Const. Carry Bill brought up today

[CommsNBombs]

http://shallnot.org/constitutional-carry-filed-in-tennessee/

Doubt thisll go anywhere

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

[LagerHead]

http://shallnot.org/constitutional-carry-filed-in-tennessee/

Doubt thisll go anywhere

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

 

Hey, just because it never has doesn't mean it never will. Probably won't, but I've heard stranger things have happened. ;)

[300winmag]

Thursday is the filing deadline for bills.  If you want to see a bill that has a chance of passing (getting through finance committee) you might want to contact your representative/senator.  I don't think Constitutional carry will get anywhere because of the loss of money to the state with people not buying permits. 

 

If you want to see an exemption for people with permits on school property or get rid of the 'no guns' signs law, then now would be the time to get that in.  There should be no excuse a school exemption or no gun sign bill would get tied up in finance committee.

[conn_air7]

Just saw this, I'm not sure whether it would be a good thing or bad thing. The downfall is that we have already invested a little money into the ability to carry legally. However, it would most likely prevent us from having to pay anymore from here on out. Would definitely suck for those who have paid for a lifetime permit. I think that carrying a handgun should be a privilege, not a right. I don't trust a lot of people carrying around a handgun. I feel like this would allow people that have no business carrying a handgun to carry whenever they want. This would allow "criminals" to legally carry a firearm??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[K191145]

I think that carrying a handgun should be a privilege, not a right. I don't trust a lot of people carrying around a handgun. I feel like this would allow people that have no business carrying a handgun to carry whenever they want. This would allow "criminals" to legally carry a firearm??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

UUUUMMM, are we posting on the right forum? To the second part, it will not allow felons to "legally" carry a firearm of any kind or to even possess a firearm of any kind. And who are we to judge who is responsible or not to carry a handgun? I know people, and i'm sure we all know someone who we "wish" didn't own a firearm but it's not my place or anyone else's to tell the masses who should or should not carry. That's punishing everyone for the idiocy of the few.

 

And, it's called the Bill Of RIGHTS, not the Bill Of PRIVILEGES.

Edited January 19, 2016 by K191145

[conn_air7]

. Edited January 19, 2016 by conn_air7

[conn_air7]

UUUUMMM, are we posting on the right forum? To the second part, it will not allow felons to "legally" carry a firearm of any kind or to even possess a firearm of any kind. And who are we to judge who is responsible or not to carry a handgun? I know people, and i'm sure we all know someone who we "wish" didn't own a firearm but it's not my place or anyone else's to tell the masses who should or should not carry. That's punishing everyone for the idiocy of the few.

And, it's called the Bill Of RIGHTS, not the Bill Of PRIVILEGES.

I think you are misunderstanding, it is a privilege to be able to carry a handgun in the state of TN, not a right. If it was a right, anyone could carry a handgun. If you feel safe letting anyone in the entire state above the age of 21 who has a pistol (and legally owns it) carry that on them then that's fine. I don't feel that way, but I suppose I am only exercising my right to the first amendment.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[300winmag]

I'd rather see bills reducing the restrictions on people with handgun carry permits.  In an ideal world, we could all open carry a gun anywhere we wanted to.  The legislature likes the permit system because of the revenue, whether we like it or not.  We should then work with that permit system to cut the restrictions on it.

[Hozzie]

I think you are misunderstanding, it is a privilege to be able to carry a handgun in the state of TN, not a right. If it was a right, anyone could carry a handgun. If you feel safe letting anyone in the entire state above the age of 21 who has a pistol (and legally owns it) carry that on them then that's fine. I don't feel that way, but I suppose I am only exercising my right to the first amendment.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And you think the "training" they go through to be allowed to purchase a permit is different than none? These permit classes do nothing to make anyone safer. Anyone legally allowed should be able to carry a gun if they choose to. They can already do it in their cars and the bloodshed hasn't started yet.

[conn_air7]

And you think the "training" they go through to be allowed to purchase a permit is different than none? These permit classes do nothing to make anyone safer. Anyone legally allowed should be able to carry a gun if they choose to. They can already do it in their cars and the bloodshed hasn't started yet.

Did you forget that your fingerprints are on file and that you had to complete a full background check prior to receiving your permit? That bill isn't going to change anything for anyone. Whoever wants to carry is going to carry whether they have a permit or not, that's my point. Don't be afraid to see things objectively. I get your point, but you seem to trust people more than I do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[K191145]

I think you are misunderstanding, it is a privilege to be able to carry a handgun in the state of TN, not a right. If it was a right, anyone could carry a handgun. If you feel safe letting anyone in the entire state above the age of 21 who has a pistol (and legally owns it) carry that on them then that's fine. I don't feel that way, but I suppose I am only exercising my right to the first amendment.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I never questioned your right to express your opinion, it is your 1st. Amendment right just as it is my 1st. Amendment right to say you are wrong. It is a right, some states just infringe upon that right like Tennessee does.

[K191145]

Did you forget that your fingerprints are on file and that you had to complete a full background check prior to receiving your permit? That bill isn't going to change anything for anyone. Whoever wants to carry is going to carry whether they have a permit or not, that's my point. Don't be afraid to see things objectively. I get your point, but you seem to trust people more than I do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

It's not up to you or I to say they can't carry because we don't trust them.

[conn_air7]

It's not up to you or I to say they can't carry because we don't trust them.

I'm gonna leave it at this, I don't support this bill. No reason to argue over it, I'm not going to get my panties in a wad because someone has a different opinion than me. I respect your opinion regardless of how I see it, end of story.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[300winmag]

That bill unfortunately will not make it past committee for a floor vote.  Better to spend effort on something that can be voted on the floor and actually help people with handgun carry permits.

 

I agree with Constitutional carry, but it honestly has no chance of actually being voted on with the folks we have now in the legislature.  You only have so much time and political capital during the legislative session.  Why not use that time and political capital to improve things for people with permits instead of proposing bills that have zero chance of being voted on?

Edited January 19, 2016 by 300winmag

[GlockSpock]

I think it should be recognized as a right but doubt to see that anytime soon. It is upheld that certain actions can take rights away from criminals, so this wouldn't allow criminals to run around with guns, just like criminals don't have the rights to purchase a gun legally now.

Optimistically, I would love to see constitutional carry but doubt we'll see it in TN anytime soon. Overall I submit to the idea of paying for privileges/rights and do just that so I can drive and carry legally in TN. The biggest issue I have with the current HCP setup in Tennessee is the time and monetary burdens that it imposes.

I don't think we should be so restrictive so that someone who feels they are in immediate harm cannot carry a handgun for their issue. A woman feels threatened by her new ex-boyfriend? As long as she coughs up ~$60 for a class and then $115 for the application fee and then waits 3-6 weeks, she can carry legally!

If constitutional carry were passed in Tennessee, I think a voluntary permit system should still stay in place so that reciprocity can still be established in cooperating states. It would be a form of income for the state and anyone interested enough in carrying while traveling would likely be happy to do so. What constitutional carry would do is allow people in their own state be armed while out and about.

On the flipside, ultimately the "safety course" doesn't really go that far in actually helping people. I doubt many people leave that class being much more intelligent or safer than before they attended. Also, there are many people who have taken the HCP Safety Course and I still would not want to be around them at the range .Some people are careless and think they know better and nothing will prevent them from exercising Darwinism.

For opponents of this bill, I think it would be worth noting states that have allowed constitutional carry. They have not turned into the bloodbaths like we are told they would, just like TN hasn't turned into a bloodbath over the vehicle carry issue recently. Edited January 19, 2016 by CZ9MM

[Omega]

I think it should be recognized as a right but doubt to see that anytime soon. It is upheld that certain actions can take rights away from criminals, so this wouldn't allow criminals to run around with guns, just like criminals don't have the rights to purchase a gun legally now.

Optimistically, I would love to see constitutional carry but doubt we'll see it in TN anytime soon. Overall I submit to the idea of paying for privileges/rights and do just that so I can drive and carry legally in TN. The biggest issue I have with the current HCP setup in Tennessee is the time and monetary burdens that it imposes.

I don't think we should be so restrictive so that someone who feels they are in immediate harm cannot carry a handgun for their issue. A woman feels threatened by her new ex-boyfriend? As long as she coughs up ~$60 for a class and then $115 for the application fee and then waits 3-6 weeks, she can carry legally!

If constitutional carry were passed in Tennessee, I think a voluntary permit system should still stay in place so that reciprocity can still be established in cooperating states. It would be a form of income for the state and anyone interested enough in carrying while traveling would likely be happy to do so. What constitutional carry would do is allow people in their own state be armed while out and about.

On the flipside, ultimately the "safety course" doesn't really go that far in actually helping people. I doubt many people leave that class being much more intelligent or safer than before they attended. Also, there are many people who have taken the HCP Safety Course and I still would not want to be around them at the range .Some people are careless and think they know better and nothing will prevent them from exercising Darwinism.

For opponents of this bill, I think it would be worth noting states that have allowed constitutional carry. They have not turned into the bloodbaths like we are told they would, just like TN hasn't turned into a bloodbath over the vehicle carry issue recently.

I agree, if they want to infringe on our Constitutional Rights, then at the very least they should make them free and immediate.  The whole thing is nothing more than a revenue stream that the State will not infringe upon, if it was about safety they would have more meat in the classes and make many more courses available to the public.

 

I support Constitutional Carry, but if it where to pass in TN, I would still maintain my permit; at least until the rest of the US follows suit which will be...never.

[conn_air7]

This may be a little off the subject, but I want to know what you guys think. Say the government were to propose allowing anyone in the U.S. that is 16 years old drive a car without having to pass a drivers test of any kind, would you support that. Why or why not?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chances R]

I think you are misunderstanding, it is a privilege to be able to carry a handgun in the state of TN, not a right. If it was a right, anyone could carry a handgun. If you feel safe letting anyone in the entire state above the age of 21 who has a pistol (and legally owns it) carry that on them then that's fine. I don't feel that way, but I suppose I am only exercising my right to the first amendment.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

C_A you are exercising your 1st Amendment right without undergoing any test or permit....and that is exactly what was intended by the 2nd Amend. as well.  The key to both 1st and 2nd is personal responsibility.  I teach the carry permit class and it is not magical.  A few may be exposed to safety rules and minimal shooting instruction, but unfortunately that does not make one safe, trained, or experienced.  However much one is 'trained" is a personal decision, not mine or yours which is the way the Constitution meant it to be.  Emphasis needs to be on further training, not on stricter laws....there are more than enough of those already.

[mikegideon]

Jesus Christ!!! It has been legal to open carry a handgun without a permit in Kentucky for as long as I can remember. How is this state any different? Any "blood in the streets" predictions are for complete idiots. 

[chances R]

This may be a little off the subject, but I want to know what you guys think. Say the government were to propose allowing anyone in the U.S. that is 16 years old drive a car without having to pass a drivers test of any kind, would you support that. Why or why not?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No.....but not even horse and buggy was mentioned in the Constitution.  Furthermore I doubt that very few young drivers don't take driver's ed, which is much longer than a one day 8 hour course.

[conn_air7]

C_A you are exercising your 1st Amendment right without undergoing any test or permit....and that is exactly what was intended by the 2nd Amend. as well. The key to both 1st and 2nd is personal responsibility. I teach the carry permit class and it is not magical. A few may be exposed to safety rules and minimal shooting instruction, but unfortunately that does not make one safe, trained, or experienced. However much one is 'trained" is a personal decision, not mine or yours which is the way the Constitution meant it to be. Emphasis needs to be on further training, not on stricter laws....there are more than enough of those already.

I see where you're coming from, and I agree with you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hozzie]

This may be a little off the subject, but I want to know what you guys think. Say the government were to propose allowing anyone in the U.S. that is 16 years old drive a car without having to pass a drivers test of any kind, would you support that. Why or why not?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Apples and Oranges.  Driving is not a constitutional right.  

 

Hypothetically, I am not sure it matters.  Look at how many bad drivers there are.  Good driving comes from practice, not passing a test.  

[btq96r]

I'd rather see bills reducing the restrictions on people with handgun carry permits.  In an ideal world, we could all open carry a gun anywhere we wanted to.  The legislature likes the permit system because of the revenue, whether we like it or not.  We should then work with that permit system to cut the restrictions on it.

 

I think this is the right approach.  With improvements in technology, the background check process is so easy, it's hard to classify it as an infringement (to me anyway, I know others disagree...that's fine).  Plus it's an easier counter argument when you can say that those carrying in the potentially soon to be opened areas have gone through a background check that anti-gun activists have made the crux of their argument. 

 

What is an infringement is the limitations that our state puts on people that are, by their own admission, safe to carry a firearm.  So, why any restrictions on where we can carry?  Personal and commercial property, I think should be determined by the person owning/running the property (again, I know others disagree).  But why shouldn't a person who passes a background check be allowed to carry inside a government building?  Are we safe by their standards, or not?

 

 

If constitutional carry were passed in Tennessee, I think a voluntary permit system should still stay in place so that reciprocity can still be established in cooperating states. It would be a form of income for the state and anyone interested enough in carrying while traveling would likely be happy to do so. What constitutional carry would do is allow people in their own state be armed while out and about.

 

The recent issues in Virginia made this something that would have to be thought out.  Of course the Virginia Governor and Attorney General just wanted to limit what states have reciprocity for permit carry, but they actually had a legal reasoning behind it., The reasoning being states they no longer recognized as valid for reciprocity were dropped because they didn't have the same standards as Virginia did for their permit holders.

 

So, if Tennessee did adopt Constitutional Carry, the permit would still have to have some kind of education/training/testing/background check requirements or else we would be at risk of having more states revoke reciprocity, either automatically or once an opportunistic administration or legislature comes to power.

[CommsNBombs]

Here is my $.02 - that, and half a baloney sandwich after a week will give you a fungal infection.

Just like was touched upon in this thread, you do not need any permission to exercise your 2nd Amendent right anymore than your 1st - the caveat is obviously doing it safely and not infringing.

BLM dudes raising fists and chanting? Cool
BLM dudes burning a CVS down? Not cool

Buying a gun and shooting USPSA? Cool
Buying a gun and shooting up VT? Not cool

End of the day, bad people will find a way to do bad stuff no matter what right, law, bill, EO or Ethiopian prommisary note - so toss that arguement out of the window; why should law abiding citizens be punished and not be able to exercise their rights because of the inevitable evil in the world?

I understand the HCP class helps instill the basic, bear minimum safety protocols - I do not even think that is a good argument to keep it around. There are plenty people who have HCPs that are still brain dead when it comes to fundamentals. End of the day a person's willingness to learn is dependent on them, the HCP class is more of a "check the box"sort of thing.

Training is a subjective idea. By that people think someone who doesn't flag someone or chamber checks is trained - to someone else a SWAT guy may be considered "well trained"

As long as they arent pointing guns at random people, or breaking laws, no problem.

What I am trying to say is I support the idea of ConCarry. Id rather have someone with minimal training be afforded the ability to carry concealed and protect his family and not worry about the politics behind it.

I understand the state makes money on it, but I am sure of all money they make HCPs arent bringing in a huge amount. And if you want recipocrity (sp?) You can take the test and pay for it.

Doubt itll make it to the floor either way. Again, just my opinion

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

[K191145]

Here's some states that have carry without a permit.

Idaho, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Vermont, Wyoming, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Oklahoma.

 

If there were a problem with that in any of those states I guarantee you the main stream media would be all over it saying, see, we told you so. Obviously there's been no problems with it.