Lack of support kills HB 2021, Parking lot bill

[Sky King]

[Sky King]

I arrived at Legislative Plaza about an hour and a half prior to the hearing. I got to speak to Eddie Bass, he indicated that he would wait and see how things go before deciding whether to introduce his amendment. He said that if I wanted to be heard, I would have to go to the committee charman, Eric Watson. When I went there I was not able to see him but his secretary advised I could catch him in the hearing room prior to the start of the hearing.



Next I caught up with Vance Dennis. I was pretty much blown off, he said that there weren't enough votes and did not really agree with me about the issue of my right to carry a weapon. Rep. Dennis said that without the amendment, the bill was dead. I told him that WITH the amendment, the bill was essentially worthless, NO company is going to change their policy based on this bill, they have no reason to do so and I said that as amended it wouldn't hurt my feelings if the bill DID die.



After that I caught Judd Matheny, Speaker Pro-tempore. I figured he would have some sway with the Republican members. He too pretty much echoed the same rhetoric that Vance Dennis spewed out with the exception that he did not disagree with my right to carry a weapon. He just repeated the thing about not enough votes.



The committee hearing was a joke. You can hear everything that was said BUT what you CAN'T SEE is what is going on. When Joshua Evans was being questioned by Rep. Mike Stewart about the broadness of the liability language, Vance Dennis and the member to HIS left were sending hand signals to Evans. And when he was asked if he would consider an amendment to tighten up that language, Dennis AND his colegue in union BOTH strongly shook their heads "NO". Evans was regularly looking to these two and didn't say "no" to the question utill he saw Dennis and colegue indicate "NO".



So I don't know what I attended. I thought i was going to a committee hearing but it seems what I as at was really just a puppet show with Vance Dennis, Judd Matheny and others pulling the strings. If they have that much influence and power, I would say that if they told the other Republican members to vote for the bill, we wouldn't have a problem.



I don't know what is really happening and at this point, I don't think we will ever know.

[C. Richard Archie]

I was unable to attend the hearing today, but am very grateful to Sky King for taking the time to go. I have to concur with the majority of his assessment, however, I have to give credit to Rep. Jim Gotto for his straightforward and supportive statement. It was one of the more point blank affirmations of the fact that we have a Right, and in his words, not a privilege to keep and bear arms that I have heard in the Legislature.

[Sky King]

I have to appologize. Richard Archie is correct in giving Rep. Gotto credit for his very strong statement concerning our rights. Eddie Bass' also made a brief but strong statment about permit holders being allowed to keep their firearms in their cars. He did say that may still introduce his amendment from the floor when the bill comes to the floor. Again we need to make the contacts, emails and phone calls about this.

I can only hope this happens before May. I have received a Federal summons for jury duty for the whole month. It is one of those where you have to call every night to see if you have to report the next day. I think that kind of sucks as you can never make any plans. If they would just tell you that you will have to be there for a specific day or week, you could make allowances but never knowing from day to day just sucks.

[tnxdshooter]

I emailed everyone on the committee as well as my senator and rep. We will see how it goes. Half the people i sent the email to including campfield who has always been pro gun deleted them without reading them.

[C. Richard Archie]

[macville]

[C. Richard Archie]

[David Lewis]

[tnxdshooter]

[tnxdshooter]

[C. Richard Archie]

What I find ironic is the perception that private property rights are couched in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutions as inviolate, while an individual's Right to provide for their own defense with a legal weapon under the rules of the State of Tennessee is not. Under the 10th Amendment, a power that is not expressly given to the Federal Government by the States is left to the States, or the People. As Tennessee has in fact listed the power to control and regulate the wearing of arms as a Power of the State, as well as the dispensation and protection of property rights specifically as both being within it's purview, then a discussion of those Powers is in order I would think.

The motivation on the part of those who would keep the "status quo" with regard to the laws respecting arms carry within a private vehicle on a business owner's parking lot is the desire for control, has nothing to do with the "greater good". Empirical data showing possession of weapons by the Handgun Carry Permit Holders as a detriment to business owners interest would be welcome, (if such data in fact existed) and useful in the discussion. Were the issue at hand not specifically addressed as a Right of the People "for the common defense" it would be a different thing, but it IS addressed as important, one deserving it's own article in the State Constitution in the minds and under the hands of our State Governmental Framers.

It would seem that as the Framers put down on paper, in order of importance I would imagine, the responsibilities of, and constraints on State Government, then a view of the order of their listing would be reasonable.

Article 1, Section 1 of our Constitution states: "That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; for the advancement of those ends they have at all times, an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper."

Evidently, the Framers placed "peace, safety" at the head of the list of things that were of concern when organizing the "Rights" to be protected, because without those, all others are useless. "Happiness" (which I would anticipate to include private property rights in our State Constitution) comes in after the establishment of the of the other two. The "unalienable rights" so often referenced as the phrase and location paramount in describing private property rights, list them in the order of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", the order of which I can not imagine the Founders to have put down randomly.

The first (and only) mention of "property" private or otherwise in our State Constitution (other than a directive against unreasonable search and seizure of it in Article 1, Section 7) is in Article 1, Section 21: "That no man’s particular services shall be demanded, or property taken, or applied to public use, without the consent of his representatives, (emphasis mine) or without just compensation being made therefore."

There again is the statement that Power is given to the Legislature, to order and control the individual's Rights for the common good, this time in relationship to private property.

With respect to the Right to provide for one's own defense by the use of arms, it is listed in Article 1, Section 26: "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." This is the latest version, amended in 1870, at which time the Legislature took upon itself the ability to regulate the wearing of arms. Prior to this juncture in history, there was no such Power enshrined, as the original version (1796) Article 11, Section 26, named under the Declaration or Rights read: "That the free men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence."

Why this change came about is open to interpretation, some say it was an institution of "Jim Crow" laws to deny African Americans the ability to bear weapons, another school of thought is that the Legislature of the day intended to limit the KKK from operating with impunity. Regardless of the true motive, the result is the Legislature now holds Power to regulate the wearing of arms in Tennessee, where they did not before this portion of the Section was added. However, the onus is placed on the Legislature to constrain themselves in such executions, "with a view to prevent crime". Without such a proven link, any restraint on the carrying of weapons is unconstitutional.

The Legislature is the sole entity that is empowered to decide when and where the Citizens of this State may avail themselves of the ability to provide such tools as the State may adjudicate as legal for the fulfillment of the intent of Article 1, Section 26, subject only to scrutiny of their enactment of "Public Chapters" by the courts. The fact remains that the Legislature is held by Constitutional duty to only restrict the wearing of arms by the Legally entitled citizen of Tennessee by some clearly enumerated data showing an ability of said restriction to reduce crime. Per the Tennessee Supreme Court in Andrews v. State " The enactment of the Legislature on this subject, 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."

It has been decided by our Courts (both State and Federal) time and again, that Government, and by virtue of extension of it's responsibilities, Law Enforcement, at any level, is NOT responsible for the safety and protection from criminal activity of it's Citizens.

If Natural Law is to be the only criteria used, and the Constitution is to be tossed aside, then the unalienable Right to protect Life supersedes all other Rights, for without Life there can be no expectation of enjoyment of any other. Prudence would dictate that the continuing downward spiral of our economy, and the resulting upward increase in crime would be a cause of concern to the general public. Pressures on Government by virtue of decreases in revenue to the said Governments would surely indicate a lesser supply of services, e.g. Police presence for one. Trips to and from places of employment will become less and less safe, as we can afford to incarcerate fewer criminals, and put fewer Officers on patrol.

Again to quote from Andrews v. State, "The right to keep arms, necessarily involves the right to purchase them, to keep them in a state of efficiency for use, and to purchase and provide ammunition suitable for such arms, and to keep them in repair. And clearly for this purpose, a man would have the right to carry them to and from his home, and no one could claim that the Legislature had the right to punish him for it, without violating this clause of the Constitution." It would appear that the current form of HB 2021 sides with "business owners" against the Right to provide for one's own personal safety and security.

[tnxdshooter]

[johnharris]

As I have written so many times in the past, if we want legislation of significance to become law (or the repeal thereof), then it will be our burden to constantly and persistently contact our legislators and demand that they pass the laws. It also means

- we must let them know and remind them constantly that they were elected to that office and they can be elected out of it;

- we must let them know and remind them constantly that they were elected as conservatives who promised to support the constitution and the rights of the people (as opposed to big business) first and if they leave that path we will "elect them out;"

- we must let them know and remind them constantly that we demand and expect accountability to core constitutional principles and that no proposed laws will be accept as a "good idea" if they do not first pass clearly the constitutional standards;

- we must locate, network with and encourage other constitutional conservatives to get involved and take action;

- we must realize that these obligations as citizens require us to devote time and resources, as did the Founding Fathers, to the creation and preservation of a) our rights as citizens, b) the proper function and limit of states, and c) the proper function, limits and constraints against the the union government.

It took 16 years and a tremendous exertion of time to fix the restaurant law - are you willing to undertake burden and those demands on your time to achieve additional change?

[Sky King]

[Sky King]

It isn't dead but it certainly is in need of life support and CPR. For a while there was some hope that an amemdment by Eddie Bass could restore the bill to origional intent. However after talking to Rep. Josh Evans, the bill sponsor, Tuesday night at the Nashville TFA meeting, Bass's amendment will kill the bill if it passes because Rep Evans will withdraw the bill if that happens.

So right now, the way I understand it, the only way Rep. Evans will allow the bill to get out is that it has to pass in it's current form, neutered.

I am beginning to have several mixed thoughts about this. At first, Rep. Evans, (go back to the early posts in this thread), pointed to the NRA and TFA for not getting behind this bill. Well I don't expect much of any thing on the state level from The NRA but I know the TFA has stepped up the pressure. Now lack of support from other Republican members is being blamed.

Without a doubt, there are a good number of Republican members who are claiming the property rights argument to justify their lack of support for the bill. The number of members who suddenly jumped on as co-sponsors following the neutering amendment is evidence of this. However what I really think is that it all boils down to money. These RINOs are forgetting who they are there to represent.

While I understand Josh Evans's desire to keep his word to his fellow House members, to not push a mandate bill in return for their support, I feel his commitment has been fulfilled if the bill is amended on the floor by another member and then passed. I also feel his allegiance is misplaced. His first allegiance is to his constituants and the citizens of Tennessee, not the other members of The General Assembly or to businesses.

I believe a good deal of letters to Mr. Evans, to RESPECTFULLY ask him to reconsider his position to kill the bill if an amendment restoring the bill gains any traction on the House floor.

[SomeGuy]

As an aside, if you ever hear a Rep say they are against this because of the property right infringement, ask them 1 question:

"Would you be FOR repealed the state law that bans smoking in many establishment? After all, this violates the same property rights you are so concerned about right now."

This is an issue we should make it clear: You aren't for property rights, you are just being anti-gun.

[Sky King]

You want to see what I think is at the root of the problem:

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/20 ... capitol-h/

Money talks.

[C. Richard Archie]

[Sky King]