The Tennessee Firearms Association writes [via ammoland.com]

The Tennessee Firearms Association confirms through the Department of Safety that 8 states that did accept Tennessee’s handgun permits for reciprocity no longer do or accept only some of them.

Tennessee changed its law effective January 1, 2017, so that a small number of individuals 18-20 years old can apply for civilian handgun permits. That small group is, for reasons not entirely clear as a matter of constitutional analysis, limited to those individuals who are in or retired from the military.

As a result of this change in the law, Tennessee Firearms Association asked in writing of the Tennessee Department of Safety which states, if any, had changed their reciprocity status with Tennessee regarding handgun permits.

Based on the reply from the Department of Safety, it appears that EIGHT (8) states have limited or eliminated their willingness to accept Tennessee handgun permits for reciprocity purposes.

– Colorado will not honor permits issued to 18-20 year olds or non-resident permits.
– Delaware, as of September 23, 2017, they will no longer recognize non-resident Tennessee permits.
– Florida will not honor permits issued to 18-20 year olds or non-resident Tennessee permit holders
– Nebraska will not honor 18-20 year old permits.
– North Dakota will not honor permits issued to 18-20 year olds
– Washington will no longer honor Tennessee permits.
– West Virginia will not honor permits issued to 18-20 year olds or non-resident permits.
– Wisconsin will not honor 18-20 year old permits.

—-

If you want to help us move to get rid of gun free zones, to enact constitutional carry, and to push back against an unwilling legislative leadership and an uncooperative administration, please consider this request to join, renew and support the Tennessee Firearms Association.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

32 COMMENTS

  1. And on an unrelated note. Texas’s worthless gun grabbing lt governor is up to his usual crap.

    We need to recall or impeach the commie sob.

  2. This brief article really doesn’t tell the whole story.

    North Dakota has a two-tiered permit system, and the lower tier also allows 18-to-20-year-olds to get a permit. When ND started this system, several states (including Tennessee) decided they would not recognize the lower-tier permit, almost certainly because of the lower age limit. ND also has a law that says they will recognize permits from any state that recognizes ND’s permit. I am relatively sure that if Tennessee ever decides they will recognize both of ND permits, then ND will do the same, but until they do, the ball is in TN’s court and ND’s hands are tied.

    • What you are describing is a typical blame the other catch 22. It could just as easily be seen as ND passing a law that forced TN to discontinue recognizing ND’s CC permits (it is almost certainly part of TN codified law that says that they can’t recognize ND’s permits). Neither way of looking at it really fixes the problem, though. Nor even leads to it being fixed.

      As long as we’re bound by individual state to individual state reciprocal agreements, there are bound to be differences that cause states to fail to recognize each others’ permits.

      • Do you realize that there are two different things involved here? One is reciprocity agreements, and the second is permit recognition WITHOUT invoking a reciprocity agreement. I’m not sure if TN and ND ever had a reciprocity agreement (they don’t right now); what we are talking about here is permit recognition without an agreement.

        Not all holders of the lower-tier Class 2 ND permit are 18-to-20-year-olds; if that is the primary problem TN has with the ND Class 2 permit holders, then they can state that they only allow non-resident carry by those 21 years old and older (several states have done this in the past). Instead, they disallowed carry by ALL ND Class 2 permit holders, and in doing so, made it impossible for ND to recognize new TN’s lower-tier permit. ND still recognized TN’s single permit prior to the new addition, even when TN was not allowing ND Class 2 permit holders to carry in TN, so the problem is NOT a “blame the other catch 22”; TN created the problem, both by failing to recognize ND Class 2 permits, and then passing their own lower-tier permit and expecting ND to recognize it in violation of standing law. If they want true reciprocity, they need to fix the problem they created through their actions, and/or negotiate a formal reciprocity agreement to do so.

        • NC does it right, recognizes all 50 states. Permitless states like VT, just need a valid photo ID like your home state. You can even move here with an out of state permit & they will honor it as long as it is valid even though you no longer live there (I asked more than a half dozen LEOs this this question and without hesitation said no problem).

  3. 18 years is old enough to make the ultimate sacrifice for this country but not carry a gun or drink in it. If thats the case the age to join the armed forces should be 21 as well.

    • “18 years is old enough to make the ultimate sacrifice for this country but not carry a gun or drink in it.”

      That was the whine of the left during the Vietnam era (funny, the WW2 vets never complained about legal drinking age…probably a different sort of people then). After some years, many (all?) states lowered the legal drinking age. The result was not a decline in drunk driving accidents and deaths.

      Tennessee is recognizing the “sacrifice” of young soldiers. Meaning the soldiers have an earned advantage, beyond merely mastering body heat and air intake/exhaust. Note that most of the states not recognizing Tennessee permits are Leftie states, descendants of the Vietnam protesters who demanded a lower drinking age for merely showing up. Those states are not under the impression that Tennessee issues permits to all 18-21 year olds.

      • As a blanket statement this isn’t true. In the 40’s and 50’s seven states had a drinking age of 18 with eight more restricting those 18-20 to beer while allowing wine and liquor consumption at 21. Interestingly, Oklahoma allowed women to drink at 18 but men had to wait until they were 21. Even then an ID identifying you a service member would, in some states, remove the age limit for you.

        Other states had ABV limits such as 3.2% or 4% for 18-20 year olds (As my uncle used to say “I can get just as drunk on three-two, I just have to drink a dozen more”.). On top of that, post WWII if a 18-20 year old vet wanted a drink I doubt many bartenders nationwide would have refused and very few LEO’s would have questioned it unless the person in question got out of hand. Back in the day if the cops caught you driving drunk but you hadn’t harmed anyone or damaged any property they’d often drive you home.

        My grandfather’s youngest brother served in the Marines in WWII, upon returning home to New Jersey he and a bunch of other service members found that they were “stuck” (I suspect this was an excuse for many of them.) after the train dropped them off. They went over to a bar and proceeded to throw a party. A number, including my grand uncle were underage but the cops didn’t care, they turned the local police force into a free taxi service to get these drunken boys home and this was in New-freaking-Jersey.

        This is back in the day when you could actually lie to the War Department about your age and get away with it (as my grand uncle did). That’s fraudulent enlistment right there and back in the day it was celebrated as a sign of virtue in our young men.

        It was a completely different time.

  4. Strange. Colorado will issue a carry permit to an 18 year old if said 18 year old can show good cause to need a concealed weapon, yet they won’t honor what amounts to a similar permit from Tennessee. (In fact they might even issue it to people as young as 17 in extreme circumstances. I think that’s up to your Sheriff.)

    OTOH, being in the military isn’t considered a valid reason for an 18-20 year old to need a permit in Colorado. They define “good cause” as having a violent ex-partner with a restraining order, threats against your life etc.

    • If there’s ever a push for nation-wide Constitutional carry, will it apply only to age 21 and over?

      The US Constitution doesn’t specify an age requirement for exercising civil rights, does it ?

      H’mmm…

      • I don’t pretend to know the future or how things will play out in the machinations of government Geoff.

        I will point out a couple of things though.

        First off, the USC (10 U.S. Code § 311) defines those who are “the militia” as those able bodied men 17 to 45 who are not exempt (see 32 U.S. Code § 313). This only refers to those who can be conscripted into the militia. It doesn’t bar those older your younger from volunteering, nor does it bar women. In fact it doesn’t even bar the disabled. It’s just that none of those people can be drafted into the militia. (And no, for those hippies out there this isn’t some arcane law from the 1800’s that “doesn’t apply” anymore in the modern world. It was written into law in 1956, updated in 1958 and then updated again back in the stone ages of 1993.)

        So a reasonable case could probably be made that a 17 year old can technically be drafted into the unorganized militia (defined as not Coasties or National Guard) and therefore has the RTKABA for such a purpose.

        Secondly, states enforce the law… I’ll be charitable here and say unevenly. A number of states say that it is illegal for someone under the age of 18 to possess/use a firearm without adult supervision. Yet those same states don’t file charges against anyone when a 15 year old, who’s home alone, blasts some home invader into the next life.

  5. Everybody understand why the states that won’t recognize Tennessee permits given to 18-20 year olds would still be allowed to do this under the National Reciprocity Act that has been introduced on Congress?

  7. The military trained me to use a machine gun and 9mm at age 17. I guess it’s ok if I’m doing their work for them.

    • Co-sponsorship is not a prerequisite for a bill to be considered by a committee or become a law and therefore the number of co-sponsors on the HPA (which can change over time btw) at this point in time is irrelevant.

      The question at this point is how receptive or frosty the committee and sub-committee(s) are to the bill, what changes they might make to it and how it would fair in a floor vote.

      • The number of sponsors is short-hand for the band wagon effect. Legislating is all about numbers; number of votes. The more people who sign-on, the better the concealment. If you vote for something ultimately unpopular, you can declare that, “Everyone made the same mistake”, “I had to vote party because of all the co-sponsors, and leadership pressure”.

        What is HPA up against? Absolutely everyone KNOWS that silencers make high power guns go, “Phhhhhhffffftttt”, when fired. Even the thriller novels describe how the only sound a silencer-equipped sub-machine gun makes is the metallic cycling of the bolt. You can point to all the data you want, but people have seen with their own eyes, heard with their own ears that silencers silence. That allows more crimes to be committed without discovery. Then we have the public safety matter because if you can’t hear gunfire, you do not know to escape when a mass shooting happens. It is this last bit, public safety, that makes supporting suppressors too risky for legislators. If we did not have in and over the ear sound suppression (anti-gunners will admit that hearing protection equipment does not deaden all sound), maybe we would have a case for suppressors as hearing protection. But we freely admit that silencers will not just protect our hearing, but allow gun owners to do other gun stuff (bad, really bad) that they can’t do with only ear plugs and muffs. If guns are too loud, and you can’t be safe with firearms while wearing hearing protection, maybe you shouldn’t be shooting guns at all, you know, as a hearing safety measure.

        • The number of co-sponsors on a bill routinely changes as the bill develops. Sometimes that’s good, sometimes it’s bad.

          It’s not unheard of for a bill to go into subcommittee with no co-sponsors and come out the other end with a bunch once the subcommittee tweaks the bill to make it more palatable to the committee and therefore to a possible floor vote.

          It’s also true that except for truly populist legislation co-sponsorship rarely starts out with large numbers. When you see large numbers of people co-sponsoring a bill it’s time to either sit down and read it or run like hell because at least half those people are functionally retarded.

          Example: The ACA passed the House 220-215 in a partisan Congress. In the house it had only 40 co-sponsors, 11 of whom were not original co-sponsors but added their name later due to pressure from Pelosi. That group of 11 that signed on later, including hard-core Lefties like Luis Gutierrez were added due to the fact that many of them were “heavy hitters”. 37.9% of the co-sponsors were Johnny Come Lately’s and even at it’s peak co-sponsors accounted for 18.2% of the votes that were eventually cast for the bill in the House.

          Co-sponsorship, at this point is a meaningless thing to talk about.

        • A very compelling reasoning indeed, except for one factor…the criminal element doesn’t give a rat’s patootie about gun laws or suppressor laws to begin with. That’s why they are considered…CRIMINALS!
          Not to mention, suppressors are already legal to buy, albeit, with a considerable amount of red tape involved. Someone with malevolent intent, STILL can conceivably buy a “silencer”. Having to do it legally, probably wouldn’t change the intent of the reason of purchase. Besides, YouTube is replete with videos on “how to”…for the budget minded criminal.
          The HPA, is just that, for hearing protection! To suggest it will instill an increased desire for quiet murders, is as asinine as the belief that making condoms readily available to high school age children, will decrease teen pregnancy. The protection is there either way. It’s just up to the individual whether it is used properly or not.

    • Even if the Reciprocity Act passes. it will only be the first battle. Take your permit to New York, California and New Jersey but you better have a registered 5 shot govt. approved pea shooter with out hollow points and a Firearms Owners ID Card or you are going to jail.

      • No worries, there is an entire organization dedicated to the protection you and your Constitutional rights (as the 2nd), Its called the American Civil Liberties Union,

      • Cops in NY (most of upstate anyway) pretty much don’t care. A buddy of mine got pulled over with a double stack Glock sitting in his passenger seat. The cop looked at and said “I’m assuming there’s only ten rounds in there. Have a nice day.”

  9. Old enough to vote or join the military you’re old enough to carry, or drink, or whatevery. Adult is adult. You start paying income taxes, you can get drafted, you can go to adult jail for screwing up.

  10. Oh well, although I’m in Washington State, I have no plans on going to Tennessee. But no matter, I have an Arizona CWP in addition to my Washington CPL and the AZ permit is good in Tennessee.

Comments are closed.