Lack of support kills HB 2021, parking lot bill

[GKar]

Yes, you're right. You're always right, as has been proven in this thread.

Edited April 26, 2011 by GKar

[bubbadavis]

Maybe not specifically defined (I haven't looked) but we know this...

When a loaded gun is in your car on your property; its legal because it's on your property. When you cross your property line you become a criminal unless you have an HCP. Common sense tells me that answers the in/on your property question.

If only common sense was much more common! I agree with you DaveTN - based on current TN law you can carry on your personal property. Once you get in your car and off your property (even though you are in your car) you better have a HCP if you are armed.

[Guest nicemac]

If only common sense was much more common! I agree with you DaveTN - based on current TN law you can carry on your personal property. Once you get in your car and off your property (even though you are in your car) you better have a HCP if you are armed.

So if a druggie's car parked in your parking lot has illegal drugs in the trunk, you should be liable–because it's on your property.

I bet in that case you would say "It's not my car officer. Belongs to that guy. Those are his drugs."

[GKar]

Thinking ahead to what could occur in tomorrow's House session gives rise to a procedural question. If amendment #2 (by Bass) passes, Evans has purportedly indicated that he would take the bill back to Judiciary committee (and ultimately withdraw it from consideration). Is it possible for that action to be blocked or challenged by one or more of the recently added co-prime House sponsors of the bill (should, of course, any of them actually desire to keep it alive in its amended state)? In that Bass is one of those co-prime sponsors (along with Dennis, McDonald, Rich, Weaver, Hill, Holt, Lundberg, Matheny, Watson and Faison), such a possibility, if it exists, it could make for some interesting wrangling...

[bubbadavis]

So if a druggie's car parked in your parking lot has illegal drugs in the trunk, you should be liable–because it's on your property.

I bet in that case you would say "It's not my car officer. Belongs to that guy. Those are his drugs."

Blah, blah, blah...

I'm talking about actual TN law - no theories, etc. Plain and simple - try driving around and keep a loaded firearm in your car without a HCP; your first encounter with an officer will resort in an arrest. "But my car is my property - I can do what I want." won't go very far with a judge.

The situation you outlined is ludicrous. By current TN law, the officer would go after the owner of the car.

[RobertNashville]

I never meant that as a moderator, one should refrain from expressing one's opinion or positon. My issue was that the two involved, strickj and Robert just kept going and going and going, like the Energizer Bunny. Moderator or not, all I wanted to say, as I said before, enough is enough. Nobody reading this thread can honestly say they don't get your positions.

I will NEVER say a person should not be able to express their beliefs. But come on, can you HONESTLY say you two didn't take this a bit far?

The topic is the lack of support for HB 2021. And after this past two weeks of being in Nashville, I TRUELY come to the conclusion, (as I have already stated), a lot of those legislators are just hiding behind the "property rights" thing. They really don't give a crap about property rights. They are more afraid of loosing the finacial support of the business lobby than they are about loosing my vote in the next election or whether or not I get killed by some thug looking to score his next rock of crack on the side of the road on my way home from work.

I took it too far and I know it and I apologized for doing so a few posts ago and do so again. I also "reported" both myself and stickj for what has transpired in this thread...and any outcome from that is now in David's (or whoever gets such reports) hands.

While I'm trying to stay optimistic I see no hope for this bill this year and as has already been said, it has ZERO to do with "property rights" and everything to do with MONEY and INFLUENCE.

[Sky King]

Ok, I just spent the last hour on the phone and writing emails. I have called Gov. Haslam, Lt. Gov. Ramsey, Senator Campfield, Rep, Judd Matheny and Rep. Joshua Evans. I asked Gov. Haslam and Lt. Gov Ramsey to use the influence of their respective offices to push these bills as origionally written. In all the emails, I put a link to a press release where Gov. Haslam and Lt. Gov. Ramsey come out in support of this legislation as origionally written.

HB2021 is set to be heard on the House floor tomorrow, Wednesday the 27th. Representative Joshua Evans needs to be convinced that his commitment to the other members to not push the bill as origionally written in return for their support has been fulfilled. If the amendment by Eddie Bass to return the bill to its origional intent is presented and passes, Rep. Evans has kept his word. However, Rep. Evans has said that he will withdraw the bill if there is any attempt to amend the bill back. My message to Rep. Evans, "let the process run its course, you have kept your word".

[RobertNashville]

So if a druggie's car parked in your parking lot has illegal drugs in the trunk, you should be liable–because it's on your property.

I bet in that case you would say "It's not my car officer. Belongs to that guy. Those are his drugs."

It's my understanding (and I don't have time to confirm at the moment) that in at least some states, you do not need any special permit to carry in a vehicle provided the weapon stays in the vehicle - this may or may not be related to how they treat a person's vehicle (i.e. as a full-fledged extension of the person's home) - I know that's not true here but perhaps it should be!

I do think that it is, at best, disingenuous of employers who want to extend almost absolute control the contents of a vehicle while concurrently wanting NONE of the responsibility for those contents should the contents proves to be illegal or dangerous or embarrassing. I understand that as the law stands now, that is precisely how it is but it still seems patently unfair to me; it's always been my belief that with authority and control also comes responsibility but I guess that's asking to much of the UPS's and FedEx's of the world.

Edited April 26, 2011 by RobertNashville

[Daniel]

I took it too far and I know it and I apologized for doing so a few posts ago and do so again. I also "reported" both myself and stickj for what has transpired in this thread...and any outcome from that is now in David's (or whoever gets such reports) hands.

While I'm trying to stay optimistic I see no hope for this bill this year and as has already been said, it has ZERO to do with "property rights" and everything to do with MONEY and INFLUENCE.

Ill echo what I said on the thread created about the reporting that all of the moderating team see.

We do not have the time to read a 19 page (at time of reporting) thread. Based on the post you reported no one has seen anything that could be viewed as against the CoC.

Not agreeing with the popular line of thinking is not a violation. If you have specific instances to report they will be looked at and evaluated. Otherwise StrickJ can disagree and voice his opinion just like anyone else. I am sorry if a few of you can not discuss the topic with a moderator. If he was abusing his power I could understand.

[bubbadavis]

It's my understanding (and I don't have time to confirm at the moment) that in at least some states, you do not need any special permit to carry in a vehicle provided the weapon stays in the vehicle - this may or may not be related to how they treat a person's vehicle (i.e. as a full-fledged extension of the person's home) - I know that's not true here but perhaps it should be!

In KY, anyone (who can legally carry) can carry in a car as long as the gun is either in plain sight or in the glovebox. Of course, KY is also an open carry without permit state.

[RobertNashville]

Ill echo what I said on the thread created about the reporting that all of the moderating team see.

We do not have the time to read a 19 page (at time of reporting) thread. Based on the post you reported no one has seen anything that could be viewed as against the CoC.

Not agreeing with the popular line of thinking is not a violation. If you have specific instances to report they will be looked at and evaluated. Otherwise StrickJ can disagree and voice his opinion just like anyone else. I am sorry if a few of you can not discuss the topic with a moderator. If he was abusing his power I could understand.

The BB software used here only allows for reporting "a" post.

That you don't see a need for your involvement is fine - however, while I certainly believe that I went too far there is no "one post" that shows that....I'm not trying to encourage you to censure me; just saying.

While I understand that no one wants to read the whole thread; I see no other way for anyone to get an accurate picture of what has transpired without doing so which seems to me to make the idea of "reporting" somewhat moot except in cases where one post went completely out of control.

Edited April 26, 2011 by RobertNashville

[Guest nicemac]

Blah, blah, blah...

I'm talking about actual TN law - no theories, etc. Plain and simple - try driving around and keep a loaded firearm in your car without a HCP; your first encounter with an officer will resort in an arrest. "But my car is my property - I can do what I want." won't go very far with a judge.

The situation you outlined is ludicrous. By current TN law, the officer would go after the owner of the car.

No more ludicrous than the assertion that when my car is parked on your lot, you have absolute power over what it contains. Blah.

[Daniel]

They don't have absolute power. They have the power to dismiss your employment.

[Guest nicemac]

They don't have absolute power. They have the power to dismiss your employment.

I understand. But they still should have no access to the contents of my glove box.

[Daniel]

They do not unless you give it to them. If you choose not to allow them to search then as a right to work state they can dismiss you.

[bubbadavis]

No more ludicrous than the assertion that when my car is parked on your lot, you have absolute power over what it contains. Blah.

Show me where I made that assertion. Thats what I thought...

I only mentioned that under current TN law, once your car leaves your property, the rules (at least w.r.t. firearms) change. Like it or not, that's the way it currently is.

[GKar]

Back to the original thread for a moment: e-conversations with some reps has been, well, interesting. They were declarative of their support for the original/amended bill, seemed to be unsure of Evans' intent or motivations, but uniformly asserted they didnt believe the votes were there for the original/amended bill. However, they were fascinatingly non-commital (frankly, non-responsive) to the direct question of whether the original/amended bill would see their support reflected by their vote...

As to the rest of the thread...can somebody just get out a ruler and settle this for good?

[Guest nicemac]

Show me where I made that assertion. Thats what I thought...

I only mentioned that under current TN law, once your car leaves your property, the rules (at least w.r.t. firearms) change. Like it or not, that's the way it currently is.

I said THE assertion. I never said YOUR assertion.

Relax. Please.

[bubbadavis]

I said THE assertion. I never said YOUR assertion.

Relax. Please.

Oh, I'm plenty relaxed. You quoted me in your post about THE assertion. I'm just making it clear that I never mentioned anything along those lines.

[Sky King]

Back to the original thread for a moment: e-conversations with some reps has been, well, interesting. They were declarative of their support for the original/amended bill, seemed to be unsure of Evans' intent or motivations, but uniformly asserted they didnt believe the votes were there for the original/amended bill. However, they were fascinatingly non-commital (frankly, non-responsive) to the direct question of whether the original/amended bill would see their support reflected by their vote...

As to the rest of the thread...can somebody just get out a ruler and settle this for good?

I got this response from Rep. Bass today;

"Sam, as of now I have a amendment filed for this when it comes to the

floor, my intention is to run this unless it appears the support is not

there.........Eddie "

I understand what you mean about their comments concerning support. I find it all quite confusing. If every Representative or Senator who SAID they support the bill BUT the votes aren't there would vote for the bill, it would pass. I would REALLY like to know just WHO are the ones who are not supporting the bill and if they REALLY amount to enough votes to keep it from passing.

I am really interested in watching the proceedings on the House Floor to see just who it is that is throwing up the roadblocks.

[GKar]

Well, we shouldn't have long to wait - it is item #1 on today's regular floor calendar. Unfortunately, I'm gonna miss the first thirty minutes or more of the session due to a work meeting.

[GKar]

Bass held his ground, and Evans took it back to the committee. Disappointing to see that level of disintegrity played out for all to see...

[RobertNashville]

I got this response from Rep. Bass today;

"Sam, as of now I have a amendment filed for this when it comes to the

floor, my intention is to run this unless it appears the support is not

there.........Eddie "

I understand what you mean about their comments concerning support. I find it all quite confusing. If every Representative or Senator who SAID they support the bill BUT the votes aren't there would vote for the bill, it would pass. I would REALLY like to know just WHO are the ones who are not supporting the bill and if they REALLY amount to enough votes to keep it from passing.

I am really interested in watching the proceedings on the House Floor to see just who it is that is throwing up the roadblocks.

The last thing most of these turkeys want is to have to go on the record with an actual vote - regardless of the political spectrum someone sits on, why is it that it's mostly cowards and lairs that run for office?

[GKar]

During today's proceedings, a vote was taken on a motion to table Rep. Bass's amendment. That motion failed 51-35: it will be interesting to see who voted for and against that motion. From statements made on the floor, it seems a sure bet that Rep. Dennis voted for tabling Bass' amendment, while Nicely voted against tabling it...

Upon failure of Evan's motion to table Bass' amendment, Evans immedaitely withdrew the bill from the floor and sent it back to Judiciary committee. And since Judiciary appears to be no longer meeting in this session, its on to next year...again.

EDIT: Or maybe not. It seems this one may come up in Judiciary next week. That could be rather interesting.

Edited April 27, 2011 by GKar

[Sky King]

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

Edited April 27, 2011 by Sky King