HB 1399 Matheny/SB1612 Green

[Worriedman]

Don't think that Leadership will let it get through, but they will have to kill it on grounds other than fiscal, the note is "insignificant".  Pretty sure it will get the "Carlo, sit up front" treatment from Lundberg in the Civil Justice Committee, but is up there next week, and supposedly in Judiciary in the Senate.

 

 

As introduced, declares that the general assembly occupies the whole field of regulation of firearms, ammunition, components of firearms or ammunition, or combinations thereof, prohibiting local regulation. - Amends TCA Section 39-17-1314.

 

This bill would be a springboard to challenge local authority over firearms issues, e.g. parks.  Specific question was asked in Civil Justice sub if it would take away local control on Parks and answered in the affirmative.

 

I figure they will load it up with a huge fiscal note, that seems to be Beth and Bill's favorite method of strangulation this year so that they do not have have the troops take a stand on the floor, it is worth a call and an email to the committee member though, just to say we tried.
 

House Civil Justice Committee    Scheduled for 3/26/2014

Rep. Jon Lundberg (Chairman)         Phone (615) 741-7623    rep.jon.lundberg@capitol.tn.gov

Rep. Rick Womick                           Phone (615) 741-2804    rep.rick.womick@capitol.tn.gov

Rep. Mike Carter                              Phone: (615) 741-3025   rep.mike.carter@capitol.tn.gov

Rep. Jim Coley                                Phone (615) 741-8201    rep.jim.coley@capitol.tn.gov

Rep. John J. DeBerry JR.                Phone (615) 741-2239    rep.john.deberry@capitol.tn.gov

Rep. Vance Dennis                          Phone: (615) 741-2190   rep.vance.dennis@capitol.tn.gov

Rep. Andrew Farmer                        Phone (615) 741-4419    rep.andrew.farmer@capitol.tn.gov

Rep. Ryan A. Haynes                       Phone: (615) 741-2264   rep.ryan.haynes@capitol.tn.gov

Rep. Sherry Jones                           Phone (615) 741-2035    Phone (615) 741-2035

Rep. Mike Stewart                            Phone: (615) 741-2184   rep.mike.stewart@capitol.tn.gov

 

Senate Judiciary Committee        Scheduled for 3/25/2014

Senator Brian Kelsey (Chair)            Phone (615) 741-3036    sen.brian.kelsey@capitol.tn.gov

Senator Doug Overbey                     Phone: (615) 741-0981   sen.doug.overbey@capitol.tn.gov

Senator Stacey Campfield                Phone (615) 741-1766    sen.stacey.campfield@capitol.tn.gov

Senator Mike Bell                             Phone (615) 741-1946    sen.mike.bell@capitol.tn.gov

Senator Lowe Finney                       Phone (615) 741-1810    sen.lowe.finney@capitol.tn.gov

Senator Ophelia Ford                       Phone (615) 741-1767    sen.ophelia.ford@capitol.tn.gov

Senator Todd Gardenhire                  Phone (615) 741-6682    sen.todd.gardenhire@capitol.tn.gov

Senator Mark Green                         Phone: (615) 741-2374   sen.mark.green@capitol.tn.gov

Senator John Stevens                       Phone (615) 741-4576    sen.john.stevens@capitol.tn.gov

Edited March 23, 2014 by Worriedman

[GKar]

Given the answer given in CJ Sub, I'd bet the farm you are right RE the fiscal note - will be the same one attached to the parks bill (effectively killing it by placing it "behind the budget").  And it will likely have a cute little "corrected" note with it, stating that further consideration was given after new information became apparent (the CJ Sub question/answer).

 

Sad, actually...that a bill is even offered up to say what the state Constitution already makes clear.  What is this - a "yes, we were stupid and we're sorry" bill?

[GKar]

Well, this one did make it thru House CJ Cmte today, and is awaiting Calendar to send it to the House floor.  But it was amended (still not showing on the GA website,. though) to "clean it up a bit", and Matheny then stated (at Dennis' urging) on the House floor today that he misspoke last week and this bill will NOT affect the parks legislation in any way - some BS about the legislature having properly ceded that issue to local governments while still maintaining 'control' per the state Constitution.  And this guy is supposedly on "our" side???

 

Not surprisingly, Kelsey didn't find time (once again) to address it in Sen Jud Cmte, so it rolls to next week.  Yeah, right...

Edited March 27, 2014 by GKar

[Worriedman]

Well, this one did make it thru House CJ Cmte today, and is awaiting Calendar to send it to the House floor.  But it was amended (still not showing on the GA website,. though) to "clean it up a bit", and Matheny then stated (at Dennis' urging) on the House floor today that he misspoke last week and this bill will NOT affect the parks legislation in any way - some BS about the legislature having properly ceded that issue to local governments while still maintaining 'control' per the state Constitution.  And this guy is supposedly on "our" side???

 

Not surprisingly, Kelsey didn't find time (once again) to address it in Sen Jud Cmte, so it rolls to next week.  Yeah, right...

We have no advocates in the legislature.

[Guest PapaB]

The amendment must have completely neutered wording of the original bill. It originally stated:

to the exclusion of all existing and future

county, city, town, municipality, or metropolitan government ordinance or regulation. No

county, city, town, municipality, or metropolitan government nor any state or local

agency, department, or official shall occupy any part of the field regulation of the use,

transfer, ownership, possession, discharge, or transportation of firearms, ammunition or

components of firearms or ammunition, or combinations thereof.

 

That wording clearly affects the parks legislation so I'm guessing someone sold out and amended it into oblivion.

[GKar]

Well...I'm not sure the amendment did it:

 

SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-17-1314(a), is amended by deleting the existing language in its entirety and substituting instead the following language:

(a) Except as specifically provided in subsection (b), it is the intent of the general assembly to preempt the whole field of the regulation of firearms, ammunition, or components of firearms or ammunition, or combinations thereof including, but not limited to, the use, purchase, transfer, taxation, manufacture, ownership, possession, carrying, sale, acquisition, gift, devise, licensing, registration, storage, and transportation thereof, to the exclusion of all existing and future county, city, town, municipality, or metropolitan government law, ordinances, resolutions, enactments or regulation. No county, city,

town, municipality, or metropolitan government nor any state or local agency, department, or official shall occupy any part of the field regulation of firearms, ammunition or components of firearms or ammunition, or combinations thereof.

(b) A city, county, town, municipality or metropolitan government is expressly authorized to regulate by ordinance, resolution, policy, rule or other enactment the following:

(1) Except as otherwise provided in § 39-17-1313, the carrying of firearms by employees or independent contractors of the city, county, town municipality or metropolitan government when acting in the course and scope of their employment or contract;

(2) Except when and where the discharge of a firearm is authorized or permitted by state law, the discharge of firearms within the boundaries of the applicable city, county, town, municipality or metropolitan government; and

(3) The enforcement of any state or federal law pertaining to firearms, ammunition, or components of firearms or ammunition, or combinations thereof.

SECTION 2. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law, the public welfare requiring it.

 

Reading this, I still don't see where the parks exception is coming from.  It seems to me that the bill language doesn't state it; rather ,its  the Sponsor making the statement from the floor during deliberations that carries the weight.

[Guest PapaB]

A city, county, town, municipality or metropolitan government is expressly authorized to regulate by ordinance, resolution, policy, rule or other enactment the following:

 

This seems to violate the State Constitution which grants only the State the power to regulate arms. I wonder if they purposely did this to let someone complain so they'd have to pull the bill.

[Oh Shoot]

This seems to violate the State Constitution which grants only the State the power to regulate arms. I wonder if they purposely did this to let someone complain so they'd have to pull the bill.

 

I suppose without a specific preemption statute as the one under discussion, you can make the argument that any time the State enacts laws empowering local government to regulate carry,  it was still the State that actually regulated "the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime"

 

- OS

Edited March 28, 2014 by Oh Shoot