Chattanooga Times Free Press

Talking about the proposed Tennessee gun laws and getting it wrong:

All four of the bills are dangerous — three to public safety, the fourth to the public’s right to know who has a state concealed-carrying of weapons permit. Each should be vigorously opposed.

The safety issues should be readily apparent. Carrying concealed weapons into bars that serve alcohol could not be more casually enticing to violence. Bars already are among the most frequent venues for volatile conflict.

Sounds logical, doesn't it? At least, until you know that that law specifically does not apply to bars where there is a minimum age to enter. That's about every real bar in the state.

It does apply to restaurants like Chilis, Applebees and the like. Places where regular people go and take a meal. I've not witnessed any volatile conflict at these places.

By the way, it's illegal to consume alcohol and carry a firearm in Tennessee. To that our writer says:

So what? People who visit bars, whether or not they drink, may be no less subject to reckless behavior.

What constitutes "Reckless behavior", anyway? Just because a person is in a place that serves alcohol, it doesn't mean they have to surrender their right to self-defense.

On parks:

Carrying concealed weapons into parks and wildlife refuges is inherently detrimental to public safety because of the remoteness of protected lands. All related studies compiled for the recent report on the Bush administration’s proposal to allow gun-carrying in national parks, demonstrated the superior safety of parks where guns are not allowed.

Up until earlier this year, guns were not allowed in national parks. This was the "superior safety" mentioned by clueless editorial writer person. Homicide, rape, kidnapping, aggravated assault, arson, the list goes on and on. It's no wonder the writer mentions a study but doesn't link to it.

If you want more details, see this, this and this.

As for local parks, this took place in 2007. Right before that same state bill was struck down. So, why should I not be allowed to defend myself in any of the situations listed above?

On to another point:

The bill to close public CCW permit records is misguided for several reasons. Thorough studies have shown that criminals and prior felons often are able to obtain CCW permits because of inadequate background checks and record-keeping. Revocation processes are similarly leaky, where they exist at all, for people convicted of crimes after they have obtained CCW permits.

More unreferenced "studies". Here's something that doesn't take a study to understand: criminals and felons obtain firearms illegally, permit or no permit. And, revocations are rare. The Commercial Appeal says a whopping 99 revocations went out last year, as of that report. That's 99 out of 219,236. You do the math.

On a technical note, Tennessee doesn't issue "CCW" permits, they issue Handgun Carry Permits. Nothing to do with concealed carry, it's carry, period. Of course, I don't see any mention of the training and qualification necessary to obtain a HCP. But that doesn't fit the agenda, does it?

And, agenda is what drives this story. Taking statistics from the biggest anti-gun group in the nation proves it:

Tennessee is already far out on the path of negligent access to use of guns. In 24 of the 25 key areas of public gun safety policy tracked by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the Tennessee is on the wrong side of public safety.

This shows me exactly where your ultimate goal lies. Not safety. Control.

Thanks to SayUncle for the pointer.

.