TN Native

Regarding the question on “additional measures”: it appears that one Sheriff may deputize most of the county, as needed, and another county may require the carrying of firearms as part of maintaining the county militia.

The main thing I worry about in the Tenn. Gen. Assembly anytime soon are the stupid "red flag" bills. There is a Republican state Senator from Nashville named Steve Dickerson who tried to push them last session but got nowhere. While we should never count on having a firearms-friendly state government forever, my complaint about them right now is that they are too scared to go for constitutional carry.

I just bought the last few boxes of 9mm at my local WM. All they had was WWB 115gr FMJ, but $9 for 100 was still a good price. There was still a little .380, .357 and .45 left and plenty of .40.

I think the .44 special is actually a good home defense round. While I prefer semi-autos for defensive purposes, if I was going to use a revolver for that purpose and did not want .357 mag power, I would go with the .44 special over .38 special.

And now this:

Their CEO is also asking the government for more regulation. They are now antis as far as I am concerned.

This bill is unexciting because it provides nothing new for existing permit holders. After so many years of Republican control of the state, we should have constitutional carry already. The fact that we don't just shows you how useless political parties are. At the beginning of the new legislature, I suspected that the Governor would not want any "controversial" firearms bills in his first year. After the controversy surrounding the education bill, it seems that he was saving his efforts for that one. This new permit bill, passed at the last minute, was basically designed to be non-controversial precisely because it does not provide any substantial improvements. From what I have found, there was some minor griping from the usual suspects about the reduction in training time, but it was not the intense response we are likely to see if we ever get a constitutional carry bill (or even unrestricted carry for "enhanced" permit holders). While the cost is often mentioned, the reduced training requirement is the point of this bill. It makes permits more accessible for those who (for whatever reason) are not currently getting permits because of the training requirements. While the bill is poorly crafted in regard to the enhanced permit, facilitating increased permit issuance probably is helpful to the overall acceptance of carrying in general. I also would like to think that the legislators are strategically creating the "enhanced" permit without changes now so that when they start making actual enhancements in the next session, they will not be as controversial as they might have been. I still think most of them are terrified of controversial news coverage, because with the numbers they have, they could have passed anything they wanted. Ultimately, the Governor and the Speaker of the House are close allies, so anything passing the House will be only with the Governor's approval.

Looks like all the bill would do is create a lower-level permit that does not require the 8-hour class. There’s a good chance that some states would not grant reciprocity to this lower-level permit, as is the case with other states that already have a two-tiered permit system. What we might see as an amendment to this bill is the expansion of carry rights for those holding the enhanced permit, as is also seen in states with this kind of system. Meanwhile, Kentucky may be about to pass constitutional carry.