Jump to content

Next Attempt at Constitutional Carry


Recommended Posts

While it surely must be far better than the situation today, I notice it still ties the citizen to whatever constraints apply to a carry permit.

A person who meets the elements of subdivision (g)(1) is entitled tothe same defenses and exceptions as a person who has been issued a handguncarry permit pursuant to § 39-17-1351, for purposes of any offenses in this part;title 50, chapter 3; or title 70

Why link to the permit when you can just say (with proper legal wording), the state has zero authority to regulate carrying of firearms and respects the rights of individuals to do.    Would appear this simply means the tax (fee) is no more, but the state can regulate through rules of the permit.     Is that a fair assessment?

 

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
8 hours ago, BlessTheUSA said:

Why link to the permit when you can just say (with proper legal wording), the state has zero authority to regulate carrying of firearms and respects the rights of individuals to do.    Would appear this simply means the tax (fee) is no more, but the state can regulate through rules of the permit.     Is that a fair assessment?

Taking a quick look at those sections, (without being too specific) It appears to me those sections have to do with firearms at the workplace or firearms while hunting. Those laws will not be done away with, you will just have the same exceptions laid out for permit holders.

The state will never say they have zero authority. They will still have the authority to limit carry, permit or not, wherever they have enacted legislation providing for that, and define who prohibited persons are. They have already done that for carry permit holders, so they are just using that language instead of changing all the laws.

Link to comment
12 hours ago, DaveTN said:

Taking a quick look at those sections, (without being too specific) It appears to me those sections have to do with firearms at the workplace or firearms while hunting. Those laws will not be done away with, you will just have the same exceptions laid out for permit holders.

The state will never say they have zero authority. They will still have the authority to limit carry, permit or not, wherever they have enacted legislation providing for that, and define who prohibited persons are. They have already done that for carry permit holders, so they are just using that language instead of changing all the laws.

Without digging into the details, I still feel like - while an improvement in the right direction - this just removes the tax and burden of getting a permit.  If the state says you can't carry your firearm into a state building, are they acknowledging carry as defined in the constitution?  

While it may seem like nitpicking, it's unintentionally setting the meaning of constitutional carry different than reality.   They should call it "permitless carry" or similar.  

Link to comment
On 12/7/2020 at 7:47 PM, robin48 said:

It doesn't appear to be a true constitutional carry bill to me. 

It would seem to me that legislation reducing the 2nd Amendment restrictions previously placed on the people would be a step in the right direction. Especially if it's legislation that could actually become law. I don't fully understand how the legislation proposed is like or not like "true constitutional carry" legislation. What would true constitutional carry look like? Just Asking. I assume first and foremost it would remove the need for a permit system which is what previous responses may be alluding to. Similar to what happened to our knife law. IMO all pro civil liberty states need to push back and strengthen their 2nd Amendment stance in the coming year. On another thought, isn't it an advantage to have a permit system so you carry across state lines to other states that recognize the TN permit? Or do those same states recognize constitutional carry states instead of permits?

Edited by Blitzen
Add to statement.
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Blitzen said:

On another thought, isn't it an advantage to have a permit system so you carry across state lines to other states that recognize the TN permit? Or do those same states recognize constitutional carry states instead of permits?

Yes, its an advantage and I’m sure it would remain. I’m not up on what all the states do, but I would expect that if it’s a state that has permits, and we have a reciprocity agreement with them; you would still need a permit.

Link to comment
11 hours ago, ACfixer said:

Yeah I think having a permit system still in place is a good thing for those of us that travel a lot.

It’s absolutely imperative that we keep it, and we keep reciprocity agreements. You must abide by the laws of the state you are standing in. They don’t care what the laws are in your state, unless they have laws in their state that address it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
51 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

It’s absolutely imperative that we keep it, and we keep reciprocity agreements. You must abide by the laws of the state you are standing in. They don’t care what the laws are in your state, unless they have laws in their state that address it.

Exactly... In CA it was common for us to have a couple out of state permits (I have UT and AZ) to add to the number of states we could ride through without having to worry about concealment and storage etc. They are a bit redundant with my TN permit, but I think UT gets me WA and TN doesn't so I'll probably renew that one when the day comes. In fact for the $50 or whatever it is I'll probably just renew them both. The states with constitutional carry have all kept their permit system in place as far as I know. Exception being Vermont, since I don't think they ever had one.

And while I am as 2A as they get, I am not against having classes in place for those that desire to get educated on the laws and having the shoot/don't shoot scenario training. Having constitutional carry won't make it legal to carry in a post office or Amtrack or whatever. Should you be able to carry without all that stuff? Yeah I think so, but anyone that chooses to would be doing themselves and others a huge favor to be education in the legal and safety aspects.

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, ACfixer said:

And while I am as 2A as they get, I am not against having classes in place for those that desire to get educated on the laws and having the shoot/don't shoot scenario training. 

I don’t think you will find many people, and probably none on this forum that don’t think you need to be properly trained. But my opinion is, that is one of those things in life you have the responsibility to gain on your own. Same thing with laws. If you don’t know the laws where you are carrying a gun, or you decide to jump in on the latest testing of BATF “rulings”; that’s on you.

But the government shouldn’t require that training for you to have 2nd amendment rights. However, I have been arrested on weapons charges and I am absolutely sure I don’t have 2nd amendment rights. I have the privileges the state I’m standing in affords me. Not that I agree that’s right; its just the way it is.

And this state doesn’t infringe on this much; so I don’t want other states or the Feds impacting our state laws.

This forum is a very good source for education on gun laws in this state.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, DaveTN said:

But the government shouldn’t require that training for you to have 2nd amendment rights. However, I have been arrested on weapons charges and I am absolutely sure I don’t have 2nd amendment rights. I have the privileges the state I’m standing in affords me. Not that I agree that’s right; its just the way it is.

And this state doesn’t infringe on this much; so I don’t want other states or the Feds impacting our state laws.

This forum is a very good source for education on gun laws in this state.

Agreed, that's why I said it should be made available for those that desire it Dave. In the end, we are (and should be) responsible for knowing the laws.

And yes, at this point the 2A is treated as a privilege vs. a right.

Link to comment
On 12/10/2020 at 9:53 AM, Blitzen said:

What would true constitutional carry look like?

walk in, purchase firearm, purchase ammunition, walk out load firearm and go about your business. THAT is "not infringed" the way it was written and intended,

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

THE FINE PRINT

Tennessee Gun Owners (TNGunOwners.com) is the premier Community and Discussion Forum for gun owners, firearm enthusiasts, sportsmen and Second Amendment proponents in the state of Tennessee and surrounding region.

TNGunOwners.com (TGO) is a presentation of Enthusiast Productions. The TGO state flag logo and the TGO tri-hole "icon" logo are trademarks of Tennessee Gun Owners. The TGO logos and all content presented on this site may not be reproduced in any form without express written permission. The opinions expressed on TGO are those of their authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the site's owners or staff.

Before engaging in any transaction of goods or services on TGO, all parties involved must know and follow the local, state and Federal laws regarding those transactions. TGO makes no claims, guarantees or assurances regarding any such transactions.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to the following.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines
 
We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.