Tennessee legislators created a second type of civilian handgun permit in 2019 that went into effect on January 1, 2020. It is a “concealed only” permit. Tennessee Firearms Association opposed the legislation and strongly recommends against citizens considering this concealed only option. Here is why.
Tennessee first passed a handgun permit law in May of 1994. That law was Tennessee’s first “shall issue” law. As part of the 2019 changes, this original permit has been renamed the “enhanced” permit even though no enhancements were enacted – it was just a name change. This permit allows for open or concealed carry. It does require that most people (not all) take a training class that will last between 6-8 hours. There are many statutes which recognize this permit as either an exception or a defense to carrying in certain locations. It is recognized by approximately 35 states for reciprocity purposes. It is presently codified in Tennessee Code Annotated Section 39-17-1351. While its not the best system that could be available for Tennesseans, its the best system that is available now.
When Bill Lee ran for governor, he did not take a clear or consistent position on the 2nd Amendment issue regarding constitutional carry or permit holders. Prior to the primary, he told reporters that he did not support constitutional carry or any permitless carry system. Then, he modified that position and said that he preferred that citizens be required to have permits but that there should be no cost. But after the primaries, Bill Lee again changed his position and stated that he would sign (he did not say he supported it) a law enacting “constitutional carry” in Tennessee. However, earlier statements from Lee reflected that he was “listening to law enforcement” and they were “very much against” constitutional carry.
Perhaps as a nod to Bill Lee as governor, two Republican legislators filed legislation in 2019 that would create a second “concealed only” permit. Originally, that bill proposed that there would be no fee for this new, reduced capacity permit. This “no fee” feature would have been consistent with at least one of the statements made by Governor Lee prior to his election.
However, as the 2019 legislation moved forward there were numerous amendments to the bill. One was to impose a $65 application fee to be charged by the state – which eliminated the “no fee” objective. As a result, the actual cost savings of the “concealed only” permit is only $35 over a period of 8 years and there is no “lifetime” option on the concealed only permit.
Then there is the training requirement. The one most news stories focus on is that there is an “online” training option for the concealed only permit. That option is to take an online course which meets certain statutory content requirements including being at least 90 minutes long. However, the concealed only permit also allows the training requirement to be met in other ways such as proof that an applicant has had the “hunter safety” course or several other training alternatives including face to face training (for which there are no statutory content requirements at all!)
So, should a citizen who wants to carry legally with a permit opt for the original (now enhanced) permit or the “concealed only” permit? The answer is clear – get the original permit.
Why?
First, the original / enhanced permit allows open or concealed carry. Many people do not plan to carry openly so they assume that they can save the $35 dollars and get the concealed only option. However, there are risks to that. Florida and other states have had “concealed only” permits for years. One common problem (that Florida finally fixed) was that some of those statutes do not defined what “concealed only” means. A related problem is that some of those statutes do not address whether “imprinting”, accidental exposure or even unavoidable exposure (such as placing the weapon in your vehicle trunk to secure it at a gun free zone) are allowed or whether such exposures can result in criminal charges. In Florida, prior to its law being rewritten, people could be and were charged with imprinting and incidental exposure of the firearms. Despite the clear need to address a definition of concealment and what happens with imprinting or incidental exposures, Tennessee’s new “concealed only” permit does not address these issues at all. See, Tennessee Code Annotated Section 39-17-1366. Opting to get the “concealed only” Tennessee permit may put someone at risk for criminal charges because the law was poorly (perhaps intentionally) written based on the information we have from other states.
Second, not necessarily in order of significance, is the issue of reciprocity. Right now, about 35 states honor the Tennessee original/enhanced permit. It is not known for certain how many will honor (if at all) the “concealed only” permit. What we do know is that several states changed their reciprocity standards when Tennessee started issuing permits to certain 18-20 years olds a few years ago. It is foreseeable that the training differential between the two Tennessee permits might result in different reciprocity standards as well.
Third, the concealed only permit is not a defense or exception to the same extent that the original/enhanced permit is. One area is with respect to certain schools/universities which do have exceptions for the original/enhanced permits (mainly for employees). Another area impacts hunters who hunt during archery and black powder seasons who should absolutely avoid the concealed only permit.
Fourth, as mentioned above, a citizen can apply for a “lifetime” original / enhanced permit. No such option is presently available for the concealed only permit.
Fifth, involves an issue many citizens don’t consider. The training requirement might become an issue. There are clear differences in required training to get either permit. The training for the original/enhanced permit requires both classroom and range training. The training for the “concealed only” permit may or may not include range training depending on what kind of training the person opts to rely upon (for example, most hunter safety courses require that you at least shoot a gun once). This training may or may not make a difference on the question of whether you were legally carrying a firearm (a criminal law question similar to whether you had a driver’s license). However, if things go bad as they did with the Texas church shooting, the presence or absence of training and what kind of training was involved may make a difference if a third party is injured and brings a civil negligence or recklessness action.
There are many other factors to consider but after the Tennessee Firearms Association looked at the legislation we felt it was best to oppose this new proposed “concealed only” permit as poorly written legislation, legislation that creates needless civil and criminal traps for civilians, and legislation that was unnecessary since Tennessee already had a permitting system that itself just needed a few tweaks such as reducing the application fee or expanding the training options. Rather than do that, however, the legislature made things worse rather than better.
On a positive note, some Tennessee legislators realized then and now that this second option of a concealed only permit was not the path that Tennessee should have been on. Seventeen states including 4 that touch Tennessee have adopted pure constitutional carry laws (no permit required at all). Approximately 30 states, including 7 of the 8 states that touch Tennessee, do not require permits or training if you are openly carrying a firearm. In October 2019, a new bill was filed in Tennessee that would if enacted adopt “constitutional carry” or “permitless carry” in Tennessee but which would still allow people to get the original/enhanced permit for reciprocity. That is what Tennessee’s legislature should have done in 2019. Let’s see what they do in 2020.
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.