CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY

[JayC]

On 3/4/2021 at 9:03 PM, battleop said:

I've gone through the class and permit process in Tennessee twice after moving out of state and then back.   Both times I took the class there was more than one person who had never owned or even shot a gun before they took the class.    Second time around there were three who had to rent a gun because they didn't own one and they were not sure if they would ever buy a gun.  WTF?

99+% of people who take the HCP class pass it, it's nothing more than corporate welfare for ranges and instructors.  It provides no tangible benefit and only succeeds in making it harder for law abiding citizens to protect themselves.

Any don't even get me started about the finger print requirement.

[JayC]

On 3/10/2021 at 8:17 PM, papa61 said:

truly not certain. the wording appears to put the burden of proof on us citizens which won't pass federal court scrutiny so I am taking the wait and see. proof being the background check and required training. if it translates to the same procedure as we now have without the state fees that would fix the proof issue.

The eligibility requirements are laid out here: https://www.tn.gov/safety/tnhp/handgun/eligibilityrequirements.html

You don't have to have training, you don't have to pass a background check.  Per the currently amended bill.

Basically you can't be a prohibited person, with some added stuff like DUI/DWI convictions, not receiving SSI for a mental disability, etc.  Basically if your background would allow you to be issued a permit, you can carry without a permit.

There is one good thing about the current wording, if passed as is, you would not be required to ID to law enforcement unless you were carrying in a location that required a permit to carry, even if you've been issued a permit.

[papa61]

3 hours ago, JayC said:

The eligibility requirements are laid out here: https://www.tn.gov/safety/tnhp/handgun/eligibilityrequirements.html

You don't have to have training, you don't have to pass a background check.  Per the currently amended bill.

Basically you can't be a prohibited person, with some added stuff like DUI/DWI convictions, not receiving SSI for a mental disability, etc.  Basically if your background would allow you to be issued a permit, you can carry without a permit.

There is one good thing about the current wording, if passed as is, you would not be required to ID to law enforcement unless you were carrying in a location that required a permit to carry, even if you've been issued a permit.

this is why we have this community, Thanks JayC. I find the state assembly website tedious to navigate.

[Erik88]

One more hurdle was cleared yesterday as this passed the Senate. I get daily emails from TFA about this and they seem really dissatisfied with this bill but it doesn't seem that bad to me.  They are unhappy with the parts in bold. 

"In 2020, Governor Bill Lee announced that he was going to file a “constitutional carry bill” in the Legislature. At the time, he stated “The Second Amendment is clear and concise and secures the freedoms of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms, … I am pleased to announce Constitutional Carry legislation today that will protect the Second Amendment rights of Tennesseans.” That bill was filed weeks later in 2020 and it was immediately clear that it was not real constitutional carry. Instead, it imposed limits on the rights of citizens to carry firearms by generally limiting the right to a) Tennessee residents b) who were at least 21 years old and c) it was limited only to handguns. That bill failed to pass in 2020 perhaps due to Covid.

Governor Lee refiled his bill in 2021 as Senate Bill 765 (House Bill 786). It is one of 3 bills on this issue this year. It is not the most “constitutionally” compliant bill.

As noted in prior reports, which are available on TFA’s News page, the Governor’s bill falls short of real constitutional carry. It is limited generally to those 21 and up and it prohibits carrying any firearms other than those that meet the statutory definition of a handgun under Tennessee law (not all handguns are “handguns” under Tennessee law)."

 

[Defender]

1 hour ago, Erik88 said:

One more hurdle was cleared yesterday as this passed the Senate. I get daily emails from TFA about this and they seem really dissatisfied with this bill but it doesn't seem that bad to me.  They are unhappy with the parts in bold. 

"In 2020, Governor Bill Lee announced that he was going to file a “constitutional carry bill” in the Legislature. At the time, he stated “The Second Amendment is clear and concise and secures the freedoms of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms, … I am pleased to announce Constitutional Carry legislation today that will protect the Second Amendment rights of Tennesseans.” That bill was filed weeks later in 2020 and it was immediately clear that it was not real constitutional carry. Instead, it imposed limits on the rights of citizens to carry firearms by generally limiting the right to a) Tennessee residents b) who were at least 21 years old and c) it was limited only to handguns. That bill failed to pass in 2020 perhaps due to Covid.

Governor Lee refiled his bill in 2021 as Senate Bill 765 (House Bill 786). It is one of 3 bills on this issue this year. It is not the most “constitutionally” compliant bill.

As noted in prior reports, which are available on TFA’s News page, the Governor’s bill falls short of real constitutional carry. It is limited generally to those 21 and up and it prohibits carrying any firearms other than those that meet the statutory definition of a handgun under Tennessee law (not all handguns are “handguns” under Tennessee law)."

 

Which ones are not?

[Erik88]

2 minutes ago, Defender said:

Which ones are not?

I would assume they mean something like my Sig MPX. I'm not positive though. 

[mondojackal]

13 hours ago, Erik88 said:

I would assume they mean something like my Sig MPX. I'm not positive though. 

That makes the most sense to me. "Handgun" seems like your traditional semi-auto pistols and revolvers. I would think that specifying "handgun" rather than "pistol" or "firearm" would keep people from having AR pistols, MP5K's, sawed off shotgun with a shoulder loop, etc. on their person.  Seems to me that an overwhelming majority of average people who currently carry would likely continue to carry "handguns," even if another option were allowed.

[Will]

With permit you can now carry an AR15 Pistol. Rifle ,shotgun  No   With permit you can now carry fully  loaded

shotgun/rifle in auto. Put in place for hunters years ago.

[RED333]

On 3/19/2021 at 7:19 AM, Erik88 said:

It is limited generally to those 21 and up and it prohibits carrying any firearms other than those that meet the statutory definition of a handgun under Tennessee law (not all handguns are “handguns” under Tennessee law)."

I am not very good at looking up the small ins and outs of TN law, can someone find the info on what a "hand gun" is.

I am thinking a "hand gun" can be fired proficient with one hand, but I do not know.

[Whisper]

50 minutes ago, RED333 said:

I am not very good at looking up the small ins and outs of TN law, can someone find the info on what a "hand gun" is.

I am thinking a "hand gun" can be fired proficient with one hand, but I do not know.

TCA 39-33-106 (a) (16) Handgun means any firearm with a barrel length of less than twelve inches (12²) that is designed, made or adapted to be fired with one (1) hand

[papa61]

3 hours ago, Whisper said:

TCA 39-33-106 (a) (16) Handgun means any firearm with a barrel length of less than twelve inches (12²) that is designed, made or adapted to be fired with one (1) hand

so my braced 10.5 AwfulRifle will qualify then.

not that I plan on it for EDC.

Edited March 20, 2021 by papa61

[chances R]

19 hours ago, Will said:

.....   With permit you can now carry fully  loaded

shotgun/rifle in auto. Put in place for hunters years ago.

TN has had a 'permitless carry' provision for several years that applies to your vehicle.  It is an extension of the Castle Doctrine.  Applies to firearms, not specific for pistol.  Has nothing to do with hunting.  You may have some confusion with the provision that applies to carrying a handgun while hunting if one has a permit.

[RED333]

9 hours ago, Whisper said:

TCA 39-33-106 (a) (16) Handgun means any firearm with a barrel length of less than twelve inches (12²) that is designed, made or adapted to be fired with one (1) hand

Thanks much

6 hours ago, papa61 said:

so my braced 10.5 AwfulRifle will qualify then.

not that I plan on it for EDC.

and my 9.5" 300 BO is as well.

[Will]

3 hours ago, chances R said:

TN has had a 'permitless carry' provision for several years that applies to your vehicle.  It is an extension of the Castle Doctrine.  Applies to firearms, not specific for pistol.  Has nothing to do with hunting.  You may have some confusion with the provision that applies to carrying a handgun while hunting if one has a permit.

It was pushed through and signed by then Gov. Phil Bredesen a bird hunter who thought it was a good idea for him,but otherwise he was anti 2A.

[papa61]

11 hours ago, RED333 said:

Thanks much

and my 9.5" 300 BO is as well.

mine is .300 BO also. I acquired it it June last year and have been slowly building ammo reserve.

[TN Native]

The bill has passed in the Senate, but the House still has not voted. From what I have read from TFA, this bill is an improvement on the current situation, but it could be so much better. If we have so many “pro-gun Republicans” in the general assembly, why are they so hesitant to pass a real constitutional carry bill?
I have not yet reviewed the record, but apparently no amendments were allowed to the senate version of the bill.
At this point, it would be helpful to call (rather than email) our state representatives to pressure them to make amendments to improve the bill.

Once this bill passes, in whatever final form it may be, the Governor will congratulate himself for getting “constitutional carry” passed, and that will be the end of his efforts on this issue. 

[Capbyrd]

On 3/17/2021 at 4:47 PM, JayC said:

99+% of people who take the HCP class pass it, it's nothing more than corporate welfare for ranges and instructors.  It provides no tangible benefit and only succeeds in making it harder for law abiding citizens to protect themselves.

Any don't even get me started about the finger print requirement.

 

In my experience its closer to around 97% and it is definitely not welfare for me.  And seeing as how my school regularly has students in the class that do not NEED to take the class, it shows me that there is some tangible benefit to someone.   If I had my way, the class would require much more than the current requirement.   But the state sets the curriculum.   We are not allowed to change even a slide or a word on the test.   They set the shooting standard.   We spend as much time on the range doing dry work as we do live fire because we deal with so many students that have never touched a gun before.   


I am an instructor in ECP classes and I support constitutional carry.  I recommend to folks that they get training.  But I'm not their daddy.  I ain't making anyone do anything!  

[Omega]

32 minutes ago, Capbyrd said:

 

In my experience its closer to around 97% and it is definitely not welfare for me.  And seeing as how my school regularly has students in the class that do not NEED to take the class, it shows me that there is some tangible benefit to someone.   If I had my way, the class would require much more than the current requirement.   But the state sets the curriculum.   We are not allowed to change even a slide or a word on the test.   They set the shooting standard.   We spend as much time on the range doing dry work as we do live fire because we deal with so many students that have never touched a gun before.   


I am an instructor in ECP classes and I support constitutional carry.  I recommend to folks that they get training.  But I'm not their daddy.  I ain't making anyone do anything!  

And that is how it should be, when I got my permit, I went to a class to see what they would cover, legality wise, even though I could have used my military training to avoid the class.  I do believe that those who are inexperienced with weapons seek training, but that should be up to an individual to make that decision.

[Capbyrd]

1 hour ago, Omega said:

And that is how it should be, when I got my permit, I went to a class to see what they would cover, legality wise, even though I could have used my military training to avoid the class.  I do believe that those who are inexperienced with weapons seek training, but that should be up to an individual to make that decision.

Everyone should seek training.   Not just inexperienced shooters.  You don't know what you don't know until you learn what you didn't know and now you know.  

[papa61]

5 hours ago, Capbyrd said:

I am an instructor in ECP classes and I support constitutional carry.  I recommend to folks that they get training.  But I'm not their daddy.  I ain't making anyone do anything!  

that is the attitude all trainers should have. I think students would be better served with basic handgun operation and safety. Requiring classes is unconstitutional and yes, I will keep repeating it.

[papa61]

On 3/9/2021 at 5:08 PM, papa61 said:

Channel 2 WKRN Nashville just announced it appears this bill will pass. They then proceeded to interview the owner of a firearms training academy who spouted the exact fearmongering I had written about earlier. We don't need a bunch of people without training running around armed. (not direct quote) I know not all qualified training personnel think or speak this way so PLEASE do not take offense. But this guy is just worried about losing all that state required training money. My local shop now provides the current training free. I agree, everyone should get competency training but it should not be required. Oh by the way, if you look at my previous posts in this thread you will know that I have training. I will revisit where and when I can carry and deploy. We should all keep up to date.

 

3 hours ago, Capbyrd said:

Everyone should seek training.   Not just inexperienced shooters.  You don't know what you don't know until you learn what you didn't know and now you know.  

Yes, EVERYONE should. Even those who do not own firearms and especially those anti gun nuts. How can you argue against something you know nothing about? (they sound like idiots to those who know)

[chances R]

There should be a process similar to hunter's safety program.  It could be fairly extensive with a specified field qualification and then one could apply for the enchanced carry permit after passing.  It would be a mistake IMO to abandon the permitting process due to the advantages of reciprocity.

[Omega]

40 minutes ago, chances R said:

There should be a process similar to hunter's safety program.  It could be fairly extensive with a specified field qualification and then one could apply for the enchanced carry permit after passing.  It would be a mistake IMO to abandon the permitting process due to the advantages of reciprocity.

For those that wish to get or keep their permit, sure, why not.  But there should be no prerequisites for anyone 18 or over to be able to exercise their inalienable rights.  If the Government wants the age to be 21, so be it, but everything else should go to 21 as well, including serving in the military.  Seems to me if someone is old enough to die for their country, then they are old enough to carry a weapon for self defense.

[chances R]

IMO the die for my country argument doesn’t hold water.  Those enlisted are under constant supervision.  Not so in civilian life.

[Chucktshoes]

Once again, none of the constitutional carry bills have any effect on the permits. They simply remove the necessity for one for a citizen to carry in the state. The permits all remain intact and with all of the requirements. 
 

This will only affect the carrying of a firearm within the state of TN.