Lack of support kills HB 2021, parking lot bill

[RobertNashville]

I am having difficulty getting the video from the General Assemby web site to play.

In any case, since there was a floor vote on tabling the amendment, there will be a record of who voted and how. A great many of the people I talk to and the forum posts I read all seem to have one person in common, Vance Dennis. There has to be a core group of the Republicans in the House that seem bound and determined to stall and jam up any pro-gun legislation. Some people refer to them as RINO's, I am thinking of them as Naifeh Republicans. Regardless of what they are, one thing is sure, they don't want this bill to come to the floor because it will require them to make a vote that is recorded. They don't want the backlash from the Tea Party and conservative Republicans who put them office. But the RINOs need to have a strong reminder sent to them just who put them in office. Our displeasure needs to be communicated in no uncertain terms. They seem to forget that they are supposed to be working for us, not Fedex or Bridgestone.

From the General Assembly web page. Here are the members who voted YES to table Eddie Bass's amendment;

Representatives voting aye were: Brooks H, Brooks K, Butt, Carr, Casada, Coley, Dennis, Dunn, Eldridge, Ford, Harrison, Haynes, Hurley, Keisling, Kernell, Lundberg, Marsh, Matlock, McCormick, McManus, Miller D, Montgomery, Odom, Powers, Ramsey, Roach, Sargent, Sexton, Shipley, Sparks, Weaver, Williams R, Wirgau, Womick, Madam Speaker Harwell -- 35.

These members ARE NOT our friends

I hear you but it's difficult to make your displeasure heard when they simply ignore you. For example; I posted on Ron Ramsey's facebook page yesterday my disappointment with the bill that would allow faculty/staff, etc carry on the campus of state universities...several "liked" my post and posted follow-up comments of their own...rather than even attempt to explain, he simple deleted the comments. I've had very similar responses to emails with one notable exception. I don't have time to go the state house every time a bill is up for discussion or a vote or to visit officers in person (not if I want to keep eating, anyway)...all I can do is what I've been doing and attend rallies and vote. However, it's difficult not to get discouraged and just say to hell with it (and them) all.

[bubbadavis]

Representatives voting aye were: Brooks H, Brooks K, Butt, Carr, Casada, Coley, Dennis, Dunn, Eldridge, Ford, Harrison, Haynes, Hurley, Keisling, Kernell, Lundberg, Marsh, Matlock, McCormick, McManus, Miller D, Montgomery, Odom, Powers, Ramsey, Roach, Sargent, Sexton, Shipley, Sparks, Weaver, Williams R, Wirgau, Womick, Madam Speaker Harwell -- 35.

These members ARE NOT our friends

Some of these are no surprise to me. Harwell is my representative (well, at least she represents my district) and I've come to expect absolutely no response from her on any communication from me on gun related legislation. I've tried all communication paths I can think of other than smoke signals.

I fully expect her to vote against gun owners every chance she gets.

[Sky King]

The bill is on the agenda back in the House Judiciary committee for Tuesday, May 3rd. I am trying to decide whether or not to go back to Nashville. In any case, we again need to flood the committee members with phone calls and emails.

[R_Bert]

After 220+ responses, I am in need of a re-calibration on the bill.

If we write our reps on it, what should we be asking them (and the bill) to do?

B.

[Worriedman]

Here is one man's opinion, of course I am from the camp that considers the ability of the individual HCP holder to keep their lawful weapons in their personal vehicles as the correct action:

I am asking that you support the original intent and language of HB 2021 (SB 2061), which would protect employees who have handgun carry permits from criminal prosecution and/or job termination if they commute to and from work while in possession of their self defense handguns. The original language of the bill required the employees to leave the weapon locked in their vehicle.

During the last election cycle we heard promises from practically every candidate that they support the Second Amendment, that they support the right of citizens to carry firearms, that they support many of the things that handgun permit holders and hunters have asked for. However, in this legislative session I see very little of what was promised. That is something that will be hard to forget in the next election cycle.

Recently, I was frustrated when I saw what occurred with Rep. Evans bill in the House Judiciary on April 12, 2011, when an unacceptable amendment was offered that essentially took all of the protections away from the employee but then offered substantial immunities to the large employers like Federal Express. Employees are concerned about their life and their safety. They really could care less about even more state benefits to large corporations just because they have the money to demand it.

The amendment goes against the promise made by Article 1, Section 26 of the Tennessee Constitution:

"That the citizens of this state have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime."

Employees who have handgun carry permits have been vetted by the Federal, State and Local Governments regarding their past history relative to the ability to avail themselves of the right to carry a weapon for their personal protection, have paid the State self-defense "tax" and have performed the task appointed by the Sate via classroom and range work to show proficiency of the knowledge of the law and the safe use of their weapons. Allow us, Tennessee's handgun permit Holders, the ability to provide for our own protection, what can not be afforded us by Government.

Enact legislation this year - as promised - which will stop the practice of employers disarming employees who commute to and from work.

[Sky King]

Here is one man's opinion, of course I am from the camp that considers the ability of the individual HCP holder to keep their lawful weapons in their personal vehicles as the correct action:

DITTO

[RobertNashville]

Lobbyist for major businesses are not going to back down and the only thing we can do to get a parking lot bill passed is to keep putting pressure on these wimpy Republicans and remind them why there are there and who put them there (and then be willing to follow-up in coming months with our money and our time to get better candidates running so we can get more of the RINOs out).

[Guest nicemac]

I sent this to my RINO rep Sargent:

I am writing once again regarding HB 2021. As I have never gotten a response from any correspondence I have ever sent you, I don't expect to get one this time either…

However, please be advised that many pro-second amendment VOTERS are watching this issue. We need someone in the House that will represent us. Is that you? I understand the business lobby is very powerful. Remember, the CEOs against this legislation each have only one vote. But they have a lot of carry permit-holding employees that vote.

I am asking that you support the original intent and language of HB 2021 (SB 2061), which would protect employees who have handgun carry permits from criminal prosecution and/or job termination if they commute to and from work while in possession of their self defense handguns. The original language of the bill required the employees to leave the weapon locked in their vehicle.

[leroy]

Sent a note to my representative (...Harry Brooks...) regarding this issue.

Polititians, we are watching.

Watchin leroy

[Sky King]

I am borrowing from Worriedman's post on the TFA web site because I think he may have hit on the heart of the matter. Read the article in this link. For me it made my blood boil. I think what is going on here is the Republicans are counting on the bill referanced in this article, passing. If it does, it could be a real game changer in the world of political campaigns. They REALLY don't want to piss off the PACs and corporate donors the year BEFORE and election year when there is REAL potential for a financial windfall into their campaign coffers.

Direct Corporate Political Contributions, Higher Contribution Limits Approved on Party-Line Votes | Humphrey on the Hill | knoxnews.com

So to hell with us, the voters, the constituants, the citizens, we don't have deep enough pockets to buy our personal representative in The General Assembly. It truely is as Will Rodgers said, "We have the best politicians money can buy."

Edited April 29, 2011 by Sky King

[Westwindmike]

I got this email this morning from Sen Stacy Campfield

"While I am the original senate sponsor of the guns in parking lots bill in the senate, the house sponsor has told me the votes are not there to pass it as originally drafted through the house judiciary committee. He made a commitment to weaken it and pass a version that would protect property owners from lawsuits if they did allow guns on their property to get it out. It passed with the understanding that if it returned to its original form he would kill his own bill. He agreed. When it got to the house floor it was amended back to its original form but the sponsor stuck to his word and had to kill his own bill.

Without a live house bill the senate bill for all intense and purposes is dead as well. Sorry.

On a brighter note, my bill to allow faculty and staff to carry on state university property is still alive and coming up in the senate judiciary committee. Any support you could give would be appreciated.

Yours in service,

Sen. Stacey Campfield

[DaveTN]

He made a commitment to weaken it and pass a version that would protect property owners from lawsuits if they did allow guns on their property to get it out.

This is what its always been about. Whether its parking lot carry or posting a business; all of the liability has to be on the gunowner. And right now it isn't. The lawyers need a payday, and the business is the only way to get it; I doubt they will give that up.

The business owners don't want the lame azz protection we have. They want immunity from a lawsuit or having to hire an attorney; I don't blame them.

[Sky King]

I got this email this morning from Sen Stacy Campfield

"While I am the original senate sponsor of the guns in parking lots bill in the senate, the house sponsor has told me the votes are not there to pass it as originally drafted through the house judiciary committee. He made a commitment to weaken it and pass a version that would protect property owners from lawsuits if they did allow guns on their property to get it out. It passed with the understanding that if it returned to its original form he would kill his own bill. He agreed. When it got to the house floor it was amended back to its original form but the sponsor stuck to his word and had to kill his own bill.

Without a live house bill the senate bill for all intense and purposes is dead as well. Sorry.

On a brighter note, my bill to allow faculty and staff to carry on state university property is still alive and coming up in the senate judiciary committee. Any support you could give would be appreciated.

Yours in service,

Sen. Stacey Campfield

I actually got the same email, except I got three of them. They all were the same. However they were in response to three DIFFERENT emails I sent to him. He used the same email to respond to different emails. Makes me wonder if he even read them. He just saw the subject line and instructed his assistant to sent the same response out to everybody.

However, to use his own logic, since the House bill is technically not dead, neither is his. So if by some miracle we can revive HB2021 this Tuesday in the Judiciary committee, Mr. Campfield will have to get his bill moving to. Time to get those emails and phone calls cranked up again.

If it were not for the fact that I am actually in favor of the campus carry issue, I would be tempted to write back to Mr. Campfield that one hand washes the other. In his email, he asks for our support on the campus carry bill, to utilize what is apparently a common tactic in legislative circles, if you want me to support your issue, I expect you to support mine.

Edited April 30, 2011 by Sky King

[Daniel]

Intents.

[macville]

Question for the people who think this bill would trump property owner's rights. When you open a business to the public and employees you give up certain rights. Just wondering how having to give up the right to ban firearms is any different than the other rights you have to give up when you open up? Should you not be blasting those other rights also that had to be given up?

[RobertNashville]

Question for the people who think this bill would trump property owner's rights. When you open a business to the public and employees you give up certain rights. Just wondering how having to give up the right to ban firearms is any different than the other rights you have to give up when you open up? Should you not be blasting those other rights also that had to be given up?

Why open that can or worms again?

If you believe that a commercial business has "rights" (I have a different "take" on that particular question than some; maybe even different than many) then there really can be no question that government requirements or restrictions of any kind on a business impacts those "rights". Moreover, the simple fact that there are already requirement and restrictions on businesses is not a reason to have yet one more.

The only relevant issue I see in this argument is whether or not the justifications supporting the infringement is substantial enough to put the infringement in place.

With regards to a "parking lot bill"; I happen to think that when one compares the extremely minor infringement to what I believe is an overwhelmingly positive impact on society; then the infringement is much more than warranted and should be enacted by the legislature. However, some don't see it that way...not to put words into anyone's mouth but I would characterize their position as one that sees "private property rights" as trumping most if not all other considerations.

With regards to this particular piece of legislation (and unfortunately with just about all other "firearms" legislation and a lot of other pieces of legislation that most conservatives believe are important); we, have a governor, a speaker of the house and a lieutenant governor (and a few others thrown into the mix) who would rather have campaign contributions to further their political ambitions than they would listen to and act on what logic and reason say is in the public good...so much are they unwilling to miss out on those contributions that they aren't even willing to let this and similar legislation reach the floor of the house or the senate for a vote.

Overall, this legislature is a huge disappointment and not just on "firearms" related issues.

EDIT: My only solace in this bill not passing is that I don't believe it was a very good bill to start with for several reasons, not the least of which is that it only applied to HCP holders - I see no compelling reason to lave out everyone else.

I would rather see both a simpler and more comprehensive bill that says, something to the effect that with any "parking lot" open to "the public" ("public" including customers and employees of the business, etc) no one has the right to control the contents of a vehicle parked on that lot provided that the contents are otherwise legal to be there - further, that NO ONE can compel the search of a vehicle or demand an employee allow a search of a vehicle as a condition of employment (in other words, the only justification for searching a vehicle would be suspected criminal activity and would have to be conducted by law enforcement).

Edited May 6, 2011 by RobertNashville

[DaveTN]

Question for the people who think this bill would trump property owner's rights. When you open a business to the public and employees you give up certain rights. Just wondering how having to give up the right to ban firearms is any different than the other rights you have to give up when you open up? Should you not be blasting those other rights also that had to be given up?

Give me an example of a right they give up, but then are still held civilly liable for.

So your question is “if your are giving up rights anyway who cares how many you give up?â€

[DaveTN]

NO ONE can compel the search of a vehicle or demand an employee allow a search of a vehicle as a condition of employment (in other words, the only justification for searching a vehicle would be suspected criminal activity and would have to be conducted by law enforcement).

Wrong.

An employer doesn’t need probable cause to search your vehicle; they aren’t cops. Ever drive on a military base?

[RobertNashville]

Wrong.

An employer doesn’t need probable cause to search your vehicle; they aren’t cops. Ever drive on a military base?

As a matter of fact, I'm on a military base at least once a month for drill. However, we aren't talking about nor does any proposed/pending legislation have anything at all to do with "military bases" - why you would use that as an example is rather odd.

Second of all, why did you only quote a piece of a sentence and completely change the meaning and purpose that sentence? Yes...I KNOW an employer doesn't need "probable cause" and I never said or implied otherwise. In fact, that they don't need probable cause and can, through coercion (i.e as a condition of employment/continued employment) compel the search of an employee's private vehicle is precisely the problem and is why I said that, in my opinion, a good bill should contain language that takes away that coercive ability.

Edited May 6, 2011 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

Give me an example of a right they give up, but then are still held civilly liable for.

Is civil liability the real issue here?

Are you saying that you believe that if, by virtue of a "parking lot bill" businesses are required to allow firearms in personal vehicles parked in their parking lots that they would then be held any more or less liable than they already are? Is there anything currently in the Tennessee code that provides an escape from civil liability for an employer/business if they ban firearms from their property? Perhaps there is but as far as I know, there isn't.

EDIT: I suspect this whole "liability" issue is just an excuse being used by the lobbyists for the FedExs and UPSs and Dells in order to justify their opposition to such legislation. That said, there probably are some corporate lawyers out there who either believe (or hope) that if the businesses they represent ban firearms from their property that the business will be "less liable" should something happen. However, I suspect that it is much more of a "hope" it is a reality. Further, any legitimate "liability" concerns could easily be taken care of in a decent bill.

Edited May 6, 2011 by RobertNashville

[DaveTN]

Is civil liability the real issue here?

I would go so far as to say it's the only issue.

I'm sure their are a few business owners that are anti-gun and want to ban guns on their property, but I would bet anything that most are simply looking at exposure to liability; I know I would.

No, there is nothing in the law now that would make anyone "less liable" if they ban, but it would be kinda hard to hit someone hard with punitive damages in a shooting on their property if they ban guns.

I know one way to find out if its about liability, on this and on posting; give them absolute immunity from civil liability or even having to hire a lawyer and then you will know.

[RobertNashville]

I would go so far as to say it's the only issue.

I'm sure their are a few business owners that are anti-gun and want to ban guns on their property, but I would bet anything that most are simply looking at exposure to liability; I know I would.

No, there is nothing in the law now that would make anyone "less liable" if they ban, but it would be kinda hard to hit someone hard with punitive damages in a shooting on their property if they ban guns.

I know one way to find out if its about liability, on this and on posting; give them absolute immunity from civil liability or even having to hire a lawyer and then you will know.

As I said above, I think the "liability" issue is really more of an excuse than an actual issue but also something easily taken care of in a decent piece of legislation.

Realistically, as it stands right now, if some nutcase (be that nutcase just someone off the street, a current employee or a former employee) walks into a place of business and starts shooting people, I don't believe the business is going to escape what will likely be multiple civil lawsuits (justified or not and whether it does or doesn't "ban" firearms)...a good "parking lot bill" could actually be a windfall to businesses in that regard if it actually contained language that would protect it from all liability (save of course, their own negligence - I don't think legislation ever protects someone or some business from its own stupidity!).

Edited May 7, 2011 by RobertNashville

[GKar]

I know one way to find out if its about liability, on this and on posting; give them absolute immunity from civil liability or even having to hire a lawyer and then you will know.

Maybe something like this, then?

(

An employer required to permit possession of a firearm in the parking area of

the employer's property under subsection (a) shall not be liable in any civil action for

damages resulting from or arising out of any occurrence involving the firearm on the

employer's property unless the employer committed a criminal act involving the use of

the firearm, the employer knew that the person in possession of the firearm planned to

commit a criminal act on the property, or the employer was otherwise prohibited by state

or federal law or regulation from permitting firearms on the property.

Strangely enough, those employers didn't seem the slightest bit interested...

[RobertNashville]

Maybe something like this, then?...

Strangely enough, those employers didn't seem the slightest bit interested...

Not strange if the "liability" concern is, as I suspect, just an excuse.

That does beg the question of what the real reason(s) is/are.

[Worriedman]

Not strange if the "liability" concern is, as I suspect, just an excuse.

That does beg the question of what the real reason(s) is/are.

Control, control, and control!

Personally, I think the most egregious denial of the ability to keep a weapon for protection is that fostered on a renter of a property, (apartment or home) where the owner disallows the ability of the payer to keep a weapon for their personal protection where they lay down to sleep. It is the exact same mind set as the parking lot issue, pure desire for control.

The argument made for excluding the ability to keep a weapon where you and your children sleep at night is exactly the same as the one made to preclude keeping a legal weapon in the personal vehicle, satisfaction of power and lack of respect for a fellow Citizen's need to provide for their own defense, all the while seeking to be absolved of any liability for not providing any protection while gaining profit from the labor, or payment for goods and services by others.