Ammo For Sale

« « A thriller or congress, of course | Home | Post Heller Chicago Suit » »

Handgun Carry Permit Registration Update

As a follow up to this post about the TN Department of Safety registering the firearms of those that attend a qualified handgun carry permit training course, comes an update:

I spoke with Lisa Knight, assistant director of Handgun Carry Permits at the TN Department of Safety. She stated that her office is in the process of issuing retraction letters regarding the requirement of serial numbers from carry permit instructors in the rosters that are required from each school. TDOS is aware that the requirement of serial numbers could be construed as an attempt to create a handgun registry which, while not the department’s intent, is nonetheless unacceptable under the law. So they are communicating their intentions not to require serial numbers.

School rosters are allowable under the TDOS’ Rules and Regulations (1340-2-3-.03G) and require the student’s name, and the make and model of the weapon with which they trained (which often is the school’s weapon, as many schools will not allow a first-time student to train with their own weapon). The caliber is not required information. Make and model of a student’s training weapon is information that has always been required on certificates, so it is not newly required information.

The roster, which was created in response to a Department audit finding, is used to verify certificates that are turned in after the class. TDOS’ Handgun Carry Permit office checks certificates against school rosters as a part of identifying false certificates.

18 Responses to “Handgun Carry Permit Registration Update”

  1. Number9 Says:

    Say Uncle, making America better.

    She stated that her office is in the process of issuing retraction letters regarding the requirement of serial numbers from carry permit instructors in the rosters that are required from each school.

  2. Anon Says:

    Does TN restrict permit holders to whatever specific make and model firearm listed on their training certificate?

  3. SayUncle Says:

    no

  4. Rustmeister Says:

    Boy, I hope not, I traded that Bersa years ago. =)

  5. Tam Says:

    Anon,

    They used to, before reform. I thing the training completion certificates are vestiges of the old system.

    Y’all need to get rid of the training requirement in TN. We didn’t have it in Georgia and don’t in Indiana, and you don’t hear of anybody getting OK-coralled by untrained by permit holders in either of those states, do you?

    Bonus: In Indy, you can carry in a frickin’ bar if you want to.

  6. Randy Says:

    Thanks for clearing that up. I just got the NRA letter telling me about this at lunch today. I was going to call them this afternoon.

  7. Rustmeister Says:

    As I wrote my (state) Senator and Rep, I was thinking – they’re all off for Christmas now, aren’t they?

    Good to see it wasn’t an issue.

  8. Lyle Says:

    “…an attempt to create a handgun registry which, while not the department’s intent…”

    If that wasn’t their intent, what other possible intent could they have had?

    “The roster [of makes and models] which was created in response to a Department audit finding, is used to verify certificates that are turned in after the class.” What possible use is there for a list of makes and models if they don’t require you to train on the same gun you’ll be carrying? I say this is nothing more than a left-over from attempts to create a firearm registry, and as such it should be eliminated post haste.

    A certificate of completion is all that’s required in Idaho, and it says nothing about any particular gun. All that’s required to verify your certificate is to cross-check with the instructor’s records.

    “The caliber is not required information.” Most model numbers these days are caliber-specific anyway (XD-40, Glock 21, etc.) especially for autos, which are far more popular for carry, so that’s mostly a line of crap. Just sayin’.

  9. Tam Says:

    Never assume malice where stupidity will suffice.

    I guarantee you that they were looking at this from the standpoint of a regulatory agency, concerned with minimizing liability should they certify someone who actually “qualified” with an M1 Pencil.

  10. Tam Says:

    (The solution, of course, is to do away with the useless, ceremonial, ghey, unconstitutional “qualification” course.)

  11. Tam Says:

    PPS:

    A certificate of completion is all that’s required in Idaho

    I thought y’all had good gun laws out there in the hairy-chested West. WTF is a “certificate of completion“? 😉

  12. Lyle Says:

    WTF is a “certificate of completion“?
    It’s pretty loose. Anything demonstrating that you’ve had the minimum required time of instruction in the safe handling and use of a handgun (I think it’s two hours but don’t quote me on that– it’s been years since I did mine. besides, I got far more instruction than was required).

    I wouldn’t say we have “good” gun laws (the second amendment is about the only good gun law). It’s just that our laws carry fewer constitutional infringements than those of most other states. In WA state, you’re supposed to have a permit before you carry concealed, but there’s no instruction requirement. Idaho recognises WA’s carry permit, too. The two states have a “reciprocal agreement”, but even so I kept permits from both states for a while. Very few cops actually knew WTF was going on in that regard. I think they’re slightly better now.

  13. Lyle Says:

    For that matter; don’t quote me on anything (except this sentence).

  14. Joat Says:

    Here in Minnesota we have to take a training course 3 to 8 hours depending on the trainer and shoot a live fire qualification. But we can carry in bars, we can even drink as long as we don’t go over a .04% blood alcohol level.

  15. Linoge Says:

    Well, I shot off an email to the DoS this morning after first hearing about it – something tells me I was not alone. Good to see that the situation was cleared up and taken care of, though I really do have to wonder if this was a “throw it against the wall and see if it sticks” maneuver.

  16. Tam Says:

    For that matter; don’t quote me on anything (except this sentence).

    Are you sure about that? 😉

  17. _Jon Says:

    Sorry Tam, but after working with State employees for a bit now, I can say that it was intentional. No one creates a form and sends it outside the office without a) a committee, b) at least one level of supervision of that person reviewing the form.
    In this case, if it was the result of an audit, then the auditors or auditor’s liaison had to sign off on it too.

    So at least 4 people saw those fields and said “ok”. They weren’t stupid. And – as I mull it over – the form probably had an official form number (in the bottom of the form, most official forms – public or internal – have a form number and effective date. That form number has to be registered with the state. So someone in that office looked at the form and went ‘no issues here’.

    So at least 5 people saw those fields and said “ok”.

    They may have been ignorant that they weren’t allowed to gather that information, but they were probably driven by an agenda as well. In the back of their mind, everyone knows that registration leads to confiscation. And that’s what libs want.

  18. Number9 Says:

    They just wanted to see if we care.

    Now they know.

    Spreading the love, Say Uncle at work. Making America better, one post at a time.