Killing constitutional carry
Haslam seems to be trying to do that with odd legislative tricks. Not sure they’d need to reissue new permits. The believable argument is loss of permit revenue.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
April 14th, 2014 at 9:00 am
Guess I misunderstand the meaning of constitutional carry. To me it means I can carry concealed or open without any permit as long as I am not a prohibited person
April 14th, 2014 at 9:23 am
pro·hib·it
transitive verb \prō-ˈhi-bət, prə-\
: to say that (something) is not allowed
Constitutional carry requires no permission.
April 14th, 2014 at 12:18 pm
Yes Ben, that’s what it means to me too.
From the link:
While not required by the legislation, we believe it is good policy
Well of course you do!
If you didn’t spend a bunch of money to do something unneccesary that could be taken care of in a letter to the permit holder, how else would these bumbling gun totin’ hicks get the news?
April 14th, 2014 at 4:02 pm
The permit revenue should be to cover the cost of the operations of issuing the permits. It should not be for other stuff.
April 14th, 2014 at 6:51 pm
The reasoning I’ve heard on using Con Carry for OC is it refers to some form of permitless carry being available, not necessarily all types.
That is buttressed by the historical reasoning in Heller where the various concealed carry bans the anti-rights folks like to cite occurred only in the context of open carry being unrestricted.
April 14th, 2014 at 8:32 pm
Haslam wants despeately not to have to make an “up” or “down” decision on this.
If it goes down in flames, (and I suspect it will) why not a court case challenging “pay to play” open carry?
April 14th, 2014 at 10:57 pm
Down in flames. Voted down in the House Finance Subcommittee. 10-1. Rep. David Hawk was the lone vote in favor. WSMV didn’t name the other 10.
April 15th, 2014 at 12:24 am
cannoneer2, if Hawk was the only “Aye” then the “Nays” have to be:
David Alexander, R-Winchester
Joe Armstrong, D-Knoxville
Kevin Brooks, R-Cleveland
Karen Camper, D-Memphis
Craig Fitzhugh, D-Ripley
Gerald McCormick, R-Chattanooga
Steve McDaniel, R-Parker’s Crossroads
Gary Odom, D-Nashville
Dennis Roach, R-Rutledge
and of course:
Charles Sargent R-Franklin
A pox on them.
April 15th, 2014 at 7:33 am
I’m sure TFA is busy right now digging up the video of Haslam telling us he’d support ConCarry….if it made it to his desk.
April 15th, 2014 at 11:39 am
According to Article I, Section 26 of the Tennessee Declaration of Rights we already have “Constitutional Carry”. This bill was precisely pursuant to that DECLARED right. ALL our Legislators and our Governor took an oath to uphold it.
April 15th, 2014 at 1:36 pm
In other words, this bill would de-criminalize the exercise of an enumerated, declared right in the Tennessee State Constitution.
April 15th, 2014 at 2:00 pm
So maybe the next step is a court challenge of this “Pay to Play” open carry?
April 15th, 2014 at 2:40 pm
Yes, rickn8or, it is UNLAWFUL to require a permit to exercise a right, and in this case the one enumerated in Article I, Section 26 of the Tennessee Constitution. Not only are we forced to “pay to play”, but to divulge private information in violation of the 4th and 5th Amendmetns and those corresponding sections of the Tennessee Constitution’s Declaration of Rights.
Yesterday I heard some self-described “conservatives” calling a local talk show arguing against the Constitutional Carry bill with some of the same bigotted and prejudiced arguments the leftists use against permitted gun carry. I was wondering just what is it they are trying to conserve? For me, I want to conserve Constitutional government that RESTRICTS the government to its delegated powers and DECLARES the rights of the people to be freely exercised without legislative or executive infringements.
April 15th, 2014 at 4:35 pm
“Guns in local parks” bill is now dead as well, courtesy of the same committee.
April 15th, 2014 at 5:41 pm
So, for example, if a woman wants to go walking alone in park, they think she should not have the right to carry the means to protect her own body against the robber, the rapist or the murderer? It’s her right. But it’s denied. What other rights should cities and counties be able to deny in public parks?