TN: A "Pro-Carry" State?

[RobertNashville]

I pretty much believe in both the US and TN constitutions -- neither of which indicate that a permit is necessary for bearing weapons period. Even a free one.

- OS

Do you believe that anyone should be able to possess and carry a weapon anytime...anywhere...with no restrictions and no requirements on them (convicted violent felons, wife-beaters, etc. etc)?

I could be wrong but I suspect you don't. I suspect that most people agree that people with a violent history or under a certain age can have their right restricted. While I agree in principle that we should all be free to go armed without a "permit", society has decided that, at least after proper adjudication, a person can have their rights suspended either temporarily or permanently; even the right to "life".

[Oh Shoot]

Do you believe that anyone should be able to possess and carry a weapon anytime...anywhere...with no restrictions and no requirements on them (convicted violent felons, wife-beaters, etc. etc)?...

That isn't what's under discussion. What is -- how does a carry permit that enables ME to carry a gun prevent a FELON from doing same because he can't get one?

I do believe AK, AZ, and VT have applied the same logic to the situation.

- OS

Edited January 5, 2011 by OhShoot

[Punisher84]

That isn't what's under discussion. What is -- how does a carry permit that enables ME to carry a gun prevent a FELON from doing same because he can't get one?

I do believe AK, AZ, and VT have applied the same logic to the situation.

- OS

That's the biggest hole in the argument against non-permit carry, same as bar carry, there is already a standard of proof set.

[Oh Shoot]

That's the biggest hole in the argument against non-permit carry, same as bar carry, there is already a standard of proof set.

Convenience ≠ constitutionality.

- OS

[RobertNashville]

That isn't what's under discussion. What is -- how does a carry permit that enables ME to carry a gun prevent a FELON from doing same because he can't get one?

I do believe AK, AZ, and VT have applied the same logic to the situation.

- OS

It doesn't but I didn't say it did nor was that my point.

All I was trying (apparently poorly) to point out was that we as a society have decided that certain restrictions CAN be place on certain rights.

As a society, we've decided that felons, for example,should not be allowed to legally possess a firearm but that restriction isn't in the Constitution, state or federal. The "permit" process isn't much more than an extension of that is it?

Whether felons should be restricted or whether we should or shouldn't have a permit process is somewhat of a different argument and in any case, to get back to the OP's original question; I don't think that the fact that we have a permit process means that we aren't a "pro carry" state.

[Oh Shoot]

...I don't think that the fact that we have a permit process means that we aren't a "pro carry" state.

- Even in the uptight liberal nightmare that the USA has become, there are 12 "gold star" and 16 "friendly" permitless open carry states. TN is not among them. Even with a permit, open carry is not specifically mandated, but only not specifically banned and tolerated (mainly).

- TN expenditure to receive permit is among the most expensive of all states. Maybe THE most, not sure.

- No state has more restrictions on where a permit holder may carry than TN.

- No other state that I can find has a unique criminal punishment merely for carrying in a posted establishment (a punishment that does not apply to a non-permit holder).

Seems far from "pro carry" to me. Sure, it could be worse. "May your chains sit lightly upon you..." seems appropriate here.

- OS

[Fallguy]

My Opinion on the OP, and I may in a minority on this but I'm very glad for the class requirement for HCP here in TN.

My TN HCP (Handgun Safety Course) was very well done. I hope others received competent, thorough instruction as well. My class was $110 including range fee.

It also included the NRA Basic Pistol course integrated with all the state required elements. Others elsewhere in the state may not.

I learned a good deal about the laws surrounding carrying, , CC/OC, going armed, "No Handgun Carry Permitted" sites like schools and courthouses and how the law addresses self-defense situations, Castle doctrine, and interfacing with LEO's when carrying, Oh, and Basic Pistol Marksmanship training.

I've also learned a great deal about those things here on TGO thru the knowlege, links and resources shared by others.

I don't think many on here have said that those who carry shouldn't have any training, just that it shouldn't be state mandated.

Out of curiosity, does the place you took you class offer a cheaper class without the additional NRA training?

Also, if you were taught that "courthouse" are off-limits that is incorrect. It is only "rooms where a judicial proceeding is taking place", not the whole courthouse and not even the court room if a judicial proceeding is not taking place.

To me its equivalent to getting your Drivers License and the requirement to pass a test to demonstrate understanding and operator competence is easily justified.

I support this part of our process because while I am a shooter and firearms enthusiast a great many people who own a handgun are not and aren't intrested in the aspects of safety, training, knowledge of firearms the and "practice how you shoot and shoot how you practice" mindset of many here.

Therefore I DO NOT want an uninformed/ill informed, untrained, UNSAFE populace carrying loaded pistols around "just because".

This scenario opens a HUGE RISK of (even more) senseless tragedies involving firearms becoming commonplace in our society.

Like my drivers license comparison above, untrained and unlicensed drivers on our roads are unsafe and a huge risk to the general public, an untrained & unlicensed person carring a loaded gun around is as well.

I don't think you can compare a DAL and a HCP. There is no right to drive in the constitution. There is a right to Keep and Bear arms in both the US and TN constitutions.

No one wants someone to be unsafe with a firearm, but just because you haven't had state training doesn't mean you are either.

I do fully support our Second Amendment rights and (responsible) firearms freedoms for our citizenry.

I support that even moreso with a trained, informed, and involved society of gunowners practicing SAFE FIREARMS OWNERSHIP and USAGE principles.

Me too

Letting anyone who can pay the price and Pass the TICS check carry loaded firearms around anytime without boundaries does not come close to making good sense to me.

Does to me....

The TDOS fee (not a tax) of $115 for the HCP is a bit steep but the many phases of the process and those that provide the services for fingerprinting, background checks, permit production and recordkeeping, etc... all take pieces of that pie. My guess would be that the state might profit $20 in the end.

It was a $115 even when the DOS did the fingerprinting themselves. But granted now that they sub that out I'm sure that has eaten into that $115. But as far as the equipment to produce permits, it was already in place wiht our DLs.

The Higher fees may be because of A MUCH higher risk involved! Carrying a loaded hangun in public for 4 yrs. $115 vs. Drivers License renewal for 5yrs @ $19.50.

What higher risk does the state have? Also as OS has pointed out, more people are injured in auto accidents than firearms accidents.

Would I like to see a lower fee for the initial HCP? Sure! It would help me and help others who do have a more meager income than mine to become responsible (hopefully) handgun carrier's for their personal protection needs. Doing this would require cost cuts which is fine, but not at the expense of gutting a process that finally seems to be working as well as any state program could be expected to, OR increasing risks to the publics safety by removing measures put there to safeguard Tennesseans and others via our reciprocity agreements with other states. Which might void their agreements due to a boneheaded move "to cut costs".

IF IT AIN"T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT. IMO, It aint broke.

I'm not sure how just lowering the fee would change anything in reciprocity agreements. Also as long as TN still issued permits with the same requirements as now, I don't see how allowing carry within the state without one would affect any reciprocity agreements. AK/AZ still issue permits that are good in just about as many states as ours, but both allow OC/CC without a permit within their state.

Hope I haven't seemed to nit-pick it was just easier to break the post down to try and address each issue....

Also in the end I think we have the same view on a few things, just different ideas on how to get there...

[Fallguy]

Do you believe that anyone should be able to possess and carry a weapon anytime...anywhere...with no restrictions and no requirements on them (convicted violent felons, wife-beaters, etc. etc)?

I could be wrong but I suspect you don't. I suspect that most people agree that people with a violent history or under a certain age can have their right restricted. While I agree in principle that we should all be free to go armed without a "permit", society has decided that, at least after proper adjudication, a person can have their rights suspended either temporarily or permanently; even the right to "life".

Felons, wife-beaters etc... can't legally own/posses a handgun. So if they carry they are violating the law whether TN issued permits or not.

So instead of making a note on our DL that we can carry (basically what a HCP is as far as a computer check goes) how about just making a note on theirs that they can not? That way if a LEO checks them they can know they are not allowed to carry/posses a firearm.

[enfield]

By golly, that's an interesting idea!

Let's list Rights restrictions on the back of our state-issued picture ID cards (DL) -- no gun access for violent felons, no access to children for sex criminals, etc.

Better yet, let's list them on the front!

[RobertNashville]

Felons, wife-beaters etc... can't legally own/posses a handgun. So if they carry they are violating the law whether TN issued permits or not.

So instead of making a note on our DL that we can carry (basically what a HCP is as far as a computer check goes) how about just making a note on theirs that they can not? That way if a LEO checks them they can know they are not allowed to carry/posses a firearm.

You are arguing a point that I'm not disagreeing with or at least wasn't trying to discuss (I also don't really need you to explain the obvious to me; at least not this time ).

Several here, and think that includes you, have either stated directly or at least alluded to the "HCP" process not being "constitutional". I'm simply trying to point out, perhaps poorly, that restricting gun possession to those who aren't convicted felons, etc. isn't in the Constitution (Federal or state) either but we have those restrictions just the same and think most of us probably think that at least some of those restrictions are a good idea. All I'm suggesting here is that the HCP process is simply a logical extension of the process that gave us restrictions on who can't legally possess a firearm.

I'm not saying that I like the HCP process; I'm not even saying that I think it's a good idea nor do I think it really does what the politicians want everyone to think it does. I'd like to see us have "constitutional carry" BUT, I think we need the HCP process right now if only for reciprocity purposes. I'm only saying that I don't see a lot of difference between the HCP process/requirements and any other, perhaps more widely accepted (even among the firearm enthusiast community) restrictions that have existed for years.

I also simply wanted to make the point that the fact that TN has an HCP process doesn't render us a non-friendly state to firearms as the OP's first post seemed to be implying or at least questioning.

[Fallguy]

You are arguing a point that I'm not disagreeing with or at least wasn't trying to discuss (I also don't really need you to explain the obvious to me; at least not this time ).

Several here, and think that includes you, have either stated directly or at least alluded to the "HCP" process not being "constitutional". I'm simply trying to point out, perhaps poorly, that restricting gun possession to those who aren't convicted felons, etc. isn't in the Constitution (Federal or state) either but we have those restrictions just the same and think most of us probably think that at least some of those restrictions are a good idea. All I'm suggesting here is that the HCP process is simply a logical extension of the process that gave us restrictions on who can't legally possess a firearm.

I'm not saying that I like the HCP process; I'm not even saying that I think it's a good idea nor do I think it really does what the politicians want everyone to think it does. I'd like to see us have "constitutional carry" BUT, I think we need the HCP process right now if only for reciprocity purposes. I'm only saying that I don't see a lot of difference between the HCP process/requirements and any other, perhaps more widely accepted (even among the firearm enthusiast community) restrictions that have existed for years.

I also simply wanted to make the point that the fact that TN has an HCP process doesn't render us a non-friendly state to firearms as the OP's first post seemed to be implying or at least questioning.

Got ya.... and can't really argue with any of it.

....and if no one ever stated the obvious it may not remain obvious....

[JayC]

The US Constitution clearly allows the removal of rights for felons who are convicted by a jury of their peers. People should really read the Constitution once and awhile.

5th Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

That right there allows the Federal government to bar convicted felons from possessing firearms (exercising their 2nd Amendment Rights)... It also allows convicted felons to be locked up in jail.

But, I'm not a felon, I've not been convicted by a jury of my peers of a serious or infamous crime... And therefore restrictions on my rights are not supported by the Constitution.

It doesn't but I didn't say it did nor was that my point.

All I was trying (apparently poorly) to point out was that we as a society have decided that certain restrictions CAN be place on certain rights.

As a society, we've decided that felons, for example,should not be allowed to legally possess a firearm but that restriction isn't in the Constitution, state or federal. The "permit" process isn't much more than an extension of that is it?

Whether felons should be restricted or whether we should or shouldn't have a permit process is somewhat of a different argument and in any case, to get back to the OP's original question; I don't think that the fact that we have a permit process means that we aren't a "pro carry" state.

[RobertNashville]

The US Constitution clearly allows the removal of rights for felons who are convicted by a jury of their peers. People should really read the Constitution once and awhile....

Yes it does but I don't think anyone was trying to say otherwise.

...allows the Federal government to bar convicted felons from possessing firearms (exercising their 2nd Amendment Rights)... It also allows convicted felons to be locked up in jail.

But, I'm not a felon, I've not been convicted by a jury of my peers of a serious or infamous crime... And therefore restrictions on my rights are not supported by the Constitution.

The law and history has clearly allowed for at least some restrictions on various rights even in the absence of a crime; at least so long as they aren't capricious or unreasonable...we have the right to peacefully assemble for the purpose of protesting but that doesn't mean a government entity (city, municipality, etc) has to let anyone assemble at any time in any place they might want...they can restrict such activities to some extent without violating your right to assemble.

I've said many times that I'm all for "Constitutional carry" but I do not think most judges, even conservative ones, would find either the permit process in general nor the specific requirements of the state of Tennessee (class, background check, etc.) as being either overly burdensome or unconstitutional; inconvenient and irritating, yes.

[JayC]

Really? Because that's not my understanding of case law on freedom of assembly, can you point to a case where SCOTUS allowed significant restrictions on the freedom to assemble? You've got Cox v New Hampshire (1941) which allows some reasonable regulation that basically says you can assemble, but can't prohibit the free flow of others... You'll note it doesn't stop anybody from assembling just allows rules to prevent protesters from blocking access to roads and sidewalks by the protesters.

Then you have Adderley v Florida (1966) which SCOTUS ruled certain areas can be marked off limits such as the inside the secure areas of a jail or prison. But since the 1980's SCOTUS has required that such regulations be narrowly tailored... much much much more narrowly tailored than any firearm law here in TN.

So, no I don't agree... please cite specific court cases to prove your point.

But, lets not forget SCOTUS gets it wrong a lot... and just because they say something is constitutional doesn't make it so... they often decades later come back and have to 'correct' their mistakes... These rulings are from the same people who gave us the Dred Scott verdict that claimed people could be property... and claim that growing wheat in your backyard which you use to make bread, and eat such bread is an act of Interstate Commerce which the Federal government can regulate.

The Constitution isn't hard to understand, people know what words like "shall not be infringed" really means, at some point we're going to reach a breaking point, and some folks are going to say enough is enough we want our god given rights back.

Even if TN's permit system doesn't run afoul of the federal Constitution is for sure runs afoul of the state Constitution... which limits the state legislature to only regulate the wearing of firearms to prevent crime. Clearly certain provisions of the TN HCP process have no bearing on preventing crime.

Yes it does but I don't think anyone was trying to say otherwise.

The law and history has clearly allowed for at least some restrictions on various rights even in the absence of a crime; at least so long as they aren't capricious or unreasonable...we have the right to peacefully assemble for the purpose of protesting but that doesn't mean a government entity (city, municipality, etc) has to let anyone assemble at any time in any place they might want...they can restrict such activities to some extent without violating your right to assemble.

I've said many times that I'm all for "Constitutional carry" but I do not think most judges, even conservative ones, would find either the permit process in general nor the specific requirements of the state of Tennessee (class, background check, etc.) as being either overly burdensome or unconstitutional; inconvenient and irritating, yes.

[RobertNashville]

Really? Because that's not my understanding of case law on freedom of assembly, can you point to a case where SCOTUS allowed significant restrictions on the freedom to assemble? You've got Cox v New Hampshire (1941) which allows some reasonable regulation that basically says you can assemble, but can't prohibit the free flow of others... You'll note it doesn't stop anybody from assembling just allows rules to prevent protesters from blocking access to roads and sidewalks by the protesters.

Then you have Adderley v Florida (1966) which SCOTUS ruled certain areas can be marked off limits such as the inside the secure areas of a jail or prison. But since the 1980's SCOTUS has required that such regulations be narrowly tailored... much much much more narrowly tailored than any firearm law here in TN.

So, no I don't agree... please cite specific court cases to prove your point.

Please don’t put words in my mouth. Could you point out where, in my example, that I used the phrase “significant restrictions†or any phrase that remotely conveys the same meaning as such? If you’ll look closely, you’ll see I actually used the phrase “some restrictions†and that restrictions on rights should not be “capricious or unreasonableâ€â€¦insinuating that I said restrictions can be “significant†is almost 180 degrees opposite of what I actually said.

I’m not going to spend time looking for case law…if you are an attorney and/or have resources and time to do so feel free. I simply state that cities/municipalities/government entities can legally and do put restrictions and requirements on groups/people who wish to assemble such as to protest. Of course, if you own a piece of property and want to have the KKK come and hold a rally/protest you don’t really need anyone’s permission for that…try to do the same thing at Legislative Square or Bi-Continental Park or almost any other piece of public property in any city of any size, I’m confident that the KKK would face some restrictions as would the Southern Baptists or a gay rights group. My point was and is that such restrictions don’t mean their right to assemble and to protest is being unnecessarily infringed or restricted.

But, lets not forget SCOTUS gets it wrong a lot... and just because they say something is constitutional doesn't make it so... they often decades later come back and have to 'correct' their mistakes... These rulings are from the same people who gave us the Dred Scott verdict that claimed people could be property... and claim that growing wheat in your backyard which you use to make bread, and eat such bread is an act of Interstate Commerce which the Federal government can regulate.

Again, when did I say that they didn’t make mistakes? For that matter, when did I specifically mention the Supreme Court? All I said was that I doubt even conservative judges would fine Tennessee’s permit process unconstitutional…whether such a decision would be “right†or “wrong†is really a different issue (although I don't think it would be a a "wrong" decision).

The Constitution isn't hard to understand, people know what words like "shall not be infringed" really means, at some point we're going to reach a breaking point, and some folks are going to say enough is enough we want our god given rights back.

Even if TN's permit system doesn't run afoul of the federal Constitution is for sure runs afoul of the state Constitution... which limits the state legislature to only regulate the wearing of firearms to prevent crime. Clearly certain provisions of the TN HCP process have no bearing on preventing crime.

Actually, I don’t think the second amendment deals at all with a person carrying a firearm for their personal protection…we use it that way but I don’t think that was the right the founders were trying to protect.

The Constitution isn't hard to understand and, as you noted above, sometimes courts get it "wrong"...sometimes, private citizens get it wrong too.

As for Tennessee’s constitution, you my think the HCP process for sure runs afoul of it but I think you are completely wrong. I would suggest that our constitution clearly allows the legislature to place reasonable restrictions on who can possess arms and who can carry arms "in public". While that doesn't in an way require a HCP process, I see nothing in our constitution that would prevent it either and I doubt any court in Tennessee would find out current HCP process to be unconstitutional under Tennessee's constitution.

[Worriedman]

As for Tennessee’s constitution, you my think the HCP process for sure runs afoul of it but I think you are completely wrong. I would suggest that our constitution clearly allows the legislature to place reasonable restrictions on who can possess arms and who can carry arms "in public". While that doesn't in an way require a HCP process, I see nothing in our constitution that would prevent it either and I doubt any court in Tennessee would find out current HCP process to be unconstitutional under Tennessee's constitution.

Per AG Opinion, and a cursory reading of Article 1 Section 26 of the Tennessee Declaration of Rights, any legislation, (restriction) of the Right to keep and bear arms for the common defense, MUST be predicated on a reduction in crime. "Reasonable restrictions" are Unconstitutional unless they satisfy this chain placed on the Legislature by our Constitution and Declaration of Rights. Feel-good attempts at Citizen control by what should be servants of the People instead of would be controllers of the same do not meet Constitutional muster. Empirical data has to be proffered as a foundation for ANY Restriction to the general population's ability to enjoy those Rights involving arms, if they are not convicted of crime which limit that Right by choice of action on the part of individuals, or having been adjudicated mentally unfit, it says so in black and white.

Originally Posted by RobertNashville

Actually, I don’t think the second amendment deals at all with a person carrying a firearm for their personal protection…we use it that way but I don’t think that was the right the founders were trying to protect.

In this you are right, the founders intended us to go about our daily lives armed to prevent the Government from taking over control of us, the fact that we can use the same weapons protected by the 2nd Amendment to cover or shield us from exposure, injury, damage, or destruction of our persons from criminals is gravy, ie:

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

--George Washington

Edited January 7, 2011 by Worriedman

[RobertNashville]

Per AG Opinion, and a cursory reading of Article 1 Section 26 of the Tennessee Declaration of Rights...

Do you have any idea what flashes in my mind when I hear (or read) any one (including myself) pontificate about what the constitution (federal or state) says about something?

I think..."if it's really that cut and dried, if it's really so obvious and easy to understand,why do we have to pontificate about it".

By that I mean, if, as you maintain, Tennessee's HCP process is truly "unconstitutional" under Tennessee's constitution and obviously so, how did the law get passed in the first place and why hasn't it already been overturned in court? The foregoing is a rhetorical question...I don't want to get into a fight about the constitution as they are laborious and at the end of the day, pretty worthless on an internet forum.

[Worriedman]

It is very simple, the Legislators do not follow the Law, they make up stuff to appear that they are controlling outcomes, for the benefit of getting re-elected.

It is after all, just as simple as it appears, we have too many individuals in power, put there by money, that have desires of control over the population.

If gun owners put forth as much cash as trial lawyers towards candidates in elections, gun owners would have a much more ready ear in the Legislative process.

The NRA did not spend a millionth of what the trial lawyers did in the last election cycle in Tennessee, who do you think is going to get the most notice.

It is that simple, money talks and BS walks!

[RobertNashville]

I did say the question was rhetorical didn't I?

And all our "talking" about all that's wrong doesn't do much "walking" either.

[Worriedman]

On that we can agree, people love to flap their gums but never open their purses. Till we as gun owners have a PAC with some beef to it, we are simply political wannabes.

Edited January 21, 2011 by Worriedman

[Guest boatme99]

While I definently appreciate being able to arm myself here,Tn. has a way to go towards being carry friendly.

When I lived in Fla., I had a c.w.p. A conceled weapons permit. I could legally carry anything I could conceal with two exceptions: explosives, and ballistic knives.

Automatic knives are legal. Tasers are legal. Spray is legal. Batons are legal.

Permits are issued by the state agriculture dept., not the police, so it is not the same as your D.L. They're good for 7 years.

We've got to keep on the legislature here to bring better laws concerning carry.

[Guest manofsteel]

My first TN permit was for my county only, had to be aproved by the sheriff, had big time restrictions and I had to keep a $50,000.00 bond. When the sheriff was changed I had to resumit my "REASON FOR NEEDING TO CARRY". So I have no problem with the current system. Its not perfect, never will be, but from my stand point its a lot better than it ever has been.

[RobertNashville]

While I definently appreciate being able to arm myself here,Tn. has a way to go towards being carry friendly.

When I lived in Fla., I had a c.w.p. A conceled weapons permit. I could legally carry anything I could conceal with two exceptions: explosives, and ballistic knives.

Automatic knives are legal. Tasers are legal. Spray is legal. Batons are legal.

Permits are issued by the state agriculture dept., not the police, so it is not the same as your D.L. They're good for 7 years.

We've got to keep on the legislature here to bring better laws concerning carry.

I think that one thing most here can agree on is that Tennessee (and many other states) ARE moving in the right direction. The pendulum went a long way in the other direction and stayed there for many years; and swinging it back to a more appropriate direction can't happen overnight - there is more to do and I would encourage everyone to do what they can to help (get active; stay active with gun rights issues, etc) but I think it's okay to acknowledge that things aren't all that bad here for those who decide to arm themselves.

[Guest Classickbass]

I have to disagree, the initial ~$200 (class & permit) to get a permit is pretty good hill to climb. Sure some people have money and burn through ammo etc... But for many $200 is half-weeks pay or more.

You can run a background check on someone on the state's website for $29, how much more does the other parts of the permit process really cost the state?

I agree with this. $200 is just a little over half a weeks pay for me. And for what? Where does that money go? If they can check a person's background for $29 then what is the other $171 for?? I would think the cost be $50-75 but then again I am not a politician.

[JayC]

I agree with this. $200 is just a little over half a weeks pay for me. And for what? Where does that money go? If they can check a person's background for $29 then what is the other $171 for?? I would think the cost be $50-75 but then again I am not a politician.

They can check your background for free using the NICS system.... Some money goes to an outside firm to do fingerprinting.... but is that really even needed?