Why was open carry without a permit vetoed in TN?

[RAJBCPA]

 i assume the answer is that the permit funding is needed to support some other so-called worthy state purpose.

 

 

 

 

[tnguy]

If you think that's genuinely the reason, I have a bridge to sell you.

[JAB]

Because the Republican leadership who begged gun owners to help them gain control in the state government, claiming they are 'on our side,' aren't really 'on our side' any more than are their Democrat counterparts.  Haslam was a member of Bloomberg's "Mayors Against Guns" group (oops, that's supposed to be Mayors Against Illegal Guns.  Yeah, right.)  Harwell seems have done everything she can to see that many pro gun bills don't even come to a vote and Ramsey got the so-called 'parking lot bill' gutted at the behest of his big business puppet masters (such as Fed Ex.)  Quite the track record for people who claimed to be 'on our side' and whined that if we would just put them in charge they would support and advance our gun rights.

 

I think that the money probably did have at least a little to do with it, too.  It isn't like politicians have to choose between 'being greedy' and 'backstabbing the voters'.  They can simultaneously do both quite efficiently.  

Edited October 13, 2014 by JAB

[K191145]

 i assume the answer is that the permit funding is needed to support some other so-called worthy state purpose.

 

I think that's a big part of their decision. Legislators love money in the budget to spend no matter where it comes from, the thought of loosing any amount scares them. All politicians are like a 20 year old girl with a new credit card at a clothing store.

[K191145]

I know it's not all we wanted but at least they changed the law about being armed in a vehicle for those without permits. I will write my reps. like I have about supporting permitless carry, we keep getting little chunks at a time but they are in the right direction, I still think there's a chance of getting permitless carry some day. I'll still complain but I realize that Tennessee is a gun owner friendly state, more than many. Go ahead and write and voice your complaints but also be thankful we are no where close to being restrictive as Kalifornia, Colorado, Maryland, New Jersey, all of New England, New York, Illinoise, and quite a few more.

Try tolerating their restrictions.

[Oh Shoot]

 i assume the answer is that the permit funding is needed to support some other so-called worthy state purpose.

 

Just to be precise, it wasn't vetoed, it wasn't passed by the legislature.

 

- OS

[dcloudy777]

But amazingly (and awesomely) permitless in-vehicle carry sailed through without a peep from the anti-freedom crowd.   :up:

[JAB]

But amazingly (and awesomely) permitless in-vehicle carry sailed through without a peep from the anti-freedom crowd.   :up:

 

As 'good' a thing as that was, I think of it more in terms of throwing a dog a bone to keep it from barking than anything else.

[Guest livefreeordie1]

But that just let's the dog know that barking works.  Bark louder, get a bigger bone.

[JAB]

But that just let's the dog know that barking works.  Bark louder, get a bigger bone.

 

Or a shock collar. :pleased:

 

Truthfully, I think it conditions the dog to be happy with whatever scraps it gets (a bone), lick it's master's hand (or give him/her it's vote) for being so 'good' to it and shut up barking/begging for any, real meat.

Edited October 14, 2014 by JAB

[gun sane]

I'm still trying to figure out why the Second Amendment is the only one that requires a permit to exercise it.

[DaveTN]

I'm still trying to figure out why the Second Amendment is the only one that requires a permit to exercise it.

It’s called States Rights; we fought a war over it. The Feds can say you have a right to keep arms, but until they are responsible for law enforcement they can’t say you can bear arms. I don’t want federal law enforcement and I won’t turn my back on states right just because it’s convenient for this issue.

We had an opportunity the last time this came up, but I saw where some of the pro-gun people said it’s better to do it in “baby steps”. I don’t know how many more small steps we need.

[gun sane]

It’s called States Rights; we fought a war over it. The Feds can say you have a right to keep arms, but until they are responsible for law enforcement they can’t say you can bear arms.

 

I can't accept that as the reason.  It's a right according to the highest contract U.S. citizens have with government and states are bound to recognize its provisions.  It was the jerks on the Supreme Court who have given power to the lesser governments to regulate arms, not just for law enforcement purposes.

[JAB]

It’s called States Rights; we fought a war over it. The Feds can say you have a right to keep arms, but until they are responsible for law enforcement they can’t say you can bear arms. I don’t want federal law enforcement and I won’t turn my back on states right just because it’s convenient for this issue.

We had an opportunity the last time this came up, but I saw where some of the pro-gun people said it’s better to do it in “baby steps”. I don’t know how many more small steps we need.

 

The thing there is that the Tennessee State Constitution seems to go even further to clearly guarantee the right to 'keep and bear arms' than does the Federal Constitution.  The Tennessee Constitution contains none of the language relating to 'militias' and states that the citizens of the state have the right to keep and bear arms.  It only gives legislators the right to regulate the wearing of arms 'with a view to prevent crime'.  The actual language reads:

 

 

Section 26.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.

 

So, as keeping a firearm inside a vehicle, for example in a console or in the glove compartment, does not constitute 'wearing' said firearm it would seem to me - a layman who can read words as they are written - that the Legislature had no right under the Constitution of the State of Tennessee to prohibit anyone who can legally own a firearm from having it in their vehicle in the first place.  In other words, there should never have been a need for a change in the law to allow 'car carry' because the State Constitution forbade any law restricting such action in the first place.

 

Further, I would think that an honest reading (vs. a politician's reading) of the Tennessee Constitution would severely limit the Legislature's ability to regulate even the 'wearing' of arms.  As the language clearly limits the scope of that ability to situations where doing so would 'prevent crime' and as allowing honest citizens to carry firearms is obviously not thought of as 'promoting crime' (else we wouldn't have the ability to carry with a permit) it seems to me that laws requiring a permit to carry are in violation of the Tennessee Constitution.

 

So, it isn't really about state's rights as the State of Tennessee, via its Constitution, acknowledges that the citizens have a right to keep and to bear arms.  There is no need to go to the Federal level to guarantee that right because the State has done so, as well.  So, then, it is not a states' rights issue.  It is an issue of dishonest, greedy, power-hungry politicians (both Democrat and Republican) overstepping their legal bounds and violating the state constitution and, therefore, the very rights of the state to determine the scope of laws within the boundaries of that state via said constitution.

Edited October 14, 2014 by JAB

[Guest EMT74]

Yep, Haslam is good buddies with Chris Christie as well. And we know about NJ's gun laws. I have a friend in Jersey, he's a gun owner and has a HCP. He's paid a pretty penny to do so. The word is, that the carry without a permit is coming back up, and is gaining steam. So we shall see.

[Guest carter]

i was thinking the same as the OP... if there was a legal open carry then people would probably opt to open carry more than to conceal and just opt to pass paying for a permit...I'm a NC native and open carry there is legal or was...it was legal way before the concealed permit law was passed... can remember my dad having his pistol laying in the front seat of the truck... as long as it was in plain view you where good to go... but i think as lax as the gun buying laws are here in TN, the state wants to have something that says ok, this person is good to have a firearm... 

[JAB]

... but i think as lax as the gun buying laws are here in TN, the state wants to have something that says ok, this person is good to have a firearm... 

 

At first blush that might seem to make sense but if you really consider that statement a little more deeply it really makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever.  A person who is going to illegally buy a gun and illegally own a gun probably won't worry too much about illegally carrying a gun.  Laws, in reality, only restrict the actions of those who are willing to follow them either because they believe that following the law is the 'right' thing to do or because they do not want to deal with the potential consequences of not doing so.  Criminals do not follow the law - that is why they are called 'criminals'.  So, the only people whose actions are restricted by HCP laws and requirements are the law-abiding citizens that aren't going to be a problem, anyway.  The same goes for the stupid signs at posted businesses.  Imagine a guy with a history of armed robbery saying something like, "Man, I'd really like to rob that bank.  First thing I'd do is shoot the security guard.  Too bad I can't legally carry a gun to do it with and even if I could they got one of those 'no gun' signs up so I guess I'll just get me an honest job, instead."  I mean, is a person who is willing to commit a serious crime like armed robbery or even murder really going to care that it is illegal for him (or her) to carry a gun for the purpose of doing so?  The strange thing is, businesses that post and anti-gun groups that push them to do so - as well as people who oppose relaxing carry laws - act as if that is exactly what they think will happen.

Edited October 21, 2014 by JAB

[bird333]

At first blush that might seem to make sense but if you really consider that statement a little more deeply it really makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever.  A person who is going to illegally buy a gun and illegally own a gun probably won't worry too much about illegally carrying a gun.  Laws, in reality, only restrict the actions of those who are willing to follow them either because they believe that following the law is the 'right' thing to do or because they do not want to deal with the potential consequences of not doing so.  Criminals do not follow the law - that is why they are called 'criminals'.  So, the only people whose actions are restricted by HCP laws and requirements are the law-abiding citizens that aren't going to be a problem, anyway.  The same goes for the stupid signs at posted businesses.  Imagine a guy with a history of armed robbery saying something like, "Man, I'd really like to rob that bank.  First thing I'd do is shoot the security guard.  Too bad I can't legally carry a gun to do it with and even if I could they got one of those 'no gun' signs up so I guess I'll just get me an honest job, instead."  I mean, is a person who is willing to commit a serious crime like armed robbery or even murder really going to care that it is illegal for him (or her) to carry a gun for the purpose of doing so?  The strange thing is, businesses that post and anti-gun groups that push them to do so - as well as people who oppose relaxing carry laws - act as if that is exactly what they think will happen.

I don't think anti-gun people really think criminals are going to follow the law.  I think the thinking is "the more 'law abiding citizens' with guns, the more chance somebody will lose control and use the gun". 

Edited October 21, 2014 by bird333

[JAB]

I don't think anti-gun people really think criminals are going to follow the law.  I think the thinking is "the more 'law abiding citizens' with guns, the more chance somebody will lose control and use the gun". 

 

Personally, I think they have a serious, irrational fear of an inanimate object that completely defies any logical explanation.  But that's just me.

[gun sane]

I don't think anti-gun people really think criminals are going to follow the law.  I think the thinking is "the more 'law abiding citizens' with guns, the more chance somebody will lose control and use the gun". 

 

The casual anti-gunner may think this, but the rabid liberals see the real context of the 2nd amendment and fear us as a threat to their political existence.

Edited October 21, 2014 by gun sane

[JuJu_Eyeball]

 The Feds can say you have a right to keep arms, but until they are responsible for law enforcement they can’t say you can bear arms.

 

Actually, the Second Amendment says the right of the People to keep AND BEAR arms shall not be infringed. So, yes, they can say this.

[Oh Shoot]

Actually, the Second Amendment says the right of the People to keep AND BEAR arms shall not be infringed. So, yes, they can say this.

 

What's fixation on Feds? They're only infringing your carry rights on federal property (that you "own").

 

But your own state says you can't bear arms in your own state. Except certain arms. Under certain circumstances. In certain places. And you even have to pay money to do part of that.

 

- OS

Edited October 23, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[whitewolf001]

It all boils down to revenue for the state, they REALLY like their money.

[tartanphantom]

It all boils down to revenue for the state, they REALLY like their YOUR money.

 

there... fixed it for you.

[whitewolf001]

there... fixed it for you.