Sky King

When I stated that it would take a great deal of public support to get this bill through, I was not kidding. If anything, it was an understatement. I know a lot of people do not have a lot of flexability when it comes to time they can take from their personal schedules. The other real problem is that the General Assembly, and particularly the bill sponsors, committees and sub-committees record of last minute changes. I have traveled to Nashville more than once only to find that the bill I went to support was "ROLLED" and not heard. Also it is not unusual for a bill to be put on a calendar at the last minute with little to no advance notice. A lot depends on whether or not the sponsor feels the bill has any chance or support. He or she would rather roll the bill to another date than have it killed in committee. I do feel privileged in that I often can ask for a day off with as little as a day notice IF the calendar at work is not already full for that day. With all that said, when I say a lot of support, I also mean that when possible, we would need as many people to go to Nashville to be present in the committee and sub-committee hearings when bills of interest are heard. No, not everybody is going to speak but the presence of many people in a show of support is important. SO, if this bill is as important as many of here claim, then we all need to monitor the Tennessee General Assembly web site to see when this bill will be heard. You can track a bill by the bill number. It will state what committee it is assigned to and it will also tell you when it has been placed on a calendar to be heard. If you possibly can, you need to be there. Let the sponsor know that you will be there. I can GUARANTEE the business lobby will have MANY people there to testify against it. The last time I spoke, there were only TWO of us for it and at least 8 to 10 business representatives and lobiests against it. So you know how THAT looked. I can only sum it up with this, if you want it, actions speak a HELL of a lot louder than emails and phone calls. Sorry for the venacular but that is the way it is. It is time to put up or shut up. Lord willing and the creek don't rise, I will be there.

As one who has pushed and supported legislation of this type for years, I can not be anything but happy about this. There is a big "BUT" though. I really don't hold out much hope for this passing. Having been present at more than one committee and sub-committee hearing on this subject, I can tell you from first hand experience just how hard the bussiness lobby will oppose this. While I will not say it can not pass, I can say it will absolutely take a lot of support from the public. We ALL will have to take a very active part in pressuring our representatives in Nashville in order to get this passed. There are a couple things I feel are VERY needed that are not included in this bill that I feel if not totally necessary, very important in getting a bill such as this passed. When you consider that a major part of the business opposition centers around liability, there is nothing in this bill to protect them in that area. In most of the other states that have this protection for the employees, there is also protection from liability for the employer. Also I would like to see the language not be limited to employees on employers lots. I think it should also extend to other lots open to the public such as shopping centers and malls and so on. Right now I am leaning more towards legislation that would extend the castle doctrine law to provide this protection. A blatant pro-gun bill is certainly to get the attention of the media. The media will have a field day with this because of statements made by the new House Speaker. Also you know, just as they labeled the restaurant bill as "guns in bars" in order to vilify it in the eye of the public, they will label this as "guns at work" and will be sure to do what they can to associate it with work place violence. All this is NOT to say I will not support this if it ever makes any progress. I think the language needs a little tweeking but it is certainly a start.

Well, again I stand corrected. Isn't the first and I am sure it won't be the last. Thanks for the info. While technically the person in your link is likely the same as any other, he did seem a bit overboard given the quantity of gus. Actually what first struck me as odd was that the seller did not have an immediate response when questioned about the guns he wanted to sell. That kind of made me think that they may not have actually been his guns to sell. Also I would have thought it would have been different because the seller actually transported the firearms across state lines to complete the transaction. I guess that the setting of a private seller at a gunshow would not have any problem selling to a person who just walks by his table and says. "I'll take that one", drops the agreed cash on the table and walks away. In any case, if all you wanted to do was to dispose of firearms, the best thing would be to put them with a licensed dealer on consignment. Most of the gun shops I have been in accept guns on consignment. Being sold through a licensed dealer, the ususal background checks are done as with any firearms transaction at a licensed dealer. That way at least your butt is covered if there was ever a question. Again, now I know.

Thanks. I don't disagree that one SHOULD at least try to make some determination. I really don't think most legitimate gun owners wish to have their firearms end up in the wrong hands. I just didn't think a private seller had any legal obligation to determine eligability or was prohibited from selling to someone who resides in another state. I did know that it is illegal to sell to anybody you KNOW or have a reasonable suspicion of being inelligable for some reason. Now I know and that is a good thing. As for the REAL Sky King, I never actually met him but I grew up with a deep interest in aviation and as a kid, I never missed an episode. I was in love with Penny.

I recently attended a gun show in Memphis. While there I was looking at some guns at a table being displayed as a private collection. Another person was also looking and the exchange that took place surprised me. The other person who was looking at a gun stated that he did not live in Tennessee, he lived in Mississippi. The seller told him that he could not sell him the gun because he was out of state. I stated to the seller that I was under the understanding that when it comes to private sales, no such restriction existed. So who is right? Is that to say that if I had a friend or co-worker who was interested in one of my firearms, he or she could not buy it from me if they did not reside in Tennessee? I thought that when it came to private sales, there was no restriction based on residency and no actual legal requirement for me to check the background of the buyer. I understand that I can not sell to someone if I KNOW that they can not legally own or purchase a firearm either for age reasons or if I am aware that they have certain criminal convictions. But if I do not know the person, I have no obligation to determine their background and I am not restricted from selling the firearm to a person who does not reside in the same state as me. Am I right or wrong?

I understand what you are advocating in your posts. But many of those are concepts not specifically numerated. An example would be many of the civil rights that have been written into law for minorities and women. When in many of the founding documents race or sex were not qualifiers in statements like, "all men are created equal", those concepts were not made reality untill there were laws actually passed to do so. I also agree that there are people with carry permits who go places where weapons are prohibited. A choice to ignore these prohibitions does not make it right and as a permit holder, they are subject to stronger penalties than a person who does not have a permit. If a employer chooses to ban the weapons and posts according to the law, then carrying on that property is not just a violation of the company policy, it is a violation of state law and you become subject to termination AND prosecution. BTW, I too appreciate the debate on this. I believe such debate can exist and respect the views of others even of you don't agree. You can disagree without being disagreeable. I always learn and learning new views helps me be prepared.

I could go with that but that in itself could be countered by the business lobby that taking away their ability to search vehicles on their property itself is telling them what they can and cannot do on their property. In essence, that is what a bill such as this would accomplish, is is just a matter of symantics I agree that you can't complain about a situation you accepted with the terms at the time you accepted it. In my case, the current weapons policy did not exist. In fact, there was a time when employees were actually given permission to bring rifles and shotguns to work if they were planning to leave on a hunting trip directly from work. In times before that, it was not unusual for persons to bring in kit weapons to work on during breaks. This policy has evolved. I know this does not applly to everybody. I see a major distinction that I suppose you do not feel exists. I feel that there is a real differance between property, (parking lots, buildings etc) that is associated with a business, open for public access or employee parking and the private property accociated with a persons residence. If there is a belief that this distinction does not exist, then that could easily be incorporated into law. I don't feel these are emotional arguments at all. While some companys may only specify firearms, others include the other devices often used for self defence. While I am obviously a major advocate for firearms rights, I do NOT say firearms are for everybody. The choice of what to use for personal self defence is a personal choice as long as it is legal to possess. Some may not to have ANY device, they take lessons in self defence or martial arts, it is a choice. Well again some of us were employed prior to such policies being put into place.

Well no. the SCOUS has ruled in Heller and McDonald that the Second Amendment is a personal right. So No, regardless of any other restrictions they may impose in regards to weapons or weapon accessories, they can not completely take away your right to own a gun.

So you would advocate breaking company rules? It's ok as long as you don't get caught? You advocate taking away the right of a property owner/employer to search a vehicle for weapons. What is the differance? In one instance you say government shouldn't tell a property owner what they can or cannot do but then you support the notion that the government should take away the right of a property owner to search a vehicle on their property for guns. Sounds quite contradictory to me. Also, many employers place in the employement agreement that you conscent to such searches as one of many conditions of employement. So regardless if the state takes away the blanket right to search, you have given them permission when you accepted the job. So please tell me how to achieve this balance.

Posted by DRM "I have discussed this here before, and there ARE solutions that preserve property rights and carry rights. For example - an employer should have the right to restrict guns from his property, however the property owner should ONLY have the recourse of asking someone to remove a gun from their property. An employer should not have the right to search or inspect a vehicle of an employee for guns - because that too would be infringing on property rights. Just as people carry - on their person - guns into places where they are legally not allowed, you would still have employees keep guns in their vehicle if they deem the need worthy of the risk (being asked to leave, or losing their job), and still retain everyone's rights." The problem with what you think should be the case is that, as has been explained to me by member of our management and security, yes, they must ask your permission to search your car. However in your employement agreement you have already consented to a search upon entering or leaving the property. You can refuse and they can not search but they will then terminate your employement. They can only search your car without your permission IF they have strong suspicion that you have stolen company property or customer shipments in your car. In that case, they must call law enforcement to conduct the search. So all they have to do is ask you if they can search your car. If you refuse, you will loose your job. It is a condition of employement. Tennessee is an employement at will state and they can terminate you at will. When you work in a very bad part of town, at all hours of the night or day, you are at risk. Pull out of the company parking lot and have a flat tire at 3:00 AM. Good luck. The company should not have the ability to say to you that you have no right to provide for your own protection in such circumstances as a condition of employment which is what they can do now. Do I have to give up my Constitutional right in order to have a job? Parking somewhere else may be an option for some people but not all, and what if you live in a town that does not have bus service at all hours? I am not trying to say this is not a delicate balancing act of personal property rights vs the right to protect yourself. But where does the companies property rights end and my personal property rights regarding what is in my car which is MY personal property begin? So let's say a person decides to use a tire iron to attack a co-worker. The company decides that tire irons can be used as weapons and bans them from their property? Where does it stop? My employer not only bans firearms but they also ban starter pistols, flare guns, knives, disabling sprays, (pepper spray or mace) clubs. The weapons policy states that this list "includes but is not limited to". How many of your female friends have a small can of pepper spray on their key chain? Well they can be fired for that where I work. I actually was in the screenning facility when a young lady was stopped for having such a device on her key chain. So they have in effect told her that she can not even have pepper spray for personal protection during her commute. They have decided, with their policy, that no employee can be prepared to provide for their own safety or protection during their commute if you want to work there. Some have advocated that such a situation means that the company assumes a custodial relationship when they take from you the ability to protect yourself and therefor could be held liable. Again I am not a lawyer but I have heard some advocate legislation that specifically places such responsibility on the employer if they deny your ability to provide for your own protection. The Declaration of Independence states that you have a right to "life, liberty and the persuit of happiness". If I have a right to life, a right to defend my life must also exist. Does your employer have a right to deny your right to defend your life? By telling me I can not have my firearm locked in my private vehicle while I am parked on his parking lot, he has effectively disarmed me from the moment I leave my front door to the time I return home.

I am new here. I have been reading many of the posts and threads concerning the various parking lot bills that have been introduced over the past few years. I have been quite active in supporting these bills. In 2009 I traveled to Nashville twice to testify before the House Judiciary Criminal Practices Sub-Committee in support of Josh Evans' bill. Once that spring and then again at the Summer Study. I would like to offer some insite based on what committee members said and some of the opponents said. Regarding the issue of property rights. I believe there is a major differance between a persons house and driveway and the parking lot of a business set aside for parking of vehicles owned by employees or customers. The argument about government telling a business owner what he/she can or can not do being wrong, does not hold water. If you build a business and an associated parking lot, government is already going to tell you what to do and how to do it. Building codes dictate curbing, lighting, guardrails, drainage, markings and so on. The Americans with disabilities act will dictate handicap accessability, ramps, parking spaces. These are just a few of the ways that government will tell a business how to build and manage their parking lot. Other arguments that have already been made involve whether a persons private vehicle can be considered his or her private property and therefor you can not dictate what a person keeps in it. Others have posed the theory that an employer could be held liable for any damages or injuries to an employee if he or she could have provided for their own protection had their employer not prohibited them carrying a weapon for self defence. I am not a lawyer so I really don't want to go into that. It is an interesting theory anyway. Last session, Josh Evans was persuaded not to push his bill because the business lobby pressured the Republican leadership that if he did push the bill or any other similiar bill were pushed, they would work hard to see that their party lost their slim majority in the next elections. Mr. Evans told me that personally prior to my speaking at the summer study. This past election has seen several of our gun friendly legislators voted out. Ben West, one of our strongest supporters retired and Mr. Fincher, who co-sponsored his bill last session I guess was not re-elected. Senator Mark Norris from Collierville had sponsored a similiar bill last session. I checked the General Assembly web site and found that Senator Norris has introduced a couple of gun friendly bills but not one that addresses the parking lot issue. I have complied a rather fat folder of information on the laws or pending legislation in other states. I personally think we could learn a lot from those states. Predominantly, the issue of liability protection for the employer. Let's face it, I doubt the big companies really care about us, they are more concerned about their vulnerability in a law suit. None of the proposed bills in Tennessee have ever addressed this concern. I would like to invite anybody out here to help push legislation to accomplish this important goal. I any of you know of any members of the General Assembly who have or would be willing to champion such bill this session, I would like to know who they are. As in the past I am willing to work with these people and travel to Nashville if necessary. Please contact your representatives. Tell them we need such a bill. Sorry for the long rant but I have been working on this for several years and have learned a lot. Sam Cooper Memphis Tennessee ps, if you watched the videos of the sub-committee and summer study, I am the FedEx employee who spoke both times. And yes, knock-on-wood, I still have my job.

Hello. I am Sam Cooper from Memphis. I came to know of this site just today from a referance to it in a post on the TFA web site forum, (of which I am a member). I have been active in the TFA for several years. I have found a great many of the posts on this site to be interesting and informative. I look forward to participating in the discussions. Just as an added note, of particular interest to me at this time is legislation to protect our ability to keep a legal firearm stored in our cars while parked on our employers parking lots. I have some comments to add to this discussion and will post them on the appropriate thread.