Tennessee's response to shootings: allow CCW in public places.

[jimpeel]

Here's the long version

URL: http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/state/article/0,1406,KNS_348_5492294,00.html

House vote permits guns in more places
By TOM HUMPHREY, tomhumphrey3@aol.com
April 19, 2007


NASHVILLE - In a surprise move, a House panel voted Wednesday to repeal a state law that forbids the carrying of handguns on property and buildings owned by state, county and city governments - including parks and playgrounds.

"I think the recent Virginia disaster - or catastrophe or nightmare or whatever you want to call it - has woken up a lot of people to the need for having guns available to law-abiding citizens," said Rep. Frank Niceley, R-Strawberry Plains. "I hope that is what this vote reflects."

As amended, the legislation still wouldn't allow guns on school property, however.

Niceley's bill aimed to let people holding handgun carry permits take their weapons onto state park property, which is now forbidden.

But when Niceley brought the bill before the Criminal Practice Subcommittee, a branch of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Rob Briley, D-Nashville, promptly proposed an amendment to expand its scope.

"We've been piecemealing this thing year after year," Briley said. "Why don't we just let you take your gun anywhere you want to?"

Tennessee's handgun carry law includes a listing of places where permit holders are forbidden to take their weapons. Briley has proposed an amendment that repeals a provision prohibiting guns "in or on the grounds of any public park, playground, civic center or other building facility, area or property owned, used or operated by any municipal, county or state government, or instrumentality thereof."

With very little debate, the amendment was quickly approved on a voice vote with only Rep. Janis Sontany, D-Nashville, chairman of the subcommittee, audibly shouting, "No!"

She then asked Niceley if he had any comments before the bill, as amended, faced a final vote in the panel.

"I'm in shock, and I can't talk," replied Niceley, though quickly adding he thought Briley's proposal was "a good amendment."

The panel then approved the overall bill, sending it to the full House Judiciary Committee for a vote next week. Briley is chairman of the committee.

Niceley said afterward that Tennessee should join other states that basically allow licensed people to take their handguns "anywhere they want."

The Briley amendment does not go that far, having no impact on separate provisions of the law that, for example, forbid guns on school grounds, in courtrooms or in establishments that serve alcoholic beverages.

But Briley, Sontany and others said afterward that it would allow permit holders to take their guns on most other state, county or city government property - including the Legislative Plaza, where signs are now posted to prohibit weapons except those carried by law enforcement officers.

Briley said in an interview that he and a handful of other legislators in subcommittees have borne the brunt of harsh criticism from some gun owners for opposing past efforts to "nibble away" at restrictions on where handguns can be taken.

"This has been on the backs of just a few people," he said. "Now it's time for other people to stand up and say, 'We want these protections in the law' - or not."

Asked about Niceley's comment that the Virginia Tech slayings earlier this week had awakened people to the need for easing of restrictions on licensed holders of handgun carry permits, he replied in the negative.

"Anybody who would make an attempt to score cheap political points over that tragedy and what we did in (the committee room) is disgusting and sick," he said.

Sontany said she thought Briley acted unwisely "in the heat of the moment" and that the bill ultimately would be defeated.

Niceley said that critics of the handgun carry law protested when it passed that "wild West" situations would be created, but permit holders have proven themselves responsible over the years. He said he knows of only one case where a permit holder used a weapon in a violent crime.

In Tennessee, 172,828 people held legal permits as of January, according to Mike Browning, spokesman for the state Department of Safety, which issues the licenses.

Rep. Curry Todd, R-Collierville, said he had decided earlier to give up this year on his push for legislation to allow permit holders to take their handguns into restaurants serving alcoholic beverages, feeling it had little chance of passage.

Todd said, however, that he has been approached by another legislator about a push to allow handguns on college campuses though "I don't know if this is the proper time to do that" in light of the Virginia Tech shootings.

Tom Humphrey may be reached at 615-242-7782.

Copyright 2007, KnoxNews. All Rights Reserved.

 

[jimpeel]

Some addendums

Has anyone ever seen a lockdown of a police station?

Luke Woodham still had 36 rounds of .30-30 ammo left when Myrick stopped him.

My school had a shooting range and our school bus had a rifle rack. San Andreas High School, San Andreas, CA.

Open carry invites disaster. Any gang member with a Raven can upgrade to your Glock by simply putting a round in the back of your head.

 

[JoshB]

+1 for school carry.
Although it is illegial to carry in an elementary shool in PA, it is perfectly legal to cary on a college campus. Unfortunatly I was under 21 most of this time, but I was able to keep a shotgun in my trunk.

 

[jimpeel]

To read more about the heroic efforts of Joel Myrick, go HERE

 

[gnut]

targetshootr

Targetshootr, I have to believe you are either trying to make a counter point argument intentionally, or you are an anti gunner on a pro gunner web site.

 

[mxwelch]

All the things you listed are no doubt true and the amount of research is impressive. It would take me years to cite the kinds of things you can do in no time flat. I get a feel for things from watching lots of news, reading papers, being in business, dealing with renters. But I believe my points are still valid especially the ecomomic impact on a college, the reaction from suburban parents, the futility of trying to press the issue. In a perfect world it might even be tested on one or two campuses but they'd soon be out of business. This is one of those things no amount of research will affect the gut reaction of the people who write the checks and it is so extraordinary that it may well cause a backlash. I myself would not attend a college where everyone was armed and I own more guns than most shops.

First of all damn the "economic impact". 32 ADULTS were killed. You seem to miss the fact that this isn't grade school kids that go to Tech but adults. This university is a tax subsidized institution so why are Constitutional rights void there or anywhere public for that matter? Why is it that some people seem to think that owning a gun causes the gun owner to suddenly loose all restraint and become more likely to shoot someone? All I hear is the same tired worn out "blood will run in the streets" argument that's been proven false every single time. I wouldn't attend a school where I'd be nothing more than a target because of someone else's un-intelligent and un-called for fears.

 

[targetshootr]

If any school is so unsafe that students feel the need to carry weapons, I'm not going to attend it. That does not refer to the good old days when everyone hunted. Except for a few places the good old days are gone. The country is more urban that rural. If you read my posts you'll notice the economic impact I referred to is the affect after students are allowed to carry weapons. People like me who never thought much of bipeds in the first place would especially avoid them in places where 20 somethings carry weapons and I probably own more guns than 90% of the posters on this forum. So continue with the troll comments if that's all you've got.

 

[DonR101395]

If any school is so unsafe that students feel the need to carry weapons, I'm not going to attend it. That does not refer to the good old days when everyone hunted. Except for a few places the good old days are gone. The country is more urban that rural. If you read my posts you'll notice the economic impact I referred to is the affect after students are allowed to carry weapons. People like me who never thought much of bipeds in the first place would especially avoid them in places where 20 somethings carry weapons and I probably own more guns than 90% of the posters on this forum. So continue with the troll comments if that's all you've got.

Just wondering, are you anti-gun, anti-ccw, anti-20sometings owning guns or just anti-20somethings having a CCW? I can't get a flavor for why you want to intentionally disarm anyone.
I don't always feel a "need" to carry, but I always carry. There is a huge difference between want and need, and it's not up to you, me or the Government to decide the wants and needs of personal self defense.

 

[targetshootr]

If a classroom is full of ROTC or Nat Guard or hunters, that's one thing. But not kids fresh out of high school with guns. I've had a carry permit for years but you won't see me in there.

 

[lockedcj7]

We got it targetshootr, you don't think it's a good idea. Most of us do. No amount of you re-iterating your point is going to change our minds. Be a sheep if you want, but don't try to pursuade me to give up my rights.

Several people have pointed out the flaws in your logic and yet, you persist. In every state that I know of, the law is 21. Those are hardly kids fresh out of highschool. If you entered college at 18, you'd likely be a senior at 21. I pointed out that many college students are returning adults. I have a friend who is a faculty member and is the coach of their air-rifle team. He would CC in a second (as would I) if it was allowed. In addition, Seniors in college are serious students or they wouldn't still be there. Only a slim minority would CC but that's all it takes to produce a deterrent effect. If they did it right (as the vast majority of CCW holders do), nobody would ever know they were armed. What economic impact are you talking about? Accidents or crimes from CCW's are virtually unheard of, and as one poster pointed out, are more likely with cops. Parents and students wouldn't even know about the lack of a CCW prohibition unless they ask. It's not like there will be warning signs alerting people to the possibility of lawful CCWs on campus. The only people who will ask are the ones who are interested in carrying or are unbelievably paranoid (as you seem to be) about others being able to lawfully carry.

My dad (who was also a teacher) and I used to carry two shotguns and a case of ammunition in the trunk of his car in order to dove-hunt after school. My eighth-grade teacher brought a Rem. 1100 to demonstrate proper gun-handling during a hunter's safety course that she taught as part of our regular curriculum. I also made a crossbow in woodshop that same year. The other choice was a gun-rack.

 

[targetshootr]

All I can say is good luck with it cause it ain't gonna happen. Best to use resources on things that have a chance with middle America. The 'sheep' who run the place.

 

[DonR101395]

All I can say is good luck with it cause it ain't gonna happen. Best to use resources on things that have a chance with middle America. The 'sheep' who run the place.

You mean like the sheep in Indiana who've allowed CCW in Colleges and Universities for decades?

 

[qlajlu]

In every state that I know of, the law is 21. Those are hardly kids fresh out of highschool.

Accidents or crimes from CCW's are virtually unheard of...

When the states started passing CCW laws one right after the other, the antis all were a tither about OK Corral gunfights on every corner, road rage incidents deteriorating to High Noon shootouts, and blood running in the gutters. It didn't happen.

targetshootr, you say you are a CCW yet you do not trust others with the same training? Some of them might have more training than you ever thought of having. Some are ex-military or current LEOs trying to better their station in life. I can't believe how paranoid you are. You sound just like the antis.

It has been said that people that CCW are more responsible than the daily, average Joe on the street. targetshootr, I certainly don't see how you can go about in everyday life with all the CCWs around you and you do not worry about them, but add the fact that they are on a college campus and you go way off to someplace unknown. These "kids" (college students) are actually adults and are eligible for military service. If they can carry a gun for Uncle Sam, why can they not defend themselves? Just what is it about carrying on a college campus that you are afraid of?

We have disected the past several of the worst shootings on school properties in this thread and [almost] everyone has agreed that a single CCW could have probably stopped the carnage and in a few cases actually did. Why are you, targetshootr, so willing to sacrifice their lives?

 

[targetshootr]

I had a choice to apply for a carry permit which I decided to do. But I also have the choice to go or not go where people are toting guns, legally or otherwise. If I enroll in college I really wouldn't care to keep one eye on the teacher and the other on somebody half my age who thinks they need a weapon. That's just a personal bias I have toward hominids but I'm willing to bet most students would feel the same.

 

[Trip20]

If I enroll in college I really wouldn't care to keep one eye on the teacher and the other on somebody half my age who thinks they need a weapon.

Can you explain why a 40yr old has more of a Right to self-protection, than someone half his/her age?

Can you explain why a 40yr old is more likely to need a weapon for self defense, than someone half his/her age?

Maybe on odds and age alone, one could argue a fuddy duddy 40yr old who life consists of going to work and coming home to the famn damily every night, might actually be less likely to get into a life/death confrontation than a 20yr old with an active social life.

But that's neither here nor there. Need isn't a prerequisite to self-protection, nor is likelihood of an event.

Your problem is that you don't trust your fellow citizens to carry weapons, and that distrust increases as age decreases.

But on that note…why should you be trusted? Why should anyone feel comfortable with you carrying?

Your same reasoning can be used to strip your Right away by those who feel uncomfortable with you carrying around a dangerous weapon.

I'd wager you say shove it, because you don't care how they feel; it's your Right, you've passed the background check, you've gotten the required permit.

Well there are probably a few college students who can relate to that.

 

[Richard Hanson]

Originally Posted by Richard Hanson
VT was never a "gun free zone", it was only a "gun prohibition zone"

Richard, I don't mean to pick bones or split hairs, but what is the difference? Unarmed is unarmed!

qlajlu,

There are true "gun free zones" such as airports and jails where every person entering the area is searched at choke points to insure that they are not armed. This is an expensive process both in terms of the personnel required to insure the zone is free of guns and in terms of the time spent waiting to be searched by individuals entering the zone.

A "gun prohibition zone", perhaps not the best term, is a zone where the carrying of guns is prohibited or illegal but little or no effort is made to enforce the prohibition. Thus, honest men and women are compelled to relinquish their guns making them vulnerable to anyone bent on doing them harm.

I don't much like the term "gun free zone" as it implies that there will be no guns within when in truth it only insures that there will be no guns in the hands of honest, responsible, law-abiding individuals. Gun free zones are not created by laws, they are created by physically excluding guns from an area by meticulously searching every person who enters.

The horrific events at VT should have demonstrated this reality to even the most obtuse observer even if I failed to clearly communicate my meaning in my previous post. Our nations schools are certainly not "gun free zones", they are only "gun prohibition zones" where any person bent on mayhem will find a nearly endless supply of uniformly unarmed victims to slaughter.

In Texas, it is illegal to take my Sig into a school, even the private school that my children attend, so I disarm to comply with the laws of my state. It is one of the very few places that I am not armed and it pains me to think that at some moment in time I might be faced with the very difficult task of discharging my parental duties to protect my children within an environment in which my opponents are likely to be armed and I most certainly will not.

It is my view that there are very few, if any, places where it is inappropriate to be armed, but I also value a lawful society. If we are going to create "gun free zones" then we should insure that it is not only the honest men and women of our communities that are disarmed, but also the most vile and despicable people living in our midst. The gun-control left would turn our entire nation into a "gun free zone" but all they would accomplish is to greatly expand the area of gun prohibition and insure that no private citizen could mount an effect defense against the predatory behaviors of violent criminals within our population.

Best Regards,
Richard

 

[targetshootr]

You're exactly right, I don't trust people in general and I'm especially leary of anyone I don't know who has a weapon. Even though I own plenty, I no longer keep one in my vehicle because I decided it would create more problems than it would solve and some of my property is in not so nice areas of town.

 

[cma g21]

This is from Former Senator Fred Thompson:

http://abcradio.com/article.asp?id=389928&SPID=15663

Signs of Intelligence?

One of the things that's got to be going through a lot of peoples' minds now is how one man with two handguns, that he had to reload time and time again, could go from classroom to classroom on the Virginia Tech campus without being stopped. Much of the answer can be found in policies put in place by the university itself.

Virginia, like 39 other states, allows citizens with training and legal permits to carry concealed weapons. That means that Virginians regularly sit in movie theaters and eat in restaurants among armed citizens. They walk, joke and rub shoulders everyday with people who responsibly carry firearms -- and are far safer than they would be in San Francisco, Oakland, Detroit, Chicago, New York City, or Washington, D.C., where such permits are difficult or impossible to obtain.

The statistics are clear. Communities that recognize and grant Second Amendment rights to responsible adults have a significantly lower incidence of violent crime than those that do not. More to the point, incarcerated criminals tell criminologists that they consider local gun laws when they decide what sort of crime they will commit, and where they will do so.

Still, there are a lot of people who are just offended by the notion that people can carry guns around. They view everybody, or at least many of us, as potential murderers prevented only by the lack of a convenient weapon. Virginia Tech administrators overrode Virginia state law and threatened to expel or fire anybody who brings a weapon onto campus.

In recent years, however, armed Americans -- not on-duty police officers -- have successfully prevented a number of attempted mass murders. Evidence from Israel, where many teachers have weapons and have stopped serious terror attacks, has been documented. Supporting, though contrary, evidence from Great Britain, where strict gun controls have led to violent crime rates far higher than ours, is also common knowledge.

So Virginians asked their legislators to change the university's "concealed carry" policy to exempt people 21 years of age or older who have passed background checks and taken training classes. The university, however, lobbied against that bill, and a top administrator subsequently praised the legislature for blocking the measure.

The logic behind this attitude baffles me, but I suspect it has to do with a basic difference in worldviews. Some people think that power should exist only at the top, and everybody else should rely on "the authorities" for protection.

Despite such attitudes, average Americans have always made up the front line against crime. Through programs like Neighborhood Watch and Amber Alert, we are stopping and catching criminals daily. Normal people tackled "shoe bomber" Richard Reid as he was trying to blow up an airliner. It was a truck driver who found the D.C. snipers. Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that civilians use firearms to prevent at least a half million crimes annually.

When people capable of performing acts of heroism are discouraged or denied the opportunity, our society is all the poorer. And from the selfless examples of the passengers on Flight 93 on 9/11 to Virginia Tech professor Liviu Librescu, a Holocaust survivor who sacrificed himself to save his students earlier this week, we know what extraordinary acts of heroism ordinary citizens are capable of.

Many other universities have been swayed by an anti-gun, anti-self defense ideology. I respect their right to hold those views, but I challenge their decision to deny Americans the right to protect themselves on their campuses -- and then proudly advertise that fact to any and all.

Whenever I've seen one of those "Gun-free Zone" signs, especially outside of a school filled with our youngest and most vulnerable citizens, I've always wondered exactly who these signs are directed at. Obviously, they don't mean much to the sort of man who murdered 32 people just a few days ago.

 

[madmag]

I think there is a misconception that it takes years of training to responsibly carry a firearm in a public setting. At age 19 I was on stockade guard in the army. Carried a Mod 97 Winchester shotgun loaded with 00 buck. Others my age did the same with no incidents.

This is just a case of the thought being more scary than the reality. Most will not accept the idea of assigned responsible students being armed, it could work, but the idea will scare off most supporters.

 

[Trip20]

Even though I own plenty, I no longer carry one because I decided it would cause more problems than it would solve even though some of my property is in not so nice areas.

Well, that certainly sheds some light on motives behind your opinion. I think it's safe to say you do not believe the every day citizen should be allowed to carry weapons. Is that out of line with your beliefs?

Either way, your statement brings a few questions to mind.

1) The "cause more problems than it would solve" statement is a bit confusing to me. Since the firearm will remain virtually uninvolved in all day-to-day activities, how then can it "cause more problems" when it's inert and out of the way in just about every thing one does through out the day?

1b) How does carrying a firearm “cause more problems” when employed for appropriate reasons such as saving your own life, or life of a loved one?

2) Have you come to the belief that you do not necessarily trust your own ability to be responsible and make appropriate choices while carrying a firearm? Is this how you felt it was more of a burden or liability to carry a weapon, than it is to remain defenseless?

I'm not asking this question in a smart-alecky way, and actually if the answer to question #2 were "yes," I'd respect that a lot. If you thought you'd do something wrong and chose to remove that possibility, that’s great.

But then I'd also question how you feel it is righteous for others to be disallowed the ability to protect their life because you've so chosen to deny yourself that ability for whatever reason.

What about the rest of us who believe we're good responsible people, and when confronted with a life/death struggle, we want that option available to defend ourselves with the most effective means available?