How to accomplish this goal?

[Oh Shoot]

If they outnumber us, then how did we ever end up with HCPs and the Restaurant Carry Law?

It's Carry in Bars, now.

- OS

[daddyo]

It's Carry in Bars, now.

- OS

Well, maybe if you're Gail Kerr.

BTW, I've never gotten a response from her, despite repeated requests to retract her original claims about "blood in the streets" and "shootouts in bars" when the law was passed. Funny how that selective amnesia works.

[Fallguy]

It's Carry in Bars, now.

- OS

But there are no bars in TN....

[Makiaveli]

Well I just meant for a LEO being able to find out easily about lawful carry as it is now if they didn't know someone was a felon...but you are right nothing prevents felons from getting a firearm now if they really want it.

Why would it be any different from now? They can check the person's history, see that they are a felon, and proceed accordingly. I don't see how it would change things if non-felons didn't need a permit.

Sorry if I am missing something....

[Fallguy]

Why would it be any different from now? They can check the person's history, see that they are a felon, and proceed accordingly. I don't see how it would change things if non-felons didn't need a permit.

Sorry if I am missing something....

When I first made that post...I meant as the law is now (having to have a HCP to carry) it is easier for a LEO to check who can legally carry or not, since if you don't have a HCP in general you can't carry.

But as far as checking criminal history is not quite as easy as checking their DL. Also there has to be a reason to check it...if carry without a permit was legal, then just because they are armed is no reason to suspect them of breaking the law and probably not a good enough reason to run a criminal history check.

Unless things have changed a LEO has to come in and sign a log stating the reason why among other things for a criminal history check to be run. Also this is the one thing the TBI (TN's official NCIC contact point) reviews and checks pretty closely.

[Guest pfries]

True. Maybe I've just lost all hope in people's ability to form reasonable opinions on their own.

If you just recently came to that opinion you held out longer than I.

[Makiaveli]

When I first made that post...I meant as the law is now (having to have a HCP to carry) it is easier for a LEO to check who can legally carry or not, since if you don't have a HCP in general you can't carry.

But as far as checking criminal history is not quite as easy as checking their DL. Also there has to be a reason to check it...if carry without a permit was legal, then just because they are armed is no reason to suspect them of breaking the law and probably not a good enough reason to run a criminal history check.

Unless things have changed a LEO has to come in and sign a log stating the reason why among other things for a criminal history check to be run. Also this is the one thing the TBI (TN's official NCIC contact point) reviews and checks pretty closely.

Got ya. I was thinking along the lines of if they have already stopped someone etc.

Yea they are very strict on checking for non-LE reasons. That hasn't changed.

[Guest cardcutter]

Two things:

1ST. I think the next big push should be to get the "castle doctrine " extended to our cars for HCP owners. No searches or dismissals because you have a gun in the car while at work.

2ND. The ability to check a person for wants or warrants should be enough when someone is stopped by a LEO. If your clean there is no reason to take away your rights. They don't have to know your whole background. If you did something stupid twenty years ago should not have a bearing on your rights today,with the obvious exceptions.

Just my humble opinion.

Jim

[Fallguy]

Two things:

1ST. I think the next big push should be to get the "castle doctrine " extended to our cars for HCP owners. No searches or dismissals because you have a gun in the car while at work.

2ND. The ability to check a person for wants or warrants should be enough when someone is stopped by a LEO. If your clean there is no reason to take away your rights. They don't have to know your whole background. If you did something stupid twenty years ago should not have a bearing on your rights today,with the obvious exceptions.

Just my humble opinion.

Jim

On #1 I think you are talking about a "parking lot" bill. Which IMO doesn't really have anything to do with the "castle doctrine" but I admit it is a term I really don't like when talking any one specific law... I wouldn't mind seeing a parking lot bill, but one thing I'd really like to see is the ability for those without a HCP to have handgun in their car. Since your car is supposed to be just like your house and the presumption of fear if someone tried to break in.

On #2 Not sure I fully understand... AFAIK when you are stopped by a LEO checking the person for wants or warrants is about all they are able to do. It takes a lot more trouble to run a criminal history check on someone...and you have to have a valid investigatory reason, not just a traffic stop. Now if you mean when they are checking for getting a HCP, I don't necessarily disagree, but that is because IMO we shouldn't need a permit to carry in the first place.

[Guest cardcutter]

On #1 I'd really like to see is the ability for those without a HCP to have handgun in their car. Since your car is supposed to be just like your house and the presumption of fear if someone tried to break in.

That is the castle doctrine, being extended to your car for HCP holders. The parking lot bill was derailed in a debate over property owners rights verses your rights. This would cut through that.Then we can push for non HCP holders to do the same.

On #2 Not sure I fully understand... AFAIK when you are stopped by a LEO checking the person for wants or warrants is about all they are able to do. It takes a lot more trouble to run a criminal history check on someone...and you have to have a valid investigatory reason, not just a traffic stop. Now if you mean when they are checking for getting a HCP, I don't necessarily disagree, but that is because IMO we shouldn't need a permit to carry in the first place.

Here I am talking about LEOs being able to tell who should have a weapon and who should not. The LEO should not be concerned with a complete background check at all. Other than that it is not their business weather you are carrying or not.

[Fallguy]

That is the castle doctrine, being extended to your car for HCP holders. The parking lot bill was derailed in a debate over property owners rights verses your rights. This would cut through that.Then we can push for non HCP holders to do the same.

Considering those with a HCP can have a firearm in their car now and those without a HCP can not, I don't think just adding parking lots has that much to do with the "castle doctrine". I mean even if a company has a policy against keeping your handgun in your car, it's not against the "law" unless the parking lot is posted. Also (and I could be wrong) I think it would be easier to get vehicle carry without a HCP than it will be to force property owners to allow weapons in vehicles. At least as long as FedEx and some other large companies fight it, not that it isn't worth us fighting for of course.

I think we both want the same thing...so I appolgize for focusing on the term "castle doctrine" just a pet peeve of mine. It means different things to different people. Of course that is the main reason I think it can be confusing...lol

Here I am talking about LEOs being able to tell who should have a weapon and who should not. The LEO should not be concerned with a complete background check at all. Other than that it is not their business weather you are carrying or not.

Well as I said...LEOs don't usually (not even sure they can) run a complete background check when they have you stopped as it is now. I'm not sure that would change even if carry without HCPs became legal. As running criminal background checks through NCIC is regulated by the FBI, not the state, so even a state law couldn't change that.

Unfortunately as the law is now, it is a LEOs business if you are carrying, because possession of firearm is illegal in TN. Being on your property, it being unloaded and having a HCP are just some of the defenses to that charge. So until carry is legal without a permit, as far as they know you are committing a crime until they can check your permit.

[Worriedman]

The problem that we have is that "politicians" seek to amass power, true representatives seek to serve their constituents. We have far too many of the former, and sadly, a paucity of the later. And, many of those who would seek to do the right thing are by virtue of a failure of our education system to teach the basic tenants of a Republic form of Government and the actual edicts of the Constitution leave us in a precarious situation. I am appalled at the lack of knowledge of many of our Legislators with respect to our Constitutions, both of the Union and our State versions. I was told at a meeting with a West TN Legislator that what was 'good" for his district supplanted in importance what the Constitution might actually say.

In discussions on the Hill this summer, it was explained by several of the highest ranking members of "Leadership" that the push to reach "66" Republican House members is the prime focus of the "Party". What is best for the People is of secondary importance at best. A "Walk Out Proof" majority with an "R" sequestered behind their name is the prime motivation, that some who wear that distinction are as Liberal as some Democrats is moot to the mind of said Leadership.

This same group of powerful Legislators intoned that those who advocate for our firearms Rights should pick One issue, and expect no more attention, espousing that the General Public does not have the will to see real Constitutional issues discussed, nor are they important to the general population. "Jobs" would once again be the pivotal issue, (sane individuals recognizing that the simple most important function of Government in that arena is to remove itself from the fray, less regulation and intrusion into the private sector being the best program if our Government truly wants to facilitate growth, not more involvement).

Until these Legislators hear on a personal basis that the vast unwashed are desirous of going back to a Constitutional basis for Rights relative to Firearms issues, nothing is going to change in their view, the squeaky wheel getting the grease as normal.

We do have a few friends in the mix, Judd Matheny and Andy Holt are as staunch in their support of true Constitutional Rights as any in the General Assembly on the Republican side, Rep. Eddie Bass on the Democrat, taking stances that do not follow the lead of the more Liberal ruling junta. We need to support them monetarily and by contacting them to let them know we appreciate their efforts.

The few minutes it takes to write a letter, and the $.44 stamp, especially if the hundreds of thousands of gun owners would get off the couch and enjoin a concerted effort to contact their Senators and Congressmen, would make a huge difference. The more vocal we become, the more effective we will be.

Edited November 8, 2011 by Worriedman

[BigK]

If they outnumber us, then how did we ever end up with HCPs and the Restaurant Carry Law?

The squeaky wheel gets the grease...like 1gewehr said. It's worked for the far left for decades and it finally worked for us.

I agree that we should not have to ask for permission to exercise our right to bear arms and I also agree with what Ben Franklin said about giving up freedoms for security. In the meantime, what we do have could be a lot worse, huh?

[Worriedman]

If they outnumber us, then how did we ever end up with HCPs and the Restaurant Carry Law?

We were not counting on the Republicans only to carry the banner when those Bills were passed.

Last year, having the majority in the House, Senate and the Executive Branch would have seemed to foreshadow a real Conservative avalanche of Legislation. What we got was Big Business holding all the cards, (notice corporations can donate directly to campaigns now, that passed easily last year) and the folks that walked and worked to get the majority in got left in the shadows. Now they think the Conservative minded will HAVE to vote Republican, so they do not have to treat with us, they can simply take us for granted and pay attention to the moderate/liberals.

It is all about holding power, not about doing the right thing.

[Guest PapaB]

It is all about holding power, not about doing the right thing.

The only cure for that is constructive term limits. Don't re-elect anyone, state or federal, after they've served 6 years. It wouldn't happen right away but, eventually, people would run to serve because the power ride would be gone.

Back to the original topic, our current Castle Doctrine is a mess. It reads like something written by a committee of windbags (see TCA 39-11-611). We could replace a bunch of that with something along this line;

"We affirm the right of the individual to protect the sanctity of their life, or that of another, whenever and wherever that life might be threatened by death or severe bodily injury as long as said individual is not in the process of committing an unlawful act or at a location they have no legal right to access."

I know that would be too simplistic for many legislators and those are the very politicians that are a big part of the problem. The Founding Fathers wrote in the plain language of the day because they wanted everyone to understand. Todays legislators write rambling legalese to keep everyone in the dark. We get what we deserve by the way we vote, the best politicians money can buy.

Edited November 9, 2011 by PapaB

[TMF]

The only cure for that is constructive term limits. Don't re-elect anyone, state or federal, after they've served 6 years. It wouldn't happen right away but, eventually, people would run to serve because the power ride would be gone.

Already there. I wish this movement would take hold.