Should the bill to block access to gun carry permit records, which passed the Senate Wednesday, be passed as is or not?
I confess mixed feelings on this subject.
On the one hand, having a carry permit is, in my mind, like having a drivers license. Supposedly in both cases, the person in question is trained and capable of safely carrying a firearm or operating a motor vehicle. (OK, we've seen that concept totally discredited in both cases so we know the theory is flawed.)
Since both the permit and license are issued by the state, supposedly in the name of public safety, the public should have the right to know to whom the state has, in their name, licensed to drive or carry.
On the other hand, the issue of privacy rears it's ugly head. Certain personal information is protected by law and cannot be released without consent. This could conceivably fall in that category as citizens might not wish people to know they have a carry permit for some reason. (They feel the knowledge would make them a target for thieves, their employers might disapprove, or they are ashamed.)
The biggest issue I suppose, is constitutionality. Even Ron Ramsey acknowledged this fact.
'Ramsey noted that state Attorney General Bob Cooper opined earlier this year that efforts to restrict the publication of public records would likely violate the constitution."
One has to wonder how much time and effort was expended figuring out how to circumvent the constitution, and protect the rights of permit holders over the rights of everyone else to know who has a permit.
One argument does puzzle me. If a thief knows someone has a permit, why would they target that house and invite being shot? Better to target a house where no one has a permit so you have an even chance no one has a gun. (After all, a permit just allows you to carry in public, a person could have an arsenal at home, but no carry permit.)
In the end, this seems a rather pointless exercise, aimed at pleasing the NRA gun nuts, and avoiding any real work.
Good points. I wonder if the names and addresses of food stamps, welfare, and Tenncare recipients are published as public records?
Since public money is involved, one would think that information should be available. The major difference is no media outlet has seen any news value in publishing the names and addresses.
Mostly, no one cares about those you cited Libertine. There does seem, however, a great deal of interest in carry permit holders, both in naming them and in keeping the names a secret.
I'm sure if a group was interested in obtaining and publishing the names and addresses of food stamps, welfare, and Tenncare recipients, they could make this an issue.
Our founders didn't know automobiles would ever be invented and drivers licenses might be needed to prove your access to the road. There was no "highways" back then.
But they did know the reason they added the 2nd amendment to our Constitution; to protect ourselves from our "leaders" who might want to take absolute control of us.
The "right to carry" is highly questionable because of our constitution, and it is insane to make one's right public insane. That exposes those who choose to be unarmed to criminals who wish to commit crimes because the surely would prefer to choose an unarmed citizen rather than one they know will have the knowledge to stop their crime.
History is the source of facts: Taking gun rights away from their citizens has been the first move every dictator on this earth has used in order to take absolute control over their nation.
Armed, honest, law abiding, citizens are not the fear of the citizens of our nation, only the man sitting in OUR Oval Office and some of the members of our congress are expressing fear.
What are they fearing of honest law abiding citizens: their rebellion to their attempt to gain dictatorial control?
Again, we have the well-publicized "good reason" and the unpublicized real reason for this dubious legislation.
The "good reason" is to protect gun owners from would-be thieves who might target them, based on publicly disclosed listings of permit holders. There is no evidence to suggest that this is an actual threat...but Tea-Baggers do not need evidence to inform their legislation....they go with their "gut".
The real reason is self-serving...the law would shield politicians from bad publicity and the ensuing political fallout when they break the law.
Seriously, they should call this law the Curry Todd Law, because the real reason for the legislation is to protect sitting politicians from what happened to Curry Todd...the drunk-driving gunner and arrogant GOP lawmaker.
From the main article: "If that had been the law in 2011, the public would not have been able to confirm that state Rep. Curry Todd was a permit holder when he was arrest on drunken driving and gun charges. The Collierville Republican's permit wasn't suspended until he pleaded guilty earlier this year."
So, there it is in a nutshell, the state politicians are circling their wagons to protect their own from justice. The law is probably a waste of time and money, as it seems to be obviously unconstitutional.
The solution: Throw the scofflaw drunken gunners out of office....vote Democratic.
I forgot....Good morning, Nashville!
Ask01 posted a well-written comment...as usual. Thoughtful and insightful....I enjoy reading Ask01's posts....thanks for posting here, Ask01.....may I call you, "A1"?
Troll Sez: But they did know the reason they added the 2nd amendment to our Constitution; to protect ourselves from our "leaders" who might want to take absolute control of us.
That is NRA BS mixed in with Southern historic revisionism.
Here's the truth:
"The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too."
The 2nd amendment was ratified to deny freedom, liberty and self-defense to African Negro slaves and the American native peoples....it was NOT put into place for the "noble" reasons that the NRA and the gun nuts trot out.
Contrary to the claims of Southern revisionists, the 2nd amendment was not ratified so that disgruntled states could secede from the union and use their state militia to make war on the rest of the union's states.
What "law" in the Constitution requires a citizen to get legal permission to carry (have) a weapon, Loner.
I don't remember ever reading that portion of the Constitution.What Article or Amendment is it in?
This group we now call our "friends in congress" are making efforts to ignore the Constitution they took an oath to protect. True Americans, aren't they?
They're in a process to give citizenship to illegal aliens who sneak into our country. Logical, isn't it: Just sneak into that country and they'll give you all the free benefits you "earned" including citizenship so you can vote for them.
And gun control over honest citizens? Gimme a break. The known criminals would then be our government.
I feel compelled to add this....although the 2nd amendment was not ratified so that disgruntled states could secede from the union and use their state militia to make war on the states that remained in the union, it actually turned out that way.
The state militia, as authorized and enabled by the 2nd amendment, were the instruments of destruction in the war between the states that quickly followed the Great Secession.
The Second Amendment was a time bomb implanted into the US Constitution...the bomb went off on April 12, 1861....tomorrow will be the anniversary date of the firing on Fort Sumter.....in my view, the defective amendment should have been abolished in 1861...now, it's a congenital flaw that is here to stay.
The reasons for the Constitution and it's amendments were put in place at their time in history, Loner. Things have changed in the last 200 years and many of the reasons become more justified today than yesteryear.
Can you justify abolishing the 2nd amendment at the request on a man in our Oval Office who refuses to prove he is an American citizen?
What did the dictators of the past and present do first to gain control? They took the guns away from the citizens.
I hope the USA citizens learned a lot from history.
Loner... your one-trick-pony myopia is showing.
"I see racist people"
The great thing about the internet today is that you can find whatever you might want to peel that onion down to just the level that happens to prove your world-view.
s/h/b "the request 'of' a man...
I'm afraid Loner is the biggest racist on this site. The only reason he has come up with regarding Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama is racial. Simply because he is black.
May I remind you, Loner, he is as white as he is black. So which race are you referring to when you call me a racist... which is BS in your mentality?
Obsessed with the black family in the White House, poor Yogi could not resist schlepping BHO and the birther BS into the room....you don't need a medical license to see that Yogi is stark raving mad....poor devil.....hopefully, the authorities are keeping tabs on the old gunner....especially if BHO comes to town.
Dictators have always armed their followers....the idea that all dictators strip all of their people of their weapons is not only untrue, it is absurd.....another NRA canard that gullible gunners believe to be the Gospel truth.
That hurts my feelings, Ben...you want more Equine Circus? That's OK with me...we have more ponies in the stable....chomping at their bits....let the Horse-Show begin!
Trot out your own best pony, Ben....I'll stand by and watch the show....and applaud or boo...go for it.
I confess....Yogi is right, it wasn't the fact that John McCain is a bitter old man, in bed with the war super-lobby...a man who demonstrated his terrible judgment when he selected an air-headed bimbo from Alaska to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency...no, it wasn't that...it was McCain's whiteness...Palin's too...just too damn white....so, I voted for the black guy.
What's worse, Loner, a stark raving old man like me or a damn young fool (idiot) like you?
And by damn fool idiot I mean someone who is so willing to accept someone as the president of his nation when they don't even know if the man who refuses to prove he is a citizen of the nation.
So I then question: If you voted for that man, was it because he is 'black', or because you just didn't know who in the hell his was (and is) and didn't care because he is 'black'?
"One argument does puzzle me. If a thief knows someone has a permit, why would they target that house and invite being shot? Better to target a house where no one has a permit so you have an even chance no one has a gun."
Maybe I can help with this....If your intent is to buy a new car, why would you go car shopping at Walmart? If you're going to try to steal a firearm, why break into a home that MIGHT have weapons, as opposed to a home that has at least one weapon, possibly more?
Not all CCP holders carry their firearms every time they go out.
Not all CCP holders stay at home 24/7.
Many CCP holders have multiple firearms.
By: BenDover on 4/11/13 at 8:42
That was posted by a man who has peeled many an onion over the years...Ben, my old friend, has openly wept...but those are not tears of joy or sorrow....they are onion-related....in the onion-peeling business, tears are an occupational reality.
Boo Hoo...I too, have cried a few....but, hey, it's part of the trade.
I have to agree on your 9:02 post, Loner, because his black skin is the only thing you know about that man.
If he was born in Hawaii, why did he advertise he was born in Kenya for 16 years?
If he was born in Hawaii with a British subject his father, how could he be a natural born citizen with dual-citizenship?
But if he was born in Kenya as he advertised for 16 years, he was a British subject at birth. So I'm still trying to find out how he became a natural born citizen after being an Indonesian citizen when his mother sent him to Hawaii to be raised by his grandparents.
You seem to think you know everything else, Loner, so I presume you have the answers? I'd sure like to know so I can put my gun in my locker.
Colt 45, you seem to have lots of facts...can you tell us, what percentage of home burglaries are motivated by the desire to steal firearms? A reliable source backing up your response would be helpful, thanks.
Wear goggles when peeling you onions, Loner. You won't cry and can pretend you think you're superior to the onion you're peeling better.
I honestly have no idea of the percentage of home burglaries that include gun theft. Those damn thieves are so unpredictable!
One might think that a home burglar would not target a home in which there is a gunner with a permit, as opposed to the unarmed home. The risk of a confrontation with an armed home-owner is probably more of a deterrent than an attractant to would-be burglars....right?
Should the list of permit holders be subject to Freedom Of Information rules? Should that information be kept confidential and disclosed on a need to know basis? It's not an easy call.
But this particular case in TN was definitely inspired by the Curry Todd affair....the state lawmakers are protecting their own behinds...many pack heat and many drink alcohol and most, if not all drive....they do not want to become the next Curry Todd...that's the real reason for the legislation.
This law is to protect those in charge of making all of these crazy laws that have happened since Haslam was elected.
Amen, brother Swindle...it's CYA time in TN. Tea-Baggers circling their wagons....the loonies are in Defense Mode....protecting their own...targeting the rest of us.
I think giving criminals more information is a bad idea no matter if you are telling them that an empty house likely contains guns or that an occupied house has none.
"One might think that a home burglar would not target a home in which there is a gunner with a permit, as opposed to the unarmed home."
Unless a thief is specifically looking for weapons (sorry, I don't have the data showing how often a thief decides to steal a firearm...although one can assume a weapon is somewhat mandatory of one is wanting to commit armed robbery, or selling the stolen weapon on the black market). Thieves posing as service people, door to door salespeople, or a myriad of other false identities case homes to determine if the homeowner is in or out.
It's got nothing to do with Todd, loner. How is the gun that he had access to more dangerous than the automobile he was driving?
If he was shooting up houses or something while driving around drunk then I think a case should be made against him; but the fact he carries a gun for protection in his vehicle is inconsequential to the situation except that it has been declared illegal.
Your point is well-taken, Ben...that's why a need to know restriction makes some sense. Once newspapers or website publish the information, the game is over...it's tough to keep secret that which has been disclosed in good faith, if there is a whistle-blower in the house. Once something is out there, it's out there.
Overall, IMO, knowing that a permitted gun owner resides at a certain address is a deterrent, not an invitation to a burglar...they usually prey on the weak, the defenseless and the careless....some prey on folks who are too trusting...or gullible....to a predator, preying on a potential predator is simply too risky.
Ben, from the main article:
"If that had been the law in 2011, the public would not have been able to confirm that state Rep. Curry Todd was a permit holder when he was arrest on drunken driving and gun charges. The Collierville Republican's permit wasn't suspended until he pleaded guilty earlier this year."
As I said, many of these politicians drive cars, drink alcohol and pack heat...like Curry Todd did...they don't want the bad publicity that Todd received, if and when they get popped....it's a CYA.
I suppose that any citizen who drives, drinks and packs heat would support the proposed legislation...in the Volunteer State, that's probably a sizable number of voters....the politicians are going with the flow?
I suppose there is a thief that only steals guns. Maybe.
Public display of your right to carry license is ludicrous, Loner. Should an authorization (called a license) be put on public display because you're living with a woman even if you aren't married to her?
Public display of all licenses is a ridiculous surmise. That's why we like our privacy so much.
Gun carry permit owners are PROUD they carry.
They want it announced.
Release the records.
This could be another example of wasted legislative energy. The proposed law may not pass constitutional muster...and the list may already have been leaked to some whistle-blowing zealots.....it's the Information Age, baby....if there is a demand for obtainable info, that demand will be filled.
Than have to do something, Loner.
re: yogi @ 9:22am....go fu!ck yourself.
Obama 'advertised" he was born in Kenya?
His mother "shipped him off to Hawai'i"?
Your mother should of aborted you in the 1st trimester.
Certainly by the 2nd or 3rd when it was discovered your brains were firmly in your anus. Permanently.
Let's point out some false analogies being thrown around here: Marriage licenses do not affect the general safety of the public...drivers licenses and gun permits can and do affect the safety and security of the general public, because those things can maim and/or kill. Cars are not designed to kill....guns are designed to kill....big difference....both need regulation, in my view.
Darge enters the forum and delivers a sugar-coated response to Yogi's allegations...that's our Darge...our West Coast correspondent....love the Darge.
Thieves steal more than guns, dumba$$. They like your money, your automobile, anything you have they can get their hands on. I've even heard of them stealing people's shoes.
Thievery has been known in all forms of businesses. Will it ever stop? I doubt it because there are too many unwilling to earn a living with their mentality.
Yeah, Captain, it's grandstanding...theater...while pressing issues are not being addressed...give 'em rope, the Tea-Baggers are revealing their gross incompetence...the Democrats need to strike back....this is ridiculous....let the saner and cooler heads take control...the extremists now in power need to be challenged.
Good idea d7 but he would have to remove his head first.
That is true yogi. Someone had to steal your brains, cause you don't have any now.
d7 - Great comment about the ever ignorant troll! I don't care who knows I carry, maybe that will cause them to let me alone.
How about some facts?
Cash, jewelry, guns, drugs and electronic gadgets are the most common items taken in a home burglary.....source:
Burglars will take a gun, if they come across one while rifling your belongings; but that is probably not the reason for the break-in...it's an additional windfall for the burglar seeking cash, jewelry, drugs and gadgets.
BS, dargent7. I carry but I don't want to advertise it and it's none of your business to know whether I am or aren't.
Frankly, I'm too damned old and decrepit to fight like I could as a young man, and I don't want to be told I have to stand there and let some young punk/s bet the hell out of me because they enjoy having fun doing it.
I will stop them one way or another and my gun is one way.
Should I just tell them to give me a break and go over and beat the hell out of you?
I say, better to keep 'em guessin' loner. Places like Chicago and DC where personal gun ownership hangs by a thread among all of the restrictions leave the criminals to their trade largely with impunity.
Places like Tennessee and Texas where there's a 50% or better chance of meeting up with an armed home-owner fair far better in the categories of violent crime because the criminal isn't certain he will have the upper hand.