Long discussion with the sponsor of last year's Parking Lot Bill

[Worriedman]

Have had a long discussion with Rep. Joshua Evans on Face Book this evening about the Parking Lot Bill. He suggest that the Senate would have to pass the Bill before the House would consider it. From our discourse:

" Get it passed in the Senate... see if they are serious about it... then let's sit down and plan a House strategy."

This was from a thread I started in the TFA Group Page, he joined in to make some promises, then backed down to requiring the Senate take first action.

I am pretty sure I can call his bluff, as I know there is support in the Senate for the Bill. Those of us who are desirous of seeing this Bill get to the Governor's desk need to start calling and writing NOW, we can at this juncture bring this to fruition if we make enough noise.

[Fallguy]

Will contact my Rep soon. No sense in saying anything to my senator.

Although not required (I assume) from my obersvation it seems most bills pass in the House before the Senate.

[RobertNashville]

I hope we get the bill and I'll start writing. That said, I have no real hopes that this RINO legislature (especially the Speaker) nor this governor will do anything get such a bill through and will, instead, do everything they can to quash it quietly so that they don't have to openly put it down.

[E4 No More]

What I don't understand is why this has to be a gun issue to begin with? Why not pass a law prohibiting an employer from searching and employee's vehicle? If there's probable cause to suspect a crime then the police can do it. That would make it politically correct for the sheep and protect us at the same time.

[RobertNashville]

What I don't understand is why this has to be a gun issue to begin with? Why not pass a law prohibiting an employer from searching and employee's vehicle? If there's probable cause to suspect a crime then the police can do it. That would make it politically correct for the sheep and protect us at the same time.[/QUOTe]

I posed that very question to Sen Evans back a few months ago and didn't really get an answer that made any sense. I think a significant expansion of the castle doctrine would go a long way. However, there still needs to be some protection against getting fired because you refuse a search of your vehicle.

This works well in other states and we don't need to reinvented the wheel...we just need to do it!!!!

[Worriedman]

What I don't understand is why this has to be a gun issue to begin with? Why not pass a law prohibiting an employer from searching and employee's vehicle? If there's probable cause to suspect a crime then the police can do it. That would make it politically correct for the sheep and protect us at the same time.

Too easy, and, it would be construed that certain "Moderate" Republicans caved to a Conservative principal, can't have that happening, if, as the junta that controls the Tennessee Republican Party perceives, that independant voters will not go for anything that smacks of Conservatism.

[Guest PapaB]

People talk about property rights but allowing places to post parking areas also remove's our right to carry as we travel. Should property rights exceed our right to remain safe when off their property? As far as employers go, they should only have the right to look for company property and the police should do the searching.

I don't think having each of us contacting our legislators will work, it hasn't yet. I think we need to target each one, one at a time. Using phone calls, email and social networking, target 2 legislators a day (or more) and have everyone contact them. 100 contacts in a day is more powerful than 2 or 3. Liberal, moderate or conservative, irregardless of party affiliation, barrage them all with our voices. Maybe that would get their attention.

[DaveTN]

People talk about property rights but allowing places to post parking areas also remove's our right to carry as we travel. Should property rights exceed our right to remain safe when off their property?

You absolutely should have the privilege of carrying since you have bought it. And the property owner should absolutely not be responsible for your actions if you do something stupid on his property.

If the legislature is going to force your privilege down the throat of a business owner then they must also him absolute immunity for a lawsuit even being filed.

As far as employers go, they should only have the right to look for company property and the police should do the searching.

Police aren’t going to search vehicles when no crime has been committed and there is no PC for a search. Employers are not bound by those requirements. You don’t have to let them search your vehicle; and they don’t have to keep you as an employee. Let’s be real here, if your employer wants to search your vehicle; your job is probably going to be gone anyway.

[Worriedman]

I don't think having each of us contacting our legislators will work, it hasn't yet. I think we need to target each one, one at a time. Using phone calls, email and social networking, target 2 legislators a day (or more) and have everyone contact them. 100 contacts in a day is more powerful than 2 or 3. Liberal, moderate or conservative, irregardless of party affiliation, barrage them all with our voices. Maybe that would get their attention.

PapaB, in my conversations with the Legislators last year, they told me they had not heard from anybody, I am trying to change that for the coming session. Of course the Judiciary Committee is of primary importance, (and I believe they are currently against the issue, too much money coming into their campaigns to abandon Fed Ex at this point), but, if enough Representatives hear from constituents, that will change.

[E4 No More]

Police aren’t going to search vehicles when no crime has been committed and there is no PC for a search. Employers are not bound by those requirements. You don’t have to let them search your vehicle; and they don’t have to keep you as an employee. Let’s be real here, if your employer wants to search your vehicle; your job is probably going to be gone anyway.

I have heard of some employers who have gone as far as conducting random searches of employees and their vehicles. Should that be allowed? Why should property rights trump privacy rights let alone one's right to defend their self? If they have cause to search then they have cause to terminate regardless of the fact that this is an "At Will" state. If they suspect that their property is in a vehicle then they should supply PC to the LEOs to search.

Edited December 28, 2011 by SWJewellTN

[E4 No More]

PapaB, in my conversations with the Legislators last year, they told me they had not heard from anybody, I am trying to change that for the coming session. Of course the Judiciary Committee is of primary importance, (and I believe they are currently against the issue, too much money coming into their campaigns to abandon Fed Ex at this point), but, if enough Representatives hear from constituents, that will change.

I fired off an email to my rep yesterday. We'll see if he responds.

[DaveTN]

I have heard of some employers who have gone as far as conducting random searches of employees and their vehicles. Should that be allowed? Why should property rights trump privacy rights let alone one's right to defend their self? If they have cause to search then they have cause to terminate regardless of the fact that this is an "At Will" state. If they suspect that their property is in a vehicle then they should supply PC to the LEOs to search.

Many companies require that you submit to a search of your person or vehicle as a condition of employment. Do I think that should be allowed? Certainly, they aren’t the government and they are simply protecting their company; employee theft is a big problem. Now, can they force you to submit to a search or forcibly enter your vehicle to search it? No, but they can fire you if you don’t allow it. Or, if it’s a criminal complaint (as in a theft case) they can call the Police and keep you from leaving or entering your vehicle until they get there.

I just get pizzed when I hear the “rights†stuff thrown around. Citizens in Tennessee do not have a right to carry a loaded gun in their car; it is a crime. Most of us are happy with what we have, but it darn sure isn’t because of the United States Constitution and has nothing to do with rights. And therefore it isn’t right that you are going to drive that down the throat of a business owner simply because you have the money to buy a privilege. What about the people that can’t afford to buy what you are calling “rights�

Trying to strong arm business owners and not give them absolute immunity from civil action will not fly and even if it is passed it will not stand up to scrutiny by the courts. In my humble opinion of course.

Yes, I believe you and I should be able to carry anywhere we please. But the state of Tennessee does not recognize the Right to Bear Arms. When all Tennesseans can carry; then the state can tell them they have to allow it in their parking lots.

[Oh Shoot]

...When all Tennesseans can carry; then the state can tell them they have to allow it in their parking lots.

Other states where residents must have a permit to carry have enacted the parking lot law with no constitutional challenges. So I don't see any different obstacles in TN.

- OS

[E4 No More]

Many companies require that you submit to a search of your person or vehicle as a condition of employment. Do I think that should be allowed? Certainly, they aren’t the government and they are simply protecting their company; employee theft is a big problem. Now, can they force you to submit to a search or forcibly enter your vehicle to search it? No, but they can fire you if you don’t allow it. Or, if it’s a criminal complaint (as in a theft case) they can call the Police and keep you from leaving or entering your vehicle until they get there.

I just get pizzed when I hear the “rights” stuff thrown around. Citizens in Tennessee do not have a right to carry a loaded gun in their car; it is a crime. Most of us are happy with what we have, but it darn sure isn’t because of the United States Constitution and has nothing to do with rights. And therefore it isn’t right that you are going to drive that down the throat of a business owner simply because you have the money to buy a privilege. What about the people that can’t afford to buy what you are calling “rights”?

State infringement of our right to carry aside we do have the right to go armed.

I have no problem with employers searching the containers of employees that they carry into and out of a building, nor do I have a problem with them being searched with wands or metal detectors, but I do have a problem with them searching an employee's vehicle in the parking lot. If they suspect an employee of theft then they should have stopped them before they exited the building. If they can't then they should contact LEOs with their PC so that the LEO can search.

IMHO, if they cannot search then they are not liable, so that provides immunity.

[DaveTN]

State infringement of our right to carry aside we do have the right to go armed.

No you don’t, that was settled in the last two gun cases the SCOTUS heard. It’s up to Tennessee state law when and where you carry, and they say it’s a crime.

We will never get the “right to bear arms†or “Constitutional Carry†if people think we already have it.

IMHO, if they cannot search then they are not liable, so that provides immunity.

There is no immunity unless it’s specified. Do a search on “Amanda Beech vs. Hercules Drilling Coâ€. She got 1.2 million dollars because an employee shot and killed her husband while showing him a gun at work. The company had signs and a written policy against guns and still had to pay.

[Fallguy]

Other groups (motorcycle) I've belonged to have organized "Legislative Days" where a large group went to capital hill. Most met with their individual legislator (by apponitment made ahead of time)....sometimes in a small group. If it was where we could a little bit larger group 4-5 would try to meet with certain comittee members.

Not sure if such an organized thing for firearms would work and/or be a good idea....

[Fallguy]

No you don’t, that was settled in the last two gun cases the SCOTUS heard. It’s up to Tennessee state law when and where you carry, and they say it’s a crime.

We will never get the “right to bear arms” or “Constitutional Carry” if people think we already have it.

I agree with you last statement. But on the first...not sure it is "settled" Both of those cases only dealt with "keep" and not "bearing", right? Now if a case about bearing comes up...then it would be settled....

[DaveTN]

Other groups (motorcycle) I've belonged to have organized "Legislative Days" where a large group went to capital hill. Most met with their individual legislator (by apponitment made ahead of time)....sometimes in a small group. If it was where we could a little bit larger group 4-5 would try to meet with certain comittee members.

Not sure if such an organized thing for firearms would work and/or be a good idea....

Illinois doesn’t have a motorcycle helmet law. When I lived there every May we use to ride from all over the state, meet outside Springfield and then have an organized ride to the capitol to let them know we wanted it to stay that way. It was coordinated with local law enforcement and all the major intersections along the route were shut down to cross traffic during the ride. The lines of bikes were miles long and people would line the streets to watch.

I don’t know if they still do it or not, but Illinois is one of only two states that are helmet optional. When the legislators look out their windows and see motorcycles as far as they can see; it seems to have some impact.

Now, would that work for guns? Well, I think it depends on how the media would handle it. We would have a bunch of whack jobs show up that could really hurt our cause. If the media locked in on them and let them talk for the shock effect, it would end badly. If they talked to the average HCP holder it might help.

It sure would be a roll of the dice.

[E4 No More]

No you don’t, that was settled in the last two gun cases the SCOTUS heard. It’s up to Tennessee state law when and where you carry, and they say it’s a crime.

We will never get the “right to bear arms” or “Constitutional Carry” if people think we already have it.

There is no immunity unless it’s specified. Do a search on “Amanda Beech vs. Hercules Drilling Co”. She got 1.2 million dollars because an employee shot and killed her husband while showing him a gun at work. The company had signs and a written policy against guns and still had to pay.

And SCOTUS gets everything right because there's no politics involved there, right?

You argue against your own point on the second paragraph because if they are not immune now then immunity makes no difference later. Nothing changes but their ability to search your vehicle. Without reading the judge's decision, could it be that they were liable because they didn't search the vehicle? If they were not allowed by law to search the vehicle would the judgement have been the same?

And, I agree that the employer shouldn't be liable unless they take absolutely no reasonable precautions to protect their unarmed employees.

[Fallguy]

Illinois doesn’t have a motorcycle helmet law. When I lived there every May we use to ride from all over the state, meet outside Springfield and then have an organized ride to the capitol to let them know we wanted it to stay that way. It was coordinated with local law enforcement and all the major intersections along the route were shut down to cross traffic during the ride. The lines of bikes were miles long and people would line the streets to watch.

I don’t know if they still do it or not, but Illinois is one of only two states that are helmet optional. When the legislators look out their windows and see motorcycles as far as they can see; it seems to have some impact.

Now, would that work for guns? Well, I think it depends on how the media would handle it. We would have a bunch of whack jobs show up that could really hurt our cause. If the media locked in on them and let them talk for the shock effect, it would end badly. If they talked to the average HCP holder it might help.

It sure would be a roll of the dice.

I'm afraid we will always have a mandatory helemt law here as long as there is TennCare and Vanderbilt. But our group was able to accomplish several other things. As you said it was well organized we even had a lobbyist that did quite a bit of groundwork on the front end.

Of course one problem is...you can wear leather into the capital, but not carry a firearm...

...and I do agree a lot of the effectiveness would depened on who was there and how it was covered in the media.

One idea may be to talk with a pro-gun legislator and ask him for suggestions on how to do it....

[Worriedman]

I just get pizzed when I hear the “rights” stuff thrown around. Citizens in Tennessee do not have a right to carry a loaded gun in their car; it is a crime.

Just because the forced change to the TN Constitution in 1870 removed the ability of the Citizens to enjoy their "Right" to go armed, does not keep it from being a "Right". "Because" an oppressive Government that fails to honor their oath to uphold the Constitution can keep a People from enjoying the intended Rights, does not make it correct.

We take the steps we can to change the metrics, we elect representation that holds the Constitution as more than a door mat, and maybe, just maybe we can gift to our grand children a better Tennessee.

[RobertNashville]

Other states where residents must have a permit to carry have enacted the parking lot law with no constitutional challenges. So I don't see any different obstacles in TN.

- OS

The only "obsticle" that Tennessee has in enacting similar legislation is the challenge of big $$$ being pumped into legislator's re-election coffer by businesses like FedEx, Nissan, and others who don't want employees to be able to leave a firearm in their vehicle while the vehicle is parked in their parking lots. Those dollars are the real enemy to thos of us who would like to see such a bill passed.

[Worriedman]

Trying to strong arm business owners and not give them absolute immunity from civil action will not fly and even if it is passed it will not stand up to scrutiny by the courts. In my humble opinion of course.

From this article:

NRA-ILA :: We Saved A Space For You

The same issue was tried by the courts in the dispute between "Big Business" and the People in Oklahoma.

In 2007, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma ruled against the plaintiffs on their first three arguments--that the law was unconstitutionally vague, a taking of private property or a violation of due process rights--but did rule that the OSHA Act’s “general duty clause†preempted the Oklahoma statute. That clause requires employers to provide a safe workplace.

Of particular note during the appeals process was a letter to state Sen. Ellis from Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor Thomas Stohler, head of OSHA at the end of the Bush administration, that buttressed the state’s case.

“I was pleasantly surprised when (Stohler) wrote a letter on Jan. 16, 2009,†Cooper said, “stating that it was OSHA’s position that the general duty clause of the Occupational Safety and Health Act does not pre-empt the Oklahoma statute …

“This letter, of course, confirmed the legal position we were then arguing to the Tenth Circuit, and the court made reference to it in its opinion adopting our position,†Cooper said.

Indeed, on Feb. 18, 2009, Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Judges Paul Kelly, Bobby Baldock and Michael McConnell reversed the ruling of the District Court. The appellate decision allowed the Oklahoma parking lot statute to stand.

[Sky King]

Trying to strong arm business owners and not give them absolute immunity from civil action will not fly and even if it is passed it will not stand up to scrutiny by the courts. In my humble opinion of course.

.

Oklahoma started this ball rolling several years ago. Their law has ridden the roller coaster of court challenges and at my latest information has been upheald. Florida's law was also challenged. Deep pockets such as Disney opposed it but they too lost. So that is the long response. The bottom line is that these law ARE withstanding court scrutiny.

[Oh Shoot]

...Florida's law was also challenged. Deep pockets such as Disney opposed it but they too lost. So that is the long response. The bottom line is that these law ARE withstanding court scrutiny.

Disney hasn't really lost. They claim special exemption under an explosives clause. Fired employee filed suit, he dropped it, so far Disney has still been able to enforce it.

There are a number of other exemptions to the FL parking lot law, too, where workers cannot have firearms in their vehicles. Most glaringly, school property. So I wouldn't think this should be the model touted for TN.

"Exceptions listed in F.S. 790.251(7) include school property, correctional institutions, property where a nuclear-powered electricity generation facility is located, property upon which substantial activities involving national defense, aerospace, or homeland security are conducted, property upon which the primary business conducted is the manufacture, use, storage, or transportation of combustible or explosive materials, a motor vehicle owned/leased/rented by your employer, and any other property upon which possession of a firearm is prohibited pursuant to any federal law, contract with a federal government entity, or general law of Florida."

- OS