TennFire

  My point is that the reason why the signs remained after the adoption of the parks law in 2008 and again in 2015 is that it was still illegal to have guns in the parks unless you have a civilian permit and thus the signs are still an accurate statement of the law for the general population.  "Why" the signs were originally posted in the parks (as you note under 39-17-1311 and in some instances under 39-17-1359 for those posted prior to 2008) has nothing to do with why those signs are still there.  The primary reason the signs are still there and are not being updated to accurately reflect the exception in the law is an issue of the fiscal note problems that negatively impact a lot of the 2nd Amendment style legislation.

The issue with the signs involves a couple of considerations.    First, it is generally illegaly to have a firearm in public, including in the parks, unless you have a permit.  So, the argument goes in the Alice in Wonderland halls of the legislature that its still a crime but permit holders, like perhaps law enforcement, are just an exception.  They don't usually print the exceptions, just the general rule.   Second, this game about printing signs that accurate state the law is necessary to avoid "fiscal notes."  Fiscal notes are budget estimates in the legislature.  They are used, or misused more accurately, in the House to route legislation to certain "black hole committees" like House Finance (chaired by Charles Sargent) and House Finance Subcommittee (chaired by Mike Harrison) so that such bills can be killed by as few as 5 or 6 "no" votes.  Thus, as has happened with the "permitless open carry" legislation in 2014 and 2015 by Rep. VanHuss and Sen. Beavers, these bills receive misleading if not fraudulent fiscal estimates from the Haslam administration (e.g., cost to print "concealed" on the permits if the law passes) and these estimates then automatically send these bills to these black hole committees where members who are blindly loyal to leadership will dispense with them.  So, in an attempt to avoid these fiscal notes, legislators are being forced to put language into bills to prohibit any state money being spent if the law passes such as prohibiting changing signs unless in the ordinary course of maintenance or otherwise posting new signs. It is a game we should not have to play but because we have group of individuals in legislative leadership who are willing to abuse the committee system so as to disenfranchise most voters, we have to play it until the rules are rewritten to be "fair" as opposed to what is politely called "efficient".

What the Tennessee Legislature has done is to create needless confusion and debate.  When that is done with respect to criminal statutes, such as these, it is inexcusable and likely unconstitutional under the vagueness doctrine.   Now, for a moment on local governments.  The state pre-emption statute is TCA 39-17-1314.  It prohibits any local regulation except as expressly permitted by any other statute.  Consequently, statutes like TCA 39-17-1359 allow local governments to post their properties (public buildings, civic centers, etc.) unless another statute, like TCA 39-17-1313 or TCA 39-17-1311, prohibits local regulation of some or all of the areas.  Clear, right? Now, on the local parks topic.   First, the "school grounds" statute (TCA 39-17-1309) is a big part of the problem. It contains this definition of school grounds:     Under this language, the possession of any "weapon", including knives and firearms on "any ... property ... used" by a school is chargeable as a Class E felony. Understand that there is no time limit on "used" so it could be argued that if the property has ever been "used" for any school function then it might be classified as 'school property' for purposes of the felony charge.  This could include not just parks but movie theaters, bowling alleys, swimming pools, picnic grounds, museums, art centers, restaurants and even private homes that have been "used" for school approved events or parties. So, part of the problem has been the definition of "school grounds" all along. However, this was not very well known until the Attorney General issued an opinion recently.  See, AG 14-88.  The AG opinion is accurate in some areas but the areas where he concluded that there is a time or geographic limit is unsupported by the statute and unsupported by any court decision reading such a limit into the statute.  So, worse case, if a school have ever used the property for any school function its permanently classified as "school grounds" and possession of any weapon on that property could be charged as a Class E felony even if you did not know the school had ever or was presently using the property. Next we look at the parks statute, TCA 39-17-1311.  First, it is important to know that Sen. Green had a bill this year to delete the word "used" from the school grounds statute.  That bill was defeated by the Republican leadership in a subcommittee.  Next, when the "parks bill" was being debated in conference, they specifically addressed the school issue.  They were aware of it and made the intentional choice by refusing to fix the problem but they may have actually made it worse.  How is it worse?  More confusion.  Consider this.  The "parks statute" defines certain public areas, including but not limited to parks, as prohibited places.  This is the language from TCA 39-17-1311(a):     Clearly, TCA 39-17-1311 defines a specific list of places and then ads any other places used for "recreational purposes."   The term "parks" is just one of the places but its in a list of other places suggesting that these are by some means or intent distinct from parks.  Weapons are prohibited in all of these places by state law even if there are no signs posted.  The majority report which became the "parks bill" in 2015 is pitifully written.  First, it uses a list of places that is different from the list in 39-17-1311(a).  Second, it uses a "morphing" concept where these properties covered by the 2015 amendment can suddenly turn into Class E felony traps - i.e., school grounds, at any point in time merely by having a school activity taking place (e.g., cross country runners, golf team, baseball practice/game, football, tennis, lacrosse, soccer, etc.).  Third, you get a "fair warning" to leave the property but only if you did not "know or should have known" about the school even.  Fourth, it covers the entire property - arguably - not just the specific area in which the event is taking place.  Fifth, it uses the term "vicinity" which potentially could extent outside the park boundaries and which has no defined meaning (10 feet, 100 feet, 150 feet, or what about the effective range of the firearms?).  Here is the language in the 2015 law:     The Establishment Republicans in the legislature are unwilling to honor their oaths of office.  This particular disaster was manufacturered by Senator John Stevens who is a hand picked private for Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey.  But, to accomplish this 2015 language he had the apparent full support of Senator Mike Bell (who reportedly shares an apartment from time to time with Lt. Gov. Ramsey) as well as Rep. Mike Harrison (who was in charge of House Finance Subcommittee in 2014 when the Open Carry law was defeated) and finally by Rep. Tilmon Goins.  I will add that Rep. Tilmon Goins had sponsored a better version of the parks bill this year but was apparently told by House leadership to back burner his bill because leadership wanted Rep. Harrison to get the credit for passing a gun bill after the attacks against him in 2014 for killing the open carry law. Folks, defending our rights is not a spectator sport. It is not sufficient to engage these issues in internet forums and Facebook posts.  We have to be willing to speak out, to call out these legislators, to let them know - face to face - that they are doing wrong, and, when necessary to raise funding and set aside time to run against them or to support others (not  just in your district but anywhere in the state) to run against the RINOs and defeat them.  These problems will not go away so long as we have government leaders like Haslam, Harwell and Ramsey.   Those 3 convinced a majority of Tennesseans to vote to give up their rights to vote for one-third of state government (the judicial amendment in 2014), do you think they really care about the 2nd Amendment?

So, it may be interesting to see if any law enforcement entity decides (or is pushed) to investigate whether the double dipping is any form of crime like filing false reports or fraud.  If it was a private employee, I can almost bet it would be criminal felony charges given the amounts involved.

  There are a few reasons why the challenges have been limited, in my opinion:   Cost.  Seldom do you find an individual who wants to bear this burden individually.  Similarly, although the NRA raises literally millions of dollars a year from its members in Tennessee, it has never to my knowledge taken on a case to challenge any existing statute in TN based on the constitutional language from the 1870s or even the 2nd Amendment.  It may have been involved in defending the 2009 restaurant law but that law did appear to violate the vagueness doctrine and was not tested against Article I, Section 26.  TFA has in recent years looked at a few cases and did get involved as an amicus in the Blackwell case.  TFA believes that part of what it should do as an advoacy group is to engage not just in the legislature but also in the court system when it can.  However, to do this, TFA must raise the funds through members and member donations since, as we all know, money does not grow on trees.   Probability of success.  If you follow the various although limited rulings of the Tennessee Supreme Court on the application of the Tennessee constitution to statutory enactments, you will see a trend of construction by the court where every effort is made to find a way to interpret a law, any law, as constitutionally permissible.  Thus some of the challenges which have been brought relative to the firearms law have not met with success in terms of having those statutes declared unconstitutional.  You also have to consider the composition of the court (just like the US Supreme court) and make an educated, informed assessment of whether those specific judges have said or done things to make you think that they are "strict" constitutionalists.  If not, don't risk making things worse with a bad opinion.   Opportunity.  To bring challenges someone has to have "standing" in a court.  Not everyone can sue to challenge a statute.  There must be some tangible harm or relevance to a specific individual or entity so that the dispute addressed to the court will focus on a specific, real instance and not just be an advisory ruling.  A second component of opportunity is that you cannot take a case up on "bad facts".  You have to have a clean set of facts where the individual(s) who can show standing are going to make "good plaintiffs".   So, while laws can be challenged, there are many practical (cost) and logistical factors to be weighed when deciding if and when and where to bring such an action.  In most instances, the route of legislative reform may be better but as the last 5 years have proven - don't bet on it.

  JayC, that is part of the reason that Tennessee Spotlight was founded (actually by some individuals who are not primarily even 2nd Amendment oriented) but sadly very few people pitched in financially with individual subscriptions to help hire and put the people (many are volunteers and only needed reimbursement for expenses like parking) in the legislature to watch.  Too few grassroots groups have the staff or volunteers to work against a governor who has over 40 taxpayer funded "liasons" pressuring legislators for what he and his administration want done or stopped.   TFA helped fund the project with Tennessee Spotlight by being a corporate subscriber.

There are some in the world of 2nd Amendment advocacy who appreciate the need for engaging the poliicians which to most people includes or may be limited to the governor and the legislature.  Still others realize its also a battle with local politicians such as mayors and council members.  From my experience far to few appreciate the significant of the respective parties' State Executive Committees and the influence (and damage) that those SEC groups can have on who is even allowed to run as a member of the party.  Protecting our rights is not a spectator sport.  It requires engagement, effort and funding.

The parks bill this year is yet another example of the Establishment Republicans (mainly those in or wanting to be in leadership) refusing to enact laws that meet the constitutional standards including the standard that a criminal law must be sufficiently clear so that the average person, the average law enforcement official, the average DA, the average judge and the average juror would all reasonably agree on what is or is not permissible conduct.    The United States Supreme Court has decided numerous cases in which it discusses the "void for vagueness" doctrine.  Generally, the courts note that such legislation "may run afoul of the Due Process Clause because it fails to give adequate guidance to those who would be law-abiding, to advise defendants of the nature of the offense with which they are charged, or to guide courts in trying those who are accused."    Constitutionally, people of common intelligence cannot be required to guess at the meaning of law, particularly a criminal code.  For those of you who recall the litigation over the 2009 "restaurant" law, the trial court's decision to declare that act unconstitutional was based on this vagueness doctrine and, frankly, was the right decision in that instance. Many would argue that the same is true for several of Tennessee's existing firearms related laws including specifically the parks and school grounds laws but also including many other laws such as the ones which define a loaded weapon to include an empty weapon if there is ammunition "in the vicinity", the definition of a machinegun, the definition of a firearm (which is much broader than the federal Gun Control Act definition), the interactions between the "restorations" statutes and the prohibited person state statutes, and the list goes on.   Here, while part of the problem is TCA 39-17-1311, the main culprit is 39-17-1309 and the refusal of the legislators to remove the word "used" from the definition of a school grounds.  Because of that simple term, even your personal residence could be classified as "school grounds" - with all the attendant weapons restrictions - if you allowed your home or property to be used for any school function, such as an end of the year party. TFA is fighting these issues.  Part of the problem is sadly we are dealing with a divided Republican caucus in which the RINOs and Progressives control leadership.   Another huge problem is that there is at least one other organization (I am not talking about TGO) that has a presence at the legislature as a "pro 2nd Amendment advocate" that has approved numerous of these very poorly written bills over the last decade or so.

Tennessee Firearms Association helped Weaver with the original bill and it was specifically written to prohibit the use of state or local funds and personnel to implement or further implement any federal statute, rule, regulation or order relative to any 2nd Amendment topic.  Part of the theory was that the federal government has no authority under the 2nd Amendment to do anything that might be an "infringment" and that if it has chosen that path then it should be solely responsible for funding those enforcement / implementation needs. The bill predictably received opposition from state and local law enforcement agencies as well as non-state organizations that advocate for law enforcement interests (e.g. grant or other funding).  As I explored the "demanded" amendment it was conceded by those advocating for the amendment that if amended the bill would be allowed to proceed but that if amended it was also clear that it would not stop any ongoing activity in the state whereby state or local law enforcement are presently using or will in the future use state or local funding to enforce federal laws impacting the 2nd Amendment interests.   Specifically, the discussion included the concession that if the amendment was added then "no existing" activities of state or local government relative to enforcing these federal programs would be stopped or impeded.  Instead, it was clear from the proponents of the amendment that additional laws declaring specific federal action to violate TN law or the TN constitution would be required before anything would be stopped. While the "law enforcement" intervention to protect its funding came while the bills were in the committees overseen by Sen. Kelsey and Rep. Lunberg, the actual "proponents" involving in moving the amendment or threatening to kill the bill if not amended included other Republicans presently in the general assembly.    

I am not making any excuses for Pope or his flip flopping, but I do want to add some information that came directly from him. As many will recall, during the 2010 election cycle Pope had been doing a radio show (prerecorded and his main pool of guests were legislators and candidates). He also had what started off as a "free, statewide monthly paper" that was supposed to go to all permit holders, free, and was to be supported by advertising revenue. That is the paper that went from monthly (I think the first edition was it) to quarterly to gone. It almost immediately went from a free news source to a paid subscription when the ad revenue was not what he had projected. Many will also recall that in the 2010 elections, Pope first endorsed Mike McWherter for governor but if I recall that ended when McWherther's people let Pope know that Clinton was coming to TN to campaign for McWherter (what a surprise right?). At that point, Pope switched to Haslam. During the cozy meetings with Haslam, Pope started to change. He was befriended and his ego grew. They at least pretended to listen to him. He reported that he was promised a job right after the election by Haslam himself. I suspect that the Haslam job offer is what caused Pope in early 2011 to stop the paper and the radio show. Pope did not get the job he was promised. He did what they asked and expected, but they did not put him into state government as they apparently had led him to believe. He has from some sources pestered Haslam for the job but it never came in 2011 or 2012. He then turned his pleas to Ron Ramsey. Reports are that Ron Ramsey has now promised Pope a job of some sort and that it will start soon after the session ends. I do not support Pope's current posture on most firearms issues. I would not say he has changed his tone since many who know him would probably report that his position on any issue changes regularly - such as the flip flop from "total Republican" to his borrowing the phrase "constitutional conservative" to supporting McWherter to supporting Haslam. What I do however firmly believe is that Haslam and others in Republican leadership have been dishonest with him relative to the "reward" of a job. If it does not materialize - soon - I would not be surprised if Pope starts at least the radio show up and turns on those who have promised him the employment.

That bill is pending now and similar versions have been pending in years past. The issue on that particular topic is lack of support. I can go up there all I am able to and talk to them about it but if they are not getting phone calls, personal face to face meeting with constituents, emails, etc., on this specific issue they are going to ignore it because they know it will be misrepresented by the news media. Its the same issue with most of the firearms related legislation, as well as other topics that I work on such as hunting, OHV, civil rights, restorations, and minimizing the excessive scope of most criminal legislation that has anything to do with firearms (e.g., this year's order of protection law). Too few gun owners are involved and of those that are too few really understand the issues. For example, the parks issue moved quickly and the "opt in" because an "opt out" almost overnight. There was very little constituent involvement in that issue. Where we however lost traction is that the original opt out required a 2/3 vote and a couple of REPUBLICAN senators who happen to represent local governments wanted that reduced to 1/2. Again, almost no response from gun owners until it was too late.

Its killing my law practice right now but its something that has to be done. Please help by watching / listening to these shows and calling in!!!!!!

The Davidson County restaurant litigation started July 1. Its July 2 and the efforts of firearms owners are starting already. I did several news interviews yesterday - I encourage everyone to be contacting news outlets and submitting "letters to the editor" and requesting more balanced and truthful (i.e., "guns in bars" is a misnomer) coverage. I also want to share the information that we (TFA) have done a BBC interview with Nikki Goeser that should air on July 13. We (TFA) are doing a ABC network interview this morning with Nikki Goeser and Senator Jackson but I am not sure of the airtime. We (Bob Pope and TFA) are doing a call-in talk radio show July 2 with purchased - no commercial airtime. The show guests will be - Sen. Doug Jackson, Sen. Jim Tracy, Rep. Ben West, Jr., Nikki Goeser, John Harris and, perhaps, former metro councilman Adam Dread who was invited but has not committed to show up. Sen. Jackson introduced and carried the restaurant bill in the Senate and Rep. West introduced one version of the bill in the House. Adam Dread is a former Metro Councilman and a local attorney who is opposed to the restaurant law and asserts that the local governments not the Legislature should be making these types of decisions. He is also one of the attorneys representing the restaurant owner on the lawsuit. Please tell ALL your friends to listen in to the show Thursday July 2, 11am-1pm, WAMB radio 1200am and 99.3 fm. The show is 2 hours with NO COMMERCIAL BREAKS. The show call in number is (615) 889-1960. For those who are not in the Nashville area, we are trying to get a live feed set up on TFALive - accessible through the TFA web site's main page in the upper menu - so that the show can also be heard live with chat but that will depend on whether the station is able to finalize arrangements for a sufficient internet feed by airtime. This is a special broadcast. It will also be available July 10 bobpopegunshows.com in the click on guest archives. We are planning another live callin show with another of the plaintiffs' attorneys and John Harris on Tuesday, July 7, on Newschannel 5+ Openline. That will air between 7pm and 8pm CST and should be available live from the Newschannel5+ web site. If you have time, please help turn up the heat and show an example of 2nd Amendment political fireworks on this historic eve.

I don't know which 10 the news report was referencing but there are 16 bills that the Tennessee Firearms Association was tracking that were passed into law. Some of them are "pro gun" and some were not. http://www.*********.org/index.php/news/tfalacnews/ Apparently, "t f a o n l i n e" is now a censored word on here so you will have to edit the link to get the list from the TFA site.

I just found this observation interesting..... Humphrey: From Legislatorland: Best and worst of 2009 : Columnists : Knoxville News Sentinel Get more information about what these bills are on the TFA's Legislative Alerts page. http://www.*********.org/index.php/news/tfalacnews/ you will have to substitute t f a o n l i n e for the stars

So, anyone want to come with me tomorrow to the legislature and probably next week to keep working on this?

I don't mean to nitpick nor have I read all the posts. However, there was no compromise on things like restaurants, etc., in 1994 to 1997 relative to the permit law. We passed "may" issue in May 1994 in a very small text and then realized local law enforcement was not complying with the intent of the law. So, in 1995 - 1997 we worked hard to take the process away from local law enforcement and move it to the DOS and then, once it was moved, we had to change it to require leading issuance of permits within the 90 day window. As a practical matter, almost all of the "thou shalt nots" - which is how I generally refer to the restrictions, date back at least to 1989 and many are far older than that. The big issues and areas of discussion in 1994 - 1997 had to do with whether local law enforcement would keep the process or whether the state would do it under a standardized process. While the "thou shalt not" issues existed then, they were so far off the radar they were non-existent because we were just working to get the permits issued and reciprocity in place. Now, had we had tens of thousands of Tennessee's gun owners helping since then - like we did in 1996 when it was taking up to a year to issue a permit - then we would see a lot more change in the last 15 years. However, most gun owners are the equivalent of couch potatos when it comes to being involved with the legislature. They sit back with apathy and complain rather than putting their time and their money where their mouth is all to frequently running rampant. Now, since 1997 we have made incremental progress on topics such as carry in places that sell for off premises consumption, parking lots of places that sell for consumption, posting standards, reciprocity, and a few minor tweaks but there have been no major rollbacks relative to permit holders. We have also suffered some serious setbacks when, for example, the 2007 "castle doctrine" was passed that TFA and NRA's prior lobbyist had intentionally killed in prior years. We took another serious step back in 2008 when the legislature rolled back the rights of citizens who had non-violent felonies and who had obtained their restorations. All in all, the senate finally starting show signs of helping us 3 years ago and the House has only recently but that was largely due to the displacement of Naifeh as speaker.

Thanks David. What some who are attacking TFA perhaps do not realize is the amount of work that TFA volunteers are doing on a daily basis without compensation to change these laws. Also, some who look only at vote counts without knowing what is going on in detail by talking not just with their legislators but also by talking with bill sponsors, their staff and prospective conference committee members may confuse correlations with causation. Finally, I have spent many of my days at the legislature over the last 15 years and one thing I strongly believe is that the concept of "get a little and come back next year" seldom if ever works. Its naive. Once a significant change takes place those involved in it will tend to say "We just fixed this last year and we must have held back for a reason .... so let's wait a few years and see how things go." I am all for debating these issues and changing the laws to make things better for gun owners but some times, frankly, gun owners are as much of the problem - particularly those infected with apathy or the "let the NRA do it" preference - as the solution.

I would like to know what you think TFA is going that is causing harm, particularly harm anywhere near on par with the Brady campaign.

Although a member here, I do most of my legislative posting on the TFA site and in its free update alert system. However, the restaurant carry bill is important and I want to, if allowable, take this opportunity to provide an update on the bill and its status. On April 6, I reported that HB0962 (restaurant carry) passed the House on a vote of 70 to 26 with the curfew provision and the "age restriction" provisions still burdening it. Here is the vote detail on the bill in the House on April 6, 2009: HB0962 by Todd - FLOOR VOTE: AS AMENDED PASSAGE ON THIRD CONSIDERATION 4/6/2009 Passed Ayes...............................................70 Noes...............................................26 Representatives voting aye were: Barker, Bass, Bell, Borchert, Brooks H, Brooks K, Campfield, Carr, Casada, Cobb C, Cobb T, Coleman, Coley, Curtiss, Dean, Dennis, Dunn, Eldridge, Evans, Faulkner, Ferguson, Fincher, Floyd, Ford, Fraley, Hackworth, Halford, Harrison, Hawk, Haynes, Hensley, Hill, Johnson C, Johnson P, Kelsey, Litz, Lollar, Lundberg, Lynn, Maddox, Maggart, Matheny, Matlock, McCord, McCormick, McDaniel, McDonald, McManus, Montgomery, Moore, Mumpower, Niceley, Odom, Ramsey, Rich, Roach, Rowland, Sargent, Shepard, Shipley, Swafford, Tidwell, Tindell, Todd, Watson, Weaver, Windle, Winningham, Yokley, Mr. Speaker Williams -- 70. Representatives voting no were: Armstrong, Bone, Brown, Camper, Cobb J, Cooper, DeBerry J, DeBerry L, Favors, Gilmore, Hardaway, Harmon, Harwell, Jones S, Jones U, Kernell, Miller, Naifeh, Pitts, Richardson, Shaw, Sontany, Stewart, Towns, Turner L, Turner M -- 26. Note that the NO votes were predominately if not almost entirely urban Democrats with heavy vote unity from Memphis. Almost 1/2 of the state House Democrat caucus voted AGAINST the bill whereas all but one of the House Republicans voted for it. I want to stress that this is not and should not be a party line issue but 2nd Amendment issues continue to have strong resistance from significant numbers of the House Democrat party. Sadly, one of the disappointing surprises here is Beth Harwell voting against the bill. It is important to know that Rep. Harwell has been discussed as a possible contender for House Speaker and voting against one of these bedrock 2nd Amendment issues is not a good sign. The Senate then considered the bill and amended it to remove both of those restrictions. It passed overwhelmingly in the Senate on April 16. HB0962 by Todd - FLOOR VOTE: THIRD CONSIDERATION AMENDED 4/16/2009 Passed Ayes...............................................26 Noes................................................7 Senators voting aye were: Barnes, Beavers, Black, Bunch, Burchett, Crowe, Faulk, Finney L, Ford, Gresham, Herron, Jackson, Johnson, Ketron, McNally, Norris, Overbey, Southerland, Stanley, Stewart, Tate, Tracy, Watson, Woodson, Yager, Mr. Speaker Ramsey -- 26. Senators voting no were: Berke, Burks, Harper, Haynes, Henry, Kyle, Marrero -- 7. This sent the bill back to the House. In the House, Rep. Joe McCord (R.) made a motion to reject the Senate's amendment which stripped out the restrictions. Essentially, the House was being asked by McCord to reject the Senate's version of the bill. Had the House simply "concurred" it would have been on its way to the governor by now with no restrictions. Anyhow, back to McCord's motion to "non-concur." A vote "yes" on the motion would be a REJECTION of the Senate action. A vote "no" on the motion, would have brought the bill then up for a second vote on whether to accept the Senate version (I believe - it may be that a "no" vote would have the effect of a concurring vote but I am not sure on the parlimentary issue.) Anyhow, the House voted 45 to 44 to "non-concur" with the Senate's action. That vote sent the bill back to the Senate to see what they want to do with it. The Senate can repeal its amendment and accept the original House version (which I oppose) or it can continue on toward a conference committee to try and work it out. My concern is that the House conference committee will likely have sponsoring legislators who, although they want restaurant carry, only want it with significant restrictions. Here is the House vote: HB0962 by Todd - FLOOR VOTE: NONCONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT# 1 4/23/2009 Failed Ayes...............................................45 Noes...............................................44 Present and not voting.......................2 Representatives voting aye were: Armstrong, Barker, Bass, Borchert, Brooks H, Brown, Casada, Coley, Curtiss, Eldridge, Favors, Ferguson, Fincher, Ford, Fraley, Hackworth, Hardaway, Harmon, Harrison, Haynes, Litz, Lollar, Maddox, Maggart, McCord, McCormick, McDaniel, McDonald, McManus, Montgomery, Mumpower, Odom, Pitts, Pruitt, Ramsey, Sargent, Shepard, Shipley, Sontany, Tidwell, Tindell, Turner M, Watson, Yokley, Mr. Speaker Williams -- 45. Representatives voting no were: Bell, Bone, Brooks K, Camper, Campfield, Carr, Cobb C, Cobb T, Dean, DeBerry L, Dennis, Dunn, Evans, Faulkner, Fitzhugh, Floyd, Halford, Harwell, Hawk, Hensley, Hill, Johnson C, Johnson P, Jones S, Jones U, Kelsey, Kernell, Lundberg, Lynn, Matlock, Miller, Moore, Naifeh, Niceley, Rich, Richardson, Shaw, Stewart, Swafford, Towns, Turner L, Weaver, Windle, Winningham -- 44. Representatives present and not voting were: Cobb J, Coleman -- 2. Looking at who voted where I draw 2 conclusions: 1. They were confused. 2. There is something going on in the shadows that we don't see at this time. Why, the votes make no sense. Republicans on both sides. Democrats on both sides. Naifeh voting "no" but so did numerous typically pro-2nd Amendment legislators such as Bell, Evans, Kelsey, Lynn, Weaver, and Windle. Yet other noteable legislators who typically would vote against gun bills did not vote with Naifeh and instead voted to "noncur". These anti-2nd Amendment legislators were voting the same as many typically pro-2nd Amendment legislators. See, e.g., Sontany voting with Mumpower. On Monday, April 27, the Senate rejected the House's efforts to remove the Senate amendment (which removed the House restrictions). That sent the bill back to the House for yet another vote. The bill then went immediately back to the House where a motion was made to suspend the rules and consider the Senate's action immediately. The significance of that vote would have been either to adopt the Senate's amendment or move to send the bill to a conference committee. The motion to suspend the rules would have requires a vote of 66 affirmative but it failed on a vote of 53-40 - mainly on party lines. HB0962 by Todd - FLOOR VOTE: MOTION TO SUSPEND THE RULES 4/27/2009 Failed Ayes...............................................53 Noes...............................................40 Representatives voting aye were: Bass, Bell, Brooks H, Brooks K, Campfield, Carr, Casada, Cobb C, Cobb J, Coley, Dean, Dennis, Dunn, Eldridge, Evans, Faulkner, Ford, Fraley, Halford, Harrison, Harwell, Hawk, Haynes, Hensley, Hill, Johnson C, Johnson P, Kelsey, Kernell, Lollar, Lundberg, Lynn, Maggart, Matlock, McCord, McCormick, McDaniel, McDonald, McManus, Montgomery, Mumpower, Niceley, Ramsey, Rich, Roach, Rowland, Sargent, Shipley, Swafford, Todd, Watson, Weaver, Mr. Speaker Williams -- 53. Representatives voting no were: Armstrong, Barker, Bone, Borchert, Brown, Camper, Cobb T, Coleman, Cooper, Curtiss, DeBerry J, DeBerry L, Favors, Ferguson, Fincher, Fitzhugh, Gilmore, Hackworth, Hardaway, Harmon, Jones S, Jones U, Litz, Maddox, Miller, Moore, Naifeh, Odom, Pitts, Pruitt, Shaw, Shepard, Sontany, Stewart, Tidwell, Towns, Turner L, Turner M, Windle, Yokley -- 40. If you want to know why substantial pro-2nd Amendment legislation is not moving more quickly you should focus your inquiry on the House and in particular on those House members who keep blocking progress. John Harris Exec. Director Tennessee Firearms Association These matters are discussed in more detail on the TFA alerts (free legislative email updates)

Marswolf, I really don't know what if anything I ever did to irritate you but apparently there is something because you seem to really enjoy complaining about me and TFA. From your posts, it seems that one problem you have with TFA is that it has not spent membership money to host an annual convention. The TFA members I have talked with like the idea of having one but not the cost to them or to the organization. Just not necessary given the organizations historical and prospective efforts. We have been here for 14, almost 15, years now and we are still growing notwithstanding your complaints. Just printed 144 memberships for March. Actually, you can complain all you want because, as far as I am concerned, its just sour grapes. I don't know why but what I do know is I do not believe I have ever seen you working the legislature although I have seen several TFA members there. TFA really does not need or want someone who is looking for an organization to do it "for them." If that is what you want, rely on the NRA. TFA is and always has been grassroots and that generally means encouraging the members to be involved and sharing information. Finally, please get your facts straight. TFA is NOT a "paid" lobbying organization nor has it ever paid compensation to its lobbyist. It does pay registration fees but membership money is not used to compensate me one cent for my time or effort. To the contrary, it costs me money year in and year out to be affiliated with TFA and to work on firearms issues in TN. That is what grassroots is about - not what the organization can do for the individual but what the individual can do for the issue. Those people who do and have done things for TFA have done so at personal expense not for profit or even personal "at-a-boys." You claim TFA has no presence and has accomplished nothing. All that tells me is that there exists ignorance of the public facts and that the efforts of TFA which are not intended for public exhibition have been achieved. TFA does have working relationships with key legislations because there is no need to have working relationships with all 132. Can you tell me who the key legislators are? I hope so. If TFA is not what you want in a state organization, that is not my problem or concern. We realize that its not our task to cater to ever personal taste out there.

I was on TGO today looking for information on other topics and wanted to comment briefly on this old thread. Like David noted, TFA's financial status is reviewed annually by a CPA (not a TFA member to eliminate any bias issues) who prepares the tax returns. As I have indicated in the past, TFA's resources are protected and allowed to grow largely because the bulk of its office operating expenses are absorbed without reimbursement through my law practice. Sure, we have been open to considering a wide variety of avenues (such as the logo on a race car) to get the TFA name out before Tennesseans who have not heard of us but the fact is that considering those options and spending money are two different things. We will most likely be spending funds to update and expand the web presence, to add more interactive features to the TFA web site and to look against at prospective mailings to firearms owners, hunters and others who may be interested. For example, I made a presentation in December at the annual meeting of the Tennessee Military collectors Association to inform their members about what TFA and what TFA has done and can do that impacts their special interests (such as Class III transfers). As for local chapters, there was a comment made here about the evolution of the "brick and mortar" meetings versus internet communities such as this. Each have their place and some may prefer one over the other. I think both are important because some people excel at one over the other. As I have said and as others have noted, I have struggled for years with the need to find a chapter leader in Nashville who will take on the project as other leaders have done across the state such as Rich Mason, David Waldrip, Bill Noll, Tim Nunan, James Fortner and others have done at present and in the past. I can think of at least 4 who have tried and quit in Nashville and when that happens it just falls back on Buford or me. I admit I do not have the time to be responsible for the Nashville chapter as I really don't have the time to do much of what TFA needs (for example, I have spent more than 20 hours this week interviewing web site developers and researching content management systems and bulk mail alternatives because of the need to upgrade these issues). I would really like to have the help of a TFA supporter to work on these projects but when I ask and don't get volunteers the work still needs to be done. I look at the comments and complaints in threads such as this but then I also see that not one of those complaining (with the exception of David Waldrip who worked tirelessly for several years as TFA's Shelby Chapter leader before he become the NRA's EVC for that area) has really taken on any of the load willingly. I don't really need people standing on the side of the road just telling me I am not doing a good job cleaning the street - I can see that for myself. What I am looking for is people willing to take a broom and help. Those kind of people are hard to find because it takes someone willing to commit and to sacrifice for a goal. When TFA formed with 12 of us in 1994 and 1995, it was not 11 people saying "you go get it running and if I like what you accomplish I will join". No, back then it was 12 of us who pitched in and divided up the work. That original 12 over the years has pretty much gone on to other issues and left Buford Tune and me as the 2 remaining founders. Unfortunately, what I hear and read quite often these days is the "you prove to me that you are worthy of my $35 and I will send it in but I want to know what you are going to do for me if I join...." That mentality is what John K. Kennedy spoke against and he was right on that point. TFA is a grassroots organization which exists to help people who want to be personally active and to effect change and improvement. It really does not fit at all with the needs of those who primarily want to be served. Maybe that is why so many look at it in terms of what it "gives" them and say "not enough to warrant my investment of time or a few dollars a year." John

The documents that TFA makes publicly available are on record with the Tennessee Secretary of State and can be accessed through it business services web site. TFA does not make its bylaws publicly accessible at this time but they can be reviewed in the offices or at membership meetings.

When I lobby for TFA on the open carry issue I typically approach it from the inverse that it is practically impossible to craft and workable definition of concealment. With that approach, I have successfully defeated at least 2 efforts (one from Senator Haynes several years ago) to require concealment in Tennessee. When I lecture and teach on the issue of firearms and self-defense, I generally advocate in favor of concealment whenever possible and practical. Civilians are not in law enforcement and do not need to be an open deterrent. Civilians engaged in open carry are, in my opinion, more probable to be a victim at some degree if for example a criminal decides to rob a location and first notices who is openly armed. Criminals, well at least some of them, will act to minimized armed resistance to their actions and this would include targeting/eliminating/disarming individuals who are openly displaying a sidearm. That sidearm is little good if its in the bad guys hands. Personally, I want it where I can get to it without anyone knowing its there until I point it at them.

David If I thought your intentions were in the best interests of TFA I would consider responding publicly on this forum but given many of the accusations and conversations which have taken place off this forum, I am not sure that they are. Nevertheless, thank you again for all the work you did as the chapter leader of the Shelby County TFA Chapter prior to Pat's succession in that position and good wishes to you as an NRA-EVC.