of the carry class.  I have had many pass that I pray no one is downrange of should they choose to draw their weapon.  I had one recently that I am still here only by the grace of God.  The new CCP will grant a permit to these people and more who don’t have a clue about what they are doing.  You simply don’t know what you don’t know.  Any bet that these people will do any research on the legal points of self defense?  There will also be the legal fight for your life in the aftermath.

[DaveTN]

For those of you who say there is nothing in this bill for you; you are absolutely correct. It’s not about you.

If you want to require training for a Constitutional right, or a God given right; that fine, make it free. (And just because Tennessee doesn’t recognize it as your right; doesn’t mean it isn’t.) I would bet there are Police Departments, that if ask, would supply a place for training and an instructor. I remember seeing one Police Department that offered the class cheap for those who lived in the city limits.

If a person wants to exercise their rights it is their responsibility to get the knowledge they need; regardless of where that comes from.

I’m lucky to be blessed enough to be able to afford the fees and pay for a training a class I absolutely did not need. But I jumped through the hoops.

I have to say I’m surprised at the opposition to this. I expect some to be worried that someone is going to get something they didn’t get, or have less requirements than they had; but not many.

I think training is a great thing. But some people simply can’t afford it. And no, that shouldn’t mean they can’t defend their life and their family like the rest of us.

[Oh Shoot]

6 hours ago, Moped said:

... if what OS said was true, that two states have already dropped us from reciprocity...

MN and WA both quit honoring TN permits after the 18 year old military exception was enacted, stating that dropping the 21 year old age requirement as the reason.

- OS

[Chucktshoes]

1 minute ago, Oh Shoot said:

MN and WA both quit honoring TN permits after the 18 year old military exception was enacted, stating that dropping the 21 year old age requirement as the reason.

- OS

 Selfish as it may be, this is the main reason that I oppose this Bill. The Tennessee permit used to be the most widely accepted permit in the country. It no longer is, and I fear that I will lose reciprocity with even more states once this is signed into law. As an over the road truck driver, this impacts me immediately and personally. 

 If the legislature really wanted to  do something that makes it easier for folks to exercise their right to defend themselves they would’ve passed constitutional carry. Instead they went full blue falcon with this bill. 

[battleop]

I'm another one that is not a fan of the bill.   When I took my carry permit the second time (returning from living out of state) I was shocked that about 40% of the class had never owned a gun and at least 20% of the class had not pulled the trigger on a gun in the last 20 or more years.

I think it's a valid complaint that some of these people should have some form of training so they know to keep their booger hook off the bleaping trigger.    

I too am concerned about what this will do for reciprocity with other states.   

Instead of removing the requirement for the class make a change so that you can show proof of other forms of formal training.   Hunter safety course, former military, competitive pistol shooting etc.   If you know how to handle a gun there is no reason to take the class but if you are not even sure which end to look at then you should have some kind of training.

 

[DaveTN]

5 minutes ago, battleop said:

I'm another one that is not a fan of the bill.   When I took my carry permit the second time (returning from living out of state) I was shocked that about 40% of the class had never owned a gun and at least 20% of the class had not pulled the trigger on a gun in the last 20 or more years.

I think it's a valid complaint that some of these people should have some form of training so they know to keep their booger hook off the bleaping trigger.    

I too am concerned about what this will do for reciprocity with other states.   

Instead of removing the requirement for the class make a change so that you can show proof of other forms of formal training.   Hunter safety course, former military, competitive pistol shooting etc.   If you know how to handle a gun there is no reason to take the class but if you are not even sure which end to look at then you should have some kind of training.

 

No one is removing the class requirement, no matter how much you know. You still have to take the class and you still have to shoot the qualification course that will give you a permit that has reciprocity.

[Murgatroy]

Man am I glad to be in Kentucky. TN just keeps complicating it. I have my CCDW up here, but in July we go Constitutional Carry. I will keep my permit for reciprocity though. 

 

[TGO David]

Food for thought:  Most anyone on TGO who feels that mandated proficiency is a violation of the Second Amendment is most likely already operating at a higher level of proficiency than the State's minimum requirement.  Meaning, you might be viewing the requirement through the lens of being someone who feels that they are being condescended to by the government.

 

[Omega]

2 hours ago, TGO David said:

Food for thought:  Most anyone on TGO who feels that mandated proficiency is a violation of the Second Amendment is most likely already operating at a higher level of proficiency than the State's minimum requirement.  Meaning, you might be viewing the requirement through the lens of being someone who feels that they are being condescended to by the government.

 

Speaking just for me, no.  While I've had training, some civilian, some military, and of course my own drills, and I could have just presented a memo from my commander, I took the required course anyway.  I can afford it (and was curious about the course), but I know many that can't, and it is they that I feel are hurt by mandating training and charging a large fee for the permit.   I feel if the State imposes any training, for a Right, then they should provide that training free of charge, just like they provide free IDs to vote.

[owejia]

As a gun owners forum members we cannot agree on the laws that are passed, so how does anyone expect the Tn. legislature to pass any kind of gun laws that we could all support. Your local representative is the person you need to be contacting about your views of particular laws. Let them know how you feel and what kind of new laws you would like for them to support.

17 hours ago, Cruel Hand Luke said:

So you think they'd be better or just as good drivers if there was no driving test to pass? 

Again, if you don't like the fact that the TN state legislature reserves the right to regulate the wearing of arms then you are gonna need to get the TN STATE constitution changed....

Yes would like to see this on a state wide ballot next state election cycle, changing to Constitutional carry. Let the voters choose instead of a few so called politicians. As far as taking the Tn driving test making some one a responsible driver, I wish it were true. One of the most dangerous things in your daily life is a 16 yr old teenager, or any irresponsible person, driving a 3500# missile at 60  miles an hour next to you on a highway. 

[TGO David]

1 hour ago, owejia said:

As a gun owners forum members we cannot agree on the laws that are passed, so how does anyone expect the Tn. legislature to pass any kind of gun laws that we could all support. Your local representative is the person you need to be contacting about your views of particular laws. Let them know how you feel and what kind of new laws you would like for them to support. 

This is a very true statement.  I've said before that I believe that we, as gun owners, are absolutely our own worst enemies.  The other side is united under the banner of their hatred of guns and desire to see us disarmed.  Everything else to them is academic.  They don't care how it happens or what it looks like, and are usually satisfied with incremental wins.

We, on the other hand, tend to be so anti-authoritarian that nothing but a perfect decision is palatable and none of us agree on the mechanics of any victory no matter how small.

I think the biggest difference between the current generation of Constitutionalists and our Founding Fathers is that they tried hard to put the greater good before self.  That's a shameful indictment of our modern mindset.