Tennesseeans (Veterans MUST READ) - New CC Law Amendment "Lifetime Carry"

[Guest Ghost Maker]

 

There is an amendment making its way through the State Government that would allow veterans with 20 years of service and permanently disabled veterans to receive a LIFETIME CARRY PERMIT. SB0956 is currently in the Finance Division of the state and has a tentative date of going into effective on 14 January 2014. Original date was July of 2013 but had to be delayed due to time requirements for state to implement. There is a one time fee of $200 to be issued the lifetime permit. PLEASE CONTACT YOUR TENNESSEE STATE SENATOR AND REPRESENTATIVE TO SUPPORT THIS BILL. This bill was introduced to forever link our Second Amendment Rights with the sacrifices of our veterans. Please throw your support behind this bill which is the only one of its kind for veterans in the U.S. that I know of. It was introduced by State Senator Randy McNally who has stepped up for not only our veterans but our Second Amendment Rights as well. If possible please send Sen. McNally an email thanking him for introducing this bill during a time our Second Amendment Rights are under attack. Thus far it has not received any Nay Votes. Hopefully other states will pick up on this as well.

Source:
Bill Summary

This bill specifies that, on or after July 1, 2013, any state handgun carry permit issued or renewed to one of the following persons would not expire or be subject to renewal during the lifetime of the permit holder as long as the holder's permit is not revoked:
(1) Any retired member of the United States military with 20 or more years of service as evidenced by such retirement status documentation as the commissioner of safety requires to prove eligibility; and
(2) Any disabled veteran who has any service-connected disability that is determined by the veterans' administration to constitute a permanent and total disability or for which the veteran receives a disability rating of 100 percent as evidenced by any official finding or rating as to disability by the United States veterans' administration.

Source: Judical Committee Voting

Bill Votes

SB0956 by McNally - S. JUD COMM.:
Recommended for passage w/amendments- refer to: S. FW&M Comm. 3/5/2013
Passed
Ayes.............................................. ..8
Noes.............................................. ..0

Senators voting aye were: Kelsey, Overbey, Campfield, Bell, Finney L, Gardenhire, Green, Stevens -- 8.

 

[RichardR]

Hey that's great! But what about the rest of us that served less than 20 years? or are not 100% disabled? or what about just ordinary average Joes that would rather not have to continually renew every few years?

Lifetime permits are a great idea, I have an Indiana lifetime permit, but jeesh they sure as heck kept the number of folks who would be eligable as limited as possible...

[Guest Ghost Maker]

I am hoping this opens the door up for a Lifetime Permit Amendment for others, but we have to start somewhere. It may be possible to suggest an amendment to it through Sen. McNally for all honorably discharged vets, but I don't know for sure. If it does get passed it can open the door up for a later amendment since they will already have implemented the necessary changes with the state. I looked on the states site and they projected it will increase revenues by the following: 

 

Increase State Revenue - Exceeds $850,000/FY13-14 Exceeds $255,000/FY14-15

 

Since this is a revenue machine for the state for the next few years it might not be bad to band together and increase support. We might even get it expanded to include ALL veterans.

[Dolomite_supafly]

I would have loved to retire at 20+ years but I couldn't. Service connected injuries forced me out at 10 years but the problem is the VA does not consider me 100% disabled. I have ran into this for several other programs the state offers. You must be a 20+ year veteran OR 100% disabled for all of them as well.

 

Dolomite

[RichardR]

That'd be great for us, but I'd really hate to see a "special privilaged class" created just because I'd benifit from it.

I'd like to see every law-abiding person share the same "right" to keep & bear arms as the 2nd intended.

[Guest Ghost Maker]

I agree. If they can expand this to all honorably discharged vets imagine the revenue increase the state could have and NOT raise taxes a single cent. Hope this is a step toward that when they see the financial increase they could receive.

[QuietDan]

The bill can certainly be a "Pathfinder" or a "Scout," opening up the idea of a lifetime permit that gradually applies to more and more folks. Half a loaf at a time.

[RichardR]

Or we could skip the permit process altogether & just pass a law making Constitutional carry the law of the land, those already prohibited from owning firearms would still be prohibited, but anyone who can lawfully own (keep) a firearm, also can lawfully carry (bear) them.

I can just imagine our founding fathers reaction to us having to first get the Crown's "permission" & then pay a "tax" prior to being able to excersize one of our Constitutional Rights!

I am not sure if they'd laugh or if they'd cry, but I'm fairly certain they'd get really pissed off after the initial shock wore off.

[Wheelgunner]

That'd be great for us, but I'd really hate to see a "special privilaged class" created just because I'd benifit from it.

I'd like to see every law-abiding person share the same "right" to keep & bear arms as the 2nd intended.

I like the sentiment behind this proposal, but I'm not convinced it would set a good precedent.  I'm already very uncomfortable with the State requiring us to pay a fee before we are allowed to exercise a right.  In fact, when you look at Article I, Section 26 of the Tennessee Constitution it seems clear that it does not allow such fees.  And that's without even touching the federal Constitution's 2A, which probably was intended to prohibit the rise of any kind of statist prerequisites for owning or bearing firearms.

 

Conceptually, recognizing different rights for different categories of citizens is so deeply flawed and so recently relevant that I'm somewhat astounded this bill was ever written.  The Jim Crow era is well within living memory.  Making veterans or firefighters or police officers or teachers members of a privileged class does not help the dilemma of logic: if we all have the same rights, why don't we all have the same rights?

 

Shake a veteran's hand.  Mow his yard for him.  Treat him to lunch.  Tell him you're proud of him - and not just on Veterans' Day.  But giving him a lifetime permit to do something he has a right to do in the first place?  To this veteran that smells like an effort to cast illegal restrictions of my rights in a better light.

[Guest Ghost Maker]

Considering that this legislation comes in during a time that our Second Amendment Rights are under attack I believe it says a lot. Also one needs to consider that this is not something that is going to restrict or deminish existing rights, only amending an existing law. In a perfect scenario would we need to require anyone to hold a permit...no. What this does is link the scarifice and service of veterans to the right they helped secure. I think it is a far cry from comparing this amendment, which expands law, to those of the Jim Crow laws that mandated RACIAL based segregation and inequality of rights. The blood I shed for this country is the same red color as the African American veteran that stood next to me. So to try and form any type of comparison of any kind is demeaning to each persons service. Does it create a priviledge class? No, I think it creates a method to RECOGNIZE the citizen soldier for their willingness to say "send me", instead of being part of a group that says "oh me too". I would like to see it expanded to incorporate all honorable discharged veterans but sometimes you have to crack the door, which I think this does.

Edited March 16, 2013 by Ghost Maker

[TMF]

Hmmm, not sure how I feel about this one.  As a veteran I don't believe there should be a distinction between myself and non-veteran citizens when it comes to rights.  The conflict exists for me since I don't believe carrying a firearm should be a privilage, I believe it should be a right.  However it isn't, so I guess any forward progress on making carry permits more accessible is a plus, although this would only apply to some.  The endstate should be constitutional carry though.

[RichardR]

But it is a Right, one that specifies ..."shall not be infringed".

However it has been infringed upon so much generation after generation under the spirit of compromise for the greater good that it has for all intents & purposes become a Privilage, one that is constantly under threat of complete removal, without even having so much as a Constutuional Convention as required by law to amend the Bill of Rights ... they have simply, purposefully & successfully have redefined the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights, as a Privilage & now wish to revoke that privilage.

But hey it's just words written on a piece of paper after all right? by a bunch of dead, slave plantation owning , rich white guys whose ancient ideals have absolutely no relevence in today's modern society ... right?

[RobertNashville]

Or we could skip the permit process altogether & just pass a law making Constitutional carry the law of the land, those already prohibited from owning firearms would still be prohibited, but anyone who can lawfully own (keep) a firearm, also can lawfully carry (bear) them.

I can just imagine our founding fathers reaction to us having to first get the Crown's "permission" & then pay a "tax" prior to being able to excersize one of our Constitutional Rights!

I am not sure if they'd laugh or if they'd cry, but I'm fairly certain they'd get really pissed off after the initial shock wore off.

The TFA is and has been working on that but you won't see it happen under the triumvirate of RINOs we currently have in charge.

[TMF]

Well, I also believe it is my right to grow a bunch of marijuana plants in my back yard and smoke its buds 'til the cows come home, but exercising that right will get me thrown in jail just as quick as carrying a firearm without a permit.  As far as I'm concerned folks have the right to own machineguns and artillery peices.

[RichardR]

I'd been down with owning a 155mm, definately some parts of Memphis I'd feel more comfortable traveling through towing one behind my truck.

[enfield]

Nope.

[Oh Shoot]

How does it work with folks who already have a permit? They have to pay $200, after already having initially  paid $115 plus however many  $50 renewals?

 

Assuming so, they wouldn't see any benefit until 16 years later, compared to the $50 renewal fee for each 4 years.

 

Seems an unnecessary and complicated "perk" to me. Like others, I'd like to see a more universal expansion of the "right" we have to pay for to exercise.

 

- OS

[Guest Ghost Maker]

My understanding is that you are correct on the $200. For those of you that have a permit already I guess you would have to make a decision on if it benefits you or not (depending on your case). I can see where it would be beneficial to troops coming back to Tennessee who either retired from the military OR were injured in combat and forced to retire young. In their situation it would be beneficial, kind of like purchasing the Sportsmans License to hunt when your young. There are a LOT of soldiers returning that have been injured and if they are in their mid-twenties on up to the 30's or so. Still, I look on it as a positive move in our state as opposed to some other states that seem to be grinding it out just to stay at their status quo.

Edited March 16, 2013 by Ghost Maker

[DWARREN123]

Why do we even have to have a permit? If you can buy it you should be able to carry it! Open or conceal.

[RobertNashville]

Why do we even have to have a permit? If you can buy it you should be able to carry it! Open or conceal.

Why?

 

Because good people who should have known better let these laws get put in place (a lot of it had to do with racism and wanting to keep firearms out of the hands of blacks).

That's why.

 

If you want it changed the only way for that to happen is to get involved.

[daddyo]

The intentions may be good on this, but to me it comes off as somewhat elitist. I can't get behind it, sorry.

Edited March 17, 2013 by daddyo

[DaveTN]

I am hoping this opens the door up for a Lifetime Permit Amendment for others, but we have to start somewhere.

Then let’s start here….

Or we could skip the permit process altogether & just pass a law making Constitutional carry the law of the land

 
I voluntarily answered my country’s call during the Vietnam War. I have two honorable discharges and served my country as a cop after I got out. I don’t think that gives me any state mandated special privileges and certainly not more gun rights that any citizen. I also don’t think that just because someone hung out for 20 years they get some special treatment that combat veterans don’t get. (I am not a military combat veteran)

I have an HCP because I am lucky enough to be able to afford it. I certainly wish all citizens of the state of Tennessee could enjoy their gun rights; and maybe someday they can.

If the state is going to start reducing the price of gun privileges; I would suggest they do it with those that can’t afford a permit.

[TMF]

The intentions may be good on this, but to me it comes off as somewhat elitist. I can't get behind it, sorry.

 

I agree with the sentiment here, but I look at this as incrementalism.  If we get a foot in the door to lifetime permits perhaps it'll make it that much easier to get a bill introduced for all of us.  Much like many of the other pro-carry laws that have been passed in the past few decades.  They started out small, and when folks took note that the world didn't end because ordinary people can carry guns, things opened up more for us.  The end state should be consititutional carry.  If we achieve that we have won a huge chunk of the fight.

[Worriedman]

 The end state should be consititutional carry.  If we achieve that we have won a huge chunk of the fight.

 Have to vote out Haslam, Harwell and Ramsey first, then get Bob Pope fired...

[Guest Sgt. Joe]

I would have loved to retire at 20+ years but I couldn't. Service connected injuries forced me out at 10 years but the problem is the VA does not consider me 100% disabled. I have ran into this for several other programs the state offers. You must be a 20+ year veteran OR 100% disabled for all of them as well.

 

Dolomite

Same problem here Brother, nearly sixteen years and then given no choice but to take a medical over service connected injuries, yet also not rated permanently at 100%. "Unfit for Service" is a hard pill to swallow after all those years but the Docs were right and I was wrong about my problems getting worse. As much as I would love to be somewhere still helping with the mission I know now that on my bad days that I could not be of much help and that simply isnt good enough. But boy I sure do still miss it.

 

At the same I pretty much agree with those who say that giving us Veterans any special status for something that was "not to be infringed" with to begin with just dont seem right, even though they are already infringing on that right. And if they are going to do something like that, IMO it should be ALL those with Honorable discharges. Still it would be giving us special status which just dont sit well with me.

 

I also think that these days with the technology that we have that it is a shame that they dont put legislation up for a non-binding electronic vote just to get a better idea of what "We the people" think about it before they do it. I dont think that the cost of doing something like that would be all that much and those without their own access could use the library or even a friends computer to voice their thoughts on the matter at hand. If I was an elected official I would indeed have such a function available on my website. Of course that is just one ole man's opinion on things.

 

As far as this opening a door or taking the first step I really dont know just what to think about that. But no worries there either as they have never been in the habit of asking little ole me before doing anything anyway.

 

On a nicer note, I did notice that my newly elected Senator (D) and a good friend and newly elected Senator (R) from an adjoining district both voted for this so far which I see as a good thing and hopefully the new way of working together rather than against each just other because of party loyalties. I know that thought my be akin to asking for world peace but at least we can hope.