Under the proposed bills, a handgun carry permit holder still cannot drink alcohol when carrying. But HB0898 would allow police to carry their weapon while in places that serve alcohol. Via WizardPC who emails:

I was watching for the veto, and was surprised to learn about HB898, which removes the prohibition on off duty law enforcement carrying firearms in establishments that serve alcohol.

I’m sure that Gov Bredesen and Chief Serpas are vehemently opposed to this legislation, since guns and alcohol never mix.

Also, Rep Kelsey can be heard saying to the sponsor, “You and your special classes of people…”

Like you and me, only better.

Claims .50 calibers are unusual and dangerous. And assault weapons” have “such a high rate of fire and capacity for firepower that it’s function as a legitimate sports or recreational firearm is substantially outweighed by the danger that it can be used to kill and injure human beings. Of course, all weapons are dangerous but neither of these are unusual. They also mention Second Amendment right does not protect possession of a military M-16 rifle. I find that odd, in light of Miller’s differentiation about a weapon being a part of the ordinary military equipment. And, of course, the transfer of new M-16s is illegal. But possession of weapons that look like assault weapons is pretty far from unusual.

More here.

ETA: d’oh. A state court.

Via Redneckin, comes word of a man whose vintage airplane was confiscated for failing to fill out ATF forms.

The Rep. says Veto gets smacked down in the morning. Well, we’ll see.

Interesting:

Georgia has more places off limits to bearing arms than California

But in Cali, only the rich and well-connected can go armed. Continuing:

Prior to July of 2008, the members of GeorgiaCarry.Org, Inc. contended that Georgia had more places off limits to the bearing of arms than any state in the nation. Now, in 2009, Georgia still has more places off limits than California. Most people assume California is highly restrictive of the right to bear arms and that Georgia is a “gun friendly state.” Are these twin assumptions justified?

Terry Frank: Serpas is the chief who cites as his proof of “danger” old western movies.

* link.

Live webcast from NSSF’s Shooting Sports Summit is here.

A pharmacist in OK is accused of murder. In lieu of payment to his lawyer, he gave his lawyer his guns. It’s a fairly common practice for folks with large collections of weapons who maybe going to trial to place weapons in their lawyer’s custody to avoid confiscation of them. The lawyer can, then, lawfully sell them or retain them until the trial is over, unless the weapons were involved in the crime, of course. So, this doesn’t seem that unusual.

But the judge asked, as part of the bail, that the defendant relinquish all weapons. When asked where they were, he said he gave them to his lawyer. The judge wanted a list and the lawyer said no because that information could be used against his client. And, I’m sure, the prosecutor would happily point out to a jury how many weapons this gun nut owned, as though that were a bad thing. The judge was not amused and threatened to put the guy back in jail for not answering. Judge was reminded of that whole fifth amendment and finally said uncle. But says, in the future, she will not allow lawyers to accept weapons as payment. Really? Seems to me the contract between two people isn’t her concern.

More here.

Dave Hoffman implies the alleged crime gun was among them. I’m pretty sure that gun is in police custody somewhere.

Via reader JKB, who posits:

My wonder is, if you can’t let your attorney take possession of your weapons and if you turn them over to the local police they are likely to not be returned regardless of the outcome of the proceedings, what is permitted and how do you prevent the court ordered surrender from prejudicing your defense?

I did not know that: Tennessee has the 2nd highest violent crime rate in the nation

Clearly, it’s due to those guns in bars. Oh, wait.

Did you know that back in 2006, Governor Bredesen said in a survey that he would sign the bill to allow those with carry permits to carry in places that serve alcohol provided they were not drinking? Broken promises.

Via David, who notes what I’ve said all along:

There is a lot of confusion over what the bill would do, and much of that is intentional. Opponents want to portray it as an invitation for drunken maniacs to open fire in saloons. Proponents point out that many family restaurants serve beer and wine, and those dining there should not have their defenselessness dictated to them by a state that has neither the capability nor the legal obligation to protect them.

The Commercial Squeal is squealing that you should call your reps and tell them not to override.

A current events quiz, of which I am one of the 6% to score 100%.

A good letter to the editor refuting gun controllers.

Mr. C. has a report with pics.

Nifty. Not sure exactly what it is though.

Short skirt, long rifle.

Cannons!

Kel-Tec SU22 with suppressor.

Confederate Yankee:

Denying terrorists the means by which to carry out their attacks is something we can all get behind on both sides, but I can’t find anything in King’s bill to suggest that Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad or Scott Roeder would have been effectively denied access to firearms even if King’s proposed bill was already established law.

The Tennessee Firearm’s Association’s head, John Harris, is not a registered lobbyist. Oh teh noes. He says it’s because he doesn’t lobby:

Harris said he is exempt from registering as a lobbyist because his primary responsibility is writing a newsletter for the association’s membership, and because he doesn’t initiate conversations with lawmakers.

“I can go over and listen all I want to, and that doesn’t make me a lobbyist,” he said. “I’m advocating to my members.”

“I try to limit my activities over there to monitoring what they are doing, and writing reports,” he said. “And showing up when I have a legislator call me and say we’d like you to be in the audience for purposes of testifying.”

Speculation was that the cops there had been duped into attending. Bredesen spokesperson Lydia Lenker says that was not the case. But:

Todd added, however, that he did understand “some of them attending over there didn’t know what the meeting was about.”

Campfield says the quote above indicates he was correct.

Edward Rubin, dean of the Vanderbilt University Law School, says:

we hardly ever read of armed private citizens intervening effectively. How effective is an armed citizen likely to be if that person is in a bar and — quite legally and legitimately — under the influence of alcohol? How reliable will the person’s judgment be in that situation? How likely is it that this citizen will be steady enough to engage in a gun battle without further endangering innocent bystanders?

First, you’re not being truthful. The bill does not allow someone under the influence of alcohol to carry a weapon. It would remain illegal. Next, instances are posted daily here about armed citizens acting in self-defense. Other places track it as well. Not to mention that defensive gun uses are estimated at between 700K and 2.5M per year. And the Florida State University department of Criminology released a study indicating that people who employed self protection strategies reduced their likelihood of injury when compared to nonresistance.

The reason you don’t hear about them is because most instances do no result in the death of anyone.

Clenched fist salute: ACK.

From Stuff

Snagged from Yahoo. Links to Snickers’ facebook page.

Nutjob kills a doctor who performs abortions. Another nutjob kills a military recruiter. In the press, speculation followed by inundation of the first nutjob’s ties to extremist groups. No speculation about that latter’s potential ties to extremist groups. Note that as of now, the latter may not be tied to such a group but the lack of speculation about it in the press is indicative of, well, you’ll figure it out.

Similarly.

Should lawmakers overturn Gov. Phil Bredesen’s veto of guns in bars?

Jeff Woods hikes up his skirt and asserts that, based on about four instances out of 340K, that authorities who may be looking for dangerous criminals only need to look at the handgun carry permit records.

David Hardy: 7th Cir goes other way in Chicago case

That’s the incorporation case. Stay tuned.

Update: Opinion

More: Affirmed. Says second amendment does not apply to states. Cites odd militia language.

My conclusion: Seems they just didn’t care for Nordyke and ignored it. And put the ball back in the hands of the supreme court.

Update: More from Volokh.

So reports Bill Brassard.

Attorneys with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence today are asking the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, PA to throw out the lawsuit by the National Rifle Association against the City of Pittsburgh or they’ll hold their breath until they turn blue.

Bredesen is none too happy that the Tennessee Firearms Association wants names of the law enforcement officers standing behind him during his veto ceremony. I’m still figuring they were ordered to be there for the political posturing. But Bredesen gets his righteous indignation on at the premise that citizens demand accountability from public officials:

To single out these law enforcement officers: let’s ask their names; let’s ask their addresses just smacks of intimidation. It’s not American; I don’t think it is Tennessean, I think they should stop it.

Let me explain it to you, Sparky. These officers, like you, work for me. I pay your salary. And theirs. You and those officers are my employees and, frankly, I have some requirements for my employees . I expect them to respect my rights. And I expect those of my employees who are elected to vote the way I want them to. Or I will take appropriate action (like not voting for those elected officials, writing letters, supporting opponents, legal action, etc.). When a citizen demands accountability from public officials and employees, it’s not intimidation. It’s being a good citizen. And it’s very American and very Tennessean. That you don’t understand that difference shows how little you understand what it is to be American or Tennessean.

But, still, I think it’s a safe bet that the officers were ordered to be there. I understand that happens a lot.

Update and bump: Campfield:

It is now coming out that several of those police chefs may not have been as excited about the governors over ride on the gun bill as he would like people to believe.

We are now finding out they were all in town for some convention or other and were asked to come over and meet the governor during a break. Of course most of them went. When they got there they were all piled in together and finally told what it was about just shortly before the signing of his veto with them as the backdrop.

They did not come to the event knowing they were about to be used.

Mythbusters investigates whether a bad grip on a big bore revolver can cause the loss of digits. Video here.

Caught that on the DVR last night. The youtube is fast.

Tennessee is one of ten states that prohibits those with handgun carry permits from carrying where alcohol is served, and that includes all of Tennessee’s neighbor states except NC. None have experienced the problems that whiners like Nashville Police Chief Serpas tells us will happen:

How many of you have been to a softball game and you’ve seen people mad as heck because of a call? When emotions are out of control or alcohol or drugs are at play, how do you think people are going to make rational decisions?

Can you have drugs and alcohol at a local softball game? Aren’t those illegal? And drinking while strapped would still be illegal.

But, good news, the override is underway.

Bitter asks what we Tennessee gunnies are to do since it’s an off election year.

NRA Blog: A Virginia community recently held its first Women on Target® Instructional Shooting Clinic

And there’s the NRA’s Women’s Wilderness Escape.

Dave Kopel: Sotomayor vs. the Second Amendment, Part II:

Yet Judges Sotomayor, Pooler, and Katzman simply presumed–with no legal reasoning–that the right to arms is not a fundamental right.