What Can the Governor Do with That Veto Paper?

[Guest lci419]

I don't usually engage in this sort of thing...and it may get me kicked off of here, but I am willing to throw myself on the grenade to save others. This has been driving me ape**** for weeks now, and I really think I speak for a lot of the members on here...Hexhead, just SHUT TF UP! We're all sick and tired of every one of your posts whining, grousing, and complaining about "I told you...", "You shoulda...", "If we'd of just..." whatever "it would have passed." Here's the facts:

1) We're all aware of your stance, so quit beating a dead horse so you can see your own posts

2) Legislatively, we have what we have...a piece of legislation that will allow those of us with an HCP to carry in establishments that serve alcohol. WITHOUT curfews or other nonsense amendments.

3) Said bill has passed both the House and the Senate with overwhelming support

4) Said bill was vetoed by the Governor

5) Said bill is going to pass a veto override...with the provisos that many of us wanted, i.e. CLEAN WITH NO AMENDMENTS

The rest of us are sorry if this legislation doesn't suit your ideas of what it "should have been" but it is the way it is. Now if you want to offer something constructive to comment about, feel free. But for now if you don't have anything else to offer, the rest of us are sick and tired of hearing it.

[TGO David]

@Hexhead: Understood. Thanks for clarifying your stance on it. We do agree on the vast majority of it.

[Mike.357]

I appreciate your humor, but I've been right about this all along. I hope to hell I'm wrong this time.

I am glad you took my post with the intent I had.

I feel you on this thing. I am not at all optimistic the veto will be overthrown.

Edited June 2, 2009 by Mike.357

[bubbadavis]

I doubt that Gov. Bredesen factored his political future into the decision at all. He's always struck me as being willing to listen to other points of view and then to make up his own mind about what he thinks best.

Consider that intelligent people can have differing points of view about the same thing.. Just look at the debates (and fusses) on this board about things like OC vs CC or notifying LEO of HCP and weapon in a traffic stop.

Oh, I realize that intelligent people can disagree. I don't doubt that the Governor listened to other points of view.

However, if he was vetoing this based on his beliefs, what he thinks is best, etc., I don't see why he would want the whole dog and pony show he put on. That is one reason I believe he was thinking of his political future. He waited several days to act, chose to usher in a bunch of appointed civil servants to stand behind him, and didn't even notify the bill's sponsors what his plans were.

[Punisher84]

I fee you on this thing. I am not at all optimistic the veto will be overthrown.

I am. F--- Bredesen.

[Mike.357]

Hex said

Just like with the parks bill, we should have separated the State and local parks. The local parks became the flashpoint, and if we lose the State parks, we'll lose the National Parks in TN as well.

I do not believe this to be good information. If the state and local parks bill goes down in flames it will have no effect on what goes on in National parks in TN.

There would have to be a specific state law making it illegal to carry in National Parks in TN. Not a specific state law allowing carry there.

We are already good to go on the national park thing, just waiting for that law to take effect in Feb of 2010.

[Guest HexHead]

Oh, I realize that intelligent people can disagree. I don't doubt that the Governor listened to other points of view.

However, if he was vetoing this based on his beliefs, what he thinks is best, etc., I don't see why he would want the whole dog and pony show he put on. That is one reason I believe he was thinking of his political future. He waited several days to act, chose to usher in a bunch of appointed civil servants to stand behind him, and didn't even notify the bill's sponsors what his plans were.

He was obviously grandstanding to make his point and the Chiefs being in town gave him the perfect photo opportunity. He knows there are some lawmakers that agree with his stance of "listening to law enforcement" that aren't totally committed to supporting this bill and he was trying to sway them. Just like all his "I expect to be overriden" crap, it's just a smokescreen to try and play to those lawmakers.

Less than 22 hours now before the House convenes again, and they still don't have an agenda posted on their website. It would be awfully comforting to see that motion to override actually scheduled.

Edited June 2, 2009 by HexHead

[Guest JavaGuy]

Oh, I realize that intelligent people can disagree. I don't doubt that the Governor listened to other points of view.

However, if he was vetoing this based on his beliefs, what he thinks is best, etc., I don't see why he would want the whole dog and pony show he put on. That is one reason I believe he was thinking of his political future. He waited several days to act, chose to usher in a bunch of appointed civil servants to stand behind him, and didn't even notify the bill's sponsors what his plans were.

I tend to look at his taking several days before issuing the veto as his taking the time to look at both sides of the issue before making his decision. I know some will say that he'd had plenty of time to make his mind up before it ever hit his desk, but the man seriously does have other things to do even though some folks wanted this to be his only priority.

Now, I agree that the method of doing it was political in nature.. I think the police chiefs and sheriffs were in town for their own convention (think I saw that in the article) so that was convenient for everyone. They got to have face time with the governor, have their picture made with him and further their own political careers. He got a nice wall of blue behind him as a backdrop for vetoing the bill... Yep, convenient for everyone.

Yeah, he should have dropped a dime to call Todd and Jackson. Common courtesy..

[Guest HexHead]

Hex said

I do not believe this to be good information. If the state and local parks bill goes down in flames it will have no effect on what goes on in National parks in TN.

There would have to be a specific state law making it illegal to carry in National Parks in TN. Not a specific state law allowing carry there.

We are already good to go on the national park thing, just waiting for that law to take effect in Feb of 2010.

IIRC, under the original order Bush gave, carry in National Parks would be guided by the State's laws where the National Parks were located. I could be mistaken on that though.

[Oh Shoot]

....

We are already good to go on the national park thing, just waiting for that law to take effect in Feb of 2010.

Well, since we've already briefly had this "right" and LOST it, I wouldn't bet the farm this comes to fruition either. Guess I'm just a cockeyed pessimist.

- OS

[Mike.357]

I agree with you OS. I think they will find some way to yank this rug out from under us.

hex replied

IIRC, under the original order Bush gave, carry in National Parks would be guided by the State's laws where the National Parks were located.

We were briefly good to go with the order Bush gave. Basically if you could walk down Main Street wearing your sidearm you could go to a national park wearing it.

The new law will be the same thing.

[Oh Shoot]

I agree with you OS. I think they will find some way to yank this rug out from under us.

hex replied

We were briefly good to go with the order Bush gave. Basically if you could walk down Main Street wearing your sidearm you could go to a national park wearing it.

The new law will be the same thing.

One quibble: The previous Dept. of Interior rule change (now under injunction) mandated concealed carry only, even in states that allow open carry. Didn't it?

I actually don't know what the recently passed law allows?

- OS

[Fallguy]

IIRC, under the original order Bush gave, carry in National Parks would be guided by the State's laws where the National Parks were located. I could be mistaken on that though.

The first proposed rule change was to allow to allow carry in National parks in states that allowed carry in their state parks. BUT!!!!! that is not the final rule change that went in to effect. The final rule change that went into effect said if you could legally carry in that state, you could carry in a National Park in that state unless otherwise prohibited by law.

This is also what recently passed (federal) law said. The Federal goverment has somewhat done like the state goverment did.

It is legal by default to carry in National Parks, but states can pass laws against it.

[Fallguy]

TGO David:

Great letter in

post 13

Great post in

post 21

Hexhead:

Great reply and clarification in

post 25

[jay1313g]

The Governor just went on the national news to talk about HB0962!!!!

He said he vetoed it because HexHead said he would!!!

(Sorry. Couldn't let the opportunity get past me.)

Smile HexHead!!! The sun will come out tomorrow and we'll all be grinning when this is over with.

[Guest HexHead]

The Governor just went on the national news to talk about HB0962!!!!

He said he vetoed it because HexHead said he would!!!

(Sorry. Couldn't let the opportunity get past me.)

Smile HexHead!!! The sun will come out tomorrow and we'll all be grinning when this is over with.

HAHAHAHAHA!

Actually, I was gobsmacked he vetoed it. I really expected he was going to just let it become law. All things considered, up until this he really hadn't been a very anti-gun governor. I won't hold my breath however waiting for him to pass the parks bill or any of the others winding their way through the legislature now to redeem himself though.

I sure can't see him signing the TN version of the Montana bill. He's too interested in staying on Obama's good side for that.

[Mike.357]

One quibble: The previous Dept. of Interior rule change (now under injunction) mandated concealed carry only, even in states that allow open carry. Didn't it?

I actually don't know what the recently passed law allows?

- OS

I dunno either, but when the day comes I will go with concealed. It

worked last time.