Thoughts on various issues.

[SomeGuy]

For anyone who isn't on the local chapter email list, RF is Richard Floyd, who is running to replace the retiring Chris Clem. He politely answered our survey, and we are getting to debate how we feel ourselves about these issues. Friendly debate is encouraged.

As I noted in the email about Richard Floyds answers, some of the responses were a bit disturbing. I did not elaborate, and I should have. Part of this email is to correct that. Also, Marshall brought up a very good idea, it would be a good thing to hear everyone’s ideas on these issues. An internal debate would be something very worthwhile, especially considering the importance of these issues.

1) What places you have as off-limits to HCP holders?
RF) Educational facilities, airports, and whatever other locations are currently on the list. He did note that he saw no problem with eating at a restaurant if you did not drink.

Personally, I do not support having to get a permit to exercise a right that God gave me. However, since the system is there, a person with a permit ought to be good to go, anywhere, period. What bothers me about Richard Floyd’s answers, was the airports add-on. As is, only Federal regs make certain parts of airports off-limits. There is no additional state restriction. Also, the fact that he thinks there should be any is another thing to consider. Chris Clem understood freedom, and he was against off-limit zones. The same can be said of David Fowler, and Bo Watson. That is what made these three men good elected officials, understanding freedom.

2) Would you support a switch to the NICS system, which is free, over the current TICS system which charges $10 per use?
RF) NICS.

I don’t like having to go through the checks period. Criminals don’t use shops, and having to get a government OK to purchase sickens me. That said, it is a Federal requirement, and the Federal system is free. I prefer NICS. Some people would rather the state do it with TICS, but I see no reason for the state to do it at all. If the Federal government wants to mandate it, they should pay for it. (Well, we pay for it, but we shouldn’t pay twice.)

3) Gun ranges:
A: Will you support legislation to strengthen the protection for existing gun ranges? (For an example, I used the Cleveland range fight which he had heard about.)
RF: Yes.

This one is pretty simple to me. A man builds a range on his land, if someone comes along later and is unhappy, too bad. It was there first. One thing in particular I would like to see, is ranges made immune from eminent domain, among other things. If we don’t preserve our ranges, the number of gun owners will dwindle accordingly, and then we go the way of Britain.

B: Will you support mandating that government owned ranges by the state and local governments be open to civilian use when not being used in an official capacity.
RF: No.

They already belong to us, and are already made. Richard Floyd’s silly idea that this would be an unfunded mandate was absurd. All government owned ranges or land (with very few exceptions, say prisons) ought to be open for public use.

4) Convert our handgun carry permit to a weapon carry permit. This would let us carry weapons, as opposed to just handguns.
RF) Maybe. (He wanted more information.)

4a: Do you support civilian ownership of tasers/stunguns?
RF: No. (He believes they are too dangerous.)

As I noted before, I don’t even like the permit system. Being able to legally carry other weapons is something that should be unrestricted, or made easier, which is why I want the Weapons Carry permit, as opposed to just a Handgun (in this case, the weapons could be a knife, taser or so on which is currently illegal). As to tasers, if they are too dangerous for public use, what do these people think our pistols are?

5) Firearms in schools.

A: Do you support safety education training?
RF: Yes.

B: Do you support actual training, such as rifle classes?
RF: Maybe. (His concern here was money. The idea he liked, but he does not want an unfunded mandate.)

Kids growing up should get safety training, partially in case they every encounter a pistol, but also to familiarize themselves, take the aura off of weapons, and also take away any fear of them they may hold. Dispelling the Hollywood image guns have is a good thing. As to training, if kids become interested in firearms, they will grow up interested, and will not support bans on them. Simply put, this is the best way to ensure that as the culture urbanizes, it does not become afraid of guns, or view them as worthless. A lot of people fear and hate guns from their own ignorance, once that is gone, it will reduce the number of people who view guns as instruments of death.

6) Make carry permit records confidential?
RF) No.

I want them made private. As is, it is not just your name. It also gives some personal information about you. Regardless of how we ourselves may feel, people should not have to be publicly known as having these. Everyone has seen me open carry, and I don’t care who knows that I carry, but some people would like to have their privacy. This entire issue would be moot if we had Vermont carry.

7) Carry without a permit (Vermont style)?
RF: No.

This is how the Founding Fathers envisioned it. That’s how I like it. The permit system is just a way for the government to make a few extra bucks on our backs.

8 ) Lower the fees and renewal charges for HCP? (I also explained to him the current rates.)
RF: No. (He specifically said he thinks they are fine as is at $125 initial, $50 renewals.)

It should not cost a huge chunk of money just to exercise a right. I don’t have to take a Religion safety class before applying for a permit to attend church. I don’t have to take a tolerance test before applying for a permit to associate freely or exercise my freedom of speech. Permits imply the government is granting the privilege. It is not a privilege, it is a right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms. The dictionary is quite clear on this, keep and bear. Own and carry. Permits are infringements, plain and simple.

9) Parking lot carry. (In your car, at the parking lot of work.)
RF: No.

This goes beyond just car carry. This also involves your 4A rights. I view the inside of your car as an extension of your home. This means that it is your domain. Even when parked on another mans land, there is a barrier where it goes from being his domain to yours. He can ban you from having them outside of your domain and in his, but not inside yours. Secondly, one other thing I believe, is that if I ban you from carrying on my land, I should take responsibility for your safety. If I strip you of arms to defend yourself, I by default take up the responsibility of protecting for you.

10) Would you support making it the TN legislature that sets hunting rates, instead of the TWRA?
RF: No.

The legislature is where we send people to represent us. They should be in charge of all fees. Not some other agency. This applies to everything, not just hunting.

11) Will you push for pro-gun bills?
I did not get a solid Y or N answer. I almost felt like he in turn asked me what the definition of 'is' is. The only way I could summarize it is to say he did not commit to help us, but has not committed to opposing us.

Obviously, a man unwilling to push for us, is at best useless. At worst he would push for a bill that is against us, say banning the ownership/carry of taser and stunguns.

The castle doctrine is something I support. If you have to defend yourself, you should not face any civil or criminal penalties if it is self-defense.

I look forward to the replies from everyone, I am very interested in how everyone feels about these questions.

James.

[marshall]

1) What places you have as off-limits to HCP holders?
No place should be off limits.

2) Would you support a switch to the NICS system, which is free, over the current TICS system which charges $10 per use?
RF) NICS.
I believe it would be better to keep it an in-state thing.

3) Gun ranges: I agree with James. Government ranges should be open to the public.

4) Convert our handgun carry permit to a weapon carry permit.
No permit should be needed to carry any kind of weapon.

5) Firearms in schools.
Kids and teachers should be trained in firearm safety in the public schools. Teachers should be encouraged to carry pistols in the classroom.

6) Make carry permit records confidential? Undecided.

7) Carry without a permit (Vermont style)? Yes.

8 ) Lower the fees and renewal charges for HCP? YEs.

9) Parking lot carry. (In your car, at the parking lot of work.)
The employer owns his property, including his parking lot. If he wants to forbid firearms on his property, that should be a property right. If I work for him I can either go by his rules, or I can quit and work someplace else.

10) Would you support making it the TN legislature that sets hunting rates, instead of the TWRA?
I agree with James

11) Will you push for pro-gun bills?
I would, if it were me in office.

I agree with James on the "castle doctrine"

[MountainJoe]

1. It should be legal to carry a gun anywhere, with the caveat that private property owners would be allowed to post their property off limits to guns. If they did so, however, they would need to be held civilly liable for any injuries that might be caused by criminals to their disarmed guests who could otherwise have had the means to defend themselves.

2. Like Marshall, I am opposed to national systems, but current (unconstitutional) federal legislation requires a background check for each gun sold, not just once a year. If we could repeal that requirement, so much the better. In the interim, I would go with NICS to save $10 per each gun purchased. Note that the NICS/TICS background checks (like most government programs) are essentially worthless, because criminals don't buy guns in gun shops. They can get them easily on the black or "gray" markets.

3. (a) and (b) Yes and yes.

4. Yes and no. No one should even need a permit to carry a gun, or any other weapon. What part of "shall not be infringed" do politicians not understand? But, as long as we have carry permits and not Vermont-style carry, the permit should apply to any type of weapon the citizen desires to carry.

4a. I agree with Marshall, except for the civilian ownership of weapons of mass destruction. The only legitimate, moral use of a deadly weapon is in defense of life, liberty, or property against an aggressor(s). Atomic bombs and other WMDs cannot in general be targeted against a specific aggressor without inflicting deadly force on innocent bystanders. (I am fine with individual ownership of grenades, bazookas, fully automatic weapons, and even tanks and fighter jets, for those who can afford them, though.) In principle, I am against governments as well as individuals owning WMDs. Mass slaughter is as wrong for nations as it is for individuals. However, since other nations have them and are unlikely to give them up, I am not in favor of America committing national suicide via unilateral nuclear disarmament.

5a. I believe all law-abiding adults (over 18 ) should be able to carry guns in school, or anywhere else for that matter (except on posted property), without having to have a permit. Underage students should only be able to bring guns to school if enrolled in a gun safety or similar class, as approved by their parents.

5b. Agreed with Marshall. I don't want to emulate the Swiss model, where all males are required to have military training and to keep a military rifle in case of mobilization. Participation in the militia (and here I don't mean the National Guard) should be voluntary (though a welcome and cherished civic duty, except for a few conscientious objectors such as Quakers). But rifle training should be offered in schools for students to take if they and their parents wish them to have it.

6. I have no problem with my name being disclosed as a permit holder. Of course, not requiring permits would render this a moot issue.

7. Like I said, what part of "shall not be infringed" do people not understand. Requiring a "permit" or "license" to exercise a right is an oxymoron. You don't need a permit to exercise a right, only to exercise a privilege granted by higher authority. Keeping (owning) and bearing (carrying) arms is a right. We should strive to make Tennessee and all other states, in addition to Vermont and Alaska, recognize this fundamental principle legally.

8. Ideally, they should be free, as in no permit required, or at least (as long as we have permits) issued gratis to all non-felons.

9. I think my property rights within my car trump those of the property on which it happens to rest at that moment. Cars are inherently mobile. As long as I keep my weapon holstered securely inside the car, it is no threat to those outside. And, in fact, it is not detectable to those outside unless they engage in an "unreasonable search and seizure" which is Constitutionally forbidden. I believe the "castle doctrine" should be applied to one's car as well as one's home.

10. I agree with Marshall.

11. Yes, and I would fight anti-gun bills with any tools at my disposal.

12. I fully support the castle doctrine. Anyone who breaks into my home, day or night, deserves what he gets. Which is to say, gaining weight about 138 grains at a time, only to lose much more very shortly as vital liquids exit his newly perforated body. Obviously I am not going to plug my neighbor who walks in looking to borrow a cup of sugar. But I reserve the right to determine the presence of evil intent and to take immediate action, with extreme prejudice, and without retreating, if a criminal invades my home, day or night.