Fallguy

I like the idea of the referral link. How about a TGO banner you could use on your MySpace, Facebook pages etc... Maybe even tie it in with your individual referral link of course.

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. -------------------------------------------------- I can't believe it!!! Lots of surprises Nafieh actually voted No on nonconcur... Munpower vote Aye. There are others on both sides I'm surprised with as well. Can't help but to wonder if the one Rep was right...that some may be confused as to exactly what a Yes or No vote on motion to nonconcur meant.

As OS said, current law prohibits carry in any park in the state. Current law actually says a list of prohibited weapons in 39-17-1302(a) is what is prevented. But again as OS said the AG has issued two opinions that says firearms, including handguns by those with a HCP are prohibited as well. Current law says parks must post, but right after that it says they can exempt themselves from posting by resolution. The bill that would allow carry in state parks is progressing and has passed the house. However it leaves in place any current signs against carry. The bill on local parks that would creates a new section of T.C.A. (39-17-1313) and specifically prohibits firearms instead of prohibited weapons. The bill would leave it illegal by default to carry in local parks. A local government could choose to "opt in" to allow carry in a park or just part of park. The bill would leave the sign requirements the same (post, but can exempt) if carry is not allowed in the park at all or if it is allowed in all of the park. However if carry is allowed in some parts of a local park, but not others, then they would have to post signs stating where carry was allowed and where it wasn't. A lot of this comes from a state law that says if the state "mandates" something for local governments to do the state must provide the funding for them to do it. So if the state gave local governments no choice about posting they would have to provide the money for posting signs or removing signs. Even this way if they have to post because of allowing carry in just part of the park.....it is something they "chose" to do (opt in). so the expense is up to the local government to cover. In fact...money is why even on the state park bill they are keeping current signs. Otherwise they say it would take over $32,000 to remove/replace/edit current signs in state parks.

Great post JayC. You seem very much correct. If they don't card - Not age-restricted. Even if the do card, but allow 18+ in - Not age-restricted. At least for the purposes of legally defining age-restricted. Of course the place still has to be a restaurant to be able to carry.....

I keep checking the House Votes page for the bill. But no update yet.

.

I agree....best for this one to just die for now. Watching the house floor yesterday...I noticed Reps wanting to "opt their county out" of a few different bills. Restaurant carry, Liquor Manufacturing etc..... Now I know there are already laws on the books that exempt certain counties from certain laws, but I couldn't help getting the feeling that they got the "opt out" idea from the local parks bill. I mean that is the whole purpose for state laws, isn't it....to have uniformity across the state. Also the reason for state preemption in 39-17-1314 on gun laws. Anyway.......

Welcome

Can you elaborate please... I ask because I have been to places that have the "NO ONE UNDER 21 ALLOWED" signs, but there wasn't anyone checking IDs as you went in. Even more places that didn't have a sign posted, but smoking was allowed and no one under 21 was in there. Again....no carding going on. You are saying these places aren't technically "age restricted", at least as it applies to this bill, is that right?

Welcome

Yes, both chambers would have to vote on whatever the conference committee comes up with.

Well, this year at least, I think. A session of the legislature is 2 years. This one is 2009-2010 so the same bill could be brought back next year. But more likely one with a different wording.

Yep... So much for whoever said Todd was going to support the Senate version. But....looking on the bright side..... It sounded like the intention is to get into a conference committee and keep the age restriction and remove the curfew. If so, maybe both chambers will agree on that. Of course it sounds like Hardaway is still going to try and exempt Shelby county.....dumba$$ if any restaurant within the county doesn't want to allow carry all they have to do is post. Sounded like he would have to get one of the members of the conference committee to introduce that language, hopefully no one would do that for him. But a lot of that depends on who is appointed to the committee...let's just hope Nafieh isn't one of them..... Wonder who the 2 present not voting were? and why?

LOL...I was hoping that's all it was. But I had to try and give you a bit of hard time.....

Hmmmm...there was a smilie with my post to show I was kidding sort of like you were when you made the Star Trek post. But I see no such smilie in this post.....guess it was me that was causing all the previous problems..... Sorry Folks....

Looks like they are going to do the Regular Calendar before the Message Calendar as well.

Yeah....but it's not illegal....

I don't know for sure. But it looks like all 3 bills on it were passed in the House, sent to the Senate where changes were made and are now coming back to the House.

Best wishes and prayers

Sent to summer study committee

Item 2 on the House Message Calendar They will probably go through the consent calendar first though.

Welcome

Welcome

Welcome

Welcome