Sky King

I watched the video of the Senate committee. I was especially caught by the Governor's representative's statement that Haslam opposed the bill. (wow are any of us surprised by this?). Given that he has now come out publically that he (Haslam) opposes this, I fell it is quite possible that he would veto it if it makes it to his desk. If that happens, given the "no gun bills" attitude of the leadership in the General Assmebly, I doubt there would be any support for a veto override.

That would generally be the way to conduct yourself. Keep it in your car, just don't get caught. However many large employers include in the terms of employment a clause that states you agree to allow your vehicle to be searched while on company property. If you refuse the search, it won't matter if you had a firearm or not, you can be terminated for violating your terms of employment.     I have not heard of any employer using such passive searches but I guess that doesn't mean they dont take place. I agree that conditioning employment on a consent to search should be illegal. But untill it is banned, it does exist.

  Well that is actually not a bad idea if the employer has no intention of changing their policy.  At least it leaves no doubt or question about it.  The origional intent of this thread was to remind people to be SURE of their company policy before going to work with a firearm on Monday.    I wish those employers would change their position but it appears that they will not unless we pressure the General Assembly to amend the law to make it a mandate like in about 17 other states.

  I would agree.  Generally speaking, when you are in a private location that is open to the public, such as a restaurant, it is presumed that you are invited in.  HOWEVER if you start conducting yourself in an unruley manner, the managment can ask you to leave.  Once that happens, you HAVE to leave or you can be charged with criminal tresspass.  I would thing the same would have to be true with the firearm.  While you may not be violating the posting law by virtue of your permit, if the property owner asks you to leave, for what ever reason, you have to leave.   Actually posting it as a tresspass issue may also be possible.  I don't know.

What HAS changed is the criminal aspect.  Before this law, two things COULD happen to you.  It was a CRIMINAL offence for a permitted person to carry a firearm onto a posted property.  SO what that means is that not only could you get fired by your employer, the state could prosecute you.   Now, the criminal aspect is gone.  The state is not going to prosecute you BUT you can still get fired.

I'll be honest, I am not sure how the new law applies to the parks thing but I agree with what you say about the hospitals. One real problem is the trap that exists because the law only carves out specific exceptions in existing law. While you may not be prosecuted for the specific violation of carrying a weapon on posted property, you can still be charged with criminal trespass if the property owner wishes to press that charge. Also there is the issue with the wording "...the permit holder's privately-owned motor vehicle". More than one attorney has opined that if your car is in the shop and you are in a loaner or rental, you are not protected. What if you car pool? I am well aware of company policies that make consent to search vehicles parked on their property, a condition of employement but I have never heard of them being able to extent that to your home. I would like to see that one. Nobody can search your private residence without a warrant or your permission. Are you saying you know of employers that make consent to search you HOME a condition of employment? I just don't see how that can fly.

  Wolfchase Galleria Mall in Memphis is also posted at all entrances to their parking lot so the same situation applies.  But while they do NOT properly or legally post at the entrances to the building, they have the prohibition listed in a list of mall rules on a sign about 10 or 15 feet AFTER you enter the mall.  So, I quit doing any business with any business in the mall that does not own their own property such as Sears or Penny's  with their own entrances so you don't have to enter the mall.

With July 1st comming this Monday, the new parking lot law takes effect.  I feel it is a VERY poorly written law that was ram rodded through.  However I feel compelled to remind everyone that this law does NOT protect your job.  So make sure you are up to speed on your employers policy before you take your firearm to work in your car this Monday.   With that said, if anybody is aware of any employers across the state that have actually made changes to their policy in regards to weapons storage in private vehicles, I would really like to hear from you.  Also as time moves on with this new law, we need to know of any disciplinary action taken against employees because of weapon storage in private vehicles.   Some of the members of the General Assembly who backed this bill would not believe that people would still get fired and we need to show them when that happens if we want to fix this law.

I know this is an old topic/thread but I just wanted to let folks know that I never got any response from Chris Cox to the letter I sent.  I guess I would have been really surprised if I had.  I still don't like this bill, I tell everybody who asks me that I don't like this bill.  I get asked a lot at work by co-workers who know I have worked on this and I tell them they can will still get fired if caught with a firearm in their car.    The idea by our legislators that it will intice employers to revise or rethink policies that ban firearms is a pipe dream.  The often stated "promise" to revisit the bill if employers across the state start terminating or taking action against employees who take advantage of this new law is nothing but smoke and mirrors.  A tactic to get the pro-gun people off their backs.  The General Assembly has not revisited the parks law, what makes people think they will ever revisit this.

  I agree whole heartedly.  I truely feel that the we as a society have abdicated the responsibility for our personal safety to the government and police.  Look at the pioneers who settled our country.  Who protected them?  THEY DID.  And in all fairness, AND as ruled by federal courts, the police have no duty to protect you, their only responsibility is AFTER the fact.  The problem is, just as with other social issues, "we" have become a society who wants somebody else, ie the government to take care of us, physically and financially.  The whole idea of personal responsibility and accountability has been lost.    With all that said I do still believe that society DOES have some responsibility for others in some areas.  I have no problem with welfare and physical care for those who TRUELY are unable to care for themselves, the REALLY mentally ill, REALLY physically unable to work and the very elderly.  I also believe that while I will never say, with few exceptions, such as those who by their actions, ie violent felons, have proven they can not be responsible members of society do not have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, BUT not all should in practicality exercise that right.    My father is a prime example.  He is well into his 90's, has advanced Alzheimers and can't physically take care of himself.  Now he is an obvious case.  BUT many years ago before that horrible disease did what it has done to him, when he was still living by himself at home, his physical strength and mental sharpness was declining.  Even though he still was driving, (riding with him was becomming a white knuckle adventure), my siblings and I decided that even though he had a concealed carry permit, (he lived in Kentucky), it was probably not to advisable that he carry.  He would likely have the weapon taken from him and used against him before he knew what was happening.   BUT at no time did I ever say he didn't have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, it just wasn't advisable in his case.

I have a few thoughts on this.  I agree that numerated rights should not be able to be restricted without due process.  However because our legal system is bogged down and slow, a person who could be a REAL threat could act before legal action could take place.  Temporary restrictions that have a specified expiration unless imposeded permanently by THE COURT MAY be an answer.  There would have to be very specific language to deal with this.  As already posted, the "professionals" in the mental health business likely lean liberal, anti-gun.  Add to that this question, how many of us have used the phrase, "if I ever catch up with that SOB, I'm gonna kill him"?  Come on, get real, we all have said that at one time or another only figuratively with no real intention of doing that.  We are just mad and want to vent.  However in this day and age of kids being expelled from school for just pointing a finger in a way that someone says looks like a gun or having the police and child services show up at your door because your child posed with a rifle that was given to him as a gift, we have to be careful what we say and who can hear it.   I do agree that there should be some mechanism to intervein if there is a possibility a person could be on the eminent verge of committing a violent act.  But let's not start down a slippery slope that we can not stop.   I might add, I have just gone to the General Assembly web site and read the whole bill.  First, it shows that it has passed the complete Senate with 33 for and 0 against.  It is now in the hands of the House.  Also after reading the bill, because I am NOT a lawyer, there are so many referances to other laws and statutes which impact this bill, I would not venture any guess about the real meaning of this bill.  I need to hear from some of our real lawyers on this forum first.   I do understand the need to keep weapons out of the hands of people who are mentally unstable but we need to make sure language is in place to protect those who are not OR may at some time be deemed competent. 

I mailed this letter today to Chis Cox of the NRA:   Mr. Cox,   As an NRA Member from Tennessee, your home state, I am writing to express my disappointment in NRA support in Tennessee regarding legislation in this state this year.   House bill 118 and Senate bill 142 were reported to be employee parking lot protection bills.  Close examination will show them to be a major sham. Only a SMALL number of permit holders will benefit from this legislation while big business and employers are the big winners.    Last year the NRA fought HARD to pass the Safe Commute bill.  That legislation was good.  The measure was killed by House and Senate leadership inappropriately by violating the rules of The General Assembly.  In the aftermath, the NRA then partnered with others by providing major support in defeating Debra Maggart, a major player in the defeat of the bill, in her bid for re-election to the Tennessee House.   This year represented a major about-face by the NRA in Tennessee.  Few people even know who the NRA representative is for Tennessee this year.  My attempt to contact the NRA ILA to find out who this person is and to express my opposition to these bills were met with stone walling.   It was only through the office of the House sponsor of HB118, that I even found out that the NRA actually supported this legislation and MAY have been party to the negotiations.  No one I know who are NRA members recall ever receiving any alerts about these bills.  This makes it appear that the NRA wanted to keep its support quiet.   This is BAD legislation.  It is full of pit-falls and traps for the permit holder.  The Tennessee Firearms Association has outlined the problems with these bills in detail repeatedly to its members AND to members of The Tennessee General Assembly.    Attempts to work with Senate leader and Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey and House Speaker Beth Harwell have been met with TOTAL rejection, saying that these bills WILL pass with NO amendments.  They also have more than once indicated that this legislation IS supported by the NRA.   I have worked HARD for MANY years to get parking lot legislation passed in Tennessee.  I have been interviewed by local TV AND by your on-line host via phone.  I worked with Darren LaSorte last year to pass this.  I work for an employer who bans my ability to safely commute.  I KNOW the importance of this as well or better than anybody.  Yet nobody I know is aware of any attempts by the NRA to work with anybody at the state level on this bill THIS YEAR.    As a result, we have a BAD BILL that has passed both the House and Senate and will likely be signed by Governor Haslam.  The old adage that SOME progress is better than NO progress is WRONG when applied to this bill.   Problems, (and I brought these to the attention of the person I spoke with at NRA ILA) with this bill;   1) While it DOES remove the criminal aspect of carrying on a posted property, it DOES NOT require an employer to allow a permit holder to keep a legal firearm in their private vehicle.  AND the criminal aspect is only in regards to the Tennessee Code that speaks to the posting requirement.  You will not be prosecuted under THAT code.  HOWEVER you can STILL be prosecuted for CRIMINAL TRESPASS AND you can still be FIRED.   2) The bill specifically states "the permit holders privately owned vehicle".  This would have been an easy fix but again, the "no amendments" attitude was upheld.  What if MY vehicle is in the shop for repairs and I am driving a rental or loaner?  What if I carpool?  What if I lease a vehicle?  What if I borrow my wife’s car?    3) The bill only provides protection from "ordinary observation".  What defines "ordinary observation"?  If I am in the process of removing the firearm from my holster and placing it in the glove box and it is seen via a surveillance camera on a pole that can look down into my car, is this protected?   These are just a FEW of the problems with this bill that the sponsors refused to discuss or address.  This also shows why before the NRA endorses or works on legislation in a given state, they should contact state based groups who are closer to the situation and in a better position to know what is needed.

 Yes, I understand that. Perhaps my wording was bad.  I did not mean that the "notwithstanding" meant those statutes were not effected by this bill.  When I said " it only gives you protection in certain circumstances." it was to say that there are still other areas in TCA that you still have no protection with this bill.   Regardless.  I am still opposed to the bill.  I sent an email to Governor Haslam asking for a veto and I stand by that.

 That is why I did qualify my statement with "a majority of permit holders".  There are permit holders who work on school properties that will benefit from this bill.  However, they are in the minority and represent the VERY few who will benefit.  The majority of permit holders will not benifit at all and can very well find themselves prosecuted.  As has been pointed out, while you may not be prosecuted specifically for having a firearm, you can still be prosecuted for criminal trespass.   By the bill specifically calling out sections of the Tennessee Code with the "not withstanding" wording, it only gives you protection in certain circumstances.  It leaves the others wide open to be used for prosecution.    There are too many ways in this bill that a permit holder can find themselves in trouble.  That is why the small step forward in this case in no way justifies the HUGE traps that remain.

All in favor of this bill can flame me all you want but I for one am NOT of the opinion that a BAD step is better than no step.  This is a BAD bill.  It is FULL of traps and pit falls.  I for one, would hope for a VETO on this bill.  IT DOES NOTHING for a majority of the permit holders in this state.  I was in Nashville for the first hearings on this bill.  I have been in Nashville for the last several years when legislation of this type has been debated.  EVERY time without fail, the big business lobby was there in force to oppose the legislation.  Why would you think they were NOT there this time?  I mean NOBODY with the exception of ONE person representing the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce was there in opposition.  They were not there because it does NOTHING to protect the employee and EVERYTHING to protect the employer with the liability protection language.    DO NOT DRINK THE COOL-AID.  If you go to work on July 1, 2013 with your firearm in your car and your employer has a policy prohibiting it, on July 2, 2013 you could find yourself on the outside looking in AND there ARE areas in Tennessee code that you could STILL be prosecuted under. 

Has anybody had opportunity to study these bills?  On first reading, they appear to be anti-discrimination legislation.  There are some interesting provisions in the bill but like the Ramsey/Faison parking lot bill, I fear there to be something a non-attorney like me may be overlooking.    A couple of weeks ago at our local TFA meeting, Curry Todd made remarks about legislation that had been introduced but had not yet been heard.  He said in defending the Ramsey/Faison bill, that while not exactly what we wanted, this other legislation would complement and strengthen the parking lot bill to help do more of what we wanted.  It had not received the wide spred press and they hoped to keep it that way.  He did not mention any specific bill numbers so I don't know what bills to look at to see if they really do what Todd said they would do.    I still don't like HB118/SB142.  I do not see why they would take the approach of addressing each issue with separate legislation.     

Yea, Ok.  I understand that they could use the CA database to find this out.  And if they did so, I would never know. What I would like to see is the bill that is currently being considered to close the data base, (which I would support) that Ramsey is saying he would not want to COMPLETELY close, amended, IF Ramsey gets his way, to state that IF inquiries are made to the DOS, the permit holder would be notified of the inquiry, telling them who made the inquiry and the cost of the inquiry and notification would be paid by the inquirer.   But I know THAT will never happen. 

Well you kind of lost me on this.  How can we use the CA data base to  know when your employer inquires with the TNDOS to find out whether or not you have a permit?  If my employer made a inquiry with the TNDOS asking "does Sam Cooper" have a permit, how would I know this?

Hard to disagree with you on all this.  Every time an amendment was offered, Harwell IMMEDIATELY went to McCormick whose only action was to make a motion to table the amendment after he commented on not vetting the amendment in committee.  This was planned and scripted.  They knew the amendments were comming and they were going to kill them.    I also have to take issue with the NRA on this bill as well.  In my conversation with Faison's office prior to any of the committee hearings, I was told that the NRA had helped or agreed with this bill as a compromise.  I have to question the NRA as to why they would introduce a good bill last year, fight tooth and nail to pass it, help fund the defeat of Debra Maggart in the aftermath and THEN come back and support a piece of crap like this.  WHAT GIVES?    I too agree with you "fairy dust" assessment of the possibility of future revision.  It is for this reason I have stated on several forums why we MUST work with every other pro-gun group and forum to get the word out.  He HAVE to collect information about EVERY time a permit holder is sanctioned in ANY way by his employer because of either he has a permit or carries a firearm in his vehicle.  We also need to know if it is possible to determine when an employer inquires with the Dept. of Safety to see if an employee is a permit holder.   WE NEED TO KNOW ALL THIS.

Not trying to be a smart a$$ or anything but this is a common misconception about the Second Amendment.  The Constitution and Bill of Rights did not "grant" our right to keep and bear arms.  It has been accepted and even stated in SCOTUS opinions over the years that the right to keep and bear arms pre-dated our constitution.  The wording of the Second Amendment ".....THE right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  (emphasis added).  The words "the right" is a form that implies that it already exists, and the amendment just states that it shall continue un-infringed.    Too bad too many  of our legislators don't understand the part about "shall not be infringed".    You also posted: "I would think that if the car is husband's or wife's you would be "OK" but better to be versed in the law to answer that one..Tell you the truth I'm not worrying that point to much.... As I read it, if you lock your vehicle you "OK" as long as your firearm is not visible. If you don't lock your vehicle then the firearm must be locked in trunk, car safe etc or the trunk. The firearm must be locked up in some way if you are not in the car and the car is in a parking lot. The sponsor also stated that the bill was kept short, simple and to the point. There I go paraphrasing again. Kudo's to Rep. Faison of Cosby, TN."   We better be careful with this one.  During the bill discussion on the House floor, on more than one occasion it was stated that the firearm had to remain INSIDE the vehicle and to emphasize this point, either Faison or Dennis stated that even removing the firearm to move it from the passenger portion of the vehicle to the truck would constitute a violation under this law. 

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.  This is the "Commute Loose Your Job" bill.  The ONLY protection you get with this bill is not being criminally prosecuted for keeping a firearm in your car while on a posted parking lot.    I watched the video of the House floor session.  I got so mad I just wanted to throw my computer across the room.  Several amendments were offered that could have made major improvements.  With EVERY amendment, Speaker Harwell would immediately recognize Rep. McCormick who would quickly denounce the process of offering amendments on the floor and then make a motion to table the amendment which immediately shuts down ANY discussion on the amendment.  This happend 13 times.  This couldn't have been better planned if it had been scripted by a Hollywood writer.  It couldn't have been more clear that they knew the content of the proposed amendments, were going to follow the "game plan" to ram this bill through with NO amendments and allow NO discussion on the amendments.  Watch the video and notice the vote count on every tabling motion.      McCormick  repeatedly denounced amendments that had not been "vetted" by the committee.  I don't know why he thinks people are so stupid and ignorant to fall for that crap.  ANYBODY who has been watching this KNOWS that these bills have been pushed HARD to go through as written.  Sen. Johnson (who carried the bill in the Senate for Ramsey) stated in committee in response to the suggestion of amendments, that Ron Ramsey was clear that he wanted no amendments.  The same attitude was clearly communicated in the House.  This was obvious by the amount of time, (or more accurately, LACK of time) spent on these bills in the various sub-committees and committees.  Limited discussion, little to no testimony by interested parties, votes right down the party line.  It was so obvious the members were definately following their marching orders.   One member made a good pointed comment about how we would not be at this point on this bill had one of their leaders (he did not mention Debra Maggart by name, but we all know who he was talking about) not lost her re-election bid.  Eluding that the Republican party leadership was trying to appease the NRA who while reportedly endorced this bill, remained strangely quiet about it.    Their remarks about how if employers started taking punitive action against employees, they would return next year and make changes were weak.  How stupid are they?  I want the drugs they are taking.  Do they REALLY believe that employers will not fire employees or do they REALLY think we are so gullible to believe it?   We knocked one leg of Harwell's support out last fall.  It is time to do the same with McCormick and or Vance Dennis.   Vance Dennis could be vulnerable.  He won his primary by only two or three votes.  Had the local gun club, (with which he has strong ties) pulled their support, he would have lost.   This whole think makes me puke.   

How far back are you looking.  I couldn't watch the recent committee hearings live but I was able to watch them later that day. 

Ask the families of the 273 people who died May 25, 1979 when an American Airlines DC-10 crashed after take-off from Chicago when the number one, (left hand) engine came off the wing due to a failure of the mount bolts that were weakened when the engine was changed using a procedure not approved by McDonald Douglass some time before the crash.  Eventually the stresses on the engine pylon mounts which are normal and easily handled, caused the weakend mounts to break.   As for the haircut thing, getting my ear cut off was an exageration, but making sure barbers maintain sanitary conditions is something I certainly would like to see them do.  And 1500 hours is nothing.  A little over 6 months.  The MINIMUM you will spend for an Airframe and Powerplant is 18 months.  6 hours a day, 5 days a week, 48 weeks out of the year.  And you don't just walk into an FAA office, throw down some cash and walk out with an A&P license.     While we digress, licensing, while in many cases may just be a revenue stream for some jurisdictions, and in some cases has no real teeth to ensure compliance with laws and regulations, it does in many cases.  But let me ask you, if the brakes failed on your car because some unlicensed, (no licensing requirements for auto mechanics) inexperienced "mechanic" did the job wrong, and you blew through a stop because of it, you MIGHT be able to sue him and or his employer if you can prove it.  BUT, I personally know aircraft mechanics who had their licenses suspended for 6 month, (meaning during that time they could NOT work on aircraft), were INDIVIDUALLY fined $15,000.00 EACH for installing the wrong part on a B727 which by-the-way, never caused any mechanical problem, no crash, nobody killed or hurt.  The error was discovered in a routine paperwork audit.   As for the mechanic in the Chicago crash that the improper procedure was eventually traced to, when he found out that it was his mistake that caused all those people to die, he killed himself.    It all is for accountability.    

  Why exactly do we need licensing for somebody to cut my hair?   Well, a good many licensing requirements are to make sure an individual knows what they are doing.  I am a FAA licensed aircraft mechanic.  To get that license, I had to pass an FAA approved training curriculum, (which by-the-way was WAY longer than most people would think, several years)  Present proof of the successful completion of that training.  Pass 5 written exams and two practical exams demonstrating my ability and skill to an FAA examiner.  This assures the flying public that the person who works on the aircraft they are flying on at least knew a bit about what they were doing.  The same with barbers.  Personally I would like to think the barber knows how to cut my hair without cutting my ear off.  A licesening requirement can achieve a lot of this in most cases.     3. Removing local opt-out for parks carry - Need I say more   4. Close down TICS - Both unconstitutional and would save gun buyers lots of money in the process.   5. Removal of government entities from 39-17-1359 - there by opening up all government buildings to legal carry.   6. Completely repealing 39-17-1359 - Even better would give us even more than the current parking lot bill without revoking any businesses property rights.   7 Adding personal vehicles to 39-17-1308 - Giving all law abiding citizens the right to carry load firearms in the cars.   I don't really disagree a lot with most of what you said in regards to the above.  After all, if given close examination by those old men in black robes, most could not pass the muster of the Tennessee Constitution which says:   “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.”     This little "fly in the ointment" about "a view to prevent crime" could make most of our firearms laws unconstitutional.  A State Supreme Court Ruling, Andrews vs State of Tennessee actually stated that these laws, unless they can provide substanciation of how they "prevent crime" are unconstitutional.  A little fact that many of  the members of The General Assembly either are ignorant of or just choose to over look.    So for now, untill we can get them to realize this and repeal all these laws, all we can hope for right now is to chip away at the unconstitutional restrictions one at a time as we are trying to do with this parking lot bill.