GKar

Veto override coming now

I stand corrected...can we give away just some/most of the Memphis politicians... Indeed, Todd rocks!

Can we just give Memphis...and all its politicians...to someone else? Anyone? Any takers?

They are now taking up items to be considered in relation to the budget, and then those directly dealing with the budget. No conspiracy...

This link also answers another question: in the House, Unfinished Business is taken up after all the Calendars are addressed, as one of the last orders of business of the day. This differs from the Senate, where UB is usually among the first orders of business, taken up before the Calendars. So bring a lawn chair and a good book...this may take a while.

After the notice was read by the clerk, the clerk said that it would be taken up in Unfinished Business on the next legislative day. And from what I've seen, no one argues with the clerk.

So as earlier indicated, the notice was made tonight, allowing foraction on the motion to occur in the next legislative session. House reconvenes tomorrow 10am, regardless of absence of a notice of such on the posted calendar.

Todd looks like the cat that ate the canary...

Todd stands for Unfinished Business - here's the notice

But that wouldn't/couldn't end there - the natural extension would be to thus require posting (ie, prohibition) in ANY workplace where firearms might be carried in, unless the decison was extremely narrow and determined that alcohol was the only differentiating factor regardless of the law's prohibiton against consumption. In any case, it seems a real stretch of the "safe workplace" mantra of OSHA/TOSHA, particularly in that there are no/have never been any attempts by OSHA/TOSHA to actually legislate against firearms in a workplace. I'm guessing here that the Tennessee entity is not gonna be real wild about spending the effort and cost to become he trendsetter where the Federal agency has pointedly avoided wetting their feet. Also might up the possibility of countersuit against TOSHA in that such an action would specifically run counter to the stipulations within the Tennessee constitution regarding restriction of the RTKBA??

Both caucuses, the Budget subcommittee, Education (special meeting) and Calendar/Rules are all meeting before 3:30, apparently with the intent of bringing several bills to the floor...so my guess is the 3:30 session will be a long one. They dispensed with Personal Orders, various resolutions and the Consent Calendar prior to recess. IIRC the orders within the House (previously posted here), that would still allow SB3012 to be placed on notice in this afternoon's session if necessary. And, if not necessary, it would allow introduction of the motion to override. Somebody asked earlier about the hesitation to suspend the rules specific to the 24 hour notice: if I had to bet, there are several Dems that don't want to go there, even though they may be inclined to vote for the override. And since suspending the rules takes a 2/3 majority, supporters may have to spend a little political favor to entice enough suport - an effort that may not be worth it just to suspend the rules if its really not necessary to do so.

There are several co-prime sponsors (Dennis, West, sev others) on the House side...I would imagine that they could also bring the bill to the floor.

Likewise, I don't see Williams returning as speaker. Thankfully, that may mean a significant realighment in some of the key committee chairs and memberships, which could be a very good thing. He'll probably be re-elected (not aware that he has any serious opposition), but hopefully relegated to the back of the bus.

One of the dynamics that we tend to miss is that what occurs inside the chamber is rarely a surprise to anyone participating in the process...it is often (not always, but often enough) the formal playing out of matters that have already been settled outside the chanber (perhaps in/between caucuses, individuals, etc). What we see is often a well-choreographed dance when it comes to matters occuring on the floor...if they're anything like most other govt agencies, the vast majority of decisions are not made out in the light of public scrutiny...they have been made long beforehand.

If it were just this issue dragging on alone, it wold be a more significant worry. But things have moved along as well as they can given the more pressing matters being dealt with by the legislature...and as dear as many here may hold this legislation, you can bet your bottom dollar the state budget has greater importance to the majority of the citizens of the state, and the legislature (and rightly so, IMHO).

Well, I thought I'd seen a picture of a sign in her window, but I frankly haven't even darkened the street her restaurant is on since she went on her little tirade. Maybe she's been too busy trying to intimidate the local police officers to get around to actually putting it up...

Rather, I think the rescheduling of the House session is more indicative of the state of the budget "negotiations" that are ongoing. Still some pretty big differences across the aisles, and between the chambers.

Found this today: http://www.ck10.uscourts.gov/opinions/07/07-5166.pdf . Apparently, there have been previous, and unsuccessful, efforts to prohibit firearms possession through the OSHA route. In OK, a district court upheld an injunction against the implementation of OK's "parking lot" bill based upon some assertions that the provisions created an unsafe workplace and thus violated OSHA precepts. In Feb 2009, the 10th Circuit US COurt of Appeals overturned that district court ruling (thus allowing parking lot possession) with the following observations: " Because the absence of any specific OSHA standard on workplace violence is undisputed, the district court correctly recognized that the only possible area of OSH Act preemption was under the general duty clause and the OSH Act’s overarching purpose. Thus, in finding preemption, the district court held that gunrelated workplace violence was a “recognized hazard” under the general duty clause, and, therefore, an employer that allows firearms in the company parking lot may violate the OSH Act. We disagree. OSHA has not indicated in any way that employers should prohibit firearms from company parking lots. OSHA’s website, guidelines, and citation history do not speak at all to any such prohibition. In fact, OSHA declined a request to promulgate a standard banning firearms from the workplace. See Standards Interpretations Letter, September 13, 2006, available at 2006 WL 4093048. In declining this request, OSHA stressed reliance on its voluntary guidelines and deference “to other federal, state, and local lawenforcement agencies to regulate workplace homicides.” Id. OSHA is aware of the controversy surrounding firearms in the workplace and has consciously decided not 12 to adopt a standard. Thus, we are not presented with a situation where the general duty clause applies because OSHA has been unable to promulgate a standard for an “unanticipated hazard.” " With this precedent, I would think a lower court might now have a particularly hard time swallowing the OSHA argument, knowing that such a determination has already (and recently) been overturned by the US Circuit Court. Anyone know any more about this case?

Guess so. Up here in the fingertip, the list of businesses with any kind of posting must be quite a bit shorter than to our west. Of my own experience, couple of hospitals, the mayor of JC's lunch restaurant and a few bars (none that I would even in my wildest dreams categorize as "restaurants", not because of food sales dollars but because of quality!)...oh, and of all places, the Bristol Big Lots store (working on that one - not a corporate issue). Strange as it may seem, it would almost appear that the number of postings is directly proportionate to the number of Democratic Reps/Senators elected by the locality...hmmm...

Seems gun owners have spent a lot of energy, time and words trying to avoid being the victim/target of this exact tact. Is it not just a bit disingenuous to then turn and employ the very tact one decries as otherwise unfair? To do so ultimately seems likely to undermine many/most of the gains we're trying to make in the court of public opinion/credibility. And that is a battle we desperately need to win: any gains there we make erode what persuasive influence the oppostion may have, while failing to do so continues to empower the opposition and embolden both their arguments and their resolve.

Did anyone else notice that Tate (seated right in front of Jackson during his remarks on the video stream) looked like he'd just eaten a bad Mexican meal the entire time Jackson was speaking? Judas realizing he didn't want those pieces of silver...

@PWS...yeah, it is, LOL. Just gotta keep a bit'o perspective, though.

We here tend to have a very myopic read on the legislature's activities...so much so that it actually could give credence to the media's ctiricism's that gun legislation is all the legislature is focused on. In reality, I think you're correct - much if not all of the maneuvering, etc is focused upon budgetary considerations (they are still quite a ways apart on several issues), and have to get that whole mess straightened out before they can go home. It ain't all about us...

The motion to override in the Senate should occur during the "Unfinished business" portion of the floor session. I think they get to that just before the Consent and Message calendars, but not sure. It will not appear on any calendar, though - at least, it did not appear on any calendar during last year's overrides.

With regards to the sign pictured in the opening post of the thread: this is pretty much the exact sign (sans the specificity about Chattanooga city council) that Bristol has posted at the entrances to its city parks. While I disagree strongly with Bristol council's decision to d so, I must give them credit that they have made good effort to post their parks with sufficient notices so that no one should be caught off-guard.