Handgun Permit Reform

[Guest 270win]

Now that we will have a new house speaker, I am hoping we can get some firearm law reform:

1. Allow those with a permit to carry in establishments that serve beer and alcohol. I want a clean bill not one with you must have say 50% food sales. Why should I be required to know how much money a place makes off food or alcohol? It would also help those of us who go to pro sporting events...where alcohol is almost always served and make it legal to carry in those stadiums and ball parks.

2. Amend 39-17-1311 (parks) to make having a handgun carry permit a legal defense....and clear up what many think makes it illegal for us to carry in a park or civic center. Also word it that the local and state govts cannot post signs legally prohibiting carry in such parks and civic centers.

3. Decriminalize the 39-17-1359 signs. Why should i pay a fine when I have a permit? Isn't that the point of getting a permit? I don't mind being asked to leave if found out...by why should the state allow me to be fined? This would also take care of some of the govt. buildings with signs...carry all you want but when asked to leave you must leave..THEN be fined if you don't leave.

4. Allow hunters to carry during any season, whether bow, muzzleloader, or modern gun...if the handgun isn't legal to hunt with...don't use it for hunting. Most hunters will not risk a fine and losing their hunting license for using a handgun during say bow season...so again why should i be fined when i have a permit?

5. Allow carry on school property with a permit. It is legal in many states...such as Alabama....why is it illegal here if you have a permit?

[Guest SUNTZU]

I want to be able to carry in state parks. When Kat and I were camping at the beginning of the week, some freaky looking guy in his Mom's beat up station wagon started cruising by, and stopped and stared at Kat while I was down by the river. I'd feel much better knowing that I was considered intelligent enough to protect myself with my handgun. They were hunting boar then, so I guess I could have carried a rifle (suitable for hunting, ?), but not a handgun, cause they are the devil.

Looking forward to some changes.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

I may be stirring up a hornet's nest, but why do we even need permits? Simply make it a crime to carry a gun if you are not an eligible person. Why should we be required to be fingerprinted, placed in a database, and issued special papers? Not to mention the fee. None of these requirements will prevent one single crime.

[Guest nraforlife]

I would love to see the carry laws re-written to show some common sense. We will see....

[jughead]

didnt know we had a new speaker yet. great news if so.

[Fallguy]

Now that we will have a new house speaker, I am hoping we can get some firearm law reform:

1. Allow those with a permit to carry in establishments that serve beer and alcohol. I want a clean bill not one with you must have say 50% food sales. Why should I be required to know how much money a place makes off food or alcohol? It would also help those of us who go to pro sporting events...where alcohol is almost always served and make it legal to carry in those stadiums and ball parks.

2. Amend 39-17-1311 (parks) to make having a handgun carry permit a legal defense....and clear up what many think makes it illegal for us to carry in a park or civic center. Also word it that the local and state govts cannot post signs legally prohibiting carry in such parks and civic centers.

3. Decriminalize the 39-17-1359 signs. Why should i pay a fine when I have a permit? Isn't that the point of getting a permit? I don't mind being asked to leave if found out...by why should the state allow me to be fined? This would also take care of some of the govt. buildings with signs...carry all you want but when asked to leave you must leave..THEN be fined if you don't leave.

4. Allow hunters to carry during any season, whether bow, muzzleloader, or modern gun...if the handgun isn't legal to hunt with...don't use it for hunting. Most hunters will not risk a fine and losing their hunting license for using a handgun during say bow season...so again why should i be fined when i have a permit?

5. Allow carry on school property with a permit. It is legal in many states...such as Alabama....why is it illegal here if you have a permit?

I agree with all except I would rather just see 39-17-1311 done away with entirely.

I may be stirring up a hornet's nest, but why do we even need permits? Simply make it a crime to carry a gun if you are not an eligible person. Why should we be required to be fingerprinted, placed in a database, and issued special papers? Not to mention the fee. None of these requirements will prevent one single crime.

I also agree with this, but no way this could be accomplished anytime soon. Also with the amount of revenue that would be lost to the state...I just don't think it will ever happen.

didnt know we had a new speaker yet. great news if so.

Well as of today we don't but the new legislature starting in Jan will have Republican majority in the house and hopefully they will elect a Republican speaker instead of Nafieh.

[Bigiron]

Anytime something can be taxed, or charged a fee for, it will never be repealed. Rights are trumped by money, everytime.

[Mike.357]

but why do we even need permits? Simply make it a crime to carry a gun if you are not an eligible person.

I feel ya on this but I am not so sure permits should be done away with. Those of us who choose to carry legally think it is worth the time, effort and money to do this. If every Tom, Dick and Harry that is legal to own decided to up and carry a gun I am thinking something bad would happen. There are many people who while legal to own a gun do not heave enough sense to use a four way stop sign. These people would probably pull out that gun and threaten or use it when confronted at a four way stop.

Know what I mean?

Of course criminals will never follow the law anyway, but I am writing about your average yahoo that owns a gun.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

I also agree with this, but no way this could be accomplished anytime soon. Also with the amount of revenue that would be lost to the state...I just don't think it will ever happen.

Anytime something can be taxed, or charged a fee for, it will never be repealed. Rights are trumped by money, everytime.

It's a shame that both of you are right.

I feel ya on this but I am not so sure permits should be done away with. Those of us who choose to carry legally think it is worth the time, effort and money to do this. If every Tom, Dick and Harry that is legal to own decided to up and carry a gun I am thinking something bad would happen. There are many people who while legal to own a gun do not heave enough sense to use a four way stop sign. These people would probably pull out that gun and threaten or use it when confronted at a four way stop.

Know what I mean?

Of course criminals will never follow the law anyway, but I am writing about your average yahoo that owns a gun.

What you're describing could certainly happen. Of course, it can happen anyway because, as you say, stupid people (criminals) don't obey the law.

My chief complaint is that I consider it an undue burden and a slight to my privacy to have to jump through the hoops and register with the government. The government can make a claim as to some need for revenue where our vehicles are concerned. Maintaining roads, etc. They get this revenue primarily through registration. They can not, however, make any legitimate claim to a revenue need for my pistol. They just take my money because they can. They charge us for carrying our weapons because they claim it is a privilege. It's my contention that access and opportunity to effective self-defense is a natural right. The state has no business levying a fee for the exercising of a right.

I'm not trying to argue with you, Mike. Simply provide my view of the situation. Your point is well taken. You may be right that it would lead to increased violence in certain situations, but liberty has always been risky.

[Mike.357]

Hillbilly i totally see your point and agree with it.

Though I do not equate stupid people with criminals, criminals are stupid people

I more refer to the guy who basically would not break laws intentionally but if he had a gun handy might do something stupid. Basically a guy who would not put forth time or effort to understand when you can and cannot use a handgun in a confrontation.

the criminal knows darn well what they are doing is wrong.

I totally agree we should not have to pay for the priviledge but I do believe the paying part helps keep the morons of the world maybe a little safer to themselves and others.

It's a messed up situation.

[Guest Abominable_Hillbilly]

Perhaps we could handle it like we do hunter education.

Seems like what you're suggesting is a concern that the average Joe might not understand the law or the seriousness of carrying a gun. I'll agree with that. There are plenty of Ramboes out there. It wouldn't bother me to be required to attend a class (as we do now) and pay a small one time fee for a lifetime card. No databases. No fingerprinting. No exorbitant fees. You have to possess the card when carrying--the same as you have to be in possession of your hunter education card when hunting.

I wouldn't find that to be unreasonable, and I could see a definite benefit to society. Heck, I wish something similar to that type of firearms training were required to graduate from high school.

[Mike.357]

we are on the same page Hillbilly.

Can you imagine the outcry from the lib's if firearms training was required in high school? It would be great.

[Guest HexHead]

Perhaps we could handle it like we do hunter education.

Seems like what you're suggesting is a concern that the average Joe might not understand the law or the seriousness of carrying a gun. I'll agree with that. There are plenty of Ramboes out there. It wouldn't bother me to be required to attend a class (as we do now) and pay a small one time fee for a lifetime card. No databases. No fingerprinting. No exorbitant fees. You have to possess the card when carrying--the same as you have to be in possession of your hunter education card when hunting.

I wouldn't find that to be unreasonable, and I could see a definite benefit to society. Heck, I wish something similar to that type of firearms training were required to graduate from high school.

You guys are dreaming. You might as well be wishing the spend the weekend with Claudia Schiffer. In fact that would be more likely.

[Punisher84]

Perhaps we could handle it like we do hunter education.

Seems like what you're suggesting is a concern that the average Joe might not understand the law or the seriousness of carrying a gun. I'll agree with that. There are plenty of Ramboes out there. It wouldn't bother me to be required to attend a class (as we do now) and pay a small one time fee for a lifetime card. No databases. No fingerprinting. No exorbitant fees. You have to possess the card when carrying--the same as you have to be in possession of your hunter education card when hunting.

I wouldn't find that to be unreasonable, and I could see a definite benefit to society. Heck, I wish something similar to that type of firearms training were required to graduate from high school.

I've advocated something like this since I got my permit. I think a training class is a necessity. I've just seen to many people that can't shoot, don't know the law, and will probably shoot me accidentally before they ever hit a bad guy.

I think it is our right to KEEP and BEAR arms, but I also think mandatory training should be a must. Honestly, I think if you don't have some type of training you are going to open the gun carrying community up to more people that would give us bad press from either bad shoots or carrying illegally just out of ignorance of the law.

[creeky]

I would like to see some legislation in the form of a "good samartian" type law that would protect Business owners in the event a Permit holder used his weapon on his premises.

One that limited any liability from the business owner.

Hopefully that would help keep a lot of businesses from getting posted, and the ones that did couldn't use the "liability" issue as an excuse to mask anti-gun intentions.

[Guest jackdog]

I for one will not be holding my breath, that gun laws will dramatically change for us, but I sure am hoping.

[Guest grimel]

They were hunting boar then, so I guess I could have carried a rifle (suitable for hunting, ?), but not a handgun, cause they are the devil.

Well, if they are hunting hogs and you have a valid hunting lic your 357mag/44mag would be a viable option (provided it has a 4" barrel).

[tbuford]

Hopefully we will be able to get some more "common sense" changes made to a few of the quirky restrictions!

[Guest nraforlife]

Real simple law. You can carry ANYWHERE where not posted and then the penalty is trespassing, and MAYBE a brief suspension of your license, if asked to leave and you do not comply.

[robin48]

All it would take is for one or two Republicans to vote for the Dark Lord Naifeh and we are once again screwed

[Fallguy]

Yeah...looks like there has already been a little "wheeling and dealing" within the Republican party.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/dec/01/tennessee-house-republicans-choose-leaders/

Tennessee House Republicans choose leaders

By Richard Locker (Contact), Memphis Commercial Appeal

Monday, December 1, 2008

NASHVILLE -- Republicans in the state House of Representatives on Tuesday nominated their leader of the last two years -- Rep. Jason Mumpower of Bristol -- to become the first GOP House speaker in 38 years.

But the real fireworks came minutes later over the nomination for House Republican Caucus chairman. Rep. Steve McDaniel of Parkers Crossroads defeated Rep. Frank Niceley of Strawberry Plains after Niceley questioned McDaniel's loyalty to conservatism and the party in years past when McDaniel voted for tax increases and for Democratic House Speaker Jimmy Naifeh.

"My opponent and I came into the House at the same time but went on separate paths. He voted for Naifeh. He voted for a 4-cent gas tax increase. He voted for a sales tax increase. And when the income tax came up, I burned up the telephone lines against it. I have remained loyal to the conservative cause. Never wavered. Today you can see which track is best, which gets rewarded," Nicely said in a short speech to the caucus before the vote.

Republicans won a 50-49 majority in the House Nov. 4 -- their first there since 1869.

If Mumpower wins the speakership when the General Assembly convenes Jan. 13, he will be the first Republican speaker since 1969-70 when former Rep. Bill Jenkins won with 49 Republicans and one independent who voted with the GOP in the speaker's election.

House Democrats last week nominated Speaker Jimmy Naifeh of Covington to a 10th two-year term, but if all 50 Republicans vote together as expected, Mumpower will replace him at the podium.

McDaniel declined to comment on Niceley's remarks, saying he's always considered himself a conservative. "With this excitement comes responsibility. We'll be able to move issues on our conservative agenda along, including life and education," he said, referring in part to anti-abortion legislation.

The caucus votes are by secret ballot and totals are not announced, but it appeared McDaniel edged Niceley 28-21.

When the House convenes, McDaniel will also be the GOP nominee for House speaker pro tem.

Only one other leadership position in the caucus was contested: Rep. Barrett Rich of Somerville defeated Rep. Joe Carr of Murfreesboro for assistant floor leader -- a position reserved for freshmen and voted on only by the 10 GOP freshmen.

Rep. Glen Casada of Franklin was elected assistant majority leader and will become majority leader if Mumpower wins as speaker.

[Guest nraforlife]

As long as the Gov doesn't veto we'll probably get restaurant and park carry

[Guest TnDeerHunter]

Would be nice to use handgun permit instead of paying $10 bucks for background check every time you purchase a weapon. But don't see that happening if they can get money out of you they will

[Tim Nunan]

"When the House convenes, McDaniel will also be the GOP nominee for House speaker pro tem."

Unknown to me is that the House speaker pro tem can sit in any committee (just as Naifeh did as speaker) and vote on any bill before the committee. Since McDaniel has been a Naifeh supporter in the past I'm concerned we may have a rat in the wood pile. :: takes tin foil hat off::

[Fallguy]

"When the House convenes, McDaniel will also be the GOP nominee for House speaker pro tem."

Unknown to me is that the House speaker pro tem can sit in any committee (just as Naifeh did as speaker) and vote on any bill before the committee. Since McDaniel has been a Naifeh supporter in the past I'm concerned we may have a rat in the wood pile. :: takes tin foil hat off::

I used to leave in McDaniels district, although I never liked that he voted for Nafieh as speaker, he was also in favor any pro-carry, pro-gun legislation I talked to him about.