Lack of support kills HB 2021, parking lot bill

[Sky King]

I was getting all my things ready to go to Nashville tomorrow to support HB 2021 by Evans. I spoke on the phone with Representative Evans today, (Tuesday, the 5th) for a good amount of time.

The bill will be heard and he feels it will pass, HOWEVER, to get it passed, he has ammended the bill significantly. He has totally deleted all verbage that would prohibit an employer from prohibiting a permit holder keeping his or her legal firearm locked, out of sight in their private vehicle while parked on their employers parking lot.

The only thing left is the protection for the employer against any liability should the employer CHOOSE to not post or ban the weapons.

Representative Evans catagorized it now as an "INCENTIVE" bill. He hopes that with the protection against liability, employers will be willing to remove the postings and bans.

He cited the reason for the change as being the resistance of the committee members to impose on private property rights.

He also was very clear that he had not received ANY support from the NRA or TFA on this bill. He stated that members of both organizations, (of which he is a life member of both), need to NOT wait untill a bill is scheduled to be heard. Phone calls, letters, emails and personal visits to their respective representatives AND the committee members well in advance. This, according to Representative Evans, HAS NOT HAPPENED.

He stated that he had no more than three votes on the sub-committee in support of the origional bill.

As much screaming and hollering, weeping and wailing that people have done saying they want this bill, it appears that it has been little more than lip service.

People, if we want this bill, you are going to have to do much more than just talk about it on forums like this.

If I offended anybody, I HOPE SO. It is time to put up or shut up. Right now the only chance we have for a parking lot bill that is really effective is HB0355 or the big NRA omnibus bill sponsored by Mr. Matheny. I give both of those a snow balls chance in a furnace.

[Guest nicemac]

I was getting all my things ready to go to Nashville tomorrow to support HB 2021 by Evans. I spoke on the phone with Representative Evans today, (Tuesday, the 5th) for a good amount of time.

The bill will be heard and he feels it will pass, HOWEVER, to get it passed, he has ammended the bill significantly. He has totally deleted all verbage that would prohibit an employer from prohibiting a permit holder keeping his or her legal firearm locked, out of sight in their private vehicle while parked on their employers parking lot.

The only thing left is the protection for the employer against any liability should the employer CHOOSE to not post or ban the weapons.

Representative Evans catagorized it now as an "INCENTIVE" bill. He hopes that with the protection against liability, employers will be willing to remove the postings and bans.

He cited the reason for the change as being the resistance of the committee members to impose on private property rights.

He also was very clear that he had not received ANY support from the NRA or TFA on this bill. He stated that members of both organizations, (of which he is a life member of both), need to NOT wait untill a bill is scheduled to be heard. Phone calls, letters, emails and personal visits to their respective representatives AND the committee members well in advance. This, according to Representative Evans, HAS NOT HAPPENED.

He stated that he had no more than three votes on the sub-committee in support of the origional bill.

As much screaming and hollering, weeping and wailing that people have done saying they want this bill, it appears that it has been little more than lip service.

People, if we want this bill, you are going to have to do much more than just talk about it on forums like this.

If I offended anybody, I HOPE SO. It is time to put up or shut up. Right now the only chance we have for a parking lot bill that is really effective is HB0355 or the big NRA omnibus bill sponsored by Mr. Matheny. I give both of those a snow balls chance in a furnace.

Thanks for the update. I have been in constant (one-way) communication with my senator and representative as well as cc'ing he speaker and the governor's office. My senator (Johnson) did call me back and we talked. He was confident because of the makeup of the legislature and the fact this has passed in other states, that it would pass. Guess not.

My representative (Casada) does not acknowledge email. I have posted here, emailed everyone I thought was interested and I guess I am not helping much.

[RobertNashville]

I doubt that the NRA is going to support any bill but their own (which as a whole is a pretty lousy bill)...as for the TFA, I don't know that they, as an organization, support specific "bills" like this but whether hey do or not, I'd say individual voters calling/writing/showing up in person, etc. is are more important than any organization's formal support.

As for myself, I'm doing what I can (which is all I can do).

[Guest friesepferd]

*sigh*

[E4 No More]

So why not change the bill to prohibit searches of privately owned vehicles? Seems like a simple fix to me.

[RobertNashville]

So why not change the bill to prohibit searches of privately owned vehicles? Seems like a simple fix to me.

If worded correctly that might be fine (and it would a least be a start). However, if the employer "posts" the parking lot but you carried a firearm in your vehicle anyway then at last "technically", you would still be breaking the law by parking there which, while perhaps low risk, isn't a great position to be in!

Keep in mind, even currently, "searching" an employee's vehicle can be done only because, as a matter of "policy", you have already agreed to being searched by virtue of parking there (or employed there)...the employee can always refuse of course (only law enforcement and usually only with an warrant have the power to compel a search) but if the employee does refuse that employee can likely kiss his/her job good by.

Other states have managed to address this issue without the sky falling; I don't see why Tennessee can't do the same!

[JAB]

Our 'Republican' governor has said that he won't push such a bill but that he would sign one if it hit his desk. By the fact that he is (BS statements claiming he has nothing to do with running Pilot aside) part of a large company - an employer (one that at least some reports claim forbids employees from having firearms in their vehicles in their parking lot) - and by the fact that he belonged to Bloomberg's anti-gun group until he saw that showing his true colors might not be politically expedient, I'd say that he is reluctant to sign such a bill.

The best way to not have to sign such a bill into law but not break his promise would be, of course, to use whatever influence he might have in the state Senate and House to kill such bills before they even have a chance of getting to him. For that reason, my guess is that it doesn't make a damn bit of difference how much support such a bill gets or from where because the Republicans in the legislature will want to 'play nice' with the Republican governor. Throw in the fact that the Republican Speaker of the House has said, basically, that she didn't want to fool with any firearms related legislation this year and the claims that he changed the bill due to 'lack of support' starts sounding like a line of bull to cover the reality that he rolled over to pressure from within his own party.

Funny, if we had a Democrat in the Governor's office right now then the Republicans just might try to push such bills and even over-ride vetos if only to embarrass him. With a Republican who I don't believe to be particularly gun-rights friendly in office, however, they will want to play nice, kiss butt and back off when told.

As it stands, even if passed this bill will do little or nothing. Many companies seem to put their 'no guns in the parking lot' statement into their HR rules and procedures. Such companies have no reason to go through even a slight amount of trouble or spend even a minor amount of time changing those policies so most if not all will take the easiest route and leave those policies in place rather than fooling with it.

Edited April 5, 2011 by JAB

[G27]

You have to realize that there are a number of folks (myself included) who are on the fence about this - I completely understand your desire for such a law, but as a business owner, I'm not interested in more laws that tell me what I can or cannot do on my property.

[JAB]

You have to realize that there are a number of folks (myself included) who are on the fence about this - I completely understand your desire for such a law, but as a business owner, I'm not interested in more laws that tell me what I can or cannot do on my property.

Which is why a better law would be one that simply says that an employer has no right, whatsoever, to search my property (my car) or tell me what I can have inside it regardless of where it happens to be parked. Such a bill doesn't even have to specifically mention firearms.

[Sky King]

Our 'Republican' governor has said that he won't push such a bill but that he would sign one if it hit his desk. By the fact that he is (BS statements claiming he has nothing to do with running Pilot aside) part of a large company - an employer (one that at least some reports claim forbids employees from having firearms in their vehicles in their parking lot) - and by the fact that he belonged to Bloomberg's anti-gun group until he saw that showing his true colors might not be politically expedient, I'd say that he is reluctant to sign such a bill.

The best way to not have to sign such a bill into law but not break his promise would be, of course, to use whatever influence he might have in the state Senate and House to kill such bills before they even have a chance of getting to him. For that reason, my guess is that it doesn't make a damn bit of difference how much support such a bill gets or from where because the Republicans in the legislature will want to 'play nice' with the Republican governor. Throw in the fact that the Republican Speaker of the House has said, basically, that she didn't want to fool with any firearms related legislation this year and the claims that he changed the bill due to 'lack of support' starts sounding like a line of bull to cover the reality that he rolled over to pressure from within his own party.

Funny, if we had a Democrat in the Governor's office right now then the Republicans just might try to push such bills and even over-ride vetos if only to embarrass him. With a Republican who I don't believe to be particularly gun-rights friendly in office, however, they will want to play nice, kiss butt and back off when told.

As it stands, even if passed this bill will do little or nothing. Many companies seem to put their 'no guns in the parking lot' statement into their HR rules and procedures. Such companies have no reason to go through even a slight amount of trouble or spend even a minor amount of time changing those policies so most if not all will take the easiest route and leave those policies in place rather than fooling with it.

The times I went to Nashville and spoke before the sub-committee and then the whole committee at summer study showed a definate differentiation between the Democrat and Republican members in their opposition.

Generally the Democrat members would side with the business lobby based on the "safety in the workplace" arguments. Even as bogus as those are, Representatives Sontany and Kamper would argue workplace violence issues.

The Republican members often cited the property rights aspect. Last session with a Democrat governor, one of the Republican members stated to me in the hearing that he had no problem decriminalizing the possession of the weapon on the employers property but had great reservation mandating that the employer allowing the possession. He stated that he felt that the property rights were sacred.

So even in the atmosphere of the last session where the Governor's veto was overridden twice on the restaurant bill, the Republicans would not do anything that they felt stepped on property rights. That is where they apparently draw the line.

What has to be argued is whose rights trump whose. The employer does have property rights. However the employee also has rights. They have the right to self defence AND they too have private property rights that being their privately owned vehicle.

This is a good example of where valid individual rights come head to head in opposition to each other. The question has to be asked where the balance is achieved because I don't believe either actually trumps the other. When an employer uses his property rights to deny an employee their right to self defence and the right to say what is in their private property (in this case, their car), that is not balance.

Balance would be recognizing that as long as what is contained within the private vehicle of the employee, as long as it is not illegal, then the employer is not harmed and the employee retains their ability to provide for their self defence in the unfortunate event it is needed.

Think of it this way. IF I had within my car, a large quantity of illegal drugs. If it were found out, would my employer be vulnerable to criminal charges? I seriously doubt it. THEN the employer would be most happy to point out that the vehicle involved was the PRIVATE property of the employee and therefor the EMPLOYEE was in possession, NOT the employer.

when I stated that Josh Evans expressed that he had not received any support from the TFA, we have to realize that that means that the MEMBERS have not stepped up to the plate. John Harris has championed a great number of the pro-gun laws, including the permit law itself, that we now enjoy.

If you have been a letter writer, phone caller, emailer, good. We need about 10,000 more just like you. But if you have not written letters, made the phone calls and sent emails, then you have just enjoyed the hard work of others and you need to get involved.

[Sky King]

You have to realize that there are a number of folks (myself included) who are on the fence about this - I completely understand your desire for such a law, but as a business owner, I'm not interested in more laws that tell me what I can or cannot do on my property.

However YOUR right to say what you can and cannot do on your property is in conflict with MY basic right to self defence and the right to what I can and cannot do with MY property, in this case my car.

All are basic rights, whose trump whose? My private vehicle is MY private property and as long as what is contained within it is NOT illegal, and it REMAINS within the vehicle, you are not harmed. However, your exercising of YOUR property rights in this case extend beyond your property. By telling me I can't have my firearm in my vehicle while on your property, you have also said I can not have it in my vehicle when it is NOT on your property, well beyond your property rights authority.

Your ban prohibits me having my weapon from the time I go out my door at my home untill I get home. I believe that far over reaches your rights.

Balance is achieved when the employee recognizes the employers rights by keeping things INSIDE their car and the employer recognizes the private property rights of the employee in regards to their private vehicle.

[Guest nicemac]

However YOUR right to say what you can and cannot do on your property is in conflict with MY basic right to self defence and the right to what I can and cannot do with MY property, in this case my car.

All are basic rights, whose trump whose? My private vehicle is MY private property and as long as what is contained within it is NOT illegal, and it REMAINS within the vehicle, you are not harmed. However, your exercising of YOUR property rights in this case extend beyond your property. By telling me I can't have my firearm in my vehicle while on your property, you have also said I can not have it in my vehicle when it is NOT on your property, well beyond your property rights authority.

Your ban prohibits me having my weapon from the time I go out my door at my home untill I get home. I believe that far over reaches your rights.

Balance is achieved when the employee recognizes the employers rights by keeping things INSIDE their car and the employer recognizes the private property rights of the employee in regards to their private vehicle.

Ditto.

[G27]

I completely understand your argument, but you don't have to work there.

As someone who has the government telling me tons of things I can or cannot do on my property, I'm just not keen for them to tell me one more thing I'd have to allow were it against my will.

Agree to disagree, I guess.

[E4 No More]

If worded correctly that might be fine (and it would a least be a start). However, if the employer "posts" the parking lot but you carried a firearm in your vehicle anyway then at last "technically", you would still be breaking the law by parking there which, while perhaps low risk, isn't a great position to be in!/

I could live with that when balanced with technically saving my life.

[RobertNashville]

I could live with that when balanced with technically saving my life.

To each his own but I won't knowingly commit a crime and knowingly carrying on a posted posted property is a crime in Tennessee last time I checked...in my case I'd also almost certainly lose my job and my pension on top of being a criminal.

Edited April 6, 2011 by RobertNashville

[Sky King]

I completely understand your argument, but you don't have to work there.

As someone who has the government telling me tons of things I can or cannot do on my property, I'm just not keen for them to tell me one more thing I'd have to allow were it against my will.

Agree to disagree, I guess.

Yes, that is what we are going to have to do. To say that I don't have to work here is an easy gauntlet to throw down when you know it can't be picked up. Nobody with any amount of time with a company with retirement and pension at stake is going to pick it up and the company knows that. It is called "golden handcuffs". It is an unfair position. Anybody fully vested has way too much to risk or loose. The company has NOTHING to loose but the employee has EVERYTHING to loose. You ask them to balance their life in a life threatening situation against the rest of their life in regards to their retirement. Do you really think this is a fair question to ask?

Oh yea, if you don't agree, just quit and find another job. Do you have 30+ years at a given job? Do you have 30+ years of retirement at stake? In this economy do you REALLY believe you can just tell your boss to shove it and go out and REALLY find another job that offers the benefits of 30+ years of tenure? That is so easy to say. But I challenge you, when you are 57+ years old with 31+ years with a company if you are ready to just walk out the door.

When you get to that point, reply. When you get to that point let's just see how flexable YOU are when the company holds YOU over a barrel. When health insurance will cost YOU over $1500.00 a month untill you are eligable for Medicare at 65 which will eat most of your retirement income.

The problem is that most people don't realize the REAL costs untill they are faced with them.

So, what do YOU want to do? Carry your firearm to work against company policy in the event it may save your life but you may risk loosing your job, your retirement, your insurance for you and your spouse? Is that really fair?

When keeping the firearm in my car, out of sight really doesn't hurt the company, why does that really impose such a imposition on the company?

[Sky King]

I completely understand your argument, but you don't have to work there.

As someone who has the government telling me tons of things I can or cannot do on my property, I'm just not keen for them to tell me one more thing I'd have to allow were it against my will.

Agree to disagree, I guess.

Also I have to ask this, Whose rights trump whose? Are your property rights more important than my rights to life, liberty and the prusuit of happiness?

Nowhere in the bill if rights do I read any referance to the rights of a corporation or business entity. All the rights all referance the rights of "the people".

In the Declaration of Independence, the basic rights of "life" are specified. My rights to self defence against anybody who would do me harm go hand in hand with that right. I can not enjoy the right to life if I can not defend my life when necessary. There is no way a business entity can deny my right to self defence on the premise that they reserve the right to tell me that I can not provide for my own self defense just because they don't want me to keep a means for that defence in my privately owned vehicle.

That is just wrong.

[Sky King]

I am still considering going to Nashville. If I do, I will attempt to go the the offices of all the sub-committee members and ask that they reject the amendment to the bill. The bill has to pass as origionally written or it needs to die. As amended, it is worthless, toally worthelss. It accomplishes NOTHING. Please contact your respective representatives and the members of the committee and ask them to pass the bill as origionally written or reject it all together.

[G27]

Also I have to ask this, Whose rights trump whose? Are your property rights more important than my rights to life, liberty and the prusuit of happiness?

Nowhere in the bill if rights do I read any referance to the rights of a corporation or business entity. All the rights all referance the rights of "the people".

In the Declaration of Independence, the basic rights of "life" are specified. My rights to self defence against anybody who would do me harm go hand in hand with that right. I can not enjoy the right to life if I can not defend my life when necessary. There is no way a business entity can deny my right to self defence on the premise that they reserve the right to tell me that I can not provide for my own self defense just because they don't want me to keep a means for that defence in my privately owned vehicle.

That is just wrong.

I'm not going to sit here and argue with you, but will make this point then leave you alone.

Companies are owned by people - even large corporations are owned by the share holders. In most cases, in the US, businesses are owned by individuals who are the ones who own the property - no different than their home. I think a homeowner has every right to tell me they don't want me carrying on their property and feel business owners should have that same right - it's their land.

And their choice to not allow firearms does not deprive you of your right or ability to defend yourself. A firearm is simply a tool and frankly, if that's the only tool in your toolbox you have to defend yourself, that's not your employer's problem.

I think both sides of this issue suck, but at the end of the day, I think the property owner should have the right to determine what others bring on his property, whether that be in a car (your property), a backpack (your property), etc.

For the record, I wish you luck - I have zero restrictions wrt weapons for my employees, so this won't affect me either way. I'm just making the point that the 'rights' here can be seen from both sides.

[macville]

And their choice to not allow firearms does not deprive you of your right or ability to defend yourself. A firearm is simply a tool and frankly, if that's the only tool in your toolbox you have to defend yourself, that's not your employer's problem.

Let's put this in perspective. What if they ban all weapons? A place I recently had to spend two nights banned all weapons in their building. Weapons that fall under that ban according to state law tend to be far more useful as "defensive tools" than makeshift weapons like chairs, lamps, books, etc. And the thing about those makeshift tools are that you have to be strong. My wife until just a week and a half ago would not really be able to defend herself effectively with any other weapon other than a gun due to her condition (prego with twins.) She would not be able to judo someone down, or even kick them in the groin. Without a firearm (she has her HCP) the only thing she had left to defend herself was her fingernails.

So the thing is, when you ban firearms, and many times is other weapons as well, you ban all useful tools for defense. And I am sorry, but if you come up against someone with a firearm, 9 times out of 10, a firearm is really the only useful tool. When places ban firearms, they are making people rely only on their own strength as a defense. I call that leaving us defenseless.

[RobertNashville]

I completely understand your argument, but you don't have to work there....

You are absolutely right, of course...but that's still a rather uncaring thing to say and somewhat cheapens what I think most see as an important issue.

Yeah...no one "has" to work anywhere and I guess that if someone is in a dead end, cookie cutter job that he can quite and have another just like it withing 48hours maybe quitting and going somewhere else is a viable option (of course, that ASSUMES that the next employer has a different policy...good luck with that!).

However, when someone has spent 20, or 30, or 40 years building a professional career and/or we are in an period of upwards of 20% unemployment/underemployment; simply quitting an excellent, well paying job is not necessarily either easy or even the RIGHT thing to do - telling your gun-unfriendly employer what he can do with his job may stroke your ego for a little bit but stroked egos don't pay the mortgage or the car payment or put food on the table nor does it do those things for your family.

Sorry for the rant and I mean nothing personal towards you...it's just that the statement 'you don't have to work there" really gets under my skin sometimes.

Edited April 6, 2011 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

Companies are owned by people - even large corporations are owned by the share holders. In most cases, in the US, businesses are owned by individuals who are the ones who own the property - no different than their home. I think a homeowner has every right to tell me they don't want me carrying on their property and feel business owners should have that same right - it's their land.

Perhaps I just don't get out enough but I've never been to a private residence where the homeowner can demand to search my vehicle and, if I don't let them and/or if they find I have a firearm in the vehicle can fire me, take away my pension and insurance and perhaps even make it very difficult if not impossible for me to find another job in the same/similar profession.

However, my employer and many other employers can do all that.

So...I'm not sure that the comparison between a private home/homeowner and a business open to and operating in the public domain is a legitimate comparison; in fact, I think it's almost apples and oranges.

Just my $0.02

Edited April 6, 2011 by RobertNashville

[G27]

Yah, I agree allowing business owners to search employee's cars is bad form. No question there.

[Guest mds3d]

For those of you who have lived here a while, you should know. The rest... Welcome to a Right to Work, At-will state. This has its benefits - Avoid union dues, almost no employment contracts, no 2 weeks notice. It also has its drawbacks - Businesses have much more power to behave as is best for them even at the expense of the worker.

However, Businesses only have "property rights" because the government allows it. The idea that individual rights transfer to businesses because they are owned by individuals is absurd. That might apply if someone directly owned their business. This is rarely the case. Even if it is one person, they are usually the sole owners of an incorporated entity. The incorporated entity does not have "individual rights." In years past, these were the same arguments used by people who said that they had the right to "serve only who they wanted" (white people). If the government enacts a parking lot bill they have restricted your ability to enact a policy that governs employees' car contents. They have not taken away a right, because a business doesnt really have rights to begin with.

On another note...

Has anyone actually had their car searched or even known someone who has?

[RobertNashville]

For those of you who have lived here a while, you should know. The rest... Welcome to a Right to Work, At-will state. This has its benefits - Avoid union dues, almost no employment contracts, no 2 weeks notice. It also has its drawbacks - Businesses have much more power to behave as is best for them even at the expense of the worker.

However, Businesses only have "property rights" because the government allows it. The idea that individual rights transfer to businesses because they are owned by individuals is absurd. That might apply if someone directly owned their business. This is rarely the case. Even if it is one person, they are usually the sole owners of an incorporated entity. The incorporated entity does not have "individual rights." In years past, these were the same arguments used by people who said that they had the right to "serve only who they wanted" (white people). If the government enacts a parking lot bill they have restricted your ability to enact a policy that governs employees' car contents. They have not taken away a right, because a business doesnt really have rights to begin with.

On another note...

Has anyone actually had their car searched or even known someone who has?

You know...in a similar thread I tied to make the same argument as you about businesses being artificial entities and not automatically entitled to the same rights as individuals...it raised quite a firestorm among some here so be prepared for some agitated rebuttal.

To the best of my knowledge, not one where I work has ever had their vehicle searched - that's not a guarantee that's it's never happened of course but I suspect if it had happened the grapevine would have talked about it. That said, bags/briefcases, etc. have been searched as people are entering the building proper and some items disallowed as a matter of company policy have been confiscated.

I suspect the risk of actually having your vehicle searched is low. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it happened only if the company was already looking for an easy excuse to get rid the employee or if they got an actual tip from someone.