HB0355 (McDonald): Parking lot bill filed 2/7/11

[Sky King]

If this doesn’t get a lot of press it might have a chance. If it gets the attention “guns in bars†got; its dead.

Because it is specifically a pro-gun bill, there is NO WAY it will miss the scrutiny of the press. There is no way we can keep a bill like this below the radar. With Speaker Harwell comments concerning pro-gun legislation, they will be all over it like a rat on a cheeto. Remember President Bush's "NO NEW TAXES"?

I can think of a few things that could make it a bit more palatable for the public. First we don't make it "gun specific". For example, the weapons policy at the company I work does not just limit the policy to guns. It gives examples and then states that it is not limited to those examples so it leaves it open ended. It lists things like knives, clubs, starters pistols, flare guns and disabling sprays. SO when the little lady has a small can of pepper spray on her key chain, she can be fired where I work.

So where am I going with this. We need to play on the sympathy of anybody who chooses to have ANYTHING for self defence whether it is a gun, a club, a can of pepper spray or anything and state that some companies are TOTALLY denying their employees the right to self defence during their commute.

Put the young, small lady, (not trying to be sexist here) out there and tell them that employers are going so far as to say that she can not even keep a can of pepper spray in her car to defend herself against a thug during her commute.

Make it a "DEFENCIVE DEVICE" protection law. I wouldn't even mention guns, firearms or anything specific. I would only state that if it is LEGAL and LEGALLY possessed, then it can be kept secure in the persons private vehicle no matter where it is parked.

Edited February 10, 2011 by Sky King
added input

[Worriedman]

I think this DOES have a chance to pass. Having looked at what an "Castle Doctrine" extension might generate via the legalese current in that section, I believe the present suggested law is "cleaner", as Fallguy suggested in another thread. This might just be the best path to achieve a foothold. Given some time to present empiracle data that "HCP" as a modifier to the exemption posses no threat, then moving to "firearms" permitted under the HCP, e.g. long guns, might be a logical next step.

[Sky King]

I think this DOES have a chance to pass. Having looked at what an "Castle Doctrine" extension might generate via the legalese current in that section, I believe the present suggested law is "cleaner", as Fallguy suggested in another thread. This might just be the best path to achieve a foothold. Given some time to present empiracle data that "HCP" as a modifier to the exemption posses no threat, then moving to "firearms" permitted under the HCP, e.g. long guns, might be a logical next step.

Not to change the subject, but how are the roads up your way? Is your chapter still meeting tomorrow night?

[Worriedman]

It is pretty slick on the side roads. Now that they have the big wrecks off of I-40, it is not too bad, 45 and 412 are clearing up. We will have our meeting.

[Guest ARMEDMARINE]

I wonder if this allow military to carry on state bases?

[Guest ArmyVeteran37214]

I wonder if this allow military to carry on state bases?

If I had to make a guess, my guess would be NO. Just my opinion.

[RobertNashville]

I would very much like to see, eventually, a general “parking lot†bill where NO parking lot that exists for the “public†and/or for “employees†(in other words, not solely for individual/private use) can be either “posted†against firearms or in any way be able to limit the ability of a person from having a legally carried firearm in his/her vehicle provided the weapon(s) is kept in the vehicle and out of sight. I wouldn’t just limit it to HCP holders but to anyone provided they can legally possess the firearm(s) and provided they are otherwise legally being carried/transported. As I said initially, however, it think getting there is going to be a “baby step†process.

Specifically with this bill, I expect that, if it makes it through the legislature it will be modified to make it more palatable; that would include some provision for limiting a business/employer’s liability.

That said, while I understand why such a provision might make the bill more "acceptable", I do wonder, however why such a provision is actually necessary or how it would accomplish anything??? Whether a business or parking lot is or isn’t posted or firearms are prohibited as a matter of just “company policy†OR even if employers/businesses are required by legislation (like this bill) to allow firearms in locked vehicles in parking lots; how could the actions of a criminal be the business/employer’s responsibility (absence some actual negligence on the part of the business)?

Whether it’s an employee or non-employee or just a general thug/bad guy; how is any business/employer “liable†for the illegal acts of an individual? We all know we live in a litigious society…that said, is ANY law going to stop a lawsuit if someone is shot? If there truly is any negligence on the part of the business/employer I doubt any “liability†provision would protect them. I suppose something like the provision we have in Tennessee protecting a justified shooter from civil liability could be included but even that provision won’t prevent a lawsuit and in will NEVER protect a shooter from liability when an innocent is hurt/killed by his bullet even if shooting the BG was justified.

[Guest nicemac]

Whether it’s an employee or non-employee or just a general thug/bad guy; how is any business/employer “liable” for the illegal acts of an individual? We all know we live in a litigious society…that said, is ANY law going to stop a lawsuit if someone is shot? If there truly is any negligence on the part of the business/employer I doubt any “liability” provision would protect them. I suppose something like the provision we have in Tennessee protecting a justified shooter from civil liability could be included but even that provision won’t prevent a lawsuit and in will NEVER protect a shooter from liability when an innocent is hurt/killed by his bullet even if shooting the BG was justified.

My corporate attorney told me that the company is worried about several things, including an accidental discharge that could injure someone.

[DaveTN]

It’s not about liability for criminals or thugs. It’s about “Deep Pockets†and paydays.

If Bubba is showing his new to gun to his friends in the parking lot of Nissan and he cranks off a round killing an innocent person across the parking lot. The wife of the innocent person is going to sue Nissan. Nissan will settle rather than fight it.

It would be great if the property owner couldn’t be named in the suit; but I bet that won’t happen.

[Guest nicemac]

But the fact that Nissan would be named in that suit, despite Bubba being an idiot, is why these policies are in place. All they have to say is "Bubba was violating company policy against bringing guns on company property." That would diminish their liability considerably, if not totally.

The new law (if it gets out of committee) will need to address that.

[Sky King]

My corporate attorney told me that the company is worried about several things, including an accidental discharge that could injure someone.

I know what he is trying to say but in reality, there is no such thing as an "accidental discharge". A gun fires because somebody was acting carelessly and stupid and THAT person deserves to sued if anybody is being sued for negligence.

But the fact that Nissan would be named in that suit, despite Bubba being an idiot, is why these policies are in place. All they have to say is "Bubba was violating company policy against bringing guns on company property." That would diminish their liability considerably, if not totally.

I agree they would probably be sued. The existance of a no weapons policy is not going to shield a property owner/employer from liability. A plaintiff could state that the existance of a policy alone is no way to guarantee the absence of weapons. In certain circumstances one could claim that unless more proactive measures are taken to insure the absence of weapons that the property owner/employer has not done enough. The provision must be in the law that protects the property owner/employer from law suits under certain circumstances.

Think of other private property situations. If you own a home with a swimming pool in the back yard, just putting up a sign prohibiting uninvited people, if you don't take more definitive measures such as a high fence with a locked gate, you can still be sued if the next door neighbor kid gets in your yard and drowns in your pool.

[RobertNashville]

I don't know if there are any examples one way or the other but I have serious doubts that any law or any company policy or any posting against firearms is going to stop/protect a business from getting sued (and the company likely settling rather than fight it)...further, i don't see that changing whether there is or isn't a "parking lot bill". In other words, on a realistic basis, I doubt that a parking lot bill truly represents greater liability for a business/employer.

The only way I can see a business/employer truly being held harmless would be if the legislation in some way made it virtually impossible for a plaintiff to ever collect on such a suit should they bother to file (and can find an attorney to do so without money up front since the chance of winning would be slim in that case). I'm not opposed to such language...I'm just suggesting that the wording would have to be very strong and unassailable to actually have an impact!

[DaveTN]

I doubt that a parking lot bill truly represents greater liability for a business/employer.

You don’t know that. In a wrongful death suit the victim’s family will claim that the employer had a duty to maintain a safe work environment. When Bubba kills someone in the parking lot I would think a business owner would be in a lot better shape heading into a trial if he posted his property than if he allowed people to carry.

This isn't a case of bad business owners; it's a case of bad legislators. Acknowledge the 2nd amendment as an individual right to carry and these problems will be a lot easier to deal with.

It’s the height of Hypocrisy for any legislator to think they can make it a crime to carry a gun on the streets and then try to bully business owners into allowing a “state approved special group†of people to have guns on private property.

[RobertNashville]

You don’t know that. In a wrongful death suit the victim’s family will claim that the employer had a duty to maintain a safe work environment. When Bubba kills someone in the parking lot I would think a business owner would be in a lot better shape heading into a trial if he posted his property than if he allowed people to carry.

This isn't a case of bad business owners; it's a case of bad legislators. Acknowledge the 2nd amendment as an individual right to carry and these problems will be a lot easier to deal with.

It’s the height of Hypocrisy for any legislator to think they can make it a crime to carry a gun on the streets and then try to bully business owners into allowing a “state approved special group†of people to have guns on private property.

You are right I don't know but, respectfully, neither do you...we are all just "supposing" here.

While I don't have any idea what all businesses do with regards to firearms in their parking lots, I can say that my employer and several large employers I'm aware of haven't "posted" their property at all...it's simply a matter of company "policy"; I doubt that a company policy will provide them any protection from liability. Besides, such a "policy" has absolutely no impact on a non-employee or a simple criminal thug...in fact, such a visitor and/or criminal wouldn't even know the policy existed.

I'm also not aware of any precedent in the law that an employer's obligation to provide a "safe work environment" extends beyond what is specifically required by Federal/state laws or that any responsibility extends to being responsible for the illegal/criminal acts of others (especially non-employees)...of course, i don't get out much and I'm not an attorney!

Finally...I don't wish to start a huge argument here but I'm not convinced that the Second Amendment is an individual to "carry"...to possess, yes...to be ready to defend their state and their country...but not necessarily to "carry" without restriction. If I"m correct then the individual states DO have a right to regulate the "wearing of arms". Now...let me add that I think the right to protect yourself is even more basic...dare I say even more important then the Second amendment...so basic that the founders didn't see a need to explicitly state it in the Bill of Rights. It also follows that people should be allowed the tools to effectively defend themselves...but...since the Constitution isn't (in my humble opinion) explicit on the issue; I think that the states, not the Federal government, is where this has to be hashed out and the battle won.

[Guest nicemac]

My company parking area is not posted, it is merely company policy. However, our lots are restricted by card access to enter. "No guns in your car" is a condition of employment you have to agree to (and sign) when you are hired, along with a bunch of others.

If I were a company facing a suit, I would love to have that document sitting in my file cabinet, signed by Bubba, that said he agreed not to have a gun in the car. It would make it much trickier for a lawyer to convince a jury to award much of the company's money to someone injured by Bubba, knowing he was contractually obligated to not have his gun on the premises in the first place.

No guarantees of course, but I would rather be in that position than not.

[DRM]

Well, this won't get my support.

As we covered in other threads, I am opposed to removing a property owner's right to ask someone to leave their property if they do not want guns on their property.

More than that - I think the limitation to only HCP holders is what stinks in this bill - and it stinks of choosing favorites so that a select few can get what they want, everyone-else-be-damned.

In short - *if* this was a bill to allow ALL legal gun owners the ability to have a gun in their car, I'd probably hold my nose and support it in some way. But as it stands, it's nothing more than a special interest bill (HCP holders) and although I am an HCP holder, I'm not that selfish.

All, or none - that's my stand.

[RobertNashville]

Well, this won't get my support.

Now that's a shocker!

As we covered in other threads, I am opposed to removing a property owner's right to ask someone to leave their property if they do not want guns on their property.

All, or none - that's my stand.

And in politics, "all or none" usually gets you the "none" part of the equation.

I'm not sure if the concept of incremental steps escapes you or if you do understand that but, given your prior statements on the subject, "none" is simply what you want.

Edited February 11, 2011 by RobertNashville

[DRM]

And in politics, "all or none" usually gets you the "none" part of the equation.

I see no mention or intention of this later transitioning to adding rights for ALL legal gun owners. What this bill says to me is selfish HCP holders just wanting to get *their* way, "who cares about anyone else".

I have no problem standing firm in my position that does not further drive a wedge between legal gun owning citizens and the special HCP holder "club", even if that means I - as an HCP holder - don't get special perks.

[Guest Guy N. Cognito]

All, or none - that's my stand.

When you want to move mountains, you move it boulder by boulder.

[DRM]

When you want to move mountains, you move it boulder by boulder.

When you want to move mountains - you generally don't get it done by telling the bulk of your workforce "no, really - help us get this done for our little group to reap the benefits, and we promise we'll come back to get the rest of you!"

[Guest nicemac]

When I talked to my state Senator, he said this is being approached as if the interior of your car is an extension of your home (an extension of the Castle doctrine). Yes, the property owner has rights as to what is on his property, but inside your car is your property.

[Guest Guy N. Cognito]

When you want to move mountains - you generally don't get it done by telling the bulk of your workforce "no, really - help us get this done for our little group to reap the benefits, and we promise we'll come back to get the rest of you!"

Sure you do. Happens all the time. Allowing hcp holders to keep vehicles in their cars may be the first step to allowing car carry for others, if you want that sort of thing.

[DRM]

Sure you do. Happens all the time. Allowing hcp holders to keep vehicles in their cars may be the first step to allowing car carry for others, if you want that sort of thing.

Is that coming from the author of the bill, or just your speculation?

Is that your strategy to convince the average gun owner they need to support this - that they "may" get this ability one day too?

If we presumably can't get all gun owners this right *now*, do you have reason to believe that you can get all gun owners this right next year? Or perhaps in 3 years? What is the game plan for moving forward with that (Assuming that is the eventual goal)?

And in 3 years, when HCP holders have the right and nobody else does, are you satisfied knowing you got what *you* wanted, tough-luck for all of the other legal gun owners? I'm just not satisfied with that position, personally.

[Guest nicemac]

Asking nicely:

If this becomes the only sticking point, why not just go get a permit?

Personally, I would rather get rights for anyone willing to go get a permit than not get them for anyone.

[Punisher84]

Is that coming from the author of the bill, or just your speculation?

Is that your strategy to convince the average gun owner they need to support this - that they "may" get this ability one day too?

If we presumably can't get all gun owners this right *now*, do you have reason to believe that you can get all gun owners this right next year? Or perhaps in 3 years? What is the game plan for moving forward with that (Assuming that is the eventual goal)?

And in 3 years, when HCP holders have the right and nobody else does, are you satisfied knowing you got what *you* wanted, tough-luck for all of the other legal gun owners? I'm just not satisfied with that position, personally.

Oh get out of here with that ****. I don't see "the average gun owner" beating down doors for this type of legislation. This has always been a permit holder and normal carrier issue. Most gun owners don't give a **** and that's why the laws are the way they are. Its a "special group" that wants this passed and it's those people who will get it passed, not the lazy average gun owner with a hunting rifle and Granddad's .38.