So, I wrote a letter to Rep. Todd

[dralarms]

You idiots are going to make us end up with no bill this year. This seemed almost like a slam dunk with the 11pm curfew. But that wasn't good enough for you, so you've stirred up a hornets nest. Just get a damn restaurant bill passed, then when it's proven to not be as bad an idea as the media and the uninformed public thinks it is now, we can get it tweaked.

If this gets shot down this session, I'm not going to blame the stupid politicians, I'm going to blame you and a lot of others around here.

Damn that was harsh.

Just for the record, I also sent him an email. Mine simply thanked him for his service and thanked hm for sponsering this bill and told him not to let the anti's push him around too much.

[Guest db99wj]

Damn that was harsh.

Just for the record, I also sent him an email. Mine simply thanked him for his service and thanked hm for sponsering this bill and told him not to let the anti's push him around too much.

Yep, my letter was saying thanks for his efforts on getting this common sense legislation passed and then asked him to clarify the reasons behind tabling it last week, what study's they were waiting on, and what damage does the amendments do to that Rep Hardaway added on there. Then I thanked him again.

[Guest Seminole]

You idiots are going to make us end up with no bill this year.

If we wind up with no restaurant carry law this year it will be the fault of no one but the Republican members of the House who have not delivered on what they have said they would for years, if only they were in the majority. The proof is in the pudding.

[Guest HexHead]

x

Edited April 2, 2009 by HexHead
duplicate

[Okey]

I sat next to Todd and Doug Jackson at the UFC fight night last night. Both seemed like nice guys.

[Guest Seminole]

Compromises have to be made in order to get things passed in government, business, marriages, etc.

The problem is that these restrictions are not compromises that the Republicans are making in order to get the bills passed. Rep. Todd actually wants the restrictions. He doesn't believe that you or I are responsible enough to carry a weapon without his restrictions. If you doubt this, take a look at what he said in the Chattanooga Times:

You can’t leave it wide open out there in my opinion and be responsible, to let them just carry it anywhere they want to carry it,†Rep. Todd, a former policeman, said. “I can’t let them carry it into a bar. And I know what a bar is.

In addition, Rep. Todd also misrepresented the position of the NRA on the restrictions he has inserted in the bill:

Rep. Todd told House members the language was intended to “take everything out that people say is a bar.†He noted the “National Rifle Association was OK with this,â€

According to the NRA lobbyist, this is not the position of the NRA. It is most certainly not the position of the Tennessee Firearms Association either, which opposes any such restrictions because they penalize law-abiding citizens while not preventing criminals from carrying anywhere they want.

What makes this especially galling is that Rep. Todd himself sponsored a bill in 2005 which was exactly what TFA and NRA was wanting. That bill had 66 House sponsors but was killed by Jimmy Naifeh. Apparently Rep. Todd was playing politics in 2005 by sponsoring a bill with no time or venue restrictions, currying favor with HCP holders when he knew that Naifeh would prevent such a bill coming to the floor. Now, when such a bill could actually be passed, he childishly threatens to withdraw it if other Republicans don't cave in to his desire to treat law-abiding HCP holders like responsible adults. Judging from both his words and his actions, Rep. Todd appears to be an elitist hypocrite.

We deserve better.

Edited April 2, 2009 by Seminole

[Guest HexHead]

x

Edited April 2, 2009 by HexHead
duplicate

[Guest Seminole]

Hex, your posts are showing up here--I'm not sure why you can't see them.

Try clearing the cookies in your browser and see if that doesn't enable you to see your posts.

[Guest db99wj]

The problem is that these restrictions are not compromises that the Republicans are making in order to get the bills passed. Rep. Todd actually wants the restrictions. He doesn't believe that you or I are responsible enough to carry a weapon without his restrictions. If you doubt this, take a look at what he said in the Chattanooga Times:

<snip>

We deserve better.

Restriction, compromise, whatever and whenever it happens, it still has to happen. That is the way politics and the other examples works. They know they can't just put a wide open bill up and it has a chance in hell to pass, "HCP holders can carry their weapons anywhere, everywhere, and whenever they want" would never pass. Instead, they put restrictions as you mentioned and then make compromises, in order to give their bills the potential to pass with votes from both sides of the table. There doesn't have to be a direct negotiation of compromises to make this happen, they know on the front end that they can't do that, so they restrict them so that they appeal to both sides. That is how business gets done.

I'm negotiating a car, right now. It has a MSRP of about 30K. I know in my mind, that I would like to get it for 20K, that would be a great deal for me, not a good deal for the dealer, they would lose money. The dealer would like to get 30K. So I go in and make an offer, they counter, we meet in the middle (hopefully) until both sides can agree. We make the deal. Did I go in and offer that 20K price, no, I knew it wouldn't work.

As I mentioned or eluded to, I would love to have a law that says I can carry into restaurants that serve anytime I please, no restrictions, but I realize there has to be compromises and restrictions on this law, or there will be NO law to worry about, it will stay the same and we won't be able to go legally armed at all.

[Guest db99wj]

Hex, I could see your posts too, I see "X" now.

[Guest eyebedam]

All I see is a x also.

[Guest Seminole]

compromise, whatever and whenever it happens, it still has to happen. That is the way politics and the other examples works. They know they can't just put a wide open bill up and it has a chance in hell to pass,

db99wj, I understand that compromise is frequently necessary in politics. But compromise consists of giving up a little bit of what you want if your opponent gives up a little bit of what he wants so that everyone gets to win a little bit.

The problem is that Rep. Todd isn't giving up anything he actually wants. In fact, the guy who is supposed to be on our side is the guy who, according to the report in the Chattanooga newspaper, actually WANTS the restrictions. It isn't compromise when you actually are pushing for what you want. He isn't just giving in on the restrictions in order to get a bill passed that is better than what we have--he actually doesn't think we can be trusted to carry responsibly in certain venues and at certain times.

TFA believes that there are enough votes to pass a clean bill (with no restrictions) on the floor. Given the fact that Rep. Todd himself appears to actually want the restrictions (not as a compromise, but as a matter of belief), his threatening to withdraw the bill rather than let it come to the floor with no restrictions seems to support the idea that a clean bill would pass--but that does not appear to be what Rep. Todd wants.

Again, I understand compromise as a political tactic. That does not seem to me to be what is going on here.

[Fallguy]

I will admit...it seems Rep Todd wants the bill to pass, but as he introduced it. Even if the majority would pass it without restrictions.

[Guest db99wj]

db99wj, I understand that compromise is frequently necessary in politics. But compromise consists of giving up a little bit of what you want if your opponent gives up a little bit of what he wants so that everyone gets to win a little bit.

The problem is that Rep. Todd isn't giving up anything he actually wants. In fact, the guy who is supposed to be on our side is the guy who, according to the report in the Chattanooga newspaper, actually WANTS the restrictions. It isn't compromise when you actually are pushing for what you want. He isn't just giving in on the restrictions in order to get a bill passed that is better than what we have--he actually doesn't think we can be trusted to carry responsibly in certain venues and at certain times.

TFA believes that there are enough votes to pass a clean bill (with no restrictions) on the floor. Given the fact that Rep. Todd himself appears to actually want the restrictions (not as a compromise, but as a matter of belief), his threatening to withdraw the bill rather than let it come to the floor with no restrictions seems to support the idea that a clean bill would pass--but that does not appear to be what Rep. Todd wants.

Again, I understand compromise as a political tactic. That does not seem to me to be what is going on here.

Ok, I see your point. I see where Todd is sliding the wrong direction here.

I see so many people that believe that it is our way or the highway, and that was the point that I was making, but I do see that is not what you were saying.

[Guest MediaBuster]

With all due respect to those who believe in a compromise (Even the hot heads here), I for one am tired of compromising my constitutional rights. Besides, to a liberal, compromise means you do what they say anyway..

As far as Rep Todd, I don't know what he's thinking.. Drop the Nanny clause, or don't pass the bill, I don't care, because I'll carry wherever I feel I need to anyway. I'm not obeying any unconstitutional law that puts my life in jeopardy anyway, truth be told.. It's a misdemeanor anyway, & I'd rather be charged with that then get shot by a criminal thug who will have his gun in the bar no matter what the legislators say..

My answer is this.. I'll carry discreetly, & if they want to come into bars every night & search for me, good luck to them. Their time might be better spend looking for actual criminals though..

[GLOCKMEISTER]

they may not have the votes to get is passed without an ammendment like the "curfew"... actually I'd be fine if the curfew for starters. You have to sometimes take baby steps in getting what you want. We can always change it in the future.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

they may not have the votes to get is passed without an ammendment like the "curfew"... actually I'd be fine if the curfew for starters. You have to sometimes take baby steps in getting what you want. We can always change it in the future.

[Guest db99wj]

You can say that again.....and you did!!!!

But exactly.

[Guest jmac]

As far as Rep. Todd, inside politics are always in play. We are not privy to conversations that may go on, and he may be getting pressure from some fellow Republicans that the only way they will vote aye is with the nanny clause. With interest in seeing the bill pass, he has to put a public face that the clause is in the best interest of citizens, even if he personally disagrees. Just a theory based on seeing knowing how politics work and in no way grounded in "insider knowledge."

[Guest Seminole]

they may not have the votes to get is passed without an ammendment like the "curfew"... actually I'd be fine if the curfew for starters. You have to sometimes take baby steps in getting what you want. We can always change it in the future.

Maybe he doesn't think he has the votes to get it passed on the floor without restrictions, but it is apparent that he doesn't have the Republican votes to get the committee to pass it WITH the restrictions in place.

Whatever the reality of the situation, after years of blaming Naifeh, it is now the Republicans who are screwing this up.

[Guest pws_smokeyjones]

I sent an email to my Rep today that basically said - "I will take the restaurant bill however I can get it - with or without the curfew. Just please don't let the bill die because of this ridiculous sticking point"

[strickj]

Yanno guys,with out compromise we would have never been allowed to carry in TN to begin with

Constitutional rights trampled...yeah,yeah....but whats the ol saying-more jams with honey or somesuch!

[canadienmike]

You can say that again.....and you did!!!!

You're on fire today!

[GLOCKMEISTER]

Yanno guys,with out compromise we would have never been allowed to carry in TN to begin with

Constitutional rights trampled...yeah,yeah....but whats the ol saying-more jams with honey or somesuch!

you can say that again... I remember back in 93 the strict 2nd ammendment folks were the ones fighting us the most. It was indeed compromise that got us the current law, and its been tweaked by the legislature several times over the past few years.

You have to start somwhere... and take steps to improve it. You cant have an "all or nothing" attitude.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

You're on fire today!

yea.. I dont know what happened there...