GKar

And Nauseating Naifeh re-ascends to the popdium...

House-Finance,Ways, and Means-Budget "View"

And Armstrong takes the "reverse posting" tact - have to post to allow carry...

And Odom trots out the tourism crapola...obviously been in conversation with Rayburn et al, just afraid to say the name. They are obviously trying to stall it behind a bill defining bars vs restaurants.

Its up right now...Naifeh is being a total a**, as usual, trotting all the worn-out arguments. Geeeezzzzzzzz...don't these legislators even know the existing statutes???

Its probably too late for the sponsor to do anything with the bill this session. But you certainly have every right to ask elected officials for their reasoning behind their actions, and as a party with a vested interest in the situation, it would be good for the sponsor to hear your side of the story to know how his action(s) affect you and yours. I did exactly this just last night: emailed a local representative and asked about a piece of legislation of interest to me. I received a reply this morning...while he deferred from giving me details, he did indicate that a plan(s) was in place to address my issue of concern within the current session. I have a good history of interaction with this person, so I intend to take him at his word, and we'll see. I understand his reticence to give details at the moment. He knows where I stand, and I am willing to accept certain political realities - I don't like them, but they are real-world constraints within which both he and I must operate at the present time.

I would toss "lack of respect" into the ring. Lack of respect for anything or anyone - even themselves. Respect drives so many good traits and desires...and the lack of it truly does leave an empty, soulless, hopeless shell of who/what we were created to be. A shell that evil is all too quick (and ready) to fill.

Not a lawyer or LEO, but here's my experience (and I shop in VA much more than in TN due to the 5% sales tax diffo ) Yes, Virginia does recognize and honor Tennessee carry permit, and as a TN HCP holder you may carry concelaed anywhere a Virginia CCW permit holder can conceal. At this moment, that does NOT include restaurants where alcohol is served; however, should you find yourself visiting such a restaurant, you can open carry (which includes the infamous "Virginia tuck"...exposing enough of the weapon so that it easily can be visibly determined that it is a gun by, for example, tucking in your shirt or jacket behind the holstered weapon).

Back to our regularly scheduled programming... HB2694 passed in the House Judiciary Cmte today, thus going to Calendar. Rep Dennis said he does not intend to bring it to the floor, however, unless a problem arises with HB 3125. Hmmm... EDIT for clarity: HB 2694 simply repeals the relevant section of TCA alcohol regs that prevent carry where alcohol is served.

Basically, it means the sponsor has withdrawn his/her request that the bill be placed on the committee's calendar. It removes the bill from any active consideration or movement until such time as the sponsor might request it be placed back onto the calendar.

That's the original caption, I believe, not reflective of the amended bill.

I read an interesting article over the weekend RE Virginia's laws RE gun possession and alcohol consumption. According to this article (which I now can't find), Virginia's open carry status seems have no prohibition against those who open carry a firearm into an establishment that serves alcohol from consuming alcohol. The concealed carry provisions, however, currently prohibit carry into such estalishment. The new law, awaiting the Gov's signature, would allow concealed carry, but still prohibit those who do conceal carry from consuming. There is speculation that, prior to signing, the governor may remedy this discontinuity and prohibit consumption by anyone possessing a firearm.

There is a fiscal note attached to the Senate (?!?) version of the bill that anticipates an increase in local revenues of $11,000/yr (due to an anticipated 30 convictions @ $500, with 8 unable to pay) and an increase in local expenditures of $4,200/yr (incarceration costs for 72 hrs x 30). No significant change in state revenues or expenditures is anticipated. I wonder: the amendment may not appear in the web posting until the bill actually moves to the full floor calendar...

HB2567 gets rolled one week at request of the sponsor. Still wrestling with language, perhaps.

The ambiguity of "close proximity" was actually touched upon in last week's discussions in the subcommittee, IIRC. I think the sponsor was considering several options for amendments that would strike a balance between the effort to offer proper protection to LEO's, etc during a stop and the inconveniences imposed on folks having no illegal intent. From the floor discussion, I took it that the exact semantics have been the topic of considerable discussion among several pro-2A legislators, and they are really struggling with the wording.

It seems that several of these bils, after being passed in the House, were derailed by one of the most blatant hijacks I've seen. State Sen Harry Marsh, a Dem from the Prince William area, sits as the Chair of the Justice Cmte. He was so angered by passage of several pro-gun bills, including VA's restaurant bill, that he created a special subcommittee of the Justice Cmte, chaired by himself and stacked with three anti-gun Dems and a single RINO jellyfish, to hear all remaining gun bills. As chair, he then refused to even bring some bills to the table for consideration, while those that did appear were, not surprisingly, killed by the subcommitte and thus unable to make it to the Senate floor.

HB 3125 is now posted as on the House Judiciary calendar for 3/16/10. In a stunning surprise, Reps. Camper and Sontany voted against the bill today...some things never change, eh?

The committee's attorney indicated that the language of this bill, as amended, would replace the sections of the Code that are under review by the appellate court, thus rendering any decision by that court moot. Later in the discussions, one committee member remarked that he saw the bill as helping to relieve some of the appellate backlog, and that he supported that, too. Yeah, I think its a given that the whole veto/override mess will replay itself...otherwise, Bredesen would look like an even bigger fool than he already does.

Yeah, the fact that next week was the last scheduled meeting was emphatically pronounced several times, so that's why I figured they were goners. It was also VERY clear that no bills would be accepted for placement on next weeks calendar if received after 3pm today...LOL.

Today's results: Taken off notice (so, gone for this session,I believe) - 1805, 1806, 1807, 3712 Passed to full committee as is: 1801, 1808, 1809 Amended and passed to full committee: 2718, 2567, 3125 Rolled to next week (last scheduled meeting of the subcomittee): 2422, 2881

Anthony Haynes: assoc VP and Director of State Relations. It's right at 40:05 of today's video, actually.

Interesting to watch a UT spokesman urriedly back down from this stance with his tail between his legs, and state that Hamilton may have misstated his intent in response to that question. He went on to further emphatically state that the University would NEVER attempt to violate the laws of the state. Look at the video from the 3/10 House subcomittee on Criminal practices, discussion of HB2718 at about 40:23...priceless!

I've conversed with Jason numerous times via email RE various pending legislation. He has always been prompt to respond, very willing to discus things, and quite pleasurable to "talk" with. As has Rep. Lundberg, for that matter.

Nikki - what is the predicted fate of HB1807, since it is also on the calendar for the subcomittee meeting that day? Is it perhaps an acceptable fallback if the amendment is NOT attached to HB3125?

Not at all in favor of this one...it is a substantial step backwards from its predecessor. The "pizza hut" loophole is just plain poor legislation (first because it is so very predictable in its results, as well as many other reasons), as is the "substantial compliance" language of the section regarding required signage (which neuters the intent, IMHO). And sec 4, the alcohol training section, gives rise to several immediate questions, not the least being: "whatcha gonna do about the 250,000 who already have them? The requirements of this bill clearly imply that the current traing is inadequate, so remedy must be made to those who are, by your own definition, now undertrained." I don't like where that could go at all once Rayburn, Dread, Bonneyman et al get a-hold of it.