URGENT - POSSIBLE VETO ON PARKS BILL!!!

[Guest jg45]

Well, Bredesen certainly seems to have chosen his hill... may he rest in peace.

And that's the other thing to keep in mind; we'll soon be rid of him.

Not soon enough!

[Guest Jamie]

thing is if we had written the bills with no loopholes we wouldnt be in this position in the 1st place. If the Govner wanted to veto it then we could have and we'd been in better shape.

But would they have still gotten through as easily? No way of telling, I guess.

One way or the other, we're still in a lot better shape than we ever were with Jimmy Naifeh as speaker.

I dunno... I guess I just got so used to bills dying before they ever came up for vote, that I'm just overly pleased with what's been gained this time around.

Hell, I'm still having a bit of trouble keeping track of what all was gained, so a loss of 1 ( local parks ) seems pretty insignificant, in the grand scheme of things. Especially with the odds of getting that back later seeming so good.

[Guest HexHead]

thing is if we had written the bills with no loopholes we wouldnt be in this position in the 1st place. If the Govner wanted to veto it then we could have and we'd been in better shape.

I'm not sure anyone anticipated the beer board ploy?

[GLOCKMEISTER]

hey... dont get me wrong Im as happy as an 18 year old boy at the playboy mansion...

:D:D

[JayC]

I'm not sure anyone anticipated the beer board ploy?

The overall problem with 39-17-1314 had been identified to some State Senators over a year ago, with a request that it be fixed.

[Guest Jamie]

The overall problem with 39-17-1314 had been identified to some State Senators over a year ago, with a request that it be fixed.

Once again though, was there really any way to get it fixed with the previous House speaker in place?

I've gotta agree with Hex on this one, I just don't think anybody really anticipated the beer board thing... Maybe they should've, but they didn't.

[Guest logicprevails]

Hey all - new to the forum. Is there any chance at all that HB716 will come back to the leg; be amended, enrolled, voted on and sent back up this session?

[Fallguy]

After thinking on it a bit and after getting over my intial reaction of being upset...I have to say since it seems so many local parks were going to opt out anyway....cutting local parks from the bill, to get state parks and other bills doesn't seem so bad.

I also sort of hated making an exception in 39-17-1314 for local parks, I was worried it could open the door for some larger local goverments to start asking for exemptions on other areas.

Maybe with carry in state parks legal and there are no incidents, the legislator will come back and make local park carry legal as well with no opt out part.....maybe....

[GLOCKMEISTER]

Thats the way I see it... its kinda like buying Insurance.

[Guest HexHead]

Maybe with carry in state parks legal and there are no incidents, the legislator will come back and make local park carry legal as well with no opt out part.....maybe....

How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

thats what I have been saying all along....

But some thought we had the bite to get it all... but we simply didnt.

This has been a great year for gun owners but Im not giving up yet.

[JayC]

Once again though, was there really any way to get it fixed with the previous House speaker in place?

I've gotta agree with Hex on this one, I just don't think anybody really anticipated the beer board thing... Maybe they should've, but they didn't.

I don't think the beer board was used as an example, but a city planning commission was using the exact same tactic that any successful beer permit ordinance would use.

It might not have been fixed until this year, but the problem should have been taken care of in some of these bills working their way through the legislature right now.

To give up local parks completely to cover a 'loop hole' in the law that should have been taken care of as part of the original bill isn't a win... We might only have another year to pass pro-firearms legislation before the legislature returns to anti-gun status. Not getting some form of local parks carry through is a shame.

Also, we don't know the language of the compromise yet, this mention of state parks being completely within the boundaries of certain cities/counties could include a bunch more than just 1 or 2 state parks.

Clearly the bill we had passed, was better than what we're getting, or could get if the legislature would just stand firm and override threatened vetoes.

[Fallguy]

Also, we don't know the language of the compromise yet, this mention of state parks being completely within the boundaries of certain cities/counties could include a bunch more than just 1 or 2 state parks.

Surely they aren't giving up any control over state parks. AFAIK most state parks are entirely within one county.

Clearly the bill we had passed, was better than what we're getting, or could get if the legislature would just stand firm and override threatened vetoes.

I agree to some point, however people in Metro Nashville, Anderson County, Chatanooga and others that have been posted about that were already in the works to ban carry in their parks won't really notice any difference.

I would rather come back later with local parks on their own bill and there not be any opt out clause.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

nope they are working on giving up control of bi centennial park downtown which is a state park...

[JayC]

Surely they aren't giving up any control over state parks. AFAIK most state parks are entirely within one county.

I agree to some point, however people in Metro Nashville, Anderson County, Chatanooga and others that have been posted about that were already in the works to ban carry in their parks won't really notice any difference.

I would rather come back later with local parks on their own bill and there not be any opt out clause.

Again, I think our best bet to open local parks was to pass this bill as written, and come back next year and remove the opt out language after there had been no incidents in state parks.

None of us have seen the compromise language yet, I have no clue how they're going to determine which state parks are in or out... I know that if they start naming 1 or 2 parks, there will be Legislators who will be requesting that state parks in their counties be included as well. Until we see the language of the compromise none of us have any clue how bad the damage really is...

Here is the score card... All state parks, and at least some local parks would allow carry within a week or so after an override of the governors veto...

Now, no local parks not a single one... and some number of state parks will not allow legal carry.

Until we see the language of the compromise we all need to continue to call our Legislators and tell them how important a clean bill is, at the very least all state parks must be open to carry, no exceptions.

[VolunteerGuns]

They meeting now?

[JayC]

nope they are working on giving up control of bi centennial park downtown which is a state park...

We can only hope the 'compromise' stops there, but I'll bet you can name at least 3 Legislators who will propose an amendment to this 'new' bill requesting that state parks in their county be included in the list of banned parks.

[Fallguy]

Well giving up control of some state parks isn't good I agree.

Sort of the same the same thing as changing 39-17-1314, other counties could ask for state parks in their counties to be exempted.

Seems like the population centers of TN are going to screw up the whole state just like the population centers of the country try to ruin it for the rest of us...

[Fallguy]

We can only hope the 'compromise' stops there, but I'll bet you can name at least 3 Legislators who will propose an amendment to this 'new' bill requesting that state parks in their county be included in the list of banned parks.

I know Hardaway from Shelby county will be one.....

...and unfourtunately he would have a good argument. If you can do it for one park in Nashville, why not one in Memphis.....

Edited June 11, 2009 by Fallguy

[JayC]

My point is we need to be calling our Legislators and pressing them to hold the line, all state parks must be included... 1 exception will start the floodgates of all major counties pushing to include their state parks as well.

[Tim Nunan]

One bright spot in all this is that many county commissioners and city council members have gone public on their antigun stance and now we know who to replace in the next election.

[GLOCKMEISTER]

what I cant understand for the life of me... is honestly with the republicans having mostly all the control.. why didnt we use something else as leverage on our gun stuff. I mean the budgets shot to hell... we coulda held all this up for a while. Theres all sorts of things that meant more to Bredesen than this. We didnt have to compromise on parks on this the last day he coulda vetoed it.. right?

[Guest SomeGuy]

Glock,

Not all Republicans are our friends. Look at Beth Harwell for one shining example.

[JayC]

FYI, it's being reported on TFA's forums that the Senate did not vote to recall the bill... If this is the case, the Governor will have to veto or allow it to become law tomorrow.

[Punisher84]

FYI, it's being reported on TFA's forums that the Senate did not vote to recall the bill... If this is the case, the Governor will have to veto or allow it to become law tomorrow.

Hmm interesting...