Works for me...
Works for me...
Originally shared by Todd Varwig
Tomorrow, July 1, Senate Bill 1774 will take effect in Tennessee. SB 1774, sponsored by state Senator Mike Bell (R-9), allows a law-abiding gun owner to carry a firearm in his or her own vehicle without a Handgun Carry Permit (HCP). Senate Bill 1774 was signed into law on May 1.
Originally shared by Todd Varwig
Tomorrow, July 1, Senate Bill 1774 will take effect in Tennessee. SB 1774, sponsored by state Senator Mike Bell (R-9), allows a law-abiding gun owner to carry a firearm in his or her own vehicle without a Handgun Carry Permit (HCP). Senate Bill 1774 was signed into law on May 1.
How did I not know about this?
ReplyDeleteHow wasn't that already the default?
ReplyDeleteProving travelling status in Texas has been problematic. Even stopping for a sit down dinner has resulted in loss of 'travelling' status in court cases.
ReplyDeleteBrad Howard this mean carry as in loaded and holstered, not carry an unloaded gun to the range or similar, which was already legal.
ReplyDeleteEric Hansen there's nothing about traveling in Texas Penal Code Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS.
ReplyDeleteThis does make it seem like it would make things even easier to illegally transfer guns across state lines.
ReplyDeleteBrad Howard That's a self fulfilling prophecy though. If there is no moderately effective infrastructure for encouraging responsible ownership, then of course its going to make it easier for criminals to get guns. A criminal can always steal a car as well but we still have a system of licensing people to drive vehicles.
ReplyDeleteFor example, in a fit of road rage a woman in Houston recently decided to get back at another woman in traffic by driving at her and continually pointing the gun at her.
If she had been driving recklessly with her vehicle and was caught, the incident would go on her driving record and be used as a basis for taking her license if enough incidents like that occurred.
There is no such infrastructure in place for gun ownership. What's worse the law that are already in the books cannot be effectively enforced because the piece of legislation that would actually create databases that would actually talk to each other were blocked.
A local man got violent with his soon to be ex spouse in a divorce case so the court issued an order to confiscate his guns. After the guns were taken, he simply went and bought a new gun legally and shot her dead. There were no background checks, so there was no reason for the gun seller to know that he was unfit to carry a gun at that time.
Our tech is getting to a point that a responsible owner can make sure no one can fire their gun but them. I would still appreciate if the knee jerk reaction anything that would remotely create a barrier for irresponsible owners was not treated as a complete deprival of second amendment rights.
This argument will continue long after all of us are dead but here is my 2 cents. If I am not a criminal then I can carry a gun if I choose. I support background checks for gun purchases but I believe strongly in gun ownership rights. Gun violence is unfortunate that's a given. I own many guns and have never had to shoot anyone but have used them as a shown of force to defend my home during a break in when threatened with a knife many years ago leading to a successful arrest after 27 minutes of waiting for the police. 27 minutes without the gun could have been too long it isn't a risk I was willing to take at the time so I chose to engage the situation with a semi automatic pistol. No rounds fired. If he had a gun I would have shot no questions asked. I also shoot for sport often. I don't see why anyone would want me to not have firearms. Psychologically sound sport shooter with an effective home defense plan.
ReplyDeleteAlso thanks for the highly controversial topic Joe Philley seems to be a specialty of yours but always interesting.
ReplyDeleteBrad Howard If the purpose is to ensure a free society, it has failed. The world has moved far beyond the point where a single or even set of guns can keep you safe from the movers and shakers of of the world. As far as insuring freedom, guns alone about as effective as the Maginot Line. It's outclassed by the other possible weaponry and ability to wield information and economic factors. Under your argument, we should all be trying to make nuclear weapons like Iran to insure our independence. Those arms races only end in tragedy.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the day, the reckless attitudes regarding weapon accountability harm far more people than any kind of nebulous freedom engendered. Domestic violence is a huge issue. It is one that needs to be solved with accountability for disrespect for weapons as well as addressing mental illness and other cultural issues in our society.
Fixing the holes in the law, could save not just one but countless people who would otherwise be killed and scarred by domestic abuse. It's not just the woman ,but many women like her and their children, friends and extended family who suffer.
Melissa L. I suggest you Google the Battle for Athens, and take a look at the Clive Bundy standoff. I didn't agree with him, his cause or his supporters, but the fact is the Federal Government backed off because the people facing off with them were armed, and quite heavily.
ReplyDeleteEarlier you brought up a couple incidents where people acted criminally irresponsible, then tried to compare owning a gun (a right Guaranteed, not given but guaranteed by the Bill of Rights) to driving a car (a privilege not protected at all under the Constitution.) That comparison will always fail, here is a better one. You have opinions and desire to express them. How about we mandate a background check, and a Political Opinion Permit before you are allowed to express any opinions. Oh and your permit is only valid in your state of residence, because other states think your state gives out Opinion Permits far too freely.
The founding fathers recognixed the critical value of a people being able to stand up against tyranny. They had just done so against the most powerful military in the world. They knew the power of an armed populace, so the right to defense of self and nation was built into the Bill of rights.
Now if we can justrepeal the Hughes Amendment, the GFSZ act, The GCA of 68 and the NFA of 34 and establish national reciprocity of all stated issued permits to carry, things would get much better.
They all ready are much better than even a couple decades ago, firearm sales have soared, and crime has dropped. Every year millions of law abiding firearm owners use their firearms to deter or stop criminal actions. Usually without a shot being fired. Millions versus just over 8000 homicides committed with firearms, the majority of which occurred in five very liberal metropolitan counties with very strict gun control.
Erronius Nomenclature 46.035 only applies to CHL carriers, who obviously have the license to conceal carry, and doesn't have any language pertaining to travel.
ReplyDeleteErronius Nomenclature And here again this proves my point. Anything that seen as an even a slight inconvenience to ownership sends people jumping to extreme conclusion that all your guns are being taken away.
ReplyDeleteIf we can't away the gun from the guy who has been cited 50 times for pointing a gun at people on the highway, the system is extremely broken. Even if you arm mostly reasonable people, there will stil one guy will still provoke people until he shoots or gets someone else shot or sometimes both. If you are a responsible gun owner who keeps their guns maintained, practices proper gun safety and reasonably mentally healthy, I don't care if you keep 100 assault rifles: but you're responsibility doesn't make your reckless neighbor any less of a threat.
Dirk Willden
I stand by my initial statement. Guns alone are not responsible for freedom. We have given many rights away despite our access to firearms.
The government backed off in the Clive Bundy incident because it would be a political and PR disaster rush in Escalating violence, even when you hold the superior force is stupid if it doesn't get you the results you want. Superior force would just make them martyrs. Contrast with the incident Information Waco siege. Information and public focus kept Clive Bundy free. Guns alone would have just left him dead.
Like everyone else you seem to mistake having some system of accountability with complete deprives. Having a license system isn't going to disarm the country.
Cars are subject to a license system. Your record of misuse while driving a car follows you where you go. Yet despite harsh regulation, the population of car owners has grown to vastly outstrips firearm ownership. Mostly, because cars are more useful.The only difference compelling reason not to include the automobile in the bill of rights is because they were created until after the Bill of Rights was written and because the intent was to respect State powers not individual ones.
If your complaint is with the jurisdictional state limitations, you'll have to complain to the founding fathers. The bill of rights did not initially apply to the States by design. States have had control of their own gun law since the founding of this country. That's why your permit isn't good outside your state, it's another person's house.
Speaking of your contrived speech analogy, firearms unlike speech inherently have the ability to harm as part of their function. And yet you are still accountable for damage caused by your speech when placed in a position of responsibility.
A system that removes the worst actors from the gun owner population is necessary for a healthy society otherwise, incidents will continue to happen that will just make people desire to remove guns from society all together.
Brad Howard I am guessing you aren't familiar with constiutional law at all or you would realize that you realize that legal analysis requires a little more Webster's dictionary to explain original intent and current application.
ReplyDeleteWe don't live in the 18th Century any more. Some things have changed and somethings have stayed the same. Applying the bill of rights to today requires understanding the difference. Your imagination of what they intended and thought does not suffice. Though I'll have to admit, it would make a lovely alternate history novel.