FYI -
As I said when I was elected to office, I would offer 100% transparency, so below you will find who I voted for in the November 4th General Election (I took advantage of early voting earlier today).
-Governor: Dr. Shaun Crowell (Conservative Party)
-U.S. Senate: Joshua James (Independent/Libertarian)
-U.S. House 4th District: Robert Rankin Doggart (Independent)
-State Representative: Ron Travis (Republican)
-State Senator: Paul Bailey (Republican)
-State Constitution Amendment 1: Yes
-State Constitution Amendment 2: Yes
-State Constitution Amendment 3: Yes
-State Constitution Amendment 4: Yes
-ADY
"A Regular Guy On The Issues"
Showing posts with label Tennessee. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tennessee. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
Thursday, August 7, 2014
Go Rock The Vote Tennessee! (and who I voted for.)
Today is local general election and state and federal primary election day in Tennessee. Again, I want to thank everyone who put their trust in me, allowing me to win my primary. I am still very, very humbled. Because I don't have a general election opponent, I will need just one vote to officially win my race today.
Some of you may recall that I promised transparency, and because of that, you will find who I voted for in today's elections (I utilized early voting) below.
-District 3A County Commissioner: Aaron Yeargan (R)
-District 3B County Commissioner: Ronald Hudson (R)
-County Mayor: Gregg Ridley (R)
-County Road Supervisor: Marvin Smith (R)
-District Judge: Justin Angel (R)
-Sheriff: Doug Roberson (D)
***State/Federal Republican Primary***
-State Representative: Ron Travis
-State Senator: Matt Swallows
-Governor: Bill Haslam
-U.S. Congressman District 4: Dr. Scott DesJarlais
-U.S. Senator: Joe Carr
Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments, and remember, GO VOTE! #LiveFree
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
Some of you may recall that I promised transparency, and because of that, you will find who I voted for in today's elections (I utilized early voting) below.
-District 3A County Commissioner: Aaron Yeargan (R)
-District 3B County Commissioner: Ronald Hudson (R)
-County Mayor: Gregg Ridley (R)
-County Road Supervisor: Marvin Smith (R)
-District Judge: Justin Angel (R)
-Sheriff: Doug Roberson (D)
***State/Federal Republican Primary***
-State Representative: Ron Travis
-State Senator: Matt Swallows
-Governor: Bill Haslam
-U.S. Congressman District 4: Dr. Scott DesJarlais
-U.S. Senator: Joe Carr
Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments, and remember, GO VOTE! #LiveFree
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
Thursday, May 8, 2014
The Results Are In - Thank You District 3!
From very bottom of my heart - THANK YOU District 3! I will say, with approximately 1,200 registered voters in our district, I thought turnout would be higher due to the County Mayor and Sheriff's race, but I couldn't be happier! I promise to work hard everyday to help our district, our county, and our state with integrity and transparency.
To those of you who went door to door and made phone calls - I will be forever grateful! I won't let you down!
As a former Marine, from this day forward, my motto will be Honor, Courage, and Commitment.
Honor - I am humbled, and it is an Honor to serve you!
Courage - I will perform the duties of my office with Courage - doing what is right by my constituents in the face of any special interests that may arise.
Commitment - I am Committed to making our county better for all.
Thank you,
Aaron Yeargan
#LiveFree
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
To those of you who went door to door and made phone calls - I will be forever grateful! I won't let you down!
As a former Marine, from this day forward, my motto will be Honor, Courage, and Commitment.
Honor - I am humbled, and it is an Honor to serve you!
Courage - I will perform the duties of my office with Courage - doing what is right by my constituents in the face of any special interests that may arise.
Commitment - I am Committed to making our county better for all.
Thank you,
Aaron Yeargan
#LiveFree
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
| PRIMARY ELECTION RESULTS | |||||||||||||
Ridley, Morris, Yeargan and Cartwright advance to August election
REPUBLICANS
•County Mayor - Gregg Ridley, 971; Rodney Warran, 377
•Sheriff - Incumbent JimmyMorris, 860; Gary Johnson, 576 •County Commissioner 3rd District Part A - Aaron Yeargan, 181; Nathan Riddle, 49 •County Commissioner 1st District Part A - Incumbent Ronnie Sapp, 162 votes
•County Commissioner 1st District Part C - Incumbent Shayne Bickford, 162 votes
•County Commissioner 2nd District Part A - Jim Swafford, 176 votes
•County Commissioner 3rd District Part B - Incumbent Ronald Hudson, 180 votes
•County Commissioner 4th District Part A - Christina K. Sharp, 109 votes
•County Commissioner 5th District Part A - Incumbent Roger L. Simmons, 209 votes
•County Commissioner 5th District Part B - Incumbent Junior Lee Hankins, 215 votes
•County Trustee - Matt Fields, 1080 votes
•Circuit Court Clerk - Incumbent Michael Walker, 1191 votes
•County Clerk - Incumbent Carolyn Mills Terry, 1280 votes
•Register of Deeds - Incumbent Emma Boynton, 1271 votes
•Road Superintendent, Incumbent Marvin E. Smith, 1148 votes
•Circuit Court Judge 12th Judicial District Part III - Justin Angel, 1114 votes
| |||||||||||||
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Bill To Nullify Warrantless Drone Use In TN Passes - Sent To Gov. Haslam's Desk!
FYI - From Lesley Swann/Tennessee Chapter of the Tenth Amendment Center.
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
The Tennessee legislature gave final approval to a bill restricting drone use in the state and sent it on to Governor Bill Haslam’s desk on the last day of the legislative session.
A conference committee hammered out differences and both chambers gave approval to SB796/HB591 Friday. The Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act requires law enforcement to obtain a search warrant before deploying a drone.
The act allows four exceptions for drone use without a warrant.
A provision allowing for the use of drones “to protect life and property during crowd monitoring situations,” in the House bill was removed in the final version.
The House approved SB796 after approval in the conference committee 72-17 with two representatives not voting. The Senate initially gave its approval 32-0.
Rep. James “Micah” Van Huss (R-Jonesborough) and Sen. Mae Beavers (R-Mount Juliet) sponsored the legislation. They told the Knoxville News Sentinel that the bill strikes a balance between allowing use of drones where needed for a legitimate purpose and avoiding governmental intrusion.
Whole some of the exceptions are troubling and vague, currently Tennessee lacks any statute regulating drone use. If Gov. Haslam fails to sign the bill, law enforcement in Tennessee will be able to deploy drones any time, any place and under any circumstances. Even with the exceptions, this act will greatly restrict the use of drones in the Volunteer State. It also leaves the door open for further restrictions in the future.
And make no mistake, Tennessee will use drones. Just last year, the Nashville Police Department procured two drones with a Department of Homeland Security grant.
DHS grants serve as the primary engine behind the expansion of drone surveillance at the state and local level. The goal? Fund a network of drones around the country and put the operational burden on the states. Once they create a web over the whole country, DHS steps in with requests for ‘information sharing.’ Bills like HB591 put a dent in this kind of long-term strategy. A drone industry lobbyist testifying in opposition to a similar bill in Washington State confirmed this, saying such restrictions would prove extremely destructive to the drone market and industry.
The bill does not address drone use by individuals or corporations, but Beavers and Van Huss said they may propose legislation on that topic next year.
ACTION ITEMS
1. Contact Gov. Haslam and ask him to sign the Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act. If you live in Tennessee, contact the governor’s office and politely but firmly ask him to sign this bill restricting drone use and protecting privacy. You can find contact information HERE.
2. Encourage your local community to take action as well. Using model legislation from the Tenth Amendment Center, you can introduce legislation to nullify Drones in your city, town, and county with the Privacy Protection Act.
You will find model legislation HERE.
3. Share this information widely. Please pass this along to your friends and family. Also share it with any and all grassroots groups you’re in contact with around the state. Please encourage them to email this information to their members and supporters.
Lesley Swann is a Co-Host for Tenther Radio and the state chapter coordinator for the Tennessee Tenth Amendment Center. She is a native of Anderson County, Tennessee.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
Bill To Nullify Warrantless Drone Use In Tennesse Passes, Sent To Gov. Haslam’s Desk
Posted by Lesley Swann
The Tennessee legislature gave final approval to a bill restricting drone use in the state and sent it on to Governor Bill Haslam’s desk on the last day of the legislative session.
A conference committee hammered out differences and both chambers gave approval to SB796/HB591 Friday. The Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act requires law enforcement to obtain a search warrant before deploying a drone.
The act allows four exceptions for drone use without a warrant.
1. To “counter a high risk of a terrorist attack by a specific individual or organization” identified by the Department of Homeland Security.
2. When the law enforcement agency “possesses reasonable suspicion that, under particular circumstances, swift action is needed to prevent imminent danger to life.”
3. To “provide continuous aerial coverage when law enforcement is searching for a fugitive or escapee or is monitoring a hostage situation.”
4. To “provide more expansive aerial coverage when deployed for the purpose of searching for a missing person.”Even when operating under these exceptions, “the use of a drone to gather evidence or information shall constitute a search. Any law enforcement agency that uses a drone, or other substantially similar device to gather evidence or obtain information, shall comply in all respects with the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States and article I, § 7, of the Constitution of Tennessee. ”
A provision allowing for the use of drones “to protect life and property during crowd monitoring situations,” in the House bill was removed in the final version.
The House approved SB796 after approval in the conference committee 72-17 with two representatives not voting. The Senate initially gave its approval 32-0.
Rep. James “Micah” Van Huss (R-Jonesborough) and Sen. Mae Beavers (R-Mount Juliet) sponsored the legislation. They told the Knoxville News Sentinel that the bill strikes a balance between allowing use of drones where needed for a legitimate purpose and avoiding governmental intrusion.
Whole some of the exceptions are troubling and vague, currently Tennessee lacks any statute regulating drone use. If Gov. Haslam fails to sign the bill, law enforcement in Tennessee will be able to deploy drones any time, any place and under any circumstances. Even with the exceptions, this act will greatly restrict the use of drones in the Volunteer State. It also leaves the door open for further restrictions in the future.
And make no mistake, Tennessee will use drones. Just last year, the Nashville Police Department procured two drones with a Department of Homeland Security grant.
DHS grants serve as the primary engine behind the expansion of drone surveillance at the state and local level. The goal? Fund a network of drones around the country and put the operational burden on the states. Once they create a web over the whole country, DHS steps in with requests for ‘information sharing.’ Bills like HB591 put a dent in this kind of long-term strategy. A drone industry lobbyist testifying in opposition to a similar bill in Washington State confirmed this, saying such restrictions would prove extremely destructive to the drone market and industry.
The bill does not address drone use by individuals or corporations, but Beavers and Van Huss said they may propose legislation on that topic next year.
ACTION ITEMS
1. Contact Gov. Haslam and ask him to sign the Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act. If you live in Tennessee, contact the governor’s office and politely but firmly ask him to sign this bill restricting drone use and protecting privacy. You can find contact information HERE.
2. Encourage your local community to take action as well. Using model legislation from the Tenth Amendment Center, you can introduce legislation to nullify Drones in your city, town, and county with the Privacy Protection Act.
You will find model legislation HERE.
3. Share this information widely. Please pass this along to your friends and family. Also share it with any and all grassroots groups you’re in contact with around the state. Please encourage them to email this information to their members and supporters.
Lesley Swann is a Co-Host for Tenther Radio and the state chapter coordinator for the Tennessee Tenth Amendment Center. She is a native of Anderson County, Tennessee.
If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
Or make a donation to help keep this site active.
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Tennessee U.S. Senate Candidate and Former Republican Finds True Fiscal Conservatism in LP.
FYI - From LP.org.
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
Libertarian Shaun Crowell, who raised over $30,000 for his U.S. Senate campaign in Tennessee, says he is getting looks from Democratic, Republican and Independent voters. The Democratic Party is not actively supporting their candidate, Mark Clayton, due to his socially conservative views. Other voters take interest in Crowell’s bold proposals to downsize the federal government.
Crowell notes that his Republican opponent, incumbent Bob Corker, voted with Obama more than 60 percent of the time and against the Constitution nearly 40 percent of the time.
"Corker is a conservative in name only," says Crowell. “Somebody had to challenge him."
A long-time Republican, Crowell began to question the principles of his party after the bailouts of 2008. "I was shocked by the bipartisan 'efforts' of Democrats and Republicans," he said. "Anything bipartisan is never good for the people. I felt betrayed by my own party, and I went through a time where I questioned everything. It led to me reading a lot of things -- like the Constitution -- as I never had even gone over the Bill of Rights. I then saw a lot of hope with the Libertarian thought process."
Dr. Crowell, a veterinarian and small business owner, says he is mainly talking to voters about how to fix the nation's economy. "The way to turn it around is to repeal a lot of the acts that have hurt our economy," he says. "The first thing we need to do is repeal Obamacare.”
Crowell proposes to immediately reduce federal spending by $1 trillion and eliminate the Departments of Energy, Education, Interior, Commerce, and Housing and Urban Development. He also supports eliminating the Environmental Protection Agency, auditing the Federal Reserve, and repealing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Act.
Crowell is hopeful that he will break through past vote totals for other Libertarian candidates in the state. Mainstream media, including WBIR-TV in Knoxville, has covered his campaign.
"We have pockets of presence in various places around the state," says Crowell over the phone, while putting up yard signs with his campaign team. "A lot of people are rallying to our message."
Campaign website: www.shauncrowell.com
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
Tennessee U.S. Senate Candidate and Former Republican Finds True Fiscal Conservatism in LP.
Libertarian Shaun Crowell, who raised over $30,000 for his U.S. Senate campaign in Tennessee, says he is getting looks from Democratic, Republican and Independent voters. The Democratic Party is not actively supporting their candidate, Mark Clayton, due to his socially conservative views. Other voters take interest in Crowell’s bold proposals to downsize the federal government.
Crowell notes that his Republican opponent, incumbent Bob Corker, voted with Obama more than 60 percent of the time and against the Constitution nearly 40 percent of the time.
"Corker is a conservative in name only," says Crowell. “Somebody had to challenge him."
A long-time Republican, Crowell began to question the principles of his party after the bailouts of 2008. "I was shocked by the bipartisan 'efforts' of Democrats and Republicans," he said. "Anything bipartisan is never good for the people. I felt betrayed by my own party, and I went through a time where I questioned everything. It led to me reading a lot of things -- like the Constitution -- as I never had even gone over the Bill of Rights. I then saw a lot of hope with the Libertarian thought process."
Dr. Crowell, a veterinarian and small business owner, says he is mainly talking to voters about how to fix the nation's economy. "The way to turn it around is to repeal a lot of the acts that have hurt our economy," he says. "The first thing we need to do is repeal Obamacare.”
Crowell proposes to immediately reduce federal spending by $1 trillion and eliminate the Departments of Energy, Education, Interior, Commerce, and Housing and Urban Development. He also supports eliminating the Environmental Protection Agency, auditing the Federal Reserve, and repealing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the Patriot Act and the National Defense Authorization Act.
Crowell is hopeful that he will break through past vote totals for other Libertarian candidates in the state. Mainstream media, including WBIR-TV in Knoxville, has covered his campaign.
"We have pockets of presence in various places around the state," says Crowell over the phone, while putting up yard signs with his campaign team. "A lot of people are rallying to our message."
Campaign website: www.shauncrowell.com
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Republicans endorse Dr.Shaun Crowell over Bob Corker.
FYI - From LPTN.org.
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
| ||
| ||
|
Chattanooga Times Free Press: “Gary Johnson for President”
FYI - From the Chattanooga (TN) Times Free Press and GaryJohnson2012.com.
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
Chattanooga Times Free Press: “Gary Johnson for president”
For more than 80 years, the Free Press editorial page has been a voice for free market economic philosophies, personal responsibility and limited, responsible government. Endorsing the presidential candidate who most thoroughly represents those values has been an important function of the Free Press editorial page for nearly as long.
For most of those election cycles, we have endorsed Republican candidates for president. The GOP candidate, even when flawed, generally provided the best platform for ensuring that the United States remained on a path of limited, constitutional government and free market economic policies.
This election, however, the Republican Party nominee has failed to demonstrate a consistent commitment to conservative principles. As a result of his failure to provide clear methods for reducing the size and scope of the federal government, unwillingness to address structural flaws with entitlement programs, reliance on government to intervene in issues best left to families and individuals, and sporadic support of the Constitution and America’s founding principles, Mitt Romney is too flawed to earn the Free Press’ endorsement.
Romney may be less eager to tax, spend, attack personal freedoms and disregard the constitutional limits on government than his Democratic opponent, President Barack Obama, but only slightly.
To the extent that Romney offers an alternative to Obama, the difference is in degree, not in kind.
As a result, the Free Press editorial page endorses Libertarian Party presidential candidate Gary Johnson for President of the United States.
Johnson, a former two-term governor of New Mexico, has more administrative experience than Romney, who served just a single term as Massachusetts governor.
While serving as governor, Johnson slashed New Mexico’s gas tax, fought to reduce the state’s income tax and championed school choice. Romney, on the other hand, implemented a myriad of new fees on Massachusetts taxpayers and famously enacted a compulsory health insurance scheme which became the framework for Obamacare.
Unlike Obama, Johnson understands that government spending, unsustainable bailouts and stimulus schemes only lead to more unemployment, a higher national debt, a weakened dollar and a less stable economy.
Johnson’s platform includes presenting a balanced budget to Congress every year he’s in office, completely overhauling America’s ridiculous federal tax structure, and fundamentally restructuring entitlement programs to allow Americans more choice in health care and a greater opportunity to retire with dignity.
The former small business owner pledges to work to overturn Obamacare and encourage health care coverage through the free market by removing the arbitrary limits that inhibit competition among health insurers and prevent customers from receiving the best available health insurance plans and rates.
Johnson also seeks to limit military intervention abroad and overturn the restrictions on liberties at home that were created as a result of the overreaction to 9/11 and America’s bungled War on Terror.
The threads that bind Johnson’s policy platform are the beliefs that markets work better than governments and that people are more suitable and equipped than elected officials and bureaucrats to make the decisions that impact their lives and the lives of their family. As a result, Johnson promotes entrepreneurship and privatization, allowing parents the opportunity to choose which school their children attend and minimizing the amount of hard-earned dollars the federal government takes from taxpayers.
Some may argue that voting for a minor party candidate is a waste of a vote. While Johnson won’t win on Nov. 6, the more votes Johnson receives, the more the Republican and Democratic parties are forced to consider adopting his policies. Voting for Johnson is the most effective way to inject the ideas of liberty and limited government into the political mainstream.
Others claim that it is wise to vote for the lesser of two evils. The problem with that, however, is that voting for evil only leads to more evil. A vote is an affirmation that a candidate is on the right track, but Barack Obama and Mitt Romney clearly aren’t when it comes to limiting government, promoting individual liberty and protecting free market economic principles. Voting for bad policies and unprincipled people will only ensure that parties will give voters more of the same bad choices in the future.
With the founding principles and the economic future of our nation at stake, Gary Johnson offers the best plan to restore the values of limited government, personal freedom and free markets that made America the greatest country in the world.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
TN Senators Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander vote to give your money to America's enemies!
FYI - From the Tennessee Republican Liberty Caucus and the Tennessee Campaign For Liberty.
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
That's right!
Believe it or not Tennessee Senators Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander voted last week to continue giving American tax dollars to the governments of Egypt, Pakistan, and Libya (among others). Senator Rand Paul introduced an amendment to stop foreign aid and international welfare to unfriendly governments and forced a vote on the issue.
This aid of course goes to the Libyan rebels, which are terrorists, therefore it is not a stretch to say that Corker and Alexander just voted to fund terrorism! What's worse is that they are stealing our money through taxation and inflation in order to fund the terrorists.
Here is a detailed writeup with video:
http://tncampaignforliberty.
--
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
Can you believe TN Senators Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander just voted to give your money to America's enemies!?
That's right!
Believe it or not Tennessee Senators Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander voted last week to continue giving American tax dollars to the governments of Egypt, Pakistan, and Libya (among others). Senator Rand Paul introduced an amendment to stop foreign aid and international welfare to unfriendly governments and forced a vote on the issue.
This aid of course goes to the Libyan rebels, which are terrorists, therefore it is not a stretch to say that Corker and Alexander just voted to fund terrorism! What's worse is that they are stealing our money through taxation and inflation in order to fund the terrorists.
Here is a detailed writeup with video:
http://tncampaignforliberty.
--
Our mission is to promote and defend the great American principles of individual liberty, limited government, sound money, free markets, and a Constitutional foreign policy, by means of education, issue advocacy, and grassroots mobilization.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Repeal and Replace: The New Health Care Choice Act.
FYI - The new Health Care Choice Act introduced by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN07)
Repeal and Replace: The New Health Care Choice Act.
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
Repeal and Replace: The New Health Care Choice Act.
-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"
Monday, January 11, 2010
Tennessee Gubernatorial Candidates Answer Questions About Guns
FYI...a little food for thought for my Tennessee readers via Mr. Richard Locker @ The Memphis Commericial Appeal. You can also view the online/web version of this article at http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2010/jan/10/tennessee-gubernatorial-candidates-answer-question/
-Aaron
_____________________________________________________________________________________
One in a series of question-and-answer sessions about specific topics with Tennessee gubernatorial candidates:
1. A Nashville judge has struck down as “unconstitutionally vague” the law passed by the legislature in 2009 allowing people with handgun-carry permits to take guns into places serving alcohol. The bill’s sponsors say they will ask the legislature to approve a new version. Do you support or oppose a bill to allow handgun-carry permit holders to take guns into places that serve alcohol?
Jim Kyle
Kim McMillan
Mike McWherter
Bill Gibbons
Bill Haslam
Ron Ramsey
Zach Wamp
Democrats:
Jim Kyle:
I strongly oppose it. Even in the Wild West you had to check your firearms at the door of the saloons. In the 21st century we should have the common sense to know that guns and alcohol do not mix.
Kim McMillan:
I oppose allowing individuals taking guns into places that serve alcohol. It’s just not a good idea to encourage taking loaded weapons into places where alcohol is served. Having a loaded gun readily accessibly to someone whose judgment could be impaired isn’t safe for anyone including innocent bystanders. Guns and alcohol just don’t mix.
Mike McWherter:
I strongly believe that guns and alcohol simply don’t mix. That’s just common sense, and I think most Tennesseans would agree. I do think it’s important that with any new legislation there should be attempts to seek common ground in an effort to build consensus. But the reality is that there is a clear difference between a family restaurant like Applebee’s at 3 o’clock in the afternoon and a honky-tonk at midnight. Whatever bill the legislature comes up with should do more to acknowledge those sorts of differences.
Republicans:
Bill Gibbons:
As a district attorney, I am the only candidate for governor who, as part of my job, actually supports citizens’ legitimate exercise of their Second Amendment rights. On over twenty occasions in the last two years, the Shelby County DA’s office has concluded that citizens were justified in using deadly force with a firearm. Most of these cases involved home break-ins. As DA in Shelby County, I’ve seen far too many cases involving the deadly combination of guns and alcohol. Allowing guns in establishments that serve alcohol is simply a bad idea. I’m convinced the vast majority of Tennesseans agree with me on that. If the General Assembly enacts a new version, it is important that it give (bar and restaurant) owners the freedom to “opt out” and still prohibit guns in their establishments.
Bill Haslam:
I support the legislative goal of the bill and encourage the General Assembly to approve a new version.
Ron Ramsey:
As the author of legislation that created state-issued handgun carry permits in Tennessee, I support allowing permit holders to take their handgun into restaurants that serve alcohol. Permit holders face a severe penalty if they consume alcohol while carrying a firearm. To obtain a permit, a citizen must be fingerprinted, pass a background check, and pass a test to measure accuracy — it’s a strong standard. These citizens are likely to prevent crime, not commit it.
Zach Wamp:
This law certainly needs to be perfected, but I support Second Amendment rights that allow law-abiding citizens who have gone through the training and permitting required to legally carry handguns for personal protection to take their guns with them. Right to carry laws help make Tennessee and law-abiding Tennesseans more safe and secure, and restaurants that serve alcohol should not be exempted from the law because we should not pick or predict where law-abiding citizens may be called upon to defend themselves against violent criminals.
2. The legislature approved a law last year allowing handgun-carry permit holders to take guns into city, county and state parks — but it gave city councils and county commissions authority to designate one, some or all of their parks off limits to guns. Gun advocacy groups and some legislators say they will ask the legislature to remove the authority of local governments to “opt out” of the law — in effect, opening all local parks to guns whether local governments want that or not. First, do you support or oppose repealing the law that allows guns in state parks? And do you support or oppose removing the “opt-out” provision for local government?
Democrats:
Kyle:
My son and I have had great times together hunting and those memories that will last a lifetime. I respect and believe in the Second Amendment right of the people, but I do not believe there is a place for guns in parks. I am proud of Tennessee’s state parks, which are consistently recognized as some of the safest in the nation. Citizens elect local governments to make decisions for their communities. To take that decision-making ability away and put it in the hands of special interests is not in the best interest of our communities or the families that live there.
McMillan:
While I don’t believe that guns should be allowed in areas where families and children go to play, repealing the “guns in parks” legislation would probably not be a priority as long as the opt-out portion of the law is in place. However, I believe this legislation would work better for all interested parties if the law had an opt-in provision rather than an opt-out provision. The difference, obviously, is that local governments would retain control over their parks without having to take some affirmative action. The bottom line is that local governments should have that control and an opt-out provision is the least we must afford if this law remains in effect.
McWherter:
I supported the 2009 legislation as it was passed. I believe it is important for local governments to make decisions about what’s best for their respective parks. After all, common sense dictates that there is a big difference between a secluded, wooded state park and a little league baseball park. I would not be in favor of removing the “opt-out” provision for local governments.
Republicans:
Gibbons:
I support the legislation as it is currently written. I believe local communities should be allowed to decide whether or not to have guns in their local parks.
Haslam:
I support the new law allowing handgun-carry permit holders to take guns into parks and I would oppose its repeal. I also favor giving local communities as much autonomy as possible. I’m proud of the fact that Knoxville is the only big city in the state where there is no criminal penalty for legal gun permit holders carrying in parks.
Ramsey:
I oppose the repeal of the 2009 law.
I do not support an opt-out provision and believe we need as much as possible to pursue uniform statewide firearm rights protections that are easy to follow and not overly burdensome on law-abiding gun owners.
Wamp:
I oppose repealing the 2009 law because we should not pick and predict where law abiding citizens may be called upon to defend themselves against violent criminals. A park is just like any other public place and the same rule should apply to parks that apply elsewhere. While I would support an “opt-out” provision for local governments, I would not vote to opt out on this law because it keeps Tennesseans safe. But just as there is a separation of powers between the federal and state governments, there is also a separation of powers between state and local governments. If a local government wants to opt out, they should be allowed to do so.
3. The legislature last year delayed action until 2010 on a bill requiring businesses to allow employees with handgun-carry permits to take their guns onto the company’s parking lot if the gun is left in the employee’s locked car. Gun advocacy groups support the bill. A coalition of business groups opposed the bill. Do you support or oppose the bill?
Democrats:
Kyle:
Private property is just that, private property. Any business should be able to say they do not want guns on their property. We should not make that decision for them.
McMillan:
I am always in favor of allowing property owners, including business owners, to decide the best use of, and security for, their property. I trust business owners to know what is best for their business, their employees and their customers. I am in favor of businesses making decisions about whether employees should be able to enter the premises with or without guns.
McWherter:
Once again, I would hope that the legislature would consider a common sense approach to addressing this issue. In principle, I believe that businesses should have the right to determine whether or not to ban guns from their premises, while on balance I would hope that businesses would take into consideration what’s in the best interests and convenience of their employees.
Republicans:
Gibbons:
As part of basic property rights, businesses should retain the right to prohibit employees from bringing guns onto business property.
Haslam:
I am a strong supporter of both gun and property rights, and I understand the importance of carefully considering specific circumstances when these rights conflict. For many employees, particularly those who work at night or travel through high-crime areas, the ability to keep their gun in their car is important to their safety. I support allowing a legal carrier to keep a gun locked up inside his or her own car while at work.
Ramsey:
I support the bill. Permit-holding citizens are some of our safest, most responsible citizens and their constitutional rights should not expire at the entrance to a parking lot. Asking a citizen to give up his or her safety and constitutional rights en route from home to work is an unreasonable burden. Our state recently saw the most brutal torture-slaying in Tennessee history — and it began with a carjacking. I cannot in good conscience ask law-abiding men and women to give up their right to self-defense in the workplace or anywhere else.
Wamp:
I support this bill. I support allowing law-abiding citizens who have gone through the training and permitting required to legally-carry handguns for personal protection to take their legal guns with them in their vehicles. We should not pick or predict when or where law-abiding citizens may be called upon to defend themselves against violent criminals.
4. The legislature also enacted the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act last year, which declares that guns made in Tennessee and sold in Tennessee are not subject to federal firearms laws and regulations. In July, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) notified all federally-licensed firearms dealers in Tennessee that federal law supercedes the new state law and all existing federal laws and regulations applying to gun sales are unchanged in Tennessee. Do you support or oppose the Firearms Freedom Act? Should the act be repealed?
Democrats:
Kyle:
I support the Second Amendment, but I also support federal law and regulations applying to gun sales. Yes, I believe the act should be repealed. I believe law-abiding citizens have the right to own guns and to defend their families, but I think gun laws are in place to help keep those same families safe.
McMillan:
There is a long-standing and well-recognized series of legal cases determining when federal law supersedes state law. It isn’t simply a matter of preference or politics. Unless and until federal law recognizes the state’s ability to regulate in this area, federal law will generally rule. Supporting, opposing or repealing the Firearms Freedom Act will not change the outcome.
McWherter:
I agree that federal law supercedes state law in this instance, and as such I would not support legislation that the federal government has deemed invalid.
Republicans:
Gibbons:
This is an example of why we should be careful to examine the consequences of legislative action. Thank goodness we have tough federal laws dealing with the possession of firearms by convicted felons. Under federal law, they face tough sentences with no parole. On the other hand, state law on this subject is very weak. If the result of the act is to eliminate tough federal sentences for convicted felons caught with guns made in Tennessee, then we need to repeal it.
Haslam:
In general, I want to see Tennesseans setting their own rules as much as possible. The Tenth Amendment is an important and neglected part of our country’s constitution. And as a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and the individual’s right to bear arms, I can certainly understand the concern over whether the Administration in Washington shares our view of gun rights. I’m not a lawyer, but I hope we can get legal confirmation of the constitutionality of our new law.
Ramsey:
I support the Firearms Freedom Act and it should not be repealed. The Act pertains to firearms and ammunition that are not involved in interstate commerce. The purpose of the FFA is to allow a state regulatory role but not a federal one — a proper division consistent with the separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution.
Wamp:
I fully support the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act. The act was passed by large margins in both the State House and State Senate, and although the ATF has said that federal law supercedes here, this is a clear case of the overreach of the federal government. I believe that the ATF has no business telling Tennessee-licensed firearm dealers that federal law supercedes our state law in this case. I am proud that Tennessee has taken a lead on this issue.
5. A bill that would close public access to all information in public records identifying people with handgun-carry permits failed in the legislature by one vote this year. Its supporters say they will ask the General Assembly to try again. Do you support or oppose closing these records to the public? Do you support or oppose a bill that would prohibit Internet posting of searchable databases of gun-carry permit holders?
Democrats:
Kyle: I believe gun-carry permit records should be open to the public and the media. Open records provide a system of checks and balances for all of us. Though I do not believe individual’s private information, such as social security numbers and addresses, should be posted on Web sites simply because they have a gun-carry permit.
McMillan:
As my record shows, I have always been in favor of open government and accountability. The key here is that these are “public” records and, as such, I believe the public has a right to access them.
McWherter:
I strongly agree with the bipartisan principle that these records should continue to remain public. However, I feel that posting a searchable database on a Web site would invade the privacy of permit holders
Republicans:
Gibbons:
I support limited public access to this information for the purpose of determining whether a particular individual has a permit. I oppose the mass disclosure or dissemination of the database, whether it be to the press or to candidates or groups for political purposes.
Haslam:
Gun-carry permit holders should be able to exercise their constitutionally-protected rights without sacrificing their privacy. Providing a list to the public containing every household that possesses a gun is a bad idea and poses a public safety risk.
Ramsey:
I do not support closing these records to the public. I certainly oppose legislation which would allow a searchable database. Such legislation would, at the click of a mouse, allow gun carrying criminals to know who does not have a permit and make more citizens targets for home invasion.
Wamp:
I signed on to a letter earlier this year with Congressman Blackburn asking that these records not be published due to concerns about individual privacy rights. Right-to-carry permits for law-abiding citizens and the protection of their individual liberties and privacy rights should be protected.
6. Bills have been filed in the legislature allowing handgun carry permit holders to carry their guns on college and university campuses. Do you support or oppose this bill?
Democrats:
Kyle:
Oppose. College campuses should provide a safe learning environment for all students. There is no need for guns on college and university campuses.
McMillan:
I have always fought any proposed legislation or policy that would allow guns in an educational environment. Whether it’s a rural elementary school, an urban high school or a college campus, meaningful education can only happen in a place where students feel safe. College campuses are no exception to this rule. As a faculty member of a state university, I can assure you that a college campus is no place for handguns.
McWherter:
Given the fact that many colleges and universities are home to teens barely out of high school, I would oppose any blanket attempt to allow handguns on our campuses. As parents, we have enough to worry about with our children being away from home and subject to new experiences. To compound those concerns by allowing guns in dorms and in other areas where students might congregate seems irresponsible
Republicans:
Gibbons:
Allowing firearms on college campuses is not a good idea. Whether we like it or not, social activities on many college campuses end up involving alcohol. Allowing firearms on campuses would increase the probability of an unfortunate mix of guns and alcohol. I cannot imagine passing a law that would, in effect, sanction the carrying of firearms at on-campus keg parties. We need to preserve and secure a proper learning environment by making sure campus security personnel are provided with the training and tools to keep campuses safe.
Haslam:
First of all, I oppose a blanket prohibition. While I support making college campuses as safe as possible, I believe that each individual school has that responsibility. College administrators face a complex security situation and need flexibility to set appropriate rules for students, adult employees, and visitors.
Ramsey: I support legislation allowing permit holders to carry guns onto college campuses. First, employees of universities have the same rights to self-protection on their commute as every other employee of every other employer. Second, the list of tragedies that could have been prevented by allowing responsible, licensed, permit holders on college campuses is growing. The carnage at Virginia Tech serves as the most recent example of why we must empower conscientious citizens to aid public safety efforts.
Wamp:
Right-to-carry permits for law-abiding citizens who have gone through the training and permitting required to legally carry handguns for personal protection should not be exempted from college campuses. Pinpointing a location where law-abiding citizens with a right-to-carry permit cannot be armed could make that location a magnet for more criminal activity. The shootings at Virginia Tech a few years ago were a good example of how law abiding citizens with right-to-carry permits might have prevented or stopped the crazed criminal before he continued to kill.
7. Acting on a request by a member of the Tennessee legislature, the state attorney general issued an advisory opinion in October that says a landlord can prohibit tenants — including those with handgun-carry permits — from possessing firearms within their leased premises. Do you support or oppose changing the law so that landlords could not prohibit tenants from possessing firearms in leased property?
Democrats:
Kyle:
A person’s home is their home, leased or owned. If you have a handgun-carry permit you should be able to keep a gun in your home.
McMillan:
As I’ve said, I favor property owners deciding what is best for their property. As with other business owners, landlords should be able to direct their property’s safety management and this includes whether or not tenants can carry handguns. I would oppose any law that prohibits property owners from making these business decisions.
McWherter:
I view this issue as a property rights matter and as such would not support changing the current law.
Republicans:
Gibbons:
By leasing the property, a property owner is giving up some control over that property to the tenant. A tenant with a carry permit should be allowed to possess a firearm on leased property.
Haslam:
I fundamentally believe that all law-abiding citizens should have the right to protect themselves in their own homes, regardless of whether they own or rent.
Ramsey:
I support legislation allowing permit holders to keep their firearm on leased premises.
Wamp:
I support changing this law so that landlords cannot prohibit tenants from possessing legal firearms on leased property. I support allowing law-abiding citizens who have gone through the training and permitting required to legally carry handguns for personal protection to keep their guns with them. We should not pick or predict where law-abiding citizens may be called upon to defend themselves against criminals.
8. Do you support or oppose stronger penalties in state law — including mandatory jail terms — for people convicted of crimes involving guns?
Democrats:
Kyle:
I have supported enhanced penalties for people who commit crimes involving guns. The Regional Medical Center at Memphis treats $25 million in gunshot wounds yearly. Reduction of gun violence is as much an economic issue as it is a gun issue. We have always accounted for these enhanced penalties through appropriations.
McMillan:
As a member of the legislature, I always supported efforts to increase penalties for crimes committed with the use of a firearm. As a legislator and a member of the Governor’s Cabinet, I worked with members of the legislature from both parties to pass the most comprehensive legislation ever passed focused on increasing the penalties for crimes with guns, known as the “Crooks with Guns” bill. We were able to work together and get the bill passed because we made it a priority. I am proud to have been an instrumental part of this legislation. I believe it’s important to note that the law is necessary and, as with gun legislation in general, was not directed at law-abiding citizens who are licensed to carry a weapon for legal purposes. These laws penalize criminals who not only broke the law but did so without any regard for the lives around them. Public safety and justice demand that we increase penalties in these situations.
McWherter:
In principle, I would support stiffer penalties for criminals caught in the act of using a weapon, but on balance the legislature will need to weigh the matter based on specific merits of a given bill’s language and any fiscal notes that may be attached to such legislation.
Republicans:
Gibbons:
I support and will push for stronger penalties. The very first sentence of our state constitution says that state government exists to insure the peace and safety of the people. Tennessee has one of the highest violent crime rates in the nation, most of which is gun-related. One of the biggest reasons is our weak state laws dealing with gun crimes. Under Tennessee law, someone can be convicted of robbery with a gun and be paroled within about two years.! Under our state law, a convicted felon can be convicted of illegally possessing a gun and get probation.! The General Assembly needs to focus more of its time on getting people who commit crimes with guns off the streets and out of our neighborhoods. As governor, this will be one of my top priorities. If it costs more because of the need for more prison space, so be it.! But I’m not convinced that will happen because I think we’ll see a significant drop in the number of violent crimes committed in our state.
Haslam:
I support stronger penalties for all violent crimes. We should review in detail the factors driving the costs of incarceration and look for smarter, more cost-effective systems and procedures.
Ramsey:
I support stronger penalties. Longer periods of incarceration actually decrease the cost to local police departments as they generally re-arrest the same criminals over and over again. However, savings could be achieved by suspending inmate recreation programs. In addition, more inmates should be put to work so they can pay for a greater percentage of their incarceration.
Wamp:
Just as I support protecting the Second amendment rights of law-abiding gun-owners, I strongly support the strict enforcement of laws against violent criminals who misuse firearms. Criminals who commit violent crimes with a gun should have strengthened sentencing guidelines. Violent criminals who commit gun crimes must not be allowed to freely roam our streets.
9. Are there other changes in state gun laws that you advocate?
Democrats:
Kyle:
Gun ownership is a way of life in many small towns across Tennessee. I believe law-abiding citizens have the right to own guns and to defend their families. I do not believe a person previously convicted of a violent crime should be able to get out of prison and go buy a gun. We need to take every step to keep guns safe, out of the hands of children and off school campuses. I will always fight to protect Second Amendment rights for all law-abiding citizens, but I will also fight just as hard to stop criminals from getting guns to harm those citizens.
McMillan:
Given the changes in the laws that offer people the chance to carry handguns into public places, I will recommend a review of the training requirements necessary for obtaining a carry permit. Increased opportunity results in increased responsibility and the state must make sure that the people who receive permits fully understand the appropriate response to situations that may arise while they are armed. As any licensed gun owner will tell you, being responsible requires more than aiming and pulling the trigger. It is in everyone’s best interest to make sure that a carry permit is given to those who have been adequately trained.
McWherter:
Quite frankly, with record unemployment that is hurting so many families across our state, as governor I would devote my energies toward creating new jobs and helping Tennesseans get back to work. While I will always be mindful of legislative initiatives that others may wish to deliberate, my focus would be on turning this economy around first and foremost
Republicans:
Gibbons:
For years, DAs, police chiefs and sheriffs across the state have pushed for tougher sentencing laws for gun crimes, specifically laws eliminating parole or requiring tougher sentences for people convicted of robbery and other violent crimes with a gun, providing enhanced sentences for gang crimes committed with guns, and requiring mandatory sentences for convicted felons in possession of firearms. Enactment of such tougher sentencing laws is also part of the strategic plan initiative in Memphis I chair called Operation: Safe Community. As governor, I will place top priority on getting these needed changes made in our sentencing laws. So far, I am the only candidate for governor who promises to make tougher sentencing laws for gun crimes a top priority. If you want a governor who is determined to strengthen our sentencing laws on gun crimes, I am your clear choice.
Haslam:
Generally, I am in favor of the least amount of restrictions, clearly stated and uniformly enforced.
Ramsey:
I believe we are expanding Second Amendment rights in a very responsible way in Tennessee and the questions above illustrate just that.
Wamp:
Not at this time.
-Aaron
_____________________________________________________________________________________
One in a series of question-and-answer sessions about specific topics with Tennessee gubernatorial candidates:
1. A Nashville judge has struck down as “unconstitutionally vague” the law passed by the legislature in 2009 allowing people with handgun-carry permits to take guns into places serving alcohol. The bill’s sponsors say they will ask the legislature to approve a new version. Do you support or oppose a bill to allow handgun-carry permit holders to take guns into places that serve alcohol?
Jim Kyle
Kim McMillan
Mike McWherter
Bill Gibbons
Bill Haslam
Ron Ramsey
Zach Wamp
Democrats:
Jim Kyle:
I strongly oppose it. Even in the Wild West you had to check your firearms at the door of the saloons. In the 21st century we should have the common sense to know that guns and alcohol do not mix.
Kim McMillan:
I oppose allowing individuals taking guns into places that serve alcohol. It’s just not a good idea to encourage taking loaded weapons into places where alcohol is served. Having a loaded gun readily accessibly to someone whose judgment could be impaired isn’t safe for anyone including innocent bystanders. Guns and alcohol just don’t mix.
Mike McWherter:
I strongly believe that guns and alcohol simply don’t mix. That’s just common sense, and I think most Tennesseans would agree. I do think it’s important that with any new legislation there should be attempts to seek common ground in an effort to build consensus. But the reality is that there is a clear difference between a family restaurant like Applebee’s at 3 o’clock in the afternoon and a honky-tonk at midnight. Whatever bill the legislature comes up with should do more to acknowledge those sorts of differences.
Republicans:
Bill Gibbons:
As a district attorney, I am the only candidate for governor who, as part of my job, actually supports citizens’ legitimate exercise of their Second Amendment rights. On over twenty occasions in the last two years, the Shelby County DA’s office has concluded that citizens were justified in using deadly force with a firearm. Most of these cases involved home break-ins. As DA in Shelby County, I’ve seen far too many cases involving the deadly combination of guns and alcohol. Allowing guns in establishments that serve alcohol is simply a bad idea. I’m convinced the vast majority of Tennesseans agree with me on that. If the General Assembly enacts a new version, it is important that it give (bar and restaurant) owners the freedom to “opt out” and still prohibit guns in their establishments.
Bill Haslam:
I support the legislative goal of the bill and encourage the General Assembly to approve a new version.
Ron Ramsey:
As the author of legislation that created state-issued handgun carry permits in Tennessee, I support allowing permit holders to take their handgun into restaurants that serve alcohol. Permit holders face a severe penalty if they consume alcohol while carrying a firearm. To obtain a permit, a citizen must be fingerprinted, pass a background check, and pass a test to measure accuracy — it’s a strong standard. These citizens are likely to prevent crime, not commit it.
Zach Wamp:
This law certainly needs to be perfected, but I support Second Amendment rights that allow law-abiding citizens who have gone through the training and permitting required to legally carry handguns for personal protection to take their guns with them. Right to carry laws help make Tennessee and law-abiding Tennesseans more safe and secure, and restaurants that serve alcohol should not be exempted from the law because we should not pick or predict where law-abiding citizens may be called upon to defend themselves against violent criminals.
2. The legislature approved a law last year allowing handgun-carry permit holders to take guns into city, county and state parks — but it gave city councils and county commissions authority to designate one, some or all of their parks off limits to guns. Gun advocacy groups and some legislators say they will ask the legislature to remove the authority of local governments to “opt out” of the law — in effect, opening all local parks to guns whether local governments want that or not. First, do you support or oppose repealing the law that allows guns in state parks? And do you support or oppose removing the “opt-out” provision for local government?
Democrats:
Kyle:
My son and I have had great times together hunting and those memories that will last a lifetime. I respect and believe in the Second Amendment right of the people, but I do not believe there is a place for guns in parks. I am proud of Tennessee’s state parks, which are consistently recognized as some of the safest in the nation. Citizens elect local governments to make decisions for their communities. To take that decision-making ability away and put it in the hands of special interests is not in the best interest of our communities or the families that live there.
McMillan:
While I don’t believe that guns should be allowed in areas where families and children go to play, repealing the “guns in parks” legislation would probably not be a priority as long as the opt-out portion of the law is in place. However, I believe this legislation would work better for all interested parties if the law had an opt-in provision rather than an opt-out provision. The difference, obviously, is that local governments would retain control over their parks without having to take some affirmative action. The bottom line is that local governments should have that control and an opt-out provision is the least we must afford if this law remains in effect.
McWherter:
I supported the 2009 legislation as it was passed. I believe it is important for local governments to make decisions about what’s best for their respective parks. After all, common sense dictates that there is a big difference between a secluded, wooded state park and a little league baseball park. I would not be in favor of removing the “opt-out” provision for local governments.
Republicans:
Gibbons:
I support the legislation as it is currently written. I believe local communities should be allowed to decide whether or not to have guns in their local parks.
Haslam:
I support the new law allowing handgun-carry permit holders to take guns into parks and I would oppose its repeal. I also favor giving local communities as much autonomy as possible. I’m proud of the fact that Knoxville is the only big city in the state where there is no criminal penalty for legal gun permit holders carrying in parks.
Ramsey:
I oppose the repeal of the 2009 law.
I do not support an opt-out provision and believe we need as much as possible to pursue uniform statewide firearm rights protections that are easy to follow and not overly burdensome on law-abiding gun owners.
Wamp:
I oppose repealing the 2009 law because we should not pick and predict where law abiding citizens may be called upon to defend themselves against violent criminals. A park is just like any other public place and the same rule should apply to parks that apply elsewhere. While I would support an “opt-out” provision for local governments, I would not vote to opt out on this law because it keeps Tennesseans safe. But just as there is a separation of powers between the federal and state governments, there is also a separation of powers between state and local governments. If a local government wants to opt out, they should be allowed to do so.
3. The legislature last year delayed action until 2010 on a bill requiring businesses to allow employees with handgun-carry permits to take their guns onto the company’s parking lot if the gun is left in the employee’s locked car. Gun advocacy groups support the bill. A coalition of business groups opposed the bill. Do you support or oppose the bill?
Democrats:
Kyle:
Private property is just that, private property. Any business should be able to say they do not want guns on their property. We should not make that decision for them.
McMillan:
I am always in favor of allowing property owners, including business owners, to decide the best use of, and security for, their property. I trust business owners to know what is best for their business, their employees and their customers. I am in favor of businesses making decisions about whether employees should be able to enter the premises with or without guns.
McWherter:
Once again, I would hope that the legislature would consider a common sense approach to addressing this issue. In principle, I believe that businesses should have the right to determine whether or not to ban guns from their premises, while on balance I would hope that businesses would take into consideration what’s in the best interests and convenience of their employees.
Republicans:
Gibbons:
As part of basic property rights, businesses should retain the right to prohibit employees from bringing guns onto business property.
Haslam:
I am a strong supporter of both gun and property rights, and I understand the importance of carefully considering specific circumstances when these rights conflict. For many employees, particularly those who work at night or travel through high-crime areas, the ability to keep their gun in their car is important to their safety. I support allowing a legal carrier to keep a gun locked up inside his or her own car while at work.
Ramsey:
I support the bill. Permit-holding citizens are some of our safest, most responsible citizens and their constitutional rights should not expire at the entrance to a parking lot. Asking a citizen to give up his or her safety and constitutional rights en route from home to work is an unreasonable burden. Our state recently saw the most brutal torture-slaying in Tennessee history — and it began with a carjacking. I cannot in good conscience ask law-abiding men and women to give up their right to self-defense in the workplace or anywhere else.
Wamp:
I support this bill. I support allowing law-abiding citizens who have gone through the training and permitting required to legally-carry handguns for personal protection to take their legal guns with them in their vehicles. We should not pick or predict when or where law-abiding citizens may be called upon to defend themselves against violent criminals.
4. The legislature also enacted the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act last year, which declares that guns made in Tennessee and sold in Tennessee are not subject to federal firearms laws and regulations. In July, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) notified all federally-licensed firearms dealers in Tennessee that federal law supercedes the new state law and all existing federal laws and regulations applying to gun sales are unchanged in Tennessee. Do you support or oppose the Firearms Freedom Act? Should the act be repealed?
Democrats:
Kyle:
I support the Second Amendment, but I also support federal law and regulations applying to gun sales. Yes, I believe the act should be repealed. I believe law-abiding citizens have the right to own guns and to defend their families, but I think gun laws are in place to help keep those same families safe.
McMillan:
There is a long-standing and well-recognized series of legal cases determining when federal law supersedes state law. It isn’t simply a matter of preference or politics. Unless and until federal law recognizes the state’s ability to regulate in this area, federal law will generally rule. Supporting, opposing or repealing the Firearms Freedom Act will not change the outcome.
McWherter:
I agree that federal law supercedes state law in this instance, and as such I would not support legislation that the federal government has deemed invalid.
Republicans:
Gibbons:
This is an example of why we should be careful to examine the consequences of legislative action. Thank goodness we have tough federal laws dealing with the possession of firearms by convicted felons. Under federal law, they face tough sentences with no parole. On the other hand, state law on this subject is very weak. If the result of the act is to eliminate tough federal sentences for convicted felons caught with guns made in Tennessee, then we need to repeal it.
Haslam:
In general, I want to see Tennesseans setting their own rules as much as possible. The Tenth Amendment is an important and neglected part of our country’s constitution. And as a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and the individual’s right to bear arms, I can certainly understand the concern over whether the Administration in Washington shares our view of gun rights. I’m not a lawyer, but I hope we can get legal confirmation of the constitutionality of our new law.
Ramsey:
I support the Firearms Freedom Act and it should not be repealed. The Act pertains to firearms and ammunition that are not involved in interstate commerce. The purpose of the FFA is to allow a state regulatory role but not a federal one — a proper division consistent with the separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution.
Wamp:
I fully support the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act. The act was passed by large margins in both the State House and State Senate, and although the ATF has said that federal law supercedes here, this is a clear case of the overreach of the federal government. I believe that the ATF has no business telling Tennessee-licensed firearm dealers that federal law supercedes our state law in this case. I am proud that Tennessee has taken a lead on this issue.
5. A bill that would close public access to all information in public records identifying people with handgun-carry permits failed in the legislature by one vote this year. Its supporters say they will ask the General Assembly to try again. Do you support or oppose closing these records to the public? Do you support or oppose a bill that would prohibit Internet posting of searchable databases of gun-carry permit holders?
Democrats:
Kyle: I believe gun-carry permit records should be open to the public and the media. Open records provide a system of checks and balances for all of us. Though I do not believe individual’s private information, such as social security numbers and addresses, should be posted on Web sites simply because they have a gun-carry permit.
McMillan:
As my record shows, I have always been in favor of open government and accountability. The key here is that these are “public” records and, as such, I believe the public has a right to access them.
McWherter:
I strongly agree with the bipartisan principle that these records should continue to remain public. However, I feel that posting a searchable database on a Web site would invade the privacy of permit holders
Republicans:
Gibbons:
I support limited public access to this information for the purpose of determining whether a particular individual has a permit. I oppose the mass disclosure or dissemination of the database, whether it be to the press or to candidates or groups for political purposes.
Haslam:
Gun-carry permit holders should be able to exercise their constitutionally-protected rights without sacrificing their privacy. Providing a list to the public containing every household that possesses a gun is a bad idea and poses a public safety risk.
Ramsey:
I do not support closing these records to the public. I certainly oppose legislation which would allow a searchable database. Such legislation would, at the click of a mouse, allow gun carrying criminals to know who does not have a permit and make more citizens targets for home invasion.
Wamp:
I signed on to a letter earlier this year with Congressman Blackburn asking that these records not be published due to concerns about individual privacy rights. Right-to-carry permits for law-abiding citizens and the protection of their individual liberties and privacy rights should be protected.
6. Bills have been filed in the legislature allowing handgun carry permit holders to carry their guns on college and university campuses. Do you support or oppose this bill?
Democrats:
Kyle:
Oppose. College campuses should provide a safe learning environment for all students. There is no need for guns on college and university campuses.
McMillan:
I have always fought any proposed legislation or policy that would allow guns in an educational environment. Whether it’s a rural elementary school, an urban high school or a college campus, meaningful education can only happen in a place where students feel safe. College campuses are no exception to this rule. As a faculty member of a state university, I can assure you that a college campus is no place for handguns.
McWherter:
Given the fact that many colleges and universities are home to teens barely out of high school, I would oppose any blanket attempt to allow handguns on our campuses. As parents, we have enough to worry about with our children being away from home and subject to new experiences. To compound those concerns by allowing guns in dorms and in other areas where students might congregate seems irresponsible
Republicans:
Gibbons:
Allowing firearms on college campuses is not a good idea. Whether we like it or not, social activities on many college campuses end up involving alcohol. Allowing firearms on campuses would increase the probability of an unfortunate mix of guns and alcohol. I cannot imagine passing a law that would, in effect, sanction the carrying of firearms at on-campus keg parties. We need to preserve and secure a proper learning environment by making sure campus security personnel are provided with the training and tools to keep campuses safe.
Haslam:
First of all, I oppose a blanket prohibition. While I support making college campuses as safe as possible, I believe that each individual school has that responsibility. College administrators face a complex security situation and need flexibility to set appropriate rules for students, adult employees, and visitors.
Ramsey: I support legislation allowing permit holders to carry guns onto college campuses. First, employees of universities have the same rights to self-protection on their commute as every other employee of every other employer. Second, the list of tragedies that could have been prevented by allowing responsible, licensed, permit holders on college campuses is growing. The carnage at Virginia Tech serves as the most recent example of why we must empower conscientious citizens to aid public safety efforts.
Wamp:
Right-to-carry permits for law-abiding citizens who have gone through the training and permitting required to legally carry handguns for personal protection should not be exempted from college campuses. Pinpointing a location where law-abiding citizens with a right-to-carry permit cannot be armed could make that location a magnet for more criminal activity. The shootings at Virginia Tech a few years ago were a good example of how law abiding citizens with right-to-carry permits might have prevented or stopped the crazed criminal before he continued to kill.
7. Acting on a request by a member of the Tennessee legislature, the state attorney general issued an advisory opinion in October that says a landlord can prohibit tenants — including those with handgun-carry permits — from possessing firearms within their leased premises. Do you support or oppose changing the law so that landlords could not prohibit tenants from possessing firearms in leased property?
Democrats:
Kyle:
A person’s home is their home, leased or owned. If you have a handgun-carry permit you should be able to keep a gun in your home.
McMillan:
As I’ve said, I favor property owners deciding what is best for their property. As with other business owners, landlords should be able to direct their property’s safety management and this includes whether or not tenants can carry handguns. I would oppose any law that prohibits property owners from making these business decisions.
McWherter:
I view this issue as a property rights matter and as such would not support changing the current law.
Republicans:
Gibbons:
By leasing the property, a property owner is giving up some control over that property to the tenant. A tenant with a carry permit should be allowed to possess a firearm on leased property.
Haslam:
I fundamentally believe that all law-abiding citizens should have the right to protect themselves in their own homes, regardless of whether they own or rent.
Ramsey:
I support legislation allowing permit holders to keep their firearm on leased premises.
Wamp:
I support changing this law so that landlords cannot prohibit tenants from possessing legal firearms on leased property. I support allowing law-abiding citizens who have gone through the training and permitting required to legally carry handguns for personal protection to keep their guns with them. We should not pick or predict where law-abiding citizens may be called upon to defend themselves against criminals.
8. Do you support or oppose stronger penalties in state law — including mandatory jail terms — for people convicted of crimes involving guns?
Democrats:
Kyle:
I have supported enhanced penalties for people who commit crimes involving guns. The Regional Medical Center at Memphis treats $25 million in gunshot wounds yearly. Reduction of gun violence is as much an economic issue as it is a gun issue. We have always accounted for these enhanced penalties through appropriations.
McMillan:
As a member of the legislature, I always supported efforts to increase penalties for crimes committed with the use of a firearm. As a legislator and a member of the Governor’s Cabinet, I worked with members of the legislature from both parties to pass the most comprehensive legislation ever passed focused on increasing the penalties for crimes with guns, known as the “Crooks with Guns” bill. We were able to work together and get the bill passed because we made it a priority. I am proud to have been an instrumental part of this legislation. I believe it’s important to note that the law is necessary and, as with gun legislation in general, was not directed at law-abiding citizens who are licensed to carry a weapon for legal purposes. These laws penalize criminals who not only broke the law but did so without any regard for the lives around them. Public safety and justice demand that we increase penalties in these situations.
McWherter:
In principle, I would support stiffer penalties for criminals caught in the act of using a weapon, but on balance the legislature will need to weigh the matter based on specific merits of a given bill’s language and any fiscal notes that may be attached to such legislation.
Republicans:
Gibbons:
I support and will push for stronger penalties. The very first sentence of our state constitution says that state government exists to insure the peace and safety of the people. Tennessee has one of the highest violent crime rates in the nation, most of which is gun-related. One of the biggest reasons is our weak state laws dealing with gun crimes. Under Tennessee law, someone can be convicted of robbery with a gun and be paroled within about two years.! Under our state law, a convicted felon can be convicted of illegally possessing a gun and get probation.! The General Assembly needs to focus more of its time on getting people who commit crimes with guns off the streets and out of our neighborhoods. As governor, this will be one of my top priorities. If it costs more because of the need for more prison space, so be it.! But I’m not convinced that will happen because I think we’ll see a significant drop in the number of violent crimes committed in our state.
Haslam:
I support stronger penalties for all violent crimes. We should review in detail the factors driving the costs of incarceration and look for smarter, more cost-effective systems and procedures.
Ramsey:
I support stronger penalties. Longer periods of incarceration actually decrease the cost to local police departments as they generally re-arrest the same criminals over and over again. However, savings could be achieved by suspending inmate recreation programs. In addition, more inmates should be put to work so they can pay for a greater percentage of their incarceration.
Wamp:
Just as I support protecting the Second amendment rights of law-abiding gun-owners, I strongly support the strict enforcement of laws against violent criminals who misuse firearms. Criminals who commit violent crimes with a gun should have strengthened sentencing guidelines. Violent criminals who commit gun crimes must not be allowed to freely roam our streets.
9. Are there other changes in state gun laws that you advocate?
Democrats:
Kyle:
Gun ownership is a way of life in many small towns across Tennessee. I believe law-abiding citizens have the right to own guns and to defend their families. I do not believe a person previously convicted of a violent crime should be able to get out of prison and go buy a gun. We need to take every step to keep guns safe, out of the hands of children and off school campuses. I will always fight to protect Second Amendment rights for all law-abiding citizens, but I will also fight just as hard to stop criminals from getting guns to harm those citizens.
McMillan:
Given the changes in the laws that offer people the chance to carry handguns into public places, I will recommend a review of the training requirements necessary for obtaining a carry permit. Increased opportunity results in increased responsibility and the state must make sure that the people who receive permits fully understand the appropriate response to situations that may arise while they are armed. As any licensed gun owner will tell you, being responsible requires more than aiming and pulling the trigger. It is in everyone’s best interest to make sure that a carry permit is given to those who have been adequately trained.
McWherter:
Quite frankly, with record unemployment that is hurting so many families across our state, as governor I would devote my energies toward creating new jobs and helping Tennesseans get back to work. While I will always be mindful of legislative initiatives that others may wish to deliberate, my focus would be on turning this economy around first and foremost
Republicans:
Gibbons:
For years, DAs, police chiefs and sheriffs across the state have pushed for tougher sentencing laws for gun crimes, specifically laws eliminating parole or requiring tougher sentences for people convicted of robbery and other violent crimes with a gun, providing enhanced sentences for gang crimes committed with guns, and requiring mandatory sentences for convicted felons in possession of firearms. Enactment of such tougher sentencing laws is also part of the strategic plan initiative in Memphis I chair called Operation: Safe Community. As governor, I will place top priority on getting these needed changes made in our sentencing laws. So far, I am the only candidate for governor who promises to make tougher sentencing laws for gun crimes a top priority. If you want a governor who is determined to strengthen our sentencing laws on gun crimes, I am your clear choice.
Haslam:
Generally, I am in favor of the least amount of restrictions, clearly stated and uniformly enforced.
Ramsey:
I believe we are expanding Second Amendment rights in a very responsible way in Tennessee and the questions above illustrate just that.
Wamp:
Not at this time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)