Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Politics Harwell on the Hot Seat: Gun Freaks Threaten Political Reprisals
Posted by Jeff Woods on Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 12:47 PM
"It is time to flood the offices of the legislature with our demands," the association says in a message to supporters before making another political threat against Harwell and her minions in the House.
As with Speaker Naifeh, we might not defeat Speaker Harwell in an election but we can certainly defeat enough of those in the caucus who would return her to power.There is an opportunity for Speaker Harwell and her lieutenants to realize that the rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment and the interests of conservatives are not to be taken for granted but if they fail to do so, it will soon be time to work to replace them from their thrones on Mount Olympus.
Comments (50)
Showing 1-50 of 50
I can understand that the name of the bill is a little miss leading; but as a victim of gun violence at the restaurant where I used to bartend, I sympathize with the so-called "gun nuts" you refer to. 4 years ago this week I was confronted by a masked gunman while getting into my car after a bartending shift at a murfreesboro restaurant. I was forced, at gunpoint, to let the gunman back into the building. He then shot and killed my manager right in front of me. Did I have a gun in my car that night? No. Should restaurant employees (who tend to have cash-filled pockets after their shifts) be able to feel safe and protect themselves and their co-workers? Absolutely.
like
dislike
Well, Little Miss Leading, I doubt first of all that you're real. The robos of the NRA are very convincing. Second, a little restaurant is not what this bill is addressing. It's big employers with big parking lots who don't want all the employees able to get pissed at each other and take it outside, or inside as the case may be. Your comment is another Little Miss Leading.
At best, the real reason for the TFA leadership using such histrionics can be found here:
"Also, these events make it important that we raise funds for the TFA PAC."
One could easily see how an organization that needs to keep spreading fear in order to justify its existence will always play on the paranoid element in American politics. Planned Parenthood and AARP are the liberal groups have mastered the art of preaching the Apocalypse any time their influence wanes.
I also found this comment amusing in its detachment from reality.
"In reality, that is a “take-it or leave-it” mindset which presumes that these groups of citizens will vote for “the lesser of two evils” rather than to find other options such as better statesmen to run in primaries and other races."
Holy 'pot and kettle' Batman. The more intolerant single issue groups are masters of the “take-it or leave-it” school of politics. This entire press release stinks of take-it-or-leave-it from people who would happily elect pro-income tax, pro-union, national health care supporting Democrat who agrees with them more than a Republican candidate over guns.
The good news is that the vast majority of Tennesseans, including conservative Tennesseans and Republican Tennesseans, want the legislature to focus on jobs and education and more jobs and health care and economic growth and even more jobs and reducing the size and cost of government and more jobs beyond that. Their interest in someone's 'right' to keep a bazooka in the trunk or to mount a 50 cal. machine gun on the back of their pickup truck is hardly passionate.
When Speaker Harwell flip-flopped on the TN Voter Confidence Act (along with all but one of her party's legislative pols), she helped unleash the hellhounds that now soil our General Assembly without giving Tennessee voters (including her) any verifiable recourse to (politically) euthanize those mad-dog puppies.
You know, Speaker Harwell, sometimes winning isn't everything (or the only thing). When winning (sic) occurs with the aid of unverifiable (and red-tinged) black boxes, it can be a short walk off a high ledge.
Enjoy the trip. It can seem quite exciting ... until the very end.
Mark Rogers hides his guns in his jowls.
http://www.adisgruntledrepublican.com/2012…
stellabardo!, regardless of what the bill is trying to address, little restaurants would still fall under the umbrella of this legislation. and yes, I am real.... at least according to the Rutherford County Court system -- http://www.murfreesboropost.com/ocharleys-employee-witnessed-co-workers-murder-cms-10235
Unlike their detractors, the people with handgun permits have been vetted by law enforcement and have no history of violence, psychosis, or drug use. Opposition to them is likely fueled by envy and a basic disconnect from reality. If we could remove from society all the lowlifes the liberals defend or champion we could eliminate three-quarters of the police force and prisons and then we wouldn't need gun permits.
On a personal note, once there was a goon, basically the size and intelligence of a lowland gorilla, who threatened to stomp me into a grease stain on Broadway. It was an ongoing problem as he was always glaring at me and I couldn't stick a gun in his face or even tell him I was packing without breaking the law about using a gun in a threatening manner. So one day I approached a police officer about my dilemma and was told,"Well, you just have to wait till he hurts you and then do what you gotta do." Fortunately, about a week after the cop's tutorial, the gorilla ran his car into a utility pole and killed himself. Probably saved me a bullet.
Next year on Channel 5: "Now for our next segment: 'Shootout at the OK Interstate'- this week, I-24 eastbound at Hickory Hollow at 5:52 p.m. yesterday..."
"He then shot and killed my manager right in front of me."
Aaaaand you lost me, dude. You were doing so well, too.
Gast will put a gypsy curse on your ass if you so much as look at him crosswise.
Min,
SMM may not be the person in the newspaper article but the story is true and the point is well taken. There are some employees that should be trained to carry guns. However that assumes the support of the employer. And, in reality, private security at closing would be safer.
Anyway, I don't object to the guns in parking lots bill although I would think that was the option of the employer. After all, the conservative position used to be that government has no business regulating such things. If you want to keep guns in your car, find another job.
My objection is to political terrorism. If TFA members want to vote candidates from the party that favors much stricter gun laws, that is their right. But the intentional targeting of Representatives just because they won't sacrifice the public interest for a doubtful interpretation of the Constitution is not acceptable. It is political terrorism. Happily the TFA is acting like Oz, the Great and Terrible because behind the screen they are nothing scary.
"SMM may not be the person in the newspaper article but the story is true and the point is well taken."
Not really. Having access to a gun does not create an invisible shield of protection around you or guarantee that you win a confrontation with the bad guys. If that was true, police officers would never be wounded or killed on duty, and soldiers would never come home in body bags.
You object to political terrorism. I object to the baseless, unquestioning belief that a gun makes you invincible.
gast is definitely invincible. He is not at all psychotic, we should all feel safer knowing gast is out there ready to draw down on any citizen his paranoia tells him is a threat. Which is any/everybody.
@Min: You at least ought to look before you call somebody a liar. But that's to much effort for a lib I guess. The witness to the murder and who is also the robbery victim has the initials of S.M. It's easy enough to google. You should apologize.
My own reason for carrying a gun is that I refuse to be an easy victim. That would also be the attitude of about everybody I've ever met who had a permit. Ain't nobody planning on being a hero. If I were at the scene of a store or bank robbery involving firearms the robbers would have no problem with me unless they started shooting people. A gun may not make a person invincible but believe me, it can sure change the attitude of the most brutish thug.
Min,
I strongly agree with you that a gun is not a silver bullet for safety. If it were up to me, the requirements to get a carry permit would include considerable training in scenarios which test one's decision-making when it comes to displaying and using a gun.
Having said that, I do think that the right to carry a weapon by someone who has demonstrated the proper knowledge and attitude is critical to the idea of the individual. Even if we removed every gun in America, the lives of individuals would still be vulnerable to criminals. A gun may well be the only thing standing between an innocent citizen like gast and serious injury or death. As long as gast proves himself to be competent to carry a gun, the state has no superior right to say to him "It is better that you die than that you be able to endanger others by carrying a gun." To quote Mr. Justice Jackson on a different issue, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."
Why don't the gun un-control advocates want employees to be able to bring their guns into their workspace, which presumably would make them less likely to be stolen and used for mayhem, rather than leave them in their cars? Wouldn't this make the workers safer as they go from their car to the building and vice versa? I'm not sure how having a gun stashed in the car would have saved SMM from being endangered in the situation as she/he describes it, unless she/he had been able to get pretty far into the car. Is taking the guns into the workplace out of the question because the employers fear the consequences? That fear seems reasonable to me.
When one branch of government is allowed to select the leaders of another,
trouble will ensue just as this case of Haslam selecting Harwell. G.W. Bush
selected Sen Frist just to show an example of incompetent leadership at the
highest levels. Not over this issue, but the state house should select a new
and different leader next term!
Does anyone but me believe the only point of this story was to stir controversy?
I understand the desire to carry to & from work. I once had a very angry man get out of his car in middle of rush hour stop & go traffic and threaten me. In Brentwood. On OHB. It was scary.
I wonder if the law will also apply to government employees?
The single best way for an individual to provide for his own protection from those who would abuse him (such as protecting themselves from the criminal thugs that our "justice system" allows to walk the streets) is to carry a firearm and know how to use it. That is why our Constitution recognizes that innate right.
I wish it was surprising that the Nashville Scene would seek to denigrate and disparage those who believe in protecting their own lives by calling them "gun nuts"; unfortunately it is not surprising at all. Only in publications such as yours is it considerd "nutty" to want to have the tools available to protect oneself from muggers, car-jackers, rapists and murders.
Only those with an irrational fear of an inanimate object (like a firearm) would think this is bill would engender armed citizens to "roll down the window and blaze away at someone on the highway"...Tennessee already has hundreds of thousands of Handgun Carry Permit holders who routinely carry their firearm (gasp) while traveling in their vehicles; I wonder if the Scene can cite a few cases where any of them have rolled down the window and blazed away at someone on the highway?
This bill harms NO ONE but it does significantly help citizens from becoming another victim of crime by allowing them to have the best tool available for protecting themselves.
The fact that these laws still include no provisions allowing for proper training to be completed before someone is allowed to carry in this manner is atrocious. Surprisingly, perhaps, I really have no problem with the context of this law -- if someone is appropriately trained and licensed for what I'll call "public carry" (not conceal/carry -- different set of standards there), then they should be able to keep a handgun handy in their car.
The difficulty I have with this as it stands is that there is absolutely no training requirement -- and before some jackass leaves a loaded gun in the unlocked glove compartment of an accidentally unlocked car, has it stolen, and then used in the commission of a crime, it behooves us to make certain that the person knows that it is their responsibility to properly secure the weapon at all times if they intend to carry it.
I consider this to be no different than requiring a driver's license to insure at least a minimum level of skill and knowledge before putting someone in control of a 2-ton weapon on public roads. People still kill others with cars, but imagine if there were _no_ licensing or testing requirements!
The "fact" is that HCP holders do receive training and demonstrate competence with their weapon and pass an FBI/TBI background check. And many, like myself, spend significant time, money and energy improving our skills. That said, this is VERY different than requiting driver's training before receiving a driver's license - carrying arms is a right; driving a car is not.
However, if you want to start requiring training and demonstrated competence of citizens before they are allowed to exercise a Constitutionally guaranteed right then why stop at arms? Shouldn't we require significant training before being allowed to practice (or not practice) a religion? Exercise our right to speak or write? How about we require training and a minimum specific IQ before anyone is allowed to vote? (Humm...actually, we probably should require a minimum IQ before being allowed to hold office).
You either believe that people have a right to defend their life or you don't...if they do then it follows that they should have access to the best tools available to do so (and especially so when the right to those tools are guaranteed by the Constitution). I would be okay with leaving my weapons at home If I could be provided with a "Beast" vehicle and dozens of highly trained secret service agents with me at all times like Mr. Obama; unfortunately, I don't get that kind (or any) protection provided for me - my protection is left up to me.
@Robert: I don't think a certification or training should be necessary for possession/owning guns or bearing them one ones' own property. But I have seen enough idiotic behavior with firearms in public places that I'm of the opinion something needs to be done. I don't think it's an infringement of ones' rights to insist that they be made aware by law as to how to properly take advantage of it while ensuring public safety and (most importantly) awareness of the right-holder's responsibilities _and_ liabilities.
I've been through conceal-carry training, and I consider it valuable and important enough that I really wish we could have everyone who wants to do public carry take it... The sections of training about personal liability, at the very least.
Besides, it's be a boon for the carry training businesses. :>
At DontAsk: I'm not sure I understand your point...unless I'm mistaken, this bill only applies to those who have their HCP which means they have had the training you speak of and in fact, under current law you cannot carry a loaded firearm on you person (or in your vehicle) without having a valid HCP (meaning you've had the training and the background check).
I agree that people should do more than the minimum; but this bill does not suddenly open the floodgates for people to just "start carrying" a firearm in the vehicle (which seems to be what some are suggesting).
@Robert:
Nope:
http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/billinfo/B…
It's intended for any firearm owner, and specifically targets business from restricting the presence of firearms while transported by car but located or parked in the designated parking of said business. It only excludes people who are expressly forbidden from possession or federal property. Makes no mention of HCP holders whatsoever.
In other words, it's another of those numerous carry regulations that changes for the umpteenth time what is and what's not allowable for _all_ gun owners (which is another good reason for requiring people to learn and acknowledge their legal responsibilities to public carry -- so they can be kept up to day with what the law says _today_).
I'm actually not averse to this law as written, personally; it just adds to the argument that so long as we're intent on altering regulations intended to affect or change public safety, we should be at least making an effort to ensure that these regulations are communicated clearly and concisely on a regular basis. A required training regimen does this, creates additional business opportunity, and helps gun owners become better stewards of their rights. Just my opinion.
@ Don't Ask: Then you are reading it differently than I am..
The bill says it applies to "individuals licensed to carry"...the only "licensed to carry" firearms in Tennessee are Handgun Carry Permit holders.
That's in the bill description; the actual language to be _inserted_ in TCA makes no such reference that I can find. Bill descriptions are not legally binding and will not appear in TCA. It modifies Title 39, and does so by _insertion_ of section 1313, which means that the language _can_ be interpreted to apply to all owners.
If it had _modified_ -1307 or -1351-58, then maybe. It only refers to non-application due to violations under 39-17-1307(a)(d), but does not modify the (e)(f) or (3) sections. As it is, it is planned to insert this language as a new section, which may effectively create a NEW "lawful" standing to possession and carry.
If it were me drafting this law, I'd avoid creating a second lawful standing and instead modify 39-17-1307 (E)(1)(2) to create an additional exception, then modify something in Title 40 to carve out the liability exemption towards business.
....aaaaaand with that, I just lost my liberal card in this forum. :>
I should be able to ask at least one of the bill's sponsor's later this month and I'm going to ask. :)
Okay...I think I see the root of the misunderstanding; there are four bills pending; three of them specifically limit the effect to HCP holders only; only the one you linked to does not contain that language.
LINKS:
http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/S…
http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/S…
http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/S…
http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/S…
_This_ is part of the problem, as I said.
Heck, if people who actually read the bills and current regulations can't suss them out easily, how is Joe gun-owner Sixpack going to do it? The answer is _education_. The best way to ensure the education has taken place is a certification or licensing process. It also ends up protecting the gun owner because possession of a certification can actually indemnify you against certain claims in a lawsuit over liability.
I'm an oddball, Robert; a social liberal who's in favor of fiscal responsibility and a gun owner who still thinks there's a place for licensing. They used to call us "centrists". :>
Don't Ask: If a bill gets passed I don't think understanding the law will be a problem for anyone who wants to understand it...I was confused only because I wasn't aware that there were actually two separate bills pending.
Were I writing this legislation I would make it applicable to any/all parking lots owned by a commercial entity and provided for the use of employees or customers of a business (employee parking lots, shopping mall parking lots, etc) and the only restriction I'd place on "who" can have a firearm in their vehicle would be that the person be legally able to own the firearm (i.e be of age, not a convicted felon, etc) and that it be properly carried (i.e. per current law).
We'll just have to disagree on the "training/certification" aspect; not on the importance of it but on it being a requirement.
I guess I'm just simple-minded enough to believe that the Constitution actually means what it says when it says that ther right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed"...requiring some certain amount of classrom training, range training, etc. is an infringement; we can argue about how much or how little of an infringement but it still is an infringement.
Unless someone has forfitted their right to carry a firearm through proper adjudication, then they should not have to jump though bureaucratic hoops to exercise the right.
You're a respectful, informed debater, Robert, so I don't mean this snarkily. When you only quote a part of the Second Amendment in speaking about what constitutes an infringement of the right to bear arms, it undermines your position "that the Constitution actually means what it says".
Min: No offense taken at all and thank you for the kind words.
I didn't quote the entire amanemdnt simply becasue I suspect most people know it and also because I doubt that this is an appropriate place to fully disect and discuss the second amendment. :)
I believe that any requirement that delays or prevents a citizen from exercising a right...any right...is an "infringement"; at least as I understand the word.
It's important for everyone to realize that the criminals do NOT obey the laws. It's equally important to allow law abiding citizens the ability to be able to protect themselves. I've had a handgun carry permit for ten years and I praise God I've never been in a situation where I've had to use it. It's better to carry it 3,650 times and not need it, than to not have it one time and need it. That one time could mean the end of your life! Also, the more guns that are legally carried reduces crime. Criminals do not want any resistance. I say let every law abiding citizen get their permit, carry their gun, and make Tennessee safer. Anyone against that should move to NYC or DC.
@Robert Armentrout: Somewhere in the Constitution it says that individual states cannot nullify any of the Bill of Rights. Yet there have been judicial opinions written that say, "Oh, that doesn't apply to the Second Amendment." Go figger. The Constitution is only what the majority of the SCOTUS in session says it is, and that is why my primary concern for choosing a President is his/her likely judicial appointments. A President is not only elected to a four year term but also for the length his judicial appointments hold office.
Yes...we need Obama defeated...if he wins a second term he will change the makeup of the court for decades and this country will no longer be a country of liberty and freedom and personal responsibility (not that there is much of that left);it will be just another socialist state. He is clearly ready to abandon the Constitution and any "right" that interferes with his plans (in fact he as said as much)...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, a right recognized (not granted) by the Constitution will just be the first right cast aside because that right alone is all that stands between a society free people and a society of slaves.
The Constitution's only power exists in the hearts, moral character and integrity of those elected to serve and those citizens who willingly live by it.
Yes, requiring the top 1% to pay the same rate as the rest of us is socialism. Clearly.
Gast and Robert,
You are both touching on a fundamental issue, what is the role of the Constitution in our society? Is the Constitution really nothing more than the opinion of five members of the Supreme Court? Or is the Constitution as much a set of principles that establish parameters within which government can operate, changing to ensure that it meets the needs of the nation?
Gast is correct that today the Constitution has been reduced to pretty much what a majority of the Supremes say it is. The Court was projected by the Framers to be the 'least dangerous branch.' That is no longer true. Worse, the Court has mistaken issues that were not open to political solutions in a reasonable time {segregation in Brown vs Board and voting rights in Baker vs Carr} with issues that are remediable through elections and legislation {rights of those arrested in Miranda, restrictions on the death penalty etc}.
While some of the Court's lawmaking deserves credit for its results, we have paid the price of no longer seeing the Constitution as the result of the 'consent of the governed.' In my view California's Proposition 8 ought to have been defeated but the Courts have no business overturning the vote of the people on what is really a public policy issue.
We have reached a point where almost any Supreme Court decision of note offends one political side or the other. Both sides claim that the other side is undermining the Constitution by placing ideologically slanted justices in the federal Courts.
This process is demolishing respect for the Constitution and the Law.
@Mark Rogers: With one side buying votes using the other sides money it is virtually guaranteed that there will be a more eye-rolling interpretations of our constitution. Adding more "wise Latinas" just to have wise Latinas on SCOTUS will see to that. And who's to say B.O. himself won't end up a justice? If I remember correctly he did teach a law class at one time before becoming a recruiter for the crookedest organization ever to recieve a tax-dollar.
Gast,
If the other side had focused more on helping the middle class and building a strong American economy instead of allowing the rich to run our economic system, had made any effort to fix the health care system instead of preserving the advantages of various special interests and had worried at all about unacceptable examples of various groups having their basic rights protected, we would not be in this mess either.
Mark Rogers: The middle class is sitting in front of their big screens every night watching a liberal blow smoke at the "fat cats" for causing all our problems while just the opposite is true. Liberal government caused the troubles. And the fact is that most of the middle class has not been affected at all.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj30n2/cj…
This link, about ten pages, gives a blow by blow confirmation to what I watched every day on CNBC during the meltdown. The first paragraph says it all. Remember, it was "toxic securities" that caused the problem, but where did they come from? All those so called bonuses the rich bankers received during TARP - and outrage taxpayers - were actually part of employment contracts and if our leaders had asked that the banks abrogate the contracts, well, that wouldn't have played so well and would have led to lawsuits by the employees. Some of the banks were even forced to take TARP funds or else so they could be brought under further government control. The "rich guys" being at fault for all our troubles is the big lie, repeated over and over, in action. Hitler used the same tactic against the Jews and it worked there, so why not use it here to take the heat off Dodd, Frank, and Obama? And except for GM and AIG (an insurance company), TARP has been repaid with interest, so the rich guys have actually fulfilled their end of the bargain and proved a benefit to Treasury.
The country is full of too many people who are envious and even angry at those who have more because they worked smarter, harder, or were just plain plain lucky. And the angry, envious ones are who B.O. plays to and the message plays well. Another wise Latina for the court, por favor.
Gast,
The flaw in your argument is that you seem to believe that all our major economic problems somehow began with the housing bubble or the financial melt-down or other recent issue. In reality our most serious economic problems go back farther and are much more complicated. For example:
1) The idea that the US economy needed to be the engine for the world economy was a self-gratifying belief but it was fatal as economic policy. We allowed the call for cheaper prices and more consumption to replace a focus on saving, exporting and industrial innovation. Instead we encouraged spending, importing and globalizing. By the 1990s the result was initial signs of a slowing growth in wages vs costs, a declining middle class and a credit bubble as the federal government made credit more available to compensate for stagnant wages.
2) Easy credit and lower prices blinded the population from seeing that our economy was developing serious long-term problems. Higher housing prices enabled more consumption even as real incomes made this level of debt on refinancing or on new homes a time bomb.
3) Failure to develop an energy policy that combined new sources of oil and new refining capacity with investments in alternative fuels ensured that we would continue hemorrhaging billions to other nations. Combined with our growing trade deficit in other parts of the economy, we were shifting from a wealthy nation to a debtor nation.
I could go on but those suffice to make the point that government was partly responsible {particularly for the cheap credit and some of the faux free trade deals} but the private sector deserves considerable blame. Oil companies that fought against higher mileage for cars, alternative energy as well as for consolidation to make price-fixing easier were a major factor. Banks that kept issuing mortgages that would never be met, selling those debts and betting against their own securities did massive damage by increasing the debt bubble. Drug companies used their financial clout to crush competition and to ensure that the Medicare Part D bill failed to control costs.
Until conservatives are willing to stand up to the malefactors nominally on our side, we will not have the credibility to deal with the malefactors on the other side. A true competitive market does not give advantages to those who can shape the laws to their benefit. There are two guilty parties in that equation, not just the special interests but the lawmakers who do their bidding. Both need to be opposed.
No, Mark, not all our problems. Just the last one. Twenty years before it was the commercial real estate bubble. It's historic, good times are followed by bad and the Demos always take the wrong tack to to ease us out of a setback. Toxic securities brought the world down this time and they were.part of the system due to government involvement, plain and simple. By the way, If memory serves, Fannie Mae sucked up another $30,000,000 last quarter because of affordable home loans. But did you hear about it on the news? Nooo-o-o-o.... The media was too busy covering occupiers complaining abut rich people.
I can't think of anything more nauseating than agreeing with Herbert. I feel quite dyspeptic. Just the notion of it makes me queasy. Blech, this is no fun.
Smoothy,
When you grow up you will come to understand that most issues do not have simple or easy answers. Similarly, one usually cannot rely on one principle in public policy but must balance multiple, often competing, principles. I am confident that you will come to understand that, even if you never grow enough to embrace my wisdom. I think you will make it early in the next millennium.
@Mark Rogers: Alas, I have to confess to error when I stated Fannie Mae's cost last quarter was $30,000,000. It was third quarter losses and the amount was $5,100,000,000. Freddy Mac's was $6,000,000,000 for the same period. Together they've accounted for a total of $184,000,000,000 in losses covered by taxpayers for bad mortgages issued to unqualified buyers because of government interference. Meanwhile, the two entities have asked for $12,790,000 to give bonuses to 10 executives. Talk about fat cats, and these are quasi government functionaries. USA! USA! USA...!
Yes Herbert, watching you "balance your multiple, competing principles." more accurately describes the source of my nausea rather than the 0.0002% we agree on. A monkey, if given a keyboard, would eventually spell out something I could agree with, if he labored at it half as much as you.
What a quaint idea, embracing your wisdom. A rather ambitious label for bald propaganda. I'll leave that cup of poison for some other fool to embrace.
