A well-placed source at the State Capitol informed The Examiner over the weekend that as part of his plan to cut the State budget and find additional revenue, Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen and Revenue Commissioner Reagan Farr are considering a $150 additional tax on those people who apply for concealed carry firearms permits in Tennessee. Apparently Bredesen believes that this is a way to raise additional revenue and is, in a very real sense, a voluntary tax. If such a plan were carried out, all it would likely do is discourage people from obtaining their carry permits, since the process is already costly because the State mandates a safety course which is already rather costly as a prerequisite. Make the process even more expensive, and it becomes cost-prohibitive for a great many Tennesseans who would be otherwise inclined to legally carry a firearm for their personal protection. Not only would this be an infringement on personal liberties, but it would be less, and not more likely to raise revenue or result in dollar savings at a time when the State needs to save money.
If saving money and eliminating unnecessary State bureaucracy are Governor Bredesen's real objectives, this can be done very easily by eliminating every State position or piece of government makework having to do with concealed carry permits. Simply eliminate those permits and allow every Tennessean without a felony criminal record to carry a firearm if they so choose without having to go through some State official. "Why Oatney," you say, "that's the craziest thing I've ever heard."
I've often heard some of my liberal friends speak in awe of Vermont and Vermonters and their remarkable toleration for just about anybody and anything. People in Vermont have been known for their more liberal attitudes for years-these people elected Howard Dean, after all-and at the present time a lot of folks on the other side of the aisle would like us to adopt a health care program similar to the one in Vermont, at least for children (it was Howard Dean's handiwork). Anyone who has ever met or known someone from Vermont can attest that the political and social attitudes of the Green Mountain State make people from San Francisco sometimes look moderate and restrained. Yet if Vermont is the haven of social and political nirvana east of the Mississippi that some on the Left believe, why not try Vermont's gun laws?
A Colt M1911 (Arms of the World)
Vermont requires no permit to purchase a handgun, rife, or shotgun, and no licensing of any such firearm. Vermont requires no permit of any kind to carry a firearm concealed or otherwise. A record of sale is kept and a person's criminal record is checked, and if you are convicted of a felony you can't purchase or carry a gun legally. The only places where a person who otherwise can carry isn't allowed to is in a courthouse or on school property.
Since Tennessee has had legal concealed carry, it hasn't turned out to be the criminal disaster that Democrats and liberals always predict that it will be. If we do away with permits, will that mean that Tennessee will become one huge shootout zone?
Vermont has the least restrictive gun-control law. It recognizes the right of any Vermonter who has not otherwise been prohibited from owning a firearm to carry concealed weapons without a permit or license. Yet Vermont has one of the lowest crime rates in America, ranking 49 out of 50 in all crimes and 47th in murders.
States which have passed concealed-carry laws have seen their murder rate fall by 8.5 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated assaults by 7 percent and robbery by 3 percent.
If the most liberal State in America can trust its citizens with a firearm unimpeded, there is no reason why Tennessee cannot. Doing away with costly permits would save the State money because bureaucrats and law enforcement wouldn't have to spend their time policing whether people have permits or selling them. If the Governor does attempt to add an additional fee to the permit process, the real impact won't be raising revenue but decreasing personal freedom. If you wouldn't pay the government to exercise your freedom of speech or attend church on Sunday, why should you have to pay the State to exercise any other constitutional right?
Comments