Tennessee Senate fails to approve bill to close handgun-carry records

[tng27]

Tennessee Senate fails to approve bill to close handgun-carry records : Mid-South : Memphis Commercial Appeal

[Wingshooter]

Wow, I didn't see that coming. That stinks.

[Punisher84]

WHAT A CROCK OF ****ING ****!

[Motasyco]

I'm no lawyer and I haven't stayed in a Holiday Inn Express for a while but shouldn't the federal privacy act come into play here somehow?

[Guest redbarron06]

I'm no lawyer and I haven't stayed in a Holiday Inn Express for a while but shouldn't the federal privacy act come into play here somehow?

as long as they dont release the SSN. If the SSN is on the paperwork then Privacy Act applies to that paperwork.

[Guest HexHead]

I can't say as I disagree completely. I thought the bill went too far in closing all access to the database except for law enforcement. I think they need to re-write the bill to prevent the media from publishing the list or making it a free publically searchable database. That would serve our needs, yet still comply with the open records precident. A person with a legitimate reason should still be able to access the information from the State.

[Guest cjames38464]

If we had to loose on one of the Gun bills, this would be the one that I would have chosen....I am sure there are some criminals that would try to use this for targeting purposes. Howver, if we use our own logic that having a gun helps in the determent of crime, then those smart enough to use it should also be smart enough to know that we will defend ourselve from assault and they are at a high risk of serious bodily injury...

[Guest bkelm18]

I expected that in the house, but not the senate.

[Punisher84]

I expected that in the house, but not the senate.

Same here. I just really wanted to see The CA have to pull that database. I guess they bought their votes.

[Guest witchdr]

as far as i'm concerned the only legitimate reason to need that info is law enforcement

[Guest dizzielizzie]

OK, I'll admit I'm a little slow sometimes - does anyone know (the weblink) where this information is at?

[leroy]

Does anyone have the voting details on this on on a senator by senator basis?

LEROY

[Guest HexHead]

as far as i'm concerned the only legitimate reason to need that info is law enforcement

They're actually the LAST people I want having exclusive access to the data.

[Falcon1]

OK, I'll admit I'm a little slow sometimes - does anyone know (the weblink) where this information is at?

Does anyone have the voting details on this on on a senator by senator basis?

LEROY

Here should be the whole shooting match, since the House Bill was the one ultimately voted on by the Senate:

Tennessee General Assembly Legislation

Here is the vote detail for the Senate:

Bill Votes

This is a copy of the email I sent to Senator Tracy, who voted PNV on the bill (he is a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights in general):

Senator Tracy, I am one of your constituents. I am interested in hearing your views on why you voted "Roll Call" on HB0959 yesterday. I noticed several other persons whom I would have expected to vote for the bill did not vote at all, even though they were present at yesterday's session. Since the bill was referred back to the Calendar Committee, do you expect that it is dead for this session?

Thank you for what you do for us.

Here is his reply:

Thanks for your email. I did not vote for it because an amendment that I wanted did not get on the bill. I think many others thought the same thing, but I believe the bill will be back in January.

Best regards,

Jim

Edited June 19, 2009 by Falcon1

[56FordGuy]

I'd like to know what amendment he wanted.

[Fallguy]

I'd like to know what amendment he wanted.

Probably the one that was introduced just before the vote on the main bill.

See it here. (Note it was also slightly amended...see here)

[Guest kerstuff]

They're actually the LAST people I want having exclusive access to the data.

Anytime your DL is searched by LEO's it shows that you have a permit. The issue about Law enforement needing access is bunk. They already have had it for years.

[threeshot]

Probably the one that was introduced just before the vote on the main bill.

See it here. (Note it was also slightly amended...see here)

If I understand the amendment correctly, it is to prevent providing part of the HCP database. Even one record.

Good amendment! Otherwise a loophole would exist that would make it possible to request one record (interested in one person) or part of the database.

[Fallguy]

If I understand the amendment correctly, it is to prevent providing part of the HCP database. Even one record.

Good amendment! Otherwise a loophole would exist that would make it possible to request one record (interested in one person) or part of the database.

Well the way I take it...HCP information would still be "public record".

However if someone other than LE or a child support agency requested the information they could not reproduce the entire database and allow electronic access to it. Also the DOS would redact the street address, SSN, month and day of birth and DL# from the record(s) before allowing the inspection or release of it.

To be honest, I think it was a good compromise. It would prevent a newspaper from making an online searchable database such as the CA did. But it would allow them or anyone to find out if a perpetrator and/or victim of a crime had a HCP, without access to specific information about the HCP holder.

[Guest Patty]

I think its a good thing.

[Guest TargetShooter84]

So I'm confused....

Public record...does that mean they'll post it up on the internet out in the world wide web that a average user can browse through the names of who has HCP? SSN not included tho.

Good thing? I think not....

[Fallguy]

So I'm confused....

Public record...does that mean they'll post it up on the internet out in the world wide web that a average user can browse through the names of who has HCP? SSN not included tho.

Good thing? I think not....

The Dept of Safety just makes the info available to those that request it. The DOS themselves don't distribute or publish it.

The orginal bill would have closed the HCP records completely.

The amendment would have made it illegal, for whoever got the information, to publish it "by electronic means" in other words on the internet, like the Commercial Appeals is currently doing...legally. But would still leave the records open for other reasons, minus certain information.