NASHVILLE — State records show three Tennessee lawmakers would be personally affected by legislation they are sponsoring, which includes allowing handgun-carry permit holders to bring their weapons into bars or parks and shuts off all public information on who holds a permit.
Senate Majority Leader Mark Norris, R-Collierville, Sen. Tim Burchett, R-Knoxville, and Sen. Doug Jackson, D-Dickson, all have state-issued handgun carry permits, according to Tennessee Department of Safety records examined by the Times Free Press, as well as interviews with some lawmakers.
The three lawmakers are sponsoring one or more of four previously blocked bills coming today before the House Judiciary Criminal Practice Subcommittee.
The four measures recently were recommended by a House handgun study committee chaired by Rep. Joe McCord, R-Maryville, who also has a handgun permit, state records show. Rep. McCord had been listed as a sponsor, but on Tuesday he said he has farmed the bills out to other House supporters.
Article: State GOP seeks data on gun permits
Handgun-carry permit bills
House Bill 959: Closes handgun-carry permit records and includes fines of up to $2,500 for anyone publishing them.
House Bill 962: Lets handgun-carry permit holders take weapons into places serving alcohol until 11 p.m. except where the establishment posts a sign banning guns.
House Bill 960: Allows permit holders to carry guns into state and local parks.
House Bill 961: Allows permit holders to carry handguns into state wildlife management areas.
The bills chosen were an attempt to try to “focus on the ones that had the most discussion and get those out front first,” said Rep. McCord.
He said he sees no conflict of interest for himself or any lawmaker with a handgun permit in pushing such legislation.
Frank Gibson of the Tennessee Coalition on Open Government, a nonprofit group with members including the Times Free Press, questioned that stance.
The coalition opposes the bill that makes handgun-carry permit records confidential and subjects anyone publishing the information to fines of up to $2,500.
“It seems to me to be a conflict,” Mr. Gibson said.
The legislation is “not something that would benefit them financially, but it would (impact them) because their information would be closed, too,” he said.
He said making it illegal to publish information about gun permit holders would be an unconstitutional attempt at prior restraint based on a U.S. Supreme Court decision.
“There’s nothing wrong with having a permit as long as they go to the right people,” Mr. Gibson said. “Under this legislation, the public would have no way of knowing whether they (permits) went to the right people.”
Mr. Gibson noted that news organizations have found instances where handgun-carry permit holders included felons. At one point, state Safety Department officials stopped performing background checks on renewals for more than a year after they lost access to a federal data base.
Sen. Jackson is sponsoring the bill that would allow handgun permit holders to bring their weapons into establishments selling alcohol so long as they do not drink. A House amendment provides that permit holders must leave the establishment by 11 p.m.
“I don’t see any conflict (of interest),” Sen. Jackson said, since the measure would impact all handgun permit holders and not just him. “You know, this is about Second Amendment freedoms. We’re going to continue to propose legislation that strengthens Second Amendment rights.”
Sen. Burchett is sponsoring bills expanding handgun-carry permit holders’ ability to bring their weapons into state and local parks as well as another measure that allows them to bring their handguns into wildlife hunting areas and preserves. He said he, too, sees no conflict.
“Not any more than legislation that guarantees my First Amendment rights,” said Sen. Burchett, who in 2006 made statewide headlines after he captured three juveniles at gunpoint. The youths had broken into a warehouse which he utilized in his business.
Efforts to contact Sen. Norris, who is sponsoring the Senate bill, were unsuccessful. Rep. McCord gave the House version of the bill to Rep. Eddie Bass, D-Prospect, a former sheriff, to handle.
Rep. Bass told the Associated Press that allowing the public to see the gun permit database is an invasion of privacy and aids criminals, opening permit holders to burglaries and even endangering women involved in domestic violence who are trying to protect themselves.
That statement drew agreement from the chairman of the House subcommittee which tackles the bills today. Rep. Eric Watson, R-Cleveland, said he will do all he can to shut handgun-carry permit holders’ records off from public view.
“As a former law enforcement officer, I have seen the kind of violence that this knowledge can perpetuate,” said Rep. Watson, a lieutenant over Bradley County’s Criminal and Civil Warrant Team and the Judicial Services Division.
The bill, which died in a House subcommittee last year, is drawing renewed attention after the Commercial Appeal newspaper in Memphis uploaded a copy of the state’s handgun permit holders’ database to its Web site.
Mr. Gibson said no one noticed until earlier this month, when the newspaper directed a reader on its Internet site to the database after he questioned whether a man charged in a restaurant shooting had a handgun permit. It turned out the man did.
Staff graphic artist Beck Towery contributed to this article.
Andy Sher is a Nashville-based staff writer covering Tennessee state government and politics for the Times Free Press. A Washington correspondent from 1999-2005 for the Times Free Press, Andy previously headed up state Capitol coverage for The Chattanooga Times, worked as a state Capitol reporter for The Nashville Banner and was a contributor to The Tennessee Journal, among other publications. Andy worked for 17 years at The Chattanooga Times covering police, health care, county government, ...
Liberals are grasping for issues they can use to block gun owners rights here. I have a permit and carry regularly, the main reason being to protect my family. Currently, state law prohibits carrying at a few locations where you are most likely to need protection, including restaurants where you may run into drunks, city parks where you may be mugged, or state parks/forests forests where you may run into vagrants or bears.
If we are going to have a permitting process, why pick and choose locations where the permit is valid? If I need to carry a gun to keep my family safe, then let me keep it at these potentially dangerous places. As has probably been said a million times before, criminals don't care if handguns are banned in parks do they? So all these laws do is keep us law-abiding citizens from protecting ourselves.
Also, if they want to publish my name as being a permit holder..fine, I don't really care. Then let's also publish the names of TennCare and welfare recipients as well.
I too support expanded carry permit legislation. The writer of this piece obviously takes a different stance as shown in the opening line of his article. FYI, the proposed legislation does not allow concealed carry into bars (bars being defined as establishments primarily devoted to alcohol sales where one must be at least 21 years old to enter). So, by characterizing the legislation as allowing concealed carry into bars, as commonly defined, the writer shows his bias. If this is an opinion piece then the writer has some leeway perhaps, but if it is a news article then the writer is guilty of biased reporting. There are a lot of predators out there and I'm not talking about a hockey team or the four legged kind. I carry to protect myself, my family, and other law-abiding citizens. The 2nd Amendment and established law provide for that. If anything our gun rights should be expanded even farther.
While not a Tennessee resident but subscriber to the Times Free Press, members of my family who have carry permits are residents of the great state of Tennessee. I find the publishing of their personal information as pertains to carry permits an invasion of privacy and no persons business. From a protection standpoint, it is possibly in their favor and for those that do not have permits, a risk to their safety because it is known that they are not legal carriers and most likely not trained to use a firearm were they to carry one. So all the folks out there that don't realize the knowledge being passed about on who is most likely not a threat to a criminal attack, the list of persons most likely not to defend themselves is there for the whole criminal world to see. For a criminal, not knowing which shell contains the pea is a real negative. As for rightful carry through parks and into establishments that serve alcohol, it is about time to allow it, especially into parks. Bears are hard to stop with a stick. Zero tolerance to carrying firearms and drinking. And of course, as Matt has pointed out...laws against rightful carry and possesion of firearms have NO affect on those who don't abide by the law anyway.
Even if this is approved I'm not sure you're allowed to shoot drunks in restaurants or vagrants in parks. If there's one thing I think we need it is someone with no actual authority pulling out their handgun in our parks and restaurants whenever they feel threatened. Once you've pulled your gun then I guess I should feel threatened and probably pull mine too, and so on and so on and so on.
"someone with no actual authority"? You're seriously going to stand by that comment Mr. SignalMtnMan? The State has given me the authority to protect myself with deadly force if I feel my life or the life of others is in danger. I'm just waiting on TN to take a cue from FL and allow permit holders to legally carry at work with no repercussions from the employer. What good is a carry permit if you have a long list of places you can't carry your gun? My gun is much safer when it is on me rather than sitting in my locked car because I had to run an errand inside a building that bans guns.
This is legislation that is a long time coming. The whole reason for a permit process is to ensure competence, compliance and legitimacy of permit holders. It is inappropriate to be unable to defend oneself or another member of society in the places it is most often needed. Zero tolerance for any mind altering, mood changing substance should be highly punished with mandatory jail time regardless of justifiable cause. So far as public record, perhaps based on my limited knowledge, I see it as a benefit anyone who sees the record should take heed the address being protected.
Are police allowed to take weapons into bars and drink? Does their special training keep their faculties clear? I wish these legislators would address the increasing difficulty and annoyance with getting an initial permit or a permit renewal. There is now a requirement to provide positive proof of citizenship. That's OK once, but the info should be kept and be used for each renewal and not have to be produced each time. Original certified documents have to be produced and if renewing by mail, they will not be returned. If one has to be sent with each renewal, you'll be spending for the renewal fee plus up to an additional 50 to send in another birth certificate. Other documents are also acceptable, but nobody is going to send in an original passport and not have it returned. Even the feds send back the old passport when a new one is issued. If I am wrong about resending original documents at renewal, I apologize. I could not find out information from the State website, a gun shop owner, or TDOT personnel at the drivers' testing office.
I'll stand by my comment that you don't have the authority to shoot drunks in restaurants or vagrants in parks and I'll bet a court would too. From your view of the big dangerous world it would appear you even need to shoot your own coworkers. Get real folks - how many self defense shooting scenarios are we really faced with on a daily basis. Also I'm not sure I want you firing off rounds when you "believe" MY life is in danger. Reading some of these posts I feel more in danger from you than anyone I encounter in the parks, restaurants or workplace where you feel it necessary to be packing. There seems to be an edge to your comments that you really can't wait for the opportunity to start firing at will.
My comment about protection from 'vagrants' refers to a real problem of homeless folks that often stay in woods near my house. As much as I feel for folks that are down and out, one of these guys attacked a teenage girl in my own back yard. These 'self-defense' scenarios are not as far fetched as many people seem to think. They don't happen every day to folks like myself, but I want to have my gun tucked on my hip every time I bring my kids home, because next time it could be one of these guys wanting to follow us into the house. The current laws force me to leave my gun at home many times.
I hope to God I never have to pull out my weapon in self-defense. But these violent situations happen every day, and those of us that choose to carry are not all looney gun nuts. In fact, all of them I know are very rational people who just want to be prepared for anything. Those of us with kids are responsible for protection of something much more important than ourselves, and that is a huge responsibility.
Or login with:
New Account