Post image for Maggart Releases Video; Critics Respond

Maggart Releases Video; Critics Respond

by Andrea Zelinski on July 24, 2012

Rep. Debra Maggart wants to set the record straight that she has a “100 percent” voting record on Second-Amendment rights legislation despite criticism that she worked behind the scenes to kill key guns bills.

Maggart, a high-ranking Republican leader who is in the middle of a heated election in Sumner County, took her message to the web in a video Monday saying the gun lobby has been trying to “bully” her and other lawmakers into passing bills that violate the property rights of business owners.

However, Maggart’s opponent in the GOP primary race, retired Air Force Lt. Col. Courtney Rogers, as well as the Tennessee Second Amendment organization that’s been so critical of Maggart, quickly shot back.

The only reason the incumbent lawmaker can claim she’s never voted against gun-rights legislation, they said, is that she and other House and Senate Republican leaders maneuvered to thwart floor debate on the so-called “Safe Commute” guns-in-parking-lots bill. They did that so they could avoid publicly taking a stand on the question of where an employer’s rights end and a worker’s begin, Maggart’s critics contend.

“Everybody who spends anytime in the Legislature knows that nothing happens that leadership doesn’t sanction, so that bill didn’t get out of committee,” said Jeff Hartline, campaign manager to Rogers who is challenging the House Republican Caucus leader  in the Aug. 2 primary election.

Blame for the legislation’s demise — and for Tennessee voters not getting an opportunity to see where their elected representatives stand on the matter — “has to be laid at (Maggart’s) feet,” Hartline said.

In the ad from the Maggart campaign, the Hendersonville Republican defends her role in working against the gun rights bills. Second Amendment advocates poured at least $75,000 through the end of June into the campaign to unseat her from her Sumner County district. “This attack against me is based on false information in an effort to bully your elected officials and trample your other constitutional rights,” Maggart said during the nearly two-minute video.

Maggart described the House GOP’s political decision to terminate the possibility of floor discussion on the guns-in-lots legislation as an act of “thoughtful governing.”

“It is my aim to protect all of your rights, not just the one that the Second Amendment rights group is promoting,” said Maggart.

In the video, Maggart noted that lawmakers agreed to study the legislation over the summer. However, there’s been no effort on Capitol Hill to schedule any sort of committee to further examine the bill, according to House Speaker Beth Harwell’s office.

Maggart is plainly “misrepresenting to the public what ‘summer study’ means,” said John Harris, executive director of the Tennessee Firearms Association.

“Telling people ‘we’re studying this’ is just lying to them,” said Harris, a prominent critic of the legislative GOP leadership’s handling of the issue. “She killed it and has no intention on bringing it back up.”

Hartline concurred: “If that bill had come to the House floor, it would have passed overwhelmingly. Everybody knows it. So the game was, it can’t make it to the floor.”

For their part, the Tennessee House Democratic Caucus actually took credit for driving the final nail in the guns-in-lots legislation’s coffin for the year. During a press conference just after the Legislature adjourned, minority-party caucus chairman Mike Turner said Democratic leaders “interceded” with the House sponsor of the bill, Rep. Eddie Bass, D-Prospect, and asked that he not try to bring the matter to the House floor, which was a possibility he’d left open right up until the very end of the session.

  • Pingback: TN: GOP hopeful shoots back on pro-gun record « Watchdog News

  • mickeywhite

    Destroy Private Property Rights, Communist Plank #1

    • Robert Armentrout

      No one is “destryoing” anything, Sir, and certainly not private property rights.

      I wonder whtat “private property rights” you think even exist? The ONLY mention of property rights in the Constitution is in the 5th amenament which sttes that propert compensation must be made when private property is taken. Moreover, property that has been voluntiaily turne into business property where the public is not just invited to be but desired to be is not “privte” in any sense of the word private and our laws have LONG recognized that. Even true private property can and usually is regulated as to what you can and cannot do and when you can do it.

      This bill would have hurt NO ONE…a firearm in a locked vehicle in a parking lot is no threat to anyone and not infingement on anyone’s rights.

      Further, this ridiculous argument about “property property” is disingenous as ths issue has already been decided by the courts…these laws already exist in 16 other states and have faced nuerous challenges but the courts have held that these bill do NOT violate property rights.

  • mickeywhite

    Remember “thou shall not steal” and “thou shall not covet”?
    “Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?” (Mat. 20:15)

  • Donna De Sopo

    Maggart doesn’t care one bit about your property rights! Ask her about forced annexation and she will IGNORE you. Forced annexation takes away your property rights and Maggart refuses to answer simple questions on the matter. Maggart also knows that hundreds of families in her district are not “safe and sound” and have been paying city taxes for a plan of services they STILL do not have, street lights, which were designed to protect our safety, health, and welfare. Debra only cares about her special interests and could care less about your Constitutional rights. Look at the video and you will see the face of a habitual liar. Don’t buy the lies. Defeat Maggart 2012. We deserve new leadership under Lt. Col. Courtney Rogers, District #45.

  • http://www.billhobbs.com Bill Hobbs

    Maggart’s assertion that this issue pits private property rights vs the Second Amendment right to bear arms misses the point of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment wasn’t written so you could own a gun – it was written so you could own a gun IN ORDER TO PROTECT YOUR LIFE AND YOUR FREEDOM.

    Allowing gun owners to store their guns in their cars in their employer’s parking lot is a matter of prioritizing the right of the individual to protect their own life above the property rights of the employer. When it comes to balancing rights, the right to life is more import than property rights – for, if you have no right to defend your life, no other rights matter.

    Maggart’s position, therefore, is that your right to defend your life is no more important than whether or not the property owners likes guns or not. That is why her position on the Employee Safe Commute Act was the wrong position, and why she should be defeated.

  • Robert Armentrout

    As was so rightfully pointed out in the article, it’s quite easy for a legislator to assert a 100% voting record on Second Amendment rights when that legislator can control what she actually has to cast a recorded vote on . This bill was sent to “summer study” for one reason and one reason only, so that Debra Maggart didn’t have to vote on the bill and either piss off her big business campaign contributors (by voting for passage) or ruin her NRA rating (by voting against passage).

    Luckily for the residents of district 45, the NRA was watching her maneuverings and understand what they were for and gave her the appropriate rating for it!

  • mickeywhite

    Why stop at locked in cars in the parking lots? Carry to your next business meeting. To your next court date. To visit people in Jail. Oh and in TN you can Open Carry. Do that at your next business meeting, after all 2nd to None!

  • mickeywhite

    Your 2nd amendment right does not obligate a private business to provide a place for your actions. Do businesses have to provide you with a place for you to express any of your other amendment rights? Does the local gas station have to provide you with a place to express your freedom of speech, religion, press, assemble…?

  • Donna DeSopo

    Mickey, have you asked Ms. Maggart about her position on forced annexation? If so, you will see that she is nothing but a fake phony fraud. Hopefully, you are not easily manipulated by a habitual/pathological liar. Perhaps you can think this through a little deeper…and see that people who have a carrying permit and are legal gun owners not only have the 2nd amendment on their side but the property rights argument, too. I have a carrying permit. I own my car. My employer does not–but if my employer gave me a company care, then the company can tell me what I can and can’t put in its glove box. Otherwise, the employer has no rights to dictate what I keep in my car. GPS devices attract theft, does an employer have the right to tell you that you cannot have a GPS device in your car when parked on their property (well, technically many employers rent the space these days and are not the actual land owner)? Think a little more about this slippery slope and your eagerness to allow employers to invade your property rights…….

  • mickeywhite

    Donna, either the property is private or it is not. If I tell you not to come on my property, In your car, with a weapon in it, then you can’t. Actually I could say don’t bring your car on my property if it has an Obama bumper sticker on it. Yes you Don’t have freedom of speech on My property unless I grant it.

  • mickeywhite

    As far as annexation, I think you are the one that is eager to have your private property rights invaded. Just think, today business property rights, then Your (our) private property rights. Annexation will not matter when Fascism runs the state legislature and your private property.

  • mickeywhite

    The Second Amendment prevents the government, not private parties, from infringing your right to keep and bear arms. If a private party can ban you from his property for any reason, good or bad, he can do so for carrying a gun. So too with the First Amendment: it limits what governments, not private parties, may do; government may not violate your rights of assembly and petition, none of which is happening here.

    http://reason.com/blog/2012/08/02/the-nra-more-on-the-side-of-guns-than-of?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+reason/HitandRun+%28Reason+Online+-+Hit+%26+Run+Blog%29

  • Pingback: Young Guns  Th… « Once Upon a Paradigm

Previous post:

Next post: