Lack of support kills HB 2021, parking lot bill

[Sky King]

I did not go to Nashville. I watched the video of the hearing and it went pretty much as I expected and confirmed that my going would have been of little use.

Mr. Evans did present his amendment which passed with little to no objection.

Dan Haskel who is a lobbiest who represents several business organizations and has been very vocal in his opposition to parking lot bills of the past. Even he was in support of this bill as amended. Janis Sontany only asked for confirmation that the bill as amended did NOT impose any requirement on employers to allow employees keep firearms in their vehicles. When that was confirmed, she did not voice any objections.

I think this tells it all. When regular vocal opponents now come out with either NO opposition or actual support, it tells it all. Mark my word, there will be VERY few if ANY employers who now ban weapons, change their policy or take down the postings in response to this bill.

The only positive thing that was said, Representative Eddie Bass did comment to Mr. Evans that he may introduce an amendment in the full committee to re-establish the requirement to allow employees to keep weapons in their car. He did not expound any further.

If that is the case, a letter and email writing, phone call campaign needs to take place full speed in anticipation of Mr. Bass offering such an amendment in the full committee.

[GKar]

Very disappointing. Joshua Evans apparently left his backbone at home..assuming, of course, he ever had one to begin with. Particularly distressing were his comments in reply to Mr. Bass and Mr. Watson, in which he indicated that it was now his intent to not allow the leglislation to return to its original form. And in an act even more slime-laden, that comment was craftily buried deep within his sound-bite comments about "allowing the legislative process to take its course".

[tnhawk]

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

I have had my vehicle searched on several occassions when entering an employeer's parking lot. The random inspections usually required opening the trunk, computer bags, lunch box.

The items carried in or out the gate are the employer's right to inspect. The contents of my car are not.

Edited April 7, 2011 by tnhawk

[E4 No More]

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.

You might want to re-think using the George Washington quote in your signature line then. The word "any" would include an employer, and dying because your employer disarms you is certainly abuse and losing your independence. JMHO

[Worriedman]

If the Legislature has decided that the citizens of this State, more especially those who have perfected the necessary criteria to obtain their Carry Permits, are not to be trusted to enjoy the paid for privilege, (which is how the State of Tennessee treats the HCP program), then how in good conscience can they still allow any business owner to arm themselves, or to designate someone responsible for security and by State fiat allow that person or persons to be armed in an establishment without going through a vetting process, or satisfying any of the issues currently placed upon the HCP Holders?

[RobertNashville]

You might want to re-think using the George Washington quote in your signature line then. The word "any" would include an employer, and dying because your employer disarms you is certainly abuse and losing your independence. JMHO

Really???

Are you suggesting that I s**tcan a very well paying position...throw away a successful career I've spent nearly 40 years building and that if I don't then I'm some sort of "sell-out" to George Washington's quote? If you are - if throwing away my career is what you are suggesting than I wonder, are you going to pay my mortgage and buy my food and pay my medical expenses after I quit my position, lose my pension and my health care insurance?

Certainly, you have to right to say and to think whatever you want to say/think about me but, unless you are willing to put your money where your mouth is you have ZERO standing to do so.

IMHO, part of the "independence"...part of being a "free people" such as Mr. Washington referred to is each person having the right to decide what is best for "him" (as long as it doesn't trample on the rights of someone else). That means I have the right to chose to work where I work and to continue to work there whether or not someone makes condescending comments like the one you made above.

Edited April 7, 2011 by RobertNashville

[GLOCKMEISTER]

Back to the point at hand... I spoke with Mike McDonald about his bill, HB0355, and he's having problems getting Republican support for the bill. To date he hasn't been able to get one single Republican co-sponsor for it. Please call your Reps. and lets get more support for this bill, especially if your Rep. is Republican. I really don't want this bill to get killed or withdrawn for lack of support.

I honestly dont understand why the NRA/TFA has chosen to sit this year out. Harwell cant be that bad if both sides would unilaterally get behind a bill.

[leroy]

RE: Glocks post:

...Back to the point at hand... I spoke with Mike McDonald about his bill, HB0355, and he's having problems getting Republican support for the bill. To date he hasn't been able to get one single Republican co-sponsor for it. ....

All:_________________

I smell a rat here. My guess is that the rat is the current Speaker of the House. Always remember, MS. Harwell, though she is a Republican, is no friend to gunowners.

It's sad to say (...and i have no proof to back this up...); but i also have no problem imagining that the current Senate Leader (...who i like on a personal and political basis...) is bought and paid for too. The payoff (...i believe....) is the promise of backing a gubanatorial campaign when "The Snozz" (...my pet name for Bill -- check out a profile shot and you'll see what im sayin...) decides to run for the US senate (...again, my guess...); and take his "rightful place" as a paternalistic politico "who knows what's best for us lesser beings" (...just like the great Howard Baker and Albert Gore, SR, did in the bygone eras...). That will happen when that noted RINO (...who would do exactly what is being done now if he was governor...), Lamar Alexander, retires. Remember this; politics can be a very dirty business, and we're talikn about some "dirty birds" here.

Now, after having blasphemed the motives and impuned the character of these "politicos"; i also believe (...as several others do here...) that there is a problem with rights here. If you take a fair look at all rights here, it appears that the "right to carry" trumps the real property owner's right to control his real property. That is a problem that has to be carefully addressed as to liability and property rights.

Food for thought.

radical libertarrian leroy -- Who would still rather have the "Snozz" than that commie McWerter; but i'm a suspicious man.

Edited April 7, 2011 by leroy
spellin!!!

[E4 No More]

Really???

Are you suggesting that I s**tcan a very well paying position...throw away a successful career I've spent nearly 40 years building and that if I don't then I'm some sort of "sell-out" to George Washington's quote? If you are - if throwing away my career is what you are suggesting than I wonder, are you going to pay my mortgage and buy my food and pay my medical expenses after I quit my position, lose my pension and my health care insurance?

Certainly, you have to right to say and to think whatever you want to say/think about me but, unless you are willing to put your money where your mouth is you have ZERO standing to do so.

IMHO, part of the "independence"...part of being a "free people" such as Mr. Washington referred to is each person having the right to decide what is best for "him" (as long as it doesn't trample on the rights of someone else). That means I have the right to chose to work where I work and to continue to work there whether or not someone makes condescending comments like the one you made above.

I was not suggesting that you quit your job like, (if my memory serves me correctly), you have so condescendingly stated to others on this forum: however, I do find your posting of the George Washinton quote to be a bit hypocritical since I do not agree that property rights of a public business inherently trumps the personal right to live as you appear to do.

Opinions? Yes, but opionions are like butt-holes: everyone has one and they all stink - which is a fact that I am frequently reminded of when I read many of your posts.

[Sky King]

Well the bill is now set to be heard in the full Judiciary committee on April 12th, this comming Tuesday at 10:30 AM. What I find amazing, (not really) is how many House Republicans (9), have now signed on as co-sponsors.

Folks, it is time to get the emails and phone calls going BIG time. Primarily I think to Mr. Bass given his comment in the sub-committee hearing. We need to encourage him to offer up an amendment to take the bill back to it's origional form.

I personally think this is a do-or-die time for this year. If you know ANYBODY with a permit, TFA, or NRA member or not, get them to contact the members of this committee AND their respective representative.

Tuesday is a day that I can go to Nashville if necessary. If we think there is even a small chance we can get this thing turned around, I will go and I encourage any others who can make it to show up.

[RobertNashville]

I was not suggesting that you quit your job like, (if my memory serves me correctly), you have so condescendingly stated to others on this forum:

Maybe you are confusing me with someone else because I don't believe I've ever, in this or any other forum, told someone (condescendingly or or otherwise) that they should quite their job over this or any similar issue. However, if you have an example you can point to please feel free to do so.

If you aren't suggesting I quit my job does that mean the entire purpose of you post was to insult me by claiming my position is inconsistent with my Washington quote?

...however, I do find your posting of the George Washinton quote to be a bit hypocritical since I do not agree that property rights of a public business inherently trumps the personal right to live as you appear to do...

Nor do I think that the property rights of a business inherently trumps the personal right to live. In fact I've extensively argued, with several on this forum, against the notion that business property rights trumps any other rights...I'm glad we agree.

...Opinions? Yes, but opionions are like butt-holes: everyone has one and they all stink - which is a fact that I am frequently reminded of when I read many of your posts.

More insults? Is that really the best you can do?

How about we try to stick to arguing philosophical positions rather than throwing insults? I know that in the heat of the moment that can be difficult to do and I know I fail at that but I also know that personal insults don't solve anything.

EDIT: Just to be clear, no I'm not going to "rethink" my Washington quote as you suggested earlier...I quote it because I believe it and I live it; whether you think I do or not is immaterial.

Edited April 7, 2011 by RobertNashville

[E4 No More]

Maybe you are confusing me with someone else because I don't believe I've ever, in this or any other forum, told someone (condescendingly or or otherwise) that they should quite their job over this or any similar issue. However, if you have an example you can point to please feel free to do so.

If you aren't suggesting I quit my job does that mean the entire purpose of you post was to insult me by claiming my position is inconsistent with my Washington quote?

Nor do I think that the property rights of a business inherently trumps the personal right to live. In fact I've extensively argued, with several on this forum, against the notion that business property rights trumps any other rights...I'm glad we agree.

More insults? Is that really the best you can do?

How about we try to stick to arguing philosophical positions rather than throwing insults? I know that in the heat of the moment that can be difficult to do and I know I fail at that but I also know that personal insults don't solve anything.

EDIT: Just to be clear, no I'm not going to "rethink" my Washington quote as you suggested earlier...I quote it because I believe it and I live it; whether you think I do or not is immaterial.

No, it's not the best that I have. Forum rules and all.

[leroy]

mds:_____________

Your question. RE: Car searches:

..On another note...

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

Yes i do. I've seen folks fired for having property stolen from their employer and "prohibited items" (...read that alcohol and illegal drugs...) based on an employer initiated search. It was all "legal" due to being subject to searches while on the employer's property as a condition of employment.

leroy

[Oh Shoot]

....On another note...

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

...Yes i do. ...

Me too. FedEx Ground. Not every week but every few months.

- OS

[Erik88]

Me too. FedEx Ground. Not every week but every few months.

- OS

wow really? That's one thing I always wondered about.

[Oh Shoot]

Me too. FedEx Ground. Not every week but every few months.

wow really? That's one thing I always wondered about.

All the loaders are part timers, and the pickings are tempting. Lotta "off the street" guys, or worse, college students.

And of course, all the drivers aren't employees either, they're "contractor/owner/operators".

Main contractor is honest enough but he may "own" any number of routes, and he hires other drivers, who aren't necessarily vested in the long term straight and narrow of things.

Most of the on-site searches due to the loaders, the big time driver thefts generally happened off site somewhere.

- OS

Edited April 8, 2011 by OhShoot

[Sky King]

Ok, I have called every member of the House Judiciary committee. Most of which I had to leave a voice message. I did send this email to every member also. One of the office assistants said that it was not advisable to send a FAX as if you notice on each members page, the FAX number is only one of two numbers for all of them. They don't actually go directly to the representatives office. Who knows where it winds up. Anyway, here is the letter I emailed. If any of you like it, feel free to use it, edit it as you see fit to support a parking lot bill. Just delete my name at the bottom and add yours.

Honorable members of The Tennessee General Assembly and the House Judiciary Committee,

I would like to address HB 2021 introduced by Representative Joshua Evans. The bill as originally introduced provided protection to employees who would choose to store a legally owned and carried firearm in their private vehicles while parked on their employee's parking lot. He has since introduced an amendment that deletes all the provisions protecting the employee, leaving only the liability protections for the employer should they choose not to prohibit or post a ban against the keeping of the firearms in the private vehicles.

The central issue that seems to be the point that many object to is the issue of personal property rights. Many argue that this takes away from the employer the right to say what is and is not allowed on their property.

There are right involved. There have been many occasions when issues before us have pitted the rights of one against the rights of another. When these rights run head to head, we are called upon to decide whose rights are more important.

Tennessee passed legislation a few years ago which recognized the private property rights of an individual in regards to their private vehicle.

In The Declaration of Independence, our countries founders wrote that we also have an inalienable right to life.

By allowing the employers to prohibit the storage of certain private property in the car, they are therefore controlling what I can keep in my car when I am NOT on their property, far exceeding the reasonable reach and scope or their right to control their property. If I can not keep the item in my car when I arrive at work, then I can not have it in my car when I leave home or leave work.

Items that are legally owned and possessed and REMAIN in the vehicle represent no harm to the employer. I would go further to ask that IF my vehicle contained illegal drugs and were found by law enforcement while parked on my employers parking lot, would the employer have any culpability in the possession of illegal drugs? I seriously doubt it as it would be pointed out that the vehicle is the property of the employee and therefore the employee is in possession, not the company. The company would be very quick to point out that they can not control what an employee keeps in their PRIVATE vehicle. Again, the company is not harmed.

But we are not talking about anything illegal. Do the company's rights in regards to private property trump my rights to my private vehicle or better yet my inalienable right to life?

By giving employees this protection, there is no harm to the company and represents a very minimal intrusion on their rights. That intrusion pales in comparison to the total revocation of my rights to personal protection which impacts my right to life and my right to control what is in MY personal property. This is especially true in light of the fact that their control extends beyond their property all the way to my driveway.

Please do not impose on MY personal rights and the rights I have regarding MY personal property.

[Guest HvyMtl]

"I smell a rat here. My guess is that the rat is the current Speaker of the House. Always remember, MS. Harwell, though she is a Republican, is no friend to gunowners." - Leroy.

THIS.

People, the Speaker of the House has a lot of behind the scene power. A big part of the reason a lot of us hate Niafeh, was how he would kill off any legislation he did not like, before it got anywhere close to the floor. Seems our New Speaker is learning fast...

[GKar]

This adds to the strangeness...someone having contacts within the subcommittee indicated that, to their knowledge, no one on the committee asked for that amendment.

[Sky King]

There have to be a lot of smoke and mirrors. I spoke with Eddie Bass's office assistant today. She said that he had spoken of an amendment but she had not seen it yet. I indicated my intent to come to Nashville tomorrow to support the amendment he mentioned in the sub-committee meeting but if he is not going to introduce it, there is no reason to go. Mainly because I am NOT in support of the bill as it now reads after Rep, Evans amended it. Although the Tennessee General Assembly web site still does not show the amendment introduced by Evans and voted on in the sub-committee. In my opinion, if it goes through as amended, it is a worthless bill and not worth the time and expense of traveling to Nashville. I would almost urge the committee to totally vote against it if we can't include employee protection.

[Guest TnRebel]

The only exception from this law in Florida is places that store or manufacturing of explosives ( such as Disney with their fireworks )

FLORIDA SPECIAL NOTICE: Guns in Parking Lots Law Takes Effect Today, July 1st! Tuesday, July 01, 2008 DATE: July 1, 2008

TO: USF & NRA Member and Friends

FROM: Marion P. Hammer

USF Executive Director

NRA Past President

Today, House Bill 503 by Representative Greg Evers and Senator Durell Peaden takes effect.

Officially, HB 503 is known as the "Preservation & Protection of the Right to Keep & Bear Arms in Motor Vehicles Act of 2008," even though elements of the business community continue to call it the “Guns at Work Law.”

This new law protects existing constitutional and statutory rights. Law-abiding gun owners can continue to have firearms in their private vehicles, for self-defense and other lawful purposes without fear of punitive actions against them by anti-gun businesses and employers.

Under the new law, any business or employer who violates the constitutional and statutory right of customers or employees to have firearms locked in their private vehicles can now be punished.

ALSO, under this new law, business owners will benefit from immunity from liability if guns stored in vehicles in the businesses parking lot are used to cause harm on the business property.

THE LAW APPLIES TO ALL BUSINESSES, ALL CUSTOMERS & EMPLOYEES.

The law covers ALL employers and businesses. The Legislature passed and Governor Crist signed it into law to protect the right of ALL law-abiding citizens to protect themselves.

The law requires employees who park in their employer's parking lot to have a concealed weapons license in order to be exempt from a policy that prohibits employees from having guns -- IF THEIR EMPLOYER HAS SUCH A POLICY.

Customers and invitees are not required to have concealed weapons licenses in order to have firearms in their vehicles when they park their vehicles in business parking lots.

The legislation does not prohibit any employer from having a policy that bars employees from having guns on the employer's property. It merely exempts employees, who have a concealed weapons license, from the policy as it relates to having a gun locked in their private vehicle in the parking lot. Employees who do not have concealed weapons licenses are subject to an employer’s anti-gun, gun ban policy.

Nothing in the law allows an employer/business owner/business manager to prohibit customers or invitees from having firearms locked in their private vehicles in a publicly accessible parking lot. In fact, the law specifically stops any such action against customers and invitees.

The ONLY people who can be prohibited from having legal firearms lawfully stored in a car in a publicly accessible parking lot are employees who do not have concealed weapons licenses and who work for an employer that has a gun ban POLICY.

The U.S. Supreme Court has just ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right that belongs to all Americans and is not connected to militia service.

Further, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that self-defense is central to the Second Amendment.

That is exactly what this law is all about: preserving and protecting your individual right to have and carry (keep and bear) firearms in your vehicle for self-defense against attackers and for other lawful purposes, AND to provide penalties to stop anti-gun businesses from violating those rights.

While the law does not provide new rights for gun owners, IT DOES PROVIDE NEW BENEFITS FOR BUSINESSES. Yesterday, business owners had no immunity from liability if a firearm stored in a vehicle in its parking lot was used to cause harm on its property. TODAY, they do have immunity.

[Sky King]

This adds to the strangeness...someone having contacts within the subcommittee indicated that, to their knowledge, no one on the committee asked for that amendment.

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.

[Sky King]

"I smell a rat here. My guess is that the rat is the current Speaker of the House. Always remember, MS. Harwell, though she is a Republican, is no friend to gunowners." - Leroy.

THIS.

People, the Speaker of the House has a lot of behind the scene power. A big part of the reason a lot of us hate Niafeh, was how he would kill off any legislation he did not like, before it got anywhere close to the floor. Seems our New Speaker is learning fast...

"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.

[GKar]

Watched the video of today's charade...Sky King's observations fill in some gaps I had from listening and watching the video feed. It does indeed seem like someone behind the curtain is now pulling the strings...and that some members of the committee are being kept informed, while some other Republican members aren't. After the committee adjourned, I received notes from two representatives stating their dislike for the amended bill, citing the very objections Sky King noted.

Dennis's words essentially warning businesses to "pay attention to this opportunity, because we've almost run out of patience" rang hollow with me at the time he uttered them...even more so now after reading the posts above.

Pitiful....

[USMCJG]

How about this? Since the new law would prevent a business from being held liable for any gun related incident, injury, or death caused by an employee, then a company who forced an employee to disarm before coming to work could be held liable for any incident, injury, or death, which could have been prevented by the use of a firearm, that occurred while the employee was at, on the way to, or going home from said business. Since the business has removed the most reliable, and in some circumstances only, means to self defense not only at work, but on your way to and from work, then they have accepted responsibility for providing for your defense. That seems like a fair solution to me.

Edited April 13, 2011 by USMCJG