State Level Legislation

[300winmag]

What would you like to see proposed and passed as a bill next year that actually has a chance of passing in Nashville?

 

I would like to see the no gun sign law, 39-17-1359, either modified or deleted so that someone with a handgun carry permit does not risk a fine and permit suspension for carrying past a no gun sign.  This would legalize a whole lot of places for people with handgun carry permits, such as local government offices in the Memphis area, some hospitals, and businesses.  I do think, however, that private property owners should be able to ask people to leave, but not turn it into a weapons charge fine/permit suspension issue.

 

I don't think we have any chance for Constitutional carry with this legislature and governor, but if we did, what good does it do us when property owners stick up 'no guns' signs that can get you fined? 

Edited July 29, 2015 by 300winmag

[shotgunshooter]

I'd like to see people be able to get a permit and carry at 18. If you can pay taxes, vote, smoke, and go die for your country then why can you not protect yourself. I'd also like to see constitutional carry passed but I'm wish in one hand and **** in the other. I feel getting a permit at 18 would provide the state with more income (which I don't think they'd ever turn down) so would have a better shot at passing and being signed than constitutional carry.

[xsubsailor]

 I'd like to see speed and red light cameras banned. 

[chances R]

I'd like to see people be able to get a permit and carry at 18. If you can pay taxes, vote, smoke, and go die for your country then why can you not protect yourself. I'd also like to see constitutional carry passed but I'm wish in one hand and **** in the other. I feel getting a permit at 18 would provide the state with more income (which I don't think they'd ever turn down) so would have a better shot at passing and being signed than constitutional carry.

IF the 18yo is in the military I would go along with it. Otherwise most are still living at home and I wouldn't trust. Con. Carry is aways off. I think the sign law needs changed.

[Just2Honor]

Signs not to have force of law.  They can always ask you to leave but concealed is concealed so they wouldn't know.

[shotgunshooter]

IF the 18yo is in the military I would go along with it. Otherwise most are still living at home and I wouldn't trust. Con. Carry is aways off. I think the sign law needs changed.

Because they are so much better trained in the military with handguns right? I thought that the average soldier maybe touches a handgun once at boot and probably never again. I'm guessing your logic is that a soldier is much better trained with a handgun than the average citizen? So let me put this into an example for you: for the last 5 years I have shot a minimum of 250 shells a week in my shotgun and the last year and a half I have shot about 100 rounds a month out of my pistol. Based on just total rounds that I have shot wouldn't that make me more qualified to carry either of these weapons that a soldier? I'm sorry but we will let an 18 year old vote and buy a long gun but not buy or carry a handgun. This is asinine. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right but I'm technically wrong because I haven't reached an arbitrary age where I suddenly become more responsible.

[chances R]

  Plenty of Jr. shooters have shot a lot more than you, but that doesn't mean they can carry a handgun.  Soldiers learn responsibility and accountability.  Don't confuse that with rounds down range.  I'm glad you shoot and like clays.  I have worn out two shotguns and thought I could shoot a pistol until I did some formal training with pistols.  Whole different ballgame, let alone the responsibility carrying one around most of the time.  By the way, plenty of folks beyond the 'arbitrary age' are still not responsible and for that matter probably shouldn't even vote.

[shotgunshooter]

Plenty of Jr. shooters have shot a lot more than you, but that doesn't mean they can carry a handgun. Soldiers learn responsibility and accountability. Don't confuse that with rounds down range. I'm glad you shoot and like clays. I have worn out two shotguns and thought I could shoot a pistol until I did some formal training with pistols. Whole different ballgame, let alone the responsibility carrying one around most of the time. By the way, plenty of folks beyond the 'arbitrary age' are still not responsible and for that matter probably shouldn't even vote.

I'm not claiming to be the "be all, end all" when it comes to shooting. I can see your side of the coin but I don't agree with it. I can also see that you can't see mine. I'm just going to leave it at this post on this thread.

[Omega]

Because they are so much better trained in the military with handguns right? I thought that the average soldier maybe touches a handgun once at boot and probably never again. I'm guessing your logic is that a soldier is much better trained with a handgun than the average citizen? So let me put this into an example for you: for the last 5 years I have shot a minimum of 250 shells a week in my shotgun and the last year and a half I have shot about 100 rounds a month out of my pistol. Based on just total rounds that I have shot wouldn't that make me more qualified to carry either of these weapons that a soldier? I'm sorry but we will let an 18 year old vote and buy a long gun but not buy or carry a handgun. This is asinine. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right but I'm technically wrong because I haven't reached an arbitrary age where I suddenly become more responsible.

Personally, I feel those 18-20 year olds that volunteer to defend our country should be given more rights than those that do not.  If the others want those rights sooner, join.  Just like those that take drivers ed get permits sooner than those who don't.  I would even support them having to take some safety classes in high school beforehand to please the whiners.

[300winmag]

I don't think there are problems in states where 18 year olds can get a pistol license.  Of course now in TN an 18 year old can keep any firearm loaded in his vehicle in addition to his home or out in the woods.  I do think if the handgun carry permit age was lowered to 18 that we would lose reciprocity with some states just like if we dropped the training requirement.

 

I think the no guns signs losing legal weight of criminal penalties is a realistic goal that we can achieve with the permit system in the near future with the right game plan.

[Worriedman]

Repeal 39-17-1307 with respect to guns, like Mike Bell did for knives.

[LagerHead]

IF the 18yo is in the military I would go along with it. Otherwise most are still living at home and I wouldn't trust. Con. Carry is aways off. I think the sign law needs changed.

 

Is an 18 year old finance clerk in the Air Force Reserves more qualified to carry a pistol than someone who has been hunting and shooting with his dad since he was a kid? I don't think so.

 

Because they are so much better trained in the military with handguns right? I thought that the average soldier maybe touches a handgun once at boot and probably never again. I'm guessing your logic is that a soldier is much better trained with a handgun than the average citizen? So let me put this into an example for you: for the last 5 years I have shot a minimum of 250 shells a week in my shotgun and the last year and a half I have shot about 100 rounds a month out of my pistol. Based on just total rounds that I have shot wouldn't that make me more qualified to carry either of these weapons that a soldier? I'm sorry but we will let an 18 year old vote and buy a long gun but not buy or carry a handgun. This is asinine. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right but I'm technically wrong because I haven't reached an arbitrary age where I suddenly become more responsible.

 

If you're old enough to be tried as an adult in a court of law, then the government should treat you like a damn adult. Otherwise, change the legal age of adulthood.

 

What I'd like to see: Constitutional Carry. The Tennessee Constitution clearly states that the legislature may pass gun laws with a clear aim to preventing crime. None of our laws do that.

[monkeylizard]

Repeal 1307 for guns would be nice, but I think that's right up there with Con. Carry because, well, they're pretty much the same thing.

 

Realistically, I'd like to see 1359 repealed in its entirety. Not modified, just flat gone. Unfortunately, I suspect those images of the bullet holes in the gunbuster sticker at the recruiting center in Chatt. will be out of the minds of legislators by the time they meet again and start legislating. Still, I think it's a better than normal chance that we could get that this year, in large part because of those images.

[chances R]

Is an 18 year old finance clerk in the Air Force Reserves more qualified to carry a pistol than someone who has been hunting and shooting with his dad since he was a kid? I don't think so.

 

 

Unfortunately there will be some exceptions.  Also unfortunately not as many kids grow up hunting with their father......simply a smaller number now that all State wildlife agencies are facing.  As previously noted on two counts...1>  IF military personnel could get a carry permit at 18; good for them and a benefit of sorts that is earned.  2>  18 yo can have a loaded weapon in their vehicle in TN without a permit.  Decent compromise  for the time being.

 

Shotgunshooter I do see your point, but I think you would readily admit that MOST young people your age have a fraction of the shooting experience you have.  If you were King, I doubt you would let a lot of people you know handle a weapon around you or your family.  I teach carry classes and I see a lot of folks who would benefit from training beyond their "learner's permit."

[LagerHead]

Call me quirky, but I'm not for placing all kinds of conditions on rights. That's not how rights work. Rights are only to be restricted under certain circumstances, such as when you are in prison for committing a felony. Either 18 is old enough to carry a gun or it's not. If you've been in the military you know there are 18 - or for that matter 38 - year olds you wouldn't trust carrying your groceries, let alone a gun. It's no different than the civilian population in that respect. I don't think the military should have more rights than civilians simply because of the career field they chose.

Edited July 31, 2015 by LagerHead

[chances R]

Yeah, you may have a point.  So let's just move the age of majority back to 21....and that may still be too early in some cases.

[Omega]

Call me quirky, but I'm not for placing all kinds of conditions on rights. That's not how rights work. Rights are only to be restricted under certain circumstances, such as when you are in prison for committing a felony. Either 18 is old enough to carry a gun or it's not. If you've been in the military you know there are 18 - or for that matter 38 - year olds you wouldn't trust carrying your groceries, let alone a gun. It's no different than the civilian population in that respect. I don't think the military should have more rights than civilians simply because of the career field they chose.

I disagree, if it were simply a case of career field I might tend to see your point.  But we already give them access to guns, fully auto machine guns, claymores, hand grenades and C4 not to mention all the big stuff like tanks and artillery.  Its not restricting anyone's rights, it's giving those rights to those that put their lives on the line to defend our way of life and may not live long enough to get them at 21.  And it's not like those rights are not available to everyone, they are free to join even at 17 with their parents permission.  And yes, I know there are quite a few 18 year olds on either side I won't trust with a stick let alone a gun, but that is neither here nor there because as everyone points out there are some of any age that fit that profile.

[LagerHead]

I disagree, if it were simply a case of career field I might tend to see your point.  But we already give them access to guns, fully auto machine guns, claymores, hand grenades and C4 not to mention all the big stuff like tanks and artillery.  Its not restricting anyone's rights, it's giving those rights to those that put their lives on the line to defend our way of life and may not live long enough to get them at 21.  And it's not like those rights are not available to everyone, they are free to join even at 17 with their parents permission.  And yes, I know there are quite a few 18 year olds on either side I won't trust with a stick let alone a gun, but that is neither here nor there because as everyone points out there are some of any age that fit that profile.

 

No, it's not available to everyone. People who have disqualifying medical conditions, for example. Sorry, I just don't believe that some people should be given rights and then deny them to others. That's how our Congress works. I'm just not down with it. 

 

And not everyone in the military ever touches machine guns or claymores. Some people went their entire career without touching one. How exactly does that make them more qualified than the average civilian? 

Edited August 1, 2015 by LagerHead

[chances R]

No, it's not available to everyone. People who have disqualifying medical conditions, for example. Sorry, I just don't believe that some people should be given rights and then deny them to others. That's how our Congress works. I'm just not down with it. 

 

And not everyone in the military ever touches machine guns or claymores. Some people went their entire career without touching one. How exactly does that make them more qualified than the average civilian? 

 

 

Because they took the Oath to uphold the constitution for starters.  The right is not denied to those 21 and over, which 21 use to be the age of majority until 1970 I believe.  On the other hand, chances are they are more qualified than the average citizen.  If they have  shot qualification and have the document that proves such; if not then simply make an exception until they do so.

Edited August 1, 2015 by chances R

[LagerHead]

Because they took the Oath to uphold the constitution for starters.  The right is not denied to those 21 and over, which 21 use to be the age of majority until 1970 I believe.  On the other hand, chances are they are more qualified than the average citizen.  If they have  shot qualification and have the document that proves such; if not then simply make an exception until they do so.

 

I'm not sure how an oath makes you more qualified to carry a gun than someone else. Perhaps you could clarify.

 

It's funny how we always say that we want constitutional carry, but the support ideas that are 100% the opposite. Why is that?

[chances R]

I'm not sure how an oath makes you more qualified to carry a gun than someone else. Perhaps you could clarify.
 
It's funny how we always say that we want constitutional carry, but the support ideas that are 100% the opposite. Why is that?

Apples and Oranges, different subject. I respect those who respect volunteer to protect our Country. It sets them apart from the crowd. A line has to be drawn somewhere; that's where I draw mine.

[LagerHead]

Apples and Oranges, different subject. I respect those who respect volunteer to protect our Country. It sets them apart from the crowd. A line has to be drawn somewhere; that's where I draw mine.

 

Understood. I choose not to deny rights to someone just because they didn't volunteer. I prefer a much more permissive environment over a restrictive one.

[Omega]

I'm not sure how an oath makes you more qualified to carry a gun than someone else. Perhaps you could clarify.

 

It's funny how we always say that we want constitutional carry, but the support ideas that are 100% the opposite. Why is that?

Baby steps, if we could get them to change this for the military, then maybe later for all.  I actually do not see this as taking rights away so much as giving it to them sooner.  Really, it should be 18 for everything or 21 for everything, pick an age and stick to it.

[JAB]

IF the 18yo is in the military I would go along with it. Otherwise most are still living at home and I wouldn't trust. Con. Carry is aways off. I think the sign law needs changed.

 

That 18 year old doesn't have to be in the military to be charged as an adult if he or she commits a crime.  That 18 year old is expected to sign up for a (very unlikely) draft and can be told that he has to go and fight/kill/die.  If they are held to the same level of responsibility as an adult on other matters then they should have the same rights as an adult - including being able to purchase alcohol legally and obtain an HCP.  Otherwise, the government is saying, "You are an adult when it is convenient for us but not when it comes to having all of the rights that come with being an adult."  That doesn't wash, with me.

 

Besides, unless I am mistaken, an 18 year old can legally own a handgun (just can't buy one from a licensed dealer/gun store) and the way the 'car carry' law is written that same 18 year old can legally carry in his or her car.  Allowing them to legally go the next step and get an HCP really isn't that great a leap, IMO.

Edited August 3, 2015 by JAB

[JAB]

My #1 gun related law I would like to see would be the stupid signs losing the weight of law.