Sky King

DITTO

The bill is on the agenda back in the House Judiciary committee for Tuesday, May 3rd. I am trying to decide whether or not to go back to Nashville. In any case, we again need to flood the committee members with phone calls and emails.

I am having difficulty getting the video from the General Assemby web site to play. In any case, since there was a floor vote on tabling the amendment, there will be a record of who voted and how. A great many of the people I talk to and the forum posts I read all seem to have one person in common, Vance Dennis. There has to be a core group of the Republicans in the House that seem bound and determined to stall and jam up any pro-gun legislation. Some people refer to them as RINO's, I am thinking of them as Naifeh Republicans. Regardless of what they are, one thing is sure, they don't want this bill to come to the floor because it will require them to make a vote that is recorded. They don't want the backlash from the Tea Party and conservative Republicans who put them office. But the RINOs need to have a strong reminder sent to them just who put them in office. Our displeasure needs to be communicated in no uncertain terms. They seem to forget that they are supposed to be working for us, not Fedex or Bridgestone. From the General Assembly web page. Here are the members who voted YES to table Eddie Bass's amendment; Representatives voting aye were: Brooks H, Brooks K, Butt, Carr, Casada, Coley, Dennis, Dunn, Eldridge, Ford, Harrison, Haynes, Hurley, Keisling, Kernell, Lundberg, Marsh, Matlock, McCormick, McManus, Miller D, Montgomery, Odom, Powers, Ramsey, Roach, Sargent, Sexton, Shipley, Sparks, Weaver, Williams R, Wirgau, Womick, Madam Speaker Harwell -- 35. These members ARE NOT our friends

I got this response from Rep. Bass today; "Sam, as of now I have a amendment filed for this when it comes to the floor, my intention is to run this unless it appears the support is not there.........Eddie " I understand what you mean about their comments concerning support. I find it all quite confusing. If every Representative or Senator who SAID they support the bill BUT the votes aren't there would vote for the bill, it would pass. I would REALLY like to know just WHO are the ones who are not supporting the bill and if they REALLY amount to enough votes to keep it from passing. I am really interested in watching the proceedings on the House Floor to see just who it is that is throwing up the roadblocks.

Ok, I just spent the last hour on the phone and writing emails. I have called Gov. Haslam, Lt. Gov. Ramsey, Senator Campfield, Rep, Judd Matheny and Rep. Joshua Evans. I asked Gov. Haslam and Lt. Gov Ramsey to use the influence of their respective offices to push these bills as origionally written. In all the emails, I put a link to a press release where Gov. Haslam and Lt. Gov. Ramsey come out in support of this legislation as origionally written. HB2021 is set to be heard on the House floor tomorrow, Wednesday the 27th. Representative Joshua Evans needs to be convinced that his commitment to the other members to not push the bill as origionally written in return for their support has been fulfilled. If the amendment by Eddie Bass to return the bill to its origional intent is presented and passes, Rep. Evans has kept his word. However, Rep. Evans has said that he will withdraw the bill if there is any attempt to amend the bill back. My message to Rep. Evans, "let the process run its course, you have kept your word".

I never meant that as a moderator, one should refrain from expressing one's opinion or positon. My issue was that the two involved, strickj and Robert just kept going and going and going, like the Energizer Bunny. Moderator or not, all I wanted to say, as I said before, enough is enough. Nobody reading this thread can honestly say they don't get your positions. I will NEVER say a person should not be able to express their beliefs. But come on, can you HONESTLY say you two didn't take this a bit far? The topic is the lack of support for HB 2021. And after this past two weeks of being in Nashville, I TRUELY come to the conclusion, (as I have already stated), a lot of those legislators are just hiding behind the "property rights" thing. They really don't give a crap about property rights. They are more afraid of loosing the finacial support of the business lobby than they are about loosing my vote in the next election or whether or not I get killed by some thug looking to score his next rock of crack on the side of the road on my way home from work.

To say EXACTLY where I thought this thread would go, I can not say for certain. I know I was very dissapointed in the course this bill was taking and how the sponsors were taking it. I was more concerned with the "why" and trying to motivate those in favor of it to take action to contact their respective representatives. I could certainly expect the expression of opinions, even strong opionions and feelings. I would rather the direction of this thread to remain generally within the scope of monitoring and status of the bill and what was happening in the legislative process of the bill so as to keep those interested informed. Information is vital if you are going to contact your representatives to express your positon on the bill, whether for it or against it. I have to admit, I too was sucked into the side debates but quicklly grew tired of it. I am a member of several other forums of various interests. I feel one responsibility, among others, of a moderator (I am not a moderator) is to keep a thread on track. Keep the trolls at bay. It didn't take long for me to want to say to strickj and robert, "OK, I GET IT, TAKE IT OUTSIDE". After a few exchanges, it wasn't hard to know where they stand. They have their right to their respective positon and I don't mind saying that I agree with Robert, but enough is enough. I have no doubt that strickj will have some snide response to this, maybe even about my spelling. But in the end, even incorrectly spelled, he knew what I meant and that is all that matters. The House bill HB2021 will be on the house floor this Wednesday. The Senate companion bill has not yet been heard in committe.

One thing I have learned, the older I get, the smarter my Dad gets. When I was young, dumb and full of it, I was the smartest person on earth. But as I got older, I realized, that my Dad was not so dumb after all. Experience is an unmerciful teacher. One day some of the folks on this forum will realize that. I have had to eat a lot of crow in my years and it doesn't really taste all that good, but what can I say. When you look at folks who are way older than you, they just appear out of touch. I know because I looked at older people that way. But looking back, I can only wish I had listened. I could have avoided a lot of rocks in the road if I had just listened. But NO, I had to learn the hard way. I have children and grandchildren. Both of my children now admit that I wasn't so dumb after all, and neither was my dad. My Mother used to say "Your rights end where my nose begins". I believe that. So you can take your property rights and shove them where the sun doesn't shine. When it comes to my inalienable right to protect my right to life, your property rights can just go to he##. And if you don't think property rights can be overridden, just look at the issues involving immenent domain, where the government can take your property whether you want to sell it or not. Yes, they have to pay you for it, but you don't have the ability to say no. They will "buy" it from you whether you want to sell it or not.

You have proved nothing. You have not shown any statutes or ordinances to substanciate the multitude of claims you have made concerning laws, ordinances and tax issues that apply to business. Everything you have stated has been your opinion. The "taking of rights" to satisfy others is not without presidence. I started this thread to discuss the imediate progress of HB2021 and the issues causing it's hinderance. But I am dismayed at a moderator of this forum allowing threads being hijacked for the personal debate of two. I am here for the furtherance of our rights to keep and bear arms and my natural inalienable right to life. I really don't care what you think, NO MAN has the right to deny my right to protect my right to life, I really don't care whose property I may be on at the time. I will not respond to you any further. Go hijack some other thread.

Personally your running debate with Robert has actually caused both of you to loose a great deal of credibility with me. I have NEVER contended that a business/employer didn't have property rights. My point has always been that a balance of rights need to be achieved. In cases where two right run head on, a decision has to be made about whose rights are being infringed the most. While I said many posts ago I wasn't going to debate this any more, I have to tell you that if you do some research into the Tennessee General Assembly and The Tennessee Code Anotated, you will find quite a few laws passed on behalf of just a few. I can even give you an example of where a law was passed for just ONE establishment in Tennessee giving it the right to be clasified as a "Restaurant" in order to qualify for a beer and liquor license. The very fact that this law would impact a very few just emphasizes how little an employer's rights are being effected. For most, there would be NO infringement. And in all reality, based on what I have learned in the last couple of weeks, I have come to the conclusion that those in the General Assembly who oppose this law, VERY FEW of them really give a rats a$$ about property rights. It all comes down to money. Eariler in this thread, I was chastized for saying that small businesses did not matter when I did not mention any of them when referring to comments made by committee members in hearings. That was NOT what I said. I said that big business, (and THEY named a few) were all THEY mentioned. What does that tell you. Big business pours big money into campaigns. If "Bob's Bakery" could put the kind of money into the political pot, they would get the same notice as Bridgestone Firestone, FedEx, UPS, General Tire and so on. As for the Florida law, you are a bit behind the times. Their law passed a few years ago and has already been challenged and upheld in the Federal Courts.

If you want to see what I feel to be the REAL road block to this bill, read this. As the saying goes, Money talks, and you know the rest. Study: Memphis-based FedEx has more clout on Capitol Hill than UPS » The Commercial Appeal Those who oppose this bill can claim anything they want as a reason, but IMHO, it all boils down to money.

YES!! I called myself watching for this. I looked early this morning and it had not been placed on the House calendar.

It isn't dead but it certainly is in need of life support and CPR. For a while there was some hope that an amemdment by Eddie Bass could restore the bill to oridional intent. However after talking to Rep. Josh Evans, the bill sponsor, Tuesday night at the Nashville TFA meeting, Bass's amendment will kill the bill if it passes because Rep Evans will withdraw the bill if that happens. So right now, the way I understand it, the only way Rep. Evans will allow the bill to get out is that it has to pass in it's current form, neutered. I am beginning to have several mixed thoughts about this. At first, Rep. Evans, (go back to the early posts in this thread), pointed to the NRA and TFA for not getting behind this bill. Well I don't expect much of any thing on the state level from The NRA but I know the TFA has stepped up the pressure. Now lack of support from other Republican members is being blamed. Without a doubt, there are a good number of Republican members who are claiming the property rights argument to justify their lack of support for the bill. The number of members who suddenly jumped on as co-sponsors following the neutering amendment is evidence of this. However what I really think is that it all boils down to money. These RINOs are forgetting who they are there to represent. While I understand Josh Evans's desire to keep his word to his fellow House members, to not push a mandate bill in return for their support, I feel his commitment has been fulfilled if the bill is amended on the floor by another member and then passed. I also feel his allegiance is misplaced. His first allegiance is to his constituants and the citizens of Tennessee, not the other members of The General Assembly or to businesses. I believe a good deal of letters to Mr. Evans, to RESPECTFULLY ask him to reconsider his position to kill the bill if an amendment restoring the bill gains any traction on the House floor.

So if I work Circle K, the boss is a male, I am a female, if he stated it up front, then I could be required to accept any sexual advances every day before starting my day? Where do you draw the line on an employers to dictate ANY condition of employement. Does that include the willingness to engage in criminal acts? In an earlier post, you ask about laws specific to being in business, how about the main business law, the one that requires you to obtain a business LICENSE.

I have not read Eddie Bass's amendment. It really doesn't matter. I spoke with Josh Evans at the Nashville TFA meeting. He said that he will kill the bill if the Bass amendment passes. Since it is his bill, he can kill it at any time and he said that with that amendment, he will withdraw the bill and send it back to the calendar and rules committee. I understand his reasoning but I don't agree with it. He has committed to those supporting the bill as amended to not change it back and he is trying to keep his word. I feel that if it is amended by the House members on the floor, they have taken it out of his hands and his commitment has been honored. But that is the way it is. We still have HB 0355 if we can get it moving fast enough. Time is running out for this year. While I understand what Josh Evans is trying to do, I just can't support HB2021 as it is now. Some see my position as a "all or nothing" approach and that is ok with me. Josh Evans has tried for several years to get a bill like this through. The proplem is support from his collegues is non-existant. While they SAY they are concerned with the property rights issue, IMHO, FedEx, General Tire, UPS and so on are just pumping too much money into their campaigns. The need to be reminded WHO it was that cast the votes that put them in there. I have come to believe that Josh Evans is sincerely trying but the rest of the Republican members need to remember just WHO they are supposed to be representing. They need to be reminded in no uncertain terms. I am so leaning towards the TEA Party. We need to send a message loud and clear that RINOs just don't cut it.

I too have never said that such a law wouldn't infringe on rights. But I still believe that it represents a need to balance rights. Since Tennessee implemented the permit process, our society has had to slowly come to terms with law abiding citizens carrying concealed weapons. At first, legally you couldn't even gas up your car at a Mapco or go to Kroger because you were on a property that sold beer. As time has marched on, HCP holders have proven their trustworthiness and privileges have been expanded. At most every step, opponents have argued stongly often with dire predictions of blood flowing as a result of shootouts everywhere. They have been proven wrong. Even with the restaurant bill, having now comming close to a year, we havn't had the drunken shootouts that were predicted. It has been said that many of the restaurants that quickly posted have actually started to take down their signs because once again HCP holders have proven themselves. So where am I going with this? With each one of these examples, to get past the false fears, these things had to be "forced" upon society. Think of it in a way like a kid not wanting to take the medicine that will make him better, but once taken, he feels better. Yes, a business owner will have one of his rights stepped on but in all fairness, it is one "stepping on" that won't really hurt him or cost him anything. It is a balancing of rights. For those without permits, nothing changes.

You are correct. In fact, I have heard it said in other discussions that it could be in the employers interest to NOT stated a reason to dismiss an employee. Just simply state that their employement is being terminated, end of story. If a reason WERE to be stated, I heard it argued that the terminated employee COULD in a wrongful termination suit force the employer to show proof to substianciate the termination on the grounds given. Not being a lawyer, I don't know if this is true but it sounds reasonable.

No, you are not right on this. Tennessee IS a right to work state. The "Right to Work" does not refer to the employer, it relates to the employee. A right to work is in referance to an employee being able to work without being required to join or belong to a union, fraternal labor organization or other collective bargaining organization. In contrast, Kentucky is a "closed shop state", meaning that a union can have in their contract that new employees MUST join the representing union to retain their employement at the company. Thus, you do NOT have a right to work. Tennessee law protects the employee by saying a union can not require your membership to work at a company where a union has a presence, thus you have a "right to work". The situation YOU are referring to is called "employement at will" Meaning that an employer or employee can terminate the employement relationship "at will" with no cause. The employer does not have to have or state a reason to terminate your employement.

First I said I was not going to get into this debate. This has been beaten back and forth on this forum by others to unknown extent. I NEVER said that about only those with money and time matter. I am only telling you what I have heard the representatives in Nashville say. They always refer to the UPS's, FedEx's and so on and talk about how many jobs they bring to the state and how much of a financial impact they have in the state. I never hear THEM talk about "Bob's Bakery". So you need to ask THEM who matters, not me That may be the way it is in the TCA, (just like in the restaurant carry bill issue, there is no such thing as a "bar" in Tennessee either according to the TCA, but we all know there are "BARS") but I don't think anybody is going to come into your house and do a health inspection on your kitchen or require a vent with fire surpression over the stove. Your driveway, doors, and other facilities such as restrooms don't have to be handicap accessable. Do you have lighted "EXIT" signs at all your doors with battery backup and emergency lighting in case the power fails? There are a great many more examples but none of these make your BUSINESS property any less PRIVATE but when you open it up to public access for the purpose of doing business, you open it up to regulation that just DOES NOT applly to your place of residence. And as it is now, my employers rights extend beyond the bounds of his property lines. By telling me I can not have my weapon in my car in the parking lot, he has said I can not have it in my car the minute I leave my driveway when my car is NOT on hiis property. Unless you have figured out what to do with it when I get to his parking lot, I can't have it. So HIS reach extends beyond his property. And besides, just as you claim to be as pro-gun as anybody, I am a strong propertry rights advocate. This is a classic example of two rights hitting head on. You have to ask whose "right" trumps whose. Who is more harmed or has the greater potential for harm. If I keep my firearm locked, out of sight in my car, (by the way which is MY property), how has he been harmed. And with the liability protection in the bill he is protected in that respect as well. HOWEVER, by disarming me during my commute, I loose the ability to protect myself and stand to be at risk as others have described in great detail already. And fortunately, those opposed to the RESTAURANT CARRY BILL, (that is what it was, I only heard opponents and the media characterize it as "guns in bars"). have not had their fears come to fruition. As most all the other bills that have expanded the privelages of permit holders, the ney sayers and chicken littles predicting that the sky will fall have been wrong. As for valuing rights, I value the rights of others but as my mother used to say, "your rights end where my nose begins". And when in some cases where rights come in conflict, somebody is going to have a bit of their rights stepped on a bit. What you have to ask is to what degree are the rights going to be imposed upon and by imposing on them, who is going to be impacted the most and has the highest risk for harm. Beyond this, we are just going to have to agree to disagree. All of these points, both from your side and mine have all been presented many times. Obviously neither side is willing to concede so I am not going to debate these issues any further. I goal here has always been to get support for the passage of this and similiar bills. If you don't agree, the best thing I can suggest is for you to contact your representatives in Nashville. You will not sway me, I will obviously not sway you, and I have no vote in The General Assembly.

In all the times I have been to Nashville over the years for bills such as this, the ONLY small business as you describe that I ever saw represented was a local busniness owner from Memphis who is in favor of this bill. Yes, you are constituants but the business lobby that is always there, and the representatives always make referance to are NOT you. They are the FedEx's, General Tire, paid lobbiests from large business coalitions. There was a major railway represented. I am not going to restart the debate over private property used for business and private property that is a persons residence. There are real differances in what the law ALREADY says about property open to public access for the purpose of doing business. And if your business is large enough to have ANY employees, even if it is one, I believe he should be able to keep his or her LEGAL weapon, stored, out of sight, locked in THEIR private property, their car. You are not harmed or in any danger by allowing this. If I were a small business with just a few employees, if I didn't trust them enough to allow them, having passed all the requirements to get the permit, to keep their weapon stored in their car while at work, I wouldn't have them working for me in the first place.

If I were a business in Tennessee, I would be happy too. They hand me liability protection and I don't have to do anything to do it. Anybody who thinks that the busniness community in Tennessee that have a firearm prohibition will change their policy based on this law, is living on a cloud. They are laughing and partying over this. You said you are not sure exactly what this means. It means that the bill as initially introduced by Joshua Evans HAD a requirement that employers must allow employees to keep LEGALLY owned and possessed weapons in their PRIVATE vehicle while parked on their employers parking lot. It origionally had the liability protection also. However Rep Evans introduced an amendment (written by the way by Vance Dennis) which stripped all the mandates to the employers to allow employees keep their weapons in their cars but retained the liability protection should they CHOOSE on their own to allow the weapons. They can still choose to retain their prohibition and posting. What does it mean? Our Republican party leaders listen more to the business lobby more than they do their constituants. It boils down to $$$$$

As I drove home from Nashville, I had two questions come to mind. The first one was based on Rep Vance Dennis's comments about this being an opportunity for the business community to do the right thing. He also indicated that this kind of served as a "warning" because if they don't come around, the next step will be a bill with the mandate. Ok, how long do we give the business community. One year, two, three, five? Next question is based on the way I read the amended bill, the lliability protections are predicated on a business changing it's policy and removing the posts prohibiting the storage of weapons. OK, what if they DON't change the policy? Since the liability protections are tied to a policy change, do the employers who DON'T change NOT protected from liability and subject to legal action if an incident ocurrs on their property.

Let me guess, it was Ron Ramsey, second would be your representative, but I will fall over dead if you say Speaker Harwell called. There is one thing that is for sure. Regardless of what happens in committee meetings and behind closed doors, when it comes to the floor, votes are counted and recorded. If Mr. Bass introduces his amendment on the floor, the members will have to put their votes on record. That means we need to totally flood the offices of our representatives with calls and emails. The need to know we are watching. I had a conversation with my representative, Antonio Parkinson this morning via phone. He was elected to fill the vacated seat of Ulyssys Jones when Rep Jones died. I have a local relationship with Mr. Parkinson in that we are both members of a local community group. I brought Mr. Parkinson up to speed on the situation and reminded him that I had spoken with him face-to-face at the polling place concerning pro Second Amendment issues. I then put it as blunt as I could. I was EXPECTING him to make good on his campaign statements that as a permit holder he too was supportive of gun rights and the associated rights to carry.

"A rat" is putting it quite nicely. I arrived at Legislative Plaza about an hour and a half prior to the hearing. I got to speak to Eddie Bass, he indicated that he would wait and see how things go before deciding whether to introduce his amendment. He said that if I wanted to be heard, I would have to go to the committee charman, Eric Watson. When I went there I was not able to see him but his secretary advised I could catch him in the hearing room prior to the start of the hearing. Next I caught up with Vance Dennis. I was pretty much blown off, he said that there weren't enough votes and did not really agree with me about the issue of my right to carry a weapon. Rep. Dennis said that without the amendment, the bill was dead. I told him that WITH the amendment, the bill was essentially worthless, NO company is going to change their policy based on this bill, they have no reason to do so and I said that as amended it wouldn't hurt my feelings if the bill DID die. After that I caught Judd Matheny, Speaker Pro-tempore. I figured he would have some sway with the Republican members. He too pretty much echoed the same rhetoric that Vance Dennis spewed out with the exception that he did not disagree with my right to carry a weapon. He just repeated the thing about not enough votes. The committee hearing was a joke. You can hear everything that was said BUT what you CAN'T SEE is what is going on. When Joshua Evans was being questioned by Rep. Mike Stewart about the broadness of the liability language, Vance Dennis and the member to HIS left were sending hand signals to Evans. And when he was asked if he would consider an amendment to tighten up that language, Dennis AND his colegue in union BOTH strongly shook their heads "NO". Evans was regularly looking to these two and didn't say "no" to the question utill he saw Dennis and colegue indicate "NO". So I don't know what I attended. I thought i was going to a committee hearing but it seems what I as at was really just a puppet show with Vance Dennis, Judd Matheny and others pulling the strings. If they have that much influence and power, I would say that if they told the other Republican members to vote for the bill, we wouldn't have a problem. I don't know what is really happening and at this point, I don't think we will ever know.

Well saying the "contact" is wrong, BUT, I did go to Nashville today and Vance Dennis stated during the discussion on the amendment that he helped Joshua Evans draft the amendment. AND the only members who voiced ANY objection to the amendment were Democrat members as far as I know. There was one who I am not sure of his party affiliation.