Kent Williams to Support Beth Harwell for Speaker

Well, it's official that Kent Williams won't be running for speaker of the Tennessee House. He says he is going to support Beth Harwell. Ah, Kent won't run because he knows he'll get spanked, so I naturally must inquire about his reasons for supporting Beth Harwell.

It seems the two have quite the history. She moved to get the ethics complaint against him dismissed (an ethics complaint which, according to the blog post, was "for telling Rep. Susan Lynn that he’d give a week’s pay to see her naked"). She opposed Williams' removal from the Republican party, to no avail. But more offensive to me, she voted against overriding the governor's veto of the law that allows concealed handgun permit holders to carry their guns in restaurants that serve alcohol. On top of that, she has "supported" Democrats in recent election. That is no way to advance a conservative agenda.

Sounds to me like Beth Harwell is a bad idea for Speaker of the House. The support from Kent Williams is enough to make me doubt her, but when you look at the rest of the story, it is certainly troubling. You know full well that Kent Williams' support is all about Kent Williams. My guess is that he is thinking that if he supports her, she will bless him with a nice committee assignment. It wouldn't surprise me if he already had a "back room" deal with her. After all, his election to Speaker came as a result of a "back room" deal with Democrats. Without someone like Harwell to scratch his back, he will be powerless and ineffectual in Nashville, as he should be.

Bredesen Playing Politics with Gun Bill

Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen (D) claims he is waiting to make his decision as to whether to veto the revised bill that allows for handgun permit holders to carry in restaurants that serve alcohol (known to the media and other scared wittle bunny wabbits as the "guns in bars" bill). Folks, this is an absolute lie. Bredesen is waiting because the longer he waits, the more likely it will be that the legislature will not have time to override his veto.

It seems to me that an unbiased media that was doing its job would figure this out and say something about it.

Tennessee Gubernatorial Candidates on Guns

This is a handy guide put together by the Commercial Appeal. I was favorably surprised by Haslam's responses. The responses by Ramsey and Wamp were about what I expected; both of them were very good. Apparently, the Democrats are brain-dead and do not want my vote. I will be happy to oblige them in that regard.

Bank of Tennessee Puts out Welcome Mat for Bank Robbers

It appears as though Bank of Tennessee wants to let bank robbers know that its buildings are gun free. I suppose the bank's management believes that would-be robbers or others who are bent on doing harm with weapons will see that sign and walk away. Yeah, right. The more likely scenario is that it will simply embolden those types of people. If these people had any regard for the law, they wouldn't be robbing banks. Now, they know they can enter what is more likely to be a gun-free zone and know there is less chance they will be stopped from achieving their ultimate goal.

I'm just doing my part to help them get the word out that permit holders are not welcome. I've already closed a business account and a personal account. I will close my final personal account after the first of the year, as it is too late for me to change some of my automatic withdrawals. I have no desire to visit places where criminals are made to feel safe.

Infuriating

Infuriating - that is what it is when a judge overrules the will of the People. Needless to say, I was infuriated to learn the a judge has ruled that the Tennessee guns in restaurants law is unconstitutional. Why am I not surprised to learn that the judge appears to have been a big contributor to the Democratic National Committee and is an appointee of Phil Bredesen?

No Carry at The Rendezvous in Memphis

I suppose the criminals who might be bent on doing harm will just turn and walk away when they see that sign and realize that no law-abiding permit holders will be present. Say Uncle posts a photo of the sign at the Rendezvous. I have a container of dry rub from the Rendezvous that has lasted me quite a while. I guess it will have to keep on lasting because I do not frequent unwelcoming locales.

Electing a Governor by Process of Elimination

Lovers of liberty in Tennessee can go ahead and eliminate Bill Gibbons from the governor's race. Apparently, Mr. Gibbons does not trust all you rednecks with your pistolas. AC Kleinheider asks whether you can win the GOP primary while talking smack against "guns in bars." If Mr. Gibbons doesn't trust me, why should I trust him? I've been allowed to carry a gun into McDonald's for many years, why shouldn't I be able to go into an Applebees? Because the demon alcohol might get "the better of [me]"? Mr. Gibbons, that is foolish talk and is no different from any other argument for gun control. How many times have we heard, as an argument against shall-issue permits, that having a gun "might get the better" of someone and they would therefore lose control and kill someone in a fit of rage? This is more of the same old tired rhetoric, repackaged to add the alcohol argument.

I haven't decided who I will vote for, but these guys are making it easier to decide the ones who do not have a chance.

The Tennessean Implies Arrest Equals Conviction

As part of The Tennessean's continued war on handgun permit holders, it is now implying that if a person is arrested for a crime, he should be treated like he is convicted of a crime for purposes of obtaining a handgun permit. They went to great lengths to find a thug who had pled down his crimes and appeared to be a thug (and maybe he is). They want to act like there are all kinds of loopholes being exploited.

In this country, people are still innocent until proven guilty, at least unless the person is someone that the left wants to villify. If the state's evidence was strong that this guy was a felon, they would have prosecuted him and won. It wasn't, so they didn't. Of course, if the gun permit were out of the equation, The Tennessean would likely be complaining that he was treated too harshly based on the accusations against him, was a victim of racial profiling or was somehow otherwise victimized by an unfair system.

They also bring up an instance where the state was not notified to revoke a permit when its holder was put in jail for years. It apparently never occurred to them that the court may have well decided that it was a pointless exercise, considering the criminal would be unable to carry his weapon while in prison and that his permit would expire long before he was eligible for parole. It doesn't matter, as they would rather throw the baby out with the bathwater because of a few screwups which are largely irrelevant because the person who is bent on using firearms in a criminal fashion will not be deterred by the lack of a handgun permit in any event.

Guns are Good

Phil Valentine weighs in on the carnage that Tennesseans have suffered at the hands of handgun permit holders after the passage of the restaurant carry bill. Money quote:

We really ought to make some of those [signs] up for the banks. I bet if we put some "No Firearms," or better yet, "No Bank Robbers" signs on the door, those criminals would just go back to their cars and go home.

I would submit to you that restaurants that post these silly signs are in more danger of getting robbed or seeing some kind of violence. Let's use some common sense for just a moment. If you posted a "No Firearms" sign in your front yard, do you think you'd be more likely or less likely to be robbed?

Park Carry in Tennessee

SayUncle lays it out the status of the law. In short, there is a problem when it it is so easy to break it unintentionally. Most of us did not get a handgun permit just so we could spend a lot of time studying the law to make sure we don't inadvertently break it.

It's a mindset

Stacy Campfield points out why the Tennessee "guns in parks" issue may be a good thing. Because local governments have a say in whether we get to exercise our rights in parks, we will know where these people stand on this important issue. This may be the first time that many of us have become aware of some of their views on this issue, simply because it so rarely comes up in local politics.

A politican's position on guns represents a mindset that has much less to do with guns than some might think. In my view, a position on guns represents a window into the soul. If a politician fears the gunowner, he fears the people. He likely believes that government is the answer to most problems. He likely believes that that you aren't smart enough, restrained enough, responsible enough, etc. to do any variety of things. "Trust us, we're the experts" is their mantra. "Leave it to the professionals", they will say. No thank you. Gunowners need to step up and send these folks out to pasture at the first opportunity. (H/T SayUncle)

Tennessean Commentary Says Most Restaurants Prefer Keeping Guns Out

Well, if that is the case, why have so few of them posted their facilities? One would think that if, as Gail Kerr asserts, "It's clear in Nashville that far more restaurant and bar owners want to keep guns out than let them in" there would be a few more of them posting their facilities. So far, I have yet to see a list of postings in Nashville that reach into the double digits. I know the economy is bad, but does Nashville currently have fewer than 20 restaurants and bars?

Ms. Kerr would have all facilities "opt in" if they wanted to allow people to carry their handguns on their property and allow governments to opt in as to whether they would allow permit holders to carry guns in public parks. I wonder if she would be so quick to suggest that we let local governments "opt in" as to whether to permit free speech in their locality. (h/t Kleinheider).

Please Don't Post

The Tennessee Firearms Association has a card available to be left at establishments to let them know that you will not support businesses who oppose your rights. You can find the card here. According to TFA,

The purpose of the card is to provide a polite and non-confrontational means of communicating to businesses, including restaurants, that permit holder are or have been patrons and that we are requesting that they do not elect to post their properties against handgun permit holders. In the context of a merchant, for example, the cards can be left with the payment, left with a tip, handed to a host and/or the manager. It is not necessary to verbally debate the issue.

I've never drank a place before

But apparently some of the anti-guns-in-restaurants-nuts have.

Grasping at Straws

The anti-gun "coalition" has filed its lawsuit in opposition to Tennessee's recent legislation which permits handgun carry permit holders to carry their weapon into restaurants and bars which serve alcohol, provided that they are not drinking when doing so. This group wants the law overturned. I have a few thoughts on their lawsuit.

Anyone who would equate legitimate self-defense with vigilantism has a more than a few screws loose. The complaint (H/T Kleinheider) from the "coalition" fighting the "guns in bars" law cites to the law of the land of fruits and nuts (i.e., California) to make its point:

The Tennessee guns in bar [sic] law encourages breaches of the peace and unlawful vigilantism. The statute was actually intended by lawmakers to justify vigilante use of deadly force. This subjects Petitioners, employees, patrons and members of the public to the clear and present danger of vigilante shootings in contravention to law and the rights guaranteed by the U.S. and Tennessee Constitutions. “[When private citizens are encouraged to act as “police agents,” official lawlessness thrives and the liberties of all are put in jeopardy. Surely we should not now repeat the mistakes of a discredited era of our frontier past.” People v. Superior Court (Meyers) 25 Cal.3d 67, 88, 598 P.2d 877 (Cal., 1979).

You can't make this stuff up. This law does not encourage anything. If anything, it discourages breaches of the peace because now those who would be inclined to breach the peace may want to think twice about it because of the possibility that the victim of their unlawful aggression might be armed and able to fully defend himself.

The text accompanying the final footnote references a clause from the Constitution of South Africa (!!) which they apparently believe supports their position. It states that “everyone has the right to be free from all forms of violence, from either private, or public sources.” So, why not let me be free from the violence that could be inflicted on me, my family or others by allowing me to protect myself? After all, that's my right according to South Africa's Constitution!