As if they don't already.Originally Posted by utbob2004;1383242s
This was on the local news this evening here in Memphis.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP/WMC) - Republican gubernatorial candidate Bill Haslam ignited controversy this week when he told a gun rights group he would sign legislation into law to eliminate Tennessee's requirements for carrying handguns in public.
Haslam, in a discussion with members of the Tennessee Firearms Association on Monday night, noted that the state's permitting process was used as justification for expanding areas where guns can be carried, such as into state parks or bars and restaurants that serve alcohol.
"I support the right to carry in those situations," he said. "If a bar owner says he doesn't want that, he can make that decision, but everything should be up to the individual owner."
Haslam, in a statement released by the campaign late Tuesday, sought to clarify his comments.
"What I have said previously is I support the current permitting law as it's written," he said in a statement. "When asked if I would sign legislation passed by the General Assembly that would change the current concealed carry permit system, I acknowledged that if the legislature decided that that was the best course, I would sign it."
There are about 300,000 handgun carry permit holders in Tennessee. To qualify, they must pass a handgun safety course and pay a $115 fee. Permits are revoked for felony convictions and can be suspended for pending criminal charges or for court orders of protection.
Mike McWherter, the Democratic nominee to succeed term-limited Gov. Phil Bredesen, said Haslam's position is irresponsible.
"When it comes to gun legislation you have to use some common sense and think about the public's safety," McWherter said. "I just think Bill Haslam has gone completely off the cliff."
McWherter said he cannot believe Haslam is willing to put the safety of Tennessee families in jeopardy.
"I just don't believe removing the requirements for having a concealed weapon is a good idea for Tennessee. Now that means people involved in gangs or criminal activity can literally carry a concealed weapon wherever they want to go."
The Legislature twice moved to override vetoes by Bredesen, a Democrat, of the law to allow permit holders to be armed where alcohol is served. It only takes simple majorities in both chambers to override a governor's veto.
One of the questions to Haslam was raised by a man who identified himself as Leonard Embody, whose permit was revoked by the state Safety Department for carrying a pistol fashioned to look like an AK-47 at Radnor Lake State Park in Nashville.
Embody has been stopped at least four other times in similar incidents. In January, police in the Nashville suburb of Belle Meade detained him while he was walking down the street with a .44-caliber black powder revolver in his hand.
The National Rifle Association earlier this month declined to endorse either Haslam or McWherter. The country's largest gun rights organization gave Haslam a grade of B- and McWherter a C-, but did not explain how it arrived at its ratings.
Haslam has been heavily criticized by his gubernatorial rivals for being weak on gun rights, including for his failure to join the NRA until after he entered the governor's race last year and for his past membership in Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a group co-founded by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
McWherter, a Jackson beer distributor and son of former Gov. Ned McWherter, questioned why Haslam got a better score than he received when he and his son have both long been NRA members.
McWherter lost points with some advocates for his call to adjust a state law allowing people with handgun carry permits to be armed in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. McWherter wants to restore a ban on guns in late-night bars.
Action News 5 reached out to local representatives Lois Deberry, G.A. Hardaway, and Curry Todd for reaction to Haslam's comments.
"I remain committed to protecting and expanding the Second Amendment right of law-abiding citizens. I am looking forward to working with the new Administration to continue that record," Todd said in a written statement.
As of the time this story was posted, DeBerry and Hardaway had not responded. If they do, we will add those responses to this story.
Copyright 2010 WMC-TV. All rights reserved. The AP contributed to this story.
As if they don't already.Originally Posted by utbob2004;1383242s
I read that article on the WATE news site out of Knoxville. The issue I have is this--Haslam is trying to get a well paying position that comes with power and prestige. Haslam is a politician. Politicians are by and large liars. Everyone can do the math for themselves on that one.
It would be simply outstanding is the legislature would pass a Constitutional carry bill similar to Arizona or Alaska that would keep the permit system in tact for those who want/need a permit while allowing for permitless carry for those who don't.
tngunowners has a thread on this topic--and unfortunately there are many who seem too concerned with the all mighty permit--and they always fall back on that useless mantra "training is good, getting checked out is good"--and they can't even see that the permit is a PRIVILEGE not a right--and they can take it just as easily as it is given. They also cannot or will not see that that "training" they hold in such high regard is a pathetic 8hr course that does NOT teach you anything about tactics--it does not cover live fire from covered positions, it does not cover live fire exercises while on the move--shooting on the move, it does not cover weapon retention--it does not cover any of this. What it DOES cover is a nice pretty presentation that gives you the VERY basics and nothing more and then provides 50rds to fire from 5-10-15yrds with a minimum score needed...Could ANYONE tell me how that video and the 50rds can constitute anything even remotely considered "training"?
It is sad that the people of this state would fall for this--the permit is about MONEY and that is IT.
I'll climb down from my pulpit now.
Last edited by suntzu; 10-20-2010 at 06:32 PM.
I hate to take credit, but I am the one who asked the first open carry question at that meet, I was the first to post the audio on youtube, and contacted various news outlets around the State. He is committed to sign this legislation and hopefully the Republican majority in the State House and Senate will bring him a constitutional carry bill to sign. Others more articulate were able to get him to make the statement. I called in and spoke with local radio show host Ralph Bristol this morning on 99.7 wwtn. I even sent an email out to all the state senators and representatives at 8am on the 19th. I've been trying to do my part.
See this post for more info.
Last edited by kwikrnu; 10-20-2010 at 06:55 PM.
I just looked
This comment is from an employee or owner of a gun shop. "You have to have a drivers license to drive a car, you have to have a hunting license,you have to have a fishing license. You would prefer a person just get behind the wheel of a vehicle and drive with no instructions or previous experience? I have no problems with someone carrying a gun that has taken the HCP course it is a very informative class that you learn a lot in, just an example in my brothers HCP class there were people that couldn't even load there guns! Now you tell me you want a person like that with no experience carrying in the public?? What about a Mentally Ill person owning a weapon??? What about a felon? What about a rapist or a stalker? This is why we have background checks! I have no problems with anyone that can pass a background check owning a firearm or carrying one, but somethings in life need to have directions and be taught the right way of doing them. I do think once you get your permit you should be able to carry anywhere no restrictions!!! Schools,courthouse,post office,bars, ANYWHERE!!"
Here is another comment from another gunshop owner. In fact the same shop where I took my HCP class at 9 years ago."yea, they dont realize he's single handedly give nthe right to carry in this state a very black eye and bloodied nose.
On the right to carry, I support everyones God given right to carry a gun to protect themselves. However I dont think the State will pass such a law, they simply make too much money off of it. If money wasnt an issue we wouldnt still be charged $10 TICS fee everytime we buy a gun.
On Haslem... I dont care for him nor his big oil ties but hes the best of two evils. Honestly guys hes just Bredesen Lite!!!! "
Here is another idiot. "Yes let's legitimize everyone carrying a handgun in public without a permit. Granny with her .25 auto her grandson had to load for her and show her where the safety is. Other people totally unfamiliar with the operation of handguns. And 99% of the people who could then legally carry a handgun would not understand the possible legal ramifications of discharging a firearm. The Handgun Carry Permit training is certainly not perfect but it is better than turning everyone loose with the right to carry a handgun with no training or understanding the responsibilities of owning/carrying a handgun. If someone is not responsible enough or willing to take the time to take the HCP course, do you want them out in public with a handgun?
Have a handgun/other firearm in the home is one thing. Letting everyone carry a handgun OUT IN PUBLIC without some required training is foolish."
There's more, but i don't have time to quote them all. These quotes are from a couple of pages on a purported pro gun website.
Last edited by kwikrnu; 10-20-2010 at 07:26 PM.
I contacted my state senator and state rep on this issue more than once, but have never received a reply--and a rep from another district recently, who actually responded to me--from what I have seen he is very pro 2A about Constitutional carry--one rep told me that he had a Constitutional carry bill drafted and ready to go, but getting the support to get it passed is the problem--and the biggest problem I see is the resistance coming from two groups primarily--those who make money from the permit (state, gun shops, those who give the courses) and those who worship at the feet of the permit as if it is a sacred cow, who have believed everything they were told hook, line and sinker about "it is about training, and making sure everyone is checked out"--and that is a lie, it was never about training and in my opinion the state couldn't care less whether the people are/are not "checked out"--for the state that is secondary to the MONEY.
Permitless carry, while still preserving the permit intact for those who want/need it is that serves two purposes already (a) it takes away the ability of law enforcement to legally detain you based merely on the fact you are carrying a holstered handgun openly/concealed and (b) it will save the people in this state money so that they can put it toward actual, effective training. But more importantly--it changes a privilege back into a right--and it is just a crying shame that those who worship the permit cannot comprehend this statement--the permit is a privilege which they can take away from you just as easily as they gave it--a right is far different--and Constitutional carry would give us back the right to carry without a state mandated privilege card.
The problem with Constitutional carry here would be the same as in Wisconsin, and Washington State--law enforcement would still detain you, but it would hopefully give you a better foundation on which to sue afterwards. As it stands right now law enforcement can even come onto your own property if they see you with a handgun in order to "check you out" as they like to call it--with Constitutional carry they would no longer have that privilege--which means they would need RAS to detain you.
Along with Constitutional carry I would also like to see a complete repeal of the disorderly conduct statute--a catchall statute that they can use to conveniently charge you with even when they know you are not doing anything wrong.
I can see already the opposition that will come from the police, way too many permit holders and the just uninformed on the issue who would sadly rather stay that way and are just way too happy to allow their government to do their thinking for them in lieu of educating themselves a bit and learning how to think for themselves for a change.
It would be outstanding if it happened though.
the easiest way that I see the law changed is amending TCA 39-17-1307 by deleting tca 39-17-1307(a). This would allow for open carry w/o a license. there may be other minor changes in the criminal code that would need modifying. This would also leave penalties in place for thoseprohibited such as felons.
Last edited by kwikrnu; 10-20-2010 at 08:36 PM.
I also agree--the easiest way is to amend T.C.A 39-17-1307(a)
the issue I have with the remainder of 39-17-1307(b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) is that if they leave that in tact without modification it could still lead to detainment of everyone seen carrying or suspected of carrying a holstered gun. I agree that felons who have not had their rights restored--and some who have, should not be allowed to carry or possess a firearm BUT if the police want to detain you to check your "status" then they should absolutely have to have a reasonable suspicion that you have, are about to or are in the process of committing a crime--a report should be made of it, they should have to document everything that leads them to their conclusion and the actions taken and then they should have to be required to release any 9-1-1 tapes, audio/video, text or email communications related to the detainment to the person detained--meaning if they stop us we should not have to go through the trouble of filing an FOIA for the information-the law should be written in such a way as it would be required that law enforcement produce copies for you at no cost to you and if they don't then they should be held legally accountable--because the only reason they wouldn't want to give the information to you is if they knew they were wrong and were trying to cover it up. It should also be required that if they unlawfully detain you--that they should be criminally investigated for violation of state constitutional rights. The onus should be on them for a change to prove their reasoning and to legally justify their actions--not on the people like it is now.
The Constitutional carry law should make it perfectly clear to everyone that mere possession of a holstered handgun is NOT enough justification in and of itself to detain you for purposes of the 4th Amendment.
I believe Haslam has backed off of this when questioned about it by the media.
The only downside I can see is the loss of reciprocity with other states. How does one get to carry outside their state when the permit is no longer issued?
Last edited by HvyMtl; 10-21-2010 at 01:23 PM.
I don't like the fact that I need a permit from my state in order to do what the Constitution affirms I already have a right to do, concealed or not.
But, I am a bit libertarian.
I don't trust anyone running for office on this issue. We need this settled once and for all, constitutionally. I'm sick of it being a political issue at all. As long as it is a political issue we will see no resolution at all.
True, Suntzu, and did you hear Bredesen tear into him today?
Lets see how far he backpedals.
Now, without a training requirement, many states will withdraw reciprocity anyway BUT places like Idaho will still accept it.
Look into a Florida or Utah non-resident permit.
We can still have Constitutional carry AND the permit system intact, but enough support has to be found to get it done and to get over the "training" bit that they always try to throw into the faces of everyone. Training is a good thing--but what this state gives in its' 8hr required course is NOT training, and it would take a severe stretch of the imagination to think that it is.
Spot on Suntzu, it is about money, Bredesen put it in terms of "reputation of the state," but it was about economic impact = money.
Now McW has asked for clarification.
I wonder if Haslam's true colors will show.
Haslam may try to run from his commitment to sign unlicensd carry legislation, but he is on record and his statement is clear. He said he will sign it. That statement is on record by every media outlet in the State. If the legislture brings it to him and he fails to sign he'll be in deep with the NRA, the legslature, gun rights groups and the citizens of the State who want unlicensed carry.