Gun in parking lots

[E4 No More]

Lawmakers Look At New Gun Bill - Nashville News Story - WSMV Nashville

NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- The next gun showdown in the Tennessee Legislature may involve your workplace parking lot.

A House Judiciary Committee heard testimony Tuesday on a bill that would prohibit companies from banning guns in locked cars on company property.

Several large businesses, including FedEx and Bridgestone, testified that this bill would work against policies they have put in place to ensure a safe workplace for their employees.

Gun owners also testified in front of the committee, saying that current policies prohibiting weapons in the parking lot leave them vulnerable to crimes, including carjackings.

The bill could be considered in the upcoming legislative session, which starts in January.

[Guest ArmyVeteran37214]

I hope it gets passed.

http://blogs.tennessean.com/politics/2009/employers-object-to-guns-in-parking-lots/

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/106/Bill/SB1724.pdf - It looks like it was supposed to be passed arlready, or at least thats what it says at the bottom of the PDF.

Edited September 22, 2009 by StreetWK05

[Guest redbarron06]

This needs to go through and quickly.

[jeffjeeptj]

Besides the obvious writing to my state reps, I want to help get this passed. My employer has a prohibiting policy.

[Guest redbarron06]

Besides the obvious writing to my state reps, I want to help get this passed. My employer has a prohibiting policy.

So does mine.

[bubbiesdad]

So does mine.

Mine also, only problem being that they could just find another reason to terminate you.

[Guest redbarron06]

Not quite that easy for me as I work for the Tennessee DOD. It is a union contract even though we dont have to be in the union. All they do right now is send a letter to my CO, not even my full time boss but my weekend commander. This law would only forbid them from doing that. I have already talked to the head of the base security and showed him the law and the AG opinion and that the posting on the base did not meat the minimum to ban firarms. if it did they would have to stop teaching civilian courses on the range. He told me that all they do is right up a report that only goes to my captian and secure the gun until I leave for the day. So this law would just mean that they could not secure my gun from me.

[Guest ArmyVeteran37214]

Mine also, only problem being that they could just find another reason to terminate you.

My co-worker said the same thing!

[Guest mosinon]

I hate this right on right violence!

On the one hand I'm down with the notion that individuals are entitled to carry weapons. You have a right to defend yourself and such.

On the other hand the employer has rights as well. If the employer wants no firearms on his property then that is the employers right, right? For example I have every right to stand on the street corner and spout my philosophy to those who use sidewalk. Incidentally my philosophy is that someone should sell me a mosin nagant in Knoxville and let me shoot hogs on their land, but if I did that in a Dunkin Donuts I would expect them to ask me to leave.

So this seems like a battle of rights, who has the right on private property? I would generally side with the owner of private property. It is, after all, their property. Just because it is my right doesn't mean I get to infringe on their right. You have the option not to work there so it isn't like your right is actually being taken away.

All that said, if they want you gone they'll find a reason and if you leave your gun in your car they will likely never know. I've never worked at a place that included car inspections.

Be smart and I'll bet you never have to worry.

Edited September 23, 2009 by mosinon
cause I'm stupid

[GKar]

Interesting debate today - watched the 90 minute video. Stewart, Sontenay and Coleman...well, 'nuff said. Fincher was a strong proponent and made a point that many just don't seem to get - a sign is not going to stop bad things. Watson was trying to see both sides, and Dennis was really struggling with the property rights angle (he had some other good ideas RE liability immunity, the ridiculousness of some of the Chamber guy's statements, etc). The presenter from Chamber of Commerce vastly overstated some of the employer actions that he said would be required (more guards, cameras, gates). FedEx wanted to use the shock-n-awe approach with their video of the plane hijack (which, BTW, did not involve a firearm, and was clearly premeditated), but failed to demonstrate how the proposed legislature would reasonably be expected to facilitate such happenings (again, the sign thing). Every one of the opponents all lumped possession in a locked vehicle to possession within their facilities. The comments from the FedEx employee (Cooper) were spot on...wonder if he still has a job tomorrow after basically calling the PR dude on the carpet.... Evans finished the session by ripping the industry speakers for bringing info he characterized as blatantly incorrect, and as just putting on a show...but, he then said he does not plan to move this bill in the next session

All that said, it will be thorny as the legislature finds itself struggling to strike a balance between 2nd amendment rights and property rights...Mr. Fincher's comments about protecting RTKBA between your front door and the parking lot hopefully will be heeded.

Interesting too was Fincher's statement that Tenn was the third most violent state in the US...

[Chucktshoes]

Of those of you that like me have an employer that bans employees from having weapons on property/in vehicle, how many allow customers/clients to carry and how many have a complete ban with posted signs? My employer ONLY has a policy against employees possessing weapons or having them in car. Customers can OC if they wish. As far as I am concerned they wouldn't have a leg to stand on with the property rights issue unless they went for a total ban and posted signs at the edge of the parking lot.

[Guest HexHead]

Well, the full court press against this is starting. NewsChannel 5 referred to it last night as the "Guns in the Workplace" law.

[Guest PapaB]

...So this seems like a battle of rights, who has the right on private property? I would generally side with the owner of private property. It is, after all, their property. Just because it is my right doesn't mean I get to infringe on their right. You have the option not to work there so it isn't like your right is actually being taken away...

I agree with your premise, as it is, but I don't think it's fully developed. When I delve deeper into it, I find the employer isn't on such solid ground.

You said "I would generally side with the owner of private property. It is, after all, their property."

Whose private property? Let's not forget, our vehicles are our private property. Do you believe your employer has the right to ban you from having a tire iron in your vehicle? Tire irons have often been used as weapons of destruction but, not having one could put you in harms way as you travel to and from work. Get a flat tire without one and you could be stranded in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's true that a tire irons primary purpose isn't as a weapon of destruction, however a firearms primary purpose, in the possesion of an HCP holder, is for defense, not offense.

How about banning other items such as gangsta rap cd's if they think that the music incites violence? At what point do their rights infringe on yours too much.

Employers provide employee parking as a convenience to themselves, as well as to you. If employees can't find a place to park, the employer will find it hard to keep decent workers and may end up out of business.

While it's somewhat true that you could work somewhere else, many times the choice is to work for a company that bans firearms in your vehicle or be unable to feed, clothe and shelter your family. Not much of a choice for a responsible individual like an HCP holder IMHO.

I think the best compromise is to require firearms be locked in a secure container in the vehicle. A glove compartment would't qualify since most have a cardboard bottom that's not difficult to cut through. A locking console would work as would many gun safes built for attaching to the inside of a vehicle.

Just my worth.

Edited September 23, 2009 by PapaB

[GKar]

Actually, if the legislature would fully recognize and grant private property rights concerning vehicles, that might solve several issues...

To a previous question: my employer has an employee policy barring us from possessing a firearm on "company property". The facility I work at has two parking lots - one immediately adjacent to the facility, and one across the street. The only signage to be found anywhere is on the entrance to the lot across the street, and is not specific to employees. There is no "active" enforcement of the policy - in fact, one of the major players in HR mgmt indicated to me (with a wink) that he locks his carry piece in his car every day in that lot...kinda like the stuation Mr. Cooper described in yesterday's House session with the FedEx facility.

[Guest HexHead]

This really puts a "collective" right up against an individual's right. Most of the businesses putting these signs up are not owned by an individual, but by shareholders, thus making their imposing their will a collective right. Not much better than the government thinking they know what's best for you. In this case the HR and legal departments get together to decide how best to limit their possible liability exposure.

They couldn't care less if you get carjacked or robbed at a gas station on the way home.

[E4 No More]

As far as rights are concerned, let me point out that you have the right to freedom of speach: however, that right has its limits. You do not have the right to put others at risk with said freedom. You cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, for instance.

[Guest mosinon]

You said "I would generally side with the owner of private property. It is, after all, their property."

Whose private property? Let's not forget, our vehicles are our private property. Do you believe your employer has the right to ban you from having a tire iron in your vehicle? Tire irons have often been used as weapons of destruction but, not having one could put you in harms way as you travel to and from work. Get a flat tire without one and you could be stranded in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's true that a tire irons primary purpose isn't as a weapon of destruction, however a firearms primary purpose, in the possesion of an HCP holder, is for defense, not offense.

How about banning other items such as gangsta rap cd's if they think that the music incites violence? At what point do their rights infringe on yours too much.

I see what you're saying but I would argue that sure enough if they wanted to ban tire irons they could. If they wanted to ban gangsta rap they could. I would imagine that an employer could ban you from driving to work and require you to take some form of employer sponsored mass transit or something.

Employers provide employee parking as a convenience to themselves, as well as to you. If employees can't find a place to park, the employer will find it hard to keep decent workers and may end up out of business.

I agree but that's the price they pay for making whacky rules. If a business bans so much stuff that iti is intolerable to the employees they've banned themselves out of business. That's the price they pay.

While it's somewhat true that you could work somewhere else, many times the choice is to work for a company that bans firearms in your vehicle or be unable to feed, clothe and shelter your family. Not much of a choice for a responsible individual like an HCP holder IMHO.

The option is, of course, to not take your gun on their property. Secure parking elsewhere or find a different job. Or realize the chances of them going through your car looking for your gun is about zero and call it a day.

I think the best compromise is to require firearms be locked in a secure container in the vehicle. A glove compartment would't qualify since most have a cardboard bottom that's not difficult to cut through. A locking console would work as would many gun safes built for attaching to the inside of a vehicle.

Just my worth.

That's a practical solution to an impractical situation. Sure it solves the problem but it doesn't really answer the question:). The question is one of rights and whose right is supreme in this instance. Since it is the employer's property I'll side with the employer in this case.

But let me put a different spin on it. I once, many years ago, created a webpage that everyone loved. Everyone but one person. That one person was the owner of the company. After he saw it I got called in the office and they told me that I had to take it down. I was miffed. I thought about free speech and all but then I realized that while I had the right to put up the web page my employer had the right to can my sorry ass for leaving it up. Tennessee is an at will state after all.

This is certainly a more serious case than that, I mean what if you live in a really dangerous area or something? Still the same premise holds true.

[TnEngineer]

I used to work at Government plant in Oak Ridge and the "blue line" starts quite a distance beyond the parking lot so, they enforce strictly "no firearms in vehicles".

After I got to know some of the security people, I kindly let them know that if I ever got acosted to or from work that I was going to drag them "kicking and screaming" into court because they contributed to my ill fate.

They kindly acknowledged. That was a number of years ago.

[Trekbike]

So this seems like a battle of rights, who has the right on private property? I would generally side with the owner of private property. It is, after all, their property. Just because it is my right doesn't mean I get to infringe on their right. You have the option not to work there so it isn't like your right is actually being taken away.

I would agree in principle but states already force laws on property owners. A recent example is outlawing smoking in restaurants unless it is a 21 or older place of business. They didn't allow the owner chose if he wanted to make it smoking or non-smoking.

I don't smoke but I don't agree with the mandate. As a customer if I don't want to be around smoke, I can chose to go a non-smoking establishment.

[Guest mosinon]

I would agree in principle but states already force laws on property owners. A recent example is outlawing smoking in restaurants unless it is a 21 or older place of business. They didn't allow the owner chose if he wanted to make it smoking or non-smoking.

I don't smoke but I don't agree with the mandate. As a customer if I don't want to be around smoke, I can chose to go a non-smoking establishment.

I agree completely. Decisions about smoking and such should be left up to the business. I was and am troubled by the smoking ban.

[TNFlyer]

I hate this right on right violence!

On the one hand I'm down with the notion that individuals are entitled to carry weapons. You have a right to defend yourself and such.

On the other hand the employer has rights as well. If the employer wants no firearms on his property then that is the employers right, right? For example I have every right to stand on the street corner and spout my philosophy to those who use sidewalk. Incidentally my philosophy is that someone should sell me a mosin nagant in Knoxville and let me shoot hogs on their land, but if I did that in a Dunkin Donuts I would expect them to ask me to leave.

So this seems like a battle of rights, who has the right on private property? I would generally side with the owner of private property. It is, after all, their property. Just because it is my right doesn't mean I get to infringe on their right. You have the option not to work there so it isn't like your right is actually being taken away.

All that said, if they want you gone they'll find a reason and if you leave your gun in your car they will likely never know. I've never worked at a place that included car inspections.

Be smart and I'll bet you never have to worry.

I agree it is the property owners right to ban firearms in on their property. But, in many states your vehicle is considered an extension of your home and you may carry a loaded firearm permit or not in your vehicle. I am not sure how this would pertain to carrying a gun on your workplaces property, but it is a law I would like to see passed here in TN, rather than what is currently being proposed.

I think our actions as citizens could shape businesses policies on firearms in a more positive light than using the legislature to infringe on their rights.

If we as gun owners stood up for our rights at work like we do in the way we patronize restaurants and other businesses, we would see a big change in attitude towards us. If everyone challenged their employer about its firearm policy and walked off the job I believe we would see big changes. This would take huge cojones on most peoples part. I think many problems could be solved this way. Just my

[jeffjeeptj]

so,

Who is in Crossville to help me generate a campaign to contact residents to contact the elected officials?

Send me a PM

Thanks

[Guest mosinon]

This really puts a "collective" right up against an individual's right. Most of the businesses putting these signs up are not owned by an individual, but by shareholders, thus making their imposing their will a collective right. Not much better than the government thinking they know what's best for you. In this case the HR and legal departments get together to decide how best to limit their possible liability exposure.

They couldn't care less if you get carjacked or robbed at a gas station on the way home.

Under US law corporations are citizens and IBM has all the rights you, as an individual, have.

Not sure if this is a good thing or not but it goes back a ways.

[analog_kidd]

I used to work at Government plant in Oak Ridge and the "blue line" starts quite a distance beyond the parking lot so, they enforce strictly "no firearms in vehicles".

After I got to know some of the security people, I kindly let them know that if I ever got acosted to or from work that I was going to drag them "kicking and screaming" into court because they contributed to my ill fate.

They kindly acknowledged. That was a number of years ago.

Sadly, I think they will be exempt from this law if it passes. I think all Federal sites will still be able to ban firearms in cars.

Which, I still don't understand how "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" does not apply to them. They are the government, and are infringing on my ability to "keep" a weapon locked in my vehicle, which prevents me from "bearing" it if need be on my way to and from work.

[Guest Straight Shooter]

An employer is just that,and that alone..AN EMPLOYER.They have no special right to deny me of my consitutional rights at all.No..they CANNOT ban tire irons or gansta rap,they have to obey the law too.Just because a person,or a corporation opens a business,gives them NO RIGHT to start doing things contrary to the constitution.

If they dont like it,dont open the business,period. Where and who says an employers rights supecedes mine? My vehicle is MY vehicle,and it will be searched by NO ONE unless an officer of the law HAS A WARRANT. When an employer hires people,he hires them and their rights as well,my rights arent checked at the door when I clock in.

As for smoking in public,your right to smoke ENDS AT MY NOSE. YOU are the one with the filthy habit,YOU go outside,not me...common sense.

This law needs to pass,and soon.It is sorely needed.