TN Lifetime HCP Now $200

[Erik88]

28 minutes ago, Omega said:

I can care less about reciprocity,  

The correct saying is "I could not care less"....

You are implying that you could, in fact, care less about reciprocity. 

[Omega]

8 minutes ago, Erik88 said:

The correct saying is "I could not care less"....

You are implying that you could, in fact, care less about reciprocity. 

Which is correct, IMHO I can move it to not giving a ...well, you know.

[btq96r]

2 hours ago, monkeylizard said:

Short of reinstating the 2-year draft, the only ways I can think of an under-21 honorable discharge are going to be medical discharge or force reductions.

A "two year enlistment" option was expanded by the Army to help fill units in the deployment cycles during the heyday of the Iraq war.  You could enlist, and after graduating basic and AIT, you only had 15 months left on active duty once you signed into your duty station, so the total time varied by MOS.  It actually started in 2003 under the name "National Call to Service" which they kept around because "We need warm bodies for Iraq" didn't sound so great.  The open positions were mostly limited to combat jobs and support jobs that the Army had trouble filling, but they threw in some enlistment bonus money or a partial student-loan repayment as incentive.

Pretty sure it's still an enlistment option for all the services.

[Omega]

5 minutes ago, btq96r said:

A "two year enlistment" option was expanded by the Army to help fill units in the deployment cycles during the heyday of the Iraq war.  You could enlist, and after graduating basic and AIT, you only had 15 months left on active duty once you signed into your duty station, so the total time varied by MOS.  It actually started in 2003 under the name "National Call to Service" which they kept around because "We need warm bodies for Iraq" didn't sound so great.  The open positions were mostly limited to combat jobs and support jobs that the Army had trouble filling, but they threw in some enlistment bonus money or a partial student-loan repayment as incentive.

Pretty sure it's still an enlistment option for all the services.

2 year options were available in 83' when I enlisted,  I chose 3, which was right in the middle.

[btq96r]

Just now, Omega said:

2 year options were available in 83' when I enlisted,  I chose 3, which was right in the middle.

Yeah, it ebbs and flows based on operational needs, specifically in your case for what I imagine was the Reagan era buildup. 

Honestly, the 2-yr enlistment folks by themselves were usually decent enough, if a bit riper with the FNG smell since you had to take them OCONUS sometimes without even the benefit of a JRTC rotation.  The ones that came to the military on the also creatively named "moral waivers" were a different story on average.  We had some that made us wonder if that was like what dealing with disgruntled draftees was like.

The legislature wanted to pass some feel good legislation because of the Chattanooga shootings, but this one is more fluff than thought out, IMO.

[300winmag]

I bet you'll have less than a couple hundred 18-20 year olds in the whole state that will get permits under this new law.  I can't believe that there will be many that can qualify who will get one. 

But hey, the other 99% of permit holders will lose reciprocity with some states. Our NRA rated "A" politicians get another pat on the back and something to look 'pro gun' while not producing anything of true substance for people with permits, such as cutting location restrictions on where you cannot carry.

[R1100R]

Guardsman and Reservist receive a DD214 upon finish of their training on Active duty. This is after basic training and AIT. They also receive one after any period of active duty longer than 30 days. They also receive the title of veteran status after the issue of a favorable DD 214. So there are a lot of 18-20 year olds out there with honorable service by the letter of the law.  

Edited January 2, 2017 by R1100R

[JAB]

On 1/1/2017 at 8:00 PM, Omega said:

The way I figure is if they want to use 18 as the age of adulthood, then that should include everything, if not then move everything to 21, or 25, or whatever.

I am of two minds on this.  On the one hand, from a political and philosophical standpoint, I agree.  If a person has to sign up to possibly (however unlikely in this day and age) be drafted to go to war and kill or be killed, can vote for our political leadership and, most importantly, is considered 'mature' enough to be an adult when it comes to criminal charges then that person should also be considered to be 'mature' enough to decide he or she wants to drink a damn beer or legally carry a firearm.

Now, however, for the reality.  The reality is that many lawmakers obviously do not agree with the above which means that those of us who have already met the requirements - and paid the money - to obtain an HCP that was recognized by most of the states in the union have already and may continue to lose 'value' from said HCP simply so a handful of people can have the option of maybe getting a carry permit a scant three years earlier than before.  Further, don't forget that (unless I completely misunderstand other, recent laws) those folks could already legally 'carry' in their vehicles without an HCP for those, few years.  So, philosophical belief aside the reality is that there is much potential for loss for all TN HCP holders verses a minuscule amount of gain for what is likely an almost infinitesimal number of people. Weighed in the balance, therefore, the scale tips decidedly to the negative for this law.

Further, if I really delve into the philosophical side of the issue I have to say that I do not believe there should be any connection, whatsoever, between military service and the excercise of rights.  If one 18 year old can legally obtain a permit then any and all 18 year old citizens should have the option (as said 18 year old citizens are still considered adults for criminal charges, ect. - if they are legally 'adults' in one place then they should be legally 'adults' in all considerations regardless of military service or lack thereof.)  Further, I have known several members of the military and can say that, when we were younger, they seemed no more likely to be 'responsible' and no less likely to be 'hot headed' than those of us who were not members of the military.  Therefore, it would make a lot more sense to allow anyone 18 and older who can legally have a gun to carry in TN without a permit and limit permits to 21 and older.  That would allow 18 year old residents of Tennessee - all of them - to be eligible to carry while not screwing the rest of us over with respect to reciprocity. 

Edited January 3, 2017 by JAB

[Omega]

47 minutes ago, JAB said:

I am of two minds on this.  On the one hand, from a political and philosophical standpoint, I agree.  If a person has to sign up to possibly (however unlikely in this day and age) be drafted to go to war and kill or be killed, can vote for our political leadership and, most importantly, is considered 'mature' enough to be an adult when it comes to criminal charges then that person should also be considered to be 'mature' enough to decide he or she wants to drink a damn beer or legally carry a firearm.

Now, however, for the reality.  The reality is that many lawmakers obviously do not agree with the above which means that those of us who have already met the requirements - and paid the money - to obtain an HCP that was recognized by most of the states in the union have already and may continue to lose 'value' from said HCP simply so a handful of people can have the option of maybe getting a carry permit a scant three years earlier than before.  Further, don't forget that (unless I completely misunderstand other, recent laws) those folks could already legally 'carry' in their vehicles without an HCP for those, few years.  So, philosophical belief aside the reality is that there is much potential for loss for all TN HCP holders verses a minuscule amount of gain for what is likely an almost infinitesimal number of people. Weighed in the balance, therefore, the scale tips decidedly to the negative for this law.

Further, if I really delve into the philosophical side of the issue I have to say that I do not believe there should be any connection, whatsoever, between military service and the excercise of rights.  If one 18 year old can legally obtain a permit then any and all 18 year old citizens should have the option (as said 18 year old citizens are still considered adults for criminal charges, ect. - if they are legally 'adults' in one place then they should be legally 'adults' in all considerations regardless of military service or lack thereof.)  Further, I have known several members of the military and can say that, when we were younger, they seemed no more likely to be 'responsible' and no less likely to be 'hot headed' than those of us who were not members of the military.  Therefore, it would make a lot more sense to allow anyone 18 and older who can legally have a gun to carry in TN without a permit and limit permits to 21 and older.  That would allow 18 year old residents of Tennessee - all of them - to be eligible to carry while not screwing the rest of us over with respect to reciprocity. 

Yes, that is why I said I support CCW for all 18 or over, not just military.  While I have met more than my share of 18yo kids, I have also met quite a few over 21 that have been as immature as any 18yo.  So what ever age they want to set as the magical age of adulthood, that is the age everything should be available.

As to diminishing value of CCW permits, hell I consider it a rip-off as it is, paying for a right we should have freely. And while we can carry in many places legally, with that permit, they still infringe on that right by playing word games and downright prohibiting them, illegally IMO, at certain public venues.  So while I hear your concern, in the end what do we really lose?  VA tried to rescind its reciprocity and had to back off of it due to its own political opposition to it.  If states want to keep reciprocity, all they have to do is state they will honor only permit holders 21 or older, If they don't, then they were probably looking for any excuse not to.

[chances R]

Some 18-21 yo join the military as an option to  some judicial proceeding.  All of that age are under strict supervision while serving, especially where firearms are concerned.  Bottom line = bad law for most everyone that has HCP now.  As previously mentioned, vehicle carry is legal for all, good enough until 21 IMO.

[OngoingFreedom]

As I said before I enjoy reciprocity with many, if not all, of our reciprocity partners. It would absolutely suck for me to lose that.

That said I would rather our 18+ TN residents had the ability to protect themselves in state than for me to protect myself out of state. We have to stick together.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Oh Shoot]

12 minutes ago, OngoingFreedom said:

That said I would rather our 18+ TN residents had the ability to protect themselves in state than for me to protect myself out of state. We have to stick together

I'd be surprised if this will affect 5% of the 18 year olds in TN. But how many HCP holders travel to MN? (and gawd knows what other states may follow suit).

- OS

[JAB]

13 hours ago, Oh Shoot said:

I'd be surprised if this will affect 5% of the 18 year olds in TN. But how many HCP holders travel to MN? (and gawd knows what other states may follow suit).

- OS

And the really ironic thing is that the 'active military' folks among that group still likely wouldn't be able to carry a personal firearm on a daily basis even with a permit due to the probability that they are on a military base, working in a recruitment office, etc. much of the time as part of their military service.  So, really, we are talking mostly about the likely vanishingly small number of 18-21 year olds who are veterans and have received an honorable discharge as the only people who could truly benefit from the change.  With 'car carry' already legal for any 18 year old who can legally have the gun of those eligible I would be surprised if I couldn't count all the individuals who will actually take advantage of the option maybe not on one hand but probably without running out of fingers and toes.

Although I strongly believe in the rights of the individual as a personal philosophy when it comes to societal issues I often (but not always) tend to adhere pretty closely to the Utilitarian view as can probably be determined based on my previous post.  Utilitarians, of course, believed that issues should generally be judged based on their 'utility'.  They defined 'utility' as, basically, the positive consequences (sometimes called 'pleasure') for those impacted minus the negative consequences (sometimes called 'suffering' or 'pain') for those impacted.  In other words, something is 'good' in that it has the most positive consequences for the greatest number of people.  On the other hand, something is 'bad' if it has more negative consequences for a greater number of people.  In this case, the change to the law stands to benefit very few people and the benefit for even for that extremely small number of people (the ability to obtain an HCP three years earlier) likely isn't that significant in the greater scheme of things.  On the other hand, there have already been negative consequences for a fairly large number of people - all of those who have an HCP.  In fact, these negative consequences will also impact any 18 - 20 year old who decides to take advantage of the change to the law as they will then, as HCP holders, also be part of the group which is negatively impacted.  At this point, of course, it is debatable how significant the negative impact of losing MN from the reciprocity list really but the fact that such negative consequences impact far more people - and the possibility that other states will follow suit - makes the change, in my estimation, an undoubtedly negative one.

Edited January 4, 2017 by JAB

[chances R]

FYI, I called Nashville.  National Guard/ Reserve included.

[Pinhook]

Got my first permit today with lifetime. 

300 dollars total. 

34 years old. 

[Oh Shoot]

5 hours ago, Pinhook said:

Got my first permit today with lifetime. 

300 dollars total. 

34 years old. 

You'll save your first $6.25 when you're 67.

- OS

[Pinhook]

I think the break even is 40 years if there aren't any price increases in the permit. 

So 74 for me. 

100 for the first 8 years, then $50 dollars for every 8 years thereafter. It takes 40 years to reach $300. 

 

At least I don't have to worry about renewals, DMV, or future price increase. 

[Oh Shoot]

1 hour ago, Pinhook said:

I think the break even is 40 years if there aren't any price increases in the permit. 

So 74 for me. 

100 for the first 8 years, then $50 dollars for every 8 years thereafter. It takes 40 years to reach $300. 

 

At least I don't have to worry about renewals, DMV, or future price increase. 

 

Yes,  I did forget to count the 8 years that the first 100 gets you, so in your case, you're correct, 74-75 depending on birthdate.    So live long and prosper!!

edit: that assumes we still have states at that point, or can have guns at all, or .....

- OS

Edited January 21, 2017 by Oh Shoot

[eRay]

I'm 66 and plan to buy a lifetime in April when mine expires. Sometimes you have to pay a little extra to avoid the hassle of renewing in the future. I may be in a nursing home and they won't let me out to go renew it. LOL

[Garufa]

26 minutes ago, Eray said:

I'm 66 and plan to buy a lifetime in April when mine expires. Sometimes you have to pay a little extra to avoid the hassle of renewing in the future. I may be in a nursing home and they won't let me out to go renew it. LOL

That's a good point you make.  When the time comes if you start drooling too much the Social Security Administration might even revoke your privileges to own a gun.  It takes years for those kind of actions to make it down to the state for enforcement.

When it comes time I'll probably go lifetime but I think my renewal is 6 or 7 years off.  Maybe by then it will be even cheaper.

[gregintenn]

Reading the renewal notification I got today, it appears one can't get a lifetime permit via mail, but has to go do it at the DMV. Is that correct?

[Oh Shoot]

3 hours ago, gregintenn said:

Reading the renewal notification I got today, it appears one can't get a lifetime permit via mail, but has to go do it at the DMV. Is that correct?

No option on it at all for the lifetime huh?

- OS

[gregintenn]

I didn't see it. I was hoping someone here knew for sure. I'd damn sure rather mail it in.

[bpx4st]

I'm 62, with a heart condition that has my heart operating at 25%. Although they generously dropped the initial license fee from $115, down to $100 (how very noble of them), being on disability makes it hard to afford the $100, much less, a $200 LT license when I may never make it to the first renewal fee. Not trying to be a downer bit I am a realist. Thank God, we have constitutional carry before the state legislation now. Hope it passes. Should know soon. (Yeah, right)

Sent from my SM-T377P using Tapatalk

[Randall53]

How durable are the new ones? I'm wondering how much for a replacement when the lifetime becomes unreadable.