TN nullification of Obamacare and all federal gun laws

[JayC]

Well in all fairness...  I spend most of my time working from my office at my home...  I have 1 employee and 1 part-time intern that regularly are over here working with me...  They were both required to get a HCP with 90 days of starting as an intern, or they would have lost their internship...  it's a very pro-firearm workplace...  I got my newest intern a holster for his new pocket pistol as a christmas present....  I don't frisk them everyday, but I suspect they're carrying everyday, and I would give them a hard time if they weren't :)  I'm very pro-2nd amendment, pro-carry....  

 

 

I'm involved in a total of 8 business here in Middle TN, none of them have a policy against having firearms...  while I don't know if any of the other employees carry or not, I suspect some do.  We're for sure not searching cars, and frankly other than not wanting employees to smoke or smell like smoke around customers you'd be hard pressed to find a more relaxed working environment.

 

So, my issue with the current parking lot bill, and more so with any extension to the bill doesn't come from an anti-gun or I don't trust the people I work with prospective...  it's based on my core principals that while I'm very pro-gun/pro-carry many other employers aren't.  I don't think the government should, or has the legal or moral authority to created protected classes of worker...  The idea of expanding this law violates every core conservative principal I ever learned....  it encourages bigger government, which IMHO is a very bad thing.

 

I hope you're successful in your new startup, the best thing I ever did in my life was becoming my own boss.  But, once you do start getting employees in short order I suspect you'll get sick and tired of some government official trying to tell you how best to run your business or manage the people you work for.  

 

The last thing I need is to fire somebody and they claim because I knew they had a permit was the reason I fired them.  And frankly if some crazy got hired and I became concerned about their carrying a firearm on the property...  my first reaction is going to be to fire them.  Because if I can't trust them with a gun in their car, I surely can't trust them with my money ;)

 

Number one, I don't work for you and I wouldn't. I'm in the process of trying to start up a business myself and if I am successful, I would allow guns in my employees locked vehicles in my parking lot. I would not want them to have to leave their CCW at home and possibly become a victim in their stops between work and home because of such an ignorant policy as you have. :up:

Yes there is a happy medium currently. We already have a parking lot bill and it allows us to store our weapons in our locked personal vehicles. We just need to fix it so that employers can't punish employees with legally owned and permitted CCW in their locked vehicles. :up:

You shouldn't have the authority to extend your property rights to folks front door, case closed.
If

 

[JayC]

There is no right to use my property...  I give you permission to use my property under conditions I set forth...  if you don't like the conditions go use somebody elses parking lot.

 

Again, nobody is denying any HCP holder their ability to carry a firearm...  a HCP holder is choosing to go unarmed instead of finding a different business to purchase stuff from, or work for...  it's their choice..  and by that mere fact, no rights are violated.

 

What right is more valuable to you guys?

The second amendment and being able to defend your life, or his property rights via his parking lot rules that disarms law abiding citizens with HCP's?

 

[JayC]

How do you explain Jefferson naming property as an inalienable right in the Declaration of Independence then?

 

Personal property and the freedom of even the lowest land owner to control his 'castle' has been around for hundreds of years...

 

Property rights are an inalienable right, there can be no question.

 

And while you want to talk about the taking clause, and you're right it's there...  every taking requires fair compensation...  here you want to take away part of my property rights and you're not even offering to pay me for the loss I suffer.

 

If you want to change tort law to state that denying a HCP holder the ability to carry automatically opens a business up to a suit...  I'll support that legislation 100%... sign me up.

 

I can make a moral and logical argument in support of a property owner taking responsibility for protecting his guests when they take the active setup of disarming those guests.

 

But, the truth is if an employee gets killed in a robbery, I can tell you from previous experience in my family that you're going to pay a large settlement already without changing any tort laws.

 

It's history and law that separates them and history shows that "property rights" and unalienable rights such as the right to bear arms or of free speech are not equal and never have been treated as equal; that is especially true of property used for business.

 

The only time it is reasonable for an person to give up a natural right (especially one actually protected by the constitution) as a condition of employment is if his exercising that right causes harm or would cause harm to the employer/business requiring it.

 

If you want to talk about being responsible enough to take responsibility for your actions and if you want to equate property rights and the RTKABA then any property owner that asserts its "property rights" as a basis for forbidding a person arms to provide for his own security and safety should then at least be responsible for their actions enough to be held 100% responsible (criminally and civilly) for that person's safety and security. However, these property owners want it both ways...they want to forbid citizens to be armed and they want no responsibility for the possible consequences. There is no logic that can support that hypocritical position.

 

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I believe they have everything to do with each other, because without the second amendment, there would be no carry permits and no guns for civilians.

It's just over time, our 2A rights have been reduced, restricted, etc., and we're just now making baby steps to getting them back. The AWB expired and the last attempt to renew it failed, we now have a system that allows us to easily get a HCP to conceal carry a gun, and also at least to the point of a parking lot on private property, etc.

If you guys all worried about your property rights and imposing your rules on folks would stop arguing against it and funneling your business dollars in to stopping it, maybe we could make some real progress and have the ability to carry and defend our lives everywhere we go instead of having stupid gun free zones all over the place.

And it pisses me off I have to walk up, look for gun buster signs, etc., go back to my car and disarm. Because not only is it a hassle and almost a form of harassment by the liberal owned businesses, but it leaves me defenseless as well as the possibility of a criminal breaking in to my car and getting himself armed. I don't want to be arming criminals because businesses want me to disarm on their property.

Just think if any of the private businesses that are gun free zones where some of the recent mass killers and terrorists went on shooting rampages, had allowed law abiding permitted citizens to carry. Do you think it might have changed the body count?

Just think if one of you business owners and private property rights folks went to someone else's business where you have to disarm and you, your wife or kid(s) got shot and killed by a criminal. How would you feel about property rights, gun free zones, and the business that forced you to disarm then?

Dave is right about the right vs privilege argument. If there was no 2nd Amendment there would be a need for an HCP. Not saying there can't be

an HCP and the 2nd Amendment but the need isn't there with the Amendment. The Amendment is the law.

 

It pisses me off about those signs, too,  but I just go elsewhere. Who are you to go around telling anyone what they can or can't do on their

own property? You have the right to be free. I have the right to be free from you, also. Ever heard that? With rights come responsibilities. It

isn't your responsibility to tell someone else how they are to act unless they grant you that.

 

Rights, privileges, responsibilities. Boy, some of you don't understand the first thing about them. They cut both ways. That's why they are

worth fighting for, not arguing over self interest.

 

And, for the record, I recognize all of the Constitution, just as I recognize my inalienable rights. I try not to triage my way through them.

The only difference JayC and I could have is property rights being inalienable, but it would over semantics, nothing else.

[JohnC]

Well, I've wasted enough time on this one. Time to let you guys have it. I enjoyed the debate, fellas! :up:

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Your time is not wasted. It was invested in a discussion.

[Guest theconstitutionrocks]

I saw this too...sent an email to the entire senate judiciary committee asking for it to be sent to the full senate for a vote. While I don't necessarily see this as being a tool to eliminate the NFA, I do see it as a method to prevent further erosion of the 2A. We saw the federal effort January last year as well as places like NY and CT. I think the idea is to tell the feds to go piss in the wind if they try that nationwide.

     As far as protections and enforcement of this law, the opponents like to crow about it being illegal (federal trumps state yada yada yada), well the 2A is clear, the common law english definition of arms is straight forward, American Jurisprudence 2nd edition sections 177 and 256 gut the position of the opponents, and Article 6, clause 2 ties it all together. I think Mae got it right.  

     This CAN be done in this state, it simply requires the state having the balls to tell the feds, you try that here, and we are going to arrest and prosecute you....I mean really...when it comes down to it...what can the feds really do? They have to have a place to stage, they need infrastructure support, the state can control the road networks and airspace...if the "offender" lives in the middle of the state, how do the feds get in and out? They can't even begin to address pot use in Colorado and Washington, what makes them think they can address weapons here?

[DaveTN]

I believe they have everything to do with each other, because without the second amendment, there would be no carry permits and no guns for civilians.

Are you serious? So you think the only reason we are allowed to carry guns is because of the 2nd amendment? If that is so, why don’t all citizens of the state get to carry, or citizens of other states?

I have been fighting this fight for over 40 years. I have even been jailed over it. So I am absolutely sure that just because I have a bought a privilege from the state that in no way shape or form equals a right.

As I’ve said many times before I believe I have a right to carry, but I don’t hang that right on a dog like the 2nd amendment. The state does not recognize the 2nd amendment, most other states do not either and the Feds clearly do not. So if it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling to claim 2nd amendment rights that you clearly do not have; go for it. The 2nd amendment implies power that Federal government clearly does not have the power to enforce. States’ Rights dictate gun laws and they have since the civil war.

You don’t think our legislators deserve the acknowledgement that it is because of them you can carry? They are also the only ones that can acknowledge Constitutional Carry and I think it’s time we find out where they stand.

 

If you guys all worried about your property rights and imposing your rules on folks would stop arguing against it and funneling your business dollars in to stopping it, maybe we could make some real progress and have the ability to carry and defend our lives everywhere we go instead of having stupid gun free zones all over the place.

If it’s easy for you to discount my stand by thinking I’m a business owner or that I believe property rights trump 2nd amendment; neither is true. I’m fighting for our state to acknowledge the 2nd amendment as a right for all citizens. You keep making noise about rights. You appear to think that card you bought gives you some special rights; you are wrong. And yes, I have an HCP it appears that someone thinks if you are against a thug government you don’t have an HCP. I’ll show it to anyone. I just think it makes me special.

I remember the times when there has been discussion on here about cops being a special group and about how they shouldn’t have any special privileges when they are off duty. Yet some think HCP holders get to trump the property rights of citizens.

I’m not okay with the government violating someone’s property rights over carrying a gun.” If you pay us its okay, if you don’t carrying is a criminal act. We don’t want you carrying on our property; we don’t think you are qualified. However, we think we will make your employer knuckle under and allow you to have a gun on his property.” How can anyone think that’s okay?

So keep taking those baby steps; I’m going for the win. You may be right though about it being a waste of time. I don’t even know why I’ve spent the time to discuss this parking lot issue. It’s probably impacted zero people; while a lot of people have been arrested for no crime other than having a gun in their car.

If it’s a right it’s a right for all the people. You can’t buy rights.


 

And it pisses me off I have to walk up, look for gun buster signs, etc., go back to my car and disarm. Because not only is it a hassle and almost a form of harassment by the liberal owned businesses, but it leaves me defenseless as well as the possibility of a criminal breaking in to my car and getting himself armed. I don't want to be arming criminals because businesses want me to disarm on their property.

Then don't do it.

 

Just think if any of the private businesses that are gun free zones where some of the recent mass killers and terrorists went on shooting rampages, had allowed law abiding permitted citizens to carry. Do you think it might have changed the body count?

Just think if one of you business owners and private property rights folks went to someone else's business where you have to disarm and you, your wife or kid(s) got shot and killed by a criminal. How would you feel about property rights, gun free zones, and the business that forced you to disarm then?

A business can't force you to disarm.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I saw this too...sent an email to the entire senate judiciary committee asking for it to be sent to the full senate for a vote. While I don't necessarily see this as being a tool to eliminate the NFA, I do see it as a method to prevent further erosion of the 2A. We saw the federal effort January last year as well as places like NY and CT. I think the idea is to tell the feds to go piss in the wind if they try that nationwide.

     As far as protections and enforcement of this law, the opponents like to crow about it being illegal (federal trumps state yada yada yada), well the 2A is clear, the common law english definition of arms is straight forward, American Jurisprudence 2nd edition sections 177 and 256 gut the position of the opponents, and Article 6, clause 2 ties it all together. I think Mae got it right.  

     This CAN be done in this state, it simply requires the state having the balls to tell the feds, you try that here, and we are going to arrest and prosecute you....I mean really...when it comes down to it...what can the feds really do? They have to have a place to stage, they need infrastructure support, the state can control the road networks and airspace...if the "offender" lives in the middle of the state, how do the feds get in and out? They can't even begin to address pot use in Colorado and Washington, what makes them think they can address weapons here?

There are too many, even in the gun community, who don't wish to see the NFA go away. when an M16 goes for $20K on a transfer

nowadays you may see why. They are even willing to wait a year to get their hands on it when the stamp arrives. Not all of those

people are like that, but enough. Realizing that it is a registry, and a registry is what the liberals want, I fail to see why the remainder

doesn't get it.

The odds of overturning the NFA are bad. A fight that would matter would be CC, but the moons would have to align. Lot of work to do.

Sure, it could be done in this state, but a lot more legislators need to be unbrainwashed, first. Ask Worriedman.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It all goes back to wherever that civil society went. Someone gave up our rights while we weren't paying attention. Bad law equals

a bad consequence.

 

One of these days...

[RobertNashville]

How do you explain Jefferson naming property as an inalienable right in the Declaration of Independence then?

 

Personal property and the freedom of even the lowest land owner to control his 'castle' has been around for hundreds of years...

 

Property rights are an inalienable right, there can be no question.

 

And while you want to talk about the taking clause, and you're right it's there...  every taking requires fair compensation...  here you want to take away part of my property rights and you're not even offering to pay me for the loss I suffer.

 

If you want to change tort law to state that denying a HCP holder the ability to carry automatically opens a business up to a suit...  I'll support that legislation 100%... sign me up.

 

I can make a moral and logical argument in support of a property owner taking responsibility for protecting his guests when they take the active setup of disarming those guests.

 

But, the truth is if an employee gets killed in a robbery, I can tell you from previous experience in my family that you're going to pay a large settlement already without changing any tort laws.

There may not be a "question" as far a you are concerned but my study of history surrounding property rights/law shows the that property rights and rights such as free speech or the right to arms have never been treated as equal and that business property has been subject to government regulations for almost as long as the country has been a country.  You can claim it shouldn't be that way if you wish but wishes won't change history.

 

And more important for today, the courts have already decided that these laws do not violate the 5th...businesses have brought suit and made those arguments and those arguments failed in the courts because the businesses that brought suite could not show how their property has been taken or their use of the property infringed.

 

Other than in their own minds, the state declaring that business property cannot forbid legally armed citizens from being armed does not violate the businesses rights and until a federal appeals court has an dissenting opinion or SCOTUS says otherwise and then the mantra of "property rights" is moot.

 

I'm not saying that "property rights" are not important because they ARE important. But I am saying that rights of property owners to own and use their property for private purposes are and should be and always have been afforded more protection than property used for business purposes - society (in the form of government) has the power, the legal authority and the obligation to regulate such property with the best interests of society in mind. To that end, if an armed citizenry is important to and in the best interests of society and the individual (and I believe it is) then government has an obligation to require business and public property to allow legally armed citizens on/in their property especially when such a requirement has little or not demonstrable impact/infringement on the rights of the property owner.  If any business can show me actual, quantifiable harm from being required to allow its employees/customers to be armed then I would come down squarely on the side of the business property owner but so far, not a single business has been able to do that.

Edited January 23, 2014 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

I hope this catches on...

 

Business with ‘gun-free zone’ signs may be tagged with legal liability

 

 

 

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/01/14/business-with-gun-free-zone-signs-may-be-tagged-with-legal-liability-94257

[RobertNashville]

Are you serious? So you think the only reason we are allowed to carry guns is because of the 2nd amendment? If that is so, why don’t all citizens of the state get to carry, or citizens of other states?

You don’t think our legislators deserve the acknowledgement that it is because of them you can carry? They are also the only ones that can acknowledge Constitutional Carry and I think it’s time we find out where they stand.

So keep taking those baby steps; I’m going for the win.

We have the right from our creator to arms to defend ourselves from tyranny whether it be tyranny from government or from an individual and we have that right whether any government recognizes it or not.

 

Only "some" get to carry in Tennessee, and many other states, mostly because of racism - the desire by certain white men to keep arms out of the hands of certain people with the wrong skin tone...it has taken a long time to start the pendulum swinging back in the correct direction but is is swinging.

 

If you are dissatisfied with the "speed" of the swing...with those "baby steps" you keep deriding then start spending your days knocking on the doors of and calling, emailing, writhing to our legislators in both houses (if you are already dong that, great...thanks for the effort).

[Guest 6.8 AR]

"We have the right from our creator to arms to defend ourselves from tyranny whether it be tyranny from government or from an individual and we have that right whether any government recognizes it or not."

 

That's just not true, Robert. You have a right from your Creator to defend yourself from harm. That right was also confirmed by the

Constitution to include keeping and bearing arms to protect yourself from tyranny. There is a difference. Nowhere in the 2nd does

it say you should be able to interfere with someone at their business by wearing that weapon. Passing a law that places a burden

on someone, other than yourself, to allow you to invade their space is not a just law. I sincerely doubt the Creator is on your side

with that argument.

 

It's not that I am against a parking lot bill, because I think if we have to make a law to do that, we have gone awry somewhere else.

But I see the need in the parking lot bill because there is so much confusion with the other laws we have clouding the matter.

 

What does racism have to do with this? What are you talking about?

 

DaveTN isn't deriding anything. He sees it from a different perspective than yours, all I can see.

 

A gun is a tool. We get into the same trap every time when we legislate the tool and not the criminal.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I hope this catches on...

 

Business with ‘gun-free zone’ signs may be tagged with legal liability

 

 

 

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/01/14/business-with-gun-free-zone-signs-may-be-tagged-with-legal-liability-94257

I don't disagree with that, at all. I think there is already some liability towards the owner, but that's it. Codifying everything doesn't

correct the problem, just makes another law to trap someone else in.

 

How many more laws are we going to need to create Utopia?

[RobertNashville]

"We have the right from our creator to arms to defend ourselves from tyranny whether it be tyranny from government or from an individual and we have that right whether any government recognizes it or not."

 

That's just not true, Robert. You have a right from your Creator to defend yourself from harm. That right was also confirmed by the

Constitution to include keeping and bearing arms to protect yourself from tyranny. There is a difference. Nowhere in the 2nd does

it say you should be able to interfere with someone at their business by wearing that weapon. Passing a law that places a burden

on someone, other than yourself, to allow you to invade their space is not a just law. I sincerely doubt the Creator is on your side

with that argument.

 

It's not that I am against a parking lot bill, because I think if we have to make a law to do that, we have gone awry somewhere else.

But I see the need in the parking lot bill because there is so much confusion with the other laws we have clouding the matter.

 

What does racism have to do with this? What are you talking about?

 

DaveTN isn't deriding anything. He sees it from a different perspective than yours, all I can see.

 

A gun is a tool. We get into the same trap every time when we legislate the tool and not the criminal.

Scorn, contempt, scoff, jeer, mock...pick any word you want...do I really need to quote his many posts in just in this thread where he has done all of those in referencing the "baby steps" we've been taking?

 

If you read the post I was replying to, Dave was bemoaning the fact that no all Tennessians's get to carry now (i.e we don't have constitutional carry)...I was pointing out that most of the laws against civilian carry stem from racism; white men didn't want black men to be armed so that passed these laws and very selectively enforced them...I don't know how to make it any more clear than that.

 

I simply don't buy this mantra that anyone's business is being interfered with; it's not enough to just claims that it is. If there were actual interference then these businesses wouldn't have so much trouble articulating and quantifying that alleged interference.

Edited January 23, 2014 by RobertNashville

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Maybe some of the laws from hundreds of years ago stemmed from what you call racism, but the laws currently have nothing to

do with what I'd call racist. Well, I think that's an overused word, anyway.

 

What maybe used to be isn't the case now. Please don't throw Jim Crow into this. That is one of the most misunderstood crap around

that liberals love to use to play the race card.

 

This is really about the parking lot bill. Is it racist to be for or against it? I'm confused.

 

DaveTN is speaking his mind about one thing and you are speaking in circles with this racism crap. I'm still confused.

 

 

Worriedman wants to try to get a fix with the only tools present. I agree with him, especially since he knows what can and can't

happen with the state legislature. I applaud that, and it may the only fix. I just wish to see less laws that come back to bite people

down the road. They always seem to do that.

[Worriedman]

You don’t think our legislators deserve the acknowledgement that it is because of them you can carry? They are also the only ones that can acknowledge Constitutional Carry and I think it’s time we find out where they stand.

Well here is your chance.  HB 1885 by Dennis is the first attempt I have seen to bring about Constitutional Carry.  (Of course I really believe it is merely an attempt to appear in favor of such a thing, as there is no Senate Sponsor for it, but that is neither here nor there for this discussion). Write all the legislators in the State and see where they stand on this issue.  I can provide you with video of the Governor stating he will sign it if it makes it to his desk (chuckle).  Let's see where the Caucus stands, a Super-majority exist in the House, Senate and they hold the mansion, they can have this done in two weeks.

[Worriedman]

Maybe some of the laws from hundreds of years ago stemmed from what you call racism, but the laws currently have nothing to

do with what I'd call racist. Well, I think that's an overused word, anyway.

 

What maybe used to be isn't the case now. Please don't throw Jim Crow into this. That is one of the most misunderstood crap around

that liberals love to use to play the race card.

 

6.8, bad as I hate to say this, you are pretty far off base with that ascertation. 

Until 1870, the Constitution of Tennessee related to the ability to bear arms read thus:
 

1796 version. Article 11 Section 26  "That the free men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence."
 

1835 version Article 1 Section 26 "That the free white men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence."

 

The 1870 version of our Constitution (put in place by the then Democrats) changed the location and intent of the Article dealing with Rights to keep and bear arms to:

“That the citizens of this state have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.” and has remained thus since that time. 

In accordance with this change in the wording and intent of the clause, the TCA included for the first time the "intent to go armed" clause.  Both modifications were in fact, "Jim Crow" style changes to prevent the freed black slaves from having the ability to carry arms.  Never before had the legislature been invested with the power to regulate where a citizen could carry arms, and the carrying of a "club" was not a crime prior to this.

Andrews v. State challenged the fledgling new arrangement, and the Supreme Court of TN found in favor of the Citizen's individual Right to keep and carry arms, chiding the legislature to hold to its charge of requiring a law regulating the wearing of arms (note, there is no prescription in the document giving the legislature power to regulate the keeping of arms, ONLY the wearing of them) and citing that "Any such enactment, however, “must be guided by, and restrained to this end, and bear some well defined relation to the prevention of crime, or else it is unauthorized by this clause of the Constitution." (Article 1 section 26), however, "Good Old Boyism" ruled for a long time in TN, if in fact it has ever gone out of style...

From 1871 to 1989, Tennessee was a limited “open carry” state, limited to “army or navy” pistols but only if such pistols were carried openly in the hand, no holsters and no concealment for the average Citizen.  Becoming a special deputy or receiving a special police commission (these were costly in dollars and political capital as well) was the only method to carry a handgun that did not fit the “army or navy” designation. These commissions were also necessary if the individual wanted to carry the weapon concealed or holstered, and these were normally not recognized outside of the County of issue.

In 1989, "May issue" permits were allowed via the legislature under the authority of County Sheriffs, the law did not require that Sheriffs issue civilian permit, it did however allow for that possibility.

That changed in 1994, the "Shall issue" permit law was passed in 1994 ("the sheriff may issue such a permit..." to "The sheriff shall issue such a permit...").

In 1996, the change from Sheriff's Department authority to Department of Safety occurred, very akin to what we have now, standardizing  the process, and removing as much colloquial control as possible.

The change to the structure of carrying arms was agreed upon by the Citizens, they ratified the changes to the Constitution in 1870, with a wink and a nod they accepted giving the legislature the power to control the carrying of arms. That power morphed into control of what once was a Right and is now (and I must agree with DaveTN here) a purchased privilege, and as always, it matters who governs, they have your Rights in their possession.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I wasn't arguing that it wasn't the case, but that it isn't the case now. Is it? This isn't a fight about racism, Robert wanted one to think.

What does that have to do with any legislation going anywhere today? A parking lot bill is good for blacks and whites. I haven't

heard of any carry permits being stopped due to race.  All that did was derail the thread. It makes no matter what was once.

Edited January 23, 2014 by 6.8 AR

[Worriedman]

I wasn't arguing that it wasn't the case, but that it isn't the case now. Is it? This isn't a fight about racism, Robert wanted one to think.

No, it is not now, but, the whole thing was begun that way. 

 

It is simply a case now of legislators not wanting to relinquish control over anyone, (race, gender etc be damned, all are to be put under the thumb, the 132 vs. US), as their control has value (which can be haggled with lobbyist)...all the times I have discussed firearms issues with the legislators, the question of whether an act will reduce crime is NEVER discussed from their viewpoint, and it is the only thing that should matter.

Edited January 23, 2014 by Worriedman

[Guest 6.8 AR]

And that is more of a problem than the other issue. Others might not see it like that, but it is a problem.

[Worriedman]

There my friend we agree wholeheartedly.

[RobertNashville]

I wasn't arguing that it wasn't the case, but that it isn't the case now. Is it? This isn't a fight about racism, Robert wanted one to think.

What does that have to do with any legislation going anywhere today? A parking lot bill is good for blacks and whites. I haven't

heard of any carry permits being stopped due to race.  All that did was derail the thread. It makes no matter what was once.

I don't know why what I though were simple comments are such a problem. As far as my comments drealing the thread this thread was derailed a long time ago; most of the pages of posts here have nothing to do with the original topic.

 

DaveTn, whom I was replying to, has been complaining in this and other threads about the fact that we don't have constitutional carry in Tennessee and that we have to pay for the little plastic card, etc...all I was pointing out, it what I intended to be just rather "side comments" to the whole issue and certainly not intending them to become a big deal, was that we did once have what is now called "constitutional carry" and that the only real reason we don't have it now is because of the racist laws, still in effect today, that were put in place to keep blacks from being able to legally carry arms...I'm suggesting that had it not been for them all this consternation about not having constitutional carry would likely be moot.

 

If that's still unclear or you think that derailed the thread I'm sorry about that.  :shrug:

Edited January 23, 2014 by RobertNashville

[Garufa]

DaveTn, whom I was replying to, has been complaining in this and other threads about the fact that we don't have constitutional carry in Tennessee and that we have to pay for the little plastic card, etc...all I was pointing out, it what I intended to be just rather "side comments" to the whole issue and certainly not intending them to become a big deal, was that we did once have what is now called "constitutional carry" and that the only real reason we don't have it now is because of the racist laws, still in effect today, that were put in place to keep blacks from being able to legally carry arms...I'm suggesting that had it not been for them all this consternation about not having constitutional carry would likely be moot.

 

I would love to hear more about that.  What exactly is the history of Tennessee gun laws?