Big News

[Worriedman]

10 hours ago, TomInMN said:

There's no Constitutional right to drive, so the comparison only goes so far. But, I suspect that a lot of the people who make terrible drivers would make terrible armed, polite citizens.

My point is we require mandatory training, and mandatory insurance.  Neither are really required for driving.  People drive without license, training, insurance, or being able to read the road signs, and yet drive they do, and you are correct, there is no Constitutional securing of a right to drive..People die due to bad drivers every day.  

[Magiccarpetrides]

Also as far as the TN constitution I am a follower of the United States Constitution....the Tennessee constitution holds as much weight as declaring Knoxville a sanctuary city or what have you...makes people all warm and fuzzy...doesn't mean sh*t.

[TomInMN]

2 minutes ago, Worriedman said:

My point is we require mandatory training, and mandatory insurance.  Neither are really required for driving.  People drive without license, training, insurance, or being able to read the road signs, and yet drive they do, and you are correct, there is no Constitutional securing of a right to drive..People die due to bad drivers every day. 

And the more drivers there are on the road, the more BAD drivers there are in the road. The more BAD drivers there are on the road, the greater the likelihood of one ramming their car into you and yours. Same with guns and carry.

I think there are a lot of responsible, cautious people posting here, and I think they don't necessarily reflect the attitudes and abilities of the general public.

[Worriedman]

3 minutes ago, Magiccarpetrides said:

What rights exactly are we born with?  Running around naked?  Taking anything we please?  Assaulting anyone we choose?  Wearing Clothes?  Carrying a gun?  Wielding a sword?  

We all have absolute freedom but seeing as how none of us own our own private island the government (local/state/national) tells us what we can do without penalty and what we can't.  Your argument makes no sense though it sounds good when spoken aloud lol.

You do not get the Constitution, I will add to your education:

Article 11 Section 16. The declaration of rights hereto prefixed is declared to be a part of the Constitution of this State, and shall never be violated on any pretense whatever. And to guard against transgression of the high powers we have delegated, we declare that everything in the bill of rights contained, is excepted out of the General powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate.

Article 1 section 26.  That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.

Cuba may be where you want to live, Government makes all the rules there.

 

[Worriedman]

6 minutes ago, TomInMN said:

I think there are a lot of responsible, cautious people posting here, and I think they don't necessarily reflect the attitudes and abilities of the general public.

So because the general public has an attitude we scrap the Constitution?  the permit system is a Jim Crow law left over from 1870, the Original Constitution did not require a permit, the Democrats wanting to deny the freed slaves weapons did.  That is an incontrovertible fact.

Edited March 3, 2020 by Worriedman

[gregintenn]

4 minutes ago, TomInMN said:

And the more drivers there are on the road, the more BAD drivers there are in the road. The more BAD drivers there are on the road, the greater the likelihood of one ramming their car into you and yours. Same with guns and carry.

I think there are a lot of responsible, cautious people posting here, and I think they don't necessarily reflect the attitudes and abilities of the general public.

How many more people will be carrying because of this law?

Irresponsible people don't really care about laws. You'd be amazed how many people carry regardless of laws.

Before the advent of the carry permit, most of the men I knew had a pistol in their pocket.

[JN01]

Back to the original topic, is there a bill number for the permitless carry proposal so we can read the actual language?

[Worriedman]

12 minutes ago, JN01 said:

Back to the original topic, is there a bill number for the permitless carry proposal so we can read the actual language?

HB2817

Edited March 3, 2020 by Worriedman

[JN01]

That is a bill on criminal procedure.

Edited March 3, 2020 by JN01

[Worriedman]

1 hour ago, JN01 said:

That is a bill on criminal procedure.

It is a "Cation Bill", they have not posed the Amendment that makes the bill yet, and I can not copy and past the link from Leader Lamberth.

[JN01]

I just looked up caption bills, very curious.  Guess it might be a few days before they add the amended language.

I am interested to see if people using the constitutional carry provision will be under the same restrictions as those with a concealed handgun permit or the less restrictive enhanced permit, or something entirely different.

Seems like it could  make the new concealed carry permit obsolete.

[gregintenn]

17 minutes ago, JN01 said:

I just looked up caption bills, very curious.  Guess it might be a few days before they add the amended language.

I am interested to see if people using the constitutional carry provision will be under the same restrictions as those with a concealed handgun permit or the less restrictive enhanced permit, or something entirely different.

Seems like it could  make the new concealed carry permit obsolete.

It is my understanding that this bill would simply remove the criminal penalty for carrying without a permit. I cannot confirm this however.

[TomInMN]

33 minutes ago, gregintenn said:

It is my understanding that this bill would simply remove the criminal penalty for carrying without a permit. I cannot confirm this however.

That's interesting. Would there still be restrictions on where carry is allowed?

[Worriedman]

1 hour ago, gregintenn said:

It is my understanding that this bill would simply remove the criminal penalty for carrying without a permit. I cannot confirm this however.

I can and will post the language of the amendment that makes the bill tomorrow, but from a perusal of the amendment here is my our take on it.
 

Most people say that they believe in the 2nd Amendment.  Most believe that the 2nd Amendment protects a right that every citizen in the entire county has to have and carry guns for all purposes.  Most people, at least people from Tennessee, believe God gave us this right.

 

The bill as proposed does not recognize that its my right and your right to have and carry guns, not just handguns.  Here are some of those facts.

 

First, it only applies to Tennesseans.  Does it say that specifically, no.  But that is the trickery of referencing the enhanced permit statute.   So, citizens of our border states and other states have no rights that Tennessee would recognize under this bill.  Its not being treated as a right but an exception for some citizens to a criminal charge, if it’s a right it must apply to any citizen who can legally own, purchase or possess and handgun. This one does not.

 

Second, by referencing the enhanced permit statute the proposed bill only applies to Tennessee citizens who are lawful citizens or permanent residents who are at least 21 year old or a small set of 18-20 year olds in the military.  But under state and federal law, any 18 year old can buy a handgun from another citizen.  The 21 year old limit is only a limit on who federal gun dealers can sell to.  Existing Tennessee laws already recognize that anyone 18 and up can purchase, possess, own and use a handgun.

 

Third, if it’s a right it should apply based on a person’s right to own guns.  This bill does not.  This bill fails to recognize the right by adopting the special conditions on the enhanced permit such a person cannot have 2 or more DUIs in the last 10 years as prohibitions on the right to carry a handgun.  If you want to include all those prohibitions why not just make the enhanced permit free and get rid of the training requirement because all the other conditions are being used to infringe the right of lawful gun owner?

 

Fourth, if it’s a right it should be a right everywhere.  This bill says it only applies where the person has a right to be.  What does that mean?  If I don’t have a right to be in a mall because I am not wearing a shirt should I also be criminally prosecuted if I have a gun in my pocket?

 

Fifth, it it’s a right it should be a right in publicly owned parks and buildings as well as the streets and all parking lots.  This law does not allow citizens who are exercising a right to even go in a park or walk on a greenway.

 

Sixth, if it’s a right you should be able to drive to work and leave my lawfully owned handgun in my personal car.  You can if you have a permit because that is already the law but if you just want to exercise your right to carry a firearm you cannot do that under this bill which means you could be fired for leaving your gun in  personal car just because YOU parked at work. (Company handbook clause)

 

Seventh, if you want to pass constitutional carry, then treat it as a right that the people have with or without the constitution.  That is not what this law does.  This law leaves the criminal penalties for illegally carrying a gun on the books.  The bill uses these existing criminal laws  as a threat to charge people who are only trying to exercise a right and then creates a defense to the criminal charge if the citizen happens to meet all of the conditions, conditions which are really nothing more than infringements.

 

So, if you really want to pass constitutional carry all you need to do is say that a person who can legally purchase or possess a firearm has the right to carry it in Tennessee and to do so in public places (not private), on public property (not private property) and even while parking their vehicles in places where they are allowed to park.  Constitutional carry needs nothing more than the removal of infringements.   On the other hand if all you want to do is to create a defense to a criminal charge with a lot of conditions and qualifications this accomplishes that.

Edited March 4, 2020 by Worriedman

[Chucktshoes]

11 minutes ago, Worriedman said:

I can and will post the language of the amendment that makes the bill tomorrow, but from a perusal of the amendment here is my our take on it.
 

Most people say that they believe in the 2nd Amendment.  Most believe that the 2nd Amendment protects a right that every citizen in the entire county has to have and carry guns for all purposes.  Most people, at least people from Tennessee, believe God gave us this right.

 

The bill as proposed does not recognize that its my right and your right to have and carry guns, not just handguns.  Here are some of those facts.

 

First, it only applies to Tennesseans.  Does it say that specifically, no.  But that is the trickery of referencing the enhanced permit statute.   So, citizens of our border states and other states have no rights that Tennessee would recognize under this bill.  Its not being treated as a right but an exception for some citizens to a criminal charge, if it’s a right it must apply to any citizen who can legally own, purchase or possess and handgun. This one does not.

 

Second, by referencing the enhanced permit statute the proposed bill only applies to Tennessee citizens who are lawful citizens or permanent residents who are at least 21 year old or a small set of 18-20 year olds in the military.  But under state and federal law, any 18 year old can buy a handgun from another citizen.  The 21 year old limit is only a limit on who federal gun dealers can sell to.  Existing Tennessee laws already recognize that anyone 18 and up can purchase, possess, own and use a handgun.

 

Third, if it’s a right it should apply based on a person’s right to own guns.  This bill does not.  This bill fails to recognize the right by adopting the special conditions on the enhanced permit such a person cannot have 2 or more DUIs in the last 10 years as prohibitions on the right to carry a handgun.  If you want to include all those prohibitions why not just make the enhanced permit free and get rid of the training requirement because all the other conditions are being used to infringe the right of lawful gun owner?

 

Fourth, if it’s a right it should be a right everywhere.  This bill says it only applies where the person has a right to be.  What does that mean?  If I don’t have a right to be in a mall because I am not wearing a shirt should I also be criminally prosecuted if I have a gun in my pocket?

 

Fifth, it it’s a right it should be a right in publicly owned parks and buildings as well as the streets and all parking lots.  This law does not allow citizens who are exercising a right to even go in a park or walk on a greenway.

 

Sixth, if it’s a right you should be able to drive to work and leave my lawfully owned handgun in my personal car.  You can if you have a permit because that is already the law but if you just want to exercise your right to carry a firearm you cannot do that under this bill which means you could be fired for leaving your gun in  personal car just because YOU parked at work. (Company handbook clause)

 

Seventh, if you want to pass constitutional carry, then treat it as a right that the people have with or without the constitution.  That is not what this law does.  This law leaves the criminal penalties for illegally carrying a gun on the books.  The bill uses these existing criminal laws  as a threat to charge people who are only trying to exercise a right and then creates a defense to the criminal charge if the citizen happens to meet all of the conditions, conditions which are really nothing more than infringements.

 

So, if you really want to pass constitutional carry all you need to do is say that a person who can legally purchase or possess a firearm has the right to carry it in Tennessee and to do so in public places (not private), on public property (not private property) and even while parking their vehicles in places where they are allowed to park.  Constitutional carry needs nothing more than the removal of infringements.   On the other hand if all you want to do is to create a defense to a criminal charge with a lot of conditions and qualifications this accomplishes that.

This is very disappointing. 

[mikegideon]

3 hours ago, Chucktshoes said:

This is very disappointing. 

You had a lot higher expectations than me, then.  They're politicians, doing what they do. It's how street poopin', the oldest thing in the world, became the newest thing in the world.

[DaveTN]

Constitutional carry is just what we call it; its not what it is.

I only expected it to remove the requirement for a permit.

I don’t expect the state to acknowledge an individual right, and that they have no control over when or where your carry; I don’t think many, if any, states do.

I don’t expect where you can carry to change. It can’t make private business comply, even those open to the public. Tennessee is too dependent on tourism to allow that.

I would expect it to cover everyone, resident or not. So they will lock-up non-residents? That won’t fly.

I would expect it includes 18 year old.

However, it could be something less than Constitutional Carry. Many times on here you see “Why can’t we be like XXXX?” and they go on to name a state that isn’t a constitutional carry state. This could just be more gun privileges; but not full Constitutional carry right.

But we are merely speculating until we see the bill and the final that gets voted on.

Tennessee democrats picked Biden yesterday. If we ever get a Democrat for a President with Democrats having control of the House and Senate; this could all change quickly.

[chances R]

of course will see much more OC... Hopefully more signs where CC is permitted rather than No Gun signs.  Suspect that age requirement will mirror fed law purchase requirement.....stay tuned, devil will be in the details.

[300winmag]

I'm not surprised that the bill as of now allows a national gun org to pat politicians on the back in public for something that could be pretty restrictive. 

You have to remember there is a thread where people are discussing if they can carry WITH a permit at a driver license office because there may or may not be legal no gun signs.  The national gun organization possibly endorsing this so called constitutional carry law has not even fixed a dumb law like that for people with carry permits or campus carry with a permit.

[E4 No More]

1 hour ago, DaveTN said:

Tennessee democrats picked Biden yesterday. If we ever get a Democrat for a President with Democrats having control of the House and Senate; this could all change quickly.

Not only that, but Biden bought Beto's endorsement by promising to appoint him as the head of his gun-control efforts. That ain't good!

[Worriedman]

Amendment 15802 as adopted Senate Jud 2020-03-03.pdf

Senate Version from yesterday.

Edited March 4, 2020 by Worriedman

[DaveTN]

It appears it applies to Tennessee residents only as that is part of the requirements for 39-17-1351 b.

I don’t see any changes for where you can or can’t carry from what it was for a permit holder.

It appears to me that this gives all Tennessee residents (expect felons, etc.) the privileges of an HCP, except for those privileges granted by other states.

Quote

39-17-1351 (n) (1) Except as provided in subdivision (n)(2) and subsection (x), a permit issued pursuant to this section shall be good for eight (8) years and shall entitle the permit holder to carry any handgun or handguns that the permit holder legally owns or possesses. The permit holder shall have the permit in the holder's immediate possession at all times when carrying a handgun in a location or manner that would be prohibited if not for the person's status as an enhanced handgun carry permit holder and shall display the permit on demand of a law enforcement officer under such circumstances. 

I'm not sure when that would be??

[Chucktshoes]

Is it just me, or does it seem like once this goes into effect it’s a better deal than the CC permit That passed last year?  Only thing it doesn’t grant is the limited reciprocity in other states. If that isn’t an issue, then the CC permit isn’t worth bothering with. 

Edited March 4, 2020 by Chucktshoes

[DaveTN]

5 minutes ago, Chucktshoes said:

Is it just me, or does it seem like once this goes into effect it’s a better deal than the CC permit That passed last year?  Only thing it doesn’t grant is the limited reciprocity in other states. If that isn’t an issue, then the CC permit isn’t worth bothering with. 

Sure, this appears to me it’s a better deal in this state.

I mean there is some limited stuff, like in Illinois either permit would allow you to have a loaded handgun in your car; this won’t. I don’t know how many other states that would apply to.

[Chucktshoes]

1 minute ago, DaveTN said:

Sure, this appears to me it’s a better deal in this state.

I mean there is some limited stuff, like in Illinois either permit would allow you to have a loaded handgun in your car; this won’t. I don’t know how many other states that would apply to.

Which is why I mentioned the limited reciprocity. I don’t think the border states that have Con-Carry have the residency requirements (I could be wrong) so if that’s the case it’s a way better deal all around.