Jumping Through Hoops in Tenneessee. This has to change

[JohnC]

I believe if you can pass the regular background check to buy the dang gun, you should be able to go get a HCP like getting your DL. Show current ID, fill out form, take picture, let them make the ID, and then immediately receive it on the spot. :up:

[Guest sventvkg]

I know it can and that is precisely the avenue TFA has been pursuing but that wasn't what was being suggested above by the OP...what was being suggested was abolishing the HCP process and only having constitutional carry.   Given the OPs statements I don't know that having both would be okay with him. ;)

I would take it but of course I believe all restrictions are Unconstitutional. :)

[RobertNashville]

I don't want to see an end to our permit system, I value the reciprocity with other states. I just think the cost is excessive to the point of unconstitutionality. We don't pay poll taxes when we vote to cover the costs of holding elections and we shouldn't have to pay a couple of hundred to the state and private entities to carry arms for self defense either. My solution is to add constitutional carry alongside our current permit system.

As far as not wanting folks to carry around cheap junk handguns, well, I don't think that is your choice to make. Masaad Ayoob wrote an article a number of years ago on that subject that I imagine most of us have read but I will repost as I think it is pertinent to this conversation.

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/ayoob62.html

Not really disagreeing with you here but "excessive" is pretty much a matter of perspective isn't it? And as I said, make it any total cost you want and someone will complain that it's too high because for someone, it will be too high.

 

I didn't say whether people carry cheap, junk handguns was my choice but at the same time, if someone is carrying a firearm that is unsafe because it's a cheap piece of junk then "their right to carry" is now potentially interfering my "right to pursue happiness" (in the form of staying alive/not getting shot by their cheap piece of junk handgun) so it's not as if it doesn't affect me. :)

 

I do agree, having a right, if it is a right should be free...exercising a right probably won't be free and probably never has been nor do I see any reason why it should be.

 

Even if we have constitutional carry; if someone wants to carry a firearm they will probably have to buy one (unless someone gives you one)...same with ammo...same with a holster/some way to carry it that won't set it off when you reach for it.  Even spending as little as possible may be more than some people can afford.

 

Please don't get me wrong...I'm not saying the HCP process can't be improved and can't be made less expensive (although honestly, none of us here know what it really cost the state to process a HCP; for all we know they may be losing money on each one) and I'm also very much in favor of constitutional carry...I'm just saying that even constitutional carry isn't free; even if they carry a "cheep" handgun.

 

 

----------

 

Just for the fun of it and because I was curious, I did some quick research (and since it was quick I can't say with 100% certainty that the information is exactly correct but I think it's still an interesting comparison). In 1880, the average wage for common labor was $0.135/hour. The average working day was 10 hours and the average working week was 6 days a week. That works out to an average income of $421/year.

 

Today, the average wage for common labor is, at minimum wage, $7.25/hr; in a 40 hour week that works out to an annual income of $15,080.

 

Now...the cost of a SAA Colt Peacemaker in 1880 was about $25 which represents about 5.9% of a person's annual income.  Let's say with tax and everything a nice new Glock will cost about $550; that's 3.65% of the average worker's annual income.

 

So...in 1880, pretty much everybody could carry if they had a firearm but it still cost them more, as a percentage of their annual income, than it does today (if we had the same unrestricted freedom to carry that we had in 1880).  I wouldn't be surprised if the cost, as a percentage of income, wasn't even higher in the early 1800s. At least the "cost" of carrying is a little easier on the pocketbook as far as the firearm goes. ;)

[Chucktshoes]

Maybe I should clarify.

If the state is the one charging fees or taxes to exercise a right, then the cost is excessive. If the expenses arise from needing to purchase materials, supplies, etc on the open market, then that is acceptable as it is not the government providing the impediment to the exercising of those rights.

The government has no responsibility to facilitate the exercising of rights, it just cannot impede them in any way. See the difference?

[Wheelgunner]

I do agree, having a right, if it is a right should be free...exercising a right probably won't be free and probably never has been nor do I see any reason why it should be.

 

Even if we have constitutional carry; if someone wants to carry a firearm they will probably have to buy one (unless someone gives you one)...same with ammo...same with a holster/some way to carry it that won't set it off when you reach for it.  Even spending as little as possible may be more than some people can afford.

 

Please don't get me wrong...I'm not saying the HCP process can't be improved and can't be made less expensive (although honestly, none of us here know what it really cost the state to process a HCP; for all we know they may be losing money on each one) and I'm also very much in favor of constitutional carry...I'm just saying that even constitutional carry isn't free; even if they carry a "cheep" handgun.

I see what you're saying - that there are costs associated with carrying a handgun even aside from fees for permit or class.  Because none of us expects the state to distribute free handguns, holsters, ammunition, and training under constitutional carry, even if that system were adopted in Tennessee there would be some citizens who were precluded from exercising their right to bear arms due to financial constraints.  That makes sense.  It's acceptable because it is the result of free market and capitalist principles.

 

What I have a problem with, like Chucktshoes, is the state imposing a fee that I must pay to it before I can exercise my constitutional right.  In my opinion our law in Tennessee unconstitutionally infringes the federal Second Amendment not by issuing a permit card, or by fingerprinting us, or by requiring a fee, but rather by making it illegal to carry a loaded handgun in public in the event a citizen does not fulfill those prerequisites.

Edited December 14, 2012 by Wheelgunner

[strickj]

I agree but how much is too much? If $200 is unreasonable how about $100 or $75? Even $50 is a lot for some people.

I realize that $150-200 or so can be a LOT to some and pocket change to others but if someone can afford a decent handgun I would think they could afford the cost of getting the HCP.

 

You've never been poor have you? It shows :)

 

A poor man that eats Ramen noodles every night has every bit of the same rights as you. He might be able to scrape up $150.00 for a Highpoint but it might be impossible for him to come up with another $200+ to purchase his right to carry it.

And who says that poor man has to buy a new handgun anyway? Maybe his weapon(s) are hand-me-downs, "loans" or gifts. Does he forfeit his rights because his gun was a free gift and he's poor?

 

It's a sad day when we are willing to put a price on God given rights.

[TMF]

You've never been poor have you? It shows :)

A poor man that eats Ramen noodles every night has every bit of the same rights as you. He might be able to scrape up $150.00 for a Highpoint but it might be impossible for him to come up with another $200+ to purchase his right to carry it.
And who says that poor man has to buy a new handgun anyway? Maybe his weapon(s) are hand-me-downs, "loans" or gifts. Does he forfeit his rights because his gun was a free gift and he's poor?

It's a sad day when we are willing to put a price on God given rights.

Yep, I recall my first pistol purchase the cost was split between my roommate and I because we wanted a pistol for the apartment but couldn't afford a decent one. Gas was cheap back then, yet I can never remember having money for a full tank. I can't imagine what it's like for folks now. Some people clearly don't understand that though and likely never will.

[RobertNashville]

What I have a problem with, like Chucktshoes, is the state imposing a fee that I must pay to it before I can exercise my constitutional right.  In my opinion our law in Tennessee unconstitutionally infringes the federal Second Amendment not by issuing a permit card, or by fingerprinting us, or by requiring a fee, but rather by making it illegal to carry a loaded handgun in public in the event a citizen does not fulfill those prerequisites.

I absolutely and wholeheartedly agree. Which begs the question of what are YOU doing to get things changed?

 

Not trying to throw stones here; just asking because unless people who think our current law is wrong get involved with their time and money nothing is going to change.

[RobertNashville]

You've never been poor have you? It shows :)

 

A poor man that eats Ramen noodles every night has every bit of the same rights as you. He might be able to scrape up $150.00 for a Highpoint but it might be impossible for him to come up with another $200+ to purchase his right to carry it.

And who says that poor man has to buy a new handgun anyway? Maybe his weapon(s) are hand-me-downs, "loans" or gifts. Does he forfeit his rights because his gun was a free gift and he's poor?

 

It's a sad day when we are willing to put a price on God given rights.

Who the hell are you to assume I've never been poor or anything else about me for that matter?  What, exactly do you know about me?  The answer is NOT A DAMN THING. You want to disagree with something I've said; fine...disagree.  You think I don't know what I'm talking about on an issue then fine; think that. But I've worked GOD DAMN HARD for everything I have am I'm sure as hell not ashamed that I have it and I'm not about to start being ashamed just because someone makes a swipe at me like you just did.

 

Aside form your baseless assumptions, our conversations would go a lot more smoothly if you didn't read what you think I said rather than what I actually said...when did I EVER say someone has to "buy a new handgun"?  The answer is never. If you think that's the wrong answer then please quote the post where I said otherwise.

Edited December 14, 2012 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

Maybe I should clarify.

If the state is the one charging fees or taxes to exercise a right, then the cost is excessive. If the expenses arise from needing to purchase materials, supplies, etc on the open market, then that is acceptable as it is not the government providing the impediment to the exercising of those rights.

The government has no responsibility to facilitate the exercising of rights, it just cannot impede them in any way. See the difference?

So assuming we aren't going to get constitutional carry for a while (because we likely won't get it for quite a while), what is the "right" cost? 

 

I"v asked before but no one has really answered that question. How much is "too" much?  What level of expense won't be too expensive for anyone?

 

[TMF]

Zero. The state mandates the hoops, therefore should be responsible for the costs.

[RobertNashville]

Zero. The state mandates the hoops, therefore should be responsible for the costs.

Well that's great...so my tax dollars have to be stolen from me to pay for somebody else? Sounds like welfare to me.

 

If the cost is really that onerous, how about we do it the free-market way? How about those who think the cost is too high; form a charitable foundation that can accept tax deductible donations and those donations can then be used to pay for some or even all of the cost of the HCP process for those who truly can't afford it on their own?

 

It sounds like a great thing for TGO to get involved in and I would love to donate to such an effort...it sure sounds to me like a much more constructive way to address the problem than people yelling about in on the internet.

Edited December 14, 2012 by RobertNashville

[TMF]

Well that's great...so my tax dollars have to be stolen from me to pay for it...sounds like welfare to me.

Huh?

It isn't the individual looking for a handout, it is the state requiring a bunch of expensive hoops for something that shouldn't be exclusive to only those that can afford it. There are few things that I believe tax dollars should be spent on. This would be one of them if the state is going to require such prerequisites.

Welfare? That is to suggest tax dollars are being given to a person who didn't earn it. I believe every law abiding citizen has earned the right to defend themselves with a firearm. It isn't the citizen that came up with the requirement to attend training and pay for a background investigation, it was the state.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Fees could be charged on a sliding scale, except the additional admin costs would be stupendous to calculate and enforce the sliding scale. :)

[RobertNashville]

Huh?

It isn't the individual looking for a handout, it is the state requiring a bunch of expensive hoops for something that shouldn't be exclusive to only those that can afford it. There are few things that I believe tax dollars should be spent on. This would be one of them if the state is going to require such prerequisites.

Welfare? That is to suggest tax dollars are being given to a person who didn't earn it. I believe every law abiding citizen has earned the right to defend themselves with a firearm. It isn't the citizen that came up with the requirement to attend training and pay for a background investigation, it was the state.

Then call is socialism or redistribution of wealth or just good old fashioned communism but when you confiscate money from one group of people in order to give it to another group, whether in cash or services, it's just plain wrong and immoral.

 

Yes, the "poor" have a "right" to carry but they haven't done anything to justify taking my money to pay for the requirements the state places on them to exercise that right.

 

Speaking of those requirements, where were these people when the current laws were passed?  Assuming they voted for the representatives who put our current laws in place then don't they share the blame for the consequences of who they voted for?

 

If you want to start a foundation to accept voluntary contributions that's called charity and I'm all for it.

[RobertNashville]

Fees could be charged on a sliding scale, except the additional admin costs would be stupendous to calculate and enforce the sliding scale. :)

So now we are going to do means testing?  That sounds like most of the misguided Republicans on Capitol Hill right now. ;)

[TMF]

Then call is socialism or redistribution of wealth or just good old fashioned communism but when you confiscate money from one group of people in order to give it to another group, whether in cash or services, it's just plain wrong and immoral.

You're right. We should make people pay for the right to vote too because running polls is expensive.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

So now we are going to do means testing?  That sounds like most of the misguided Republicans on Capitol Hill right now. ;)

I wasn't advocating such, but it is just one of the most obvious no-brainer solutions for this inequity, that is easily thunk up by a politician or public policy "expert". In some technologies, a lot has been made in the last few years of "design patterns", cut-and-paste strategies that can be re-used cheaper than reinventing the wheel. Hadn't thought about it before, but the "sliding scale" may be one of the most common design patterns of nanny state bureaucratic implementation. 

[RobertNashville]

I would take it but of course I believe all restrictions are Unconstitutional. :)

It may be unconstitutional although I'm not entirely convinced that even Madison or Jefferson would say that the states have no say so in carrying arms...and more to the point, the courts are starting to make it clear that while people have a right to bear arms, the states have the right to regulate it.

[RobertNashville]

You're right. We should make people pay for the right to vote too because running polls is expensive.

Except there is a difference; voting IS a proper function of government as is providing for national security and a court system.

 

And as for voting, I don't think anyone should be allowed to vote unless they are paying more into the government in taxes than they are getting out of it.  People riding in the wagon shouldn't get to dictate to the ones doing the pulling.

[RobertNashville]

I wasn't advocating such, but it is just one of the most obvious no-brainer solutions for this inequity, that is easily thunk up by a politician or public policy "expert". In some technologies, a lot has been made in the last few years of "design patterns", cut-and-paste strategies that can be re-used cheaper than reinventing the wheel. Hadn't thought about it before, but the "sliding scale" may be one of the most common design patterns of nanny state bureaucratic implementation. 

I'm all for sliding scales that are voluntary; not so much when it's dictated by the government.  The first is charity; the second is just taxation by another name. ;)

[Guest Lester Weevils]

And as for voting, I don't think anyone should be allowed to vote unless they are paying more into the government in taxes than they are getting out of it.  People riding in the wagon shouldn't get to dictate to the ones doing the pulling.

 

It is easy to sympathize with the basic concept, though literal implementation would disenfranchise such as honors medical students, virtually all military and civilian government employees, millions of stay-at-home moms, and millions of retirees who paid more than they received for decades before age caused the tax tables to turn. :)

[RobertNashville]

It is easy to sympathize with the basic concept, though literal implementation would disenfranchise such as honors medical students, virtually all military and civilian government employees, millions of stay-at-home moms, and millions of retirees who paid more than they received for decades before age caused the tax tables to turn. :)

I know I'm being a hard ass about it but I still think it is probably how it should be done even if such a policy wound up affecting me directly at some point.  People need to have some real skin in the game if they are going to play.  I suppose the prohibition could be limited to exclude only those on specific forms of welfare (food stamps, etc.) and it would still accomplish pretty much the same thing. :)

[strickj]

Who the hell are you to assume I've never been poor or anything else about me for that matter?  What, exactly do you know about me?  The answer is NOT A DAMN THING. You want to disagree with something I've said; fine...disagree.  You think I don't know what I'm talking about on an issue then fine; think that. But I've worked GOD DAMN HARD for everything I have am I'm sure as hell not ashamed that I have it and I'm not about to start being ashamed just because someone makes a swipe at me like you just did.

 

Aside form your baseless assumptions, our conversations would go a lot more smoothly if you didn't read what you think I said rather than what I actually said..

Easy, Hoss. :)

 

Just making an observation. No one that's been on the Ramen noodles financial plan will say "if they can afford X, they can afford Y".

Someone else mentioned being able to afford a car but couldn't afford gas. Great analogy.

 

It's great if you've never been in that position.

 

 

 

.when did I EVER say someone has to "buy a new handgun"?  The answer is never. If you think that's the wrong answer then please quote the post where I said otherwise.

 

...

 but if someone can afford a decent handgun I would think they could afford the cost of getting the HCP.

[RobertNashville]

Easy, Hoss. :)

 

Just making an observation. No one that's been on the Ramen noodles financial plan will say "if they can afford X, they can afford Y".

Someone else mentioned being able to afford a car but couldn't afford gas. Great analogy.

 

It's great if you've never been in that position.

 

...

You can call it an observation or anything you want but it's still a COMPLETELY BASELESS ASSUMPTION about someone you know absolutely nothing about.

 

And the "new handgun" issue is wholly in your imagination; if you think "decent" means the same as "new" then that's your incorrect assumption.

Edited December 14, 2012 by RobertNashville