Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: How to make TN a constitutional carry state?

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956

    How to make TN a constitutional carry state?

    Here is a suggestion of how to change the current laws to allow for easier carry of firearms.

    Changes to handgun laws 10-23-2010

    TCA 39-11-106(a)(11)

    Amend

    “Firearm” means any weapon designed, made or adapted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or any device readily convertible to that use; The term does not include antique firearm.

    Reason: Federal law defines antiques as non firearms.

    TCA 39-11-106(a)(11)(A)

    Add

    “Antique” means any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898.

    Reason: To bring statute in line with federal law and TCA 39-17-1316(b)(1).

    TCA 39-11-106(a)(16)

    Amend

    “Handgun” means any firearm with a barrel length of twelve inches (12”) or less that is designed, made or adapted to be fired with one hand, and has no shoulder stock.

    Reason: 12” barrel to bring in line with TCA 39-17-1319(a)(1). Handguns are not designed to be shoulder fired.

    TCA 39-17-1301(18)

    Amend

    “Unloaded” means the rifle, shotgun or handgun does not have ammunition in the chamber; and the cylinder, clip or magazine, which are attached or inserted in the weapon do not contain any cartridge.

    Reason: loaded should only mean that ammunition is inside a magazine or clip or cylinder which is attached to the weapon.

    TCA 39-17-1301(19)

    Add

    “sensitive area” is defined as an area which is screened by security or law enforcement; which screening is not limited to metal detectors or other weapons detection devices. These sensitive areas include but are not limited to jails, prisons, courtrooms, and stadiums, and must be posted with notice in accordance with TCA 39-17-1359(b)(1).

    Reason: To define what a sensitive area is according to recent United States Supreme Court decision in McDonald v Chicago.

    TCA 39-17-1307(a)

    Delete

    Reason: The unconstitutional current law prohibits the loaded carry of firearms by law abiding citizens. The deletion of 1307(a) would allow the law abiding to carry for defense, and 1307(b) and (f) would continue to prohibit those with criminal records and those prohibited from carrying. 1307(d)(1) covers the carry of knives, clubs, and other weapons. TCA 39-17-1324 covers criminal intent while in possession.

    TCA 39-17-1307(e)

    Delete

    Reason: No longer needed if 1307 (a) is removed

    TCA 39-17-1307(g)

    Add

    It shall be a class B misdemeanor offense to carry a firearm where prohibited by TCA 39-17-1315(b)(2) or TCA 39-17-1359(a) if the place is properly posted as in TCA 39-17-1359(b). The fine for such offense shall not exceed $500.

    Reason: Private property owners shall be able to prohibit carry of firearms with proper notice.


    TCA 39-17-1308

    Delete

    Reason: Defenses are not needed if there is no crime of carrying a firearm by the law abiding resident.

    TCA 39-17-1311

    Delete

    Reason: Carry of firearms by criminals and those prohibited is prohibited by TCA 39-17-1307. The restriction on law abiding is unconstitutional.

    TCA 39-17-1314(a)

    Amend

    No city, county, or metropolitan government shall occupy any part of the field of regulation of the transfer, ownership, possession or transportation of firearms, ammunition or components of firearms or combinations thereof.

    Reason: 39-17-1311 has been deleted. In order to avoid a system of laws which differ from city to city or county to county State wide preemption should exist.

    TCA 39-17-1315(b)(2)

    Amend

    An individual, corporation, business entity or agent thereof is authorized to prohibit possession of weapons by any person otherwise authorized by this subsection (b), at meetings conducted by, or on premises owned, operated, managed or under control of the individual, corporation, business entity. Notice of the prohibition shall be posted or announced as set forth in TCA 39-17-1359.

    Reason: Possession of lawfully carried firearms should not be regulated by city or county governments. State law preempts all local gun laws.

    TCA 39-17-1352(a)(3)

    Amend

    Poses a material likelihood of risk of harm to the public after a non-felony charge as provided for in TCA 39-17-1352(e)(2).

    Reason: To clarify the meaning of the statute

    TCA 39-17-1359(a)(1)

    Amend

    (1)An individual, corporation, business entity or agent thereof is authorized to prohibit the possession of weapons by any person who is at a meeting conducted by, or on property owned, operated, or managed or under the control of the individual, corporation, or business entity.
    (2) A local or state government entity or agent thereof is authorized to prohibit the possession of weapons by any person who is at a meeting conducted by, or on property owned, operated, or managed or under the control of the government entity if the place is a sensitive area as defined by TCA 39-17-1301(19).
    (3) A Federal government entity or agent thereof is authorized to prohibit the possession of weapons by any person who is at a meeting conducted by, or on property owned, operated, or managed or under the control of government entity.

    Reason: To add sensitive places to the areas where firearms will be prohibited.

    TCA 39-17-1359(b)(1)

    Amend

    Notice of the prohibition permitted by subsection (a) shall be accomplished by displaying the notice described in subdivision (b)(3) in prominent locations, including all entrances primarily used by persons entering the property, building, or portion of the property or building where weapon possession is prohibited. The form of notice used shall be a sign and shall measure a minimum of eight inches by eight inches square and contain language set forth in TCA 39-17-1359(b)(3)(A) and is in a location and color which is plainly visible to the average person entering the building, property, or portion of the building or property, posted. Use of the notice provided for in (b)(3)(A) shall be considered properly posted.

    Reason: Notice of a crime should include sufficient warning.

    TCA 39-17-1359(b)(3)(A)

    Amend

    A sign SHALL BE USED TO POST THESE PROHIBITIONS AS FOLLOWS:

    AS AUTHORIZED BY T.C.A. § 39-17-1359, POSSESSION OF A WEAPON ON POSTED PROPERTY OR IN A POSTED BUILDING IS PROHIBITED AND IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

    Reason: Notice of a crime should include sufficient warning.

    TCA 39-17-1359(b)(3)(B)

    Delete

    Reason: Notice of a crime should include sufficient warning.

    TCA 39-17-1359(b)(3)(C)

    Delete

    Reason: Notice of a crime should include sufficient warning.

    TCA 39-17-1359(f)

    Delete

    Reason: Not necessary.
    Last edited by kwikrnu; 10-23-2010 at 03:01 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    Tennessee Code 39-17-1301 should add:
    (19) ADEQUATE SECURITY MEASURES MEANS ANY AREA THAT IS screened by security or law enforcement, PRIOR TO ENTRY, BY ANY MEANS OF metal DETECTORS, OR OTHER EQUIPMENT, TO PREVENT FIREARMS OR WEAPONS IN SENSITIVE AREAS WHERE SECURITY MEASURES ARE IN EFFECT.
    (20) SENSITIVE AREA MEANS ANY COURTHOUSE, JAIL, PRISON, SCHOOL, OR PUBLIC MEETING (ONLY DURING SUCH MEETING) THAT IS REQUIRED TO BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

    Tennesse Code 39-17-1311 [REPEALED]

    Tennesse Code 39-17-1314(a) [AS KWIKRNU SUGGESTED].

    No..., Tenneesee Code 39-17-1359 should read:
    (a)(1) A local OR state entity or agent thereof is authorized to prohibit the possession of weapons by any person who is at a MEETING CONDUCTED BY A LOCAL GOVERNMENT, PROVIDED; THAT THERE ARE ADEQUATE SECURITY MEASURES, AS THEY ARE DEFINED UNDER T.C.A. 39-17-1301(a)(19) THAT ARE IN PLACE IN CASE OF AN EMERGENCY.
    (2) The prohibition in subdivision (a)(1) STRICLY shall NOT apply to A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR any person who is authorized to carry a firearm by authority of § 39-17-1351.
    (b)(1) Notice of the prohibition permitted by subsection (a)(1) shall be accomplished by displaying the notice required by this section SHALL be in ENGLISH used by patrons, customers, or persons who frequent the place OF A PUBLIC MEETING, WHILE SUCH MEETING IS TAKING PLACE, where weapon possession is prohibited.
    (2) A sign SHALL BE USED TO POST THESE PROHIBITIONS AS FOLLOWS:

    AS AUTHORIZED BY T.C.A. § 39-17-1359, POSSESSION OF A WEAPON ON POSTED PROPERTY OR IN A POSTED BUILDING DURING AN OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT MEETING WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC IS PROHIBITED AND IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE UNLESS SUCH PERSON IS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR HAS A TENNESSEE HANDGUN PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF T.C.A. 39-17-1351. IN ACCORDANCE WITH T.C.A. 13-17-1359(c)(2), ANY VIOLATION OF THIS SIGNAGE IS PUNISHABLE BY A $500 FINE.

    (3) As used in this section, “language substantially similar to” means the sign contains language plainly stating that:
    (A) The property is posted under authority of Tennessee law;
    (B) Weapons or firearms are prohibited on the property DURING AN OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT MEETING
    (C) UNLESS THE EXCEPTION APPLIES, possessing a weapon in an area that has been posted is a criminal offense. It is an offense to possess a weapon in a building that IS A PUBLIC MEETING DURING SUCH TIME WHEN A PUBLIC MEETING IS TAKING PLACE, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED UNDER T.C.A. 39-17-1359(a)(2)
    (2) Possession of a weapon on posted PUBLIC property DURING A OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT MEETING in violation of this section is punishable by fine only of five hundred dollars ($500).
    (d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter, reduce or eliminate any civil or criminal liability that a PRIVATE property owner or PRIVATE PROPERTY manager may have for injuries arising FOR THE USE OF THEIR PRIVATE property.
    (e) The provisions of this section shall not apply to title 70 regarding wildlife laws, rules and regulations WHEN SUCH RULES AND REGUALTIONS ARE BEING FOLLOWED.
    Last edited by aadvark; 10-23-2010 at 02:31 PM.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by aadvark View Post
    No..., Tenneesee Code 39-17-1359 should read:
    (a)(1) A local OR state entity or agent thereof is authorized to prohibit the possession of weapons by any person who is at a MEETING CONDUCTED BY A LOCAL GOVERNMENT, PROVIDED; THAT THERE ARE ADEQUATE SECURITY MEASURES, AS THEY ARE DEFINED UNDER T.C.A. 39-17-1301(a)(19) THAT ARE IN PLACE IN CASE OF AN EMERGENCY.
    (2) The prohibition in subdivision (a)(1) STRICLY shall NOT apply to A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR any person who is authorized to carry a firearm by authority of § 39-17-1351.
    (b)(1) Notice of the prohibition permitted by subsection (a)(1) shall be accomplished by displaying the notice required by this section SHALL be in ENGLISH used by patrons, customers, or persons who frequent the place OF A PUBLIC MEETING, WHILE SUCH MEETING IS TAKING PLACE, where weapon possession is prohibited.
    (2) A sign SHALL BE USED TO POST THESE PROHIBITIONS AS FOLLOWS:

    AS AUTHORIZED BY T.C.A. § 39-17-1359, POSSESSION OF A WEAPON ON POSTED PROPERTY OR IN A POSTED BUILDING DURING AN OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT MEETING WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC IS PROHIBITED AND IS A CRIMINAL OFFENSE UNLESS SUCH PERSON IS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR HAS A TENNESSEE HANDGUN PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF T.C.A. 39-17-1351. IN ACCORDANCE WITH T.C.A. 13-17-1359(c)(2), ANY VIOLATION OF THIS SIGNAGE IS PUNISHABLE BY A $500 FINE.

    (3) As used in this section, “language substantially similar to” means the sign contains language plainly stating that:
    (A) The property is posted under authority of Tennessee law;
    (B) Weapons or firearms are prohibited on the property DURING AN OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT MEETING
    (C) UNLESS THE EXCEPTION APPLIES, possessing a weapon in an area that has been posted is a criminal offense. It is an offense to possess a weapon in a building that IS A PUBLIC MEETING DURING SUCH TIME WHEN A PUBLIC MEETING IS TAKING PLACE, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED UNDER T.C.A. 39-17-1359(a)(2)
    (2) Possession of a weapon on posted PUBLIC property DURING A OFFICIAL GOVERNMENT MEETING in violation of this section is punishable by fine only of five hundred dollars ($500).
    (d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter, reduce or eliminate any civil or criminal liability that a PRIVATE property owner or PRIVATE PROPERTY manager may have for injuries arising FOR THE USE OF THEIR PRIVATE property.
    (e) The provisions of this section shall not apply to title 70 regarding wildlife laws, rules and regulations WHEN SUCH RULES AND REGUALTIONS ARE BEING FOLLOWED.
    I'd like the legislature to allow guns everywhere, but that will probably not happen this session. I don't want local governments defining where guns are allowed and not allowed. I think that the state defining what a sensitive area is and allowing cities to post to prohibit would be the best way to accomplish what they already do. I like how KY allows open carry in the Legislature, but that won't happen here anytime soon. Governments will complain of the costs of "adequate security" and schools do not have adequate security.
    I'd also like a standard sign which must be posted, but I think a sign which meets the criteria already listed in law is fine as long as it is visible, which is why I would say around 8" x 8". Many people will complain about the added expense of having specific signs made up. I will say that the ghostbuster signs should not be permitted.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The south land
    Posts
    1,230
    Amend 39-17-1307(a)(1) by deleting the term "firearm".

    Amend 39-17-1308 by deleting it in its entirety and instead inserting the following new sections (a) it shall no longer be a crime in this state for a person to wear arms without a permit with the intent to go armed, regardless of whether that firearm is worn openly or concealed. (b) any officer desiring to investigate a citizen for wearing or possessing a holstered handgun, absent a legitimate complaint against said citizen must have reasonable articulable suspicion that the person has, is in the process of or is about to commit a crime. ( c ) no officer shall conduct an involuntary detainment of any individual in this state for merely wearing arms without a logged, official complaint and such complaint must document the citizens name making the complaint, conduct viewed by the citizen leading the citizen to file the complaint and location of complainant. (d) nothing in this section shall prohibit an officer from approaching an individual and asking the individual if he/she would be willing to voluntarily speak with the officer, but the officer shall make it clear that the citizen is not being detained and is free to leave at any time with or without speaking to the officer.

    Amend 39-17-1351 : By deleting (a) in its entirety and instead inserting the following new section (a) that the people of Tennessee have the right to keep and wear arms for their defense without a permit but the permit is authorized for those who need or want it.

    By Amending 39-17-1351(t), (n)(1) and (p)(1). (t) gives the police the ability to disarm you for virtually every reason they can think of--they should have to have a real reason based upon RAS that you are or pose a threat--merely mumbling "officer safety" shouldn't cut it, (n)(1) sets the time of expiration at 4yrs--it should be amended to be 10yrs, as well as the fact that (n)(1) allows the police to demand your permit--no permit required means they cannot demand one. (p)(1) sets the cost at $115 whereas it should be $50


    Amend 39-17-1307 (b) by deleting the section in its' entirety and instead inserting the following "it shall be unlawful for anyone who has been convicted of a violent felony or of drug possession and not having his/her Constitutional rights restored to be in the possession of a firearm. It shall further be unlawful for anyone convicted of the crime of domestic violence to be in the possession of a firearm. (b)(1) a violation of this section is a class E felony.

    Amend 39-17-305 (a)(3) by deleting the section in its entirety.

    The state Constitution should also be amended--by deleting the clause "but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime" from § 26 of the Declaration of rights. § 26 should read "That the people of Tennessee shall have the right to keep and wear arms for their defense without a permit and this right shall not be called into question.
    Last edited by suntzu; 10-23-2010 at 06:11 PM.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    Amend 39-17-1307(a)(1) by deleting the term "firearm".
    Amend 39-17-1308 by deleting it in its entirety and instead inserting the following new section (a) it shall no longer be a crime in this state for a person to wear arms without a permit with the intent to go armed, regardless of whether that firearm is worn openly or concealed. (b) any officer desiring to investigate a citizen for wearing or possessing a holstered handgun, absent a legitimate complaint against said citizen must have reasonable articulable suspicion that the person has, is in the process of or is about to commit a crime. ( c ) no officer shall conduct an involuntary detainment of any individual in this state for merely wearing arms without a logged, official complaint and such complaint must document the citizens name making the complaint, conduct viewed by the citizen leading the citizen to file the complaint and location of complainant. (d) nothing in this section shall prohibit an officer from approaching an individual and asking the individual if he/she would be willing to voluntarily speak with the officer, but the officer shall make it clear that the citizen is not being detained and is free to leave at any time with or without speaking to the officer.

    Amend 39-17-1351 (t), (n)(1) and (p)(1). (t) gives the police the ability to disarm you for virtually every reason they can think of, (n)(1) sets the time of expiration at 4yrs--it should be amended to be 10yrs (p)(1) sets the cost at $115 whereas it should be $50



    Amend 39-17-1307 (b) by deleting the section in its' entirety and instead inserting the following "it shall be unlawful for anyone who has been convicted of a violent felony or of drug possession and not having his/her Constitutional rights restored to be in the possession of a firearm. It shall further be unlawful for anyone convicted of the crime of domestic violence to be in the possession of a firearm. (b)(1) a violation of this section is a class E felony.

    Amend 39-17-305 (a)(3) by deleting the section in its entirety.

    The state Constitution should also be amended--by deleting the clause "but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime" from § 26 of the Declaration of rights. § 26 should read "That the people of Tennessee shall have the right to keep and wear arms for their defense without a permit.
    Why delete the word firearm? Why not just delete the first section entirely? The knives and clubs are covered further down in the existing section.

    They would not pass anything similar to what you have for 1308, IMO.

    I didn't want to touch 1351 because so many have paid for their right to carry. I like the suggestions and would include the remove the revocation on failure to pay child support.

    Disorderly conduct will not change, IMO.

    If the hunting provision passes maybe during the constitutional convention they could do this. The next convention is only possible in 2015.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The south land
    Posts
    1,230
    Quote Originally Posted by kwikrnu View Post
    Why delete the word firearm? Why not just delete the first section entirely? The knives and clubs are covered further down in the existing section.
    Remove the word "firearm" and you automatically give Constitutional carry to the people of this state--because if it isn't a crime to possess a firearm with the intent to go armed then it is perfectly legal to carry without a permit. I do agree however--it would be just as simple to delete 1307(a) entirely.



    Quote Originally Posted by kwikrnu View Post
    They would not pass anything similar to what you have for 1308, IMO.
    I agree my rewrite of 1308 is quite radical and places additional restraints upon the power of law enforcement--but if Constitutional carry is going to be the law then law enforcement has to understand that they cannot involuntarily detain you merely for the possession of a firearm absent either a complaint or RAS. Without some changes in the law then as far as detainment for a 'status check" goes--they will still have a virtually free hand to stop you.

    Quote Originally Posted by kwikrnu View Post
    I didn't want to touch 1351 because so many have paid for their right to carry. I like the suggestions and would include the remove the revocation on failure to pay child support.
    I touched 1351 because 1351 has been needing amending for a while--the cost should be reduced, the time frame for permits should be increased, and it should be more difficult for officers to disarm you as well as making it option to give a permit if you have one---it should not be a requirement but rather optional to show them your permit.

    Quote Originally Posted by kwikrnu View Post
    Disorderly conduct will not change, IMO.
    If they don't change Disorderly Conduct--they can still use it as a catchall--just like they do in Wisconsin--even though they have been told in an Atty. Gen. opinion that it is not disorderly conduct to merely have an openly carried handgun.

    Quote Originally Posted by kwikrnu View Post
    If the hunting provision passes maybe during the constitutional convention they could do this. The next convention is only possible in 2015.
    They could keep the State Constitution as it is--but as long as they give themselves the ability to regulate the wearing of arms problems will arise--because if you get an anti-gun legislature then every right you receive now can just as easily be repealed.
    Last edited by suntzu; 10-23-2010 at 06:13 PM.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    Remove the word "firearm" and you automatically give Constitutional carry to the people of this state--because if it isn't a crime to possess a firearm with the intent to go armed then it is perfectly legal to carry without a permit. I do agree however--it would be just as simple to delete 1307(a) entirely.





    I agree my rewrite of 1308 is quite radical and places additional restraints upon the power of law enforcement--but if Constitutional carry is going to be the law then law enforcement has to understand that they cannot involuntarily detain you merely for the possession of a firearm absent either a complaint or RAS. Without some changes in the law then as far as detainment for a 'status check" goes--they will still have a virtually free hand to stop you.



    I touched 1351 because 1351 has been needing amending for a while--the cost should be reduced, the time frame for permits should be increased, and it should be more difficult for officers to disarm you as well as making it option to give a permit if you have one---it should not be a requirement but rather optional to show them your permit.



    If they don't change Disorderly Conduct--they can still use it as a catchall--just like they do in Wisconsin--even though they have been told in an Atty. Gen. opinion that it is not disorderly conduct to merely have an openly carried handgun.



    They could keep the State Constitution as it is--but as long as they give themselves the ability to regulate the wearing of arms problems will arise--because if you get an anti-gun legislature then every right you receive now can just as easily be repealed.
    I agree, especially with the "catch all" disorderly conduct. I don't think 305 can be amended, there are too many who like those catch all laws. The legislature if they were to do something like this is going to get a lot of heat. They are not going to want to change a lot of laws all at once either. I don't like having to show the cops the permit either, but don't know how to change any part of that law w/o people complaining. It may also affect reciprocity?

    We have four years to get this stuff done, but I think starting off strong will set the stage for the next three years.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The south land
    Posts
    1,230
    Quote Originally Posted by kwikrnu View Post
    I agree, especially with the "catch all" disorderly conduct. I don't think 305 can be amended, there are too many who like those catch all laws. The legislature if they were to do something like this is going to get a lot of heat. They are not going to want to change a lot of laws all at once either. I don't like having to show the cops the permit either, but don't know how to change any part of that law w/o people complaining. It may also affect reciprocity?

    We have four years to get this stuff done, but I think starting off strong will set the stage for the next three years.
    amending 1351 in the way I suggest should not affect reciprocity. Those who like the catch all laws are those who like to enforce their opinion--and it is they who will give the heat to the legislature if we could get them to even consider amending 305.

    The thing we have to consider is--what do we want to get changed NOW in order to get Constitutional carry and do so in such a way as we keep the permit system while making it clear to law enforcement that no permit is needed to carry in this state and then concentrate on the remainder.

    We want an AZ/AK type law--not Vermont.

    I was looking at the state legislature website and came across this http://lastcar.blogspot.com/2010/10/...t-freedom.html

    Rep. Campfield has said that he has a bill drafted that will give Constitutional Carry--but he could not get a sponsor last year. Perhaps we could speak to him and see what he can do if he gets re-elected?
    Last edited by suntzu; 10-23-2010 at 06:45 PM.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    I was looking at the state legislature website and came across this http://lastcar.blogspot.com/2010/10/...t-freedom.html

    Rep. Campfield has said that he has a bill drafted that will give Constitutional Carry--but he could not get a sponsor last year. Perhaps we could speak to him and see what he can do if he gets re-elected?
    I've emailed him the above plan. He links to steve gill on his blog. I talked with Bob Pope and Steve Gill last Saturday at the Second Amendment rally. I also talked with several up and coming candidates. I spoke with Sen. Mae Beavers, but she seemed distant. I missed Dianne Black, or maybe she saw me coming.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The south land
    Posts
    1,230
    Quote Originally Posted by kwikrnu View Post
    I've emailed him the above plan. He links to steve gill on his blog. I talked with Bob Pope and Steve Gill last Saturday at the Second Amendment rally. I also talked with several up and coming candidates. I spoke with Sen. Mae Beavers, but she seemed distant. I missed Dianne Black, or maybe she saw me coming.
    Perhaps you could try Kelsey and Norris--assuming they retain their offices after the election of course--theirs was one of the bills which would have allowed carry into post secondary institutions.

    The best chance is for Rep. Campfield and a couple of the other pro-gun members of the house and senate--and everyone needs to participate--meaning write them, call them, and work to get this passed.
    Last edited by suntzu; 10-23-2010 at 09:24 PM.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956
    Members of the House of Representatives

    rep.joe.armstrong@capitol.tn.gov, rep.judy.barker@capitol.tn.gov, rep.eddie.bass@capitol.tn.gov, rep.mike.bell@capitol.tn.gov, rep.stratton.bone@capitol.tn.gov, rep.willie.borchert@capitol.tn.gov, rep.harry.brooks@capitol.tn.gov, rep.kevin.brooks@capitol.tn.gov, rep.tommie.brown@capitol.tn.gov, rep.karen.camper@capitol.tn.gov, rep.stacey.campfield@capitol.tn.gov, rep.joe.carr@capitol.tn.gov, rep.glen.casada@capitol.tn.gov, rep.jim.cobb@capitol.tn.gov, rep.ty.cobb@capitol.tn.gov, rep.kent.coleman@capitol.tn.gov, rep.jim.coley@capitol.tn.gov, rep.barbara.cooper@capitol.tn.gov, rep.charles.curtiss@capitol.tn.gov, rep.vince.dean@capitol.tn.gov, rep.john.deberry@capitol.tn.gov, rep.lois.deberry@capitol.tn.gov, rep.vance.dennis@capitol.tn.gov, rep.bill.dunn@capitol.tn.gov, rep.jimmy.eldridge@capitol.tn.gov, rep.joshua.evans@capitol.tn.gov, rep.chad.faulkner@capitol.tn.gov, rep.joanne.favors@capitol.tn.gov, rep.dennis.ferguson@capitol.tn.gov, rep.henry.fincher@capitol.tn.gov, rep.craig.fitzhugh@capitol.tn.gov, rep.richard.floyd@capitol.tn.gov, rep.dale.ford@capitol.tn.gov, rep.george.fraley@capitol.tn.gov, rep.brenda.gilmore@capitol.tn.gov, rep.jim.hackworth@capitol.tn.gov, rep.curtis.halford@capitol.tn.gov, rep.ga.hardaway@capitol.tn.gov, rep.bill.harmon@capitol.tn.gov, rep.mike.harrison@capitol.tn.gov, rep.beth.harwell@capitol.tn.gov, rep.david.hawk@capitol.tn.gov, rep.ryan.haynes@capitol.tn.gov, rep.joey.hensley@capitol.tn.gov, rep.matthew.hill@capitol.tn.gov, rep.curtis.johnson@capitol.tn.gov, rep.phillip.johnson@capitol.tn.gov, rep.sherry.jones@capitol.tn.gov, rep.ulysses.jones@capitol.tn.gov, rep.mike.kernell@capitol.tn.gov, rep.john.litz@capitol.tn.gov, rep.ron.lollar@capitol.tn.gov, rep.jon.lundberg@capitol.tn.gov, rep.susan.lynn@capitol.tn.gov, rep.mark.maddox@capitol.tn.gov, rep.debra.maggart@capitol.tn.gov, rep.pat.marsh@capitol.tn.gov, rep.judd.matheny@capitol.tn.gov, rep.jimmy.matlock@capitol.tn.gov, rep.joe.mccord@capitol.tn.gov, rep.gerald.mccormick@capitol.tn.gov, rep.steve.mcdaniel@capitol.tn.gov, rep.michael.mcdonald@capitol.tn.gov, rep.steve.mcmanus@capitol.tn.gov, rep.larry.miller@capitol.tn.gov, rep.richard.montgomery@capitol.tn.gov, rep.gary.moore@capitol.tn.gov, rep.jason.mumpower@capitol.tn.gov, spk.eme.jimmy.naifeh@capitol.tn.gov, rep.frank.niceley@capitol.tn.gov, rep.gary.odom@capitol.tn.gov, rep.joe.pitts@capitol.tn.gov, rep.mary.pruitt@capitol.tn.gov, rep.bob.ramsey@capitol.tn.gov, rep.barrett.rich@capitol.tn.gov, rep.jeanne.richardson@capitol.tn.gov, rep.dennis.roach@capitol.tn.gov, rep.donna.rowland@capitol.tn.gov, charles.sargent@capitol.tn.gov, rep.johnny.shaw@capitol.tn.gov, rep.david.shepard@capitol.tn.gov, rep.tony.shipley@capitol.tn.gov, rep.janis.sontany@capitol.tn.gov, rep.mike.stewart@capitol.tn.gov, rep.eric.swafford@capitol.tn.gov, rep.john.tidwell@capitol.tn.gov, rep.harry.tindell@capitol.tn.gov, rep.curry.todd@capitol.tn.gov, rep.joe.towns@capitol.tn.gov, rep.johnnie.turner@capitol.tn.gov, rep.mike.turner@capitol.tn.gov, rep.eric.watson@capitol.tn.gov, rep.terri.lynn.weaver@capitol.tn.gov, rep.ben.west@capitol.tn.gov, rep.mark.white@capitol.tn.gov, speaker.kent.williams@capitol.tn.gov, rep.john.windle@capitol.tn.gov, rep.leslie.winningham@capitol.tn.gov, rep.eddie.yokley@capitol.tn.gov

    Members of the Senate

    sen.tim.barnes@capitol.tn.gov, sen.mae.beavers@capitol.tn.gov, sen.andy.berke@capitol.tn.gov, sen.diane.black@capitol.tn.gov, sen.dewayne.bunch@capitol.tn.gov, sen.tim.burchett@capitol.tn.gov, sen.charlotte.burks@capitol.tn.gov, sen.rusty.crowe@capitol.tn.gov, sen.mike.faulk@capitol.tn.gov, sen.lowe.finney@capitol.tn.gov, sen.ophelia.ford@capitol.tn.gov, sen.dolores.gresham@capitol.tn.gov, sen.thelma.harper@capitol.tn.gov, sen.joe.haynes@capitol.tn.gov, sen.douglas.henry@capitol.tn.gov, sen.roy.herron@capitol.tn.gov, sen.doug.jackson@capitol.tn.gov, sen.jack.johnson@capitol.tn.gov, sen.brian.kelsey@capitol.tn.gov, sen.bill.ketron@capitol.tn.gov, sen.jim.kyle@capitol.tn.gov, sen.beverly.marrero@capitol.tn.gov, sen.randy.mcnally@capitol.tn.gov, sen.mark.norris@capitol.tn.gov, sen.doug.overbey@capitol.tn.gov, lt.gov.ron.ramsey@capitol.tn.gov, sen.steve.southerland@capitol.tn.gov, sen.eric.stewart@capitol.tn.gov, sen.reginald.tate@capitol.tn.gov, sen.jim.tracy@capitol.tn.gov, sen.bo.watson@capitol.tn.gov, sen.jamie.woodson@capitol.tn.gov, sen.ken.yager@capitol.tn.gov

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    Perhaps you could try Kelsey and Norris--assuming they retain their offices after the election of course--theirs was one of the bills which would have allowed carry into post secondary institutions.

    The best chance is for Rep. Campfield and a couple of the other pro-gun members of the house and senate--and everyone needs to participate--meaning write them, call them, and work to get this passed.

    I think calling into radio programs may help. I have called into Ralph Bristol and Phil Valentine. I have talked with steve gill (and he took a pic of me and him with my guns and coffe starbucks shirt lol).

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The south land
    Posts
    1,230
    Quote Originally Posted by kwikrnu View Post
    I think calling into radio programs may help. I have called into Ralph Bristol and Phil Valentine. I have talked with steve gill (and he took a pic of me and him with my guns and coffe starbucks shirt lol).
    I am going to write Rep. Campfield--but I am still going to suggest a change to the disorderly conduct statute--the last thing we want is to have Constitutional carry as law and yet have law enforcement arbitrarily enforcing their opinion by charging anyone they can with disorderly conduct merely for carrying a gun when they know it is perfectly legal to do so.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Brentwood, Tennessee
    Posts
    1,956
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    I am going to write Rep. Campfield--but I am still going to suggest a change to the disorderly conduct statute--the last thing we want is to have Constitutional carry as law and yet have law enforcement arbitrarily enforcing their opinion by charging anyone they can with disorderly conduct merely for carrying a gun when they know it is perfectly legal to do so.
    It can't hurt to suggest. I think any suggestion is better than none. I wouldn't count on Mark Norris. He was one of the sponsers on TCA 39-17-1361 and would not answer my letter, calls, emails concerning the sheriff who refused to obey the law.
    Last edited by kwikrnu; 10-23-2010 at 11:18 PM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    My Response to this Article is based on Reasonableness..., not just what may or may not happen.
    Although it seems like a good idea, I doubt that Tennessee will move towards Constitutional Carry this next Session.
    The first Southern States most liable to attempt Constitutional Carry are: 1. Virginia OR 2. Kentucky.

    Everything in Tennessee revolves around the phase 'with the Intent to go Armed'.
    Everything in The Sister States of Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi revovle around 'Concealed'.

    In comparisson to the aformentioned States, and with the exception of Louisiana, the remaining 'true' Southern States of: 1. Arkansas, 2. South Carolina, and 3. North Carolina; have Firearm restrictions that are too Draconian.

    Tennessee is odd in comparison to many other States in by requiring Rifles or Shotguns to be Unloaded, without Ammunition being found close by.

    I would amend Tennessee Law 39-17-1307 to read:
    39-17-1307. Unlawful Carrying or Possession of a HANDGUN, CERTAIN KNIVES, OR CLUBS.
    (a)(1) A Person commits an Offense who Carries, WHETHER OPENLY OR CONCEALED, with the Intent to go Armed a HANDGUN, a Knife with a Blade length exceeding four inches, or a Club.
    (2)(A) The first Violation of Subdivision (a)(1) is a Class C Misdemeanor, and, in addition to possible Imprisonment as provided by Law, may be Punished by a Fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500).
    (B) A second or subsequent Violation of Subdivision (a)(1) is a Class B Misdemeanor.
    (C) EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN 39-17-108(a), A Violation of Subdivision (a)(1) is a Class A Misdemeanor if the Person CarryIED A LOADED Handgun WHICH occurred at a place open to the Public where one HUNDERED (100) or more Persons were present FOR A MEETING, OR OTHERWISE LAWFULLY ASSEMBLED.

    I would also amend Tennessee Law 39-17-1308, to read:
    39-17-1308. Defenses to Unlawful Possession or Carrying of a HANDGUN, CERTAIN KNIVES, OR CLUBS.
    (a) It is a Defense to the application of § 39-17-1307(2)(C) if the Possession or Carrying OF A HANDGUN was:
    (1) Of an unloaded handgun not concealed on or about the person and the ammunition for the HANDGUN was not CHAMBERED INTO THE BARREL OF THE HANDGUN, OR INSERTED INTO THE HANDGUN, WHEREUPON THE SAFETY, OR TRIGGER FAIL-SAFE MECHANISM, IF ANY, WAS, OR WERE, DISENGAGED, WHEREUPON THE HANDGUN COULD READILY BE DISCHARGED BY A SINGLE MANUEL PULL OF THE TRIGGER WITHOUT ANY FURTHER ACTION.
    Last edited by aadvark; 10-24-2010 at 02:40 PM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The south land
    Posts
    1,230
    Quote Originally Posted by aadvark View Post

    I would amend Tennessee Law 39-17-1307 to read:
    39-17-1307. Unlawful Carrying or Possession of a HANDGUN, CERTAIN KNIVES, OR CLUBS.
    (a)(1) A Person commits an Offense who Carries, WHETHER OPENLY OR CONCEALED, with the Intent to go Armed a HANDGUN, a Knife with a Blade length exceeding four inches, or a Club.
    (2)(A) The first Violation of Subdivision (a)(1) is a Class C Misdemeanor, and, in addition to possible Imprisonment as provided by Law, may be Punished by a Fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500).
    (B) A second or subsequent Violation of Subdivision (a)(1) is a Class B Misdemeanor.
    (C) EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN 39-17-108(a), A Violation of Subdivision (a)(1) is a Class A Misdemeanor if the Person CarryIED A LOADED Handgun WHICH occurred at a place open to the Public where one HUNDERED (100) or more Persons were present FOR A MEETING, OR OTHERWISE LAWFULLY ASSEMBLED.

    I would also amend Tennessee Law 39-17-1308, to read:
    39-17-1308. Defenses to Unlawful Possession or Carrying of a HANDGUN, CERTAIN KNIVES, OR CLUBS.
    (a) It is a Defense to the application of § 39-17-1307(2)(C) if the Possession or Carrying OF A HANDGUN was:
    (1) Of an unloaded handgun not concealed on or about the person and the ammunition for the HANDGUN was not CHAMBERED INTO THE BARREL OF THE HANDGUN, OR INSERTED INTO THE HANDGUN, WHEREUPON THE SAFETY, OR TRIGGER FAIL-SAFE MECHANISM, IF ANY, WAS, OR WERE, DISENGAGED, WHEREUPON THE HANDGUN COULD READILY BE DISCHARGED BY A SINGLE MANUEL PULL OF THE TRIGGER WITHOUT ANY FURTHER ACTION.


    We should not have to have a "defense" for carrying a firearm-that is why we want to work toward Constitutional carry along the lines of Arizona/Alaska.



    We should not need a permit to carry--a permit is a privilege--and a privilege is not a right.
    Last edited by suntzu; 10-24-2010 at 05:35 PM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,605
    SunTzu:

    I agree with you, however; I just do not see it happing at The Tennessee Legisalture any time soon.

    Instead, it would probably work better to gradually phase in 'Constitutional Carry' by 'Piece-Meal' Legislation as against one full revisal of Tennessee Law.

    Again..., my Proposal is based off of Reasonableness and Reality.

    aadvark

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •