Another Parking Lot bill: SB 2061/HB 2021 (Campfield/Evans)

[GKar]

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/SB2061.pdf

This one is rather interesting. Tries to address the liabilities issues, makes proviso for "firearms" instead of "handgun", and calls for all costs of an unsuccessful lawsuit brough against the employer should such firearm be used in a crime to be borne by the plaintiff.

Lets try to keep the discussion focused on the specific details of the bill and its progress within the legislature, and not beat a bloodied carcass anymore with all the well-trodden opinions about overall property rights, etc, OK?

[RobertNashville]

I generally like the wording of this - it seems to takes a good bit of the wind out of the sales of the "employer liability" argument.

I really do wish they didn't just limit this to HCP holders and just generalize it so that any otherwise legally carried firearm could be stored in the vehicle (i.e. a hunter going hunting after his shift, etc). I suspect, as I said in the other thread, that it's limited to HCP holders to make make it easier to pass/negate some of the arguments against.

[Guest nicemac]

I navigated to this forum to start a new thread where the actual bills and their status could be tracked. You beat me to it!

I have emailed the bill sponsor, my Representative, my Senator, the speaker of the House and the Governor's office voicing my support for this type of legislation. I have encouraged my friends to do the same.

GKar, if this thread deteriorates like the other one did, please lock it and start another one.

[DRM]

well-trodden opinions about overall property rights, etc, OK?

With all due respect - this IS about taking away property rights, so it is kind of hard to discuss proposed legislation and leave that part out.

That said, the attempt to remove some liability as well as add some financial burden is a step in the right direction. The limitation to HCP holders only is - yet again - a big negative, IMHO. It really serves no functional purpose, at all.

Id rather see them just pass the portion about removing liability and leave it at that, then let employers and employees seek out their own solution between private parties.

[DRM]

stored within the trunk, glove box, or other enclosed compartment or area where the firearm is not visible from outside the vehicle and such motor vehicle is locked.

I wonder how strict this could be interpreted. I know TX recently passed their version that basically says "in the vehicle, out of sight", however this seems to not be quite so liberal, unless one considers "or area not visible from the outside of the vehicle" to qualify a location such as under the seat as meeting the legal requirement.

What about motorcycles? Would you be in violation if you arrived on-site carrying on your person, then transferred your weapon to a locked compartment once parked? Or would you need to stop off-site, secure the weapon "not visible..." then continue on to park?

[RobertNashville]

...The limitation to HCP holders only is - yet again - a big negative, IMHO. It really serves no functional purpose, at all.

I've said many times that I want a parking lot bill that does not apply only to HCP holders - I want to see a bill with the only limitation being that the person must be legally able to possess and transport the firearm (which is pretty much very law-abiding adult). I also want to see a bill that applies to ALL parking lots; not just limit it to employers/employees and employee parking.

However; no purpose at all? Really??? What exactly do you base that assertion on?

Do you have inside information to show that the HCP's provision has no purpose?

Have you called and spoken with any of the folks who have introduced these bills to ASK why they limited it to HCP holders (if you have, perhaps you could share essential elements of the conversation with us)?

I have now spoken to staff of two of the folks who are behind these bills to offer my support...while I had them on the phone, I noted my disagreement with the HCP limitation and that I though we need to address all parking lots, not just "employee" parking lots. I was told that it was believed that the HCP limitation makes the bill more likely to get some legs and get passed. It's a better "sell" to legislators who would otherwise ignore a bill that included everyone and it makes it a better sell to the public at large by automatically deflecting a lot of criticism based on the very good record of HCP holders in how they've conducted themselves with their firearms since the HCP process was adopted. As to the "all parking lots"; pretty much the same thing...they didn't want to ask for everything in one bill. That, unfortunately, is how politics generally work...it's very rare to get to eat the whole apple at one sitting. We can disparage that process all we want but it is what it is.

We can (I think) both agree that a bill should not just apply to HCP holders but to say that the HCP limitation serves no functional purpose is simply not correct.

Id rather see them just pass the portion about removing liability and leave it at that, then let employers and employees seek out their own solution between private parties.

Sounds a lot like "can't we all just get along". Unfortunately, we all can't just get along and equally unfortunately, employers don't and aren't working out their own solution. If they were, we wouldn't need a parking lot bill nor would anyone be asking for one.

However, in the past 10 years of so, many large employers have made their parking lots "off limits" to firearms; not by legally posting as the law requires any other business to do but by "company policy" and in many cases, they've done this with no warning and no explanation after operating with no such "company policy" for decades (and without having a problem with firearms in the past)...in other words, their "company policy" comes across as arbitrary and capricious. If companies really have good reasons for their policy then perhaps they should explain those reasons...maybe, just maybe, if companies who have this policy (and especially those who suddenly make this policy after not ever having one before) would explain; employees would be more accepting and less likely to look to the legislature to address what many see as an overreach by their employers to control their private lives and their private property.

Edited March 23, 2011 by RobertNashville

[Oh Shoot]

....GKar, if this thread deteriorates like the other one did, please lock it and start another one.

JFYI: Only mods can zap a thread, except in For Sale forums.

- OS

[Sky King]

IT IS ON THE SCHEDULE. HB2061 by Evans is scheduled to be heard on Wednesday, April 6 in the House Judiciary General Sub-committee at 3:30. Time to make those calls, send emails and if you possibly can, make the trip to Nashville. If you go to Nashville, be sure to contact Josh Evan' office and let him know you will be there. Good Lord willing and the creek don't rise, I will be there.

Be reminded, bill sponsors can and have been known to roll their bill at the last minute if they don't think they have the support to move the bill rather than have it voted down in committee. I have made such a trip to Nashville from Memphis, only to sit in the committee hearing room and hear the sponsor roll the bill. But, I still plan to go.

[Guest nicemac]

IT IS ON THE SCHEDULE. HB2061 by Evans is scheduled to be heard on Wednesday, April 6 in the House Judiciary General Sub-committee at 3:30. Time to make those calls, send emails and if you possibly can, make the trip to Nashville. If you go to Nashville, be sure to contact Josh Evan' office and let him know you will be there. Good Lord willing and the creek don't rise, I will be there.

Be reminded, bill sponsors can and have been known to roll their bill at the last minute if they don't think they have the support to move the bill rather than have it voted down in committee. I have made such a trip to Nashville from Memphis, only to sit in the committee hearing room and hear the sponsor roll the bill. But, I still plan to go.

Thank you. I work downtown Nashville. Sounds like I have plans next Wednesday afternoon…

[GKar]

For those interested in communicating with the sub-committee, the makeup is as follows:

Chair - Jim Coley

Vice-chair: Vance Dennis

Members: - Eddie Bass, Karen Camper, Jon Lundberg, Judd Matheny, Barrett Rich, Janis Sontany, Eric Watson

It would be particularly important for those served by one of these folks to make your wishes known...well, in most cases. Probably dont need to waste your breath on Sontany and maybe a couple of others.

And here are the additional members that make up the full Judiciary committee - might not hurt to rattle their cage, too:

Linda Elam, Jeremy Faison, Jim Gotto, Debra Maggart, Gary Moore, Mike Stewart, Rich Womick

You can find their email addresses, phone numbers etc here: http://www.capitol.tn.gov/house/members/

Edited April 1, 2011 by GKar