Make it legal to carry without permit: yes or no?

[Guest President Fernatt]

I recently read where Haslam said he would sign a bill making it legal to carry without a permit if it landed on his desk. Number 1, this is in no way a political question or any desire to learn about opinions regarding political parties or Mr. Haslam himself. Number 2, I understand the laws now and that it is of the utmost importance to follow existing laws to better represent the 2 ammendment and its future. So, I am asking. Would you be comfortable if everyone was able to carry without a permit? Personally I feel more confident in the fact that one has to pass a class, background check, etc to carry legally. Any thoughts?

[JayC]

I recently read where Haslam said he would sign a bill making it legal to carry without a permit if it landed on his desk. Number 1, this is in no way a political question or any desire to learn about opinions regarding political parties or Mr. Haslam himself. Number 2, I understand the laws now and that it is of the utmost importance to follow existing laws to better represent the 2 ammendment and its future. So, I am asking. Would you be comfortable if everyone was able to carry without a permit? Personally I feel more confident in the fact that one has to pass a class, background check, etc to carry legally. Any thoughts?

Everybody? No, felon's and those who have been found mentally insane probably should have restrictions placed on their ability to carry concealed weapons.

Everybody else, YES, we should encourage constitutional carry here in TN.

Here is a question to ask yourself... What percentage of people who pass the background check fail the HCP class? Virtually 0. How many people failed your HCP class? Ask all your friends with HCP's, how many failed their class?

The class is not weeding out anybody from the process, and should be done away with... The state could create a website place the outdated videos and study materials on it, and have a online test, and they would probably have a higher failure rate than the current HCP class.

People should not be required to pay a third party $50-$100 for a class and WASTE 8 hours of their lives, on top of $115 to the state to exercise a right to bear arms (DaveTN would say it's not a right if you have to ask permission and pay for the privilege).

I'll give you a hint... Gun Stores, and Firearm Instructors like the easy money the HCP class provides, it's a government backed subsidy, and they'll fight tooth and nail to prevent it from being taken away.

I'm all for a simple test, if you can legally own it, you can legally carry it.... period... simple law.

Truth is the number of deaths will decrease from such legislation, even if you factor in a few more cases of citizen gun carries making mistakes.

Edited December 27, 2010 by JayC

[Guest President Fernatt]

The class is not weeding out anybody from the process

I totally agree, it does sound better when discussing it to people ignorant of the right to carry though. Usually they are more comforted by that fact. I totally agree with you though about supporting constitutional carry. I think the background should be looked at; If an individual can pass a background check and is provided with a basic online course to create general awareness of firearms then yes, they should be allowed to carry. I always thought it was strange that an individual would have to pay a "3rd party" to get the class in order to obtain the permit. I am taking the class January 15th and will shell out $75. I heard it's free at Bass Pro if a woman brings you...too bad I don't know any girl desiring to carry haha

[Lumber_Jack]

The guy in the lane next to me failed. Couldn't hit the paper with his M&P 9mm, felt sorry for him, but feel better he can't carry and spray bullets all over cristendom.

[leroy]

Fernatt and others:____________

RE: This question (...an excellent one at that...):

....So, I am asking. Would you be comfortable if everyone was able to carry without a permit? Personally I feel more confident in the fact that one has to pass a class, background check, etc to carry legally. Any thoughts? ....

My answer is the "Original Intent" or Libertarian one. The Second Amendment says the "....right to bear arms shall not be infringed...". That is exactly what it means. Any other interpetation is restrictive.

Remember this; the genesis of the gun control laws for "public (....more aptly, collective, as the soviets would say....) good" and the "regulating of the wearing of arms with an eye toward order..." (...or whatever the TCA statute says...) is nothing but a naked move to take arms away from targeted classes of people (...who, by the way, for the most part were political enemies of those making the laws...) and punish any discenters.

The Founding Fathers never envisioned a time when a bunch of bureaucrats would have the power to regulate the "wearing of arms" anymore than they envisioned limits on free association or free speech. Dont be dragged off in the woods by the baloney that says that some "expert" needs to teach you how to handle a firearm, sign a paper saying he has, and some bureaucrat needs to give you a "permission slip" to carry a firearm (...for a fee, of course...). You, as a citizen, already had that right. That's what the original Bill of Rights was all about. It simply got "hijacked" by thugs, polititians, and (...here in Tennessee...) Union symphathizing carpetbaggers.

If you do a bit of looking, you will find that the real genesis of gun control statutes originated in big cities (...Think Chicago, New York, Cleveland, here...) where sheriffs and chiefs of police were bought and sold like cattle for a price by thugs seeking to disarm eachother (...and, of course, you the law abiding citizen--it made things safer for the thugs...). Further, there is an excellent discussion somewhere in the archives here discussing the origins of the Tennessee statutes. They originated right after the Civil War (...interesting, dont you think?...). Some folks believe (...me among them...) that the original statute was to disarm the losing side and/or to disarm the newly freed slaves.

Summary: As blessed as we are here in Tennessee to have a "right to carry law" in place; it simply is not what the Founding Fathers intended; as it limits the original intent of the Second Amendment. No state should have the right to "regulate the wearing or arms"; but the Federal Courts have upheld it for a long time. I think that is where Haslam is comming from, and I think he (...or his advisors on this issue...) is right. All that being said, remember this one thing; he is a polititian and todays "for it" can be tomorrow's "against it". I, for one, am thankful he appears to be for it for the time being.

Hope this gives ya a few things to think about.

Leroy

[JayC]

The guy in the lane next to me failed. Couldn't hit the paper with his M&P 9mm, felt sorry for him, but feel better he can't carry and spray bullets all over cristendom.

Are you sure he failed, or did the instructors go back and let him re-take the shooting part of the class again? I've seen people have problems the first couple of times through the course, but the instructors continue to call those 'practice' until the person taking the test hits enough to pass. They're in the business to make people pass their class... They have a business incentive to make sure everybody passes their class.

[southernasylum]

My answer is the "Original Intent" or Libertarian one. The Second Amendment says the "....right to bear arms shall not be infringed...". That is exactly what it means. Any other interpetation is restrictive.

Remember this; the genesis of the gun control laws for "public (....more aptly, collective, as the soviets would say....) good" and the "regulating of the wearing of arms with an eye toward order..." (...or whatever the TCA statute says...) is nothing but a naked move to take arms away from targeted classes of people (...who, by the way, for the most part were political enemies of those making the laws...) and punish any discenters.

The Founding Fathers never envisioned a time when a bunch of bureaucrats would have the power to regulate the "wearing of arms" anymore than they envisioned limits on free association or free speech. Dont be dragged off in the woods by the baloney that says that some "expert" needs to teach you how to handle a firearm, sign a paper saying he has, and some bureaucrat needs to give you a "permission slip" to carry a firearm (...for a fee, of course...). You, as a citizen, already had that right. That's what the original Bill of Rights was all about. It simply got "hijacked" by thugs, polititians, and (...here in Tennessee...) Union symphathizing carpetbaggers.

If you do a bit of looking, you will find that the real genesis of gun control statutes originated in big cities (...Think Chicago, New York, Cleveland, here...) where sheriffs and chiefs of police were bought and sold like cattle for a price by thugs seeking to disarm eachother (...and, of course, you the law abiding citizen--it made things safer for the thugs...). Further, there is an excellent discussion somewhere in the archives here discussing the origins of the Tennessee statutes. They originated right after the Civil War (...interesting, dont you think?...). Some folks believe (...me among them...) that the original statute was to disarm the losing side and/or to disarm the newly freed slaves.

Summary: As blessed as we are here in Tennessee to have a "right to carry law" in place; it simply is not what the Founding Fathers intended; as it limits the original intent of the Second Amendment. No state should have the right to "regulate the wearing or arms"; but the Federal Courts have upheld it for a long time. I think that is where Haslam is comming from, and I think he (...or his advisors on this issue...) is right. All that being said, remember this one thing; he is a polititian and todays "for it" can be tomorrow's "against it". I, for one, am thankful he appears to be for it for the time being.

Hope this gives ya a few things to think about.

Leroy

+1

[bigwakes]

I think everyone should be allowed to carry if they take a class and carry a card in their wallet saying they passed the test. Sound familiar? I have seen many boneheads at the range and even my own family that simply don't know the safety rules until I tell them. If everyone over 16 could drive without a license we would have many more wrecks on the streets. While I think the CCW class is lame at best, it does give basic information that every gun owner, much less CCW, should know. Maybe the compromise is the state does not get involved. You take the class and leave with a card in your wallet from XYZ training academy that says you are "certified." This is how the impact weapon cert is handled.

[peejman]

I'm a bit split on this topic. One one hand... I think there's far too many stupid people out there for anyone to be allowed to carry a gun. As stated, the test is a joke. I'd be happier if it was treated more like a professional license: a hard test, higher annual fee, annual training requirements, etc. That way, you'd be much more assured that those who can carry a gun know how to use it.

On the other hand... The Constitution clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And I strongly support that.

Perhaps if anyone was allowed to carry a gun, the stupid people would take care of themselves eventually. Similar to "illegal" drugs. Some folks (like me) wouldn't use stuff that would kill me, even if it was free. Those that do... will take care of themselves eventually.

[Guest Oaklands]

1. Background checks should include a pamphlet you get on the proper ways to handle a gun, since we are already paying $10 for them.

2. You should have to pay a licensed instructor or range operator a normal range fee to go take a test. The test would include how you handled yourself and your gun from the time you got there until the time you left. As long as you could hit the target w/in a normal manner, then you pass. If you are not practicing proper gun safety while handling your gun (i.e. pointing it at others, whether loaded or unloaded), then this can be counted against you.

3. If you pass send in $25 to get your lifetime carry permit. If you don't pass then you have to wait 30-90 days and repeat step 2.

This way you still have to show some common sense and a little bit of shooting skills. The state still gets some money and we can still keep some people who have no business carrying from doing so.

Just my 2¢ worth

Edited December 27, 2010 by Oaklands

[G27]

I'm a libertarian by nature and hate the current infringement on our second amendment rights.

I mean, both Alaska and Vermont currently respect constitutional carry, and I don't recall any unnecessary shootings there recently...

[BrasilNuts]

I'm a libertarian by nature and hate the current infringement on our second amendment rights.

I mean, both Alaska and Vermont currently respect constitutional carry, and I don't recall any unnecessary shootings there recently...

That's what I was thinking also.

What you other guys need to remember is that all those scary people that don't know **** about firearms safety can already carry guns. All thay have to do is drive down to Wally World pick up a 870 and some shells... shazam... there they are in the lane next to you at the range.

Don't fall into that "The streets will run red with blood!" if anyone can carry nonsense.

I know there are those in the TGO community that see certain people and believe they shouldn't be allowed to carry.

Do you ever stop to think that there are people who see you and think the same thing?

Edited December 27, 2010 by BrasilNuts

[Moped]

I'm a libertarian by nature and hate the current infringement on our second amendment rights.

I mean, both Alaska and Vermont currently respect constitutional carry, and I don't recall any unnecessary shootings there recently...

+1!

[Guest NashvegasMatt]

Absolutely not..

[Jonsaiga]

Another advocate of Constitutional carry here. Lived in many states where permits or classes were not required to carry a firearm openly on your person. Streets never ran red with blood. People weren't targeted or attacked for doing so as many claim would happen. It is paranoid fear mongering nonsense.

[Guest President Fernatt]

I like everyone's responses and agree with most. While the constitution declares non infringement I can't help but think "some" restrictions must apply. I know there are so many political agendas at hand when dealing with legislation that honestly no politician has any regard for the constitution. While I would absolutely love constitutional carry, don't you think that would backfire and lead to almost every single business or establishment placing up the dreaded gunbuster out of fear? There must be some sort of accountability placed on an individual to assure others they are capable of carrying such a life changing hunk of metal. I don't know, it's food for thought and frankly I may be a bit of a fence straddler...for the first time in my life =/

[Guest mosinon]

The idea about the anti gun legislation of 20 years ago was one of prevention. The idea being if you caught someone with a gun you could arrest them before they went crazy and shot everyone.

Then we got shall issue permits and the old west just didn't happen. In fact the old west didn't even happen in the old west.

While it is easy to worry that people will be spraying bullets indiscriminately that is all it is, a worry.

It might be that if everyone could legally walk around with a concealed firearm the gutters would be filled with blood. It also might be that the criminals would be so scared crime would drop to zero.

What is more likely is that nothing much would actually change. First, you have the cost of entry. A couple of hundred bucks at least and a background check. Yeah, you can get around the TICS thing if you want but it is a hassle.

Then you've got the problem of actually carrying the weapon. I don't carry and probably never will (but I am going to get my HCP just to make traveling to ranges a bit easier) and I've seen a ton of posts on this forum about the hassle factor of carrying a weapon.

If you have unlicensed carry you'll get a bunch of people buying a gun who will never actually except for the first few days.

When it is all said and done you'll end up with the same people carrying guns that you have now. Those that feel they absolutely have to be armed at all times. Yeah, that group includes both the legit folks folks who simply desire a feeling of security AND the shady folks who are actually likely to get shot but those are the people who carry right now. For everyone else it will to much trouble.

I don't imagine carry for everyone will change anything all that much.

[Guest Jamie]

There must be some sort of accountability placed on an individual to assure others they are capable of carrying such a life changing hunk of metal.

Why? There isn't one in place now. The carry permit system certainly doesn't do it.

And anyone who's going to carry a gun and misuse it certainly doesn't need a permit.

No, better to simply hold people accountable for their actions... the things they've actually already done... than go all "Minority Report" and try to deal with something they haven't done - and may not ever do.

I don't know, it's food for thought and frankly I may be a bit of a fence straddler...for the first time in my life =/

Straddling a fence is fine if it makes sense to do so... but in this instance, I can't see where it does. Carrying a gun is no big deal... it's using - or misusing - it that causes all the problems.

And there's already plenty of laws on the books that cover the misuse.

Oh, and in case you couldn't tell, I'm all for "no permit" carry. Carried that way for most of my life any way.

Edited December 27, 2010 by Jamie

[Guest President Fernatt]

Oh, and in case you couldn't tell, I'm all for "no permit" carry. Carried that way for most of my life any way.

No I couldn't tell at all lol I guess I feel like a few hurdles keep out those who have criminal history or simply don't have the appropriate amount of knowledge to carry in the first place. While you are right, they will carry regardless of laws if they so desire...I'm comforted by the fact that they could be arrested for doing so if they have no business carrying. I understand and even sympathize with your points; I'm simply either not life experienced enough or I'm too stubborn at this young age to agree. I respect your opinion though. Where were you able to carry earlier in life without a permit?

[Guest 270win]

I think legislators should focus on getting the school restriction, sign restriction, and local park restriction penalties removed from those with permits first. We should not have to worry about getting fined or going to jail like a felon dope dealer just because we happen to be on school property with a handgun on us. A permit should allow us to carry a gun wherever we want to.

Those that do not have a permit, after the above is accomplished, should be able to carry a firearm for protection. We should push for true carry for everyone after the above prohibitions are removed for those with permits. Permits should exist and be available for those who want to carry, say in schools (because of the Gun Free Fed School Zones Act) and also reciprocity. It is fairly easy for police to check if someone is a convicted felon because of today's computer technology, so I don't have a problem with people not having to have permits to carry. I carried a handgun legally without a license on my person in Arkansas when I was 18 and have no problem with people doing it here. Some people may need to carry a handgun but can't get a license fast enough. It is bad of the state to fine someone who otherwise has a clean record.

[Guest Chaos]

Well, i am new to TGO and i have been on both sides of a badge. the civilian and the cop. i have also helped instruct classes. not all instructors use it as subsidized income. the fees charged when i have helped have been put back into the range and making it better. as far as training, there should be more and i do not have a problem with annual continuing education or advanced classes. the statement of higher fees does not do anything but give the state more money and some blue collar folks do not want to do that (such as myself) or afford to do that. instructors should be regulated on how much they can charge. i have seen classes from $50-$150 and for what. someone to half teach you how to point it. want to make it more, make them go through a 40 hr course like LEO's on safe handling and proper care and cleaning. several days on shoot/don't shoot. make the instructors earn their money and the students earn their cards. back ground checks are a must, but you pay for these everytime you buy a gun. why is it you can get cleared to buy a gun in 10 minutes but it takes 12 weeks to get your permit back? why is it that it costs $10 for the hand gun check, but $115 for your permit. These are a few more of the questions i think we should be asking. if a range and/or instructor charges more than $40, then you should be looking around. Any citizen should be able to carry, but i hate to admit it. we have to have some kind of regulation. Just remember when we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. Every citizen should be ready to be a soldier and defend their family, home and country. that is what the Second Amendment is about!!!!

[Schadenfreude]

My main concern would be reciprocity. I think you would definitely lose that without some kind of requirement, now if we could establish nationwide constitutional carry!

[Guest Jamie]

No I couldn't tell at all lol I guess I feel like a few hurdles keep out those who have criminal history or simply don't have the appropriate amount of knowledge to carry in the first place. While you are right, they will carry regardless of laws if they so desire...I'm comforted by the fact that *they could be arrested for doing so if they have no business carrying. I understand and even sympathize with your points; I'm simply either not life experienced enough or I'm too stubborn at this young age to agree. I respect your opinion though. Where were you able to carry earlier in life without a permit?

I'll answer your last question first: Any damned where I pleased, the same as anyone else who doesn't advertise the fact they're carrying.

My grandfather, for instance, was always armed... and would have laughed at the mere suggestion of having to ask anyone's permission.

I got a permit as soon as they were commonly available, but before then, if you weren't causing a problem, most police would simply "look the other way", in my experience.

Oh, and speaking of my experience... I grew up with guns... guns that were always loaded. At 17, I joined the army, and got issued an M-16, grenades, a rocket launcher or three, and all the other "toys" a Cav scout gets. Later on at about age 33 or so, I started hanging out with the local Sheriff's office, and was eventually commissioned as a deputy.

I've since given up tending to other people's troubles, but still stay armed and able to deal with my own... and no law has ever had much effect on that, from any perspective, one way or the other*. ( By that I mean that I've yet to see a law that ever stopped anyone from causing me - or anyone else - a problem... But then, laws only usually deal with "after the fact", not before. )

And speaking of age... what IS yours? It doesn't really matter, but inquiring minds want to know, as the sales pitch goes...

* Something people tend to forget: no law stops a single thing... there's never been an act known to man that simply writing down "Thou shalt not..." ever prevented. Laws define a punishment for that act, nothing more. Only fear of that punishment will stop a person from that action.

And if there's no fear of the punishment, or if the person knows that punishment will never be enacted? Well, you figure it out. Especially in light of our "revolving door" legal system, with it's over-crowded prisons and early release/parole, etc.

Ropes and electric chairs put a stop to things. But only if you use them.

... bullets work real well too. But again, only if properly applied.

** Don't forget that people usually have to get caught breaking a law before their arrested. That person with a gun that shouldn't have it has to actually DO something to attract law enforcement's attention. Doesn't help you much if that "something" is shooting you in the head and taking your wallet, does it? Won't matter much that he's already out on parole for armed robbery.

Edited December 27, 2010 by Jamie

[leroy]

Jamie's post above pretty well says it all. It is an excellent assessment of the current state of affairs and as sensible and sobering look at what "the law" really does as i have seen. Excellent post!!

I'm a bit older than Jamie (...im 64...), but my experience pretty much mirrors his. I grew up in the countryside where lots of people were armed all the time. What he describes here was pretty much the way things were for a long time:

...My grandfather, for instance, was always armed... and would have laughed at the mere suggestion of having to ask anyone's permission.

I got a permit as soon as they were commonly available, but before then, if you weren't causing a problem, most police would simply "look the other way", in my experience.

Oh, and speaking of my experience... I grew up with guns... guns that were always loaded. ....

The fact is that there pretty much was no trouble. As Jamie says so well:

* Something people tend to forget: no law stops a single thing... there's never been an act known to man that simply writing down "Thou shalt not..." ever prevented. Laws define a punishment for that act, nothing more. Only fear of that punishment will stop a person from that action.

And if there's no fear of the punishment, or if the person knows that punishment will never be enacted? Well, you figure it out. Especially in light of our "revolving door" legal system, with it's over-crowded prisons and early release/parole, etc.

Ropes and electric chairs put a stop to things. But only if you use them.

... bullets work real well too. But again, only if properly applied.

Folks would do well to think deeply on these things. Our system of justice is just fine; but the punishment apparatus is broken. If you want to keep yourself relatively safe (...along with others...), you need to arm yourself, learn how to shoot and shoot straight, and have the mindset to do so when you need to. The law simply cannot keep you safe (...and never could...). The sad fact is, there is no deterrent to the real hoodlum and killer today other than the fear of an armed citizen.

Leroy

Edited December 27, 2010 by leroy

[Guest Archminister01]

The idea about the anti gun legislation of 20 years ago was one of prevention. The idea being if you caught someone with a gun you could arrest them before they went crazy and shot everyone.

Then we got shall issue permits and the old west just didn't happen. In fact the old west didn't even happen in the old west.

While it is easy to worry that people will be spraying bullets indiscriminately that is all it is, a worry.

It might be that if everyone could legally walk around with a concealed firearm the gutters would be filled with blood. It also might be that the criminals would be so scared crime would drop to zero.

What is more likely is that nothing much would actually change. First, you have the cost of entry. A couple of hundred bucks at least and a background check. Yeah, you can get around the TICS thing if you want but it is a hassle.

Then you've got the problem of actually carrying the weapon. I don't carry and probably never will (but I am going to get my HCP just to make traveling to ranges a bit easier) and I've seen a ton of posts on this forum about the hassle factor of carrying a weapon.

If you have unlicensed carry you'll get a bunch of people buying a gun who will never actually except for the first few days.

When it is all said and done you'll end up with the same people carrying guns that you have now. Those that feel they absolutely have to be armed at all times. Yeah, that group includes both the legit folks folks who simply desire a feeling of security AND the shady folks who are actually likely to get shot but those are the people who carry right now. For everyone else it will to much trouble.

I don't imagine carry for everyone will change anything all that much.

I agree. After reading this thread, All I could come up with is that those who want to carry would continue to carry and those that didnt in the first place would still continue to not carry. I do not see why anything would change. That being said, I came from Arizona and lived there for almost 25 years. You did not have to take a class or get a permit to carry openly and yet I could go a whole day and see less than 5 people openly armed. I knew a ton of people that owned many different types of weapons and shot them regularly and still chose not to carry. So , I guess that I dont agree with the idea of just any old person just grabbing a gun because they knew they could carry it. I would venture to say that you could add another 5-10 people that were carrying concealed. It boils down to your either a gun person or not. Society to day has been so programmed over the last years, that most people would not carry even if they had to do nothing but go buy a weapon. I have always felt that any person should be able to carry a weapon whether open or concealed and that it was a given right.