once more into the breach (again)

Crap on a crutch… the staff of the Commercial Appeal just cannot keep their mouths shut:

Martino Johnson, charged with second-degree murder in the shooting death of Terrelle Beasley this week after a minor traffic accident, held a Tennessee-issued permit to carry a handgun.

The publication of that sentence would be a misdemeanor punishable by a $2,500 fine under one of several gun bills that the state House Judiciary Committee could move on next week.

….And?
Explain to me how his having a handgun carry permit is, in any way, relevant to the charges or the impending court case. Did Mr. Johnson have a criminal history? In going through your graciously-provided “Tennessee Felony Convictions” database, I could find no mention of Mr. Johnson ever committing a felony, thus his handgun carry permit was lawfully issued to a legally-eligible individual. So what does it matter?
It does not. What he did was wrong, illegal, and completely unnecessary, and his having a permit does not change any of that. Well, at least, not if you are not interested in trying to paint all handgun carry permit holders with the same broad brush…

The bill would also prohibit the public from viewing a list of the state’s 220,000 gun-carry permit holders, including 33,000 in Shelby County.

You say that like it is a bad thing. I am sorry that you apparently have absolutely no understanding of the concepts of personal privacy. I am sorry that you find me attempting to defend my privacy so offensive. I am sorry that you are so narrow-minded and self-righteous that you cannot see the damage your database could cause.
But, honestly, mostly I am thankful that you put up your privacy-invading database of handgun carry permit holders, and made such a frooferah about it – without your immature, irresponsible journalism, this legislation never would have stood a chance of passing. However, your decision to publicize this database, and reflexively, irrationally defend it at every possible opportunity has inspired enough people to get in touch with their legislators, and request protection of their privacy and their personal information.
If this bill passes, the staff of the Commercial Appeal deserves the full credit for it. Congratulations.

The reasoning behind it: The list could be turned into a useful tool for burglars. The evidence that that has ever happened: none. Neither has evidence surfaced that the public would be better served with passage of other elements of this ill-conceived package of bills, which would also:

Remove current prohibitions against carrying guns in state and local parks, ball fields, restaurants where alcohol is served and state wildlife areas.

Repeal a requirement that gun dealers take a thumbprint of buyers.

So… wait a second… you are proposing that no legislation be passed until someone actually does use the information available in your privacy-invading database? Seriously? Do you have any idea just how absolutely moronic that sounds?
“Here, let me put this document with everyone’s personal and private information in a box, with big bold signs pointing to it in the middle of the field, but no one should do anything about it until someone does something illegal with it.”
Yeah. Right. I have to wonder if you would be singing the same tune if your information was contained within that box.
How about we turn the tables, shall we? What demonstrable good could come from the publication of the database? We all already know that you did it, are still publicizing it, and continue to defend it in order to drum up publicity and generate traffic for your site, so that does not really count (especially because it is childishly self-centerd). And, no, the “public’s [specious] right to know” does not count either, unless you can find a legal precedent that ranks it over hundreds of thousands of individuals’ rights to privacy. And neither does letting neighbors/family members/business/etc. find out whether or not their friends/relatives/coworkers/etc. have permits count either, due to the fact that all that does is feed the public’s fear of firearms, bigotry towards those who would exercise their Constitutionally-protected rights, and (still) violate other people’s privacy.
If you can demand evidence of wrongdoing before accepting legislation, those of us who were and are wronged by your actions can bloody well demand evidence of the benefit of those actions.
Regarding how the “public would be better served” by increasing the number of locations people are legally permitted to carry their handguns… how is that not better serving it? Those proposed bills are seeking to increase the locations where citizens who choose to are legally capable of equipping themselves to better defend themselves against those who would do them harm. How is that not better serving the public? Many, many other states have already permitted law-abiding, licensed individuals to carry concealed firearms in local parks and restaurants for some time now, and have you heard of many, if any, incidents involving them? No. Could that be because law-abiding citizens do not suddenly become law-breaking criminals when they cross over an arbitrary park boundry, or walk into a restaurant? No… that would be too… logical…
And as clarification for your intentional omission, the proposed legislation would allow handgun carry permit holders to carry their firearms into restaurants where alcohol is served, however, it would still be illegal for them to drink alcohol while carrying.
As for the thumbprint situation, if the background check can still be executed as effectively, efficiently, accurately, and quickly as it is now without the thumbprint, then I see nothing at all wrong with removing that requirement. Do you have to give over a thumbprint to purchase a car? How about heavy machinery? Because I am willing to bet I could cause significantly more death and destruction with either of those than I can with my firearms…

Encouragingly, some rational arguments were raised during debate over these bills this week in the Criminal Practice and Procedures Subcommittee.

Where “rational arguments” equates to “things people said that agree with our mindsets”, then you are probably right. I do note, however, that you are unable to present any exmaples… More of that shoddy journalism the Commercial Appeal seems to be so fond of, reaching up to bite you in the arse, eh?

Opponents managed to gain a week’s delay for the provision dealing with local parks. And the Tennessee Hospitality Association went on record opposing the bill allowing guns in restaurants that serve alcohol.

Well, I guess it is a good day for rights-activists and gun-owners across the state when one of the most vociferously anti-Second-Amendment papers in the state has to refer to a “delay” as a victory. I can probably live with that.
As for the Tennessee Hospitality Assocation, if they were to ever bring forward evidence indicating that patrons of restaurants who carry firearms into the restaurants (but do not drink) are prone to suddenly going on massive, horrific shooting rampages, then I might be willing to pay attention to what they have to say. As it is, the THA can be categorized in the same group as the staff of the Commercial Appeal – irrational folks who do not want other people carrying guns… just because.
In both the cases of restaurant carry and park carry, you need only look across our southern border to realize that this is not a problem… but that would involve doing research (something your writers seem inherently incapable of accomplishing), in addition to presenting evidence contrary to your personal beliefs (something we both know will never happen).

But it’s clear that a number of bills that would speed the proliferation of firearms in places where families like to gather, children like to play, and some people like to yell “Kill the umpire!” — but usually in jest — have some momentum.

Again with the use of that emotionally-laden word, “proliferation”. You all really seem to like that one… of course, you also seem to like leaving out the fact that it will be law-abiding, peaceful, private citizens who will be responsible for that “proliferation of firearms”. Whether you are willing to admit it or not, criminals are already arming themselves “in places where families like to gather, children like to play”, and all the rest of that gos-se. What is it with your incessant and idiotic belief that law-abiding people should be disarmed and rendered defenseless in locations where criminals (who, by very definition, break the law) are willing to go about armed, intent on doing others harm? How does that, in any way, make sense?
Furthermore, we are already carrying our handguns in places were families like to gather, and all the rest of that – or have you not seen Wal-Marts recently? Or malls? Or gas stations? Or churches (Ooh, scary, bet you did not know we could, and do, carry there, eh?)? And, yet, somehow, we still manage to not spin off on some horrific shooting spree. Wierd, huh?
I do love, though, how you conflate yelling “Kill the umpire!” with actually killing the umpire, becuase, you know, those two concepts are completely interchangeable in everyone’s minds…

Gun advocates have been vocal and passionate about this legislation. The gun lobby has been active. But you don’t have to be a lobbyist to let members of the House Judiciary Committee know how you feel.

The term “rights advocates” would technically be more appropriate, especially since it is hard to be an advocate for an inanimate lump of metal – metaphysical concepts are much easier to speak on the behalf of. Far be it for the staff of the Commercial Appeal to try and be accurate, though, especially when they can phrase the argument in so many other emotional, irrational frameworks that would play straight into their own devices…
They are absolutely correct, though – you do not have to be a lobbyist to contact your legislators; in fact, many rights activists, such as myself, have already done just that. And, oddly enough, the growing trend seems to be that the legislators are as interested in protecting and defending our personal rights as folks like me are – tough breaks for the anti-rights, anti-Second-Amendment, anti-self-defense staff of the Commercial Appeal, eh?
*sighs* It is really quite sad how a supposed champion and defender of one Amendment can be so quick and decisive in their support of subverting, abridging, and otherwise limiting another Amendment… I seriously wonder if the writer of this particular editorial is conscious of the irony implied in his words. Consider, instead, if you were legally barred from speaking freely in restaurants that serve alcohol (Oh dear, some drunkard could take offense at you words, and someone could get hurt!), or from doing so in parks (After all, if you yell “Kill the Umpire!”, he might be offended.), or you had to provide thumbprints to receive a “Free Speech Exercise Permit”. How vociferously do you think the staff of the Commercial Appeal would speak out about those limitations? And yet here they are, supporting just those kinds of limitations on another Amendment… just an Amendment that they, personally, do not agree with. How sad.
For those familiar with this entire sordid tale, it all started back when the staff of the Commercial Appeal put up a privacy-invading database of handgun carry permit holders. For a little while, despite public outcry and countless people contacting the newspaper, they were silent, and I used the time to put up a reciprocal listing of the contact information of the staff at the Commercial Appeal, as well as contact the advertisers at the Commercial Appeal. Then the editorials started, and I started fisking them, especially after I found out that the Commercial Appeal had banned my commenting account without cause, notification, or justification. And still the Commercial Appeal kept rationalizing and editorializing. I finally heard back from the First Tennessee Bank (the only advertiser to respond to my email), and decided that I will never put my money in a bank that supports intentional and flagrant privacy invasion. And, most recently, thanks to the publicity generated by the Commercial Appeal’s initial actions and endless justifications since (and possibly thanks to nudges from people like me), three pro-rights bills made it out of committee and are headed to the House floor.
Oy. What a story. Like I have mentioned in the past, though, the staff of the Commercial Appeal have found a hotbutton issue that is generating them traffic and publicity, and they are only going to let up off it when it becomes illegal or unprofitable. Looks like the former is winning out.
Trackposted to Buck Ofama, The Virtuous Republic, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, , and Stageleft, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.