Haslam would not oppose abolishing gun carry permits (crime, felons)

[ShelbyCop]

I'm wondering what everyone else thinks about this. The normal, law-abiding citizens are not the ones that can't get gun permits. The only people that would benefit from this are the thugs.

I was going to vote for him, but I don't think I am anymore.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2010/oct/19/haslam-says-he-would-sign-bill-allow-carrying-guns/

[EVAunit1981]

Thugs who want to carry are going to carry whether or not they have a permit.

If passed, this law would benefit poor people the most. Currently TN charges $115 for a concealed carry permit in addition to a handgun carry class which is about $75. Such a law would allow poor people to legally defend themselves without paying out an unnecessary $190.

[2mares]

Im not sure how I feel about it. Im assuming one would still be required to have a background check and a licensed gun, so that should weed out the "thugs". I tend to agree that the carry permit is basically just a way to generate revenue. I have handguns but no desire to carry them about my normal business. Those I know that have gotten thier permit dont even carry their guns. My sis for one didnt renew her permit because it seemed just a waste of money. She can still keep it in her home and carry it on her property.

[DonCorleone]

Seems like political pandering to me...a way for him to appeal to the gun-toting crowd. I, for one, am not in favor of allowing carry permits at all...but can live with the law as it is because it requires people to be at least basically educated on how to use a firearm and the law. The cost is fairly high, I admit...and perhaps that can be changed. But I still don't trust anyone other than an officer with a sidearm strapped to their belt even with the licensing requirements. It makes me uncomfortable. And if the licensing requirement is repealed, you can be certain that I'll feel even less comfortable knowing that it is even easier now to pack heat in public.

[jabogitlu]

I don't think this is a good idea at all. If the costs are prohibitive, I'll support lowering them, perhaps to a flat $10 fee? Just enough to cover costs.

[DonCorleone]

Where does it end...what's to prevent convicted felons from carrying? Folks with documented mental illness who could harm others? That's part of the background screening process that people applying for a carry permit must go through, which seems entirely reasonable to me. And if you take that away...well...I fail to see how it makes us safer.

[2mares]

Originally Posted by DonCorleone

Where does it end...what's to prevent convicted felons from carrying? Folks with documented mental illness who could harm others? That's part of the background screening process that people applying for a carry permit must go through, which seems entirely reasonable to me. And if you take that away...well...I fail to see how it makes us safer.

Im all for the screening process and qualifying test. And I would be all for keeping the carry permits if the price was not unreasonable. The problem is, as someone else stated, that mentally unstable and felons can aquire and carry regardless so the law wont really affect those people anyway.

[DonCorleone]

Certainly felons and the mentally ill can get firearms and carry them. But if the law is changed so that there is no legal barrier preventing them from getting it, it seems to me that there will be an increase in crime. Obviously I have no stats to back this up, but it seems logical to me.

To put it another way, someone without a drivers' license wanting to drive can drive whether or not they have a license. But if the state stopped issuing drivers' licenses and allowed anyone to drive, wouldn't there be more accidents, injuries, and fatalities? Taking away screening and enforcement seems like a very poor idea to me. Likewise someone's rights should not be denied if they are law-abiding citizens.

[2mares]

Originally Posted by DonCorleone

Certainly felons and the mentally ill can get firearms and carry them. But if the law is changed so that there is no legal barrier preventing them from getting it, it seems to me that there will be an increase in crime. Obviously I have no stats to back this up, but it seems logical to me.

To put it another way, someone without a drivers' license wanting to drive can drive whether or not they have a license. But if the state stopped issuing drivers' licenses and allowed anyone to drive, wouldn't there be more accidents, injuries, and fatalities? Taking away screening and enforcement seems like a very poor idea to me. Likewise someone's rights should not be denied if they are law-abiding citizens.

Given that analogy, I see your point. I do like the idea that one must demonstrate safety and knowledge of handguns to get a permit.

Curious as to what the handgun related crime stats are for the states that dont require a permit compared to the ones that do.

[EVAunit1981]

When you go to buy a gun you have a pass a background check. If it comes up that you're a felon or a mental case then you can't legally buy a gun.

My point is that the people who can't legally buy a gun but who really want to carry: those people are going to do so no matter what the law says. It seems to me that we should make it as easy as possible for the average person to protect themselves.

Amending state law to allow carry without permits seems to be the next wave in gun rights legislation. Alaska, Arizona, and Vermont already have such laws. Utah is considering it. I expect to see a lot more states adopt similar legislation in the next few years.