The traffic stop

Distracted driving is a hazard.

He should have had the gun loaded, plus one in the pipe, before he left the house.

I hope he got a ticket, at least.

A wise man once said that Colt was the great equalizer. This is not exactly true for a gun will give offensive courage when evasive action would often be more appropriate in the long run. Nowdays a smart person will not provoke an idiot road-rager on the highway for you never know if they have a loaded gun. Driving with a legal gun may make challenging this idiot more tempting. A call to 911 may be more appropriate.

This was hilarious.

I love absurdity in the morning. It's a great way to start the day.

Thanks, Clay.

New as it is, texting while driving has already killed more people than legally carrying while driving ever has.

I agree, EaTn, aggressive drivers do not provoke other drivers quite so often now with the new carry laws in place. People don't attack others knowing they may shoot back...

Excellent 'toon, Clay. On the order of, "We have found the enemy and he is us." from Pogo.

Agreed, moonpie. This one brought a smile.

The 'toon has several layers of meaning, as Clay's often do. For instance, why was the gun empty? Through forgetfulness? Use?

You're right, rolando. Isn't the first rule of gun safety: "The gun is always loaded." ?

Once again, our friendly neighborhood, Rolando has 'hit the head squarely on the nail'. While I will simply take his word for it, "...texting while driving has already killed more people than legally carrying while driving ever has...," he has also pointed out a much more simpler and easier to explain 'truth'. A driver's license gives a person no more credibility or experience behind the wheel, than a carry permit provides a "law-abiding, constitutionally protected Tennessee gun-toter." In a 'nutshell' (pun not necessarily intended), cars nor guns kill people, rather it is those we allowed to utilize them at their own discretion. Thank you for your time and attention, Woody

Solution: Invent a Smartphone with a gun barrel or a gun with a built-in Smartphone. Gives new meanings to downloading and uploading.

Very funny cartoon today. I don't think the point is about driving with guns, however. I think it's merely comparing the legislature's concern over the dangers of texting while driving, in relation to its general lack of concern over the dangers of people who carry guns anywhere, at anytime.

It's going to be interesting to see what happens if the General Assembly does override the governor's veto (as they surely will). The day after this bill becomes law, I think you'll see almost every bar and restaurant owner in Tennessee posting signs that ban guns in their establishments. They'll have that right to do so under this legislation, and I bet they exercise it. Any restaurant owners who don't will be opening themselves up for some serious liability issues. Can you imagine the impact this will have on a insurance coverage for these businesses?

So, what then? If a gun owner (with a concealed weapons permit) has the right to carry a weapon into a business by state law, but is barred from doing so by the owner of that establishment, it seems like this is all for naught.

Well, it won't be for nothing, I suppose. It will be a real economic boon for the companies that make those signs that read 'NO FIREARMS BEYOND THIS POINT'.

I wonder if he is wearing a seatbelt? I wonder what happens if he were riding a motorcycle?

Does texting while riding a motorcycle count?

I can be pulled over for not wearing a seat belt while driving a vehicle protected by a roof, doors and more, given a ticket and cited to court.

i can then go to court to contest the ticket on my motorcycle that has no seat belt, no doors, no roof....

...but, i guess this makes about as much sense as a law against texting but allowing "gun toters" to visit our parks "packing heat" and into our bars "packing heat".

makes them feel safe i guess, but if you have to "pack heat" to feel safe out in public, why go in the first place?

That's hilarious Clay. ...just hilarious.

It's like watching a cop interrupted in writing a ticket for loud music, while an unmuffled motorcycle roars by. Like police shaking down a skateboarder as a nuisance while zealots canvass the parking lot with flyers.

just hilarious.

moonpie, You and Rolando are right, an unloaded gun would just be an expensive hammer.

OllieH, "NO FIREARMS BEYOND THIS POINT'" That signage would carry no weight. As for the rest, how many of those type of signs do you see when traveling around the country? I don't know that I've ever seen more than one or two.

SCOTTYM states: "That signage would carry no weight. As for the rest, how many of those type of signs do you see when traveling around the country? I don't know that I've ever seen more than one or two."

It most certainly will carry weight. You can't bring a gun onto my property if I have it posted not to. According to what I've read about this bill, it gives proprietors of restaurants (aka bars) the right to ban guns in their own establishment. It would certainly cover the establishment in a court a law.

As for not seeing those kind of signs very much when traveling, well, you're right about that. I guess in most places they don't feel like they NEED to remind citizens that guns are banned in the airport... except in Tennessee. That says a lot about us, don't you think?

You will be seeing them, though, if this law passes, so you might want to get used to the idea.

Here's a story on some bar owners that are none-too-happy about this new law.

http://www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=9013759

To quote out a bit: "The measure would leave unchanged an existing ban on consuming alcohol while carrying a handgun, and restaurant owners would still be able to ban weapons from being carried in their establishments."

Apparently, a sign at the door would carry weight, SCOTTYM. If it doesn't carry any weight with you, you may have to give up that 'law-abiding citizen' title that you gun enthusiasts seem to cherish so.

The Tennessee Legislature has really poor priorites, while public education nose dives, gun legislation moves and dominates the entire session. If they can move this fast on silly legislaton that reasonable people oppose, including the police chiefs assoication oppose, can you imagine what could be accomplished for education and health with this same zeal for packin heat.

If the state legislation would put education as a priority over having a brewsty and a shoot um up, and help resist their Charles Bronson testosteron urge that would be great.

aae1049- you must have gotten on the wrong web page this morning. Your comment "If the state legislation would put education as a priority" is too logical for posting here.. Folks on these postings believe the legislation exists to deal with gun rights issues.

aae1049 and EaTn - And how many years did Naifeh spend his time rat-holing firearms legislation when he could have been addressing priorities? Why do you think they all hit at once? If they had been allowed to proceed when proposed, the issue would have been long resolved one way or the other. Instead, Naifeh had to play politics.

As for education being a priority, it most certainly should be. What exactly do you expect those morons in Nashville to do about it? I can tell you - nothing. If for no other reason, they are stymied by even bigger morons in Washington. Once they find out there's no more money to throw at it, they run out of ideas. You think the NRA is a powerful lobby? HA they pale in oomparison to the NEA.

Sailorman- we may not agree on lots of things but are in total agreement to the last statement. I am totally against any group or organization funded by taxpayer dollars having a right to tenure or strike.

I got an idea.......let's discuss firearms. I'm just not sure that topic gets enough coverage on this page.

As we all know, woody, you are a veritable fount of wisdom [yeah, right].

Engineers texting while driving have killed a couple [small] trainloads of people recently...it has been in the news.

And guns have killed how many people while the permit holder was driving? [California doesn't count...only lawmakers and celebrities have permits out there and they don't drive.]

You really should brush up on your reading comprehension...

Can't recall if it's the first or not, moonpie, but it is one of the four anyhow. Good ones all.

OllieH, toonfan, Perhaps you two should learn the actual law concerning "no guns" postings. Perhaps you would not be spouting off about things of which you are dead wrong. The signage has to be very specifically worded. Otherwise, no weight of law.

The quoted "NO FIREARMS BEYOND THIS POINT", carries no weight of law.

You might want to consider that, seeing as how, even many police officers are un/misinformed about firearms law, many of us who carry daily also have copies of the entire section of the Tn Code dealing with weapons printed out and carried in our vehicles. It comes in handy when ignorant people of all types(law enforcement or otherwise) think their opinion of what the law says is actually the law. Learn the code, then you can engage in informed conversation, till then you are writing about things of which you are misinformed/mistaken.

Assuming that you know what you're talking about, SCOTTYM (and that's a huge leap of faith on my part), the fact that I got the verbiage on the sign wrong, hardly undermines the point.

The point being that restaurant or bar owners can choose to ban weapons on the premises of their establishments, regardless of the state law.

I certainly hope that your expansive knowledge of the technicalities of gun banning signage, doesn't indicate a general disregard for the rights of others to exercise some authority over their own property. Do you regularly carry a gun where it's posted not to?

toonfan, I will not carry into an establishment which is properly posted. If an establishment is not properly posted, or is not otherwise off-limits to carrying, I am always armed, and well within my rights to do so. The old saying about ignorance of the law cuts both ways. If a person who owns a business that is open to the public, does not want legally carried firearms on his/her property, they need to go about barring them in the way prescribed by the TN code. This can be a properly worded, and sized sign posted in the correct place(s), or a representative of the owner can inform every person walking through the door verbally. Otherwise, there will be LEGALLY carried firearms there as well as the illegal ones carried by non-HCPermitees.

So, you're saying if I had a sign posted at my property line that stated clearly, 'NO FIREARMS BEYOND THIS POINT' that you would just ignore it?

If so, you might not be violating the letter of the law, but you would definitely be violating the spirit of the law. I find it very interesting that someone who's so emphatic about others respecting your rights (when it comes to firearms) would be so cavalier about respecting the property rights of others.

But, then again, maybe I shouldn't be surprised by that.

toonfan, There are a lot of laws to which I must adhere, in order to exercise my freedom to carry a firearm. Why should your right to bar them, in a place open to the public, be any different.

You can put up "no trespassing" signs and I'll stay away, along with the rest of the law abiding public. I doubt most business owners would go that route.

Talk about rights sounds silly because you are equating two different types of private property.(your house and yard= NOT open to the public), and (a privately owned business= open to the public).

I have no business on your "private property" (home and yard) unless you invite me over for beers and conversation.(I wouldn't have a gun then anyway.) I do have business walking in to the local hardware store to exchange money for goods. If the hardware store owner/manager wants to bar me from bringing my firearm into the store, he needs to LAWFULLY post his wishes. I will then respect his LAWFULLY stated preference and take my money elsewhere.

Quit trying to twist this. "NO FIREARMS BEYOND THIS POINT", carries no weight of law, therefore it is perfectly legal for me to ignore it.

The State Attorney General has issued an opinion on this. Look it up, along with the applicable law, and if you find where I am wrong, I'd be glad to discuss it.