(TN) Rep. West's absence at meeting ends gun bills

Status
Not open for further replies.

Drizzt

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,647
Location
Moscow on the Colorado, TX
The Tennessean

April 30, 2003 Wednesday 1st Edition

SECTION: LOCAL; Pg. 5B

LENGTH: 313 words

HEADLINE: Rep. West's absence at meeting ends gun bills

BYLINE: ANNE PAINE

BODY:
House subcommittee defers measures until 2004

By ANNE PAINE

Staff Writer

A bevy of gun-related bills bit the dust yesterday, but they'll be back.

Nine bills sponsored by state Rep. Ben West that would broaden the state's gun laws came before a House subcommittee yesterday after he had left the meeting.

Committee members waited, sent out emissaries to find him and, when he didn't return, deferred the bills until 2004. West had said he had another committee meeting to attend.

It was the committee's last scheduled meeting for the year, and West had been present to see another bill he sponsored - allowing off-duty police to carry guns into schools and courts - be killed.

The statewide Fraternal Order of Police had proposed the measure, he said.

"Because of the unsettling times, the police across the state have come before us with this," West, D-Nashville, told the House judiciary constitutional protections subcommittee.

Rep. Kim McMillan, D-Clarksville, said officers two years ago were given the right to carry their weapons while off duty to most places and had agreed to the few limitations.

"I just don't see the need to come back and undo something to which we had all agreed," she said.

Although the National Rifle Association had no position on the bill, the Tennessee Firearms Association opposed it, West said in answer to questions.

Rep. Rob Briley, D-Nashville, who voted against the bill, said it would give an officer the right to take a gun to court when it involved his or her own divorce or child custody dispute.

West's other bills, many of which he has brought to the legislature for several years, include one to allow persons with a handgun carry permit to keep a gun in their car on their employer's property and another to do away with the $10 fee paid to the TBI to conduct back- ground checks of firearms purchasers.
 
Thanks to Rep Kent Coleman (D - Murfreesboro) for selling out his constituents and causing the deferral of these bills.

Rep. Coleman, a freshman legislator, got an 'A' rating from the NRA based on answers to a pre-election questionnaire on gun-related issues. Despite the fact that he won his seat by less than 40 votes, he refused to support these bills and others. His 'Aye' vote would have insured passage of these bills out of committee.

The only good from this is that he'll have to voice his opinion on these same bills next year - an election year. Either he'll vote for them to curry favor with gun owners (I'll believe it when I see it) or vote against them and show middle TN gun owners his true colors.
 
Drizzt, do you happen to know if the case in your signline is still a controlling decision in TX or whether it's been overridden by a more recent case?

I guess a more appropriate question is how the current TX Constitution's RKBA provision, which says RKBA can be regulated with a view to prevent crime, affects that supreme court decision. Is the decision irrelevant?
 
tyme: that's a good question. I haven't found anything that out-and-out overrides it, but I'm certainly no expert in case law, and there is a whole lot to wade through...
 
tyme

Constitution of the State of Texas (1845)
SEC. 13. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defence of himself of the State.

With this in the Texas Constitution, Why do you need to jump through hoops and pay big money to carry a firearm in Texas? Or, did they change the Texas State Constitution since then? :barf:


http://www.law.utexas.edu/constitut...ext/DART01.html
 
Yes. TX is weird. We've had lots of constitutions. I should have been more clear for those not familiar with the Constitutional history.

http://www.law.utexas.edu/constitutions/constitutions.html

current constitution (1876), Article 1, Section 23:
Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power by law to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.

I somehow doubt that the state legislature has ever investigated the crime impact of any firearm control measure they've imposed. I suppose that's not really required; some idiot government lawyer would argue that what's important is whether the legislature thinks a bill is important for preventing crime.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top