Bill Haslam at TFA meeting last night

[DavidM]

It serves purpose for reciprocity in other states.

VT does not issue a carry permit, and consequently, Vermonters can only carry in a couple of other states that recognize their right simply because they are VT residents.

However, both AK and AZ, which also do not require a permit to carry in state, either openly or concealed, also both issue a permit so that other states have option of honoring it.

TN has one of the most widely honored permits in the US, and it would be a great indifference for many travelers were this to change.

- OS

I think you & I are on the same page, Mr. Shoot. That was kind of my question to start with. If the HCP process is eliminated, might reciprocity be eliminated also?

[Oh Shoot]

I think you & I are on the same page, Mr. Shoot. That was kind of my question to start with. If the HCP process is eliminated, might reciprocity be eliminated also?

Not if they handle it like AK and AZ, which have in state carry without permit, but also issue permits if you want to go through the process.

Hopefully, that would be the outcome.

But I doubt if we'll see "permitless carry" in TN anyway. Ever.

For all the "great gun state" talk seen here, this is mostly in comparison to more restrictive states like NJ, ILL, etc...

TN actually has MANY restrictions in regard to carry. One really needs a very small lawyer to carry around more than an extra mag.

- OS

[Superposed]

Yes let's legitimize everyone carrying a handgun in public without a permit. Granny with her .25 auto her grandson had to load for her and show her where the safety is. Other people totally unfamiliar with the operation of handguns. And 99% of the people who could then legally carry a handgun would not understand the possible legal ramifications of discharging a firearm. The Handgun Carry Permit training is certainly not perfect but it is better than turning everyone loose with the right to carry a handgun with no training or understanding the responsibilities of owning/carrying a handgun. If someone is not responsible enough or willing to take the time to take the HCP course, do you want them out in public with a handgun?

Have a handgun/other firearm in the home is one thing. Letting everyone carry a handgun OUT IN PUBLIC without some required training is foolish. Maybe we should do away with Hunter Education also? Why have it? If young people can have a shotgun/rifle legally for hunting they don't need any training. Then when they get to be 21 they can legally go get a handgun without proper training.

My wife and I, both in our 60's, wanted to be able to carry a handgun when we think it is in our best interest safety wise. Took the HCP training course, jumped through the paperwork hoops and now have our permits. Why can't others wanting to legally carry a handgun do the same thing?

Superposed

[Oh Shoot]

...

Have a handgun/other firearm in the home is one thing. Letting everyone carry a handgun OUT IN PUBLIC without some required training is foolish.

You realize that about half of the states allow some form of open carry without permit, yes?

And that the firearm crime/accident stats regarding those states are certainly no worse, and generally better, than states that don't allow that?

What other rights granted in the Constitution do you think should be allowed only by special permit?

- OS

[GLOCKMEISTER]

Can't believe no one booed Kwik.

yea, they dont realize he's single handedly give nthe right to carry in this state a very black eye and bloodied nose.

On the right to carry, I support everyones God given right to carry a gun to protect themselves. However I dont think the State will pass such a law, they simply make too much money off of it. If money wasnt an issue we wouldnt still be charged $10 TICS fee everytime we buy a gun.

On Haslem... I dont care for him nor his big oil ties but hes the best of two evils. Honestly guys hes just Bredesen Lite!!!!

Edited October 20, 2010 by GLOCKMEISTER

[mikegideon]

Yes let's legitimize everyone carrying a handgun in public without a permit. Granny with her .25 auto her grandson had to load for her and show her where the safety is. Other people totally unfamiliar with the operation of handguns. And 99% of the people who could then legally carry a handgun would not understand the possible legal ramifications of discharging a firearm. The Handgun Carry Permit training is certainly not perfect but it is better than turning everyone loose with the right to carry a handgun with no training or understanding the responsibilities of owning/carrying a handgun. If someone is not responsible enough or willing to take the time to take the HCP course, do you want them out in public with a handgun?

Have a handgun/other firearm in the home is one thing. Letting everyone carry a handgun OUT IN PUBLIC without some required training is foolish. Maybe we should do away with Hunter Education also? Why have it? If young people can have a shotgun/rifle legally for hunting they don't need any training. Then when they get to be 21 they can legally go get a handgun without proper training.

My wife and I, both in our 60's, wanted to be able to carry a handgun when we think it is in our best interest safety wise. Took the HCP training course, jumped through the paperwork hoops and now have our permits. Why can't others wanting to legally carry a handgun do the same thing?

Superposed

I agree there should be something. A car is also a deadly weapon, and you gotta pass a test to legally drive one.

[RobertNashville]

Yes let's legitimize everyone carrying a handgun in public without a permit. Granny with her .25 auto her grandson had to load for her and show her where the safety is. Other people totally unfamiliar with the operation of handguns. And 99% of the people who could then legally carry a handgun would not understand the possible legal ramifications of discharging a firearm. The Handgun Carry Permit training is certainly not perfect but it is better than turning everyone loose with the right to carry a handgun with no training or understanding the responsibilities of owning/carrying a handgun. If someone is not responsible enough or willing to take the time to take the HCP course, do you want them out in public with a handgun?

Have a handgun/other firearm in the home is one thing. Letting everyone carry a handgun OUT IN PUBLIC without some required training is foolish. Maybe we should do away with Hunter Education also? Why have it? If young people can have a shotgun/rifle legally for hunting they don't need any training. Then when they get to be 21 they can legally go get a handgun without proper training.

My wife and I, both in our 60's, wanted to be able to carry a handgun when we think it is in our best interest safety wise. Took the HCP training course, jumped through the paperwork hoops and now have our permits. Why can't others wanting to legally carry a handgun do the same thing?

Superposed

In other words, you don't actually believe the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution actually means what it says.

Should people have training on firearms before they carry one? Absolutely. Then again, how many people get a HCP and never again take any sort of training?

Are there some people who, for any number of reasons, probably should not carry a firearm? Absolutely. I also see incompetent people do very stupid things almost every day and some of those things can get them or others killed.

Basically, I see two fallacies in your statement above.

One is an underlying assumption that obtaining a HCP and going through the modest training and background check required actually makes someone competent to carry a firearm and use it properly if they ever need to do so. To be blunt, the HCP process does not and will never do that.

The other fallacy is an apparent belief that citizens of the United States need to be LEGITIMIZED to carry a firearm. We are LEGITIMATE simply by virtue of being a human being - the Second Amendment simply recognizes the right that already exists. For far too many years and in far too many ways, that (and other rights) have been slowly encroached upon until many people don't even see them as rights any longer.

Being able to carry a firearm in public is simply a return to what was considered normal, proper and even a societal duty not all that long ago. Frankly, I'm far, far more concerned about the criminal who caries a weapon in public than I am about grandma with her .25 or any other law-abiding, decent citizen going armed.

Edited October 20, 2010 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

I agree there should be something. A car is also a deadly weapon, and you gotta pass a test to legally drive one.

You have not right, inalienable or otherwise, to drive a car.

[mikegideon]

You have not right, inalienable or otherwise, to drive a car.

Well... we may if they would have existed when the constitution was written. I don't have real strong feelings about this either way. Oshoot gave some good stats. If it ain't necessary, it ain't necessary.

[RobertNashville]

We did not have 2 other conservatives running. Maybe 1. Wamp has been in Washington for far too long. Even without Wamp, I don't think Ramsey would have had enough support to overtake Haslam.

Given the options, I don't see how anybody could not vote for Haslam. You can say you are holding your nose, but he is better than the majority of the people we generally get to vote for imo. Look at Washington. Is anybody there that you really want to vote for?

Wamp was not a good choice but that wasn't what I was saying...he is or at least seemed to be more conservative than Haslam - bottom line is, his candidacy split the vote three ways and that gave Haslam the win.

Bob Pope but the stats together. Haslam only carried two counties outright...had just Ramsey or just Wamp ran against him, Haslam would not have won the nomination.

[daddyo]

Yes let's legitimize everyone carrying a handgun in public without a permit. Granny with her .25 auto her grandson had to load for her and show her where the safety is. Other people totally unfamiliar with the operation of handguns. And 99% of the people who could then legally carry a handgun would not understand the possible legal ramifications of discharging a firearm. The Handgun Carry Permit training is certainly not perfect but it is better than turning everyone loose with the right to carry a handgun with no training or understanding the responsibilities of owning/carrying a handgun. If someone is not responsible enough or willing to take the time to take the HCP course, do you want them out in public with a handgun?

Have a handgun/other firearm in the home is one thing. Letting everyone carry a handgun OUT IN PUBLIC without some required training is foolish. Maybe we should do away with Hunter Education also? Why have it? If young people can have a shotgun/rifle legally for hunting they don't need any training. Then when they get to be 21 they can legally go get a handgun without proper training.

My wife and I, both in our 60's, wanted to be able to carry a handgun when we think it is in our best interest safety wise. Took the HCP training course, jumped through the paperwork hoops and now have our permits. Why can't others wanting to legally carry a handgun do the same thing?

Superposed

I don't recall ever reading that the settlers had to have training before carrying their firearms around with them, which they did, even to church.

The Second Amendment says "shall not be infringed" - I don't care what the SCOTUS says.

[Guest HexHead]

Just to clarify, in AZ, even after the passage of this latest law about a permit not being required, you still must have the permit to go into restaurants that serve alcohol.

Btw, they based their restaurant carry law on our 2009 law.

[gregintenn]

You don't get the privilege of driving without a license and the minimum criteria that must be met. You don't get the privilege of marriage without a license. Now you have to undergo pre-marital counseling to get a license. You don't get the privilege of being in business without a license. Want to operate a restaurant? Got to go through a health inspection.

None of your examples are specified rights in the U.S. Constitution. The right to keep an BEAR arms is.

[E4 No More]

where did I say I was voting for McWherter?

By not voting for Haslam you are casting a defacto vote for McWherter.

[ttocswob]

Nothing like a little HCP snobbery. There are some folks who truly can't afford the HCP.

Twenty-something years ago I bought my first handgun, a S&W .38 Special J-frame. The permit would have cost more than the gun did - which I could barely afford with one meager income, a wife, and two kids.

So, no permit until last year. And all that time, my little snubby lay forlorn in the bottom of my dresser drawer, and never saw the inside of my car, or pocket, or briefcase.

And if you believe that, we need to talk real-estate - got a really nice beachfront, only minutes from wherever you want it to be.

So I fully support permitless carry, preferably with an optional HCP for reciprocity's sake. I'd even consider a vote for Haslam next time if he follows through with this.

And to those who are opposed: Please don't claim to support the right to keep and bear arms. That would be hypocritical.

[MikePapa1]

I normally don't get involved in political discussions as I see them generally as unproductive. Unfortunately, we have gotten to the point in this country where politicians believe they rule and we serve. For that reason, and that reason alone, I often am holding my nose when I vote. Here, Haslam is the lesser of evils. I'll vote for him, but not with any enthusiasm. As to permitless or "Constitutional" carry, I support it but won't hold my breath, as I don't see the majority of folks with enough Constitutional knowledge to even understand it as an issue.

[Guest HvyMtl]

No, not voting for Haslam is showing the party you are not happy with the candidate choices they are pushing. If enough people let the party know they are screwing up, then they may, may, adjust to a better quality candidate.

Haslam hits me like a used car salesman. One of the bad kinds. The one who tells you want you want to hear, and gives you a "tail light" guarantee, where as soon as he sees the tail lights, as you drive the car off, the guarantee is void.

I think he is not going to be beneficial as our governor.

[Guest Tom@GunDepot]

Some audio from last night. The first question asker made me giggle, but I was not happy with Haslam's answer to the followup. I think I will still be holding my nose.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpHvd5b3sMc

Not everyone needs a gun....... Responsible Citizens that can pass a background check and take a carry permit class should be able to carry a gun anywhere they please no exceptions crime would go down 100%!!!

Edited October 20, 2010 by Tom@GunDepot

[Guest HvyMtl]

Anyone else think Haslam and Dana Carvey were separated at birth?

Voldemort, is a concern, as he acts without considering the safety of others around him. Puts the blame of anything negative happening on the others around him, even if he is the catalyst. (I know, from questioning him on safety during his acts on another forum.)

What was the first priority any trainer drilled into your head about firearms?

[RobertNashville]

No, not voting for Haslam is showing the party you are not happy with the candidate choices they are pushing. If enough people let the party know they are screwing up, then they may, may, adjust to a better quality candidate.

Haslam hits me like a used car salesman. One of the bad kinds. The one who tells you want you want to hear, and gives you a "tail light" guarantee, where as soon as he sees the tail lights, as you drive the car off, the guarantee is void.

I think he is not going to be beneficial as our governor.

This is not a "party" screw-up and not voting for Haslam isn't going to send a message to anybody. As to the party "pushing" a candidate; Haslam won the nomination so yes, the Republican party is going to "push" him as a candidate. I'm not sure what you would expect them to do???

No party controls how many people run for an office...they likely have their favorite and will often make that known but if 20 people want to run for the Republican nomination for governor then 20 people can run and there isn't a d** think the "party" can do about it.

The problem is with the State of Tennessee and the reason Haslam is on the ballot is simply because Tennessee only requires a candidate to receive a plurality of the votes cast. If Tennessee required and 50% +1 majority and required a run-off election until someone got to 50%+1 then we would likely have someone other than Haslam on the ballot this year.

Vote or not vote; that's up to you but don't think that your not casting a vote for governor is going to send a message to anybody.

[RobertNashville]

Not everyone needs a gun....... Responsible Citizens that can pass a background check and take a carry permit class should be able to carry a gun anywhere they please no exceptions crime would go down 100%!!!

True, not everyone needs a gun but whether someone "needs" a gun or not should be up to them and not some government bureaucrat (nor anyone else for that matter).

You don't have to pass a background check to be a "responsible citizen".

The logic behind the need for carry permits to have permission to carry a firearm in public makes just as much sense and could be just as easily applied to any other "right"...we don't have to have pass a background check or have a permit to go to church or to speak our minds yet many, including those who claim to be proponents of the Second Amendment seem to think it's just fine that we have to have government's permission to carry a firearm!

If you have to have permission to do something then doing it isn't really a "right" at all.

I guess what I'm saying is that I believe people ought to be able to do and/or enjoy the rights recognized and protected by the Constitution until such time as they prove they should not have those rights and that includes the right to keep AND bear arms without the need for prior permission to do so. I'm all for taking firearms away from those who have proven, by their actions, that they should not be allowed to have them but the idea that we have to have permission first is one we should be moving away from, not moving toward.

Edited October 20, 2010 by RobertNashville

[Guest Tom@GunDepot]

You have to have a drivers license to drive a car, you have to have a hunting license,you have to have a fishing license. You would prefer a person just get behind the wheel of a vehicle and drive with no instructions or previous experience? I have no problems with someone carrying a gun that has taken the HCP course it is a very informative class that you learn a lot in, just an example in my brothers HCP class there were people that couldn't even load there guns! Now you tell me you want a person like that with no experience carrying in the public?? What about a Mentally Ill person owning a weapon??? What about a felon? What about a rapist or a stalker? This is why we have background checks! I have no problems with anyone that can pass a background check owning a firearm or carrying one, but somethings in life need to have directions and be taught the right way of doing them. I do think once you get your permit you should be able to carry anywhere no restrictions!!! Schools,courthouse,post office,bars, ANYWHERE!!

[Worriedman]

You have to have a drivers license to drive a car, you have to have a hunting license,you have to have a fishing license. You would prefer a person just get behind the wheel of a vehicle and drive with no instructions or previous experience? I have no problems with someone carrying a gun that has taken the HCP course it is a very informative class that you learn a lot in, just an example in my brothers HCP class there were people that couldn't even load there guns! Now you tell me you want a person like that with no experience carrying in the public?? What about a Mentally Ill person owning a weapon??? What about a felon? What about a rapist or a stalker? This is why we have background checks! I have no problems with anyone that can pass a background check owning a firearm or carrying one, but somethings in life need to have directions and be taught the right way of doing them. I do think once you get your permit you should be able to carry anywhere no restrictions!!! Schools,courthouse,post office,bars, ANYWHERE!!

People drive cars without license everyday, there are tons of illegals out there who have no training behind the wheel of a car, no insurance, who do not deserve the privilege of driving on our streets, but that does not stop them from doing it!

Rapist and murderers carry weapons every day, can LEO's stop every person and check them for weapons, or to see if they are valid for carrying them?

HCP's are like locks, they have no effect on the lawless, none.

[RobertNashville]

You have to have a drivers license to drive a car, you have to have a hunting license,you have to have a fishing license.

There is no constitutional right, inalienable or otherwise to drive a car and although Tennessee may make it one, there is no constitutional right to hunt/fish either. Comparing such things as driving and hunting to an absolute inalienable right, recognized and protected by the Constitution as is the right to keep and bear arms is a specious argument.

You would prefer a person just get behind the wheel of a vehicle and drive with no instructions or previous experience?

I’ve never said anything about what I prefer nor have I said anything that would give anyone reason to think I prefer people do anything they haven’t properly prepared for whether that be driving or carrying a firearm. I PREFER that people get whole hell of a lot of initial training before every carrying a firearm and gets continuing training thereafter - I prefer that people know a lot more about driving a car than how to put it in Drive (which is about all that “driver’s training” classes teach a person learning to drive). However, this isn’t about what I or anyone else prefers…it’s about a person’s right and unless a person actually does something to warrant taking a right away, a right should NEVER be infringed…when rights are infringed without justification; it diminishes the rights of all.

I have no problems with someone carrying a gun that has taken the HCP course it is a very informative class that you learn a lot in, just an example in my brothers HCP class there were people that couldn't even load there guns! Now you tell me you want a person like that with no experience carrying in the public?? What about a Mentally Ill person owning a weapon??? What about a felon? What about a rapist or a stalker? This is why we have background checks! I have no problems with anyone that can pass a background check owning a firearm or carrying one, but somethings in life need to have directions and be taught the right way of doing them. I do think once you get your permit you should be able to carry anywhere no restrictions!!! Schools,courthouse,post office,bars, ANYWHERE!!

I also have no problem with people carrying everywhere as well provided the property owners are Okay with it.

Criminals break the law; that’s why we call them that. Criminals don’t get carry permits; they just carry and no amount of background checks or processing fees will ever protect us from criminals or the mentally ill from picking up a firearm and using it to hurt or kill an innocent person. But all that is really beside the point.

The point is, either a person supports the Constitution and what it says or that person doesn’t…either a person believes in rights or that person doesn’t. I happen to believe that a person has an absolute right to keep and to bear arms without the need to prove himself worthy in the eyes of a bureaucrat.

Edited October 21, 2010 by RobertNashville

[TNhunter]

I haven't read through this whole thread but about Haslam addressing the "Mayors Against Illegal Guns issue" with him saying he signed his name before realizing the left-wing, anti-freedom agenda, and has regretted it since wreaks of the type thing I've heard the Washington elite leftist saying "I was for the war before I was against it". I just don't trust him and those like him that make decisions politically based instead of simply having their stance on a topic and having the backbone to stand firm on their beliefs.