Jumping Through Hoops in Tenneessee. This has to change

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='sventvkg' timestamp='1355554499' post='860622']I don't believe the 2nd Amendment leaves much to be interpreted Robert. It's written very plainly. That said, Politics in this country is broken and I agree with Mao who said real political action comes from the Barrel of a Gun :) I believe the criminals in Washington believe the same thing. I know I'm in the minority on this board for sure. I'm fine with it. As I said, i'm much more libertarian minded than most. [/quote]

 

Well, people and the courts will interpret it anyway; that's also part of that reality I mentioned.  Recently, the courts haven't been doing too badly.

 

I believe that most of the laws regarding firearms that exist are unconstitutional. Even so, I still say, based on what I do know of the founder's thinking, and even though I'm sure they would take a minimalist approach, that they too would not be completely against some restrictions/requirements on carrying arms TODAY. This IS a  different time - how we live, where we live, and work and interact with each other is not the same as it was in the 1700s and I suspect our founders would take that into account if they were alive today.

 

Dictators and murders like Mao think political action comes from the barrel of a gun - civilized people who actually believe in freedom and liberty and want to live responsibility and who value life don't think so. That doesn't mean that good people will never take up arms, indeed, there are times that they have to. Thankfully those very wise founders gave us a way to change things without the need for bloodshed.

Edited December 15, 2012 by RobertNashville

[badben]

I'm not familiar with the concealed carry laws in all 50 states, but in Washington state where I formerly lived, the Sheriff dept. or city police handle applications.  I think the fee is around $50 and they do the fingerprinting.  There is a 30 day wait while the FBI searches your record.  The process in Tn. is too long and expensive and has room for change.  I don't think it should cost as much as it does, and I feel the police or sheriff dept. could handle it more expeditiously.  How to achieve these changes is something I am not familiar with, but perhaps local representatives could help out.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I don't believe the 2nd Amendment leaves much to be interpreted Robert. It's written very plainly. That said, Politics in this country is broken and I agree with Mao who said real political action comes from the Barrel of a Gun :) I believe the criminals in Washington believe the same thing. I know I'm in the minority on this board for sure. I'm fine with it. As I said, i'm much more libertarian minded than most. 

I don't think you're in the minority, at all. Most of us probably coincide with your thoughts on this more than are usually

articulated. The 2nd Amendment has been bastardized, bent, spindled and mutilated on a lot of occasions and politicians

think they know better than us how to "fix" things. Justice evolves just like society does. That's exactly why things like the

Constitution don't need to evolve. Robert used the word "minimalist" and that is what should still be practiced by our

government, but that is something governments don't tend to do well. They feed on growth, which is why our Constitution

was written the way it was. You know that, though.

 

If we don't continually fight, in some way, to keep the Constitution the way it is supposed to be, we will lose it.

[RobertNashville]

I'm not familiar with the concealed carry laws in all 50 states, but in Washington state where I formerly lived, the Sheriff dept. or city police handle applications.  I think the fee is around $50 and they do the fingerprinting.  There is a 30 day wait while the FBI searches your record.  The process in Tn. is too long and expensive and has room for change.  I don't think it should cost as much as it does, and I feel the police or sheriff dept. could handle it more expeditiously.  How to achieve these changes is something I am not familiar with, but perhaps local representatives could help out.

The "sheriff of the county" system works great unless you happen to live in a county where the sheriff is a asshole politician with an agenda or a "mere civilians shouldn't carry a gun" mindset more so than he/she is a law enforcement officer.  While most aren't that way, even in a shall-issue state, one bad sheriff can be a real impediment to getting the permit for the unlucky people that live in that county.

 

I honestly don't know if costs in Tennessee can be reduced or not and no one else here does either.  The two primary costs are the cost of the class (I've seen prices from $60 on up) and the cost of the application which is, what, $115?

I LIKE that Tennessee requires a class because that's a major reason why our permit is accepted in so many states (when others aren't). So the cost of the class is not something that can really change if we are going to keep that part of the process. As to the application fee...no one here knows what it really costs the state to process an application and unless we DO know the cost all the claims that it's "too high" are meaningless. It could be they could charge 75% less than they do; or, for all we know, the fee being charged today doesn't even cover the cost.

 

I think the best ways to improve the HCP process is to change the law so that if the TBI finds something "questionable" in a person's background the burden is on the state to prove you aren't eligible for the permit and that there be a firm processing time frame placed on the process (say, 30 days) after which they MUST issue the permit (very similar to the process followed when someone is denied a purchase).

 

Make those changes and then institute "constitution carry" for those who don't really need the advantages of a permit and 99% of the problem is solved.

 

Ultimately, I'd like to see "constitutional carry" in every state so that, as long as we can legally possess a firearm we can carry in all states; no permit required.  Whether we'll ever get back there again I don't know but I'm sure it won't happen in my lifetime.  However, even if we "got there" I suspect there would still be some restrictions such as what we can carry (i.e. handgun only) and how (concealed only), duty to inform an officer, etc...I don't ever see those sorts of restrictions going away and they'll probably vary by state.

Edited December 15, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Guest tommy62]

I've found that people can afford what they truely want. As far as the permit goes, all I have to do is look at the 34 year old half baked nut that lives next door with his parents.

[strickj]

As to the application fee...no one here knows what it really costs the state to process an application and unless we DO know the cost all the claims that it's "too high" are meaningless. It could be they could charge 75% less than they do; or, for all we know, the fee being charged today doesn't even cover the cost.

Cost of a drivers license is $20.

Cost of a BG check is $10.

Add a few bucks for the cost of a fingerprinting machine/3rd party fingerprinting.

Goes hand and hand with what others in this thread have said other states charge.

 

TN adds a few extra hands and steps to the process to triple the costs and increase profits. One extra step is TCIS. TICS is a middle man for NICS.

Another step is the state not offering free BG checks , or waiving the checks altogether, to those with a HCP.

[Guest sventvkg]

Well, people and the courts will interpret it anyway; that's also part of that reality I mentioned.  Recently, the courts haven't been doing too badly.

 

I believe that most of the laws regarding firearms that exist are unconstitutional. Even so, I still say, based on what I do know of the founder's thinking, and even though I'm sure they would take a minimalist approach, that they too would not be completely against some restrictions/requirements on carrying arms TODAY. This IS a  different time - how we live, where we live, and work and interact with each other is not the same as it was in the 1700s and I suspect our founders would take that into account if they were alive today.

 

Dictators and murders like Mao think political action comes from the barrel of a gun - civilized people who actually believe in freedom and liberty and want to live responsibility and who value life don't think so. That doesn't mean that good people will never take up arms, indeed, there are times that they have to. Thankfully those very wise founders gave us a way to change things without the need for bloodshed.

I think we had our chance as civilized people to make the changes politically but it didn't work. Now we are under despotic rule and the only way out will be through mass use of force. I believe it's inevitible but it has to get a lot worse yet. We have at least another 2 term Collectivist/Hillary Clinton presidency more until patriots and conservatives finally have enough....It's coming for certain.

[Guest sventvkg]

I don't think you're in the minority, at all. Most of us probably coincide with your thoughts on this more than are usually

articulated. The 2nd Amendment has been bastardized, bent, spindled and mutilated on a lot of occasions and politicians

think they know better than us how to "fix" things. Justice evolves just like society does. That's exactly why things like the

Constitution don't need to evolve. Robert used the word "minimalist" and that is what should still be practiced by our

government, but that is something governments don't tend to do well. They feed on growth, which is why our Constitution

was written the way it was. You know that, though.

 

If we don't continually fight, in some way, to keep the Constitution the way it is supposed to be, we will lose it.

SPOT ON!

[RobertNashville]

I think we had our chance as civilized people to make the changes politically but it didn't work. Now we are under despotic rule and the only way out will be through mass use of force. I believe it's inevitible but it has to get a lot worse yet. We have at least another 2 term Collectivist/Hillary Clinton presidency more until patriots and conservatives finally have enough....It's coming for certain.

If you've come here to preach armed rebellion I certainly do hope you are in the minority.

 

You may be "libertarian" but where you are heading is anarchy; that's a trip I won't take with you.

Edited December 15, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Oh Shoot]

...but where you are heading is anarchy; that's a trip I won't take with you.

 

Besides, financial meltdown (especially hyperinflation) is a quicker way for it foment, and much more likely than from "patriots".

 

If other factors haven't intervened first, the day OPEC demands payment in something other than USD will likely be the kickoff.

 

Myself, I'm thinking about picking some more Hi-Points for hyper-hyper-inflated pricing to suddenly former progressives. :)

 

- OS

[RobertNashville]

Besides, financial meltdown (especially hyperinflation) is a quicker way for it foment, and much more likely than from "patriots".

 

If other factors haven't intervened first, the day OPEC demands payment in something other than USD will likely be the kickoff.

 

Myself, I'm thinking about picking some more Hi-Points for hyper-hyper-inflated pricing to suddenly former progressives. :)

 

- OS

I agree - it won't be "patriots" attempting a 2nd American revolution; when it happens, we'll simply be concerned about survival.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

If you've come here to preach armed rebellion I certainly do hope you are in the minority.

 

You may be "libertarian" but where you are heading is anarchy; that's a trip I won't take with you.

I didn't see any preaching going on, Robert, just a fairly astute observation. Just because one says something that

looks like a direction our sails are set on doesn't mean he is trying to be the one to provoke it.

[RobertNashville]

I didn't see any preaching going on, Robert, just a fairly astute observation. Just because one says something that

looks like a direction our sails are set on doesn't mean he is trying to be the one to provoke it.

 

Well; he said: [quote]Now we are under despotic rule and the only way out will be through mass use of force[/quote]
Substitute any word  for "preaching" that you feel is more appropriate but to me, his words sound like a desire for it; not just an observation.

 

If we have done ALL that we can to peacefully turn our nation around (and losing a couple of elections hardly constitutes "all") and then we fail or if jack-booted thugs come to take away what freedoms we have left and/or simply start shooting then armed resistance is all that is left but I've no desire for such bloodshed nor will I support anyone who does desire it.

Edited December 16, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Well, choose to preach to him, if you like, but like Mac said, it will likely be because of an economic meltdown,

rather than a bunch of "patriots". So, in the end, the result will possibly be the same. I don't think anyone was

recommending anything, but seeing it for what it is.

 

We will allow all this bull to happen every time we let things go unchecked. Enough has been allowed to go unchecked

and all we have left is a pile of debt, that keeps on growing, and a very sick society. I'd say both will be in on the mix,

when the day comes.

 

And I'm not advocating a damned thing.

[RobertNashville]

Well, choose to preach to him, if you like, but like Mac said, it will likely be because of an economic meltdown,

rather than a bunch of "patriots". So, in the end, the result will possibly be the same. I don't think anyone was

recommending anything, but seeing it for what it is.

 

We will allow all this bull to happen every time we let things go unchecked. Enough has been allowed to go unchecked

and all we have left is a pile of debt, that keeps on growing, and a very sick society. I'd say both will be in on the mix,

when the day comes.

 

And I'm not advocating a damned thing.

I'm not preaching to him.

 

Perhaps I'm oversensitive on the subject and maybe I'm 100% wrong in how I took his comments; if I am then I owe him an apology.

 

It's just than when someone starts quoting Mao I start wondering where they are really coming from philosophically and describing one's self as an "extreme libertarian" also gives me pause because while a libertarian and and anarchist are not the same thing, it can sometimes be difficult to tell one from the other. 

 

I doubt anyone here has been more vocal about our country's financial future than I have and it may be too late to stop the inevitable; but I'll continue to hope that we can stop it...I'll also continue to hope that even if we can't stop an economic collapse that we can still avoid a "mass use of force".

Edited December 16, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Guest 6.8 AR]

And if you don't learn from historical references like Mao's "barrel of a gun", one day we might be the ones staring

down that barrel. I'd say we have been staring down it, already, for far too long, but I didn't wish to provoke, nor did

sventvkg.

 

An "extreme libertarian" is just a libertarian. They aren't anarchists, but I know we will play the semantics game on

that. Around here, I haven't heard anyone claiming to be a libertarian who wishes for anarchy. Anarchy is usually on

the other side of the political spectrum. Someone on the order of Noam Chomsky is more of an anarchist, or Bill

Ayers, or Van Jones. I can't think of a way I would call them libertarians by any stretch of whatever you might choose.

Libertarians are mostly happy with the Constitution and no bastardization of it.

 

Now, if any of those types are around here, please point them out. That might be fun. :D

[Guest sventvkg]

If you've come here to preach armed rebellion I certainly do hope you are in the minority.

 

You may be "libertarian" but where you are heading is anarchy; that's a trip I won't take with you.

 

If you can't understand what I'm getting at than what can I say? I'm not PREACHING anything..I'm saying what's simply happening..It's not of my design.

[Guest sventvkg]

I'm not preaching to him.

 

Perhaps I'm oversensitive on the subject and maybe I'm 100% wrong in how I took his comments; if I am then I owe him an apology.

 

It's just than when someone starts quoting Mao I start wondering where they are really coming from philosophically and describing one's self as an "extreme libertarian" also gives me pause because while a libertarian and and anarchist are not the same thing, it can sometimes be difficult to tell one from the other. 

 

I doubt anyone here has been more vocal about our country's financial future than I have and it may be too late to stop the inevitable; but I'll continue to hope that we can stop it...I'll also continue to hope that even if we can't stop an economic collapse that we can still avoid a "mass use of force".

Do you understand what an Anarchist is. Anachism is EXTREME self sovereignty without a Government over them. It's not evil. It's just a philosophical belief system..Kind of like those that just want to be left alone to live life as they choose....I do not describe myself as Anarchist. I'm more of the Jeffersonian bent. 

[Guest sventvkg]

And if you don't learn from historical references like Mao's "barrel of a gun", one day we might be the ones staring

down that barrel. I'd say we have been staring down it, already, for far too long, but I didn't wish to provoke, nor did

sventvkg.

 

An "extreme libertarian" is just a libertarian. They aren't anarchists, but I know we will play the semantics game on

that. Around here, I haven't heard anyone claiming to be a libertarian who wishes for anarchy. Anarchy is usually on

the other side of the political spectrum. Someone on the order of Noam Chomsky is more of an anarchist, or Bill

Ayers, or Van Jones. I can't think of a way I would call them libertarians by any stretch of whatever you might choose.

Libertarians are mostly happy with the Constitution and no bastardization of it.

 

Now, if any of those types are around here, please point them out. That might be fun. :D

SPOT ON! ...AGAIN :)

[RobertNashville]

Do you understand what an Anarchist is. Anachism is EXTREME self sovereignty without a Government over them. It's not evil. It's just a philosophical belief system..Kind of like those that just want to be left alone to live life as they choose....I do not describe myself as Anarchist. I'm more of the Jeffersonian bent.

 

Yes, I do understand. But I didn't say you were an anarchist, I said that the path I believe you are on...that, based on what you have said in this and other threads, that anarchy is the destination of the path you are on and it is that destination I find dangerous. If my interpretation of what you have said/meant is wrong then it's wrong and I apologize. An internet forum is a very inadequate place for real understanding of what someone truly thinks or means to say.

 

 

 

And if you don't learn from historical references like Mao's "barrel of a gun", one day we might be the ones staring down that barrel. I'd say we have been staring down it, already, for far too long, but I didn't wish to provoke, nor did sventvkg. An "extreme libertarian" is just a libertarian. They aren't anarchists, but I know we will play the semantics game on that. Around here, I haven't heard anyone claiming to be a libertarian who wishes for anarchy. Anarchy is usually on the other side of the political spectrum. Someone on the order of Noam Chomsky is more of an anarchist, or Bill Ayers, or Van Jones. I can't think of a way I would call them libertarians by any stretch of whatever you might choose. Libertarians are mostly happy with the Constitution and no bastardization of it. Now, if any of those types are around here, please point them out. That might be fun. :D

 

I disagree (surprised aren't you?) An extreme libertarian is not just a libertarian...if so then wouldn't the embellishment be unnecessary?  ;)

 

It's been my experience and observation that those at the far end of the libertarian spectrum don't just want the constitution enforced; they want no rules at all of any kind or as he said above (i.e. left alone to live as they chose). The problem with no rules is that it will always lead to anarchy whether the "extreme libertarian" desires it or not. That is the danger of the philosophy and that is why, even though I lean that way, I’ll never actually embrace it. But hey, maybe I'm right and maybe not. ;)

Edited December 16, 2012 by RobertNashville

[hkusp40cal]

Personally I think NH does it the correct way.  When I got my NH permit when I was working on a contract up there the process was very simple.  Go to local LEO station.  Fill out form.  Turn in form.  I was called 3 days later to pick up the permit.  No picture, no finger prints.  They ran the standard background check and that was it.  Shame TN can't adopt something like that.

Oh yeah, process was $10.

Edited December 16, 2012 by hkusp40cal

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='hkusp40cal' timestamp='1355667363' post='861203']Personally I think NH does it the correct way. When I got my NH permit when I was working on a contract up there the process was very simple. Go to local LEO station. Fill out form. Turn in form. I was called 3 days later to pick up the permit. No picture, no finger prints. They ran the standard background check and that was it. Shame TN can't adopt something like that. Oh yeah, process was $10.[/quote]

Sounds like a cheap and easy process but if I understand New Hampshire's process correctly, it's a concealed permit only and only 19 states recognize their permit compared to open or concealed carry in Tennessee with 39 states that recognize our permit.

 

I know it doesn't matter to some but I don't want to trade 20 states I can legally carry in just to have an easier or less expensive process. I'd rather have my cake and eat it too (wide reciprocity and inexpensive/easy process) but if I have to chose, I'll take the wide reciprocity. ;)

Edited December 16, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Oh Shoot]

Sounds like a cheap and easy process but if I understand New Hampshire's process correctly, it's a concealed permit only and only 19 states recognize their permit compared to open or concealed carry in Tennessee with 39 states that recognize our permit.

 

22 vs our 38 (other states that recognize)

Edited December 16, 2012 by Oh Shoot

[Guest TNSovereignty]

How can any constitutionalist say that any state is 'doing it the right way' when they require a permission slip from the state to exercise a right?  None of the original states would have accepted the Constitution and approved federalism without those first 10 amendments.  The problem is that states no longer exercise their sovereignty, and citizens have devolved into contented & ignorant serfs, no longer equipped to hold their politicians accountable.  

 

How many here would celebrate if all we needed to attend religious services was to fill out a few forms and get register our names with a standard background check?

 

Seems we proverbial frogs are happy to sit in 210 degree water.

[RobertNashville]

22 vs our 38 (other states that recognize)

Yuup...I missed Alaska for sure and apparently one other.

 

Last time I looked at TN there were 39 but maybe I was including TN???

 

Anyway, 22 is still considerably less than 38. ;) and more important to me personally (not that that's important to anyone else) is that two of the states are states I regularly travel in!