GarandFan Posted June 15, 2009 at 07:50 PM Posted June 15, 2009 at 07:50 PM This goes along with Silver Guardian's post on restaurant carry. All this activity in TN made the NYT, which I am happy to see. One thing that bugs me, though, is that the media (and even gun folks) speak of these bills in terms of "allowing carry" in this or that place ... as if this isn't a right to bear arms we are talking about and that such conduct needs to specifically be permitted. Quite frankly, that terminology of "allowed" displeases me. I prefer to think of these recent victories as a repeal of the prohibition on carry in this place or that place. MikeW and others have discussed this subject in light of the WI AG memo stating that open carry is lawful. I guess what I am trying to say is this: if some conduct is not prohibited, it's lawful. And if it's specifically authorized ... what ... it's MORE lawful? Note that without fail, those opposed to the "restaurant" bill call it the "Guns in Bars" bill, while those in favor call it the "Restaurant Carry" bill. Also, the tone and context of this article is consistent with my view that the NYT just LOVES to polarize issues politically. To them, guns are a Republican thing ... and of course, we all know how stupid and retrogressive Republicans are ... http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/us/16ten...ref=global-home Tennessee Gun Bills Poke at Democrats, Washington By KATHARINE Q. SEELYEPublished: June 15, 2009 Cities and counties across Tennessee are preparing this week to deal with the fallout from a raft of pro-gun bills recently signed into law in the state, where Republicans are flexing their new-found strength in the legislature. Among the new laws is one that would allow people who have permits to carry guns to carry them in all public parks in the state, including local parks. Another would exempt from federal regulation guns and ammunition made in Tennessee and kept within its borders. The measure with the most immediate impact may be the guns-in-parks law. Localities have the chance to opt out of it by Sept. 1, when it goes into effect, and are beginning debate now about whether to do so. The city of Nashville is to start hearings on Tuesday. The measure allowing guns in state parks went into effect Friday and will probably go into effect in national parks starting in February. It applies to the 220,000 Tennesseans who hold gun permits as well as visitors from other states with valid permits. But the law exempting Tennessee from federal gun regulations, while having little immediate effect, may have broader implications down the road. It comes as part of a states’ rights movement that aims to test the limits of federal power. The Tennessee bill is nearly identical to one signed into law in Montana and similar to ones under consideration in other states. Since Montana’s law does not take effect until Oct. 1, the one in Tennessee, which takes effect July 1, could become the first test case in the courts. “The purpose of this bill is to let people know we have state sovereignty and the federal government has no business telling us what to do,” State Senator Mae Beavers, a Tennessee Republican who sponsored the bill, said in an interview. The new laws in Tennessee, coming soon after the recent shooting in a church in Kansas of a doctor who performed late-term abortions, and the shooting of a guard at the Holocaust museum in Washington, have prompted intense comment on local Web sites like www.commercialappeal.com, www.knoxnews.com and www.tennessean.com. Brian Malte, director of state legislation for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said Tennessee already had among the least restrictive gun laws in the country. Still, he said, the flurry of pro-gun bills is highly unusual and reflects a push by the gun lobby in a state with a newly sympathetic legislature. Gun-rights advocates say expanded rights are needed so that law-abiding citizens can protect themselves in more situations. The new Tennessee laws also include measures that will allow permit holders to carry guns in bars and restaurants, if they are not drinking alcohol, and to carry a loaded rifle or shotgun in their vehicles if the ammunition is in the magazine but not in the chamber, although it can be in the chamber for purposes of self-defense. The new law exempting the state from federal gun regulations is less about the Second Amendment, involving the bearing of arms, than the Tenth Amendment, reflecting a states-rights movement that is picking up steam across the country. “The short-term practical effect will be nil,” Kevin Gutzman, who teaches history at Western Connecticut State University and supports the states’ rights movement, said of Tennessee’s federal-exemption bill. “But in the long term, or medium term, it’s having the effect of provoking a conversation about the allocation of powers between the federal and state governments.” The measure, called the “Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act,” says that firearms and ammunition made and sold within the state, and stamped “Made in Tennessee,” are beyond the jurisdiction of the federal government. The theory is that if firearms are not sold across state lines they cannot be considered part of interstate commerce and are therefore exempt from federal regulations. Those regulations cover things like documentation on the sale and shipment of firearms. They also bar possession by certain people, like convicted felons and the mentally ill. Gun owners would still be subject to state laws. Gov. Phil Bredesen, a Democrat, who vetoed the guns-in-bars bill but was overridden, said in a statement late Friday that he would allow the exemption bill to become law without his signature. The bill “represents a fringe constitutional theory” that will be thrown out of court, he said, but letting it become law may speed up that challenge and yield clarity sooner. He said that in the meantime, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms would enforce federal regulations and predicted confusion for gun-makers, dealers and importers. Gun-control advocates say these efforts to exempt states from federal gun laws will have a limited effect because few federal laws exist anyway. Those that do exist, said Daniel Vice, senior attorney at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, involve background checks and what he called “basic record-keeping.” But evading any federal laws, Mr. Vice added, could make it easier for criminals to get guns. Whatever the practical result of Tennessee’s new gun laws, they may well serve a political purpose: firing up the conservative base before next year’s state, local and congressional elections. “The Republicans are trying to embarrass the Democrats,” said John Geer, a political scientist at Vanderbilt University in Nashville. “They want to put these proposals on the table not only because they believe in guns, but they want to force the Democrats to come out as anti-gun,” he said. “You can see the attack ads forming already. The Republicans have won this issue.”
GarandFan Posted June 15, 2009 at 10:25 PM Author Posted June 15, 2009 at 10:25 PM Update ... It seems the NYT changed the title of this article. Now it reads "Pro-Gun Bills Roil Tennessee" ... so now headline-only readers won't just think that second amendment supporters irritated only democrats or washington, but the entire state of Tennessee. And these bills passed by HUGE majorities out of a democratically-elected legislature. Sometimes I hate the NYT.
Lou Posted June 16, 2009 at 12:26 AM Posted June 16, 2009 at 12:26 AM Update ... It seems the NYT changed the title of this article. Now it reads "Pro-Gun Bills Roil Tennessee" ... so now headline-only readers won't just think that second amendment supporters irritated only democrats or washington, but the entire state of Tennessee. And these bills passed by HUGE majorities out of a democratically-elected legislature. Sometimes I hate the NYT. SOMETIMES??? The NYT seems to know exactly what pisses off freedom loving Americans and goes out of its way to tweek our noses. For a less biased view of that statement Google "Bernard Goldberg" and read any book that this 32 year CBS journalist has written. Every one has been a great read and well worth the time.
GarandFan Posted June 16, 2009 at 01:27 AM Author Posted June 16, 2009 at 01:27 AM Another update ... After an email exchange with the author (a very cordial one, particularly on her part), the title has been updated again. "Tennessee Expands Gun Rights" I think I like the new title, and told her so.
Silver Guardian Posted June 16, 2009 at 05:14 AM Posted June 16, 2009 at 05:14 AM I hate the word "allows" as well in this context, but sadly that is the appropriate word given the change for the better.
junglebob Posted June 16, 2009 at 01:15 PM Posted June 16, 2009 at 01:15 PM Update ... It seems the NYT changed the title of this article. Now it reads "Pro-Gun Bills Roil Tennessee" ... so now headline-only readers won't just think that second amendment supporters irritated only democrats or washington, but the entire state of Tennessee. And these bills passed by HUGE majorities out of a democratically-elected legislature. Sometimes I hate the NYT. SOMETIMES??? The NYT seems to know exactly what pisses off freedom loving Americans and goes out of its way to tweek our noses. For a less biased view of that statement Google "Bernard Goldberg" and read any book that this 32 year CBS journalist has written. Every one has been a great read and well worth the time.Well it seems like even New Yorkers are getting fed up with the NYT. Since the 1990's their local ciculation has declined by over 200,000 copies a day, and the Times has fallen to a dismal third place in local ciculation behind the Daily News and the New York Post. Their local ciculation 556,000 Daily News 689,00 and NY Post 663,000. Keep it up New York Times you are running yourself in the ground. I imagine the Brady Bunch is going to retalliate against Tennessee by changing their Brady Rating!
Don Gwinn Posted June 16, 2009 at 04:27 PM Posted June 16, 2009 at 04:27 PM Garandfan, that's excellent. And it's interesting to me that I didn't find this thread by looking around IllinoisCarry, but via link from SayUncle. How cool is that? http://www.saysuncle.com/2009/06/16/whats-in-a-headline/
Xwing Posted June 18, 2009 at 06:40 PM Posted June 18, 2009 at 06:40 PM Good news for Tennessee. I wish Virginia would follow suit. I'm traveling there in July, and it's going to be a PITA to only eat at fast food restaurants (since just about everyone else serves alcohol.)
Silver Guardian Posted June 18, 2009 at 09:50 PM Posted June 18, 2009 at 09:50 PM Good news for Tennessee. I wish Virginia would follow suit. I'm traveling there in July, and it's going to be a PITA to only eat at fast food restaurants (since just about everyone else serves alcohol.) What's wrong with Virginia? According to this map Virginia is an open carry state.
GarandFan Posted June 18, 2009 at 10:54 PM Author Posted June 18, 2009 at 10:54 PM Good news for Tennessee. I wish Virginia would follow suit. I'm traveling there in July, and it's going to be a PITA to only eat at fast food restaurants (since just about everyone else serves alcohol.) What's wrong with Virginia? According to this map Virginia is an open carry state. Virginia prohibits the carrying of concealed weapons inside establishments that serve alcohol. That's what's wrong.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.