Worriedman

You will notice the "?" at the end of the title of the thread. Received it this morning from one of the folks I talk to a lot on such issues. Just bringing it up for conversation, was not passing it along as fact.

[url="http://video.foxnews.com/v/2005266599001/president-to-bypass-congress-on-semiautomatic-weapons-ban/?intcmp=obnetwork"]http://video.foxnews...ntcmp=obnetwork[/url]

[quote name='Garufa' timestamp='1353968630' post='850977'] Does this mean the sky is falling again? [/quote] Only if one wanted a shot at Constitutional Carry or a restoration of firearms rights for Tennesseans in our life time. Otherwise things are peachy.

Curtis Johnson from Clarksville.

Just got word from a staff member, Harwell et al have unseated Judd Matheny as Speaker Protempore.

[quote name='Dolomite_supafly' timestamp='1353698930' post='849831'] Passing this law is going to change what? Employers will still be able to fire employees for any reason. All it will do is clog our legal system with false claims of being fired for having a gun in their car at work. Dolomite [/quote] We amended the House Bill to include language that required the prevailing party in such a suit to receive their legal expenses from the looser, to preclude that very thing.

[quote name='JayC' timestamp='1353678802' post='849732'] So tell me again, how I as a business owner is somehow regulating firearms and differently than you as a homeowner is? [/quote] A business owner can stipulate any person he so choses to be responsible for security in said business, and can arm them. There is no requirement that they have any training, that they be licensed as a "Security Guard" prior to donning a weapon. If the owner choses to hire a "Security firm" then the rules do apply, but there is no State mandate requiring a business to do so.

[quote name='JayC' timestamp='1353636483' post='849615'] I'm all for repealing 39-17-1359, I'll go out and walk the halls at legislative plaza with you 2 days a week if that is the bill we're pushing. But, as for owners being able to be armed on their property... why on earth would we not be for that? How is their business any less important to them than their home? So you're now against the ability for a business owner or law abiding adult from being able to arm themselves in their place of business without paying a fee to TDOS for the privilege? That sure sounds very anti-2nd amendment to me, I can't believe you meant to say that. But, business owners have enjoyed also complete control for setting conditions of entry to their property for since the founding of this state. I don't think the solution to this issue is to remove that right, since in virtually every case permit holders have other market based solutions available to them and they refuse explore those other options. I also think we could just amend 39-17-1359 to only include buildings, not parking lots, and I'd be all for that too. [/quote] It is not just owners being able to be armed, they can also designate others to be armed, if they are charged with security. That person need not have any training, just the designation of a responsible person by that business owner. As far as I am concerned that violates the Constitution. Your earlier comment "No business today (or private individual) is regulating firearms, or firearms ownership." is incorrect.

[quote name='JayC' timestamp='1353601286' post='849468'] No business today (or private individual) is regulating firearms, or firearms ownership. [/quote] That is an erroneous statement. Under the present TCA Code, sans a notice posting against it it is permissible for a permit holder to have their weapons in their vehicle. The owner or controller of a business can in fact decide and post against the ability to do so, not only that, they can legally arm those on their premises who otherwise could not legally be armed.

[size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]The individuals who wrote the Tennessee Constitution were concerned enough about the ability (Rights) of the People to be able to keep and bear their arms for their defense that they put specifically in the Declaration of Rights, that ability. In 1796 it was enumerated in Article 11 Section 26 " That the free men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." There is no limitation espoused as to where they may be carried. There are a listed group of situational issues that were important enough to be vouchsafed as necessary, important enough that the Constitution says it should never be held inviolate per Article 11 Section 16: "The declaration of rights hereto prefixed is declared to be a part of the Constitution of the state, and shall never be violated on any pretense whatever. And to guard against transgression of the high powers we have delegated, we declare that everything in the bill of rights contained, is excepted out of the general powers of the government, and shall forever remain inviolate." No mention that "Private Property" rights shall be held above all other laws is anywhere written. In fact the only mention of them in our Constitution is to codify how they may be abridged by judgment of one's peers or the law of the land. The TN Constitution specifically cites that the power to regulate arms outside of the stated Right to keep and bear them is to be held solely by the Legislature, not private Citizens.[/font][/size]

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353446593' post='848875'] No one knows a slave. [/quote] Would that were a true statement. In my tenure in Mexico (only a few years ago) I met many that would by all accounts be termed slaves, serfs to the land and Masters that held complete thrall over them and their generations. Because the average American does not know any slaves does not mean there are none left in the world. Our State Constitution guarantees that each non criminal Citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for their defense, there are no restrictions as to location espoused by our founding documents. Our Supreme Court has ruled: [size=4]"The right to keep arms, necessarily involves the right to purchase them, to keep them in a state of efficiency for use, and to purchase and provide ammunition suitable for such arms, and to keep them in repair. And clearly for this purpose, a man would have the right to carry them to and from his home, and no one could claim that the Legislature had the right to punish him for it, without violating this clause of the Constitution.[/size] Bearing arms for the common defense may well be held to be a political right, or for the protection and maintenance of such rights, intended to be guaranteed; but the right to keep them, with all that is implied fairly as an incident to this right, is a private individual right, guaranteed to the citizen, not the soldier." The "Government" in Tennessee is supposed to be the People, at least an extension of them. The Legislature (for good or ill) is charged in our Constitution with the power to "regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime". They have no power by the written word to control the keeping of them, that being an absolute Right guaranteed by Article 1 Section 26 of our Declaration of Rights. Shame on us that we have allowed Business interest to purchase our Legislature's duty and honor to keep our safety and pursuit of happiness at the forefront of their endeavor for silver, allowing it to stand. Those who are not parents can not understand the trepidation one who is feels for the safety of their children, and those who do not have grand children more especially can not begin to understand true fear at the ways of the world. Seeing that none but ourselves may be held accountable for the security and safety of each of us, the Government abdicating, as they have and must, the provision of protection, along with the Business owner who proves to care none for the life and safety of the general public when they garner sustenance from the fruits of having it either work at their places of business or show up to purchase goods there, require the individual to be solely responsible. It is the responsibility of those who are concerned to use their Constitutionally named responsibility under Article 1 Section 23 to "to instruct their representatives, and to apply to those invested with the powers of government for redress of grievances, or other proper purposes, by address or remonstrance." I find it my duty to push for this law, having two daughters that drive the roads in the 9th most dangerous municipality in the US, (Jackson, TN) with my grand babies in their car seats. Both are precluded the ability to have their legally owned weapons on hand in case they get stranded by a flat or car trouble of any type, simply because their employers fear them being able to keep the best tool for their protection locked in their personal property during their work hours. I refuse to give up this struggle.

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353362419' post='848397'] Why not work on getting the sign and car laws changed instead of pushing for a parking lot bill? Specifically the criminal charge of carrying past a sign. [/quote] Simply put, Fed Ex, UT Board of Regents and the TN Chamber make this impossible to do. Simplest thing would be to get the Legislature to repeal 39-17-1307, (which is unconstitutional on its face), at which time the Legislature would be required to prove empirically that allowing non felonious Citizens to have possession of their weapons would in fact increase crime, (which they can not do) but Big Business will not allow it.

[quote name='GKar' timestamp='1353359600' post='848354'] So you believe the punitive language for employers that violate the requirements will be stricken? If so, does that leave the bill with any teeth? [/quote] I think the path to implementation will be one bill, (not two like last time), with the language sufficient to not require the punitive second bill.

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353352369' post='848275'] thanks. Why are farms excluded? [color=#ff0000]Lots of farms are single family, so they included the exemption of non-business private dwellings to take that out of contention. [/color] NFPA Kinda goes hand and hand with wage and tax laws then, since everyone has to comply, not just businesses. [color=#ff0000]You asked for a law that was non tax or wage related that is one group that is binding on every business, every single business has to comply, you can not change your rules to suit you.[/color] Would still like for someone to post a law that blankets all businesses like this bill will. [color=#ff0000]This Bill will not blanket all business, that has been established.[/color] [/quote]

[quote name='GKar' timestamp='1353345123' post='848210'] Back to the OP, and a question for WM: what parts of the bill as it actually appeared in the record in the 107th GA do you believe would not reappear in an "RR" version (playing off his comment RE "gun rights advocates will not get everything they want either")? Without reproducing the whole thing here, the following seem to be the salient points from the archived records for HB3560/SB3002... [/quote] The Campfield Amendment (which you do not list) that included Hunting License holders will be deleted. The Fed Ex "Fence" amendment never made it onto the bill last year, but do not expect it to be raised again. Otherwise I think it will remain substantially similar to last years House version, no business owner's liability for weapons used if they were legally stored and stolen, or misused by rightful owners, probably will not see language holding property owners liable if they deny the Permit Holder the ability to keep the weapon in their vehicle, as I do not believe the ability to do that will survive, except for Federally mandated off limit locations such as power plants and nuclear reactors. Schools will be an issue, not sure how that will be managed. Have not seen the whereas and wherefors yet.

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353300794' post='848032'] This bill will target all businesses.Try to keep up. [/quote] The Bill does not apply to Farms, (which are some of the largest business in the country), nor business run out of private residencies. [quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353300794' post='848032'] . I'll admit that I had to look that up. First glance it doesn't appear to apply to everyone. [/quote] NFPA regs apply to EVERYONE, business and individual private property owners alike. Limits to the amount of flammables and explosives that may be stored on premises, and how they must be contained apply to every single building in the US irrespective of ownership type

NFPA regs.

[quote name='QuietDan' timestamp='1353288392' post='847886'] I've been away from this soap opera for a week or so. Did I miss anything? No? Didn't think so. Anyone convince anyone about anything? No? Didn't think so. [/quote] Actually the OP was just two days ago, and it referenced the fact that we MIGHT have convinced Lt. Gov. Ramsey to back the ability of a permit holder to have his weapon stored in their vehicle while at work on the majority of parking lots, like 19 other States have done... DaveTN convinced me we have no firearms Rights in Tennessee, Life and Law Enforcement of Weakly County, TN (Sheriff's Department and DA) convinced me we have no Private Property Rights.

[quote name='DaveTN' timestamp='1353284209' post='847852'] I worked off duty security for a company that had very large tanks of flammable liquids the grounds. They had several plants, but the one that had those tanks did not allow firearms on the property or in vehicles in the parking lots of that one plant. For you guys that think you have a right to have a gun in a parking lot, how are you going to respond to the companies that claim a very real safety risk of having guns in the vicinity of hazardous/flammable/explosive materials? Are you and your state legislators in better position to determine those risks than the experts that use the products or processes? [/quote] So that weapon in the car out in the parking lot is going set the flammables off without any person pulling the trigger? Denying the legitimate, licensed permit holder the ability to keep a weapon locked up in the parking lot is going to make it more dangerous than the thug that does not abide by the law and has one in their vehicle now?

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353272288' post='847758'] Do you want the government to make you do something with your property simply to satisfy a stranger's convenience and sense of entitlement? [/quote] Here is what our Constitution has to say about the matter. Article 1 § 8. Deprivation of life, liberty or property under law; due process "That no man shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed or deprived of his life, liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land." Due process allows your peers to decide what is going to be allowed with respect to the subject at hand. I do not see anything that say whatever any single property owner may decide is to rule. That pesky "judgment of his peers" interferes with the absolute enjoyment of whatever one may decide to do on, or with their property, but nevertheless, there it is. That can be the County Commission, a City Government, (or agencies of either) that stand for our peers in legislating or mandating rules and regulations, some good, some not so, but effective none the less. I do not read anything in there that precludes "private property" business or personal from inclusion. Then one has to consider the last part of the Article, where deprivation of ones property may be achieved through the "law of the land." Stepping back to Article 1 § 26. Weapons; right to bear arms "That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime." Therein lies the rub with respect to the issue at hand, the Tennessee Constitution [b]specifically[/b] references how issues related to arms are to be considered. To DaveTN's point, I agree with him that the current TCA code is in fact against the intent and letter of the Constitution, as our ability to bear arms should not be "sold" and it is in fact guaranteed though currently denied except at cost of a permit. (Though I much prefer the system we have to say that of Illinois, where there is no chance to carry) I am all for working to achieve "Constitutional Carry", and believe it is the right (correct) thing to do. Having spent the majority of this summer embroiled with a private property issue involving my 85 year old Father, I have come to the firm conclusion that there are no "private property" Rights in Tennessee. The convicted, and still on probation meth dealer that lives next door to my aged parents strung a barbed wire fence across a major portion of their front yard, taking in the drive way that goes along their dividing line that feed the barn that has been part of my Father's property for over 100 years since the original deed was drawn up. The Sheriff came out and said that even though he knew where the property line lay, he could not make this piece of filth remove the fence until such time as my parents hired a surveyor and filed suit to have the fence removed, as it fell under "adverse possession" standards. We filed the suit, hired a registered surveyor to run the meets and bounds of the deeds, all in all out over $3,000.00 so far in cost. The original incident took place in June of this year and we still have not come to closure. The Sheriff did finally make the interlopers take the first fence down after the points were established, but he next day the guy puts a new one up over 4 feet across the property line, and it took another month to get that one moved. There was a restraining order issued by the Chancery Court Judge against the people next door, saying they were to not harass my parents or to interfere with their enjoyment of their property. The clown would park his truck pointed at my parents bedroom and keep the bright lights turned on, and hit his alarm on the vehicle. We gave video of the acts to the Sheriff, but he said that he or one of his officers would have to witness it. TDEC is doing a Project to remedy a gas tank lead from the neighbors property which used to be a store of sorts (these people purchased from the original owner). It infiltrated my parent's well requiring a tank yank and drilling numerous wells that pump through a huge set of filters. The neighbors threatened the TDEC employees to the point they will not service the filters without a Sheriff's Deputy on site while they are there. (TDEC can make the Department protect them, my parents do not share that weight) A person's property is not his castle it seems.

GKar, it is a secret ballot, all the more reason to put pressure on the rank and file, Madam speaker can not punish those she can not count... If, (and that is a big word in relationship to this whole conflagration) Ramsey holds true to his word and supports the issue. I think Bell might be the best Senate sponsor, or even the ever ambitious Jim Tracy. Either, knowing that Ramsey will support would like to have the feather in the bonnet of sponsoring a [b][i]passed[/i][/b] initiative showing the Conservative bent. Then there is always Mae Beavers or Dolores Gresham, both who proved to like the bill last year. House side, Matheny will carry if no one else will regardless of the results of his Pro Tempore results, then there is Freshman Courtney Rogers, I know she would have the "tener cojones" to carry the bill in the House.

[quote name='QuietDan' timestamp='1353113319' post='846942'] My opinion only. No criticism intended [/quote] None taken. I agree with your perspective on steps to achieve a long journey by the way. [quote name='QuietDan' timestamp='1353113319' post='846942'] Let us know what we can do too help. [/quote] Right now I perceive the single most important thing for the firearm friendly to be concerned about is the move by the cohorts of, and Madam Speaker to punish Judd Matheny for standing up for our side over the last two years. Rep. Steve McDaniel (the last remaining member of the Naifeh 8) and the other ultra Liberal House members have drafted Rep. Curtis Johnson of Clarksville to challenge Matheny for his position as Speaker Pro Tempore. Rep. Matheny is the last vestige of Conservatism in House Leadership, and if he is divested of his post we will all suffer. We should all work to gather support for Rep. Matheny to keep his post.

[quote name='GKar' timestamp='1353094358' post='846734'] He was decidedly PO'd at John et al, and I bet that doesnt subside anytime soon. [/quote] You would be correct there. Several in the legislative business are of the same opinion, but, when the Republicans were in the ascendancy, they used his "scorched earth" policy as a cudgel against the Democrats. I have copies of Joint Resolutions signed by Ramsey that laud John's efforts, which at the time were his like treatment of Democrats that he delivered to the Republicans over the last two years. Being no Stranger to the Rain myself, I have been sacrificed and crucified over the years, I may not constantly remind the players as to how they acted the last round, I just never forget. I am willing to work with anyone who is aiming for the same goal at the moment, but I rarely stand away from the wall far anymore. [quote name='QuietDan' timestamp='1353095418' post='846752'] Take the "permit holders only" position and run with it. Then in a year or two, campaign for Constitutional Carry. Half a loaf is always better than none. It's also incrementalism, win a battle, win another battle, win another battle, all enroute to your objective. Trying to do it all in one jump often gets you nothing. Be Strategic. IMO. [/quote] QuiteDan, I have been for reaching a reasonable accommodation from the start. From back when Rep. Josh Evans put forth the first proposal that I worked with, to the present. The tales that have been told, the "course corrections" by numerous individuals are all fresh in my mind. I simply want to afford my daughters the ability to provide for the defense of my grand babies in a legal manner, as the government and the employers are not of a mind, nor under any obligation to do so. This whole issue should be viewed (in my perspective) as an extension of our "Castle Doctrine" and any legal thing that is permissible for non criminal Citizen to have should be allowed in their vehicle as long as it is not taken out and displayed. A weapon's use is already covered elsewhere in the TCA code and requires no other discussion.

[quote name='GKar' timestamp='1353084276' post='846600'] Worriedman - what then differentiates the features of the amended bill that died on the floor in April from those he delineated in conversation with you in September? As I've said on another forum, this would seem to be course correction #2 (or maybe #3) in his wanderings on this topic. [/quote] Have not seen the version that he is going to push, but, I do not believe that it will be substantially different from the House version of last year, permit carriers only, complete coverage of the business/property owner from any liability from actions taken with any legal firearm. Pretty much the across the board law that 18 other States have, but not including the Georgia opt out related to fences. He told me up front that he was not in favor of the fenced lot exclusion this round. In States that already have the law, it has not increased crime in any way, nor has it increased insurance premiums for business owners. Personally, I think some in the Republican Party decided it was better to have the activist who worked to get this passed as partners instead of antagonist. Ramsey is still P.O.'d at anyone who had anything to do with the defeat of Debra Maggart, but, realizes that a concentrated effort against any single politician, (except for Harwell, who is protected by her liberal Democratic constituents) could be vulnerable to a similar attack. Taking this off the table might lead to actually working [u]with[/u] the most vocal entity instead of against it.

[quote name='Chucktshoes' timestamp='1353071547' post='846458'] Yep. Forgive me if I have a lack of faith in this area. I remember Ronnie courting us gun owners quite heavily when he was running for governor he said a lot then and we know how that turned out. [/quote] I could not agree with you more. Simply reporting what was told to me while discussing the issue with him. He said that the fence issue was moot in his opinion as the TCA Code allowed a Citizen to enjoy the same protection with regard to using deadly force for personal protection in their vehicle as in their home, and that we needed to put the whole issue behind us. He was set on permit holders only, no Constitutional Carry conversation.