Gubernatorial Candidates on the 2nd Amendment

[Usagi]

Dear fellow TFA folks, this is election year and we will be picking a new governor, among other positions.

Here is a Commercial Appeal article, dealing with four Republican candidates, three Democratic candidates (though Gibbons really makes a fourth), and their views on nine gun-related questions.


Republican candidate Joe Kirkpatrick was not included in the Commercial Appeal report, but did answer the questions on my blog - The Usagi Blog. Link to the responses -


Folks, its down to Kirkpatrick or Ramsey for me. I think I might just go with the man who has not held office yet - Kirkpatrick. It would be refreshing!

[PapaB]

Thanks for posting this Usagi. It's helped me narrow my choice down to one.
A question about Joe Kirkpatrick's responses on your blog. Did you check to make sure they're his complete answer to the question asked? I ask this because I noticed he didn't really answer some of the questions and I wonder about his response to others.
For instance, in answering question 1 he says "I support it although I consider it unnecessary and so long as it expresses the qualification I mentioned about private property rights of the establishment owner." but there is no qualification mentioned. In question 3 it asks about the parking lot bill and his answer is "I believe carry permits are unconstitutional, a violation of privacy, and an illegal tax.". While that's nice to know, it doesn't address the question. For question 6 he states the law but doesn't actually answer the question.

[ProguninTN]

[Usagi]

[RobertNashville]

If Tennessee has no Handgun Carry Permit process would that not automatically exclude our right to carry in all the states with which we have reciprocity and/or who recognize Tennessee's permit (even if we don't recognize theirs)??? If so, discontinuing the HCP process doesn't sound like a good direction to go.

Rather than doing away with the HCP, I'd prefer seeing the process improved...put teeth in the law so that the state MUST issue within a specific time...put the burden on the state to prove a person is ineligible to have a HCP (it should not be the applicant's responsibility to prove that he/she is eligible).

I do believe that, for the most part, businesses/property owners should have the right to forbid firearms on their property if they so chose and if they properly post their property (including restaurants, bars, etc). However, I believe patrons/employees of any business/employer should be specifically allowed by law to be able to leave their firearm withing their vehicle in any business/employer's parking lot without (in other words, no business/employer could effective require a patron/employee to go to/from a business or their employment "unarmed").

Specifically with regards to bars and places that serve alcohol by the drink, while no one should be allowed to carry and drink alcohol there is no logical reason for excluding firearms from places that serve alcohol and such restriction should be restricted (allowing, as noted above, the business having the option of excluding firearms from their bars/restaurants if properly posted).

[C. Richard Archie]

[RobertNashville]

If someone is "required" to be there then I would agree that the property owner than has a responsibility to protect those who are there; otherwise it's a matter of personal choice to utilize/give patronage to a place of business or not.

[C. Richard Archie]

Per that perception, no one is required to ever "be" anywhere other than their own property. One could order in all necessities, negating the "requirement" to ever travel anywhere. To me, it is like "baiting" for a business to offer goods or services, advertise for the public to "come on in". Then, for a proprietor to deny a basic Right without providing for the safety and security of those so enticed seems wrong.

I read nothing in the Constitution that limits my right to free speech, freedom of the press etc., to a geographical location. Should that restriction only apply to those protections under Article 1, Section 26, which speaks to the Citizens Right to bear arms for their own protection? As all governments have espoused that they are not liable for your safety, (requiring the individual to be solely responsible for that), and having established that all have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If a proprietor seeks to gain profit from the offering of goods or services, why would they not then be required to be responsible for providing for the patron's safety should they decide to limit the guarantees provided by the Constitution?

[PapaB]

[RobertNashville]

[RobertNashville]

[macville]

[ProguninTN]

[macville]

[ProguninTN]