I saw this on the TGO forum posted by "Waynesan""Posted Yesterday, 10:22 PM
Latest on Harwell and Legislatures intentions on this bill."
Personally, I am getting a bit put off by the fact that we seem to have to get MORE news about what is happening in Nashville in regards to this legislation from Missouri than we do from our own state. And what we DO get from Tennesseess media is misleading, (remember the press release from Knoxville that incorrectly reported about the possible amendments to this bill).
With that aside, the whole idea that the TFA is not an interested party is bunk. The TFA has been at the forfront of pro-gun legislation in this state for over 15 years, being instrumental in the existance in us even having a handgun carry permit. Harwell, McCormick and Maggart just don't like having their true colors exposed. Harwell's voting record is just that, on record and the only things she has voted FOR are the TWO joint resolutions COMMENDING the TFA for their work promoting and protecting the rights of Tennessee citizens to keep and bear arms. She was the ONLY member of the Republican caucus in the House to vote AGAINST the override of the Governor's veto of the restaurant carry bills, and she did it BOTH times. Her voting record for other pro-gun initiatives is just as dismal.
Ever since the General Assembly passed legislation loosening the restrictions on corporate donations to political campaigns, the leadership has done everything short of handing the keys to the General Assembly to the corporate lobbies in order to gain favor and dollars.
Now to the issue of these proposed amendments. Right now I can live with restricting this to permit holders. We need to get this law on the books. As it stands right now, most of the laws expanding our gun rights are restricted to permit holders, restaurant carry, parks carry and so on. Untill we get a Constitutional or Vermont carry law which would open things to ALL law abiding gun owners, I think this is going to be the restriction we can expect on most any similiar law. I also feel adding verbage that states that this bill would not apply to single dwelling residential property (ie your home, after all your home is your castle) would not be a problem.
As for limitations that focus on the facilities itself, I have issues with that. We can do little to nothing in regards to facilities that are specifically restricted by state or federal law. However just because a facility has a fence and or a gate, is a nuclear facility or whatever, has NO impact on the circumstance encountered during my commute. The whole point of this bill is spelled out in the title of the legislation, SAFE COMMUTE. What does the fact that where I may work being a nuclear facility have to do with THAT? Am I suddenly mysteriously exempt from violent attack on my way home from work just because the place I just LEFT has a fence?
Getting the real information on what these "proposed amendments" may be is quite difficult. I have not seen or heard anything other than what has been leaked to the press such as this. I have no doubt that they are playing their cards close to their chest on purpose to prevent the barage of emails they know they would get. Well, we need to keep them going anyway.