HB 1885 (DaveTN- Look inside)

[Oh Shoot]

Yes.
Why do you call it “Out of the blue”? It isn’t any more out of the blue than any other legislation. It is the next logical step for this state. There are no more “baby steps” left. All the baby steps have been taken. It’s time to put on the big boy pants and step up to the full meal deal.

 

Well, actually, if it happened ala a bill like this, I guess it would be the "equivalent" of constitutional carry, since the constitution would have to be changed to really call it that.

 

However, if you look back over the history of gun carry legislation in TN, it has always taken concerted effort for several years to get any of it passed, and then usually a fixit bill or two afterwards. Happened with the carry permit itself, the "guns in bars" thang, parks, the parking lot thang, now parks again,  etc.

 

And this would be the biggest one of all; really unrealistic to think it could be pulled off yes "out of the blue".

 

- OS

Edited February 16, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Worriedman]

The most negative comments I see are from those that are supposed to be pro-gun and pro-carry. Comments on why this won’t pass or why we can’t get this through.

You are from TFA and it is my understanding you is a lobbyist. The TFA wants money; for what? For someone to come in here and tell us why this can’t pass?

I apologize if I don’t understand the politics in play here, but are you saying we are wasting our time trying to get carry passed for all citizens?

Sorry if I sound harsh, but I am not accepting that this legislation can’t pass. I don’t care how it got there, and for you to make the claim that it was proposed by at risk candidate who won by 4 votes sucks. Tell us what we need to do to make this happen.

I am not a lobbyist, I am a concrete finisher that will get off my hinney and go talk to the legislators on their turf in Nashville, using all my vacation each year to do so.

 

We (the TFA) have a PAC, with all the legal headaches and troubles that entails, most of the money for that comes from a few people who donate regularly, as they understand that money talks and BS walks.  We do not "lobby", we do donate to legislators who support our agenda.  The Board Members and activist who go to the legislature to advocate on our behalf do so on their own dime, nobody pays for my gas or time, we do not draw a salary, get mileage or meals paid for.  Every dime coming in goes for printed materials, postage or donations to candidates.

You want this to pass, call Haslam, Ramsey and Harwell and get them to go along, they tell the rest what to do and what will be allowed. Leadership decides what gets out of committee and onto the floor, if they do not approve of an initiative, it goes nowhere.

 

This bill has not been "put on notice" in other words, Dennis is not trying to move it forward.  You want to know who in the House will control it, outside of Harwell, (who has never voted for a '2nd Amendment" issue, ever) try Civil Justice Chairman Jim Coley, renowned killer of gun bills, (remember his murder of Campus Carry) see what his take on it is.  Pressure him to put it up for consideration.

 

Edited February 16, 2014 by Worriedman

[Worriedman]

To whom do we actually need to give the Maggart treatment to the next election cycle? (My vote is for Ramsey)

 

There was lots of back patting after Maggart was shown the door with help from the entire state and there is lots of talk about the message it sent. Well, the real message is that it was a fluke unless it can be done again as many times as needed, every time it is needed. 

Well, get you some Ramsey!  I will be on that team, but, you might want to check and see where his PAC is at dollar wise.  He has the backing of Big Business and nobody is going to challenge him in his home district, but by all means form a group, announce your intentions and we will see how that goes.

 

My vote is Vance Dennis, he is low hanging fruit that can be taken.  Those who have watched the actual machinations of the legislature will know that he is Establishment through and through, and is no supporter of firearms Rights.

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="Worriedman" post="1112047" timestamp="1392577572"]Well, get you some Ramsey! I will be on that team, but, you might want to check and see where his PAC is at dollar wise. He has the backing of Big Business and nobody is going to challenge him in his home district, but by all means form a group, announce your intentions and we will see how that goes. My vote is Vance Dennis, he is low hanging fruit that can be taken. Those who have watched the actual machinations of the legislature will know that he is Establishment through and through, and is no supporter of firearms Rights.[/quote] When I tell them that I think the citizenry would be morally correct by shooting the lot of them, I doubt they will want to hear anything else I have to say. :lol:

[Guest TIMBER]

Mark@Sea, good job! For what it's worth, HB1480 is the one Campfied is co-sponsoring I think. Regardless, we need this. It's kinda silly though, because our State Constitution ALREADY provides this. The two case law examples indicates the weapons must be militarily useful. That's the only exceptions. Thanks to all of yall. I share the same passion on this very important issue.

[Oh Shoot]

.... It's kinda silly though, because our State Constitution ALREADY provides this. The two case law examples indicates the weapons must be militarily useful. That's the only exceptions. ...

 

I for one would appreciate a bit of elaboration on that ?

 

TIA,

 

- OS

[Guest TIMBER]

Oh Shoot
In Andrews v. State, the court concluded that Tennessee citizens have the right to keep military-type weapons,& to practice, repair & transport these weapons. The weapon in question was a repeating pistol; which the court said was military equipment. I'm not a lawyer or legal scholar by any means. I am literally a "simple man, tryin to make my way". This info comes from THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS UNDER THE TENNESSEE
CONSTITUTION: A CASE STUDY IN CIVIC REPUBLICAN THOUGHT by Glenn Harlan Reynolds. I recommend this essay to everyone on this sight.

[Guest mds3d]

TIMBER: I think that it is important that "Keep, practice, repair, and transport" excludes the use where our laws act.  "Carrying with the intent to go armed"

[Worriedman]

TIMBER: I think that it is important that "Keep, practice, repair, and transport" excludes the use where our laws act.  "Carrying with the intent to go armed"

Yes, I think 39-17-1307 might be prudent to keep in mind here...

Don't get me wrong, i would love to see it repealed, as I consider it to be unconstitutional, but with the current legislature, there is no chance it will happen.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Worriedman

[Oh Shoot]

Yes, I think 39-17-1307 might be prudent to keep in mind here...

Don't get me wrong, i would love to see it repealed, as I consider it to be unconstitutional, but with the current legislature, there is no chance it will happen.

 

Yep, the fallacy of  "with a view to prevent crime". So since the Legislature cannot possibly prove that it indeed does prevent crime, it is unconstitutional. It actually creates crime, making a criminal out of an otherwise law abiding citizen if he packs heat without paying for the privilege. That and the fact the people who do Bad Things with guns aren't dissuaded by just one more relatively minor charge if they're packing without a permit.

 

- OS

[GKar]

Well, get you some Ramsey!  I will be on that team, but, you might want to check and see where his PAC is at dollar wise.  He has the backing of Big Business and nobody is going to challenge him in his home district, but by all means form a group, announce your intentions and we will see how that goes.

 

My vote is Vance Dennis, he is low hanging fruit that can be taken.  Those who have watched the actual machinations of the legislature will know that he is Establishment through and through, and is no supporter of firearms Rights.

 

A Dennis defeat would hit Ramsey kinda close to home - he's indicated more than once that he takes pride that he (Ramsey) got Dennis initially elected .

[Worriedman]

Yep, the fallacy of  "with a view to prevent crime".

 

- OS

A Jim Crow law placed on the necks of TN Citizens by the Democrats in 1870 to make sure they could keep the freed slaves defenseless. The whole "but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime." was simply added to give power where it had previously never existed, the previous verbiage being (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."  Free men have "Rights", governments are granted "power" by the People that truly make up that government.  If We the People allow government to overstep their bounds, then the shame is on us.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Worriedman