Constitutional Carry?

[Menzoberranzan]

I was wondering if the TFA would be supporting any effort to make the carrying of a firearm in Tennessee a true right rather than a paid for privilege?

[johnharris]

Yes.

Keep in mind, and its just my opinion based on my time, that progress toward a goal takes many small steps. No man simply jumped to the moon. In this context, if we make this change through the Legislature, it will take a great grassroots movement including the selection and election of legislators who understand and believe in this issue as a fundamental necessity.

[falcon1]

When it does happen, it needs to be "Alaska-style" (WITH the HCP system still in place), not "Vermont-style." Vermonters have no permit system, hence they have nothing for other states to recognize and cannot carry in other states. We need to be careful that, as we progress toward this needed step, someone does not see a chance to make savings in the state budget by cutting out the HCP program.

[RobertNashville]

[JayC]

How about just limiting the cost of the permit to the actual amount needed to run the permitting program? And not allowing the funds to be used for anything else.

[RobertNashville]

Do we know for certain that the funds being collected through the fees do exceed the actual cost of the program and that the excess is being used for other/general purposes?

If they are then I would agree that such should not be the case or at the very least, such excess funds should be use-restricted to support firearms use (providing ranges in state parks, etc. etc.)

[fl0at]

[RobertNashville]

[C. Richard Archie]

Do not have the figures, but would hazard a guess that our Governor would for sure be singing loud and clear if the cost to administer the HCP program was exceeding its tax intake.

[David Lewis]

[RobertNashville]

The more I think about "Constitutional" carry, the more I am coming to the opinion that we (Tennessee) should not go that direction - that it's in the best interest of all concerned (both society at large and those who carry) that before anyone be permitted to legally carry a weapon in public, that person should demonstrate a minimum level of competency with the weapon and with regards to how/when it can be employed and that the person not have a violent/serious criminal history (felonies, stalking, etc. etc).

I'm AM very much in favor of making changes to how/when permits are currently issued, for example:
...that the burden of proof that a person is ineligible (due to felony conviction , etc.) should rest solely on the state (giving real meaning to the phrase "shall issue").

...the cost of obtaining the permit should, a a maximum, be only what is sufficient to cover the administrative costs of doing background checks, etc.

...there should be a maximum amount of time that the state can take to issue the permit.

The above list of changes isn't intended to be exhaustive of course - I'm sure there are other areas/ways this process can be improved but I would suggest that we, as a State, should not move toward "Constitutional" carry and that we continue a permit process which includes background checks and not only should the training currently needed to obtain a permit be continued but that it should be improved/made more relevant and, yes, more difficult.

As I see it, the consequences of what can happen with a misdirected bullet...with a person carrying a firearm who doesn't know how/when to use it or how to use it without endangering others is, in my humble opinion, reason enough to avoid "Constitutional" carry.

All that said, I will admit that I am torn about this issue overall.

On the one hand I believe that the right to keep and bear arms is a natural and individual right. However, I am also, and I think justifiably concerned, about the potentially very bad things that can happen when an inadequately and/or totally untrained individual decides to carry a weapon and is then faced with using it.

Since I am struggling with the issue, I would appreciate the thoughtful comments of forum members.

[macville]

[RobertNashville]

[Ron W]

"If Constitutional carry is what a majority of the people and the legislature in/of Tennessee wants and becomes a reality here that’s fine – I have no plans to oppose it; all I’m saying is that I don’t necessarily think it’s a good idea."

The Declaration of Rights in the State Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution are not to be subject to majority vote by the Legislaure or the people. They are declared rights to protect the minority and the indivdual. That's why our founders set up a Republic and not a democracy:

"The tyranny of the legislature is really the danger most to be feared, and will continue to be so for many years to come. The tyranny of the executive power will come in its turn, but at a more distant period." — Thomas Jefferson


"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the
people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.''--Thomas Jefferson


One may abuse First Amendment rights yelling "fire in a crowded theater" or, 2nd Amendment rights, by committing armed robbery with a gun, but to let government deny rights because a few may abuse them is the sure road to tyranny.

"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and
law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own
conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the
law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the
lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by
forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected
behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals
to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." --Jeff Snyder


"It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error."--- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson

[RobertNashville]

[1gewehr]

Color me 'extremist'. I do not believe in ANY restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. All arguments in favor of restrictions are red herrings. They stink and distract from the true issue; government control of the populace.
1) Restrictions on where you can carry are good - We all know that no shootings occur in schools, churches, courts, etc. The only thing this law determines is that nobody will be able to defend themselves when a shooting does occur. Or that once the very visible guards are removed, everyone else will be helpless.
2) Restrictions on felons - Works perfectly! There are no felons with weapons, are there? This is more of an indictment on our very flawed legal system than anything else. If someone is so dangerous that you have to lock them up away from society, then they are too dangerous to be loose in society with weapons. But, If they are 'rehabilitated' such that they can be returned to society, do they not then have a right to self-defense with everyone else? If they are still a danger, then why are they loose among us? Which also begs the question; If someone is NOT a danger to society, why are they in jail?
3) Restrictions on types of weapons - If you trust someone with a handgun, why are they suddenly untrustworthy with a machine gun, switchblade, hunting knife, or grenade launcher? More flawed logic in believing that some weapons are 'evil' in the hands of citizens and can only be properly handled by a state employee. Evidence proves that police and other law enforcement agents commit crimes with the same frequency as the populace at large.
4) "You can't yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theater" - Actually you not only have that right, but the moral DUTY to yell 'FIRE' if in fact there IS a fire. Laws against yelling 'FIRE' if there is no fire are not an abridgement of speech, but of creating an unsafe condition. This is similar to laws against discharging firearms within a city limit. It is not a restriction against your right to keep and bear arms. And normally self-defense is a defense against prosecution under that law.

'Constitutional Carry' has no downside. It does not prevent the state from incarcerating those who commit violent crimes. It creates no additional public safety issue that does not already exist. All it does is affirm that TN residents really do have a valid right to keep and bear arms.

[RobertNashville]

[johnharris]

[RichardAHamblen]

Excellent analysis. I nominate you in place of Elena Kagan.

You bring out precisely the points the Supreme Court (and incidentally, the Gun Lobby as a body) wishes to evade: that the Second Amendment is all about the Militia, because the Militia consists of, as the Court through Miller recognized, "everyone physically capable of bearing arms", and thus all of us. Interesting that the Liberals on the Court acknowledge this more than the Conservatives. The Liberals think the Militia is only a select Militia, and thus limited to a few people; while the Conservatives ignore the Militia so they don't have to actually get out and train to become effective defenders of their hearths and homes. And the political establishment hates the idea of a citizen Militia because then they couldn't do half the crap they ram down our throats without inciting resistance from the People.

[RobertNashville]

Where does this leave us with the issues of regulations in general (from a constitutional perspective)?

I realize this is getting fairly hypothetical at this point and that turning back the clock completely is unlikely but on what basis can either the Federal or a State government regulate in any way who can possess/carry (bear) arms? I think the answer I'm hearing is that there is no basis for any such laws/regulations or am I incorrect?

Should the violent felon be allowed to carry once he has been released from prison/served his time (assuming, of course, that he is)? Once he's "paid his debt to society" doesn't that person fall under the broad definition of militia? And even if "self-defense" is not the basis for the second amendment, if anyone has the God given right to defend him/her self and if a firearm is deemed appropriate; even necessary for doing so, doesn't even the conficted felon have that same right?

And if there can be no infringement on the convicted felon's second amendment right can there be any truly constitutionally legal restriction on anyone?

It seems to me that much of the argument "for" constitutional carry is based on the principle that people should be considered "law abiding" citizens and, therefor, able to obtain an HCP if they wanted one (thus making the HCP process moot). But that presumes, doesn't it, that the laws regarding who "can't" legally possess/carry (felons, etc.) are, themselves, appropriate/constitutional?

Perhaps I'm off base but it seems to me that there are people who, by virtue of past acts or because of current conditions (dementia, for example) probably should and rightly be precluded from possessing and/or bearing arms. And that, I think, is what concerns me with the issue of "constitutional carry" because such assumes that everyone should be able to possess and carry a firearm when, in fact, not everyone should.