Despite a strong Republican majority in the house that makes it unlikely any of the radical anti-gun bills proposed this year will ever see the light of day, the force of that majority wasn’t enough to get one bill out of committee that would have actually helped gun owners.
A proposal aiming to allow concealed carry permit holders to bring firearms into businesses even with signage stating otherwise was narrowly defeated by the Tennessee Senate Judiciary Committee, as reported by the Nashville Tennessean.
Senate Bill 2180, championed by Sen. Joey Hensley, R-Hohenwald, sought to exempt concealed carry or enhanced-handgun carry permit holders from Tennessee’s current criminal code, which prohibits “possessing a firearm in a concealed manner” if the property owner has posted signage banning weapons on the premises.
Opposition to the bill came from the Tennessee Department of Safety and Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, contending that the legislation would effectively allow any individual with a valid handgun permit to carry a gun into state buildings, including sensitive locations like jails, prisons or Department of Children’s Services facilities.
Under the proposed bill, business and property owners would retain the right to request that person discovered to be carrying remove the firearm from their premises, with law enforcement authorized to enforce a trespassing charge if the individual did not comply. Hensley argued that businesses could still opt to hire security or use metal detectors to prohibit firearms, but individuals would no longer face charges for bringing guns into establishments under the current signage law.
Elizabeth Stroeker, the Department of Safety’s legislative affairs director, expressed concerns about the clarity of existing posting requirements in the state, emphasizing that the proposed legislation could potentially place state employees or business owners in challenging situations. She remarked, “We do not want to put people in a position to see someone with a firearm and approach that person and ask them to leave, or wait for law enforcement to get there to handle the situation.”
Proponents of the bill contended that it would afford broader protection to gun rights. Sen. Brent Taylor, R-Memphis, suggested that businesses assuming liability by prohibiting guns could face legal challenges, likening the prohibition of guns to the prohibition of inhalers and suggesting that businesses could be held liable if a customer experienced an asthma attack without access to an inhaler or fell victim to a violent crime without a firearm. Sen. Kerry Roberts, R-Springfield, questioned whether it was safer for individuals to leave their guns in cars, vulnerable to theft, or to carry them.
Earlier in the month, the Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce voiced opposition to the legislation, warning it could infringe on property rights. They contended that while sponsors portrayed the bill as expanding gun owner rights, it would actually permit licensed gun owners to carry firearms into establishments and hinder businesses from safely restricting the proliferation of guns on their properties.
Opposition to the bill came from the Tennessee Department of Safety and Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, contending that the legislation would effectively allow any individual with a valid handgun permit to carry a gun into state buildings, including sensitive locations like jails, prisons…
Yeah because courthouses and prisons NEVER use metal detectors, right? The TN DOS and TBI are lying.
Notice how they didn’t ask to exempt sensitive locations like prisons. They’re making up excuses to oppose the bill. Walking into something like a state park office should be just like walking into a Walmart.
Very simple..If the state or business provides adequate armed security then OK. If the state or business cannot provide adequate armed security then No Way Jose. Besides there is the stench of discrimination against those who are simply exercising a Constitutional Right to Survive…With defenseless citizens across America being slaughtered by garbage who should have remained in jail for prior violence convictions any armed security protected ratbassturd who blocks citizen armed self defense can go pound sand.
“If the state or business provides adequate armed security then OK.”
Exactly. So the prison excuse is just that. It’s an excuse that has nothing to do with reality. It’s propaganda used to manipulate the sheep.
I think that any private property owner should have the right to deny guns on their property. I feel that individual property rights are just as important as second amendment rights and frankly they go hand in hand. I think it is stupid as a property owner to limit that right on private property but as a property owner you should have the ultimate decision on that much as a citizen should have the ultimate decision whether or not they should own a firearm. As an armed citizen I make a lot of effort to avoid doing businesses that have arbitrary restrictions on firearms possession
There should be specific carveouts and restrictions for for some more sensitive Government properties and notes that I say Government properties not public space.
My main local Post Office has metal detectors (unmanned) to enter the store part, but not for the PO box area. I have a PO box, so I’m used to carrying when I enter that area. I had to use the store part the other day, and completely forgot to disarm first. (I leave my gun in my vehicle when I have to go to the store section.) Nothing happened. Maybe the detectors are only for show. Maybe they were alerted to me, but they thought I was cool. What charges would I be facing if I got caught doing that?
If I went in there with the intent to shoot people, how would a sign stop me?
It wouldn’t. Criminals pay no mind. I know enough to not go inside a post office unarmed but when we get ice cream(at night)I keep the car locked & running when my son runs in. I’m actually on a post office lot. I disarm at a po-leece, court or fire station. I do understand the “feeling” but completely disagree🙄
Guns are prohibited anywhere on postal property including the parking lot. I do not know the specifics but if you are caught you are going to do federal time and pay a large fine.
If I want to check my PO box, I first have to go home to unload any firearms, then go back out to the post office. When I first began carrying, I had a meeting at a place that had a large sign of no firearms allowed on the premises. I knew they had a guard shack. I didn’t have time to go home. I drove down the road, and temporarily ditched my gun in the weeds.
Yet, if I really wanted to shoot someone at that property, the signs wouldn’t stop me from taking out the guard. Then the people I was meeting would be sitting ducks, since they would presumably be unarmed.
In other words, these policies, which seem like “common sense” to the typical low information voter, do absolutely nothing to keep us safer. Meanwhile, these same people vote for DAs, mayors, and judges who promote criminal justice and bail “reform” policies that provably increase violent crime.
the large fine are to keep you on parole.
“as a property owner you should have the ultimate decision”
If it’s a business open to the public, should the owner also have the right to kick people out based on their looks or beliefs?
We used to have that right in this country
but the right to associate or not associate was gutted by those pinkos in the 60s
And yes I know it means a place could refuse service based on race
guess what i dont care it should be the owners right and guess what for every place that would do that 10 more would serve them so its literally who cares
Fair enough. They aren’t open to the public. Everything is a private club with their own rules. That wouldn’t apply to government buildings, or any private business receiving government funds, etc.
I’ve lived in small, rural towns. If the local store owner banned you because of your race or religion you were screwed.
If it is a public business then all the public should have access. Including law abiding armed folks.
Values – screw your ” OK for me but not for thee ” carveouts. I recently asked a senator’s personal protection officers about their RoE at the Mn. capital and was told first and foremost it was to remove their charge from the situation, not to engage or provide covering fire to protect ANYONE else.
In your private property, house or farm, etc,. you should have that right. But a business open to the public? No, Violating human and civil rights at the Piggly Wiggly should not be an option.
And now a daze it would get you kilt.
BS if you open your property to the public you do not get to attempt to restrict the CONSTIUTIONAL rights of others.
The Next Way They Will Try to Disarm You.
I live in SC which just passed “Constitutional Carry”. That’s another manipulation of the language like “woke” which actually means asleep. Pretty sure guns were carried in schools, govt buildings and pretty much everywhere when the Constitution was written. Just another fake crumb to feel as if we win something. Yay.
WARING!!! For SAFETY and CRIME REDUCTION purposes, this place of business has the following rules:
GUN FREE ZONE
BLACK FREE ZONE
MUSLIM FREE ZONE
TRANNY FREE ZONE
Thank you for your cooperation and your business.
Almost NOBODY is talking about this bill with any evidence that they actually understand it. Even comments here on this post.
This is about one thing ONLY: The Government should NEVER be used to criminalize and then enforce behavior that is the policy preference of a private individual. Read that again if you have to.
The whole provision in the law that CRIMINALIZES the carry of a firearm contrary to a private property owner’s POLICY preference should be removed from the code. This is exactly what the TRESPASS laws are for. If someone is on your property who is not respecting your policy preferences, then you simply ask them to leave. Law-abiding citizens will leave (and in fact they may never come back.) Any criminal would not care whether you ask or not, they’re there to do other bad things already.
This is one of the many “but guns” errors. Try to imagine it being a CRIME to ignore a “no outside popcorn” as you enter a movie theater! It would be ABSURD. Some would probably end up calling it RACIST. ::rolls eyes::
It is equally absurd to CRIMINALIZE the violation of a private property owner’s policy preference for carrying a gun. Read the “justifications” for those opposed. They are all the same drivel spewed out against every other pro-gun rights bill. It’s all hogwash.
“We do not want to put people in a position to see someone with a firearm and approach that person and ask them to leave, or wait for law enforcement to get there to handle the situation.”
She’s laying it on the employees, but I don’t think the police want to enforce trespass laws. I bet there’s some money coming from law enforcement and the Chamber of Commerce to some of those committee members.
“I don’t think the police want to enforce trespass laws…”
That’s their JOB. AND that is EXACTLY how it works in many other states, including my state of Virginia. No problems. Ever. The police don’t HAVE to enforce trespass laws, because, as I said, law-abiding citizens will gladly leave.
The LIE that there will be confrontations with “scary gun carriers” is just hogwash.
Sounds like the democrats have succeeded in getting democrats elected as republicans and got them on committees. It’s a good strategy if you can’t get a majority on the floor. If a bill doesn’t get out of committee, it it will never go to the floor for a vote.
I was planning to move there but I’ve checked them off of my list.
In a committee of nine, there are only two (open) Democrats. Furthermore, the Chair, Vice-Chair, and 2nd Vice-Chair are all Republicans.
https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/CommitteeInfo/SenateComm.aspx?ga=113&committeekey=670000
“I was planning to move there but I’ve checked them off of my list.”
Why? If you think TN is the only red state where stuff like this happens, then you’re about to be shocked. These people should be named and shamed, but they won’t because of the good ol’ boy system of the RNC. People get too comfortable in deeply red states.
There are many other changes taking place in TN. Mostly, New Yorkers and other northeasterners relocating to the state. Nashville and Memphis will all too soon decide elections. Bottom line, the color line is sliding to blue. Same with Texas (also written off).
TN was ranked tenth, percentage wise, for Trump votes in 2020. The number two state has a Democrat US Senator. The number seven state has a Democrat Governor. Even the top states have plenty of work to do.
If you’re a patriot considering a move, then in my opinion, you should consider going where you’re needed the most, not where others have already done the heavy lifting. That would be a purpleish state that merely needs a nudge to become solidly red. AZ, NC, and GA would be leading candidates. FL and TX could still use more good people. After that, I would say VA, PA, WI, and MI. Please consider it, and spread the word. The goal isn’t just to flip a state. The goal is to lock a red state down, one by one. That’s how we take the country.
RNC? RNC has nothing to do with State politics.
TN GOP. They’re very dirty, as I assume all groups in power are. They changed the rules to keep certain people out of a primary. This is an example of the people in power giving us a “choice” between two people that they chose for us.
The Tennessee Republican Party on Tuesday voted to remove three congressional hopefuls from the primary ballot in the new-look 5th Congressional District
https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2022/04/19/tennessee-gop-kicks-trump-backed-candidate-two-others-out-5th-house-race/7376398001/
So now they need a law stating that the business restricting firearms would be held accountable by lawsuit if a person is injured or killed because they were not allowed to carry their own protection device and that business did not provide for their safety..
If the Chamber of Communism is against it, it must be worthwhile.
IT is a shame that the Tenn Legislature voted this down. It is a step backward in gun rights.