Jumping Through Hoops in Tenneessee. This has to change

[Guest sventvkg]

Well I'm thinking the "Patriot Community" is so far ahead of the rest of us in our "analysis" because they've left logic and common sense completely out of their thought processes, leaving only hubris.

 

I wish I could predict the movements of my stock portfolio over the next 12 months as accurately as you purport to predict our history over the next 10 years. :shake:

Oh..and I when I say "Patriots" I mean Constitution, Founding Father loving, law abiding, red blooded American's. Not crazy Militia running around the woods. 

Edited December 19, 2012 by sventvkg

[RobertNashville]

Think what you want man..EVERYTHING I have seen coming down since 911 HAS. I have no reason to believe what I Said will not happen. Save my post and if we're still alive we can come back here and see how close or far away I was. :)

Why? If you are right it won't matter and no one will care...if you are wrong, again, no one will care.

[RobertNashville]

Oh..and I when I say "Patriots" I mean Constitution, Founding Father loving, law abiding, red blooded American's. Not crazy Militia running around the woods. 

And why did you feel the need to say so? Just the fact that you did says quite a bit. :dunno:

[Guest sventvkg]

And why did you feel the need to say so? Just the fact that you did says quite a bit. :dunno:

Because you were implying I'm affiliated with some patriot "group" Which are demonized by the criminal MSM and Govt. Thus painting me as some kook, "conspiacy theorist" I know the talking points and the game. What Govt. agency do you work for man? Because all i see from you on here are attacks against anyone who wants to stand up for our Rights. The more I read your Sparing, the more convinced I'm becoming that your an agent provocateur. Either way, I don't much like what you have to say, and i'm pretty much in direct opposition to your views..Which is fine. As long as you and yours don't tread on my rights i'll laugh at ya.  

 

Man, there's always some troll like you on forums who would never have the balls to say this stuff to a room full of us in real life. It's hilarious. I'll say everything I said to you right to your face..With a smile on my face. What a joke! You're a high speed low drag internet operator...Hooah!!!

Edited December 19, 2012 by sventvkg

[Pain103]

Man, there's always some troll like you on forums who would never have the balls to say this stuff to a room full of us in real life. It's hilarious. I'll say everything I said to you right to your face..With a smile on my face. What a joke! You're a high speed low drag internet operator...Hooah!!!

 

  You are a little extreme with your logic but it is yours to have. But name calling on the internet doesn't do anything but make you look bad.

[Dolomite_supafly]

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. :)

 The cost or value of the gun has zero to do with you being shot or not. It has to do with how safety minded the carrier is. If you are going to be shot by a cheap handgun because of negligence it would have happened with the most expensive handgun as well. In order for you to be shot a person has to point a gun at you and that is not a failure of the gun but a failure of the user. I guess all the unintentional shootings we hear about are the guns fault because it sure couldn't be the fault of a human being.

 

Just because someone can afford a gun doesn't mean they can afford the licensing to carry it. I have offered guns to people in need because they could not afford a gun. Those people sure couldn't afford the cost of training and licensing to carry a firearm. Then there is the wait time associated with getting approval to carry. If a person has a situation where they are in fear of something happening to them they should not have to wait until they can get trained and then get their permit back to be able to defend themselves. In those cases where the personis  in fear for their life they should be able to carry immediately without the need to be trained or licensed.

 

Personally it should not cost anybody anything to be able to carry within our state. There should be no requirements mandated and anyone who can own a firearm should be able to carry that firearm. Carrying a gun in our state should be the same as carrying a gun on your own property. Now if the person needs to travel outside of the state then that person should meet the requirements of the other state. If there are costs associated with the additional training then the individual should be pay those costs. 

 

And if the state wants to collect a "tax" on carrying a firearm then they should run it like a "tax" and base it upon income. Maybe .1% of the gross, not net, annual income reported on the income tax returns as "taxable amount". If they don't have any income then their permit is free because they have shown a hardship. This would mean that the average person in Tennessee would pay about 1/2 what they do now.

 

Dolomite

[TGO David]

sventvkg has been suspended from TGO for the next 30 days.  I highly suggest that he reads our Code of Conduct during his vacation from the forum and learns to debate issues rather than attacking people.  Name calling and insults will not be tolerated on TGO.

[RobertNashville]

 The cost or value of the gun has zero to do with you being shot or not. It has to do with how safety minded the carrier is. If you are going to be shot by a cheap handgun because of negligence it would have happened with the most expensive handgun as well. In order for you to be shot a person has to point a gun at you and that is not a failure of the gun but a failure of the user. I guess all the unintentional shootings we hear about are the guns fault because it sure couldn't be the fault of a human being.

 

Just because someone can afford a gun doesn't mean they can afford the licensing to carry it. I have offered guns to people in need because they could not afford a gun. Those people sure couldn't afford the cost of training and licensing to carry a firearm. Then there is the wait time associated with getting approval to carry. If a person has a situation where they are in fear of something happening to them they should not have to wait until they can get trained and then get their permit back to be able to defend themselves. In those cases where the personis  in fear for their life they should be able to carry immediately without the need to be trained or licensed.

 

Personally it should not cost anybody anything to be able to carry within our state. There should be no requirements mandated and anyone who can own a firearm should be able to carry that firearm. Carrying a gun in our state should be the same as carrying a gun on your own property. Now if the person needs to travel outside of the state then that person should meet the requirements of the other state. If there are costs associated with the additional training then the individual should be pay those costs. 

 

And if the state wants to collect a "tax" on carrying a firearm then they should run it like a "tax" and base it upon income. Maybe .1% of the gross, not net, annual income reported on the income tax returns as "taxable amount". If they don't have any income then their permit is free because they have shown a hardship. This would mean that the average person in Tennessee would pay about 1/2 what they do now.

 

Dolomite

I don't disagree.

 

All I'm saying is that I believe we have a pretty good HCP process here...it works, it's not perfect and it's expensive but it works and it allows us a lot of opportunity to carry in a lot of states that we would otherwise not be able to carry it.

 

As I said, it's expensive - a major part of the cost is the class. The trainers who conduct the classes (and I've seen them routinely for $60 which isn't exactly a huge sum) deserve to get paid for their time and the range get paid for use of their space...I don't want to see the class requirement go away because that class requirement is a primary reason we have reciprocity with so many states. So, if the class requirement doesn't go away that portion of the cost won't/can't either.

 

The remainder of the cost, while expensive, is also an unknown in terms of what it "should" cost.  While some have thrown out figures of what they think is should cost, no one here actually knows what it costs the state of Tennessee to process the permit but whatever it costs, the state that is what the person should have to pay.

What I don't want to see happen is a abandonment of the HCP process in favor of constitutional carry...I believe we can improve the HCP process with just a couple of small changes AND have constitutional carry so that everyone can be happy. :)

[Guest TNSovereignty]

What I don't want to see happen is a abandonment of the HCP process in favor of constitutional carry...I believe we can improve the HCP process with just a couple of small changes AND have constitutional carry so that everyone can be happy. :)

I was following you until the above comment.  Going back to the genesis of the thread, are you in agreement with the extant hurdles one must clear in order to lawfully carry?  

 

I think, but not sure, this is coming down to a libertarian vs statist debate.  Those who are inclined toward regulatory infringements on liberties may likely be persuaded to support legal restrictions on raw milk, restrictions on homeschooling, restrictions via excessive occupational licensing, restrictions on outhouses ... you name it.  I'm not going down a rabbit trail ... the statist thought process tends to see every area of life as an area to be regulated, licensed & taxed.  

 

Maybe an oversimplification but that seems to be the nub of the entire debate.  Also don't want to instigate a rural vs suburban/urban debate, but having lived a long time in both cultures it sure seems where one lives has an impact on how one thinks on these issues.  With the understanding that this is a generalization, rural folk have a far broader understanding of libertarian ideas than our friends in densely populated areas.  My rural neighbors would raise hell if someone told them they couldn't dig an outhouse, scoop gravel out of the creek on their property, or shoot a 'protected' hawk that's killing their chickens.  And I trust my rural neighbors (with an outhouse OR a gun) a lot more than I trusted many of suburban neighbors who worried more about their TV programming & lush lawn than their liberties.  

 

So how about require licensing for those who firmly believe ccw is a privilege (how about doubling their fees?!?) and leave the rest of us non-statists alone to exercise inalienable rights? :)

[battleop]

Far as the differences in permitting process;

TN requires an 8 hour safety class which normally costs 80-100 dollars. There's day one wasted.

Ga does not require this.

[battleop]

Far as the differences in permitting process;

TN requires an 8 hour safety class which normally costs 80-100 dollars. There's day one wasted.

Ga does not require this.

[battleop]

Far as the differences in permitting process;

TN requires an 8 hour safety class which normally costs 80-100 dollars. There's day one wasted.

Ga does not require this.

 

 

I took my class last spring in a class of 10-12 people.  Out of the 10-12 people in my class 5 had to rent a gun because they did not own one.  Of the 5 that did not own a gun 2 had shot less than 100 rounds in their life time and 1 had NEVER shot a gun before in their life.   The class seems to be a CYA to cover those people who really do not have any business carrying a firearm from a safety stand point.   

Edited December 19, 2012 by battleop

[RobertNashville]

I took my class last spring in a class of 10-12 people.  Out of the 10-12 people in my class 5 had to rent a gun because they did not own one.  Of the 5 that did not own a gun 2 had shot less than 100 rounds in their life time and 1 had NEVER shot a gun before in their life.   The class seems to be a CYA to cover those people who really do not have any business carrying a firearm from a safety stand point. 

CYA?  I think it's more than that...I think it's because legislators had some genuine (and I'd say legitimate concerns) about people who truly know little or nothing about firearms and really need a basic class on safety and how a firearm functions, etc. before they start carrying one every day. The class I took had one gentlemen in it that brought in a revolver that probably hadn't been touched in 40 years and it was LOADED and he didn't know or even know how to check...he was asked to come back another day and was allowed to rent a gun at no charge; I understand he did well in the later class.

 

One needs to keep in mind as well that in 1995 we were coming from a position where no civilian could legally carry in public. Going from 0 - 100 would never have happened; we had to go from 0-50 first. Now that we have 15+ years of history of things going well, we can move further to where we should be; Constitutional carry.

 

Edited December 19, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Oh Shoot]

The upside to TN's HCP process is that our permit is recognized in more states than any other, 39 right now (counting our own).

 

- OS

Edited December 19, 2012 by Oh Shoot

[battleop]

CYA as in the state covering their asses.  If some moron shoots their foot while trying to pull their gun out they can at least say "Well we tried to teach you a little bit about gun safety, moron."   Plus it makes it harder for the permit holder to claim that they were not aware of the carry laws.