Worriedman

Would be interested in your reasoning on that statement.  They tried to get a "local Opt out" on Restaurant Carry, but failed, no City gets to write a local ordinance on that. The wording of the bill is straight forward, sans amendment, (which appears to be less than likely) this has the earmarks of a substantial improvement.   The governor and his 40 paid henchmen were out in force prior to the committee meetings. It sailed in the Senate, actually the discussion was one of the best in the favor of lawful gun owners in many years in the Senate Judiciary.  Only Debbie Downers were Finney and the admin hack Overby, (who in his regular practice works for municipalities, not real Citizens).

Noticed that our Mayor Gist (Jackson) no longer appears on the list, he was there just last year.  Hmmm, could the constant mention on the radio have brought about a change of heart?

I think there is a good chance this makes it to his desk, and if he vetoes, it gets overridden.  Remember all it takes is the same number of votes to override that it took to pass it.   Sen. Stevens' statements lead me to believe there has been a paradigm shift, it is election year after all. His statements about the Constitutionality of the bill gives me hope.   Maggartize is a phrase that has meaning now. The governor, Lt. Governor and Speaker of the House supporting MS Maggart did not save her hinney, I think that there is a chance that standing on principal may appear to be a survival tactic this year...

Time for Justified.

Gun control with or without Congress.

Give America a raise!

Out of Senate Judiciary (with an amendment re signs) 6-2.  Overby and Finney the only two to vote no.

Actually, he appears to believe it, they seem to have this mutual admiration society going.

If you change the State, you can change the things it does.

Why thank you, thank you very much!

Maybe all is not lost after all...   http://bearingarms.com/connecticut-scrambles-for-amnesty-plan-after-realizing-that-citizens-are-refusing-to-register-their-assault-weapons-and-high-capacity-magazines/     From the article:   Seems things may not always be as they appear, or at least as the government would like them to...

I would bet that the old "If you can't beat them join them." mantra will be fully invested here.  Expect to see "Emanuel's Heaters on the Square" the time requested being used to make it profitable for the Friends of Rahm!

There are about 4 or 5 State reps that have a clue about Radical Islam, I believe he (Womick) would be counted in their number.  The Caucus at large is a bunch of blather set up to provide negative pressure on the Chambers' protrusion, and though I have argued with Rep. Womick on a few issues, normally he has his head on straight and does not run at their (Caucus) direction without question.

There should be a "Poll Test" in place to weed out those who do not understand this single most important principal.  If you do not have a grasp of the issue of jury nullification you do not ever need to vote or serve on a jury.

I know Rick Womick personally, this is the biggest load of crap I have ever seen. See Rep. Womick's reply:   http://www.rickwomick34th.com/news/details.php?PRKey=98

There my friend we agree wholeheartedly.

No, it is not now, but, the whole thing was begun that way.    It is simply a case now of legislators not wanting to relinquish control over anyone, (race, gender etc be damned, all are to be put under the thumb, the 132 vs. US), as their control has value (which can be haggled with lobbyist)...all the times I have discussed firearms issues with the legislators, the question of whether an act will reduce crime is NEVER discussed from their viewpoint, and it is the only thing that should matter.

Looks like someone has had enough.   http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/01/23/ukraine-opposition-gives-president-election-ultimatum/?intcmp=latestnews     Hmmm...

6.8, bad as I hate to say this, you are pretty far off base with that ascertation.  Until 1870, the Constitution of Tennessee related to the ability to bear arms read thus:   1796 version. Article 11 Section 26  "That the free men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence."   1835 version Article 1 Section 26 "That the free white men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence."   The 1870 version of our Constitution (put in place by the then Democrats) changed the location and intent of the Article dealing with Rights to keep and bear arms to: “That the citizens of this state have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.” and has remained thus since that time.  In accordance with this change in the wording and intent of the clause, the TCA included for the first time the "intent to go armed" clause.  Both modifications were in fact, "Jim Crow" style changes to prevent the freed black slaves from having the ability to carry arms.  Never before had the legislature been invested with the power to regulate where a citizen could carry arms, and the carrying of a "club" was not a crime prior to this. Andrews v. State challenged the fledgling new arrangement, and the Supreme Court of TN found in favor of the Citizen's individual Right to keep and carry arms, chiding the legislature to hold to its charge of requiring a law regulating the wearing of arms (note, there is no prescription in the document giving the legislature power to regulate the keeping of arms, ONLY the wearing of them) and citing that "Any such enactment, however, “must be guided by, and restrained to this end, and bear some well defined relation to the prevention of crime, or else it is unauthorized by this clause of the Constitution." (Article 1 section 26), however, "Good Old Boyism" ruled for a long time in TN, if in fact it has ever gone out of style... From 1871 to 1989, Tennessee was a limited “open carry” state, limited to “army or navy” pistols but only if such pistols were carried openly in the hand, no holsters and no concealment for the average Citizen.  Becoming a special deputy or receiving a special police commission (these were costly in dollars and political capital as well) was the only method to carry a handgun that did not fit the “army or navy” designation. These commissions were also necessary if the individual wanted to carry the weapon concealed or holstered, and these were normally not recognized outside of the County of issue. In 1989, "May issue" permits were allowed via the legislature under the authority of County Sheriffs, the law did not require that Sheriffs issue civilian permit, it did however allow for that possibility. That changed in 1994, the "Shall issue" permit law was passed in 1994 ("the sheriff may issue such a permit..." to "The sheriff shall issue such a permit..."). In 1996, the change from Sheriff's Department authority to Department of Safety occurred, very akin to what we have now, standardizing  the process, and removing as much colloquial control as possible. The change to the structure of carrying arms was agreed upon by the Citizens, they ratified the changes to the Constitution in 1870, with a wink and a nod they accepted giving the legislature the power to control the carrying of arms. That power morphed into control of what once was a Right and is now (and I must agree with DaveTN here) a purchased privilege, and as always, it matters who governs, they have your Rights in their possession.

Well here is your chance.  HB 1885 by Dennis is the first attempt I have seen to bring about Constitutional Carry.  (Of course I really believe it is merely an attempt to appear in favor of such a thing, as there is no Senate Sponsor for it, but that is neither here nor there for this discussion). Write all the legislators in the State and see where they stand on this issue.  I can provide you with video of the Governor stating he will sign it if it makes it to his desk (chuckle).  Let's see where the Caucus stands, a Super-majority exist in the House, Senate and they hold the mansion, they can have this done in two weeks.

See what Nashville's Mayor Dean is running on it already.  Of course they are going to fight it, Chiefs of Police, most Sheriffs, UT, that same cabal that always opposes Liberty in any form. There is no love for the average Citizens' ability to possess a firearm, it might dip into their control don't you know!

I saw that.  Noticed the lack of response as well.

Any contractor that bids and is successful on any Fed Ex, Bridgestone, Amazon etc. Project will by their fiat require their personnel to be unarmed (I assume that is what you meant when you typed underarmed, or maybe you intended to get into .22 v. .45 territory...).  I personally was Sr. PM for the original Office Complex at Hemlock in Clarksville, and had to sign an agreement allowing search of my personal vehicle while parking on "their" lot, (even though we as taxpayers built it, and never received any benefit from those outlays).  No personal vehicles were allowed inside the fence of the Project, one had to be in a Company vehicle with nametags affixed, walk in or be carried by company supplied common carrier, yet you had to give up your protection against unreasonable search to work there. I was required to be unarmed for my traverse to and from Jackson-Clarksville.  My employer did not then, or now have a restriction on carry, but many of our customers do, most of them receiving huge sums of tax money to locate here in TN.

6.8, I have to respectfully disagree.  The Right to bear arms for self preservation supersedes all others in my estimation and as described in the Supreme Court ruling D.C. vs. Heller, (p. 62-63) there is never a need or authority of anyone to "balance" the right to self preservation: "we know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all”.  If you invite or allow a person onto your property, the denial of their ability to provide for the protection of that most important of things, life, without taking up the mantle (while seeking exclusion of responsibility) is unconscionable. It is not given to the government or any person to allow, but as the court has noted the 2nd Amendment: “codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed ... this is not a right granted by the Constitution” (p. 19 Heller). It is innately, or maybe more properly unalienable (for those who understand the actual term) the possession of each of us, sans permission of any government or person. Again, the Supreme Court in Heller states of the 2nd: “the core lawful purpose [is] self-defense” (p. 58), explaining the Founders “understood the right to enable individuals to defend themselves ... the 'right of self-preservation' as permitting a citizen to 'repe[l] force by force' when 'the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury' (p.21).   A more lengthy discussion can be found here http://www.policymic.com/articles/24557/9-things-you-didn-t-know-about-the-second-amendment.

The Chamber will be the most vociferous of opponents on the Parks issue, their paid hack will be front and center to declare how dangerous it is to allow anyone who is not LE to carry a firearm for any reason outside their home while beating their chest about how much they support the 2nd Amendment.