Sky King

Ok, I just got back from Nashville with a couple of other TFA members. Yes, all are right, both bills got rolled to the next two weeks. As posted, they will hear from proponents and the following week from the opponents. Personally I wish it were the otherway around with the proponents comments the last thing they hear before making a decision. It also would give us an opportunity to hear what the opponents say, (we pretty much know a lot of what they may say) and then respond appropriately. We REALLY need to crank up the heat. We were able to get around to several members in both the House and Senate today. Some indicated that they had not heard much from constituants while some said their they had received many phone calls. What is of a great concern is that there is a strong feeling that the Senate bill will not get out of the Senate without an amendment that exempts parking lots with fences and controlled access. Essentially it would exempt FedEx almost entirely and a lot of other employers. A lot of your larger employers that have a large number of employees, have fenced lots. This tells me that the big business lobby is hard at work. Please contact your senators and tell them that we DO NOT want this amendment. Right now I do plan to go back to Nashville next week.

Seriously, as suggested by Worriedman, contact her on these two bill specifically and see what she says and let us know.

I don't know what else you would call it, using is using. We had some of our best bills passed with the House was controlled by the Democrats and Jimmy Naifeah. The Republicans courted us and then stabbed us in the back. They want to say they are our best friends but since they have gained control we have become the red headed step child. Many of the best bills have been introduced and championed by Democrats. Ben West was probably the best friend we EVER had in the House and he was a Democrat. I could only WISH he was still active. I sat in his office in Nashville, I was in AWE of his carpet. It was HUGE area rug with an enourmous NRA logo in the middle.

Well, not sure what to say here but I would have to ask if the lady was a permit holder and then I am going to say that a person with an agenda that ends with them offing themselfs or committing suiside by cop, you are not going to stop. I'd be willing to say there was not a permit holder involved here.

Thank You. I couldn't have said it better.

DITTO, it is time to put up or shut up for the members of the General Assembly

I can tell you this. I have been in Nashville on MULTIPLE occasions in the House Judiciary Committee and Sub-committee meetings. I can tell you that Eddie Bass has always been in our corner. I would oppose anybody's notion that he is on an agenda to embarass the Republicans. But hey, if the Republicans don't want to be embarassed, then they need to get on board and I will tell any of them that. I am getting pretty tired of this football being kicked around. The Republicans courted us to get elected, now they are in, they have not helped us. I am personally ready to vote them OUT. The representative from my district is a Democrat and he has committed to supporting this bill. As far as I am concerned, HE WILL GET MY VOTE next fall and I will tell the Republican leadership that to their face. The Republicans have USED us and it is time to send a clear message. Everything I have heard for the last three years is that they are worried about loosing the support of big business so they are bowing to the wishes of big business and big money. The sponsor of the best bill for the last three years flat out told me that the first year he sponsored the bill that he was told by the House Republican leadership to NOT push the bill because the big business lobby said they would pull their support and they would loose the majority that they had won for the first time since reconstruction. So guess what, he gave in. The NEXT session he sponsored a good bill and AGAIN he watered down the bill after the leadership, (Harwell, Dennis, Rich) pressured him to gut the bill making it totally worthless. They sold out. Sorry for the rant and I have no doubt that some members of The General Assembly may read this and not like it. But, OH WELL, if the shoe fits, WEAR IT! All I can ask is, just whose pocket are you in? It is obvious from the last three years that big business and big money can buy politicians. Like Will Rogers once said, "We have the best politicians money can buy". If you can't tell, I am just a bit MAD

I have noted that several members have posted that they have received responses indicating their representives have signed on as co-sponsors but I have yet to see that reflected on the General Assembly web site when I click on "co-sponsors). I don't know how often that is updated. In any case, the Senate version is scheduled to be heard on the 14th. I know that is Valentines day and some people may have other plans but I am seriously considering to go to Nashville for the hearing. My goal is two fold. I want to contact Senator Faulk and ask if I can be heard in the sub-committee but I also want to take the opportunity to visit the Shelby County members of the House Consumer & Employee Affairs Committee. If anybody else is interested in being in Nashville that day, post it here. Maybe we can get together. Sam Cooper Memphis, Tennessee

I have seen on the General Assembly web site that SB 3002 by Faulk is on the schedule for The Senate Judiciary Committee, Tuesday, February 14.

I got a response from MY representative in the House, Antonio Parkinson (D). I have never had a representative to support pro Second Amendment legislation. He said that he has signed onto the bill. It also needs to be noted that this bill has NOT been assigned to the House Judiciary Committee. It is assigned to the House Sub Committee of the Consumer & Employee Affairs committee.

I just got this back from my Representative, Antonio Parkinson, a Democrat. . "I am signed on the bill. Thanks. Rep. Parkinson"

Just got this from Jeremy Faison's office: Dear Sam: The problem with the Employee Safe Commute email campaign is two-fold: 1. because of the use of a form letter most of these emails automatically went to the junk folder; it is common policy with form letter campaigns not to respond unless they are from the Representative's district. Please don't take a lack of response personally, most of them assume that you sent the exact same letter to everyone else as well. 2. To be most effective you should contact your legislator for support or even just the committee or sub-committee this bill is currently before. That said, of course Rep. Faison supports this bill. I believe half of the legislature has already signed on as secondary sponsors. He signed on to a very similar bill last year that was killed in committee. This bill should have the support it needs to make it out of committee to the House floor. Best, Tori Venable Legislative Aide Rep. Jeremy Faison 202 War Memorial Nashville, TN 37243 615-741-6871 And from Beverly Merrero: "Dear Mr. Cooper, Thank you for taking the time to contact me. In response to your recent email regarding Senate Bill 3002, I will be voting no on this particular piece of legislation. Sincerely, Senator Beverly Marrero" And from Mae Beavers: Senator Beavers supports this bill. Patti Saliba Office of Senator Mae Beavers Chairman of Senate Judiciary Committee 7 Legislative Plaza Nashville, Tennessee 37243 615/741-2421 or 1-800-449-8366 x 12421 Fax: 615/253-0205

I agree, Doug was definately on our side but the "get rid of the Democrats" movement got him. I agree whole heartedly. I think responses like this are just a way to dance around their real answer of "I'm not going to vote for this bill". The ones who support the bill have the stones to stand up and say so. If you don't support it, have the stones to say that also. I already got one reply like that and I quickly replied asking if that meant that he was either going to sign on as a co-sponsor or support the bill. I want a "yes" or "no".

Not to be redundant but because this is a hot topic, I thought it would be good to have a thread to post the responses we get from the General Assembly members to the emails, letters and phone calls we make concerning this issue. With that said, here are the first responses I have received. First, from Jim Gotto: "I am a co-sponsor. Jim" Next from Barrett Rich: "I will always support the law abiding citizen's Second Amendment rights. If I may be of further assistance, please let me know. Sincerely, Representative Barrett Rich Republican Majority Whip Vice Chairman of Government Operations Committee" I have emailed and spoke with MY representative, Antonio Parkinson. He said that he would speak to Eddie Bass about it and that he does not see a problem with the bills but he would not committ to supporting it or signing on as a co-sponsor. Sam Cooper Memphis, Tennessee

OH YES, this has big business written ALL over it. I could almost take a good guess at whose lobbiest had a hand in writing this. In looking at the list of requirements that exempt a lot makes me ask about lots that meet ALL the requirements but ONE, requirement (. The lot that doesn't have a living person but rather a card reader to read ID cards to open a gate according to this would allow you to keep your firearm in your car. It doesn't really matter, this bill has to die an agonizing death.

Now, without a doubt, this will land in the laps of the House Judiciary Committee. This is the same committee that steered Josh Evans into tanking and watering down his bill last year. All the members of this committee and the sub-committee need to be bombarded with emails in support of Eddie Bass' bills. Remember, they are just as likely to NOT support it because they don't want a Democrat to steal their thunder even though it is a MUCH better bill than Campfield's.

I very well recall your spirited debate on this. While I disagreed with you, I still respected it. I thank you for your change of stance and support. I may have mentioned this before, I see you are in Shelby County. Have you attended any TFA meetings here? I am trying to find out if you and I have ever met.

Absolutely!!! I have already written my representative in the House asking him to either sponsor a companion bill or sign on as a co-sponsor. I have SPECIFICALLY asked for a "YES" or "NO". It is time to get to work. Every representative in the House needs to hear from us regardless of what Speaker Harwell says. Also Ron Ramsey in the Senate needs to hear from us to support this bill. I know how much people would like to see a Vermont carry bill but right now this needs to be the bill we push this year. I really feel this is a do or die year for us on this issue so let's get those cards, letters, emails and phone calls going.

I just skimmed over it but I can tell you from what I saw, I can't support this one either. Too many loopholes for employers. If an employer can opt out, they need to be held liable not only while the employee is on their property but also during the commute. After all, the MAIN issue for laws such as this is to be sure you can provide for your protection during your commute. Again, more feel good legislation.

Ok, maybe a better way to have phrased it would have been, "it doesn't matter if they search my car". NO, I don't have any desire for them to search either. What I am saying is regardless of the reason or circumstances for the search, the possession of the firearm needs to be protected. Ok, let's get a bit more real. There is such thing as implied consent. Yes you are right. even if the firearm possession were protected, if they want to fire you, they can. However the possession still needs to be protected because even if general searchs were prohibited by law, they could still call law enforcement, make a case that you have stolen property in your vehicle and give the police probable cause to conduct the search. The possession needs to be protected so in the above scenerio, the gun, being YOURS, is not stolen and is legally possessed and having it in your car on your employers property is protected. Yes, they can still fire you without stating a reason because we live in an "employement at will" state. BUT, in the above described scenerio, if the search is conducted WITH law enforcement under probable cause AND the gun is found, while not the object of the search, if not protected, you are instantly toast even if no stolen property is found. So I could only say that probably both things need to be addressed, they possession of firearms AND the search issue.

What people need to keep in mind in all this is that protecting people from searches isn't enough. Tennessee is an "Employment at Will" state. This means in short, your boss doesn't need a reason to fire you. You don't have a lawsuit if they don't state any reason, (which they don't have to do) for your termination. ALSO, you have no grounds if you are terminated for violation of your terms of empolyment. If you are obligated by terms of employement to consent to a search of your vehicle while on company property, you are toast in regards to your job if you refuse. Gun or NO gun, if you refuse the search, thus violating your terms of employment, they don't need to find ANYTHING, they don't need to do the search, YOUR ARE GONE. The whole point of this legislation is to prevent an employer from taking ANY punitive action against the employee or visitor for keeping a legal firearm in the private vehicle. If they can not take any action against you for having the firearm, I don't CARE if they search my car. Many employers, such as mine also have a VERY prominate sign at the entrance to the parking lots that vehicles are subject to search. To me, and while I am no lawyer, that tells me that if I continue past that sign, I have essentially agreed to those terms and consent to a search. So search or no search, the right to keep the firearm needs to be protected so if they DO search, there is nothing they can do about it.

Folks, it is time to start contacting our senators and representatives in Nashville regarding a parking lot bill this year. Regardless of how you think they will respond, it is important to get a "yes" or "no" from them. Email them, call them, write letters, a lot.

There are parts of the Florida law that are not applicable in Tennessee and parts that we would not want. That does not disqualify it from being a great starting point to model a similiar law. Your example of the school property provision is a good example of a provision we would not want. It also may not even be relative as, if I am not mistaken, Tennessee specifically allows me to keep a firearm in my vehicle on school property as long as I do not remove the firearm from the vehicle. What Florida has are provisions that protect the employee and the employer. The civil liability provision, in my opinion is at the core of employers and property owners objections. They can claim their concern for employee safety all they want but their main concern is their financial bottom line and that means protecting themselves from civil liability. They couldn't care less about me. Florida also specifcally prohibits an employer or potential employer from making firearm ownership or permit posession a conditon of employement AND they can not even ask about it. I only think that Florida has one of the better laws on the books. Any legislator who drafts a bill would be remis if they didn't look at ALL the state laws and "cherry pick" the laws for the good points and leave out what we don't want or can't use.

Oklahoma started this ball rolling several years ago. Their law has ridden the roller coaster of court challenges and at my latest information has been upheald. Florida's law was also challenged. Deep pockets such as Disney opposed it but they too lost. So that is the long response. The bottom line is that these law ARE withstanding court scrutiny.

I checked their web site. Could not find the story. Any information on when they are going to meet? What is the agenda?