Lack of support kills HB 2021, parking lot bill

[DaveTN]

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.

Do to the recent SCOTUS decisions I don’t think that would fly anymore. The court has acknowledged that while the state can control wherea nd how you “bear arms†you do have an individual right to “Keep Armsâ€.

I don’t think a landlord could make you get rid of your guns.

You can legally carry a gun on your property in Tennessee; it is a crime for a citizen to carry a gun in their car. Therefore Tennessee law would need to change before a home/car argument could be made.

[RobertNashville]

Do to the recent SCOTUS decisions I don’t think that would fly anymore. The court has acknowledged that while the state can control wherea nd how you “bear arms†you do have an individual right to “Keep Armsâ€.

I don’t think a landlord could make you get rid of your guns.

Probably true although I'm sure that there are landlords out there who haven't figured that out yet and may need some convincing by court action.

You can legally carry a gun on your property in Tennessee; it is a crime for a citizen to carry a gun in their car. Therefore Tennessee law would need to change before a home/car argument could be made.

Yes, that's true.

I think some other states specifically allow firearms to be carried in vehicles as freely as in/on a person's home and property without any "special permission" needed (although still a permit to carry "on your person" once you are out of your vehicle...I wouldn't mind seeing Tennessee follow that example.

[Oh Shoot]

Do to the recent SCOTUS decisions I don’t think that would fly anymore. The court has acknowledged that while the state can control wherea nd how you “bear arms†you do have an individual right to “Keep Armsâ€.

I don’t think a landlord could make you get rid of your guns.

You can legally carry a gun on your property in Tennessee; it is a crime for a citizen to carry a gun in their car. Therefore Tennessee law would need to change before a home/car argument could be made.

This remains to be tested, as TN is also quite strong on contract law, too. It's not that they could make you "get rid of your guns", but that they could evict you for it, just as any business owner could remove an armed person from his property, and that doesn't even entail a lease.

There have been federal decisions regarding firearm possession in public housing, but eviction based on a "no firearms" lease policy from private owner is iffy. Very similar so far to having otherwise legal gun within employer's parking lot, eh? The balance between gun ownership rights under the state and federal constitutions vs. private property owner's rights, and in the case of leases, contractual legitimacy also.

First test is whether the court will automatically grant eviction proceeding on that basis, and I'd opine that most courts would grant it. It may have already happened any number of times, I wouldn't know. I understand from speaking to landlords here (fairly big complex), that they don't even show up in court for eviction "hearings", it's handled through clerk's office only, and if the tenant actually shows to contest it, the matter is rescheduled so that the landlord can appear.

But we don't have "no firearms" clause in lease, so they couldn't use that as cause.

- OS

[DaveTN]

This remains to be tested, as TN is also quite strong on contract law, too. It's not that they could make you "get rid of your guns", but that they could evict you for it, just as any business owner could remove an armed person from his property, and that doesn't even entail a lease.

There have been federal decisions regarding firearm possession in public housing, but eviction based on a "no firearms" lease policy from private owner is iffy. Very similar so far to having otherwise legal gun within employer's parking lot, eh? The balance between gun ownership rights under the state and federal constitutions vs. private property owner's rights, and in the case of leases, contractual legitimacy also.

First test is whether the court will automatically grant eviction proceeding on that basis, and I'd opine that most courts would grant it. It may have already happened any number of times, I wouldn't know. I understand from speaking to landlords here (fairly big complex), that they don't even show up in court for eviction "hearings", it's handled through clerk's office only, and if the tenant actually shows to contest it, the matter is rescheduled so that the landlord can appear.

But we don't have "no firearms" clause in lease, so they couldn't use that as cause.

- OS

It would be an interesting case, no doubt.

Prior to Heller all but one or two of the Federal District Courts had ruled that the 2nd amendment was not an individual right. Both Heller and McDonald basically split the 2nd amendment in half. You do have an individual right to own guns; however, where you carry them will be determined by the state.

I don’t know enough about contract law to know what the ramifications would be if you signed a contract with a no gun clause in it, knowing that you were going to fight it on Constitutional grounds. I would guess the question may have already come up somewhere.

You have a right to keep arms. The SCOTUS ruled that both the DC and Chicago gun bans were unconstitutional. I know that a private owner doesn’t have to respect your Constitutional rights, but I think a civil court would side with allowing a gun in your home.

However, for the state of Tennessee to tell a private property owner they have to allow you to have a gun in your car at work would require that the state acknowledge the right to keep and bears arms. This state doesn’t acknowledge that. It is a crime to carry a gun in this state. Therefore I don’t see how they could pass this legislation and if they did how it could stand up to scrutiny in the court system.

[RobertNashville]

It would be an interesting case, no doubt.

Prior to Heller all but one or two of the Federal District Courts had ruled that the 2nd amendment was not an individual right. Both Heller and McDonald basically split the 2nd amendment in half. You do have an individual right to own guns; however, where you carry them will be determined by the state.

I don’t know enough about contract law to know what the ramifications would be if you signed a contract with a no gun clause in it, knowing that you were going to fight it on Constitutional grounds. I would guess the question may have already come up somewhere.

You have a right to keep arms. The SCOTUS ruled that both the DC and Chicago gun bans were unconstitutional. I know that a private owner doesn’t have to respect your Constitutional rights, but I think a civil court would side with allowing a gun in your home.

However, for the state of Tennessee to tell a private property owner they have to allow you to have a gun in your car at work would require that the state acknowledge the right to keep and bears arms. This state doesn’t acknowledge that. It is a crime to carry a gun in this state. Therefore I don’t see how they could pass this legislation and if they did how it could stand up to scrutiny in the court system.

I suspect that if a landlord put that stipulation in a leas and it was voluntarily entered into by the tenant; the tenant would have a problem trying to then claim that the restriction was unconstitutional. Then again, I think there could be some valid argument offered that such a restriction in a lease might be "unconstitutional"...could a landlord "ban" you from writing a book he didn't agree with and put such a stipulation in a lease? Could a landlord demand that you be of a certain religion? I'm thinking not or that it would at least be a pretty difficult position to hold.

As to the legislation; other than weak-kneed Republicans wanting campaign contributions from the likes of UPS and FedEx and such, I see no reason whey they can't pass it just like other states have done (meaning, I don't see why they would need to change the state's current position on the right to bear arms; especially since this particular legislation limited it to HCP holders who can legally carry loaded firearms in their vehicles under current state law).

[leroy]

All:___________________

Here is the text of a noncommittal e-mail response from my tennessee state representative, Harry Brooks. I reveived it today. I think it is, indeed, a good thing to let these representatives know we are watching. .... (....removed note RE: Harwell response. I mis-spoke here. It was for HB 130, sorry for the lapse in thinkin-- ive been doin a lot of that lately. CRS syndrome....).

Text as follows:

Dear ______,

Thank you writing me about HB2021. To update you on this bill it is in the judiciary subcommittee. You can stay updated on the votes on this bill at

http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/billsearch/BillSearch.aspx and type in HB then the bill number.

Sincerely,

Harry Brooks

HB:jj

From: TGO leroy

Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 11:51 AM

To: Harry Brooks

Subject: Support for House Bill 2021

Dear sir:____________

I am watching with great interest the political machinations regarding HB 2021. I am a pro Second Amendment voter and I am in favor of the original intent of this bill.

I understand that there are some powerful special interest groups (....businesses, major corporations, academia, etc...) who do not like this bill and are working overtime to see it defeated. As I understand, as originally written, this bill should have provided adequate immunity from liability for businesses to assure that they are not injured by this implementation of this bill. I also understand that the state higher education establishment is against this bill; in my view, principally because they are foolish to begin with.

The fact is that are no such places as "violence free" or "weapon free" zones anywhere so long as there is a lawless element in society. This element is growing everyday simply because we have decided as a culture not to adequately punish the hoodlum element in society; Tennessee seems to be no exception. We seem to be providentially blinded to this fact. Law abiding citizens need the ability that this bill would give to adequately protect themselves on the way to and from work; and that is what this bill should be about. Lawfully possessing a weapon in a company parking lot would improve individual safety.

Having said all these things, I strongly recommend that you re-evaluate your recent vote to "table" this bill. Many pro second amendment citizens are watching your actions and the actions of other Republicans with regard to pro second amendment legislation.

The Republican party in Tennessee has a historic opportunity to do the right thing on both this and a myriad of other issues that need addressing at the state level. I would advise in the kindest but most direct manner possible that you and other Republican legislators do the "right thing" other than the "political" and "quid pro quo" thing. We pro second amendment voters are watching your actions very closely to see if you are worthy of the public trust. I would remind you all that there will be another election in a few years; we will not forget your voting records.

Yours truly,

leroy

Edited May 12, 2011 by leroy
Correction RE: Madam Speaker Harwell.

[Guest ArmaDeFuego]

I hope we can get a bill liked this passed. Other states have similar laws (I believe Michigan just passed one) so why cant Tennessee?

I drive about 30 miles one way to work. The gun range I like to visit is about 10-15 miles on the OTHER side of that. As it is now, if I want to go shoot after work I have to drive 30 miles to work, then drive 30 miles BACK to my house, then drive another 45 miles BACK the way I already came from to the range if I dont want to risk losing my job for having a weapon inside my own personal property. Ridiculous.

[RobertNashville]

I hope we can get a bill liked this passed. Other states have similar laws (I believe Michigan just passed one) so why cant Tennessee?

I drive about 30 miles one way to work. The gun range I like to visit is about 10-15 miles on the OTHER side of that. As it is now, if I want to go shoot after work I have to drive 30 miles to work, then drive 30 miles BACK to my house, then drive another 45 miles BACK the way I already came from to the range if I dont want to risk losing my job for having a weapon inside my own personal property. Ridiculous.

Keeping a self-defense firearm in a vehicle parked in a company lot is, of course, the major issue for most people since it means HCP holders have to be unarmed not just while at work but everyplace between home, work and anywhere else they need to go before returning home. But, as you point out, these policies affect other people/activities as well.

For me it's skeet shooting...not being able to take my shotgun and gear and leave it in my car makes going home, getting to the range and back additional 100 mile trip but more importantly, I can't even do that in time to participate in the fun shoots my club does during the week. Of course, such policies affect hunters and other sportsmen as well.

My employer made their "no firearms" (even in vehicles in the parking lot) policy change abruptly and after having been in operation with zero incidents for many, many years before the sudden change...I can't help but wonder why the change (not that it makes much difference...the policy is the policy).