Parking lot bill time again

[Sky King]

Folks, it is time to start contacting our senators and representatives in Nashville regarding a parking lot bill this year. Regardless of how you think they will respond, it is important to get a "yes" or "no" from them. Email them, call them, write letters, a lot.

[Defender]

Did today. Thanks for the reminder.

[RobertNashville]

as i understand it there is an existing bill in the house but it needs a senate sponsor(s).

I'm expecting as little or even less movement on ANY firearms related issues as we saw last year...it's VERY clear that this "Republican" controlled state government only concerns itself with firearms issues or firearm owners when they need those voters to elect or re-elect them.

[Guest nicemac]

as i understand it there is an existing bill in the house but it needs a senate sponsor(s).

I'm expecting as little or even less movement on ANY firearms related issues as we saw last year...it's VERY clear that this "Republican" controlled state government only concerns itself with firearms issues or firearm owners when they need those voters to elect or re-elect them.

Then Republicans need to remind them of that fact and that yes, we do have a good memory.

[Defender]

Then Republicans need to remind them of that fact and that yes, we do have a good memory.

Ditto.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I did, also.

[Defender]

I e-mailed Sen Joe Haynes and Rep Gary Moore and just now received a reply from Rep moore. Here is what he said:

Thank you for your e-mail. I support this, and will go a step further and say that I support any certified carry permit holder to be allowed to carry anywhere they choose.

Rep. Gary W. Moore

Bravo, Rep Moore!!!!!

Edited January 13, 2012 by barewoolf

[Guest nicemac]

I e-mailed Sen Joe Haynes and Rep Gary Moore and just now received a reply form Rep moore. Here is what he said:

Thank you for your e-mail. I support this, and will go a step further and say that I support any certified carry permit holder to be allowed to carry anywhere they choose.

Rep. Gary W. Moore

Bravo, Rep Moore!!!!!

Great! But will he stick his neck out and help get a bill out of committee to a vote, and then vote for it?

I emailed my rep. and my senator yesterday as well. Neither have responded yet, but my senator personally called me to discuss the issue after I contacted him last year.

[JAB]

IMO, the problem is that we don't need a firearms specific 'parking lot' bill. What we need is a law declaring that the interior of a person's vehicle has the same 'private property' protections as that person's home, regardless of where the vehicle is parked - meaning that it is no one's business and no one can legally tell a person what legal items he or she can or can't have inside his or her vehicle.

[Guest nicemac]

IMO, the problem is that we don't need a firearms specific 'parking lot' bill. What we need is a law declaring that the interior of a person's vehicle has the same 'private property' protections as that person's home, regardless of where the vehicle is parked - meaning that it is no one's business and no one can legally tell a person what legal items he or she can or can't have inside his or her vehicle.

Agreed.

[RobertNashville]

IMO, the problem is that we don't need a firearms specific 'parking lot' bill. What we need is a law declaring that the interior of a person's vehicle has the same 'private property' protections as that person's home, regardless of where the vehicle is parked - meaning that it is no one's business and no one can legally tell a person what legal items he or she can or can't have inside his or her vehicle.

That's fine (and I tend to agree)...the problem is that it's already true in Tennessee that no one, not an individual nor a company (even an employer) has a "right"/"power" to compel a search of a vehicle; only a law enforcement officer can compel a search and only then with proper cause/search warrant. The problem is that employers require employees to "voluntarily" allow a search of the employee's vehicle under threat of termination if they don't "allow" it.

So, if this is to be changed, I think the only way to accomplish that is to have legislation that is firearms specific because it's specifically firearms that is at issue...of course, who's to say that tomorrow our employers won't try to control what radio stations we can have the radios in our vehicles tuned to???

[JAB]

...of course, who's to say that tomorrow our employers won't try to control what radio stations we can have the radios in our vehicles tuned to???

Exactly (I know you were exaggerating but it does make a point.) So what we need are private property protections that prohibit employers from making employment conditional on an employee 'voluntarily' allowing a search of the employee's private property. The legislation does not have to be firearm specific - it could simply state that it is a violation of the law for any employer to require employees to 'voluntarily' allow vehicle searches as a condition of employment, render null and void any such 'agreements' that employees have previously been required to sign and establish penalties for employers who terminate employees based on a search refusal. There probably should also be some provision stating that the employee, not the employer, is responsible for the contents of the vehicle.

[RobertNashville]

That would go a long way but if that's all that was changed, it would still allow businesses (employers or otherwise) to post signage which would make having a firearm on the property a crime. I'll admit that if they can't in any way force a search of the vehicle "who would know" but I would not want to be put in the position where I'd be "breaking the law" by carrying past a sing at the entrance to a parking lot.

[GKar]

Folks, it is time to start contacting our senators and representatives in Nashville regarding a parking lot bill this year. Regardless of how you think they will respond, it is important to get a "yes" or "no" from them. Email them, call them, write letters, a lot.

Contacted two representatives from my area. One (who stayed on the sideleines as a freshman during last session's fracas) has indicated his support, and has signed on as co-sponsor to HB 2021. Havent heard from the other yet...was disappointed in his support of the watered-down version last year.

Will track down my senator after church one Sunday soon.

[Oh Shoot]

That would go a long way but if that's all that was changed, it would still allow businesses (employers or otherwise) to post signage which would make having a firearm on the property a crime. I'll admit that if they can't in any way force a search of the vehicle "who would know" but I would not want to be put in the position where I'd be "breaking the law" by carrying past a sing at the entrance to a parking lot.

Yep, and that's likely to become a significant sticking point once it permeates the brains of the geniuses on the hill, since AFAIK all the other states that allow "guns in parking lots" don't have a statute that makes carrying past a sign a criminal act.

Then again, it may make perfect sense to lawmaker-think, to allow guns there by statute but allow employer to still ban the same guns via another statute.

- OS

Edited January 13, 2012 by OhShoot