Sky King

I have tried four times to look at Stacey Campfield's blog. Through the link you posted and by going directly to his blog. For some reason, I can not make it work.

I may have seen it here but not sure. I read a post that advocated requiring our elected representatives to wear uniforms like NASCAR drivers with patches showing all their "sponsors".

Not a dumb question. First you should contact YOUR representatives in The Tennessee General Assembly, both House and Senate. If you do not know who they are, you can find out easily by going to the Tennessee General Assembly web site at: http://www.capitol.tn.gov/ . On that page, in the lower right hand side you will find "Find My Legislator". Type in your street address and city and click "search". That will take you to a page with both your Senator and Representative with contact information. With the Senate bill now passed the committee and is set to go to the floor, contacting your Senator is the best thing you can do now for the Senate side. As for the House, both bill still have to make it through the sub-committee and committee before they can get to the floor. On that same Tennessee General Assembly home page, at the top, you will find a pull down menu for "Committees". Pull that down and click on "House". That will take you to a page listing all the House committees and sub-committees. These two bills are in the Consumer and Employee Affairs sub-committee and will advance to the full committee. If you click on that committee, i t will give you a full list of all the members. If you click on each name, it will take you to their personal page with contact informatio. Email and phone calls are needed. Emails should be short and to the point but be polite and professional. Hope this helps.

It is not too late untill the General Assembly adjourns so thank you for your support. We really need all the people we can get to join the efforts of contacting their representatives. Not just once but every time one of the bills comes up for ANY action. Contact your Senator AND Representative. We really need to make sure the Senators get contacted now that the Senate bills will be going to the floor.

They (SB3002 and SB2992) have both passed. SB3002 was amended to limit the scope to handgun permit holders and persons with Tennessee hunting licenses over the age of 21. The also exempted private property that is residential single dwelling, (a farm where the owner lives would be exempt), nuclear power and research facilities would also be exempt. But they both passed in the Senate committees and are now on to the calendar committee to go to the floor. NOW hopefully with the bills and their associated amendments, the House can see the direction the Senate has gone and possibly move forward. I still have heard nothing from Rep Bass as to whether or not the House version will be heard.

Personally, I am getting a bit put off by the fact that we seem to have to get MORE news about what is happening in Nashville in regards to this legislation from Missouri than we do from our own state. And what we DO get from Tennesseess media is misleading, (remember the press release from Knoxville that incorrectly reported about the possible amendments to this bill). With that aside, the whole idea that the TFA is not an interested party is bunk. The TFA has been at the forfront of pro-gun legislation in this state for over 15 years, being instrumental in the existance in us even having a handgun carry permit. Harwell, McCormick and Maggart just don't like having their true colors exposed. Harwell's voting record is just that, on record and the only things she has voted FOR are the TWO joint resolutions COMMENDING the TFA for their work promoting and protecting the rights of Tennessee citizens to keep and bear arms. She was the ONLY member of the Republican caucus in the House to vote AGAINST the override of the Governor's veto of the restaurant carry bills, and she did it BOTH times. Her voting record for other pro-gun initiatives is just as dismal. Ever since the General Assembly passed legislation loosening the restrictions on corporate donations to political campaigns, the leadership has done everything short of handing the keys to the General Assembly to the corporate lobbies in order to gain favor and dollars. Now to the issue of these proposed amendments. Right now I can live with restricting this to permit holders. We need to get this law on the books. As it stands right now, most of the laws expanding our gun rights are restricted to permit holders, restaurant carry, parks carry and so on. Untill we get a Constitutional or Vermont carry law which would open things to ALL law abiding gun owners, I think this is going to be the restriction we can expect on most any similiar law. I also feel adding verbage that states that this bill would not apply to single dwelling residential property (ie your home, after all your home is your castle) would not be a problem. As for limitations that focus on the facilities itself, I have issues with that. We can do little to nothing in regards to facilities that are specifically restricted by state or federal law. However just because a facility has a fence and or a gate, is a nuclear facility or whatever, has NO impact on the circumstance encountered during my commute. The whole point of this bill is spelled out in the title of the legislation, SAFE COMMUTE. What does the fact that where I may work being a nuclear facility have to do with THAT? Am I suddenly mysteriously exempt from violent attack on my way home from work just because the place I just LEFT has a fence? Getting the real information on what these "proposed amendments" may be is quite difficult. I have not seen or heard anything other than what has been leaked to the press such as this. I have no doubt that they are playing their cards close to their chest on purpose to prevent the barage of emails they know they would get. Well, we need to keep them going anyway.

Well the past 24 hours has certainly been interesting. It appears that this is more of a case of the media getting things wrong, (imagine that) than our bill's sponsor selling us out. According to Mike Faulk, the Knoxville account was in error and this report from a Nashville TV station is more accurate. http://www.wkrn.com/story/17205174/spon ... o-amend-it According to a TFA alert, this event cause over 4000 emails to go to the General Assembly. WAY TO GO! With that kind of response, if nothing else it lets them know we ARE watching.

I just received an email with this link: http://m.knoxnews.com/news/2012/mar/20/ ... -amend-it/ It reports how Mike Faulk, sponsor of SB3002 is apparently about to all his bill to be amended with MAJOR exceptions. For me, if these amendments pass, I will totally reverse myself and fight to defeat the bill entirely. What I can not fathom is how people can possibly think that a fence around my employers lot has ANY effect on the circumstances in place during my commute. So much discussion has IMPROPERLY focused on how people are to defend themselves while AT work or on the employers parking lot. While this may be important for many but the MAIN goal has been to ensure a way to defend yourself during your commute, hence the name SAFE COMMUTE bill.

Ok folks it is time to crank up the calls and emails again. These bills were rolled from last week but are on the schedule again for this week. The General Assembly is wanting to wrap up business for this session early so we are rapidly approaching the last opportunity for these bills to be heard. Tell your representatives AND the committee members that we want these bill heard. Contact the sponsors, Eddie Bass in the House and Mike Faulk in the Senate and tell them you appreciate their work and that you want them to move their bills. Don't be fooled by the number of co-sponsors. Just because we see a lot of co-sponsors does not mean these bills are a sure thing. Often representatives will sign on just to be able to say to us and their constituants that they have supported our Second Amendment rights, knowing and hoping all along that they will never have to have a recorded vote. We need these bills to come to the floors of the Senate and House for a recorded up or down vote. This is the only way we will ever know just who our "friends" really are. It is recorded votes that we know that Beth Harwell IS NOT our friend. While she claims to be friendly to gun rights, her votes tell another story.

I received a call from the NRA and asked to do a phone interview. That will air this evening at 5PM Eastern, 4PM Central at www.nranews.com if anybody is interested in hearing it.

Regarding HB 3560 by Eddie Bass, I have sent another round of emails concerning this bill. I also plan at this time to be in Nashville for this hearing. I have written to Rep. Bass telling him of my desire to speak in support of his bill. Unfortunately, I have recently heard that this bill may not be heard on the 14th. I do not know if it is being rolled by the sponsor or if it is being stonewalled by the House leadership due to the pressure being put on the members. Regarding SB3002 by Mike Faulk in the Senate: If any of you had an opportunity to watch the opponents testimony in the Senate Judiciary on the 6th, (you can still go back and see it as all videos are archived), you will note that Chairman Beavers invited all those who did not get to speak, to submit their testimony in writing for distribution to the other committee members. If the bill goes as planned by Senator Faulk, the bill should be up for a vote in the Judiciary Committee on Tuesday the 13th. We need to get those emails and phone calls going in. My information has it that Ron Ramsey has indicated that Senators Mark Norris and Brian Kelsey from Shelby County are key to this bill passing. Senator Brian Kelsey is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and he has not been very vocal in any of the previous hearings so it is hard to get a reading on how he may vote. If any of you live in his district, please contact him. Here is the email I sent to all the Senate Judiciary Committee: Chairman Beavers and Senators, I am Sam Cooper of Memphis. I spoke before your committee in support of HB3002. I watched with great interest the testimony of those who oppose this bill on March 6th. I noted that the chair invited those who did not get an opportunity to speak, to submit their testimony in writing for distribution to the other members. With that in mind, I would ask that the members allow me to rebut some of what was said on March 6th and consider that along with our previous testimony when you vote. Mr. Hogan of Federal Express remarked on the number of employees at the airport facility. With that said he expressed concern for the increased imediate access to firearms. What he did not say, and was not asked, is how many firearms they suspect to already be in vehicles on their lot. Also it was not asked if they take any steps currently to prevent those firearms from being present. The answer to that is that they do not. Outside of the existance of a policy and signage along with the reserved right to search, there is nothing done to actively prevent the carrying of weapons on the property. Several spoke of statistics: from 2006 thru 2008, 81%, 69% and 80% respectively of work place homicides were by shootings. 52% of employees knew about or had witnessed an act of workplace violence with 28% experiencing acts of violence. These statistics while in themselves may be accurate, do not break down some very valid information regarding them. From 1997 thru 2010 Justice Bureau statistics help put some of THEIR statistics into context. These incidents of workplace violence accounted for only 4% of ALL violent crime. 84% of THAT 4% was committed by NON-employees. Of those only 9% knew someone in that workplace and only 7% were committed by current or former employees. What is not clarified is that a armed robery of a convenience store where an employee is shot can be included as an act of workplace violence. The close proximity or ready access of a firearm is cited as a potential hazard yet none of those speaking said anything about the ILLEGAL firearms that are most likely ALREADY there. The President of Trevecca Nazarene University indicates that they are willing to work with those who choose to carry on campus legally and has had no problems. If every employer would do as they do, there would be no need for this law but they will not. He went on to say that a firearm kept in a car that is out of sight and not known is not something that they can be concerned about. The most important fact brought out and should be remembered is what Mr. Hogan said in response to a question from Senator Bell. He said that in the other states that have a similiar law and employees ARE able to keep firearms in their car, there has been NO problems. NONE of the incidents they say will happen, NONE of the dire predictions have come to pass. Unlike other requirements imposed by state and federal laws, this bill imposes no additional requirements or expense on the part of the property owner. If this bill passes, it will be business as usual. Please consider this when you deliberate this bill.

I hope it will be heard. I have requested time off to make a trip to Nashville for the hearing. I sent Eddie Bass an email asking to be put on the list to speak. I'll sent Mark White an email and will call his office Monday. As for the Senate side, I heard Saturday night that Ron Ramsey has stated that Mark Norris and Brian Kelsey are key people. If any of you out there know people in Norris's and Kelsey's districts, they need to get those phones ringing and emails flying.

Road trip?

Wow, quite a debate. Once could see how the outcome of that debate could have an impact on the Safe Commute bill. But even as it is accepted that free speech does not allow me to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, private property rights also have to have some limits. Nobody would want Prince Mongo, (if you don't live in or follow Memphis news and politics, you probably have no idea who Prince Mongo is, sorry), to open up a night club in a residential area just because he could because it is his private property and he can do as he chooses.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/05/federal-judge-rules-maryland-gun-permit-law-unconstitutional/ In a conversation I have had, I asked if this could help us in our work to get the parking lot bills passed here. Based on this statement in the judge's remarks: "Judge Legg's ruling takes a substantial step toward restoring the Second Amendment to its rightful place in the Bill of Rights and provides gun owners with another significant victory," said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. "The federal district court has carefully spelled out the obvious, that the Second Amendment does not stop at one's doorstep, but protects us wherever we have a right to be." While this ruling is concerning Maryland's law and this statement is not part of the ruling itself, I feel it sould carry some weight as it IS from a Federal court AND the comment is about the United States Constitution, which applies to all of us, not just Maryland. Maybe some constitutional scholars or lawyers could weigh in here.

Yup, makes it hard for people to travel and get there in time if they oppose the bill, and they know that. I am still "confused" as to what differance a fence makes. The question is often asked, "why do you need a gun at work". Well, for the most part, I don't, it is the commute and the commute is the same whether there is a fence around the destination parking lot or not. Also, what if there isn't a fence. Does that mean I can just enter the lot from any point I choose? I see a parking space I want, so to get to it quickly, I just drive over the curb and sidewalk rather than going to the entrance? What if they don't have a fence but just segregate the area with landscaping, trees or hedge, I'll just plow my way through their hedge. Unless the lot is fenced, GATED with a PERSON there to verify the identity of the person(s) entering, it is NOT a secure lot. And STILL it does NOTHING to change the circumstances of my commute while OUTSIDE their fence.

Sent to my Senator and my Representative and the members of The House Consumer and Employee Affairs sub committee: These two bills are an attempt to divert attention from and kill the bills known as the Safe Commute Bills by Faulk and Bass. HB3660 and SB3451 REAK of corporate influence peddaling. They are BAD BILLS and need to fail. I OPPOSE these bills and ask you to do the same. The House bill is scheduled to be heard on March 7th in the Consumer and Employee Affairs sub committee. If asked to become a co-sponsor of either of these bills, please REFUSE! I continue to ask for your support of the Safe Commute bills by Mike Faulk in the Senate and Eddie Bass in the House.

Well Richard, we all know how they want this to go down. The evil axis in the House will make sure Eddie Bass's bill dies in favor of this bill. They will pass McCormick's bill trying to be able to claim that they "tried" to work with us. The Senate will not pass the companion bill and refuse to substitute and conform to McCormick's bill. This will force a conferance committee that will undoubtedly be stacked in Harwell's favor. Needless to say, the House members will bow to Harwell's wishes and pass what ever comes from the conference committee. The best we can hope for at that time would that the Senate would not accept that reccomendation. I can't help but feel that they are trying to retaliate against Eddie Bass's attempt last year to return Josh Evan's bill to it's origional form essentially killing the bill. They wanted their "incentive bill" but lost it and so they are going to kill the bill sponsored by Bass. Now they want to force this crap down our throats. If we are successfull in getting this bill killed, they will point the finger at us for killing two bills that they will claim was their attempt to further Second Amendment rights. They will also vote for this bill which they hope will count as a "pro" vote in the eyes of the NRA to give them a better score. I doubt VERY seriously that there will not be any opposing testimony allowed at the sub committee hearing next week. I would be VERY interested in hearing if the usual group of big business lobbiest will be there and just what their comments would be.

HB3660 has been introduced by McCormick, (SB3451 by Sutherland) is on the schedule to be heard in the House Consumer and Employee Affairs sub committee on Wednesday, March 8th. THIS IS A BAD BILL. It has big business written ALL over it. If your employer has a fenced, gated lot with an attendee at the gate checking IDs, you can forget it. They will be exempt. Also with that exemption, there is no requirement for them to provide secure storage for your weapon, so again, you can forget it. It has tons of protections for the employer but is not much more than a token bill. We all know what is happening here. Speaker Harwell and Rep McCormick, (in business's pocket) have been opposed to helping us on a parking lot bill for the last two years. The ONLY reason they are making this "gesture" is because they are beginning to feel the heat. This is nothing more than throwing the dog a bone. This is a worthless bill and they KNOW it. They KNOW we will not like it and THEN they can say they offered us a bill but we rejected it. Again THIS IS A BAD BILL. We CAN NOT let it usurp SB3002 by Faulk and HB3560 by Bass. STAY THE COURSE.

Way to keep the heat on them, Bert. As Dean Martin used to say, "keep those cards and letters commin' in".

SB3002 is on the schedule for THIS week in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The way I understood the origional plan by Mike Faulk was that the PROPONENTS were heard last week on the 21st and the OPONENTS were not to be heard untill the 6th of March. The anti-discrimination bill, SB2992 that goes with it is still not scheduled to be heard again untill the 6th. I actaully see this as a good thing as we need this thing moved along so as to get a floor vote as soon as we can because the House has said that they will not do ANYTHING until there is action in the Senate. Leaders in the General Assembly have said that they want to wrap up this session by the end of April so that does not give us much time to get this done. What we DO NOT want to happen is for time to run out before the bill can be addressed in The House. The House is looking for an excuse to not addrress this. When you contact your representative in the House be sure to communicate to them that no vote on the issue will be considered a "NO" vote. Footdragging will not be viewed well by us. Please contact your senators AND the senators on the Judiciary Committee and remind them that we want this bill to get to the floor.

There are similiar laws in about 20 other states. I can work here just as it has worked elsewhere. It seems that Tennessee is usually FOLLOWING other states. That can be frustrating at times that we don't ever seem to be a leader in rights but it CAN be used (and has many times) in our argument. By having other states granting expansions of these rights before us, we can point to their example AND show how there has been no problems related to those expansions. This gives law abiding gun carriers a track record that can be shown. And believe me, it is pointed out often. Also two states that have this provision have had their laws challenged and upheld in courts at the federal level, (Oklahoma and Florida). That too is a good thing to be able to bring up.

I think it is important to know what your opposition is saying and doing. Most successful business monitor the activites of their competition. By knowing this, we can know how to resond or counter. This is how I view each of their claims. No, this legislation is simply recognizing the property rights I have with my private vehicle and telling telling your employer his property rights end at his fence, not my front door. They may have an obligation to maintain a safe working environment INSIDE the actual workplace but this bill SPECIFICALLY gives them liability protection and imunity against civil action that may result from "unintended acts". That is correct' date=' permit holders would be able to keep a LOADED firearm in the vehicle but everybody else would still have to abide by the laws regarding the transport of firearms, unloaded, ammunition separated from the firearm, no different than it is today. AND, that has been brought up to the bill sponsor and we have suggested that be changed. I don't recall seeing all those places specifically listed but even if they were, why is that so bad as long as the firearm remains in the car? Where does it say that? The bill DOES recognize properties specifically prohibited by federal law. Airports are not special. The TSA has stated to me they do not care about the employee parking areas, they are only concerned with the level 1 secure areas.

The bill exempts facilities or properties specifically prohibited by law as it must. However if it is fenced and/or gated just because the property owner wants to do so, then it sould not be exempt.

You are right, it is YOUR property and if you don't want me on it, you can tell me to leave and if I don't, you can have me charged with a crime. BUT there is a real differance between property where you live, your house, your yard, your driveway and property that is held out as being open to the public or a parking lot set aside for employees to park. The government already dictates a lot when it comes to property open to the public or employee parking. The government does not tell you that you have to provide a certain percentage of parking dedicated to handicap parking in front of your house. You don't have to have specified lighting, drainage and so on. So comparing an employee parking lot with your private property is like comparing apples and oranges. This one piece of legislation, if passed is not going to cripple anybody. The Castle Doctrine law passed a couple of years ago recognizes that my car is an extension of my "castle". What is in it, if legally possessed is nobody's business. Your employer either invites or directs you to park in a lot set aside for that purpose. What is in my car, as long as it stays in that car is both of no concern of his nor does it represent any imposition on him. Next, just where do the employers property rights end? With a no weapons policy, they can effectively extend their rights all the way to the front door of YOUR house. With the final destination of your commute being your job, you can not have the weapon from the time you leave the door of your house untill you return. Therefor your employer has disarmed you from the time you walk out your door untill you return hence imposing their property rights right into your driveway.