Employee Safe Commute (Parking Lot) Campaign

[Fallguy]

If a business doesn't want my car on their property....fine, do not provide a place to park. If they provide me a place to park (in other words allowing my private property on to theirs) the shouldn't worry about any legal items stored in my car as long as they stay in my car.

[Fallguy]

The Senate Judiciary Committee will meet today at 3:30pm (Nashville time) and discuss this bill. You should be able to watch it here:

http://wapp.capitol....spx?type=Senate

Click on the "View Video" link on the "Judiciary" line after 3:30pm and the video should be streamed live.

25th on the agenda...wouldn't be surprised if they didn't even get to it today....

Edited February 14, 2012 by Fallguy

[R_Bert]

25th on the agenda...wouldn't be surprised if they didn't even get to it today....

on #8 right now

[Fallguy]

on #8 right now

They've skipped around. I've been away for a few....not sure if they've heard it yet or not.

[R_Bert]

They've skipped around. I've been away for a few....not sure if they've heard it yet or not.

Just noticed that.

[raydog1]

Dangit! Was on #8, had a business meeting, came back and was on #26.

What did I miss?

[R_Bert]

and adjourned.

[R_Bert]

Dangit! Was on #8, had a business meeting, came back and was on #26.

What did I miss?

nothing. they skipped around

[Fallguy]

Dangit! Was on #8, had a business meeting, came back and was on #26.

What did I miss?

They jump around depending on who is in the room etc...

It was rolled till next week.

[waynesan]

"It was rolled till next week."

Next week they will hear from proponents of the bill. Then they will come back on March 6 and hear from opponents of the bill. Then the committee will deliberate and come to a decision.

[tnhawk]

done

[Sky King]

Ok, I just got back from Nashville with a couple of other TFA members. Yes, all are right, both bills got rolled to the next two weeks. As posted, they will hear from proponents and the following week from the opponents.

Personally I wish it were the otherway around with the proponents comments the last thing they hear before making a decision. It also would give us an opportunity to hear what the opponents say, (we pretty much know a lot of what they may say) and then respond appropriately.

We REALLY need to crank up the heat. We were able to get around to several members in both the House and Senate today. Some indicated that they had not heard much from constituants while some said their they had received many phone calls.

What is of a great concern is that there is a strong feeling that the Senate bill will not get out of the Senate without an amendment that exempts parking lots with fences and controlled access. Essentially it would exempt FedEx almost entirely and a lot of other employers. A lot of your larger employers that have a large number of employees, have fenced lots. This tells me that the big business lobby is hard at work.

Please contact your senators and tell them that we DO NOT want this amendment.

Right now I do plan to go back to Nashville next week.

[Worriedman]

Wrote everyone that I could think of in Executive and Legislative branches about this about two weeks ago. My Rep (Gary Moore D-Nashville) wrote back:

Thank you for your e-mail. I support these bills.

State Representative Gary W. Moore

House District 50

32 Legislative Plaza

Nashville, TN 37243

615-741-4317 phone

This contact and agreement to support is vital to the effort. Rep. Moore is a member of the subcommittee that will decide if the bill moves in the House. So far we have commitments from Rep.s Eldridge and Casada, Chairman Mark White could be the deciding vote, we need to contact him with reasoned, polite request to support this Bill.

Edited February 15, 2012 by Worriedman

[Worriedman]

I have a problem. I am a staunch supporter of the Bill of Rights. I am also a staunch supporter of the Right of Property. And this legislation brings these two rights in DIRECT conflict.

If I do not want you on MY property, I have the RIGHT to tell you to leave, and can even get your forcefully removed. You can even be charged with a crime, if you do not leave.

The 2nd Amendment, the second most important Amendment, after the First, should allow me to carry firearms.

So, lets say this: I come and visit a person, who owns the land I am visiting on. He does not believe in the 2nd A. He thinks firearms are the root of all evil. Sadly, I have to visit, as he is a relative, and he is hosting a family reunion. I come on to his property, armed. He has the right to kick me off his land.

Why then should it be any different for any employer, or corporation, who have property rights, to have the right to say, not on my property?

Are we crippling one right for another here?

What we are allowing with the current situation is the employer to extend his "Property Rights" from his parking lot to my front door. Inside my personal vehicle, I consider anything legal to have there to be my business, and not theirs. If the employer or corporation is willing to assume liability for the safety and security of the individual door to door, (we know the Government through Law Enforcement is not responsible for that production) then we do not have a problem, let them assume control and the associated liability.

[R_Bert]

Ok, I just got back from Nashville with a couple of other TFA members. Yes, all are right, both bills got rolled to the next two weeks. As posted, they will hear from proponents and the following week from the opponents.

Personally I wish it were the otherway around with the proponents comments the last thing they hear before making a decision. It also would give us an opportunity to hear what the opponents say, (we pretty much know a lot of what they may say) and then respond appropriately.

We REALLY need to crank up the heat. We were able to get around to several members in both the House and Senate today. Some indicated that they had not heard much from constituants while some said their they had received many phone calls.

What is of a great concern is that there is a strong feeling that the Senate bill will not get out of the Senate without an amendment that exempts parking lots with fences and controlled access. Essentially it would exempt FedEx almost entirely and a lot of other employers. A lot of your larger employers that have a large number of employees, have fenced lots. This tells me that the big business lobby is hard at work.

Please contact your senators and tell them that we DO NOT want this amendment.

Right now I do plan to go back to Nashville next week.

how do you approach addressing public parking areas at military / federal facilities (fences & gates) vs industrial/commercial ?

[Sky King]

I have a problem. I am a staunch supporter of the Bill of Rights. I am also a staunch supporter of the Right of Property. And this legislation brings these two rights in DIRECT conflict.

If I do not want you on MY property, I have the RIGHT to tell you to leave, and can even get your forcefully removed. You can even be charged with a crime, if you do not leave.

The 2nd Amendment, the second most important Amendment, after the First, should allow me to carry firearms.

So, lets say this: I come and visit a person, who owns the land I am visiting on. He does not believe in the 2nd A. He thinks firearms are the root of all evil. Sadly, I have to visit, as he is a relative, and he is hosting a family reunion. I come on to his property, armed. He has the right to kick me off his land.

Why then should it be any different for any employer, or corporation, who have property rights, to have the right to say, not on my property?

Are we crippling one right for another here?

You are right, it is YOUR property and if you don't want me on it, you can tell me to leave and if I don't, you can have me charged with a crime. BUT there is a real differance between property where you live, your house, your yard, your driveway and property that is held out as being open to the public or a parking lot set aside for employees to park.

The government already dictates a lot when it comes to property open to the public or employee parking. The government does not tell you that you have to provide a certain percentage of parking dedicated to handicap parking in front of your house. You don't have to have specified lighting, drainage and so on. So comparing an employee parking lot with your private property is like comparing apples and oranges.

This one piece of legislation, if passed is not going to cripple anybody. The Castle Doctrine law passed a couple of years ago recognizes that my car is an extension of my "castle". What is in it, if legally possessed is nobody's business. Your employer either invites or directs you to park in a lot set aside for that purpose. What is in my car, as long as it stays in that car is both of no concern of his nor does it represent any imposition on him.

Next, just where do the employers property rights end? With a no weapons policy, they can effectively extend their rights all the way to the front door of YOUR house. With the final destination of your commute being your job, you can not have the weapon from the time you leave the door of your house untill you return. Therefor your employer has disarmed you from the time you walk out your door untill you return hence imposing their property rights right into your driveway.

[Sky King]

how do you approach addressing public parking areas at military / federal facilities (fences & gates) vs industrial/commercial ?

The bill exempts facilities or properties specifically prohibited by law as it must. However if it is fenced and/or gated just because the property owner wants to do so, then it sould not be exempt.

Edited February 15, 2012 by Sky King

[Fallguy]

how do you approach addressing public parking areas at military / federal facilities (fences & gates) vs industrial/commercial ?

I'm pretty sure Federal law still applies on federal property...

[Worriedman]

how do you approach addressing public parking areas at military / federal facilities (fences & gates) vs industrial/commercial ?

In the Bill:

(1) The person operating the motor vehicle is:

A- Prohibited from possessing, receiving, or transporting

firearms under § 39-17-1307 or (f) or 18 U.S.C. § 922(n) or

by any court order;

B- In violation of § 39-17-1307(a) or (d);

C- In violation of § 39-17-1319;

D- In violation of § 39-17-1321; or

(2) The motor vehicle is located in any place where firearms are

expressly prohibited by federal law.

[clowe]

Does anyone know how it was voted yesterday?

[Garufa]

Both still in committee and deferred until next week. Neither have made it to the floor for a vote if that's what your asking.

[Guest MisterG]

I was sent a list of our Senators from the NRA that are involved in this bill. I sent them all an email urging them to pass it and thanking them for their support. I hope others here have done the same as well. If not, it's not too late. Your voice can make a difference. ( Or at least I would like to think it does.)

[Worriedman]

Sky King and I spent Tuesday visiting with members of the House relative to the issue. What we heard time and again is the fact that the Representatives are hearing very little from the constituents, and are being inundated by the paid lobbyist from the Chamber of Commerce and Federal Express.

Of significance was the additional claim that the NFIB (National Federation of Independent Business) was in opposition to the bill as well, but one of the activist who made the trip with us is a Board member of that organization, and as such was able to contact their lobbyist who made sure to contact the Committee chairs involved and redress that misconception, stating in fact, that the association was NOT in opposition. Not that the Leadership would trot out an untruth in support of their position mind you, but, having the facts in play tend to take that arrow out of their quiver.

The issue is ours to win or lose now, contacting your Representatives with a respectful entreaty to seek their support for the legislation is very important.

Edited February 16, 2012 by Worriedman

[tnhawk]

I was sent a list of our Senators from the NRA that are involved in this bill. I sent them all an email urging them to pass it and thanking them for their support. I hope others here have done the same as well. If not, it's not too late. Your voice can make a difference. ( Or at least I would like to think it does.)

I did the same and received several replies from Senators saying they support the bill.

[Guest HvyMtl]

You are right, it is YOUR property and if you don't want me on it, you can tell me to leave and if I don't, you can have me charged with a crime. BUT there is a real differance between property where you live, your house, your yard, your driveway and property that is held out as being open to the public or a parking lot set aside for employees to park.

The government already dictates a lot when it comes to property open to the public or employee parking. The government does not tell you that you have to provide a certain percentage of parking dedicated to handicap parking in front of your house. You don't have to have specified lighting, drainage and so on. So comparing an employee parking lot with your private property is like comparing apples and oranges.

This one piece of legislation, if passed is not going to cripple anybody. The Castle Doctrine law passed a couple of years ago recognizes that my car is an extension of my "castle". What is in it, if legally possessed is nobody's business. Your employer either invites or directs you to park in a lot set aside for that purpose. What is in my car, as long as it stays in that car is both of no concern of his nor does it represent any imposition on him.

Next, just where do the employers property rights end? With a no weapons policy, they can effectively extend their rights all the way to the front door of YOUR house. With the final destination of your commute being your job, you can not have the weapon from the time you leave the door of your house untill you return. Therefor your employer has disarmed you from the time you walk out your door untill you return hence imposing their property rights right into your driveway.

Um, actually, the city HAS designated what I can have in my driveway on my private property. I got a letter telling me to stop parking on the grass, or face a $50 a day fine from the Codes Dept. Got another for the disabled car I was working on in the driveway. So, yes, the government DOES control your driveway.

People keep claiming the business is "open for the public" and is therefore different. So, the next time you have a garage sale, "open to the public," I carry, and you ask me to leave, I can tell you off? When you have it "open to the pubic" to sell it?

Yes, there are differences, to a point, between business property and personal property. Those differences may not be as broad as painted here. Also, there are many cases where the business is not "open to the public," and where the public is politely asked not to trespass.

Then there is the argument of property in regards to your vehicle. The vehicle is your property, and everything enclosed in it controlled by you. Shouldn't you be arguing this property right is equal to the business' property rights? This legislation is claiming yes. I am not so sure.

I still see property vs 2nd A here. Should the 2nd A trump property rights? I see valid arguments on both sides.

I am going to have to reread this legislation.

Edited February 16, 2012 by HvyMtl