let's do this

imported post

[align=left][/align]With the new Legislature coming up, let's consider some refinements to Tennessee gun laws.
My first choice would be a longer period of validity for the HCP -- perhaps even lifetime after the first renewal when one's credentials are established.

Also, why can't our great state have a vigorous, even combative, gun rights support group in the manner of Ohio, Virginia and Georgia among others? That's one I would pay to join.

imported post

old dog wrote:

With the new Legislature coming up, let's consider some refinements to Tennessee gun laws.
My first choice would be a longer period of validity for the HCP -- perhaps even lifetime after the first renewal when one's credentials are established.

Also, why can't our great state have a vigorous, even combative, gun rights support group in the manner of Ohio, Virginia and Georgia among others? That's one I would pay to join.

Click to expand...

Full-state preemption regardless of when ordinances were passed would be a good choice. As it is now, ordinances passed before preemption went into effect (1986?)are valid.

imported post

The State of Tennessee has a valid pro-Firearm Second Amendment Group currently.

The group is called: Tennessee Firearms Association!

The first thing the Tennessee State Legislature should do is repeal 39-17-1307(a), but leave 39-17-1307(b)... for violent felons only.

In Tennessee, you could be charged for walking home with a loaded rifle in plain view, and this is unheard of for a generally pro-Firearm State in The South. Many rural Law Enforcement Officers in Tennessee do not agree with this Law, but have no choice to enforce it. This needs to be changed to allow loaded open carry, with no permit requirement, so as long as the Person is a generally Law-abiding Citizen. Maybe, Tennessee could learn a thing or two from Kentucky, Virginia, or North Carolina... after all!

Next, they should also repeal 39-17-1359, so there is no Local Laws whatsoever that are grandfathered under Preemption. $500 dollar fines are a tall order in this economy, and if a property owner does not want Firearms on their property they should just tell the Person to leave... it is as simple as that. Also, this little Law is often times used to disallow Persons to carry at public buildings, etc., under threat of a $500 dollar fine if they do so. This is upsurd, because it allows for one more oppurtunity for Local Governments to put there two cents, so to speak, about Firearms notwithstanding State Preemption. Public Buildings are Public Property... there should be no fine, or no other Criminal Penalty, for carrying a Firearm there.

39-17-1314 ofThe Preemption Statue should be strenghend to disallow anyother grandfathered Local Law before April of 1986, and also they should do away with the opt out clause under current Law concerning Firearms and Local Parks.

There is no point in having Preemption if you give an exception, opt clause, or grandfather clause to every little thing. It defeats the purpose of even having preemption in the first place.

imported post

I'm familiar with TFA. I check their website daily and find them unimpressive. I'm not aware that they do more than testify occasionally.

When have they organized a protest event or gone to court as the VCDL and Georgia Carry do frequently?

As far as permits go, I'm all for them. Look around you. Would you really want some of the people in our country to go about legally armed?

imported post

Absolutely, I have no problem with someone walking around with a Rifle, or someone walking into a Public building with a Pistol.

Similiarly, I have no problem with a child with a switch-blade knife at school, nor do I have any problem with someone with aAR style type Firearm in a Court House.

I believe, with all my heart and soul, as did my Father... and His Father, and our nationsfore Fathers, that... 'The Right to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed.'

I will agreewith you though, The TFA does not go to Court like Georgia Carry or Virginia Citizen's Defense League does at all. But, in their defense, I will add that The TFA is one of the younger Firearms associations, sothere is time to grow and improve their services to theirmembers.

imported post

I'd like to see 39-17-1314(a) changed regarding preemption. There is too much confusion about where a person may and may not carry. I do not like looking up ordinances trying to figure out if I may carry or not in Tennessee.

I'd like to see 39-17-1311(c)(3) removed. Why should counties be allowed to exempt themselves from posting signs.



I'd like to 39-17-1309(b)(1) and (c)(1)changed to school buses and schools. Why shouldn't I be allowed to carry a handgun inside an officebuilding which houses the school board offices, and most of the other county offices?



I'd like to see them change 39-17-1351(c)(8) to not include ex-parte orders of protection. Anyone can get an ex-parte order it is a one sided civil action. It is common during a divorce for one party to seek an order against another. If it is a permanent order then I don't have a problem.



I'd like to see 39-17-1359(a) changed to read omit substantially, andsubstitute exactly and aminimum size and color. I think uniformity is key to compliance. If a business wants to ban guns then they should have to read the law and make a sign which is noticable and uniform. I shouldn't have to search for a sign that may or may not be there. It should be noticable, like bam, right in your face.

imported post

aadvark wrote:

The first thing the Tennessee State Legislature should do is repeal 39-17-1307(a), but leave 39-17-1307(b)... for violent felons only.

Click to expand...

I have already written my state senator asking for this very thing.

I would like to see the laws in this state changed substantially. Maybe get a petition together to demand the repeal of 39-17-1307(a) in its entirety, as well as to demand post-secondary carry on all state funded college, university and technical campuses, and total and complete preemption and then deliver to the legislature when they reconvene?

imported post

old dog wrote:

As far as permits go, I'm all for them. Look around you. Would you really want some of the people in our country to go about legally armed?

Click to expand...

What makes you think they don't carry anyway? Remember--the laws are written for the honest people--the criminals could care less.

I am against the permit on its face--it is about making money and forcing the people to buy a privilege.


Do you want a privilege that you have to buy, and which can be taken from you by a state legislature or a right that was yours from before the Constitution was codified?

imported post

I think we do need a VCDL type organization in Tennessee. The TFA, in my view, is more of an organization that works with lawmakers rather than defending the rights of gun owners and carriers.

The TFA does good work, that I can see, but they are not an "in your face" type of organization that Georgia Carry and the VCDL seem to be when needed.

imported post

WCrawford wrote:

I think we do need a VCDL type organization in Tennessee. The TFA, in my view, is more of an organization that works with lawmakers rather than defending the rights of gun owners and carriers.

The TFA does good work, that I can see, but they are not an "in your face" type of organization that Georgia Carry and the VCDL seem to be when needed.

Click to expand...

So why not start one? Why can we not start a Tennessee Citizens Defense League, or a Tennessee Carry? Why can we not have one with Open Carry as the name? A chapter in every state to advocate for the gun owners?

The organization could continually advocate for a complete change in 39-17-1307(a) to permit carry of a firearm without a permit.

Repeal 39-17-1308 in its entirety.

Change in 39-17-1309 to allow for post secondary carry.

Keeping 39-17-1359 mostly intact, while repealing 39-17-1359(a). This will be similar to the scheme used by Alaska in order to allow TN residents to carry in reciprocity states, and yet still allow you to carry in Tennessee without a permit. Delete 39-17-1359(1) which would require you to show the permit on demand of a law enforcement officer--no permit would be required to carry.

Change 39-17-1359 (2)(t) Any law enforcement officer of this state or of any county or municipality may, within the realm of the officer's lawful jurisdiction and when the officer is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties, disarm a permit holder at any time when the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the permit holder, officer or other individual or individuals

to require the officer to have a real, founded, and reasonable belief that disarming a citizen is necessary, and make them put it in writing, in their report. Otherwise, allow the citizen the right to refuse to be disarmed. Merely mumbling, thinking or saying the words "officer safety" should not be enough to justify taking your firearm.

For making it more difficult to charge people with disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace. Eliminating, these, or making it more difficult to charge people under them will stop a lot of the harassment and intimidation that goes on.

and for total and complete preemption, allow carry in all state, city and county parks, any house of worship that is not posted, and all public buildings while keeping firearms out of court rooms themselves while judicial proceedings are going on--but still allowing carry at any county commission meeting/school board meeting where such meeting is held in a county court house.

imported post

Suntzu, there is no reason that we can't start a group.

I'd love to be involved, but I can not currently take a lead role in starting any group. My job keeps me on call most of the time, but I will help as much as I possibly can.

Maybe we should touch base with the CCDL and VCDL people for assistance in starting something like they have.

The best place to start, IMO (and someone else pipe up if you have better ideas) is to find out who can spare time to help with this and who has the ability to take a lead role.