URGENT - Permit-less Car Carry in the Senate Tomorrow

[RobertNashville]

Actually, the members of committee are selected for their adherence to leadership.  Individual thinking, love of the Constitution are not highly prized.  The ability to deliver to Business interest (it is well known that the Chamber of Commerce is the largest single contributer of dollars to legislators) their agendas is paramount to the current ruling Junta.

Yuup.

 

Big government control freak Republicans are no more a friend of the Constitution, or individual thought (or liberty) than a big government Democrat...they are all just progressives who think that the government is the answer to every problem (when in reality it's usually the cause of the problem).

[wk05]

Appears that the Bill in the senate was reschedule for a vote on the 25th.

 

As for the corresponding house bill, it was "Rec. For Pass. by s/c ref. to Civil Justice Committee."  

 

So far, so good.  

[GKar]

Stick a fork in this one, its done...using this sessions favorite grave-digging tool: the fiscal note.   http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/108/Fiscal/HB1480.pdf

 

"

On March 18, 2014, the Department of Safety submitted corrected information for the bill.  Given the

new supporting information for the bill, the fiscal impact has been corrected as follows:

(CORRECTED)

Decrease State Revenue

 

$4,462,800/Department of Safety/FY14 - 15 and Subsequent Years

$403,200/TBI/FY14 - 15 and Subsequent Years

 

Decrease State Expenditures

 

$3,250,000/Department of Safety/FY14 - 15 and Subsequent Years

 

Decrease Local Revenue

 

$403,200/FY14 - 15 and Subsequent Years"

 

With that fiscal note, it will go to House Fnce Sub - where it will be placed "behind the budget" and grow grass while the boyz and girlz of Nashville head home to convince us to send them back for another 2 years of fun and frolic at our expense...

Edited March 21, 2014 by GKar

[Oh Shoot]

 

Stick a fork in this one, its done...using this sessions favorite grave-digging tool: the fiscal note.   http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/108/Fiscal/HB1480.pdf

 

.....

 

Big surprise.  Not. Same thing that killed the bill for using permit in lieu of TICS/NICS check, too.

 

It all comes back to the unconstitutionality of the HCP itself. To "regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime" doesn't do anything but produce more criminals than we'd have with free universal carry.

 

- OS

[300winmag]

The politicians want us to pay money for a permit and then not be able to carry the gun anywhere but our cars.  That makes perfect sense.

[Mike A]

The fiscal note was corrected again on 3/24/14 and unless I'm misreading something I believe DOS is now saying that the bill will not impact the department. 

 

I wouldn't count this one out yet.

[Oh Shoot]

The fiscal note was corrected again on 3/24/14 and unless I'm misreading something I believe DOS is now saying that the bill will not impact the department. 

 

I wouldn't count this one out yet.

 

If DOS is really saying that, I'd opine Bill Gibbons might be seeking other employment. Loss of revenue to TBI was reason used for the "HCP for NICS" dismissal.

 

- OS

[JohnC]

Notice the NRA did not mention:

HB 2145/SB 1607 by Weaver/Beavers, Firearms and Ammunition - As introduced, expands and amends the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act to limit federal actions in this state; creates an offense to knowingly enforce or attempt to enforce any federal enactment or enforcement action punishable as a Class A misdemeanor or Class C felony for subsequent offenses; revises other provisions related to violations and liabilities.
 
HB 1667/SB1773 by Pody/Beavers, Firearms and Ammunition - As introduced, protects the right of a person to transport and store a firearm or firearm ammunition in a privately owned vehicle; prevents any owner, lessee or manager of real property from taking adverse action against a person transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition; creates a civil cause of action for damages.

Links to those bills to spread on FB and twitter please!

TFA, you guys need to start your own page like the NRA where folks can get alerts and send petitions to local politicians once they receive them! :up: Edited March 25, 2014 by JohnC

[Mike A]

If DOS is really saying that, I'd opine Bill Gibbons might be seeking other employment. Loss of revenue to TBI was reason used for the "HCP for NICS" dismissal.

 

- OS

The link you had posted earlier is showing the fiscal note with the 3/24/14 corrections.  As I read it DOS is saying no impact.  I presume there would still be an impact on TBI as previously noted. 

 

Out of curiosity, I did a quick check on the "HCP for NICS" bill.  The fiscal note on that one (as to the TBI) was similar ($300K and change for "HCP for NICS" vs. $400K and change in the instant matter).  For reference, I believe the TBI budget request (just from the State, not including Fed funds, etc.) was $44M.  So, in either case less than 1% of the budget request.  In fairness, right or wrong, looked like the TBI's position is that the "HCP check" didn't comply with the Brady Bill as HCP holders aren't subject to annual checks.   

[Oh Shoot]

The link you had posted earlier is showing the fiscal note with the 3/24/14 corrections.  As I read it DOS is saying no impact.  I presume there would still be an impact on TBI as previously noted. 

 

Out of curiosity, I did a quick check on the "HCP for NICS" bill.  The fiscal note on that one (as to the TBI) was similar ($300K and change for "HCP for NICS" vs. $400K and change in the instant matter).  For reference, I believe the TBI budget request (just from the State, not including Fed funds, etc.) was $44M.  So, in either case less than 1% of the budget request.  In fairness, right or wrong, looked like the TBI's position is that the "HCP check" didn't comply with the Brady Bill as HCP holders aren't subject to annual checks.   

 

I'm dubious that all  22 or so states that are allowed to use HCP in lieu of NICS  run yearly background checks either. I also read somewhere that TN is indeed on the ATF approved list of states to do it if they so choose. And no, I can't immediately document either statement.

 

However I'm also unaware of anything in the Brady Bill that determines any rules for an "annual check" , as the section from Brady that allows this in 27 CFR 478.102 doesn't mention it. Perhaps there is another one somewhere I'm not aware of, dunno:

 

"(d) Exceptions to NICS check. The provisions of paragraph (a) of this section shall not apply if—

(1) The transferee has presented to the licensee a valid permit or license that—

(i) Allows the transferee to possess, acquire, or carry a firearm;

(ii) Was issued not more than 5 years earlier by the State in which the transfer is to take place; and

(iii) The law of the State provides that such a permit or license is to be issued only after an authorized government official has verified that the information available to such official does not indicate that possession of a firearm by the transferee would be in violation of Federal, State, or local law: Provided, That on and after November 30, 1998, the information available to such official includes the NICS;

(2) The firearm is subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act and has been approved for transfer under 27 CFR part 479; or

(3) On application of the licensee, in accordance with the provisions of § 478.150, the Director has certified that compliance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section is impracticable.

(e) The document referred to in paragraph (d)(1) of this section (or a copy thereof) shall be retained or the required information from the document shall be recorded on the firearms transaction record in accordance with the provisions of § 478.131. "

 

Always more to know though, not saying any of this is definitive on my part and there may be a "ruling" that is not even in the CFR that determines it further for all I know.

 

- OS

Edited March 25, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Mike A]

Always more to know though, not saying any of this is definitive on my part and there may be a "ruling" that is not even in the CFR that determines it further for all I know.

 

- OS

Likewise, I didn't do any exhaustive research.  A quick search turned up an FAQ on the TBI site stating their position from my previous post.  FWIW, if the thinking is that the annual checks are required to comply with the Brady Bill my guess would be that the passage of any such bill would require a provision requiring the annual checks and increasing the cost of the HCP.  I'm not debating the right or wrong of the matter mind you but in the end there ain't no free lunch.

[wk05]

Re-read it today also and from what I read, it appeared as though there would be "no significant impact" that would prevent it from going to a vote like Mike said above.  Not giving up on this one until the legislative session is over.  Its something I've written my Senators/Reps for since I turned 18 and won't stop until its passed or somebody reintroduces it next year (although I should have HCP by then  :up: ).  

[Worriedman]

HB 2145/SB 1607 by Weaver/Beavers, Firearms and Ammunition - As introduced, expands and amends the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act to limit federal actions in this state; creates an offense to knowingly enforce or attempt to enforce any federal enactment or enforcement action punishable as a Class A misdemeanor or Class C felony for subsequent offenses; revises other provisions related to violations and liabilities.

Failed in Senate Judiciary 3/18/14:

Senators voting aye were: Campfield, Bell, Green -- 3.
Senators voting no were: Kelsey, Overbey, Finney, Stevens -- 4.
Senators present and not voting were: Ford -- 1.

 

HB 1667/SB1733 by Pody/Beavers, Firearms and Ammunition - As introduced, protects the right of a person to transport and store a firearm or firearm ammunition in a privately owned vehicle; prevents any owner, lessee or manager of real property from taking adverse action against a person transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition; creates a civil cause of action for damages.

Failed in Senate Judiciary 3/18/14:

Senators voting aye were: Campfield, Bell, Green -- 3.
Senators voting no were: Kelsey, Overbey, Finney, Ford, Stevens -- 5.

 

Four attorneys voting against expanding firearms Rights in both cases. (three so called Republicans, one Democrat)
 

And I need to walk back an earlier statement, there are only four attorneys on this committee, I made a mistake before thinking Gardenhire was an attorney.

 

 

[GKar]

Now scheduled to go to House CJ full Cmte tomorrow, March 26,at 3pm CT, along with a host of other firearms-related bills: HB1400 (align HCP renewal with driver license renewal - has a POSITIVE fiscal note?!?), HB1794 which has a bigtime negative fiscal note, HB1399 (reinforces that the state legislature occupies the whole field of firearms regulation, prohibiting local regulation - insignificant fiscal note), and HB2409 (essentially converting the present HCP to a concealed carry permit, and allowing open carry - small onetime fiscal note of $100K).

 

Someone really rattled the DOS cage - there are numerous bills with corrected fiscal notes dated today (3/25) that indicate a reversal or correction of previous DOS thinking, with most indicating that (now) DOS feels that lessening regulation on areas other than concealed carry (such as HB2409) will not significantly decrease the number of permits issued.  Interesting - shoudl be an entertaining meeting.

 

Also - Senate Jud Cmte is taking up several of these same bills at 1pm CY - at the heel of a 95 item agenda...yeah, bet Kelsy busts a butt to get to those...

[wk05]

Guess I'll be taking my lunch early at the job site and calling those on the committees!  

[Mike A]

Four attorneys voting against expanding firearms Rights in both cases.

I don't know why they voted the way they did but I can't believe it's really that simple.

[Oh Shoot]

I don't know why they voted the way they did but I can't believe it's really that simple.

 

Party politics. More significant they are "Republicans" than lawyers in this case I think.

 

TN is not like DC, where for the most part nowadays the GOP is the lesser of the two evils. Here the two parties are pretty much on par, and a majority of either seems to behave about the same. I imagine we'd be just about as far along weapon law wise right now if we'd had a Dem super majority for the last 4-6 years in Nashville.

 

- OS

[Guest semiautots]

Party politics. More significant they are "Republicans" than lawyers in this case I think.

 

TN is not like DC, where for the most part nowadays the GOP is the lesser of the two evils. Here the two parties are pretty much on par, and a majority of either seems to behave about the same. I imagine we'd be just about as far along weapon law wise right now if we'd had a Dem super majority for the last 4-6 years in Nashville.

 

- OS

 

We'd have a state income tax if the dems were in charge.

Edited March 26, 2014 by semiautots

[Oh Shoot]

We'd have a state income tax if the dems were in charge.

 

Already do on certain investment income anyway. Tax success, reward failure, it's the Mericun way.

 

- OS

Edited March 26, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[tnguy]

We'd have a state income tax if the dems were in charge.

That was being pushed by a Republican governor. My Democrat state rep voted against it.

[Guest semiautots]

That was being pushed by a Republican governor. My Democrat state rep voted against it.

 

Sundquist may have said he was a repub, but he was left of most demo's.

[Guest semiautots]

That was being pushed by a Republican governor. My Democrat state rep voted against it.

 

Sorry, dupe.

Edited March 27, 2014 by semiautots

[GKar]

Getting back to the original topic:  HB1480 made it out of the House CJ Cmte today despite the predictable objections of Stewart and Jones (Madame Dips**t).  Next stop is in the House Finance Subcmte next Wed (4/2).  If it clears there, it will go to the full Fnce committee the next week, and then perhaps onto the House floor the week after that - putting right in the middle of budget time and the expected rush to go home and start campaigning.

 

Not surprisingly, Kelsey didn't find time to address it this week in Sen Jud Cmte, making the third week in a row for it to be deferred.  Yeah, he's in a hurry...

[tnguy]

Sundquist may have said he was a repub, but he was left of most demo's.

 

 

True enough. But I think the point is it can be hard to tell the difference without a handbook round here.

[Worriedman]

That was being pushed by a Republican governor. My Democrat state rep voted against it.

“I have always tried to stay flexible enough that if [an income tax] has support, then I certainly would be able to support it.” -Beth Harwell. The Tennessean, 2/8/02

 

Don't forget Rep. Steve McDaniel, Deputy Speaker of the House, member of the Original Naifeh Eight, all in favor of the State Income Tax,