2016 TN Legislature

[JAB]

I don't agree.  I don't think anything will hold the Federal government or Executive actions back right now as it is, precedent or not.  In other words.. I don't think having this precedent will embolden or empower anyone to do anything they won't already do.

 

A federal goverment that has the power to force every state to recognize carry permits from every, other state would also have the power to dictate that every state must meet the most stringent requirements enacted in any state in order for the carry permit to be valid.  In other words, if the feds can tell New Yorkistan and The People's Republic of Kalifornia that they have to recognize Tennessee's permits then those same feds can also require that Tennessee's permits meet with the requirements for getting a permit in New Yorkistan and The People's Republic of Kalifornia.  Want 'shall issue' to be a thing of the past?  Want to be required to 'show a real need' (with protecting your life possibly not passing muster to be seen as a 'real need') to be able to carry a gun before you can get a carry permit in Tennessee?  Then federally mandated state carry permit reciprocity is for you!

 

Even if such obvious measures didn't come to pass (and I would be surprised if they didn't) then you can be assured that - at the very least - every, single handgun sold in the United States would be required to be 'California legal' simply because those handguns 'might' get carried there.  Need an example?  Just look at California emissions laws and how they impacted federal emissions requirements for all vehicles regardless of whether or not that vehicle would ever actually be driven in California.  In fact, unless I am mistaken, much of the Gun Control Act of 1968 also originated in California (and was championed by a so-called Republican Governor - not just any so-called Republican but in fact the High Lord of all Republicans, Ronald Reagan)  As for me, I'll just figure that states where the political climate is such that they refuse to recognize a Tennessee HCP are probably not states I care anything about spending any real time in, anyhow.  I'd rather avoid those states altogether or deal with not being able to carry if for some reason I have to go to those states than open a door for Kalifornia's and New Yorkistan's draconian laws to be pushed onto people in other states..

Edited January 12, 2016 by JAB

[macville]

I feel like I end up posting this about once a month, but I want to remind everyone of just what power the legislature has according to our state constitution when it comes to restricting the carrying of weapons. They can only write laws that restrict carry "with a view to prevent crime." There is no way that 1359 is preventing a single crime, plus the legislature isn't allowed the power to give such posting power to business owners as it says only the legislature can restrict (and posting ability gives it to business owners instead.) I would love to make a hidden video confronting businesses that post and find out why they post. Considering what I've seen posted here before, I would bet that 100% would say it's because they,  or customers are uncomfortable with firearms and not to prevent crime.

[GKar]

So far, the new entries appear to be an open carry (?Const Carry-ish?) bill, a bill to increase the penalty for firing from inside a motor vehicle (reckless endangerment) from a Class E to a Class C felony, a bill to greatly restrict/prevent legal carry in parks hosting events that require a ticket for admission, a bill allowing the TN POST commission to deny a retired LEOs application to carry as an LEO under certain circumstances, a bill allowing a person whose rights have been restored after certain felony convictions to utilize certain defenses to unlawful possession/carrying a firearm, a bill to reduce teh lifetime permit cost from $500 to $200, a bill to authorize sheriffs and deputy sheriffs to retain their service weapon upon retirement if approved by 2/3 vote of county legislative body, and a resolution asking the POTUS, Congress and SecDef to review and revise law and policy regarding the carrying of firearms by military service members on military installations.

 

And its just getting started!!

Edited January 13, 2016 by GKar

[GKar]

Today's new offerings:

1) - permits full-time employees of state public colleges or universities to carry a handgun while on property owned, operated, or used by the employing college or university if the employee has a valid Tennessee handgun carry permit.

2) - waives the application and processing fee required with a lifetime handgun carry permit application for retired federal, state, and local law enforcement officers who retired in good standing as certified by the chief enforcement officer from the organization from which the applicant retired.

3) - clarifies that a sheriff or a deputy sheriff is permitted to carry firearms at all times, regardless of the officer's regular duties, unless otherwise prohibited by federal law, court order, or otherwise by law.

4) - confers civil immunity on a member of national guard who has a handgun carry permit, is authorized by the military to carry a personal handgun, and uses the handgun in justifiable self-defense.

[300winmag]

Why is the college carry bill just covering college employees?  Why not just have a clean exemption for all people with a handgun carry permit.?  If you are going to go to the trouble of rewriting the law, just give everyone with a permit an exemption for carrying at a college or school.

[GKar]

Why is the college carry bill just covering college employees?  Why not just have a clean exemption for all people with a handgun carry permit.?  If you are going to go to the trouble of rewriting the law, just give everyone with a permit an exemption for carrying at a college or school.

You'll need to ask Andy Holt.

[xjsnake]

Why is the college carry bill just covering college employees?  Why not just have a clean exemption for all people with a handgun carry permit.?  If you are going to go to the trouble of rewriting the law, just give everyone with a permit an exemption for carrying at a college or school.

 

Because a very outspoken, very well spoken, and easily motivated group of largely anti-gun folks (college faculty) would **** themselves at the thought of a student with a gun in their classroom. I say this a college faculty member who had to listen to this at a meeting a couple months ago...

[JayC]

And exactly how many of them vote for republicans?  Republican legislators need to worry about their voters, not people who would never vote for them.

 

Because a very outspoken, very well spoken, and easily motivated group of largely anti-gun folks (college faculty) would **** themselves at the thought of a student with a gun in their classroom. I say this a college faculty member who had to listen to this at a meeting a couple months ago...

[300winmag]

The anti gun college faculty members will be voting for Bernie Sanders this year.  The heavily Republican state legislature doesn't owe them anything and does need to pay attention to who got them in the legislature if they want to stay in there.

Edited January 15, 2016 by 300winmag

[Worriedman]

Check out SB 1483.

[monkeylizard]

Check out SB 1483.

http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/default.aspx?BillNumber=SB1483&GA=109

[300winmag]

How much does that Constitutional carry bill have of not getting a fiscal note and being stuck in the finance committee?

[btq96r]

Why is the college carry bill just covering college employees?  Why not just have a clean exemption for all people with a handgun carry permit.?  If you are going to go to the trouble of rewriting the law, just give everyone with a permit an exemption for carrying at a college or school.

 

If they are smart, there can be an amendment tacked on just before final voting that would do just that.  Keeping it quiet for now would reduce the outcry from the college facility until it's too late.

 

Maybe, just maybe, if that can happen, I'll be able to carry on campus for my final semester this fall.

 

And exactly how many of them vote for republicans?  Republican legislators need to worry about their voters, not people who would never vote for them.

 

Until you're willing to vote for someone else (ie: a Democrat or Independent), they have no incentive to treat you as anything other than a doormat after getting your vote.  Maybe a primary challenge can scare them, but you're still not hurting the party that is ultimately in control of things.

 

The only voters they will take direction from are the ones writing the checks or getting ready to show them the door.

Edited January 16, 2016 by btq96r

[GKar]

This one is interesting:  SB1736

 

"As introduced, establishes that if a person or entity posts to prohibit the possession of firearms on the property, the posting entity, for purposes of liability, assumes custodial responsibility for the safety and defense of any handgun carry permit holder harmed while on the posted property."

 

I'm sure the Chamber of Commerce has already put its stamp of approval on it...

[btq96r]

This one is interesting:  SB1736

 

"As introduced, establishes that if a person or entity posts to prohibit the possession of firearms on the property, the posting entity, for purposes of liability, assumes custodial responsibility for the safety and defense of any handgun carry permit holder harmed while on the posted property."

 

I'm sure the Chamber of Commerce has already put its stamp of approval on it...

 

We're going to include government buildings right?  Doubt it.  But, yeah...the Chamber will go to the mattresses to prevent this one.

 

It's a nice thought, but its hard to make a law on the presumption that a handgun carry permit holder would always carry, and if they did, could always protect themselves.  Sometimes even someone carrying is going to get shot first, or jacked up before they can draw.

 

Then you have the issues of defining the scope of liability.  "Harmed" is a vague term.  Getting punched would "harm" me but is it enough to qualify as a threat on my life that would justify drawing and firing...no.  Things like that make it a bad bill, IMO. 

 

If a place is posted, it's on the person carrying to decide if they want to assume the risk of being unarmed.  The only places I can't get around that with our free market are government buildings.

Edited January 16, 2016 by btq96r

[300winmag]

SB1736 is a bad bill that will not make any movement.  A bill that adds liability to a business over a no gun sign will not go anywhere.  Why even write a bill like this when you can write a bill to just remove the criminal charge of the sign law?  

 

 

The easier solution would be to just get rid of the sign law or heavily modify it into a trespassing issue instead of a weapons charge.  If you fix the sign law, then people would be able to legally carry in a lot more places.  You can say just avoid a business all you want, but people forget that these signs are legally binding at any local or state government building and places like hospitals where people often have to go

 

Think about this.  There are more than just private businesses that have legally binding signs.  There are a lot of places that you have no choice in going but must go, like a hospital or local/state government office.  If the sign law was changed and you were concealing, you would not have any problems and be legal. when at those places.  If you are not good at concealing and being quiet, then you'd be asked to leave.  When you cause a scene and don't leave, then it is trespassing.  That is how most of the country operates except for TN and a few other states.

Edited January 19, 2016 by 300winmag

[300winmag]

There are a couple of interesting bills

 

HB1644  is a private K-12 and private college carry bill for people authorized by the school only.

HB1751  is a public and private K-12 carry bill for people authorized by the school only.

HB 1736 is a college and university carry bill for full time employees only.

HB 2033 liability for properties that prohibit handgun carry.

[rmiddle]

If they are smart, there can be an amendment tacked on just before final voting that would do just that.  Keeping it quiet for now would reduce the outcry from the college facility until it's too late.

 

Maybe, just maybe, if that can happen, I'll be able to carry on campus for my final semester this fall.

 

 

Until you're willing to vote for someone else (ie: a Democrat or Independent), they have no incentive to treat you as anything other than a doormat after getting your vote.  Maybe a primary challenge can scare them, but you're still not hurting the party that is ultimately in control of things.

 

The only voters they will take direction from are the ones writing the checks or getting ready to show them the door.

 

The best place to clean house is in the primary where you can kick them to the curb and not risk getting an even worse POS in office.

 

Thanks

Robert

[KJ48]

http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/Billinfo/default.aspx?BillNumber=SB2311&ga=109

 

Licensed dealer needs to take in inventory and do TICS on private sales.

[300winmag]

Unless it just hasn't popped up, there is no bill that deletes/modifies the 'no gun' sign law and no bill that gives a general exemption to carry on K-12 or college property.  The proposed school and college carry bills are so restrictive that no one will be able to carry on school property.  The no gun liability law will go no where because of the insurance issues VS just deleting the 'no gun' sign statute.

[GKar]

HB 2131

prohibits public postsecondary institutions from taking any adverse action against an employee or student as a result of such person's lawful transportation and storage of a firearm or ammunition in the person's parked motor vehicle.

 

HB 2146

Constitutional Carry and more, from a different approach than Green's bill.

 

And then there's this, from the Governor's Legislative Package for 2016:

"The Efficiency in Handgun Permitting Act improves the process for gun owners and lowers the fee associated with obtaining a handgun carry permit. It extends the current five-year handgun carry permit to eight years, lowers the initial handgun permit fee from $115 for five years to $100 for eight years and expands the renewal cycle from six months to eight years after the expiration of a permit before a person must reapply as a “new” applicant. Under this proposal background checks will continue to be conducted at the time of initial issuance and at the time of renewal. Additionally, an internal background check will be conducted in the fourth year of the eight-year permit."  And who else but good ole Haslamite Gerald McCormick (along with his accomplice, Sen Norris) would carry this pile of shiite for the Gov...

Edited January 22, 2016 by GKar