Park Carry Bill Update?

[jtmaze]

[quote name="EastTNMarksman" post="1127040" timestamp="1395260944"]Where do you see that? I believe that means it is put on hold until a way to pay for it is found. I'm not sure what in this bill would need to be paid for.[/quote] Nothing. Stall tactic. JTM We the People of the United States, in order to form a more Perfect Union......

[JDH]

It's here. http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=HB1407

[EastTNMarksman]

Just watched the video and didn't see them say the reason it was put "behind the budget".

 

I freakin hate politicians...

[300winmag]

Is the bill dead now?

[Mike.357]

the bill was DOA a long time ago

[GKar]

It was placed behind the budget due to the fiscal note predicting a one-time cost to the state of approx $38,000 (for taking down current signage prohibiting carry)...basically, requiring funding in the budget before the bill can be re-considered.  Which is just another example of the incredible hypocrisy in Nashville - some $11 million in reserves collected from the permit process has been earmarked for use to balance the budget this year.  Just another eloquently deceitful tool in the hands of our "supermajority" establishment leadership...

 

On a related note:a House subcmte (Civ Justice, I think) yesterday killed another bill that would have dropped the cost of a permit from $115 to $100, and renewals from $50 to $40.  The reason?  A fiscal note that demonstrated that it would...decrease state revenues.  Heaven forbid!  Mr Lundberg, my Rep and corporate shill extraordinaire, asked the sponsor - "Do you really want to waste our time with this bill?"...

[EastTNMarksman]

It was placed behind the budget due to the fiscal note predicting a one-time cost to the state of approx $38,000 (for taking down current signage prohibiting carry)...basically, requiring funding in the budget before the bill can be re-considered.  Which is just another example of the incredible hypocrisy in Nashville - some $11 million in reserves collected from the permit process has been earmarked for use to balance the budget this year.  Just another eloquently deceitful tool in the hands of our "supermajority" establishment leadership...

 

On a related note:a House subcmte (Civ Justice, I think) yesterday killed another bill that would have dropped the cost of a permit from $115 to $100, and renewals from $50 to $40.  The reason?  A fiscal note that demonstrated that it would...decrease state revenues.  Heaven forbid!  Mr Lundberg, my Rep and corporate shill extraordinaire, asked the sponsor - "Do you really want to waste our time with this bill?"...

$38,000 seems like a lot to take down some signs. Hell we could probably get a few volunteers on here to go around taking them down for free.

 

Honestly though, if the cost of taking down existing signs is going to keep anything like this from ever going through, how do we ever improve on the current situation?

[TSprint1]

$38,000 seems like a lot to take down some signs. Hell we could probably get a few volunteers on here to go around taking them down for free.

 

Honestly though, if the cost of taking down existing signs is going to keep anything like this from ever going through, how do we ever improve on the current situation?

By replacing the jerks we now have "in charge".

[RobertNashville]

They (the legislature) don't give a s**t about the money to "take down signs" and in fact, I could guarantee you that cities wouldn't bother to do so even if they got money to do it...outdated signs can already be found at city parks throughout the state. Attaching a "fiscal note" or sending a bill to "summer study" is just the Leadership's way to kill a bill.

Edited March 20, 2014 by RobertNashville

[Guest Shooter00]

What signs ?
A lot of the main entrances and "especially" secondary entrances to greenway trails in Knoxville are not posted to begin with....

[Oh Shoot]

What signs ?
A lot of the main entrances and "especially" secondary entrances to greenway trails in Knoxville are not posted to begin with....

 

Knoxville rec areas are not prohibited for carry by state law, but by local ordinance, and signage isn't required. You just have to know, you know?

 

- OS

[Oh Shoot]

It was placed behind the budget due to the fiscal note predicting a one-time cost to the state of approx $38,000 (for taking down current signage prohibiting carry)...

 

Couldn't possibly have put the same little out they did for the state parks signage, right, so that no money needed to be spent?

 

How did this pass the Senate financial committee, then? Or was this left out by drafters from the beginning on purpose so could be zapped, or what?

 

- OS

Edited March 20, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[peejman]

$38,000 seems like a lot to take down some signs.

 

 

You forget who would be doing the work...

 

 

 

 

They (the legislature) don't give a s**t about the money to "take down signs" and in fact, I could guarantee you that cities wouldn't bother to do so even if they got money to do it...outdated signs can already be found at city parks throughout the state. Attaching a "fiscal note" or sending a bill to "summer study" is just the Leadership's way to kill a bill.

 

 

Ding!  $38k is chump change, and as OS said, even if allocated it likely wouldn't be spent for that.  It's an excuse. 

[Oh Shoot]

...and as OS said, even if allocated it likely wouldn't be spent for that.  It's an excuse. 

 

PJ, my point was that the state park part of the statute  didn't require any signs to be changed at all because of the change in law, only for when they might need to be replaced as normal part of park maintenance. Hence, no bucks were allocated at all, so there was no financial burden attached to the thing at all.

 

Seem same could have been put in this, and I wonder why it wasn't.

 

- OS

[300winmag]

I don't think this version requires those signs to be dropped either.  Maybe I am wrong.

[GKar]

The bill as filed did away with all sections of the current 39-17-1311 relating to municipal opt-out, including those pertaining to prohibitory signage.  The Senate amendment (SA0569) that inserted the "school's law"  language (39-17-1309) also reinstated the language of TCA 39-17-1311 (e), which was the operative language allowing the signs to stay up until future maintenance activities would take them down - that's how it avoided the fiscal note on that side and thus didn't have to go to Fnce Cmte.  Makes one wonder if that was the trade-off Campfield had to make in order to get the bill thru Jud Cmte...

[Oh Shoot]

The bill as filed did away with all sections of the current 39-17-1311 relating to municipal opt-out, including those pertaining to prohibitory signage.  The Senate amendment (SA0569) that inserted the "school's law"  language (39-17-1309) also reinstated the language of TCA 39-17-1311 (e), which was the operative language allowing the signs to stay up until future maintenance activities would take them down - that's how it avoided the fiscal note on that side and thus didn't have to go to Fnce Cmte.  Makes one wonder if that was the trade-off Campfield had to make in order to get the bill thru Jud Cmte...

 

So what in the hell is the fiscal cost they are claiming in the House version? It doesn't have the part about signage not being necessary to remove? If it does, then just what is the fiscal burden associated with the House version?

 

- OS

Edited March 21, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[GKar]

The House has not amended the bill at this point: they are still considering the original version that has removed signage verbiage.  It is that version that has the fiscal note attached.  There is (rightly) a reluctance to attach the Senate amendment due to the 39-17-1309 reference in that amendment (truly does create a possible felony entrapment scenario), but I cannot fathom why a simple amendment adding language allowing current signage to remain until otherwise requiring replacement was not attached during Civil Justice hearings.  The fiscal note was attached Jan 20 - it wasn't like they couldn't see this coming.  Given the press to adjourn ASAP after budget finalization (so our precious legislators can go home to start convincing us that they are worthy to remain in in our employ), I'd bet god money that this one is dead.  If you watch other parts of the Fnce Subcmte meeting, the chair and various sponsors were practically joking about the consequences of being "placed behind the budget".  The chair even told a few sponsors that he thought their bills were good ones, and admonished them to be sure and bring them back next year...

[LagerHead]

This is how they treat campus carry as well. They keep talking as though any student will be able to carry on campus. Even if you correct them, they'll still make the same claim.

 

Idiots.

You know, maybe the reason they aren't having much impact is because the vast majority of Americans actually do have common sense and can see that the brand of "common sense" these nuts are selling is anything but.

 

Anti-gunners never stop spouting lies that have been debunked for decades. How often do you STILL hear that you're x times more likely to be killed with your own gun than use it in self defense in your home? That is based on a 1980's study that was debunked by a third grader before the ink was dry. And yet they still use it as "proof" that you're better off without a gun. 

 

Haslem is against it.   I am guessing he will veto.

 

Probably. He's an anti-gunner posing as a pro-gunner, just like he did when he was in Knoxville. 

 

Report from the Tennessean - TN lawmakers pull guns on Moms Demand Action

 

I call BS.

 

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20140305/NEWS/303050180/Women-report-strange-encounters-Tennessee-lawmakers-gun-reform?nclick_check=1

 

Well, we know they aren't beyond lying. They have done it before. 

 

The smart move by Haslam would be to not sign it and straddle the fence, guess we'll see. I don't see why cities should be allowed to infringe 2A, our taxes pay for those parks.

Edit: Placed on cal. Civil Justice Committee for 3/12/2014. No amendments noted.

 

The smart move would be for Haslam to grow some balls and take a stand for what he believes in like a man. But we all know that politicians' balls are removed on the way into the office on their first day as an elected official.

[daddyo]

Report from the Tennessean - TN lawmakers pull guns on Moms Demand Action

 

I call BS.

 

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20140305/NEWS/3030

50180/Women-report-strange-encounters-Tennessee-lawmakers-gun-reform?nclick_check=1

 

You can bet that it's BS. These people are shameless liars. They have taken credit for one thing after another that they had absolutely nothing to do with. They lied about the Staples here in TN posting their store. They're psychopathic.

[Mike.357]

Seem same could have been put in this, and I wonder why it wasn't.

 

- OS

 

 

 

you know why it wasn't

[Oh Shoot]

you know why it wasn't

 

Yep,  I always figure the fix is in from the get-go on a lot of these. Like WorriedMan points out frequently, bill sponsors and even various committeemen get to tout how they "did all they could" to get something passed to their constituency to help reelection.

 

Happens all the time in DC, too. Once Reid or Boehner has the vote margin on whatever, they'll let some in the party vote the other way if that can be seen as brownie points back home to aid in sending them back to be part of the Bigger Con. American Hustle indeed.

 

- OS

Edited March 21, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[GKar]

Jeremy Faison once called me out for such speculation, telling me that everything that happened in Nashville happened in full view of the public.  Even invited me to come to Nashvegas and follow him around one day to prove it.  I didn't know whether to laugh or puke.  Lost what little remaining respect I had for him that day.

[LagerHead]

Jeremy Faison once called me out for such speculation, telling me that everything that happened in Nashville happened in full view of the public.  Even invited me to come to Nashvegas and follow him around one day to prove it.  I didn't know whether to laugh or puke.  Lost what little remaining respect I had for him that day.

 

You should have countered by asking for his calendar, day and night, for the next 30 days with assurance that you could show up to any event on it. He must think we're dumb enough to believe that every back room deal happens in a back room at the capital, and not at the golf clubs, watering holes, or strip clubs. No, we're not nearly that dumb. 

[Worriedman]

We have some smart folks here, and ones schooled in jurisprudence.  Can an individual John or Jane Doe even bring suit (and collect) against a City or County if they are injured in a park, by a legally owned (or illegal for that matter) firearm in City/County/State/Federal Park?
 

They wrote in immunity from such truck for property owners in the Parking Lot bill, can't sue the owners regardless, could they not have done the same, (or as my radar suggest it already exist) with respect to parks?

Edited March 22, 2014 by Worriedman