Sky King

You simply say, as almost 19 other states have, several of which too are "right to work" states that for what ever reason you terminate a person, it CAN NOT be for keeping a legally possessed firearm, locked, out of sight in your privately owned vehicle.  You should not be fired for ANYTHING that you are legal to possess that remains in your private vehicle.   You argue that this carves out a special group of people, but if you look all through Tennessee statutes you will find exceptions made for "special" groups for a variety of reasons.    Also, may I clarify one point here also.  Yes, Tennessee is a right to work state BUT that is not what gives them the ability to terminate you for no reason.  A right to work situation is a protection for the EMPLOYEE.  It makes it illegal for a collective bargaining group, if they represent employees at a given place of business, to mandate your join the "union" in order to work.  Such states which do not have this protection are called "closed shop states".  Kentucky is such a state.  In Kentucky, if a collective bargaining agent has a presence at a place of business or other employment they can have a provision in their contract with the business, requiring all new hires to join the group and pay dues usually after a specified probation period or loose their job.   The provision that allows an employment relationship to be terminated by EITHER party for no reason is "employment at will".  Tennessee is an employment at will state.

The way I understand the amendment, it just EXPANDS the liability protection for the property owner/employer.  I spoke with Jeremy Faison's office yesterday.  In a nutshell I was told that this bill is going to pass with NO amendments.  Yes they knew well in advance that this bill has NO real protection for the employee outside of protection from criminal prosecution.  I was told if I was fired, I would have grounds for a wrongfull termination suit, which is TOTALLY NOT TRUE, that if private employers start searching vehicles and/or terminating or disciplining employees on the basis of firearms, the they will come back next year and address that.  Well if you believe that, I have several acres of prime beach front property on the moon I want to sell you.    What we MUST do is communicate to EVERY permit holder we can in every manner possible, that after this bill becomes law, we need to KNOW EVERY time a permit holder has their vehicle searched, they are terminated or otherwise disciplined or repremanded in regards to firearm possession.  We NEED a list of names and circumstances to throw on the desks of Ron Ramsey, Beth Harwell, Jeremy Faison and EVERY other member of the General Assembly.   Next, while it will likely have little to no effect at this point, I think everybody should contact their representative and tell them that this is a BAD, USELESS bill for the permit holder.  They need to know that we are not stupid people who can so easily have the wool pulled over their eyes.   This is almost exactly the kind of bill that Vance Dennis wanted by convincing Josh Evans to gut his legislation.  He called it an "incentive" bill.  When will they learn that a private business is not going to change unless TOLD to.

You are right.  They don't need a reason to fire you.  But they usually do state one.  I would love a law that says they can not make consent to search a condition of employment.  While I want what works for us as a whole,  for some of us it wouldn't matter if the records were sealed.  Our activity in this "fight" has pretty much put a target on our backs and made anonymity impossible.  It really wouldn't surprise me if my first day to work following July 1, they come to me to search my car. 

All last fall, prior to the elections and after, Ramsey said he was working on a bill and several times indicated that a draft would be available for review.  That "draft" never materialized.  Now I know why, he obviously knew the flaws would be found and he didn't want a strong opposition to gain momentum.   I SERIOUSLY hope my interpretation of this is WAY WRONG.  If it is, I will publically admit my mistake.  However in mean time I ask everybody to ask your representatives in the House to ask for an opinion on the issues raised from The Attorney General.  The general public can not ask for opinions from the AG but members of the General Assembly can.  We need an opinion before the bill gets to the full committee.  Having that opinion could either confirm or dispell my concern and MAYBE bring this thing out in the light.

Most states all specifically protect the employee from termination.  The only "carrot" for business owners to change their policy is that this bill does give them liability protection but I wouldn't hold my breath.    One thing I have not included because my main concern focusses on employer/employee issues, the way I read this bill is that we do get protecton to drive onto other parking lots at restaurants, shopping centers and malls where they may prohibit carrying INTO the business.  But if you work there, your are toast.

Yes, this bill is going to be rammed home.  I too have had conversations this morning with folks in Legislative Plaza and it was acknowleged that they KNOW the employees are NOT protected against termination.  That makes it obvious why the big business lobby has not made a big stink about this bill.  Ramsey and Harwell will now want to puff out beat their chests, boasting how they helped further gun rights without being badgered by the NRA or TFA.    Big business gets what they want, no mandate AND they get liability protection while we get the shaft.

Yes you are right.  I mis-read that. 

Amazing that Kyle voted against his own amendment.

This has become my problem with this bill.  Right now, as a permit holder, you can be prosecuted for carrying on posted property, all this bill does is protect you from that but you can still be fired.  I would REALLY like to see one of the House representatives request an opinion from the Attorney General on this AND many of the other concerns before it gets out of committee in the House.  The privately owned vehicle issue needs fixing, the "ordinary observation" term needs definition, and the "or" language in regards to firearms and ammunition needs to say "and/or" so you can have ammunition IN your firearm.

The article I read about his veto comment also stated that prior to the meeting he had with the Senate Judical Committee before the vote, he did NOT know that currently there was a provision in TCA to allow firearms on school property.  He had regularly said that his main concern with legislation of this type is the firearms on school property thing.  BUT what he DID NOT know is that under certain conditions, it is ALREADY allowed.  MAYBE this will show him that his concerns are unfounded. 

Thanks, I had not yet seen that.  Jimmy Eldridge told us yesterday that he was going to sign on. 

I have to admit that I don't do as good a job of keeping up with the voting record of congressional members in Washington as I do the members of The General Assembly in Tennessee.  With that said, I too agree that we need to keep pro Second Amendment people in Washington, regardless of whether they are Democrat of Republican.  A good example from Tennessee would be Eddie Bass.  I for one am really sorry Eddie Bass is no longer in the General Assembly.  While a Democrat, we could be hard pressed to find a stronger supporter of our conservative values and Second Amendment rights.  So, yes I would not want to see the GOP loose the House, the REAL message is to hold ANY member accountable for infringing on our Second Amendment rights. 

HB118 is on the schedule for House Civil Justice Subcommittee on Wednesday, February 13.  No time is given. 

  Actually I don't see anywhere in these bills where school parking lots are specifically mentioned.  The only "referance" to school property is in Section 1 (a) of the bill where it states "Notwithstanding  SS 39-17-1309, SS 39-17-1311, or SS 39-17-1359...."  SS 39-17-1309 addresses carrying weapons on school property.  This bill does nothing to change that.  In  39-13-1309 paragraph (c) (1)  it states "It is not an offense under this subsection (c) for a nonstudent adult to possess a firearm, if the firearm in contained within a private vehicle operated by the adult and is not handled by the adult, or by any other person acting with the  expressed or implied consent of the adult, while the vehicle is on school property."    Any lawyers out there feel free to jump in there and correct me or comment.

I was there with Worriedman all day.  This is my take on that question.  If you recall last year Stacy Campfield offered an amendment to allow hunters with valid hunting licenses to have their hunting weapons in their cars also.  The question may have been to inquire whether or not the bill would include those.  That is just my take on it, I have nothing to back that up. 

Agreed

Ok, maybe "protect" was a poor choice of words.  Here is the letter from the Utah Sheriffs Association to President Obama:   UTAH SHERIFFS’ ASSOCIATION P.O. Box 787 East Carbon City, Utah 84520 (435) 888-2004 Fax: (435) 888-0842   7 January 2013   The Honorable Barack Obama President of the United States of America The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20500   Dear President Obama: We, the elected sheriffs of Utah, like so many of our fellow Americans, are literally heartbroken for the loved ones of the murdered victims in Connecticut. As Utahans, we are not strangers to this kind of carnage—-one of the latest being the 2007 Trolley Square murders wherein nine innocents were gunned down-five losing their lives.   We also recognize the scores of other recent domestic massacres, which have decimated countless honorable lives. As Americans, we value the sanctity of life. Furthermore, similar to our inspired Founders, we acknowledge our subservience to a higher power.   With the number of mass shootings America has endured, it is easy to demonize firearms; it is also foolish and prejudiced. Firearms are nothing more than instruments, valuable and potentially dangerous, but instruments nonetheless. Malevolent souls, like the criminals who commit mass murders, will always exploit valuable instruments in the pursuit of evil. As professional peace officers, if we understand nothing else, we understand this: lawful violence must sometimes be employed to deter and stop criminal violence. Consequently, the citizenry must continue its ability to keep and bear arms, including arms that adequately protect them from all types of illegality.   As your administration and Congress continue to grapple with the complex issue of firearm regulations, we pray that the Almighty will guide the People’s Representatives collectively. For that reason, it is imperative this discussion be had in Congress, not silenced unilaterally by executive orders. As you deliberate, please remember the Founders of this great nation created the Constitution, and its accompanying Bill of Rights, in an effort to protect citizens from all forms of tyrannical subjugation.   We respect the Office of the President of the United States of America. But, make no mistake, as the duly-elected sheriffs of our respective counties, we will enforce the rights guaranteed to our citizens by the Constitution. No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights-in particular Amendment II-has given them. We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation.   The Utah Sheriffs’ Association   I also attended a meeting where Sheriff Richard Mack, former Sheriff of Graham County Arizona spoke.  During his tenure, federal officers informed the sheriffs of the state that they would be required to enforce the so-called “Brady Bill” and run background checks at their expense under the law. In 1994, Mack and six other sheriffs from across the country, challenged the constitutionality of the Brady Bill and ultimately, fought it all the way to the United States Supreme Court, where they won a monumental decision for freedom.   What elected sheriffs need to do is refuse to enforce unconstitutional law. 

I agree, I just wish it went a bit further as the Utah Sheriffs' letter did.  I am really turned off by Chiefs of Police who are not only appointed and therefor at the will of their mayor but they are also in the minority in regards to LEOs as a whole.  The rank and file leos  usually ARE supportive of citizens being legally armed and carrying.  But the liberal press will never bring out that point.   

  Well I didn't read it enough to see whether they clarified the "OR" thing or not but the summary only states "certain conditions".  If you click on the link it will take you to the Tennessee General Assembly web site bill summary.  Then if you click on the bill number itself, it will bring up the actual bill as written and you can read the whole thing which lists the conditions.   They include things like the firearm and ammunition have to be kept out of sight.  That could include being in a locked glove compartment, trunk or other storage box that makes the firearm not visable from outside the vehicle or just under the seat if the vehicle is locked.  The vehicle has to remained locked while unattended and you can not remove the firearm from the vehicle while on the property in question.    This bill is good.  Yes, there may be some items that could be added that may improve it but it really is fine the way it is.  I wouldn't be surprised to see some amendments as it progresses.  The REAL concern is that they don't add any exemptions for property owners based on fenced/secured parking lots.

This years parking lot bills now have co-sponsors.  The bill in the House by Faison now has Josh Evans on board and the Senate bill by Ramsey has Jack Johnson of Williamson County.  The Senate bill is also NOW on schedule to be heard THIS COMMING Tuesday, the 5th of February in the Senate Judicial Committe at 3:30 PM

Nice statement but it lacks the real backbone that is communicated in a similiar statement issued in writing by the Utah Sheriff's Association.  This statement does not come out and say that the sheriffs of this state will protect their citizens from federal officials attempting to enforce unconstitutional federal laws.

Agreed, Harwell, right now is the fly in the ointment.  I have looked at both bills as written that we can see, 108 and 118.  Both look good as far as I am concerned.  Reflecting on last year, among many factors, I feel part of the Safe Commute's demise was due to the fact that the Republican leaders did not want the Democrats stealing their thunder.  Both the bills, the Senate and House versions were sponsored by Democrats.    Ramsey also needs to be watched.  He definately had a hand in killing the bill last year.  Prior to this falls elections, he indicated that he was working on a version of Safe Commute for this year and wanted to get it passed and out of the way quickly in the session.  But we never saw a often promised draft of his bill.  Now we see it and in all fairness, with the exceptions of the Campfield amendments, in essence, it isn't all that different than what was proposed last year.  So I will ask the rhetorical question, if it was "bad" last year, why is it "good" this year.  I am like Worriedman, there has to be another shoe ready to drop somewhere.  He stabbed us in the back last year and we all have heard the expression about fooling me once.   When Ramsey alluded to a bill that be acceptable to all concerned, I was very worried that it would be a bill that had a lot of exemptions for large businesses with fenced lots.  That would make the bill unacceptable to me and I would have to oppose it.    I can only hope that with these bills being sponsored by Republicans, and particularly the Lt. Governor, they will have less resistance this year.   

I got the same email response.

I just got this in my email from Lamar Alexander.  It is in response to the email and US Mail letter I sent to him.  I posted that letter on this forum.  I was actually a bit surprised to read what he wrote.  Comming from Lamar Alexander, it is quite surprising.  But read it for yourself and decide.  I have no doubt that it is a formal response to everybody who wrote to him.   January 8, 2013     Mr. Samuel Cooper   Dear Samuel,   Thank you for sharing your feelings regarding the tragic shootings in Newtown, Connecticut.  I was horrified by this attack that left twenty-eight dead.  My thoughts and prayers are for the victims and those who now live with their loss.    As we learn more about the tragedy in Newtown, I think we must look closely at the behavior of isolated young men who develop an obsession with violence.  We should ask the leaders of the entertainment industry whether they would want their children--or those who might harm their children--to watch the increasingly violent video games and movies that they pour into our culture.  This is not the only cause of violence in our society but it is one important cause. Connecticut has strong gun laws. The problem is not with the gun but with the person pulling the trigger.   This is a terrible event for our nation and we must find appropriate ways to respond. I’m grateful you’ve shared your reactions with me and will keep them in mind as we move forward.   Sincerely, Lamar  

I will not bring up the disability thing.  However if you have a parking lot for employees, visitors or customers, you will have to comply with other codes issues.  Number of parking spaces based on the size of your business, draining, lighting, marking and so on.   Buy a house these days and neighborhood associations will tell you what kind of window shades you have to put in your house.  I support private property rights.  I don't want somebody telling me what I can or can not do.  But it happens all the time, but that is not the real issue.  My car is MY private property.  What I have in that car, as long as it is legal for me to possess, is nobody's business but mine and as long as it REMAINS in that car, there is no harm or foul to the owner of the lot on which my car is parked.   Where would you draw the line on what an employer could dictate concerning the contents of your car?  If your place of employment is a no smoking facility, would you say they should be able to tell you could not keep a pack of cigarettes in your car?  Let's say you are Christian and your boss is an athiest, can he say you can't have a Bible in your car?  It's your car.  As long as any item, including a firearm, remains in the car, and not brought INTO the work environment, be it tobacco or a bible, it is nobodys business.