Sitting down for the first time with reporters this year, House Republican Majority Leader Gerald McCormick accused the media of spending too much time talking about their guns-in-lots legislation.

The bill proposes to clear up confusion about whether guns are allowed in certain parks by removing local governments' power to ban guns in their parks. Here's transcript of the press conference with reporters and House Speaker Beth Harwell, Caucus Leader Glen Casada and Finance Committee Chairman Charles Sargent and McCormick.

Reporter: The guns-in-parks bill being amended, you're calling for a non-concurrence. Why is that?

Speaker Harwell: It was poorly drafted and it jeopardizes the entire bill.

Reporter: How so?

Harwell: It will put a fiscal note on it. We'll go back into Finance (Ways and Means Committee). I just feel it jeopardizes the entire bill.

Reporter: Do you think it makes it more likely the governor will veto it, the entire bill?

Harwell: I can't speak for the governor, you'd have to ask him that. But I would suspect that it would.

Reporter: What do you personally think of the idea though, of being able to carry guns in the Legislative Plaza and the Capitol?

Harwell: I think that should be a separate issue that we address in another bill.

Reporter: Why would it have had a fiscal note?

Harwell: All of the security that we have everywhere, it's not just the Capitol. If you read the bill, it's all the surrounding, all the buildings surrounding the Capitol are included. Obviously, it was not offered in a constructive fashion.

Reporter: So, the Supreme Court? Library and Archives?

Harwell: If you read the amendment, all of that is included.

Reporter: So the buildings across the street?

Harwell: Yes.

Reporter: Doesn't the security machines, wouldn't they detect that anyway?

Harwell: We'd have to have extra people down there probably to check and see if someone has a card on them, we'd have to verify the card is on the person. There's a lot of issues we would need to look at if we chose to go that route. Anything else?

Reporter: I just wanted to ask Chairman Casada, I think you said though, you think there is support within the caucus for this idea.

GOP Caucus Chairman Glen Casada: For the idea, that's exactly right. But when you have something that would, in essence, I think, set a real good chance of killing the bill, then all of the sudden, the mood is not to support it and to make sure we don't kill legislation that we have now.

Reporter: To continue on, you all have been in power for a number of years. Why hadn't you all done this previously?

Casada: We've been busy cutting taxes and growing the economy. This will come up, I guess, some day soon it will come up. But it just hasn't been a top priority for us. At least I speak for leadership.

House Majority Leader Gerald McCormick: I think it's of more interest to you guys, obviously than it is to us. (House leadership laughs.)

Reporter: Part of the point of the amendment, it appeared, was well, if we're going to do this across the state, shouldn't we do that here at home where we work?

McCormick: I think the point of the amendment was to kill the bill, is what the point of the amendment was. It wasn't to be constructive and to hold us accountable like the rest of the state. It was to kill the bill.

Casada: It was poorly written, I would submit to buttress Gerald's point. And I think it was intentionally poorly written to be vague and not precise and allow loopholes. And so, that's just not how we do business here.

Reporter: Of course, the critics of the bill itself say it's vague and it allows loopholes and has sort of arguments of you have a fake gun but not a real gun or a real gun but not a fake gun. Is their criticism warranted of the original measure to begin with?

Casada: Everything we do should and deserves, everything we do should deserve debate and criticism. I think they're wrong, but that's a democratic society.

Reporter: What's your understanding of how close you can carry a firearm to a school if it's next to a park, like as in Nashville?

Casada: 37-17-1309 is very clear. If a school owns, operates or maintains a park, it is very clear, you cannot bring your gun there. Even if you're a permit holder.

Reporter: But if it's adjacent to the park?

Casada: Again, it's pretty clear. Owned, operated or maintained. The feds do have 1,000 feet which would supersede our laws, so in addition to the feds you've got our Tennessee law, which is again is 37-17-1309, it's real clear.

Reporter: But there seems to be some thought, that the 1,000 buffer wouldn't apply to permit holders.

Casada: That is, I have heard that, and that may be true. But I can only speak intelligently, and that's questionable, on Tennessee code. And I go back to what's important to our county, which is if a park is maintained, owned or operated by a school, no permit holders can bring their guns.

Reporter: Mr. Chairman, you talk about the need for debate and there was fairly lots of discussion or talk from Democrats on the floor about this measure, but there was no debate or no questions at least from Republicans on the bill Monday. Do you know what that was or why?

McCormick: On the Senate floor?

Reporter: House, I'm talking about the House, the guns in parks passed in the House earlier in the week. There were plenty of, I think 11 Democratic amendments, and certainly they got up and talked about it and there can be issues with the way they talked about it, but there was no real discussion on the amendments or discussion on the bill at all once it actually came.

McCormick: We had almost an hour of discussion on those amendments and we had some discussion on the bill, but quite frankly the rules say that you can cut off debate after a reasonable amount of time. I thought we were very patient with them, listened to a lot silliness, quite frankly, and we were very patient through the whole process. They had a lot of time. We spent more time on that bill than any other bill that night, so the idea that we didn't have a debate on that bill is ridiculous.

Reporter: You had debate on the amendments, or were discussing them and tabled them immediately.

McCormick: And they were all over the place on the amendments. They didn't stick to their amendments when they were talking about it, they talked about the whole broad range of the bill.

Reporter: I think they might argue that a debate would involve two sides. I think --

McCormick: They talked more than we did. Maybe we should have talked more instead of just letting them do it. And remember, we have a supermajority. We could have walked in there and not had any debate on it.

Reporter: So was it by design then to just say, instead of even proceeding or discussing it, just to table things and then call for the question and not actually having the sponsor discuss what the bill did and why?

Casada: I would submit that in the House, this is why we're such sticklers on bringing amendment to the floor because all the heavy lifting, all the debate is done in subcommittee, committee, subcommittee, committee in that bill. So there was a lot of debate and a lot of give and take, but we do it in subcommittee where you have the flexibly to really dig deep on an issue. So when you get to the floor, gosh, what would you say, leader? About an hour or so we still, in addition to all the committee debate.

Reporter: What do you think it says that even though the House has passed it, there's still questions about, in terms of this 1,000-foot, exactly where guns are and exactly where that line is, that it's passed the House but we still don't have answers to that yet?

Casada: Oh, I think the answers are clear. I think if a park is owned, maintained or operated by a school no permit holder can bring a gun. And let's be clear, I'm of the belief -- and I'll just express my opinion -- is that right now there are guns in parks. There was a shooting two days ago in a park. Guns in parks today exist by law-breakers. What we're saying is we want those law-abiding citizens that have demonstrated the ability to operate a weapon to be there and to avert a crime, which has happened many times across this country and this state. So, I think we're being naive-like if we say there is no guns in park, and this is a guns in parks. This is not. This is letting permit holders there to defend unarmed citizens.

Reporter: At the amendment, again, though. It does mention this idea of exempting, or not allowing explosives or other items including imitation weapons within this 150 feet. So, I'm still confused as to why it's important to not allow squirt guns or fake guns within 150 feet of a school versus school property versus a permitted gun.

Casada: All you have to do is look at Cleveland, Ohio, about two weeks ago. A child, 16 years old -- maybe I shouldn't use the word child -- was waving a plastic gun. Police officers didn't know what that was and they acted accordingly in defending the people at that park that they thought the young man had a gun. We want to avoid the vagueness and having innocent people shot for police doing their duty.

Reporter: In Tennessee then, police have to go and check whether that person has a permit before they took action?

Casada: I think what the message says is if you're waving a gun around --

Reporter: Which as a permit holder you can do apparently, according to the Radnor Lake Rambo.

Casada: You couldn't. If you wave that gun around, you're acting irresponsibly. And if a permit holder waves that gun around, they're going to be in trouble quickly.

Reporter: There's been discussion in Nashville, though, with this person, this Radnor Lake Rambo who has a gun and under this law, even with this amendment, would still be allowed to walk around with a weapon if he's permitted, with a real, again an AR-15, some sort of rifle. But if he has a squirt gun, then he can be arrested.

Casada: I think the key is if he keeps that squirt gun hidden, right, he doesn't wave it around, right, no one's going to think he's waving a weapon around.

Reporter: But he's literally waving around a rifle right now. Like, a real gun, and he's allowed to do that.

Casada: Does he have a permit?

Reporter: Yes, he has a permit for this gun.

Casada: And I thought it was a concealed weapon, currently.

Reporter: No. You know Tennessee law does not require to be concealed.

Casada: OK.

Reporter: Hopefully you know that.

Casada: I did. And look, I think that the law's clear. I mean, we're debating something theoretical. We're talking practicalities here. I'd like for us to focus on the practicalities. We need to focus on the things we're doing right in Tennessee.

Reporter: Well the shooting you referred to, two days ago, was a person playing with his cat when he accidentally discharged the weapon. Are you prepared --

Casada: No, that's not what I'm talking about.

Reporter: Well, OK. There was a shooting two days ago when a person at Hadley Park was playing with this cat, accidentally discharged the weapon. Are you prepared that if there are more guns in the park there is a higher likelihood for accidents that there may be some person hurt by having the accidental discharge of a gun in a park?

McCormick: I would say that if we spent more time worrying about criminals carrying guns in parks instead of law abiding citizens, that that would be a better use of our time.

Reporter: There are some parks, and Chairman (Charles) Sargent, you know this, Grassland Park virtually surrounds Grassland Middle and Grassland Elementary Schools. That park is maintained by the county parks department and not the school. You could walk on greenway with a gun under this bill. Could you not?

House Finance, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Sargent: If they have a school function, no.

Reporter: What if they're not having a school function? What if they're not out on the playground, what if they're in the building?

Casada: The law is really clear. And this is an excellent example. Grassland has school functions there, cross country.

Reporter: Not all the time.

Casada: But the law is real clear, it doesn't say when, it says if. And current law is very clear. And so, in this case, because Grassland has school functions there, there cannot be a permit holder taking a gun on Grassland Park. Period, at any time.

Reporter: So, you're saying that, for example, so if a Nashville school had an event one time a year at a park, that there would never be allowed to have any permitted guns at that park?

Casada: I'm not a judge, nor do I pretend to be a lawyer. But if you look at the law, it says 'if.' If it said any other word, your point is valid, but it says 'if a school,' blah, blah, blah, blah. No.

Reporter: If the whole motivation of the law was to avoid confusion for permit holders who said they don't know which parks they're allowed to go in or not, how would that make it more clear for permit holders if they don't know that once a year there's the sack race by the elementary school?

Casada: I would only submit that those who want it to be confusion say it's confusing. I think the average public, good gracious, if Glen Casada can understand this, surely the good public can.

Reporter: But you as a permit holder would know, just as a matter of course, which parks allow guns and which don't, even under the new law?

Casada: I think, number one, if schools want to they can post. This is a school operated park. $5 maybe. That would be the logical conclusion.

Reporter: But Grassland Park is not owned or operated by the school.

Casada: But there's a third word, used. Owned, operated or used. Those are the three words in 37-17-1309.

Reporter: Why not just leave this to locals as it is now? Where they can address each individual situation?

McCormick: Are we answering questions or having a debate? I feel like the Democrats are here --

Reporter: I said, why not?

McCormick: And you haven't been elected.

Reporter: I said, why not? That's a question.

Casada: My response is, when it comes to constitutional questions, the state created federal government, the state created local government. So when it comes to constitutional questions, it's the state's obligation to guarantee the constitutional rights. Generally speaking, we do defer things to local. But generally speaking, this legislature believes in devolving power to the individual. Big, intrusive local governments. No redemption, we want to restore power to the individual.

Reporter: I'm not trying to debate, but these are the questions that we're being asked about this. And one of the things that keep getting pointed out to me, is you guys keep talking about criminals, but there are accidents. Permit holders have accidents.

McCormick: Certainly.

Reporter: So, if there's an accident and a permit holder is in a park, there's a high chance it's going to hit a child.

Casada: There's accidents with bicycles in parks. Should we outlaw bicycles?

Reporter: Yeah, but bikes very rarely kill people.

Casada: That's not true, I disagree with that statement.

Reporter: Guns are weapons. Are you saying a gun is as safe as bicycle?

Casada: If used properly I am. If used properly.

Reporter: In the event of an accident, which is more likely to kill someone?

Casada: Now we're back in theoretical. I think in Tennessee we're dealing with a lot more questions than guns in parks. I think this is a minor thing in the scope of what we're doing good in Tennessee.

Reporter: If someone is hit accidently with a bullet, you guys are fine defending this bill?

Casada: If someone gets run over by an automobile accidently, there's nothing I can do about that. These are things beyond, they're called acts of God, they're beyond our control.

Sargent: No one wants to see anybody get hit by a car or get hit by a bullet. So, I really take very great offense to that one. No one sitting at this table or standing around this table would ever want to see anybody hit by a bullet or a car.

Reporter: No one's suggesting that you want this to happen.

McCormick: Yes, I think that was suggested. It was suggested as you're advocating that side of the argument, which is what you're doing.

Reporter: I'm just trying to present.

McCormick: I don't think you're presenting, I think you're advocating. Is this the only thing that's important to you guys? I mean, seriously.

Reporter: You guys like to accuse the media of paying too much attention to this issue.

McCormick: You are. Right now you are.

Reporter: Well, it's an issue that has a lot of interest in the state and did not get a full debate on the floor.

McCormick: I would very much disagree. I don't think there's been a bill on the floor that had more debate than this one the whole year.

Reporter: The only discussion of the bill was the short statement by the co-sponsor reading a news story about something that happened in a different state. That was the only thing --

McCormick: That includes the amendments.

After the press conference ...

McCormick: You guys are brutal. Let me limp out of here.