TN Bill to remove restrictions on knife possession and carry

[Troutburger]

So my count has today as the 8-9 days? Should we expect that signature by Tuesday?

[Capbyrd]

Depending on if you count the 27th or not, its either Monday or Tuesday.  

[dcloudy777]

I figure he'll just let it pass without signature.

 

I don't like it, but to be honest in an election year it's the smart play for him.  :yuck:

[JAB]

You do realize that the tactic that you propose didn't work before. Bredesen (SP?) was re-elected how many times? Isn't doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different outcome a laymen's definition of crazy? Dr. Carson, (who has become one of the outspoken representatives for the Tea Party), recently said some stupid crap about gun rights too, you know?

 

Once, again...

 

...we saw more advances in laws regarding self defense and carry rights under a New Jersey Democrat governor (Bredesen) with unapologetically anti-gun Naifeh as Speaker of the House than we have seen under the "good Republican" triumvirate of Haslam, Harwell and Ramsey.  The Republicans rallied support in the last, few elections with the cry of, "Oh, my God!  The other side wants your guns and your only hope is to vote for us!  We will support and expand your rights!"  Well, no two ways about it, they lied.  The three of them even keep saying that they don't even want to deal with any such legislation.

 

So I fail to see how finally being 'rid' of Bredesen in exchange for Haslam helped us.  As I said, I don't care what 'team' they play for nor do I care what kind of campaign promises they spout.  I care about results and the results are that (iirc) Bredesen signed off on 'Castle Doctrine' based laws, didn't block state park carry and got over-ridden on 'guns where alcohol is served' while Haslam has been unsupportive of even removing knife restrictions and has supported opposition to state preemption on park carry all while the Republican leadership gutted and neutered the parking lot bill last year.  Further, there is little chance that a Republican supermajority would over-ride a Republican governor if he vetoes state preemption of park carry or any of the other bills.  So, why am I supposed to believe that we are better off with the Republicans in charge?

 

As for the Tea Party, it might have had potential as a force for individual rights when it first started.  Now, I fear, it has been infiltrated by the modern Republican (aka Big Business is God, screw everybody else) Party, RINO apologists and 'progressive' Republicans to the point that it really doesn't mean much of anything.

 

Oh, and there is another reason I think we might have been better of with 'the other guy'.  If we had a Dem as Governor then the Republican supermajority/house and senate leadership would have someone to fight against.  They would want to push things like gun bills so that, if he vetoed them, they could over-ride him.  It would be more political maneuvering and trying to cast him as a lame duck than any, real desire to expand our rights but if the end result were expanded rights then I would be okay with that.  As it is, the senate and house Republicans wouldn't want to rock the boat for a Republican governor so we get table scraps, at best.  I don't think it is ever a good thing when one party controls both of the legislative branches as well as the Governor's office (or the White House and federal legislative branches, for that matter.)

Edited April 4, 2014 by JAB

[JAB]

I figure he'll just let it pass without signature.

 

I don't like it, but to be honest in an election year it's the smart play for him.  :yuck:

 

As long as it passes, I don't care.  At this point, he has already shown his true colors and has lost my vote.

[Troutburger]

Once, again...

 

 

So I fail to see how finally being 'rid' of Bredesen in exchange for Haslam helped us.  

 

 

Politicians, like underwear should be changed as often as possible. Even if the clean pair is not your favorite brand, at least they are less likely to contain crap. 

[GKar]

Oh, and there is another reason I think we might have been better of with 'the other guy'.  If we had a Dem as Governor then the Republican supermajority/house and senate leadership would have someone to fight against.  They would want to push things like gun bills so that, if he vetoed them, they could over-ride him.  It would be more political maneuvering and trying to cast him as a lame duck than any, real desire to expand our rights but if the end result were expanded rights then I would be okay with that.  As it is, the senate and house Republicans wouldn't want to rock the boat for a Republican governor so we get table scraps, at best.  I don't think it is ever a good thing when one party controls both of the legislative branches as well as the Governor's office (or the White House and federal legislative branches, for that matter.)

 

Todays "R"s in leadership are a lot like a race driver that once drove for us.  As long as he was behind another driver, he was up on the wheel, spot on his marks, and getting absolutely the last ounce out of the equipment we'd given him that day/night.  But the moment he successfully made that pass, he went all to hell...missed his marks, over/under drove the corner, and in general did a danged good job of impersonating a monkey on a football.  I vividly remember one night watching him track down the leader late in the race, and thinking to myself "I sure hope he doesn't make this pass for the lead until the white flag lap, cause he can't lead worth a damn."  I hear that same thing in my head when I think of the current Republican "supermajority"...

Edited April 4, 2014 by GKar

[JAB]

Todays "R"s in leadership are a lot like a race driver that once drove for us.  As long as he was behind another driver, he was up on the wheel, spot on his marks, and getting absolutely the last ounce out of the equipment we'd given him that day/night.  But the moment he successfully made that pass, he went all to hell...missed his marks, over/under drove the corner, and in general did a danged good job of impersonating a monkey on a football.  I vividly remember one night watching him track down the leader late in the race, and thinking to myself "I sure hope he doesn't make this pass for the lead until the white flag lap, cause he can't lead worth a damn."  I hear that same thing in my head when I think of the current Republican "supermajority"...

 

I know nothing about racing but even I think this is a perfect analogy.  We no longer have statesmen upon whom we can count for leadership in either the Democrat or Republican parties.  Instead, what we have now in both of the major parties are nothing but politicians.  Politicians are useful tools, at best.  Republican politicians may be slightly more useful tools than Democrats, at least most of the time, but they are all still tools.  The best way to make use of those tools in order to get a job done seems to be to make sure they are pitted against the tools on the other side of the aisle.  Then they are all about 'proving' to the voter that they are on our side.  Give either side a comfortable margin of control (as in a supermajority and the governorship) and they don't feel they have to make any effort to prove anything.  Perhaps even worse, the crap that they might want to pass at the behest of whatever special interests they really serve can be whipped right through without hesitation.

 

And so you get Republican leadership that bows to the concerns of a few, big business interests and guts a bill that would protect an honest citizen's right to store their own, personal property (a gun) inside their own, personal property (a car) while on company property without fear of reprisal.  Then, you have a Republican governor voicing doubts about having law abiding citizens being legally allowed to carry whatever knife they want (because, let's face it, criminals do so, anyway.)  Finally, you have that same Republican governor speaking out in opposition to law abiding citizens - citizens who have had to submit to background checks and training requirements plus pay fees for a permit to exercise a 'right' - being able to carry a firearm on public property without worrying about whether or not this or that little berg has laws against doing so.  The Republican party makes the claim that they are the friend of the gun owner.  Huh.  With friends like that, who needs Democrats?

Edited April 4, 2014 by JAB

[Moped]

In it's present form, will this law allow the carrying of collapsible batons?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

[Capbyrd]

No. This bill only deals with knives and not impact weapons.

[Jamie Jackson]

In it's present form, will this law allow the carrying of collapsible batons?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

 

The current law on impact weapons requires a recognized training certification, such as ASP or Monadnock.

 

I keep a copy of the below in my wallet along with a copy of my certificate.

 

 

TN State Law: 39-17-1308

(9)  By any person possessing a club or baton who holds a certificate that the person has had training in the use of a club or baton for self-defense that is valid and issued by a certified person authorized to give training in the use of clubs or batons, and is not prohibited from purchasing a firearm under any local, state or federal laws;

[Moped]

Thanks guys!

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

[Jonnin]

heh, really, you gotta train to use a freaking CLUB?    Its like the first weapon invented.  You hit someone upside the head a few times, and they stop bothering you.  How hard is that?

[sigmtnman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM6OIlreneA

[hipower]

heh, really, you gotta train to use a freaking CLUB?    Its like the first weapon invented.  You hit someone upside the head a few times, and they stop bothering you.  How hard is that?

It is really pretty stupid. I mean, what's the difference between a baton and a bat besides the size.

[Oh Shoot]

It is really pretty stupid. I mean, what's the difference between a baton and a bat besides the size.

 

A bat is illegal too, if possessed with intent to go armed. Really, anything you can seriously injure a person with by striking them with it fits definition of "club" in TCA.

 

- OS

Edited April 5, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[enfield]

The purpose of the training is to teach you not to "hit someone upside the head a few times".  Batons can be deadly.

[sigmtnman]

The purpose of the training is to teach you not to "hit someone upside the head a few times".  ...

 

Limit of two?

[Jamie Jackson]

Limit of two?

 

LOL.

 

To a large degree it's liability and excessive use of force on the continuum. If lethal force is justified, it's justified.

Striking tools are a less than lethal, or less lethal option...ideally.

 

ASP and Monadok teach Red and Green zones...Green are a "go", Red are potentially lethal. Hence the requirement for certification.

 

My apologies for the thread drift.

 

 

 

edited for punctuation...

Edited April 6, 2014 by prag

[Guest gunlobbyist]

It is really pretty stupid. I mean, what's the difference between a baton and a bat besides the size.

 

The difference between a bat and a baton is two letters...O N. hahahaha sorry couldn't resist.  :rofl:

[sigmtnman]

bat-on the-head

[Guest tangojuliet]

So is the fight over did we win.........

[Ted S.]

So is the fight over did we win.........

 

should be one or two more days for him to sign or veto, if he doesn't, it should pass automatically.

[Ted S.]

Additionally, here is the link to the current status:

 

http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=SB1771

[JAB]

I know there has to be some 'common sense' self policing but does anyone know if, under the bill (and, hopefully, new law), there is a specific blade length or other criteria where a particular blade will no longer qualify as a 'knife'?  I'm not talking about carrying a two handed broadsword slung on my back while walking around Walmart.  Instead, I am thinking of more practical issues.

 

For instance, a machete is - technically - a large knife.  Further, I can see why some folks might want to have a machete in their vehicle as part of a get home or bug out kit (myself included.)  Being that there are various lengths and styles of machete blade, I wonder if there is some definite point at which a 'knife' becomes a 'sword' in the eyes of the law.  As with beds and bowls of porridge, I personally think that medium machetes would be preferable for such use as the short ones don't give enough 'reach' and the longest ones don't balance/control as well, for me.  Still, I wonder if even the medium length machetes might be considered 'beyond the pale' by LEO.  Heck, I could see that even some larger Bowie knives might be considered to be 'short swords'.

Edited April 7, 2014 by JAB