►
Description
House Civil Justice Subcommittee - March 8, 2022 - House Hearing Room 2
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
we
have
an
amendment
drafting
code,
15096.
A
A
A
A
Do
I
have
a
second
representative
parkerson,
okay,
represent
todd
you're
recognized
on
amendment
zero,
one,
five,
zero,
nine
six
representative
clemens.
C
Recognized
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
this
amendment
rewrites
the
bill
and
several
little
details
about
this.
That
certainly
be
glad
to
discuss.
This
removes
some
legal
uncertainty
first
and
foremost
right
now.
Well,
this
this
would
help
balance
property
owners,
rights
to
disarm
people
on
their
property
and
the
people's
rights
to
protect
their
lives.
C
This
creates
a
new
subsection,
tca
3917
1325.
The
current
1325
will
become
subsections
b
and
c
substantively.
This
means
that
the
new
law
defines
that
if
a
person
or
entity
decides
to
ban
firearms
on
its
premises,
this
person
or
entity
assumes
responsibility
for
injuries
resulting
from
that
decision,
and
why
is
this
important?
C
The
decision
to
ban
firearms
puts
affected
individuals
at
a
heightened
risk,
both
on
posted
premises,
as
well
as
on
their
way
to
that
property
and
back
to
make
matters
worse.
It
advertises
to
criminals
that
individuals
entering
patronizing
and
leaving
the
premises
are
easy
victims
or
sitting
ducks
criminal.
For
example,
a
criminal
observing,
a
petite,
female
or
physically
weak
or
elderly
person
entering
or
leaving
a
quote
gun-free
zone
can
easily
spot
this
person
attack
and
rob
or
even
kill
them
without
fear
of
much
resistance.
C
If
the
person
uses
public
transportation
like
a
taxi,
uber
sidewalks,
if
came
by
bike
or
motorcycle,
this
defenseless
defenselessness
can
extend
far
beyond
the
posted
property
for
a
person
subject
to
death,
threats
or
stalking.
This
can
be
daunting,
especially
at
night,
and
I
just
implore
you
to
really
consider
that
that,
if
you've
got
someone,
that's
a
victim
of
stalking
that
you're
putting
them
in
extra
harm's
way.
C
That's
in
the
law
right
now,
and
what
I
think
it
we
have
is
when
people
are
posting
a
gun
as
a
gun-free
zone,
they're
not
recognizing
up
front
that
they're
actually
giving
away
that
immunity
and
that's
a
concern.
I
think
folks
are
doing
that
without
again
without
being
fully
informed
and
to
me
that's
one
thing:
one
of
the
biggest
things
this
bill.
Does
it
clarifies
that,
when
you
post,
you
are
now
accepting
responsibility
for
these
people
you're,
giving
up
that
immunity
that
we
already
have
in
code?
So
I
think
that's.
C
C
Likewise,
an
individual
may
not
have
a
choice
but
to
enter
a
certain
posted
private
business,
for
example.
If
you
need
to
go
to
the
hospital
and
all
hospitals
in
your
area,
decide
to
post
or
if
you
filled
up
your
gas
tank
at
the
gas
station,
if
one
can
even
afford
that
now,
but
the
pump
malfunctions
or
you
need
a
receipt
which
the
pump
fails
to
print.
I
know
many
of
you
have
had
that
issue
like
I
have
and
the
gas
station
is
posted.
A
A
All
right
back
in
session
and
chairman
todd
apologized
for
that,
so
you
may
resume.
A
Question
has
been
called
all
those
in
favor
of
attaching
amendment
01509
to
house
bill
2770
signify
by
saying
aye
opposed
no
eyes
have
it.
Amendments
attached
chairman
todd,
you're,
recognized.
C
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
now
that
we
have
a
pretty
full
committee.
I
may
need
to
repeat
some
of
this
so
that
you
guys
know
what
what
we're
actually
doing
I'll,
probably
start
at
a
different
place,
but
the
bill,
as
amended
actually
in
my
mind,
provides
some
clarification
to
property
owners
right
now.
C
There
is
an
immunity
that
property
owners
have
if
they
do
not
post
their
property
as
a
gun-free
zone,
they're
immune
from
civil
liability
at
this
time,
if
they
post
many,
don't
realize
they're
giving
up
that
immunity
and
that's
what
this
bill
does
it
clarifies
that
they're
they're
get
removing
that
immunity
from
liability
protection
and
taking
on
the
risk
and
responsibility
of
protecting
those
within
their
confines.
C
Clarifies
that
legal
responsibility
for
injuries
resulting
from
curbing
a
person's
right
and
ability
to
protect
themselves,
and
it
defines
the
conditions
and
extent
of
the
liability
as
well
as
a
time
frame,
to
bring
legal
action,
which
I
think
we
need
in
the
code
to
help.
Those
folks
understand
exactly
what
they're
accepting
by
posting
their
property.
C
A
criminal
can
observe
someone
that
may
be
elderly
or
feeble
entering
one
of
these
businesses
or
premises
and
know
that
they're
an
easy
target,
and
so
I'm
concerned
that
we're
unfairly
putting
folks
into
a
really
precarious
situation.
And
if
you
talk
about
stalking,
as
I
mentioned
a
minute
ago,
someone
that's
a
victim
of
stalking.
This
just
opens
them
up
for
more
potential
harm
from
their
stalker.
C
A
E
E
On
october
16th
of
1991,
a
mass
shooting
took
place
at
a
louby's
cafeteria
in
colleen
texas,
that
day
susan
gracia
hup
was
there
dining
with
her
parents.
Susan
would
normally
carry
a
gun
in
her
purse,
but
she
had
recently
stated
that
she
left
her
gun
in
her
car,
because
at
the
time
it
was
illegal
to
carry
a
firearm
in
texas.
E
E
E
A
Have
any
questions
for
carlos
and
seeing
them?
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Next
up
is
kristen
benton,
kristen,
benton
and
kristen
you'll
have
a
three-minute
time
limit,
just
like
carlos
and
make
sure
red
light's
on
just
announce
yourself
to
the
committee
and
who
you
represent.
A
F
Chairman
representatives,
my
name
is
kristen
benton.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
with
you
all
today.
I
don't
have
a
military
or
law
enforcement
background,
I'm
just
a
regular
mom
of
two
daughters.
I
got
a
tennessee
handgun
carry
permit
over
10
years
ago,
so
I
could
have
options
for
protecting
myself
and
my
children,
I'm
also
a
small
business
owner
in
middle
tennessee.
My
business
is
she
shoots,
training
where
I'm
a
firearms
instructor,
providing
defensive
training
for
armed
citizens,
especially
women.
F
F
I
also
teach
many
many
widowers,
as
well
as
women,
who
have
been
an
abusive
and
violent
relationships.
Some
have
even
been
held
at
gunpoint,
whatever
their
individual
reason.
They
all
have
one
thing
in
common,
they
feel
vulnerable
and
they
are
taking
steps
to
claim
responsibility
for
their
own
safety.
F
Another
study
in
2000
published
in
the
journal
of
quantitative
criminology,
reported
that
u.s
civilian
use,
u.s
civilians,
use
guns
to
defend
themselves
and
others
from
crime
at
least
989
883
times
per
year.
An
additional
study
reports
that
60
percent
of
convicted
felons
admit
that
they
avoided
committing
crimes
when
they
knew
the
victim
was
armed
and
40
admitted
avoiding
committing
crimes
when
they
think
the
victim
might
be
armed.
F
It's
important
to
understand
that
when
a
business
chooses
to
be
a
gun-free
zone,
they
create
an
environment
that
is
appealing
to
violent
criminals
and
creates
increased
vulnerability
for
someone
like
myself
or
any
of
the
women
I
teach
every
week
that
might
otherwise
have
means
of
protecting
themselves
and
their
loved
ones
from
serious
injury
or
death.
If
I
can
no
longer
be
responsible
for
my
safety,
then
who
is
hp?
F
A
C
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
I
just
appreciate
the
committee
hearing
these
folks.
As
you
said,
we
certainly
invite
the
public
to
be
a
participant
in
this
process
and
this
what
you're
doing
here
this
morning,
the
vote
you're
going
to
have
on
this
bill
is
definitely
going
to
affect
people's
lives.
This
not
only
affects
the
lives
like.
We
were
just
like
we
heard
in
testimony
here
of
individuals
that
want
to
protect
themselves
and
know
that
responsibility
they
have
to
protect
themselves
and
their
families,
but
also
the
property
owners,
and
this
does
nothing
to
disrespect
property
owners.
C
I
am
one
myself
and
I
know
when
I
had
had
to
come
up
on
a
situation
on
my
own
property
with
my
own
employees
and
make
a
decision
about
them
being
able
to
carry
on
our
property.
I
automatically
knew
that
I
was
taking
on
responsibility
if
I
asked
them
to
disarm
themselves,
and
I
think
most
people
do
not
realize
that
they're
accepting
that
liability
through
the
court
process-
and
this
just
clarifies
that
so
that
they
know
up
front
if
they
decide
to
post
and
disarm
their
patrons,
then
they're
accepting
responsibility.
C
Their
immunity
from
liability
is
going
away
in
code
now
we
don't
really
tell
them
that,
and
this
would
actually
put
that
very
plainly
in
front
of
them.
So
with
that,
I
would
certainly
appreciate
your
consideration
on
this.
A
Thank
you,
chairman
todd
and
chairman
farmer,
you're
recognized.
G
G
Thanks
so
much
chairman-
and
I
think
I
know
the
answer
to
this-
one
representative-
todd
with
this-
and
would
this
have
anything
to
do
with
say,
for
example,
if
I
had
something
for
sale
at
my
home
and
I
had
essentially
invited
someone
onto
my
property
to
come
and
purchase
a
boat,
for
example.
Would
that
would
that
person
then
be
able
to
carry
a
firearm
onto
my
private
property?
If
this
bill
passes.
C
G
Mr
chair,
and
so
so
as
answer
yes,
am
I
accepting
responsibility
if
something
someone
were
to
get
shot
on
my
property
if
they
were
coming
on
my
property
to
purchase
something
on
my
private
property
at
my
home.
C
If
you
do
not
post
it,
according
to
the
the
code
that
we
have
here,
39
1759,
I
believe
it
is,
then
you
have
immunity
from
criminal
or
from
civil
liability,
is
my
understanding
from
what
we
already
have
in
code.
You
have
an
immunity
there
if
you
do
not
post,
but
what
I
think
people
don't
realize.
Most
people
do
not
realize
is
that
they
post
according
to
tca
13
17,
13,
59,
39
17
13
59-
is
that
they're
giving
up
that
like
that
immunity,
and
so
you
still
can
do
that.
C
G
Okay
and
my
next
set
of
questions
has
to
do
it-
has
to
do
with
liability
right.
So
we
have
say
you're,
you're
kroger,
in
a
in
a
part
of
town
that
that
doesn't
have
much
violence,
whatever
town
that
may
be
right,
I'm
not
picking
on
any
cities
or
towns
in
this
state
or
at
all.
C
That,
in
my
opinion,
that's
what
we
already
have
if
they
post
it
they're
giving
up
the
immunity
to
liability.
So
they
already
have
that
based
on
court
cases
and
other
things.
As
my
understanding-
and
this
just
clarifies
that
and
puts
it
in
front
of
them
to
say,
if
you
post,
then
you
recognize
that
you're
actually
removing
that
immunity
that
we
already
have.
G
And
my
point
is
this
and
there's
different
types
of
businesses.
I
know:
there's
been
a
few
businesses
that
I'm
aware
of
in
within
the
state
that
that
you
know
liability
arises
in
certain
situations
and
it
causes
business
businesses
to
have
to
be
more
alert.
So
if
someone
has
been
shot
across
the
street
or
stabbed
and
walked
over
and
ended
up,
something
happened
to
them
near
on
their
property,
then
that
that
should
that
creates
a
that,
creates
a
responsibility
for
that
business
to
be
on
a
heightened,
heightened
awareness
for
their
patrons
okay.
G
So
I
think
we
we
have
something
in
place
to
protect
people,
as
is,
and
that
means
that
these
businesses,
that
are
in
an
area
or
in
the
business
of
having
more
you
know
in
the
business
of
attracting
those
who
who
like
to
fight
or
do
things
that
maybe
not
happen
at
the
local
grocery
store
during
the
daytime.
That
hadn't
happened
in
45
years.
That
happens,
you
know
consistently.
G
I
think
these
businesses
have
a
have
a
duty
to
protect
and
provide
security,
armed
security
for
their
patrons
right.
So
if
something
happens
in
that
situation,
then
of
course
the
person
and
if
the
security
wasn't
provided
that
person
then
would
have
the
ability
to
sue
that
business.
But
my
issue
comes
with.
G
You
know:
we're
talking
about
insurance
premiums
here,
we're
talking
about
a
lot
of
things
for
businesses
that
and
a
lot
of
liability
for
businesses
that
you
know
have
no
record
of
any
sort
of
violence
and
there's
no
law
that
we're
going
to
pass
here
in
the
tennessee
general
assembly.
It's
going
to
stop
violence,
you
know
and
guns,
don't
cause
violence
knives,
don't
cause
violence.
Those
folks
who
who
have
their
hands
on
those
instruments
caused
the
violence.
But
my
issue
is
I
just
you
know
we
and
we
had
this
debate.
G
You
know
back
when
bill
haslam
was
governor
and
we
were.
We
had
a
lot
of
gun
bills
come
through
this
committee
and
sat
through
hours
and
hours
of
debate,
and
it
was
it
was
about
this.
It
was
like
well,
let's
talk
about
our
constitutional
right
to
carry
a
firearm,
but
let's
also
talk
about
our
property
rights.
You
know,
let's
talk
about
individual
property
rights.
Let's
talk
about
property
rights
as
a
business
owner
right,
and
so
I
think
we're
back
there
again.
G
It
seems
like
almost
like
deja
vu
and
I
and
I
think
that
we
we
came
to
a
good
spot
when
we
decided,
where
we're
going
to
allow
farms
and
where
we
weren't
going
to
allow
firearms
in
regards
to
private
businesses,
because
we
we
have
to
allow
them
to
take
responsibility
and
control
for
that
business
that
they
started
and
to
care
for
those
patrons
that
they
invite
into
their
businesses.
You
know
so,
I
think
we're
going.
C
Unless
I'm
misunderstanding,
I
I
think
you
made
my
case
for
me
quite
frankly
for
having
this
legislation
and
that's
that's
not
being
flippant.
I
you
made
a
lot
of
points
that
I
was
already
making
that
first
of
all,
we're
not
infringing
on
the
rights
of
private
property
owner
whatsoever,
they
can
still
post.
They
can
still
prevent
anyone
from
coming
on
their
property,
whether
it's
a
person
selling
a
boat
or
whether
it's
a
a
chick-fil-a
they
can.
C
And
that's
what
this
that
you
could
even
consider
this
a
cleanup
bill.
This
with
a
wink.
I
say
so
it
you
know
it.
It
helps
people
to
understand
right
up
front
if
I
do
this.
If
I
accept
this,
if
I
want
to
make
this
choice
that
we
provide
in
law
that
we're
not
hampering
whatsoever,
then
I'm
ex
I'm
also
giving
up
some
immunity
there
and.
G
C
Chairman
todd,
well,
I
didn't
say
I
agree
with
every
point.
I
said
you
made
a
lot
of
points
that
I've
already
made
here
about
why
we
do
need
this
bill
and
I
just
respectfully
disagree.
I
think
it's
being
responsible
for
to
our
citizens.
If
we
make
sure
they
know
up
front
that
they're
giving
up
some
immunity
that
they
have
without
posting.
C
A
We
got
a
question,
but
it's
been
withdrawn,
so
representative
garrett,
you're
recognized.
H
Chairman
tom,
thank
you
for
mr
chairman,
thank
you
and
thank
you
for
bringing
this
legislation
a
couple
of
comments
and
then
I'll.
Let
you
respond.
I've
got
two
well
all
of
us.
I've
got
one
personal
situation
with
a
client
of
mine
that
dealt
with
the
second
amendment
right.
He
was
watching
his
son
playing
or
not
playing
fishing
in
a
tournament
near
new
york.
He
drove
up
there.
He
had
his
handgun
with
his
car
and
decided
to
go
across
our
border
in
canada
and
he
was
charged.
He
was
detained.
H
They
charged
him
with
smuggling
a
handgun
into
canada,
and
they
could
only
he
could
only
talk
to
his
lawyer.
So
that
was
me
right,
so
I
was
charged
with.
How
am
I
going
to
get
this
guy
out
of
canada
that
has
been
charged
with
smuggling
a
handgun
that
we
can
carry
now,
even
without
a
permit
because
of
our
second
amendment,
so
I
spent
the
entire
day
trying
to
figure
out
what
I
was
going
to
do
for
this
fellow.
I
got
a
lawyer
in
ottawa,
which
is
where
our
truckers
were.
H
I
believe
they
started
there
in
canada,
and
he
said
this
is
a
canadian
resident
said.
We
don't
have
the
second
amendment
here
in
canada,
then
his
words
ring
even
louder.
I
wish
we
did
right
because
he
was
going
to
be
detained
until
he
had
a
hearing
three
or
four
days
later
criminally,
which
he
could
spend
jail
for
just
the
possession
of
a
firearm
in
canada,
because
they
don't
have
the
second
amendment,
so
he
ended
up
getting
out.
H
He
got
civilly
charged,
they
confiscated
his
weapon,
he
still
doesn't
have
it
and
he
was
able
to
come
home
goal
achieved
right
other
than
the
fact
that
he
lost
his
his
weapon.
We
certainly
don't
have
that
ability
here
in
the
united
states
due
to
our
second
amendment.
The
second
comment
I
have
is
that
we
are
witnessing
it
as
a
nation
in
the
aspects
of
what's
happening
in
ukraine
when
president
zielinski
asked
when
he
was
offered
a
ride
out
of
the
country.
H
So
I
don't
need
a
ride.
I
need
ammunition
right.
They
were
arming
their
citizens
because
they
didn't
have
the
ability
to
fend
off
a
foreign
government
in
a
lot
of
ways.
The
second
amendment
gets
confused,
I
think,
on
what
its
purpose
is
and
our
purpose
is
granted.
We
enjoy
hunting.
We
enjoy
using
our
firearms
in
a
sport
way,
but
the
second
amendment's
really
about
our
government
being
able
to
overtake
its
citizens,
so
we
can
have
an
armed
citizenry.
So
it's
against
the
actual
actions
of
the
government.
H
It
limits
the
government,
no
country
that
I
know
no
country
within
our
own
borders
would
try
to
do
what's
happening
in
ukraine
because
our
citizens
are
armed,
which
I
think
is
the
very
purpose
of
the
second
amendment.
So
with
all
that
said,
I
think
I
do
have,
and
I
think
most
of
our
community
members
understand
what
the
second
amendment
is.
Here's
my
concerns
with
the
legislation
as
written
is
that
we
have,
and
there
will
always
be
an
argument
on
private
property
rights
versus
the
second
amendment
rights.
H
That's
not
new
in
our
dialogue,
as
the
second
amendment
continues
to
evolve,
or
whatever
it's
going
to
be
right.
So
my
worry
is-
and
I
would
just
like
to
get
your
take
on
this-
is
that
the
old
bank
of
gillettesville
building,
that's
in
in
the
bank
and
the
bank
of
guilds
was
part
of
my
family.
It's
a
120
year
old
building
and
my
family
still
still
utilizes
that
building
and
I
have
a
tenant
in
there.
He
teaches
art
classes.
I
don't
have
any
signs
or
anything
that
says
anything
about
firearms
or
whatnot.
H
It's
not
in
my
lease.
It's
silent
in
my
lease
about
anything
like
that,
but
in
this
sense
what
if
my
tenant
wanted
to
post
something
because
he
wanted
to
make
it
known
under
current
law
as
you
as
you
quoted,
that
he
doesn't
want
firearms,
and
my
concern
is
if
your
bill
becomes
law,
is
that
we
now
he
would
not
only
be
responsible.
H
So
would
I
for
the
act
of
a
criminal
act
that
I
had
no
connection
to,
because
I
don't
I'm
removed
from
that
building,
because
my
tenants
in
there,
so
that
can
apply
across
the
board
on
anyone
that
owns
a
building
that
this
could
affect.
I'm
not
even
bringing
up
some
secure
facilities
that
I'm
afraid
this
might
run
into.
But
what
do
we
do
when
now,
a
private
property
owner
could
be
liable
for
the
criminal
act
of
another
that
they're
not
connected
to
in
any
form
or
fashion?
H
And
my
concern
chairman
farmer
said
it
this
way
that
there's
going
to
be
no
liability,
insurance,
that's
going
to
pay
insurance.
Companies
will
take
your
premium,
but
they
will
work
vehemently
to
deny
your
claim
period,
they're
in
the
business
of
not
paying
your
claims
or
finding
a
way
that
your
policy
doesn't
doesn't
cover
a
specific
instance
under
your
liability
insurance.
H
So
my
fear
is
that
we're
going
to
bankrupt
a
small
business
like
the
fellow
that's
in
my
building
or
then
me
or
anyone,
that's
in
my
particular
situation
when
they
have
no
connection
to
a
third-party
criminal
act.
Your
law
obviously
protects
the
law-abiding
citizens,
that's
not
going
to
violate
the
law
under
their
second
amendment
rights,
but
we
know
people
do
right.
That's
that's
just
that's
going
to
happen,
so
I'm
just-
and
I
don't
know
if
there's
a
way,
I
don't
know,
there's
a
language
that
we
could
amend
or
or
what
the
answer
is.
H
But
what's
your
response
in
a
situation
where
we're
putting
a
property
owner
responsible
for
a
third
party
criminal
act
that
they
have
no
connection
to
what?
What?
How
does
this
bill
protect
the
property
owner
in
this
instance
for
their
property
rights
in
the
sense
when
they
have
nothing
to
do
with
the
criminal
act
that
took
place
on
their
property?
H
That
now
someone
dies
or
is
killed,
that
family
is
going
to
have
a
substantial
wrongful
death
action
against
whomever
is
touched
on
that
property
and
believe
me,
they'll
sue
every
defendant
they
possibly
can
which
this
statue
could
open
up
even
more
defendants.
So
that's
that's
my
concern.
Did
I
express
that
properly
or
you
could
potentially
respond
to
that
chairman.
C
Believe
so,
and
I
think,
as
I
understand
it
right
now,
that
liability
already
exists
that
there,
but
they
don't
realize
it.
For
example,
we
can
name
several
cases,
the
colorado,
the
movie
theater
shooting
I
I
don't
have
those
cases
in
front
of
me,
but
I
understand
that
you
know
there
were
lawsuits
that
were
awarded
because
they
had
posted
that
property
and
taken
away
those
people's
rights
to
protect
themselves,
and
so
they
ended
up
writing
some
big
checks
to
the
victims
and
victims,
families,
as
my
understanding,
so
I
would.
C
I
would
say
that
we
already
have
that
situation
right
now,
whether
they
realize
it
or
not,
is
I
think,
that's
the
issue
that
I
have
here?
Is
they
don't
realize
it
because
of
the
way
the
code's
written
it
just
sit
there?
You
don't
want
it
on
your
property.
You
can
post
it
and
they're,
not
they're,
not
connecting
the
dots
to
say.
C
I
have
immunity
if
I
don't
post,
but
if
I
do
post
the
the
our
law
book
is
silent
to
tell
people
they
are
that
immunity
is
going
away
when
in
fact
it
is
going
away.
So
that's
the
point
that
I'm
making
is
that
this
puts
it
pretty
plain
and
simple
that
we,
you
know
we
we
know
up
front
if
we
take
this
action
and
put
that
sign
on
the
door
that
we're
giving
up
that
immunity.
H
Representative
garrett,
thank
you,
let's
suppose,
typically
under
the
law,
you're
not
responsible
for
the
criminal
act
of
another,
that's
an
intervening
cause
that
would
break
the
causation
of
you
being
liable
to
someone
typically
right.
So
in
that
regard,
if
there's
not
a
statute
out
there,
that
gives
someone
civil
immunity.
If
they
post
a
sign.
H
I
don't,
I
don't
believe
it's
that
simple,
but
given
the
fact
that
typically
you're
not
responsible
for
the
criminal
act
of
another,
if
your
bill
made
it
where
you
are
criminally
responsible,
excuse
me
if
you're
liable
for
the
criminal
act
of
another,
would
you
support
this
bill?
If
that
was
the
unintended
consequences
of
your
legislation
that
as
a
landowner
or
a
business
owner,
you
are
going
to
make
that
landowner
you're
going
to
make
chairman
tied
over
your
business
responsible
liability
wise
for
the
act
of
a
third-party
criminal
act
where
you
have
no
connection
to?
C
And
I
may
not
be
following
you,
so
are
you
talking
about
when
you're
talking
about
a
third
party?
Are
you
talking
about
a
building?
Let's
say
that
that
I
own
and
I
lease
space
to
you,
you
post
it
and
someone
comes
into
that
building
and
into
your
business.
Your
your
office
in
that
building
that
I
would
be
liable,
represent
garrett.
H
Let
me
give
you
an
example:
okay,
the
art
teacher
that
I
have
in
my
building.
If
he's
got
someone
in
there
that
he's
teaching
our
instruction
instruction
to
that,
maybe
that
particular
person
there
is
armed
in
the
building.
There
is
a
third
party
that
wants
to
rob
a
criminal
that
wants
to
come
into
the
building
and
rob
anybody.
That's
in
there
take
their
purse,
take
their
wallet
whatever
the
case
may
be.
H
C
C
So
if
the
entire
building,
I
think
someone
testified
last
week
that
they
rent
space
in,
like
a
mall,
for
example,
and
so
the
mall
may
be
posted
well,
the
entity
renting,
didn't
post
it.
The
mall
did
so
they're
the
ones
that
would
be
that
the
posting
entity
is
my
intent
to
be
responsible,
not
everyone
else
that
that
has
anything
to
do
with
the
lease
or
or
the
neighbor,
or
anything
like
that.
Just
the
entity
posting
okay.
H
Representative
garrett,
well,
my
problem
is:
is
the
the
language
in
the
bill
allows
for
anyone
to
be
sued?
So
there's
there's
no
protection
in
your
sense.
That
would
not.
That
would
make
me,
as
the
owner
of
the
building
in
my
hypothetical
immune
from
liability,
because
I
will
be
sued
under
this
legislation
because
I
own
the
building.
H
My
lease
is
silent
to
the
tenants
so
that
stat
them
posting
the
statute
may
or
may
not
apply
to
the
actual
building
owner.
So
I
just
I
just
say
that
that
there's
some
scenarios
here
that
I'm
afraid
we're
we're
making
property
owners
responsible
for
the
acts
of
third
party,
a
criminal
act,
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
don't
believe,
that's
your
intent
of
the
bill.
H
C
Chairman
todd
on
the
amendment
section,
3,
a3,
section
1
a3
states
that
the
responsibility
of
the
posting
person
or
entity
for
the
safety
and
defense
of
the
person
authorized
to
carry
firearm
pursuant
to
this
part,
extends
to
the
conduct
of
other
invitees
trespassers
employees
of
the
person
or
entity
vicious
animals.
Wild
animals
defensible
man-made
and
natural
hazards.
C
So
it
specifically
talks
about
the
posting
entity
there
and
it
may
not
be
clear
enough,
and
I'm
certainly
because
again
my
intent
is
the
entity.
Posting
should
be
the
responsible
and
only
that
entity
posting,
that's
the
intent.
So
if
it's
not
clear,
then
that
certainly
I
want
to
make
sure
it's
clear,
so
I
would,
I
would
certainly
be
glad
to
amend
it.
You
know
if
we
can
get
beyond
this
point,
be
glad
to
amend
this.
I
I
In
addition,
under
tennessee's
comparative
fault
comparative
negligence,
you
know
that
whoever
the
claim
is
going
to
be
adjudicated
by
the
jury
they're
going
to
be
evaluating
everybody's
potential
liability
for
their
actions,
our
actual
actions
involved,
and
so
I
don't
think
we're
actually
changing
the
liability
in
this
case,
we're
just
specifying
that
to
land
owners
or
not
really
landlords,
whoever
post
property
that,
if
you
post
it
you're
going
to
be
responsible
for
people
coming
on
the
this
premises
that
you've
disarmed
and
not
allowed
to
exercise
their
own
second
amendment
rights.
C
Chairman
todd,
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and,
and
I
appreciate
that
and
and
that's
again
that's
the
intent
here.
It's
not
to
it
to
bring
liability
further
than
it
already
is
right
now
simply
to
the
entity
posting.
So
if,
if
there's
a
concern
with
the
language
that
it's
not
clear
enough,
I'll
be
glad
to
amend
that
in
full,
if
we
can
just
get
it
out
of
the
the
subcommittee
I'll
be
glad
to
to
work
with
you
and
make
sure
that
we
get
that
right
so
that
the
intent
is
accomplished.
A
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
as
a
gun
owner
with
a
carry
permit,
or
otherwise
you
have
the
option
to
enter
businesses
of
your
choosing
correct
chairman
todd
private
businesses.
Yes,
so
you
can
choose
not
to
go
in
a
business
not
to
go
in
a
home
not
to
go
in
an
environment
that
may
prohibit
firearms
on
that
private
property.
C
Chairman
todd-
that
is
certainly
the
case
and
many
people
do
exercise
that
right
of
choice
and
choose
not
to
go
into
entities
that
post,
but
those
that
must
go
into
entities
that
post,
for
example,
the
ones
that
I
read
earlier,
where
they're
required
to
go
in
to
vote
or
to
get
a
driver's
license
or
register
their
vehicle
or
whatever.
That
might
be
just
because
that
entity
felt
like
they
should
disarm
law-abiding
citizens.
D
C
A
Thank
you,
and
I
want
to
thank
you
for
what
you're
doing
to
protect
our
second
amendment
rights,
and
we
don't
have
anybody
else
to
for
questions
so
we'll
be
voting.
Okay,
representatives.
J
Sorry
about
that
to
the
sponsor-
and
I
appreciate
the
testimony
that
was
given
today-
that
really
kind
of
opened
my
eyes
to
some
issues
I
didn't
think
through
especially
seeing
children
here
and
thinking
through
like
what
what
do
I
do
sometimes,
when
I
go
into
a
business
and
there's
posted.
Unfortunately,
I
have
problems
seeing
sometimes,
and
sometimes
that
sign
is
really
hard
to
locate,
if
not
placed
properly,
but
to
your
knowledge.
J
If
a
business
is
open
to
the
public,
what
capacity
do
they
have
to
post
and
deny
people
of
civil
rights,
for
instance,
if
I
own
a
bakery,
can
I
post
a
sign
that
says
I'm
not
going
to
serve
minorities
or
I'm
not
going
to
serve
people
from
canada,
I'm
not
going
to
serve
christians,
because
I'm
not
I
choose
not
to
obey
that
law
to
your
knowledge.
Is
the
companies
have
the
capacity
to
do
that.
C
Chairman
todd,
I'm
certainly
not
an
expert
in
that
you
have
several
on
your
committee.
That
probably
could
answer
that
better
than
I,
but
I
know
it's
not
right
to
do
that.
For
certain
and
again
we
have
certain
rights
given
by
god,
then
some
of
them
a
few
of
them,
are
enumerated
in
our
constitution.
They're,
not
exclusive,
as
you
well
know,
and
I'm
sorry
and
go
ahead
chairman,
you
know
we're
a
private
business.
C
Just
cannot
ask
someone
to
give
up
their
right
to
free
speech,
for
example
coming
on
their
private
property,
but
you
know
again,
that's
that
seems
to
always
be
treated
differently
here
in
the
legislature,
our
right
to
free
speech
and
assemble
and,
and
so
many
other
things
are
always
treated
different
than
our
second
amendment
rights.
And
I
don't
understand
that
so
to
your
point,
I
I
don't
believe
they
they
can.
I
don't
believe
they
should
certainly.
J
Thank
you
for
that.
I
I
know
there's
some
concerns
on
this
legislation
and
I'm
willing
to
to
work
with
a
sponsor
on
amendments
in
the
full
committee.
If,
if
there's
some
things
that
need
to
be
cleaned
up,
but
I
definitely
think
that
we
have
to
be
careful
on
limiting
people's
rights,
especially
to
businesses
that
are
open
to
the
public.
J
Now,
if
we're
talking
about
private
personal
property
rights
on
a
private
residence,
I
do
think
that's
a
different
issue
and
there's
a
different
issue
to
businesses
that
may
not
be
open
to
the
public
at
large.
You
can
have
you
can
have
commercial
property,
you
can
have
a
place
of
work
that,
but
once
you
open
that
up
to
the
public
at
large,
I
do
think
we
need
to
differentiate
on
some
of
this
legislation,
because
I
feel
like
there's
a
double
standard.
We've
we've
told
business
owners.
You
have
to
service
the
entire
community.
J
You
have
to
provide
your
service
to
everyone
because
they
have
civil
rights,
yet
we
limit
some
of
their
constitutional
rights
to
bear
arms
simply
because
we've
subjected
subjectively.
I
can't
say
the
word
subjectively
saying
subjectively
applied
that
to
the
second
amendment
so
I'll
be
supporting
your
legislation.
C
Do
appreciate
that,
and
I
thank
you
for
raising
that
point.
I
I
thought
about
it
during
some
of
the
questions
that,
but
did
not
make
that
point.
So
I
appreciate
you
connecting
those
dots
representative.
A
A
A
B
B
A
Thank
you
any
question.
We
got
a
motion.
The
question
has
been:
we've
already
got
motion
in
a
second,
so
this
question
been
called
or
okay,
we're
voting
to
add
amendment
zero,
one,
three,
nine,
seven,
six
to
house
bill,
1768
all
those
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye
opposed
no
amendment
added
and
chair
lady
hazel.
Would
your
record
and
the
question
has
been
called
we're
voting
on
house
bill
1768
to
send
the
civil
full.
A
D
Thank
you,
mr
my
question:
was
you
partly
addressed
this?
You
know
having
access
to
the
courts
is
a
serious
thing,
and
you
said
this
doesn't
apply
to
indigent
clients
and
things
like
that.
How
did
you
land
on
the
20
cents
per
page?
That's
what
I'm
kind
of
cause
we
some
of
us
all
here.
So
we
file
a
lot
of
documents
and
we
need
to
get
a
lot
of
copies,
sometimes
so.
B
Well,
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
the
courts
do
a
lot
of
electronic
filing
and
you
know
copies
are
no
longer
required,
but
it
does
cost
the
clerk's
offices.
You
know
they
have
to
pay
to
have
somebody
to
make
the
copies
pay
for
the
paper.
B
All
of
that,
we
originally
started
with
50
cents
and
determined
that
that
might
be
a
little
prohibitive
because,
as
you
mentioned,
some
filings
are
quite
large,
so
we've
reduced
it
to
20.,
and
I
point
out
this
again
is
permissive,
so
the
court
clerks
would
determine
in
their
particular
areas
whether
or
not
they
wanted
to
to
delay
this
charge.
D
Thank
you,
mr
and
thank
you
for
that
cheery
lady,
for
explaining
that,
and
and
does
this
have
any
of
the
courts
associations
bar
associations,
anybody
did
the
court
clerks
bring
this
to
you.
A
Okay,
seeing
no
more
questions,
we're
now
voting
on
house
bill
1768
to
send
a
civil
full
all
those
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye
opposed
no
bill
passes.
Congratulations
going
to
civil
full!
Next
up.
Item
number
four
house
bill:
2501
by
chairman,
rudd,
chairman
rudd,
you
are
recognized.
We
do
have
a
motion.
We
got
a
second,
we
got
a
second
bill
fails
like
a
second.
A
A
All
right
chairman,
ramsey
you're
recognized,
and
I
do
show
an
amendment.
Do
you
want
to
run
your
amendment.
K
K
A
A
second
does
it
make
the
bill
it
it
it
does
it
rewrites.
A
K
K
What
this
bill
does
is
requires
a
sheriff
deputy
sheriff
or
constable
prior
to
or
at
the
time
of,
serving
someone
with
an
order
of
protection
or
expo
apartheid
order
of
protection
to
they
must
make
reasonable
efforts
to
determine
whether
the
person
being
served
has
an
outstanding
criminal
warrant.
It
requires
the
sheriff
deputy
sheriff
or
constable
in
cases
in
which
the
person
being
served
has
an
an
outstanding
criminal
warrant
to
number
one,
either
serve
the
criminal
warrant
or
number
two
notify
the
agency
holding
the
warrant
of
the
person's
location,
and
you
can
ask
why.
K
Why
do
we
need
this
bill
and
and
I'll
refer
to
a
well-publicized
tragedy
that
happened
to
to
two?
Ladies
from
lebanon,
marie
varsos
and
her
mother,
debbie
sico
were
brutally
murdered
by
marie's
ex-husband
shawn
varsos
on
april
of
last
year.
K
The
these
two
well-educated
caucasian,
ladies
with
financial
stability,
actually
did
everything
that
was
required
of
them
to
participate
with
with
law
enforcement
and
protective
services
and
and
still
that
failed
them.
The
mr
barsos
had
two
outstanding
warrants,
one
for
false
imprisonment
and
another
one
for
aggravated
assault
against
his
ex-spouse.
K
She
immediately
filed
the
warrants
after
the
incident,
and
so
when
mr
varsos
was
served
with
the
order
of
protection
that
she
asked
the
court
to
file
the
law
enforcement
agency
serving
the
order
didn't
check
to
see
if
he
had
any
outstanding
warrants,
and
so
they
let
him
go
what
what
if
he
eventually
hunted
down
his
ex-wife
and
his
mother-in-law
and
shot
them
dead
on
neighbors
properties
arresting
and-
and
I
want
to
say
what,
if
we
had
had
this
and
the
arresting
of
mr
varsos
at
the
time,
the
order
of
protection
was
served,
could
have
deterred
him
from
committing
the
murders
or
at
least
given
a
knowledge
of
his
presence
or
whereabouts.
K
K
A
A
L
A
What
amendment
code
is
that
I
don't
have
a.
B
L
A
That
is
correct,
okay,
what
we
have
to
do?
Normally
we
don't
do
the
untimely
filed
amendments,
but
we
will
this
time
since
it's
the
last
calendar,
so
we
have
to
have
a
motion
and
a
second
to
even
consider
the
untimely
filed
amendment.
So
do
I
have
a
motion
from
and
do
I
have
a
second?
We
do
have
a
second.
So
all
those
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye
opposed
no
all
right
the
eyes
prevail.
A
Okay,
would
you
like
to
add
the
amendment
to
the
bill
and
then
explain
the
bill?
Yes,
mr
chairman?
Okay,
so
do
I
have
a
motion?
A
second
for
amendment,
zero,
one,
five,
one,
nine
two!
A
L
Since
we
cannot
ask
people
to
take
a
gun
safety
course.
We
can
incentivize
it,
and
with
that
I
had
approached
administration
and
governor
and
hope
to
get
funding
which
I'm
happy
to
say.
I'm
told
that
the
governor
has
decided
to
fund
it,
so
this
will
incentivize
the
citizens
who
purchase
a
gun
so
that
they
will
go
ahead
and
take
a
gun
safety
course
they
will
receive
a
voucher.
L
Voucher
will
have
a
number,
but
no
other
identification
names
or
anything
that
can
potentially
be
traced
to
the
gun
purchaser,
because
I
think
privacy
and
gun
rights
are
very
important
to
us
and
I've
taken
precautions
to
avoid
that
any
interference.
So
the
person
purchasing
the
gun
will
receive
a
voucher
at
the
time
of
the
purchase.
They
will
be
able
to
take
the
voucher
to
a
safety
gun
safety
instructor
receive
instruction
and
the
gun
safety
instructor
will
be
able
to
submit
the
voucher
to
the
department
and
get
compensated.
L
Or
median
cost
of
a
gun
safety
course
is
about
32,
so
I
think
a
little
bit
of
copay
is
actually
good.
I'm
from
the
medical
profession,
and
with
that,
mr
chairman,
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
A
M
Elizabeth
stroker
legislative
director
for
the
department
of
safety-
and
this
will
not
take
three
minutes
at
all-
we
met
with
chairman
kumar
yesterday
afternoon
on
some
of
our
concerns
still
with
the
bill,
and
we
sent
him
some
language.
I
don't
know
if
it
was
included
in
that
late
amendment.
It
may
need
to
still
be
included
later.
A
M
Yes,
so
we
are
going
to
start
it
off
as
a
as
a
pilot
to
see
if
it's
going
to
work
over
a
couple
years
see
if
this
is
actually
being
used
beneficial
and
then
what
we're
going
to
do
is
require
that
the
schools
that
we
certify
that
want
to
send
this
to
us
for
reimbursement.
They
have
to
either
sign
something
or
provide
something
to
us.
Saying
hey.
M
A
Chairman
curcio,
thank
you
very
much.
I've
got
a
couple
questions.
Is
it
a
when
you
say
pilot
program?
Is
there
a
sunset
that
you're
going
to
recommend.
M
N
Thank
you,
mr.
I
didn't
even
realize
you
looked
my
way,
but
until
you
got
the
old
eagle
eye
on
me,
so
thank
you
for
that
and
and
counselor
the
there
was
money
allocated
in
the
last
budget.
If
I'm
not
mistaken,
for
gun
safety
courses,
do
you
remember
how
much
money
there
was
and
what
are
we
doing
with
that
money?
Mr
stroker.
M
Yes,
that
was
chairman
ogles
is
looking
at
me,
because
that
was
something
he
was
very
familiar
with,
that
there
was
a
I
believe,
500
000
allocated
and
that
deals
with
specifically
gun
safety
with
children,
not
these
type
of
courses
that
was
being
used
to
help
children
deal
with
firearms
safely,
we're
working
with
twra
on
that
it
was
more
geared
towards
school-aged
children.
This
is
separate.
N
Representative,
parkerson,
okay
and-
and
maybe
I'm
mistaken,
but
I
I
know
when
we
passed-
permit
less
carry
it
was
put
into
that
budget,
but
I
was
told
by
leader
lambert
that
that
money
was
available
for
anyone.
So
am.
I
am
I
incorrect
in
that
mr
stroker.
M
L
Recognized.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
want
to
thank
the
department
of
safety
for
working
with
me.
I
think
we
develop.
I
have
ideas
and
we've
turned
into
a
bill
and
what
legislation
it
works
better.
If
the
stakeholders
and
departments
play
a
role
in
it,
I'm
grateful
for
their
role,
I'm
agreeable
too,
whether
we
make
it
a
pilot
or
an
ongoing
program.
L
I
think
pilot
is
a
good
idea
and
I'm
also,
I
think,
that's
a
very
good
caution,
so
the
vouchers
are
not
misused
that
the
the
school
providing
the
course
certifies
that
they
have
actually
done
so.
We've
also
added
certain
other
safety
measures
that
there
is
a
watermark
on
the
voucher
so
that
nobody
can
run
copies
of
it
and
so
on.
So
I
think
these
are
good
precautions
and
I'm
grateful
to
everybody
for
helping.
A
L
I
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Thank
you,
dr
kumar,
for
bringing
this
bill
mike.
My
question
is:
why
are
we
asking
the
state
of
tennessee
taxpayers
to
incentivize
the
gun
safety
courses?
I
think
I'm
not
certain.
Don't
hold
me
to
this,
but
actually
there's
some
firearm
retailer
sellers
that
actually
will
offer
the
discounts
on
the
courses.
If
someone
comes
and
buys
a
firearm
from
them
and
to
me
that
seems
like
maybe
a
a
better
approach,
at
least
arguably
to
some
and
not
have
the
state
get
involved
with
subsidizing
with
taxpayers
money.
A
L
On
I
think
at
least
any
additional
discounts
that
the
schools
offer
are
welcome
on
top
of
this.
But
the
reason
for
this
doing
is
it
is
public
safety
and
state
has
a
compelling
interest
in
doing
everything
we
can
about
public
safety,
because
we
took
the
requirement
for
for
gun
safety.
Training
away
state
has
a
very
important
interest
in
doing
that.
I
Didn't
that
same
argument
carry
over
shouldn't,
we
be
offering
gun
safety
courses
to
every
high
school
student
in
tennessee
I
mean,
if
we're
going
to
talk
about
gun
safety,
so
I
think
that
you
know
that
could
be
part
of
a
an
extra
credit
course
or
something
like
that.
So
I
just
I
throw
that
out
there
for
consideration
as
well.
Chairman.
H
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
dr
we,
we
spoke
a
little
bit
yesterday
on
my
concerns
and
I'm
not
totally
convinced
we're
not
creating
some
sort
of
avenue
to
track
people
that
firing
that
they're
purchasing
guns,
and
so
my
question
is,
would
you
be
open
to
decoupling
the
purchase
to
a
gun?
If
you
want
a
voucher,
why
do
we
have
to
make
it
connected
to
a
gun
purchase?
I
get
that
that's
the
time
people
need
to
get.
H
You
know
any
sort
of
safety,
training
and
believe
me
they
need
to
do
that,
but
of
course
it's
not
required
for
them
to
do
that,
but
they
certainly
need
to
do
that.
My
thought
is:
if
we
decouple
it
from
the
actual
purchase,
we
can
make
the
voucher
expire
with
a
certain
amount
of
time
after
the
purchase
where
they
didn't
have
to
have
their
receipt
and
prove
that
they
purchased
it.
H
So
the
voucher
can
still
be
you
know
used,
but
it
doesn't
have
to
be,
in
my
opinion,
connected
to
the
actual
purchase
of
of
the
of
the
firearm.
If
that's
the
way
the
legislation
will
remain,
I
don't
believe
I
can
support
it.
So
what
do
you,
what
do
you
think
about
trying
to
decouple
it
from
the
purchase
of
a
firearm
and
then
making
that
voucher
expire?
H
L
The
russia
does
expire
in
30
days
in
this
situation.
I
think
decoupling
you
and
I
discussed
it.
My
feeling
is
when
a
person
buys
a
gun,
it
is
on
their
mind.
Safety
needs
to
be
impressed
upon
them
at
that
very
time,
and
I
think
that
is
the
time
to
do
it.
I
think,
as
far
as
the
watchers
are
concerned,
no,
they
they're,
not
they
don't
last
forever
or
anything
like
that.
Thank
you.
Miss
jim.
A
A
N
Mr
chairman,
my
colleague
had
his
hand
up
first,
if
you
don't
mind
not
representative.
D
Thank
you,
mr.
I
just
want
to
point
out
that
the
amendment
we've
adopted
has
a
provision
in
there
that
says
the
voucher
must
not
contain
information
that
identifies
the
purchase
of
the
handgun
or
the
type
of
handgun
purchase.
So
I
think
the
sponsor
tried
to
address
that
concern
somewhat.
That
was
raised
previously,
but
I
may
be
incorrect.
You
can
correct
me
on
that.
If
you
want
mr
sponsor
chairman.
D
N
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
mr
mr
chair,
and,
and
so
you
know,
this
is
something
that
I
stand
on
on
in
regards
to
gun
safety.
You
know,
however,
here's
here's
my
challenge
with
this
bill:
it
it.
It
only
benefits
those
that
are
selling
guns
and
those
that
buy
guns,
and
you
know
our
entire.
Let
me
speak
for
my
community.
My
entire
community
needs
gun
safety
classes
and
they
would
be
excluded
if
they
didn't
purchase
a
gun,
and
I
think
it's
from
from
a
gun
dealer
right,
but
my
entire
community
can
use
this.
N
These
gun
safety
vouchers
because,
as
I
said
on
the
floor,
when
we
passed
permit
less
carry
my
biggest
concern
was
ignorance
of
the
law
and
these
gun
safety
classes.
Teach
you
when
you
can
you
pull
that
weapon
use
that
weapon,
and
you
know
what
cases
scenarios
and
you
know
and-
and
I
think
everyone
can
benefit
so
why
are
we?
Why
are
we
only
tying
it
to
people
that
are
buying
guns
from
gun
dealers
and
not
allowing
anyone
in
the
state
to
have
access
to
these
vouchers?
L
I
think
again,
majority
of
the
purchases
do
happen
through
gun
dealers,
when
a
person
buys
a
gun,
a
good
percentage
of
30
to
40
percent
of
them.
It
may
be
the
first
gun
purchase
their
familiarity
is
limited
and
I
think
the
that
is
the
time
to
impress
upon
them.
The
gun.
Safety
is
very
important
that
my
dealer
gives
me
an
example
of
an
80
and
85
year
old
sisters
who
are
widowed
living
together,
they're
watching
television,
they
see
crime,
they
get
scared.
They
come
over
to
my
gun,
dealer
and
wanna.
L
Buy
guns
never
held
a
gun
in
their
hand
before
now.
That
is
the
time
to
impress
upon
these
people
that
gun
safety
is
important
and
incentivize
them
as
far
as
the
community
at
large
receiving
gun
instruction.
I
think
so.
I
think
our
administration
took
an
effort
initially
for
at
the
school-aged
children
in
schools,
a
half
a
million
dollars
that
was
put
into
the
budget
last
year
that
to
provide
again
gun
safety
education
beyond
the
high
school
level.
L
As
you
say,
your
entire
community
needs
that
I
agree
with
you.
I
think
it
will
do
good
now.
I
don't
know
if
the
state
of
tennessee
at
large
can
undertake
to
provide
free
or
subsidized
gun
safety
training
to
the
entire
people.
That
may
be
more
of
a
community
drive
organization
so
that
there
are
volunteers
from
law
enforcement
who
would
love
to
come
and
teach.
I
think
that
is
the
route
to
go.
That
has
to
be
a
community-based
initiative.
That
would
be
my
thinking
about
it.
We
are.
L
L
N
N
Do
you
have
a
lot
of
heartburn
with
allowing
anyone
to
access
this
voucher,
or
is
that
a
big
issue
for
you
for?
Would
it
harm
your
bill?
If
the
fiscal
note
stayed
the
same,
but
people
accessed
the
voucher
until
the
vouchers
ran
out?
Would
that
be
a
big
issue?
Because
everybody
needs
this?
Not
just
even
the
people
that
that
own
guns
right
now,
adults
need
these
gun
safety
classes
and
and
and
and
really
more
people
in
higher
risk
communities
need
it
more
than
others.
You
know
this
voucher
that'll
reduce
some
of
that
cost.
N
N
L
Thank
you
represent
parkinson's,
agree
and
identify
with
the
points
you're
making,
but
the
high-risk
communities
and
the
crime
there
that's
a
much
larger
problem,
much
larger
problem
than
gun
safety
courses
alone,
and
also
we
are
not
going
to
be
able
to
able
to
subsidize
again.
The
entire
state
three
million
dollars
would
not
do
that
or
two
million
dollars
would
not
do
that
and
again.
The
idea
is
for
purchaser
of
guns
who
have
a
dangerous
thing
in
their
hand.
Let
us
cover
the
bases,
let
us
instruct
them,
and
this
will
be
good
for
our
society.
N
Ms
and
and
I
respectfully
disagree
being
a
person
that
lives
in
those
communities
that
that
gun
safety
is
not
the
issue
gun
safety
is
actually
the
issue
and
and
and
the
more
education
that
we
make
available
to
to
those
individuals
the
better
it
is,
and
I
want
you
to
think
about
what's
happening.
N
Right
free
now
we're
offering
vouchers
to
people
who
buy
guns
from
gun
dealerships
which
most
of
these
communities
of
poverty
don't
buy
guns
from
gun
dealerships
for
the
most
part
you
know,
and
they
they
they
have
them
either
passed
on
to
them
or
from
grandfather
or
whoever
and
and
and
but
they
have
them.
Now
we
have
shootings
that
are
taking
place
on
a
regular
basis
in
these
communities,
people
that
would
have
been
educated
that
we
I'm
sure
we
could
have
reduced
some
of
those
shootings
right.
N
A
lot
of
these
shootings
may
be
someone
defending
someone
breaking
into
their
trunk
of
their
car,
which
is
illegal,
which,
which
is
aggravated
assault.
If
you
pull
a
gun
on
somebody
breaking
into
the
trunk
of
your
car
or
or
climbing
over
your
fence,
you
know
if
there
was
no
no,
no
threat
to
you
at
that
moment.
These
people
need
these
gun
safety
classes,
but
we're
going
all
around
them.
N
The
children
that
are
associated
with
twra
free
gun
safety
classes.
I
hadn't
seen
any
of
them.
Those
gun
safety
classes
at
raleigh,
egypt,
the
the
people,
the
individuals
that
that
buy,
gun
guns
from
dealers
and
I'm
assuming
we're
talking
with
with
some
of
the
gun
shows
too,
is
that
correct
dealers
are
at
the
gun
shows
right.
N
N
You
know
they
need
to
defend
themselves
and
and
are
have
drafted
anything
that
would
benefit
those
reduce
it
or
make
it
free
for
them
to
get
gun
safety
classes,
and
this
bill
is
doing
exactly
the
same
thing,
and
I
was
honestly
under
the
impression
that
the
500
000
that
was
put
into
the
to
the
budget
for
gun
safety
classes
was
for
everyone,
but
it
was
only
for
the
twra
as
I'm
learning
today,
so
why?
L
I'm
glad
that
I
have
only
two
minutes
number
of
things
and
assumptions
on
your
part:
the
500
000
that
is
belonging
to
k-12
school
education.
I
think
twra's
program
is
separate
from
it.
One
two
you
are
described:
you're
confusing
gun
safety,
which
is
hard
to
handle
a
gun
safely,
how
to
store
a
gun
safely
and
how
to
use
it
safely.
That
is
completely
different
from
having
break-ins
and
robberies
that
is
small
intent.
That
is
not
gun
safety
training.
I
think
you're
confused
about
it.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
A
Thank
you
and
chairman
farmers.
Next
on
the
list,
question
has
been
called
we're
voting
to
send
house
bill
2850
to
civil
for
all
those
in
favor
signify
by
saying
aye
opposed
no
and
those
have
it
bill
fails
we're
gonna
roll
all
the
other
bills
to
next
week
and
without
objection
well
road
to
next
week
and
without
rejection,
we're
going
to
be
out
of
session.