Sky King

There have to be a lot of smoke and mirrors. I spoke with Eddie Bass's office assistant today. She said that he had spoken of an amendment but she had not seen it yet. I indicated my intent to come to Nashville tomorrow to support the amendment he mentioned in the sub-committee meeting but if he is not going to introduce it, there is no reason to go. Mainly because I am NOT in support of the bill as it now reads after Rep, Evans amended it. Although the Tennessee General Assembly web site still does not show the amendment introduced by Evans and voted on in the sub-committee. In my opinion, if it goes through as amended, it is a worthless bill and not worth the time and expense of traveling to Nashville. I would almost urge the committee to totally vote against it if we can't include employee protection.

Ok, I have called every member of the House Judiciary committee. Most of which I had to leave a voice message. I did send this email to every member also. One of the office assistants said that it was not advisable to send a FAX as if you notice on each members page, the FAX number is only one of two numbers for all of them. They don't actually go directly to the representatives office. Who knows where it winds up. Anyway, here is the letter I emailed. If any of you like it, feel free to use it, edit it as you see fit to support a parking lot bill. Just delete my name at the bottom and add yours. Honorable members of The Tennessee General Assembly and the House Judiciary Committee, I would like to address HB 2021 introduced by Representative Joshua Evans. The bill as originally introduced provided protection to employees who would choose to store a legally owned and carried firearm in their private vehicles while parked on their employee's parking lot. He has since introduced an amendment that deletes all the provisions protecting the employee, leaving only the liability protections for the employer should they choose not to prohibit or post a ban against the keeping of the firearms in the private vehicles. The central issue that seems to be the point that many object to is the issue of personal property rights. Many argue that this takes away from the employer the right to say what is and is not allowed on their property. There are right involved. There have been many occasions when issues before us have pitted the rights of one against the rights of another. When these rights run head to head, we are called upon to decide whose rights are more important. Tennessee passed legislation a few years ago which recognized the private property rights of an individual in regards to their private vehicle. In The Declaration of Independence, our countries founders wrote that we also have an inalienable right to life. By allowing the employers to prohibit the storage of certain private property in the car, they are therefore controlling what I can keep in my car when I am NOT on their property, far exceeding the reasonable reach and scope or their right to control their property. If I can not keep the item in my car when I arrive at work, then I can not have it in my car when I leave home or leave work. Items that are legally owned and possessed and REMAIN in the vehicle represent no harm to the employer. I would go further to ask that IF my vehicle contained illegal drugs and were found by law enforcement while parked on my employers parking lot, would the employer have any culpability in the possession of illegal drugs? I seriously doubt it as it would be pointed out that the vehicle is the property of the employee and therefore the employee is in possession, not the company. The company would be very quick to point out that they can not control what an employee keeps in their PRIVATE vehicle. Again, the company is not harmed. But we are not talking about anything illegal. Do the company's rights in regards to private property trump my rights to my private vehicle or better yet my inalienable right to life? By giving employees this protection, there is no harm to the company and represents a very minimal intrusion on their rights. That intrusion pales in comparison to the total revocation of my rights to personal protection which impacts my right to life and my right to control what is in MY personal property. This is especially true in light of the fact that their control extends beyond their property all the way to my driveway. Please do not impose on MY personal rights and the rights I have regarding MY personal property.

Well the bill is now set to be heard in the full Judiciary committee on April 12th, this comming Tuesday at 10:30 AM. What I find amazing, (not really) is how many House Republicans (9), have now signed on as co-sponsors. Folks, it is time to get the emails and phone calls going BIG time. Primarily I think to Mr. Bass given his comment in the sub-committee hearing. We need to encourage him to offer up an amendment to take the bill back to it's origional form. I personally think this is a do-or-die time for this year. If you know ANYBODY with a permit, TFA, or NRA member or not, get them to contact the members of this committee AND their respective representative. Tuesday is a day that I can go to Nashville if necessary. If we think there is even a small chance we can get this thing turned around, I will go and I encourage any others who can make it to show up.

I did not go to Nashville. I watched the video of the hearing and it went pretty much as I expected and confirmed that my going would have been of little use. Mr. Evans did present his amendment which passed with little to no objection. Dan Haskel who is a lobbiest who represents several business organizations and has been very vocal in his opposition to parking lot bills of the past. Even he was in support of this bill as amended. Janis Sontany only asked for confirmation that the bill as amended did NOT impose any requirement on employers to allow employees keep firearms in their vehicles. When that was confirmed, she did not voice any objections. I think this tells it all. When regular vocal opponents now come out with either NO opposition or actual support, it tells it all. Mark my word, there will be VERY few if ANY employers who now ban weapons, change their policy or take down the postings in response to this bill. The only positive thing that was said, Representative Eddie Bass did comment to Mr. Evans that he may introduce an amendment in the full committee to re-establish the requirement to allow employees to keep weapons in their car. He did not expound any further. If that is the case, a letter and email writing, phone call campaign needs to take place full speed in anticipation of Mr. Bass offering such an amendment in the full committee.

I am still considering going to Nashville. If I do, I will attempt to go the the offices of all the sub-committee members and ask that they reject the amendment to the bill. The bill has to pass as origionally written or it needs to die. As amended, it is worthless, toally worthelss. It accomplishes NOTHING. Please contact your respective representatives and the members of the committee and ask them to pass the bill as origionally written or reject it all together.

Also I have to ask this, Whose rights trump whose? Are your property rights more important than my rights to life, liberty and the prusuit of happiness? Nowhere in the bill if rights do I read any referance to the rights of a corporation or business entity. All the rights all referance the rights of "the people". In the Declaration of Independence, the basic rights of "life" are specified. My rights to self defence against anybody who would do me harm go hand in hand with that right. I can not enjoy the right to life if I can not defend my life when necessary. There is no way a business entity can deny my right to self defence on the premise that they reserve the right to tell me that I can not provide for my own self defense just because they don't want me to keep a means for that defence in my privately owned vehicle. That is just wrong.

Yes, that is what we are going to have to do. To say that I don't have to work here is an easy gauntlet to throw down when you know it can't be picked up. Nobody with any amount of time with a company with retirement and pension at stake is going to pick it up and the company knows that. It is called "golden handcuffs". It is an unfair position. Anybody fully vested has way too much to risk or loose. The company has NOTHING to loose but the employee has EVERYTHING to loose. You ask them to balance their life in a life threatening situation against the rest of their life in regards to their retirement. Do you really think this is a fair question to ask? Oh yea, if you don't agree, just quit and find another job. Do you have 30+ years at a given job? Do you have 30+ years of retirement at stake? In this economy do you REALLY believe you can just tell your boss to shove it and go out and REALLY find another job that offers the benefits of 30+ years of tenure? That is so easy to say. But I challenge you, when you are 57+ years old with 31+ years with a company if you are ready to just walk out the door. When you get to that point, reply. When you get to that point let's just see how flexable YOU are when the company holds YOU over a barrel. When health insurance will cost YOU over $1500.00 a month untill you are eligable for Medicare at 65 which will eat most of your retirement income. The problem is that most people don't realize the REAL costs untill they are faced with them. So, what do YOU want to do? Carry your firearm to work against company policy in the event it may save your life but you may risk loosing your job, your retirement, your insurance for you and your spouse? Is that really fair? When keeping the firearm in my car, out of sight really doesn't hurt the company, why does that really impose such a imposition on the company?

However YOUR right to say what you can and cannot do on your property is in conflict with MY basic right to self defence and the right to what I can and cannot do with MY property, in this case my car. All are basic rights, whose trump whose? My private vehicle is MY private property and as long as what is contained within it is NOT illegal, and it REMAINS within the vehicle, you are not harmed. However, your exercising of YOUR property rights in this case extend beyond your property. By telling me I can't have my firearm in my vehicle while on your property, you have also said I can not have it in my vehicle when it is NOT on your property, well beyond your property rights authority. Your ban prohibits me having my weapon from the time I go out my door at my home untill I get home. I believe that far over reaches your rights. Balance is achieved when the employee recognizes the employers rights by keeping things INSIDE their car and the employer recognizes the private property rights of the employee in regards to their private vehicle.

The times I went to Nashville and spoke before the sub-committee and then the whole committee at summer study showed a definate differentiation between the Democrat and Republican members in their opposition. Generally the Democrat members would side with the business lobby based on the "safety in the workplace" arguments. Even as bogus as those are, Representatives Sontany and Kamper would argue workplace violence issues. The Republican members often cited the property rights aspect. Last session with a Democrat governor, one of the Republican members stated to me in the hearing that he had no problem decriminalizing the possession of the weapon on the employers property but had great reservation mandating that the employer allowing the possession. He stated that he felt that the property rights were sacred. So even in the atmosphere of the last session where the Governor's veto was overridden twice on the restaurant bill, the Republicans would not do anything that they felt stepped on property rights. That is where they apparently draw the line. What has to be argued is whose rights trump whose. The employer does have property rights. However the employee also has rights. They have the right to self defence AND they too have private property rights that being their privately owned vehicle. This is a good example of where valid individual rights come head to head in opposition to each other. The question has to be asked where the balance is achieved because I don't believe either actually trumps the other. When an employer uses his property rights to deny an employee their right to self defence and the right to say what is in their private property (in this case, their car), that is not balance. Balance would be recognizing that as long as what is contained within the private vehicle of the employee, as long as it is not illegal, then the employer is not harmed and the employee retains their ability to provide for their self defence in the unfortunate event it is needed. Think of it this way. IF I had within my car, a large quantity of illegal drugs. If it were found out, would my employer be vulnerable to criminal charges? I seriously doubt it. THEN the employer would be most happy to point out that the vehicle involved was the PRIVATE property of the employee and therefor the EMPLOYEE was in possession, NOT the employer. when I stated that Josh Evans expressed that he had not received any support from the TFA, we have to realize that that means that the MEMBERS have not stepped up to the plate. John Harris has championed a great number of the pro-gun laws, including the permit law itself, that we now enjoy. If you have been a letter writer, phone caller, emailer, good. We need about 10,000 more just like you. But if you have not written letters, made the phone calls and sent emails, then you have just enjoyed the hard work of others and you need to get involved.

I was getting all my things ready to go to Nashville tomorrow to support HB 2021 by Evans. I spoke on the phone with Representative Evans today, (Tuesday, the 5th) for a good amount of time. The bill will be heard and he feels it will pass, HOWEVER, to get it passed, he has ammended the bill significantly. He has totally deleted all verbage that would prohibit an employer from prohibiting a permit holder keeping his or her legal firearm locked, out of sight in their private vehicle while parked on their employers parking lot. The only thing left is the protection for the employer against any liability should the employer CHOOSE to not post or ban the weapons. Representative Evans catagorized it now as an "INCENTIVE" bill. He hopes that with the protection against liability, employers will be willing to remove the postings and bans. He cited the reason for the change as being the resistance of the committee members to impose on private property rights. He also was very clear that he had not received ANY support from the NRA or TFA on this bill. He stated that members of both organizations, (of which he is a life member of both), need to NOT wait untill a bill is scheduled to be heard. Phone calls, letters, emails and personal visits to their respective representatives AND the committee members well in advance. This, according to Representative Evans, HAS NOT HAPPENED. He stated that he had no more than three votes on the sub-committee in support of the origional bill. As much screaming and hollering, weeping and wailing that people have done saying they want this bill, it appears that it has been little more than lip service. People, if we want this bill, you are going to have to do much more than just talk about it on forums like this. If I offended anybody, I HOPE SO. It is time to put up or shut up. Right now the only chance we have for a parking lot bill that is really effective is HB0355 or the big NRA omnibus bill sponsored by Mr. Matheny. I give both of those a snow balls chance in a furnace.

It is agravating that "thunder" means more than actually getting something worthwhile accomplished. However tomorrow, April 6th, HB 2021 by Joshua Evans, a REPUBLICAN, will be heard in the House Judiciary General Sub-committee. It is a parking lot bill. Hopefully because it was introduced by a Republican, it will have a chance. I spoke with his office assistant last week and he said that Rep. Evans does NOT plan to roll the bill. Both his bill and HB 0355 by Mr. McDonald have areas that need some tweeking. Actually in my opinion if the two bills were combined, they would make a fairly good bill. In any case, phone calls and emails to the House Judiciary General Sub-committee, AND to your own representative asking them to support this bill in the committee will be needed. At this time I am plannning to drive to Nashville in hopes of speaking in the sub-committee hearing.

IT IS ON THE SCHEDULE. HB2061 by Evans is scheduled to be heard on Wednesday, April 6 in the House Judiciary General Sub-committee at 3:30. Time to make those calls, send emails and if you possibly can, make the trip to Nashville. If you go to Nashville, be sure to contact Josh Evan' office and let him know you will be there. Good Lord willing and the creek don't rise, I will be there. Be reminded, bill sponsors can and have been known to roll their bill at the last minute if they don't think they have the support to move the bill rather than have it voted down in committee. I have made such a trip to Nashville from Memphis, only to sit in the committee hearing room and hear the sponsor roll the bill. But, I still plan to go.

I certainly understand that with a HCP I can keep a weapon in my personal car. And like I said, if it were me, I would carry it anyway and if they wanted to fire me, let them fire me. It isn't worth a few bucks or somebody's pizza. But like Fallguy said, I have a good job and at my age, if I were to get a job like that, it probably would just to stay busy in my retirement or just to earn beer money. It certainly wouldn't be a needed job. But not everybody is in that same boat. Some people are trying to earn a living while going to college and can't be too choosey if the hours fit into their school schedule. For what ever reason, in this economy, jobs are not growing on trees. And quite personally, I have had that old "if you don't like the rules, find a new job" argument thrown at me more times than I care to count when debating the parking lot law and personally I am a bit surprised to hear it from this group. It is an easy "gauntlet" to throw down when you know it can't be picked up. For some people quitting a job to hunt for another one is not an option for a variety of reasons. If I were driving around with a Papa John's sign on my car, you can bet the handgun will not just be in my car, it will be ON me. If nothing ever happens, nobody is the wiser. BUT, if I need it, well let the chips fall where they may but I would like to think that if it came down to that, I wouldn't loose my job just because I defended my life. I don't think we NEED half the laws we have now. If our Constitution was honored as it should be, a lot of things would be different. And if the large corporations were half as concerned for their employees as they are about being sued by the family of some crack head that got shot and killed attempting to rob a guy trying to make an honest living over a few bucks for his next rock, we wouldn't need a law for that either.

If I understand correctly, the deadline for filing new bills is past. So I wonder if any of the other proposed legislation could offer an amendment to cover persons employed as delivery persons. Many of you may have heard of the two recent killings of pizza delivery persons in the Memphis area, (imagine that). The last was a Papa Johns delivery person in his 50's who had been employed by Papa Johns for several years. Most of have accepted and probably agree that if you are in a vehicle OWNED by your employer, they can restrict your carrying a weapon. However most such situations, FedEx, UPS, florists ect. do not involve cash transactions such as pizza or other food service deliveries. Thus would not have the same attraction to criminals looking for cash. Most, if not all pizza delivery persons I have seen, utilize their own personal vehicle with just a sign or flag attached to identify the company. These persons are often sent into dangerous neighborhoods at odd hours placing them in definate danger. I have heard that these companies do not allow their drivers to carry firearms while performing their duties thus denying them the ability to defend themselves when confronted by an assailant who is willing to kill them for a few bucks, as shown here in Memphis last week. The companies have said in the reports that they try to identify neighborhoods and addresses using crime tracking data and restrict delivery to those areas but again, last week shows that not to always be successful. I should think we should have protection for these folks who are just trying to make a living to allow them, if they meet the usual requirements for carrying, to be able to carry a weapon in their personal vehicle or being used for their employers business or on their person while making these deliveries. Personally, I probably would anyway. The worst they can do is fire me. My life isn't worth a few bucks or somebodys lousey pizza.

This is funny. Channel 13 in Memphis, the Fox affiliate got it all wrong. Fox usuallly being the media outlet that at least gets close, missed a mile. They reported that this was a bill to allow HCP holders to carry at work. On the REAL fllip side, the usually liberal rag, WMC, Channel 5 actually got it right, CALL THE PARAMEDICS, I AM ABOUT TO FALL OVER DEAD. Channel 5 is usually alignes with the Commercial Appeal newpaper. a REAL liberal reg.

I have also checked the link again to the TV report. AMAZING, the headline has been edited and the remarks from Beverly Merrero of Memphis is gone. Also the survey they have asking if employees should be able to keep weapons at work, the "yes" votes outnumber the "NO" votes 544 to 281 right now.

I am curious about the source of your "statistic". Also, it is generally accepted that OSHA/TOSHA exists to promote and enforce safe workplace laws and rules. However this law does not change this responsibility of OSHA/TOSHA. All this law does is give clarification and direction as to what does NOT consititute a workplace hazard.

It just passed out of committee in the House. Only two No votes comming from two reps from Memphis, no surprise there. The sponsor also took a good pot shot at the media for the misleading reports and headlines yesterday stating that he wondered if they had a literacy problem. I watched the video of the committee proceedings live. The usual distracting questions from members who ultimately voted against it. Again, no surprise.

I have not heard or seen anything about it yet in the Memphis area media. (Which REALLY surprises me). My real concern now is that with the misleading headline, when the REAL parking lot bill comes up, it will become a media feeding frenzy. I had kind of hoped that we could keep some of our bills a bit more low profile this session. Speaker Harwell made some pretty hard comments about pro-gun bills this session and in-your-face media coverage will make it hard for her to help us if she ever was going to. She has a "promise" to keep and if she has to knock us down to do it, I am sure she will.

Exactly, This is NOT what most of us know as a "parking lot" bill. This bill does not require an employer to allow a HCP holder to keep a firearm in his or her car while it is parked on their employers parking lot. For all practical purposes, it is in my opinion only a resolution by the General Assembly stating that IF an employer allows employees to keep firearms in their private vehicles, it does not constitute a hazard. While this may be helpful in getting a real parking lot bill passed, it does not do what a parking lot bill will do.

Ok, I am going to ask the dumb question. In other threads, other boards and topics, in discussions concerning what happens when a HCP holder is involved in court actions where the court takes the HCP from the person. If that were to happen with the HCP being an endorcement on the DL, what is the person to do for a DL if the court takes possession of the HCP? Or how about the reverse. If the court takes the DL, what does one do for a HCP? If it is contained on one card, there would have to be a provision to account the one "license" or "permit" if the other is lost.

While Kentucky's law is short and simple, I would suggest you examine Florida's law. Florida's law is longer and more involved but there are more protections in it for both the employee and the employer.

I know what he is trying to say but in reality, there is no such thing as an "accidental discharge". A gun fires because somebody was acting carelessly and stupid and THAT person deserves to sued if anybody is being sued for negligence. I agree they would probably be sued. The existance of a no weapons policy is not going to shield a property owner/employer from liability. A plaintiff could state that the existance of a policy alone is no way to guarantee the absence of weapons. In certain circumstances one could claim that unless more proactive measures are taken to insure the absence of weapons that the property owner/employer has not done enough. The provision must be in the law that protects the property owner/employer from law suits under certain circumstances. Think of other private property situations. If you own a home with a swimming pool in the back yard, just putting up a sign prohibiting uninvited people, if you don't take more definitive measures such as a high fence with a locked gate, you can still be sued if the next door neighbor kid gets in your yard and drowns in your pool.

Not to change the subject, but how are the roads up your way? Is your chapter still meeting tomorrow night?

Because it is specifically a pro-gun bill, there is NO WAY it will miss the scrutiny of the press. There is no way we can keep a bill like this below the radar. With Speaker Harwell comments concerning pro-gun legislation, they will be all over it like a rat on a cheeto. Remember President Bush's "NO NEW TAXES"? I can think of a few things that could make it a bit more palatable for the public. First we don't make it "gun specific". For example, the weapons policy at the company I work does not just limit the policy to guns. It gives examples and then states that it is not limited to those examples so it leaves it open ended. It lists things like knives, clubs, starters pistols, flare guns and disabling sprays. SO when the little lady has a small can of pepper spray on her key chain, she can be fired where I work. So where am I going with this. We need to play on the sympathy of anybody who chooses to have ANYTHING for self defence whether it is a gun, a club, a can of pepper spray or anything and state that some companies are TOTALLY denying their employees the right to self defence during their commute. Put the young, small lady, (not trying to be sexist here) out there and tell them that employers are going so far as to say that she can not even keep a can of pepper spray in her car to defend herself against a thug during her commute. Make it a "DEFENCIVE DEVICE" protection law. I wouldn't even mention guns, firearms or anything specific. I would only state that if it is LEGAL and LEGALLY possessed, then it can be kept secure in the persons private vehicle no matter where it is parked.