Employee Safe Commute (Parking Lot) Campaign

[GKar]

Just an interesting, possibility related aside: several health care facilities in this area are now "No tobacco use" property wide. For a period of time after initial appearance of that policy, the facilities insisted that also meant that tobacco use was not allowed inside an employees car when parked in the parking garage, lot, etc. - anywhere on the facilities' property. Recently, however, that has been re-stated as not allowed EXCEPT if inside your own vehicle. I do not know why the change, nor any circumstances surrounding it...just that it occurred.

Edited February 16, 2012 by GKar

[Fallguy]

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.

Carry on your person onto someone's property for a yard sale and leaving it in your car at the same yard sale are two different things to me. So is the same thing at a place of business. This bill wouldn't allow anyone to carry on their person inside of the business if the business owner doesn't want them to, it simply would allow someone to store a legally transported firearm in their vehicle (also private property) so long as it stays locked up inside of the vehicle. No if an employer or place of business doesn't want me to provide me a place to park period....that is fine as well. But if they are going to allow me to park my private property (vehicle) on their private property....then I'm not really sure why they need to worry about what lawful items are in that vehicle so long as they stay inside that vehicle.

[waynesan]

Beth Harwell speaks on the Parking Lot Bill:

http://tennesseenewstv.com/2012/02/17/harwell-wants-business-friendly-guns-in-parking-lots-bill/

[Fallguy]

Not really surprised by anything said....

[RobertNashville]

Not that anyone asked me but I really don't believe we need another thread discussing whether we should or should not have a "parking lot" bill...the subject has been beaten to death in several threads and I haven't noticed anyone changing their opinion because of the voluminous discussions.

If I might be so bold, this thread was started to rally those who support these bills to get busy contacting their representatives to get it passed. If you don't want it passed that's fine...make your feelings known to YOUR representatives.

Just saying...

[waynesan]

The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hear from proponents of this bill today at 3:30 pm (Nashville time).

[Defender]

Did I read online somewhere yesterday that Beth Harwell is now supporting this? If true, that could help couldnt it?

[GKar]

"Support" might be a rather strong word. If you go by body language, and look/listen to the statements she and Maggart made on video, you are hard-pressed to find any inkling of "support" of the current bill...and fairly clear indications that any such bill they might consider acceptable will be significantly modified, including ionsertion of a proviso to exclude businesses with sufficiently 'private' parking lots (as yet to be defined, but fences seem to be prominently mentioned). This latter idea sadly seems to have wandered into Lt Gov Ramsey's latest statement, as well...

[Defender]

"Support" might be a rather strong word. If you go by body language, and look/listen to the statements she and Maggart made on video, you are hard-pressed to find any inkling of "support" of the current bill...and fairly clear indications that any such bill they might consider acceptable will be significantly modified, including ionsertion of a proviso to exclude businesses with sufficiently 'private' parking lots (as yet to be defined, but fences seem to be prominently mentioned). This latter idea sadly seems to have wandered into Lt Gov Ramsey's latest statement, as well...

I hate that. On a more positive note however, I just got this response to a recent e-mail I sent:

You don't have to worry about me. I have been pushing this legislation for years and for a long time was the only sponsor in the senate. I will vote to move this legislation forward with the fewest restraints on your constitutional rights as possible.

Yours in service,

Sen. Stacey Campfield

[Guest Star1021Scott]

I hate that. On a more positive note however, I just got this response to a recent e-mail I sent:

You don't have to worry about me. I have been pushing this legislation for years and for a long time was the only sponsor in the senate. I will vote to move this legislation forward with the fewest restraints on your constitutional rights as possible.

Yours in service,

Sen. Stacey Campfield

I too received the same exact email (verbatim) today.

[R_Bert]

Stacey has a few interesting comments on his blog today, including one on the TSU shooting.

http://lastcar.blogspot.com/

Edited February 21, 2012 by R_Bert

[TGO David]

DITTO, it is time to put up or shut up for the members of the General Assembly

I agree wholeheartedly, but experience has forced me to become a serious pessimist. Politicians with rare exception tend to answer with platitudes to whomever is making the most noise at them for the moment. If the voters in Tennessee would REALLY hold them accountable and vote them out of their jobs when they fail to represent the majority's desires, then change might actually occur.

Until that happens, all of the noise that voters make -- including gun owners -- will get empty promises and platitudes instead of true representation. I actually have more respect for the politicians who tell you they won't vote in favor of your particular interest than I do for the ones who say they will and then don't carry through.

Start firing some of these jokers and they'll begin to get the message that they work for US.

[R_Bert]

I agree wholeheartedly, but experience has forced me to become a serious pessimist. Politicians with rare exception tend to answer with platitudes to whomever is making the most noise at them for the moment. If the voters in Tennessee would REALLY hold them accountable and vote them out of their jobs when they fail to represent the majority's desires, then change might actually occur.

Until that happens, all of the noise that voters make -- including gun owners -- will get empty promises and platitudes instead of true representation. I actually have more respect for the politicians who tell you they won't vote in favor of your particular interest than I do for the ones who say they will and then don't carry through.

Start firing some of these jokers and they'll begin to get the message that they work for US.

True, but we also have to vote them out by holding them personally responsible for what their legislative leadership does also (regardless of whether local legislator is directly involved in bad legislation) because the General Assembly chooses their leaders.

AND let your legislators know why you are canning them.

Edited February 21, 2012 by R_Bert

[raydog1]

In before the end. Seemed to go well today. Nice arguments but I expected more opposition. Guess we'll hear it in 2 weeks. Beverly Marrero gave it the ole Memphis try though.

[Guest sdo1]

I too received the same exact email (verbatim) today.

Yup, Campfield sent the same to me this AM.

[tnhawk]

I hate that. On a more positive note however, I just got this response to a recent e-mail I sent:

You don't have to worry about me. I have been pushing this legislation for years and for a long time was the only sponsor in the senate. I will vote to move this legislation forward with the fewest restraints on your constitutional rights as possible.

Yours in service,

Sen. Stacey Campfield

I hate that. On a more positive note however, I just got this response to a recent e-mail I sent:

You don't have to worry about me. I have been pushing this legislation for years and for a long time was the only sponsor in the senate. I will vote to move this legislation forward with the fewest restraints on your constitutional rights as possible.

Yours in service,

Sen. Stacey Campfield

Same as I received.

[R_Bert]

Yup, Campfield sent the same to me this AM.

Same as I received.

Heh, it still beats Haslam's reply. At least Campfield had to read it to put it in the right category. (I got several of them, as I copy him and several others on each email I send). He does watch for curveballs (and so does Rep, John Ragan, my House rep).

Edited February 22, 2012 by R_Bert

[Guest Star1021Scott]

I watched the debate on the Tennessee Legislatures website. Good points made on both sides. Looks like the next debate is on March 6th.

[macville]

I say that since our reps and senators don't seem to be interested to passing laws that would actually align our laws with both our state and federal constitution, we start suing over unconstitutional laws. Even if we ignore the fact that the 2d amendment is supposed to apply to the states as well as the federal gov, our state constitution only says that they have the power to put in laws that are with a "view to prevent crime." The posting law (-1359) can not and does not prevent crime. Neither does restricting carry in schools, parks, etc. And the permit system obviously does not stop criminals from carrying and using firearms. We need to get into court and get a win that won't make us rely on politicians for maybe throwing up a small, crappy bone. We need to get them to be forced to follow both constitutions.

[Oh Shoot]

... our state constitution only says that they have the power to put in laws that are with a "view to prevent crime." The posting law (-1359) can not and does not prevent crime. Neither does restricting carry in schools, parks, etc. ....

Exactly. These laws CAUSE crime -- they make criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens.

- OS

[Worriedman]

I too received the same exact email (verbatim) today.

If you watch the Judiciary Committee session of today, Campfield comes off as less than supportive. He grilled me pretty hard on the "Private Property" aspect.

First time in front of a full committee, maybe I will do better next time, there were some nerves going on.

[Guest ArmyVeteran37214]

I hate that. On a more positive note however, I just got this response to a recent e-mail I sent:

You don't have to worry about me. I have been pushing this legislation for years and for a long time was the only sponsor in the senate. I will vote to move this legislation forward with the fewest restraints on your constitutional rights as possible.

Yours in service,

Sen. Stacey Campfield

I just got a similar email from Campfield aslo.

[Just2Honor]

Only one emailed me back. Campbell said "I'm with you" Short and to the point. My own pols have not responded yet.

Edited February 22, 2012 by RoadKill

[E4 No More]

I hate that. On a more positive note however, I just got this response to a recent e-mail I sent:

You don't have to worry about me. I have been pushing this legislation for years and for a long time was the only sponsor in the senate. I will vote to move this legislation forward with the fewest restraints on your constitutional rights as possible.

Yours in service,

Sen. Stacey Campfield

I got the exact canned response from Campfield.

[Defender]

I dont mind the canned responses as long as they are real.