TN Bill proposes exceptions for firearms in restricted zones
MEMPHIS, Tenn. — Two pieces of legislation are causing controversy as they move into the next phase, but they still have a long way to go.
Senate Bill 441 and House Bill 478 are looking to change the current law surrounding the possession of weapons on properties that prohibit firearms.
The bills look to create an exception to the offense of possessing or carrying a firearm into an area where weapons are not permitted. An amendment was made to the bill on Tuesday.
Memphis voters say yes to 3 gun control measures
'There was an amendment added by a committee member yesterday. It was a former law enforcement officer. Yeah, that kind of creates a due process,' said Rep. Ed Butler (R), District 41.
The proposed legislation means you won't get in trouble if the property owner sees the gun and you leave immediately at their request, or if you put the gun in your car, you won't be fined.
'The amendment improves the situation. But I can see circumstances under which it's going to be very difficult to determine whether someone inadvertently brought a firearm onto the premises, were firearms or prohibited or intentionally did so. So that's going to continue to be a challenge,' said Bill Gibbons, Memphis Shelby Crime Commission.
Gibbons believes much more must be ironed out to make sure bad actors aren't taking advantage.
📡 for Memphis and the Mid-South.
📧 and have the latest top stories sent right to your inbox.
'It would apply to hospitals, to restaurants, to various government buildings, city buildings, county buildings and so on,' Gibbons said.
The next step is for the bill to go through the full judiciary committee before it reaches the Senate.
'You know, we're just trying not to penalize law abiding citizens that have made mistakes and honest mistakes,' Butler said.
The legislation would become effective this summer if enacted.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
White House insists Medicaid policy won't cut people who deserve it
The White House plans to confront resistance to Medicaid cuts from Senate Republicans by arguing that any reductions in coverage would only affect people who didn't deserve it in the first place. A strong bloc of Republicans in the Senate has signaled that they are uncomfortable with Medicaid reductions in the sweeping tax-and-spending bill enacted last month by the House. President Donald Trump's advisers are determined to confront those concerns by claiming that cuts would chiefly target undocumented immigrants and able-bodied people who should not be on Medicaid, according to four administration officials and outside allies granted anonymity to discuss strategy. 'This bill will preserve and protect the programs, the social safety net, but it will make it much more common sense,' Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought said Sunday. 'That's what this bill does. No one will lose coverage as a result.' The megabill would add work requirements to the program and bar undocumented immigrants from getting coverage, among other attempts to tighten eligibility. Those provisions are projected to leave roughly 7.6 million low-income people without health care over the next decade — losses that would amount to hundreds of billions of dollars in cost savings for the program. Contrary to Trump officials' claims, such cuts are widely anticipated to go beyond immigrants and the narrow slice of able-bodied unemployed, according to health experts. The provisions would likely add new layers of paperwork for low-income enrollees, making it more difficult for qualified recipients to stay on the program and pushing otherwise-eligible Americans suddenly out of health coverage. In a POLITICO interview published Sunday, Trump Medicaid chief Mehmet Oz argued the changes would 'future proof' the program, also insisting that "we're not cutting Medicaid." 'There's a lot of sensitivity about being accused, accused of not taking care of people who have disabilities or seniors without money or children,' Oz said. Trump officials have aggressively pushed that stance in public and private in recent days, insisting that the administration's plan will shield 'deserving' Medicaid recipients like the elderly and disabled, while targeting those who officials have cast as a drain on the nation's safety net. Many of those people gained coverage over the last decade through Obamacare's expansion of Medicaid. Republicans have been stung before by their efforts to enact health care cuts, most notably facing massive voter blowback in 2017 that cratered Trump's bid to repeal Obamacare and contributed to widespread losses in the following midterms. But Trump officials and allies argue that voters will support these changes to Medicaid, seeing them less as cuts than tweaks meant to ensure resources go to those who truly need it. 'Medicaid does not belong to people who are here illegally, and it does not belong to capable and able-bodied men who refuse to work,' said one of the White House officials. 'So no one is getting cut.' In a statement, White House spokesman Kush Desai said Trump would "protect and preserve Medicaid" by "kicking illegal immigrants off of the program and implementing commonsense work requirements," adding that Americans voted for such policies. The strategy represents a stark messaging shift for a GOP that has long found itself on the defensive in debates over health coverage. And it's an attempt by the White House to mirror the approach Trump has taken on other issues like immigration and trade, casting aside political complexities in favor of portraying them as a simple choice between 'us' and 'them.' Trump has framed his mass deportation campaign as an effort to rid the country of millions of immigrants deemed undeserving of staying in the U.S. He's justified his tariffs as a counter to other countries 'ripping us off' on trade. 'Before, they were taking things away from people,' Thomas Miller, a senior fellow at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute, said of the health messaging shift. 'Now, they're saying they're not deserving.' In the Senate, Vought and White House legislative affairs chief James Braid have taken the lead in talks with Republican lawmakers, the White House official said. Trump has also dialed up a handful of senators over the last week, said another White House official granted anonymity to discuss internal strategy, ahead of a sprint in the Senate to pass its version of the megabill in a matter of weeks. The success of that effort could hinge on a handful of GOP senators who are skeptical of any Medicaid policies that could be interpreted as cuts, especially after the House added last-minute health care provisions into its bill that ballooned the predicted coverage losses. Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine have expressed reservations about Medicaid work requirements, while some others have warned more generally about the prospect of cutting the program. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), perhaps the most outspoken Republican on the issue, said Monday in a post on X that Trump had assured him 'NO MEDICAID BENEFIT CUTS' will be in the bill. But rather than change course on policy, Trump officials and other Hill Republicans have instead signaled a preference for winning votes by redefining what qualifies as a cut. In a midday missive on Monday, the White House touted its push to remove roughly 1.4 million undocumented immigrants as key to strengthening Medicaid benefits 'for whom the program was designed — pregnant women, children, people with disabilities, low-income seniors, and other vulnerable low-income families.' That strident approach has prompted blowback from patient advocates and health industry groups across the spectrum, and even bewildered some Republicans who questioned the wisdom of making any changes to a program as politically delicate as Medicaid, especially in the red states of Trump's base. 'The fact remains that a great many Trump voters are on Medicaid, particularly in rural areas,' said GOP pollster Whit Ayres, adding it's unclear whether voters will buy Republicans' assertion that some cuts shouldn't qualify as actual cuts.'If no one loses coverage, how are you going to cut $500 billion?' Still, Trump aides remain confident they can bring both the Senate and the broader public around to their view. Much of the Medicaid-cautious contingent in the Senate — including Hawley — have already said they're okay with work requirements, drawing the line instead at broader funding cuts that might directly impact health providers and state budgets. The White House in the meantime has salivated over a fight with Democrats over coverage for undocumented immigrants, viewing it as another politically advantageous front in its immigration offensive. As for work requirements, Republicans pointed to polling that has consistently shown most Americans support them in theory — even despite the warnings about how it's likely to play out. 'It's a simple, clear message to say we're only taking away coverage from people who are not working,' said Miller. 'You don't get down to the granular details of, what does that actually mean in practice?' Megan Messerly and Ben Leonard contributed to this report.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Nevada on track to up DUI penalties to maximum 25 years in prison
LAS VEGAS (KLAS) — An amended version of Republican Nevada Gov. Joe Lombardo's crime bill would increase the maximum amount of prison time for a DUI driver who kills to 25 years. As initially written, Senate Bill 457 would also change Nevada law to charge DUI drivers who kill with second-degree murder. A version of the bill amended Monday would increase Nevada's DUI-with-death penalty to a maximum of 25 years, an increase from the current 20 years. As written, Nevada's DUI-with-death law carries a potential prison sentence of 2-20 years. However, a bipartisan 1995 law requires a judge to sentence a person to a minimum and maximum sentence, meaning in cases of DUI with death, the maximum amount of time a defendant will spend in prison without a parole hearing is eight years. The 8 News Now Investigators have found most drivers who kill serve those eight years, not 20. Should Lombardo's bill pass as amended, a DUI driver who kills could serve the minimum two years in prison or up to 10 years before they are released or go before the parole board. In essence, the maximum-minimum amount of time to be served would become 10 years — a change from the current eight years. However, a driver could, in theory, serve all 25 years. A 10-to-25-year sentence aligns with the penalties for second-degree murder. If a DUI driver who kills has prior convictions, the minimum would be increased from two years to five years, the amendment said. Senate Bill 457 passed the Nevada Senate with the amendment in a 20-1 vote. Democratic State Sen. James Ohrenschall was the only dissenting vote. Senate Bill 304, which would amend the state's vehicular homicide law to include all DUIs involving death, appeared unlikely to pass Monday. The proposal would carry a possible sentence of 10 to 25 years or 10 to life, also the same as the state's second-degree murder statute. The legislative session ends at midnight Tuesday. Lawmakers will not reconvene, except for special circumstances at the request of the governor, until February 2027. Opponents of the governor's crime bill, including the ACLU of Nevada, warn that other components in it violate a person's constitutional rights. Since February, the 8 News Now Investigators have explored Nevada DUI laws, including the fact that lawmakers proposed no immediate changes after a DUI driver killed two state troopers investigating a second DUI driver. Nevada prosecutors, including the Clark County District Attorney's Office, have tried to charge DUI drivers who kill a person and who speed and who drive with no care for another person's life, with murder, but the Nevada Supreme Court has ruled the DUI with death law is more appropriate. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Pa. Democrats call on GOP to oppose Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' as state budget season starts
State Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta (D-Philadelphia) decried the "Big, Beautiful Bill" during a press conference outside Pennsylvania Capitol. (Capital-Star photo by Vincent DiFonzo) Pennsylvania Democrats stood on the Capitol steps in Harrisburg Monday and called on Republicans to oppose cuts to entitlement programs that are working their way through Congress. 'They don't want to talk about this massive negative impact it's going to have on the quality of life of so many Pennsylvanians,' Senate Minority Leader Jay Costa (D-Allegheny), said. 'It's not too late for them to join us, to be part of the discussion that says 'no.'' The proposed federal spending cuts are part of what Republicans call their 'Big, Beautiful Bill,' a budget reconciliation package that includes much of President Donald Trump's agenda. The bill has already passed the and can pass the U.S. Senate with a simple majority vote, which Republicans can muster without Democratic support. The bill would renew Trump's 2017 tax cuts that are set to expire and increase funding for immigration enforcement. To offset the costs, it includes dramatic spending cuts, especially to entitlement programs. Though the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found it could add $3.8 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years. Democrats in Harrisburg say the bill's spending cuts will have dramatic impacts in Pennsylvania. They've warned it could result in hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians losing Medicaid coverage, and tens of thousands losing access to food assistance programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The state, they say, does not have the funds to make up for that. Sen. Vincent Hughes (D-Philadelphia), the minority chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said there is little room to make up for potential federal cuts with state funding. 'Knowing the state budget the way I know it, we know that we have no capacity to backfill any of those cuts,' he told the Capital-Star. According to the left-leaning think tank Pennsylvania Policy Center, the bill includes roughly $600 billion in cuts to Medicaid spending over 10 years, and would institute new work requirements for people covered through the program. They say the result could mean more than half a million Pennsylvanians would lose health care. Currently, around 23% of Pennsylvanians, or around 3 million people, are covered by Medicaid, according to the state Department of Human Services. Rep. Arvind Venkat, (D-Allegheny), who is also an emergency physician,said before the Affordable Care Act expanded Medicaid, 20% of his patients didn't have health insurance. 'They would come into the emergency department too late for me to treat them, and that is a real thing,' he said. The reason some gave him was the fear of medical debt that they'd accumulate because they were uninsured. He worries that will happen again if more people lose insurance 'We need to call out the cynicism from our Republican colleagues in Congress. On the one hand they're saying they don't want to take coverage from anybody,' Venkat said. 'But then they're happy to brag that they're going to save $1.7 trillion in decreased federal funding. And the only way that happens is if people lose insurance or stop seeking healthcare when they need it.' The bill's Republican defenders say that the cuts are the result of eliminating fraud and waste, and will ultimately reduce spending to help bring a ballooning budget back in line. Republican Sen. Dave McCormick did not respond to questions from the Capital-Star, but addressed the bill at a televised debate with Democratic Sen. John Fetterman Monday morning. He said entitlement spending has been on the rise, and attributed that to an uptick of claims by people for whom benefits were never intended. 'Those are working-age men without dependents, and those are illegal immigrants in a number of cases,' McCormick said. 'So what I'm arguing for is that we need to cut out the use of those programs … by people for whom they weren't designed.' The reconciliation bill would also cut SNAP spending by nearly $300 billion, according to the Pennsylvania Policy Center, by reducing the federal government's share of spending. It would also expand work requirements. As it stands, parents raising dependent children under 18 are not required to meet them, but the bill would lower the age of qualifying dependents to 7. People 55 and older are also not required to meet work requirements, but the bill would change that to 65 and up. Pennsylvania Department of Human Services Secretary Val Arkoosh has warned that 140,000 Pennsylvanians could lose access to the food assistance program with the changes to work requirements. According to the Department's most recent data, in 2023, around 2 million Pennsylvanians received SNAP benefits every month. 'This bill would be the largest cut ever to food assistance in U.S. history,' Costa said. He added that the bill could mean cuts to the Farmers Market Nutrition Program, which pays farmers to provide fresh food for seniors and people who receive Women, Infants and Children (WIC) nutritional assistance programs. Rep. Malcolm Kenyatta (D-Philadelphia), the vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, called on Republicans to join his party in opposition. 'I think we have an opportunity to stop this, but the problem is it's only Democrats out here,' he said. Spokespeople for Senate Majority Leader Joe Pittman (R-Indiana) and Senate President Pro Tempore Kim Ward (R-Westmoreland) did not respond to questions from the Capital-Star. As it stands, the U.S. Senate is likely to make changes to the bill before returning it to the House. A number of Senate Republicans have raised concerns over how much the bill could add to the deficit. Populist Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Missouri) raised concerns about cuts to Medicaid, which he called 'morally wrong and political suicide.' Gov. Josh Shapiro also warned of a steep impact if the House version of the bill is passed. He said that it could impact not just patients, but hospitals that rely on Medicaid funds. 'We've got 25 rural hospitals that right now are operating on a deficit that likely would have to shutter if these Medicaid cuts go in effect,' Shapiro said at a press conference Monday morning in Harrisburg. 'It is certainly my hope that our federal representatives wouldn't vote for something that takes something away from Pennsylvania students or Pennsylvania seniors and everybody in between,' he added.
