Employee Safe Commute (Parking Lot) Campaign

[Worriedman]

http://youtu.be/IltaB6dLuS4 Edited April 18, 2012 by Worriedman

[Worriedman]

Richard - where do you find the Calendar cmte calendar? I've never managed to stumble upon it.

I get the information from friends who work at Legislative Plaza, not sure it is a published thing until the day of.

[Worriedman]

Take that back.

Go to General Assembly page:

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/

Then to House.

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/house/

Then to House Weekly Calender on right of page to reach here:

http://wapp.capitol....aspx?type=house

Pick the day you are searching for, then the action, in this case Thursday, April 19, 2012, for Calender and Rules.

Edited April 18, 2012 by Worriedman

[Worriedman]

From TN Report.

http://tnreport.com/blog/2012/04/18/gun-rights-vs-property-rights-debate-closer-to-floor-in-house/

The Senate sponsor of the bills, Mike Faulk, R-Church Hill, has said he’s sensitive to Republicans who share the concerns of companies and business owners. Faulk, who chairs the Senate Calendar Committee, said earlier this week he’s leaning toward not bringing the bill to a floor vote.

“When you have the governor, the Speaker of the House, the speaker of the Senate and as many as 15 or 16 members of your own caucus saying they don’t feel you’ve got the right balance (between gun and property rights), I pay pretty close attention to that,†Faulk told TNReport on Monday.

But he also described the situation as “fluid,†and left the door open to the possibility some kind of compromise might improve the bill’s chances.

“We’ll just kind of wait and see how they evolve,†he said. “Anytime you have a bill in the conference committee, it is still alive.â€

Faulk indicated the House committee’s move to limit protections to those with government-issued permits to carry firearms is a constructive step.

“That helps,†he said.

For a man who does not have the pressure of re-election on him, why would one who sponsored a much broader bill than exist now, cave to pressure from Leadership?

This calls for contact to Sen. Faulk on a massive scale. As Chairman of the Calender and Rules Committee, he owes allegiance to all citizens of Tennessee, not just the constituents in his Senatorial District.

Phone (615) 741-2061

e-mail sen.mike.faulk@capitol.tn.gov

[QuietDan]

With Ramsey and company reportedly getting ready to block the legislation on the behest of big business, I contacted big business to see where they are coming from. Here is the response from FedEx:

“FedEx is committed to providing a safe and secure work environment for all employees and has a long-standing policy of prohibiting weapons of any kind on company property.

FedEx opposes this legislation. We believe that a property owner’s right to provide a safe work environment trumps an individual’s right to possess a firearm on the owners’ property.â€

Maury Donahue

Manager, Regulatory and Public Affairs Communications

[Worriedman]

The United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, does not agree, they found in RAMSEY WINCH INC.; Auto Crane Company; ConocoPhillips; Norris, a Dover Resources Company; DP Manufacturing, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Tulsa Winch, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. C. Brad HENRY, Governor of the State of Oklahoma; W.A. Drew B. Edmonson, Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma, and their Agents and Successors, Defendants-Appellants, No. 07-5166, Feb. 18, 2009, that state statutes barring property owners from prohibiting storage of firearms in locked vehicles on their property were not a per se physical taking of claimants' properties under the Fifth Amendment, notwithstanding claimants' contention that statutes required them to provide an easement for individuals transporting firearms; statutes applied to all property owners, not just claimants, statues merely limited claimants' use of their properties, and that the statutes did not require claimants to deed portions of their properties to the state for public use.

In addition, the Court found state statutes barring property owners from prohibiting storage of firearms in locked vehicles on their property did not completely deprive claimants' of all economically beneficial use of their properties so as to constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment, and were rationally related to legitimate state interest of increasing public safety, (very important) and thus did not violate substantive due process.

In addition the Court found that state statutes barring property owners from prohibiting storage of firearms in locked vehicles on their property was not preempted by overall purpose and objective of Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA).

[QuietDan]

Thank you WorriedMan. I'm not buying it, I'm just posting it.

I wonder sometimes why we work through our legislators if they are "bought" people. Seems that it would be a waste of time. Perhaps we should continue this discussion directly with the big businesses that see it necessary to "buy" legislators. Better to deal with the Master than the Servant?

With big business, they are more beholden to their customers than legislators are beholden to their constituents. . . .

[JReedEsq]

We've heard from FedEx and Volkswagen. I wonder if Nissan took a position.

[GKar]

House bills 3559 and 3560 rolled to the next House Calendar committee.

[Mike.357]

Everybody who refuses to walk past a gunbuster sign because they won't do business with and anti gun business ought to refuse to buy veewees or use fedex for any shipping purposes.

That'l show 'em

[JAB]

Everybody who refuses to walk past a gunbuster sign because they won't do business with and anti gun business ought to refuse to buy veewees or use fedex for any shipping purposes.

That'l show 'em

Should be pretty easy.

I had a GTi (basically a souped-up Golf) that I bought used. Darn thing was quick and fun to drive but was such a lemon that I only kept it for about a month - and I would have gone broke fixing the stuff that went wrong with it in that month if there hadn't been a 30 day warranty from the car lot. I might not mind having an older 'bug' (as in one of the original ones, not the new bug) but I have no plans to buy any more of the newer KdF products, anyhow - this just gives me one more reason for not buying them.

There are alternatives to shipping FedEx, too. Then, again, I have never shipped anything through FedEx so I doubt they will miss my business.

Edited April 19, 2012 by JAB

[E4 No More]

Everybody who refuses to walk past a gunbuster sign because they won't do business with and anti gun business ought to refuse to buy veewees or use fedex for any shipping purposes.

That'l show 'em

I already don't purchase their products or use their services.

[Guest nicemac]

I got this response from Mr. Ramsey this morning (after emailing him, my senator and rep about my displeasure regarding his stated intention of preventing a vote on this legislation:

I share your frustration. As the prime sponsor of Tennessee's original handgun carry permit law, I have always been a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. This session, I have been working hard with members of both chambers to try and pass a bill which balances both gun owners' right to bear arms as well as business owners' right to control their own property.

I support making it legal for handgun carry permit holders to keep their guns in their car in most public parking lots. The problem we face is coming up with a definition of truly public parking lots that respects both property and gun rights. While we may not be successful this session, I hope you will continue to speak out in favor of our right to bear arms as I work towards a resolution to this issue.

Sincerely,

Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey

<sarcasm>

I feel much better knowing he is working on a resolution to this issue.

</sarcasm>

[Moped]

I don't plan on ever owning another VW after this, nor will I use FEDEX ever again for delivery.

[QuietDan]

Can we make a list of the corporations that are actively lobbying against these bills? Lobbyists have to register, don't they?

[jtmaze]

I got this response from Mr. Ramsey this morning (after emailing him, my senator and rep about my displeasure regarding his stated intention of preventing a vote on this legislation:

I share your frustration. As the prime sponsor of Tennessee's original handgun carry permit law, I have always been a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. This session, I have been working hard with members of both chambers to try and pass a bill which balances both gun owners' right to bear arms as well as business owners' right to control their own property.

I support making it legal for handgun carry permit holders to keep their guns in their car in most public parking lots. The problem we face is coming up with a definition of truly public parking lots that respects both property and gun rights. While we may not be successful this session, I hope you will continue to speak out in favor of our right to bear arms as I work towards a resolution to this issue.

Sincerely,

Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey

<sarcasm>

I feel much better knowing he is working on a resolution to this issue.

</sarcasm>

I got the same response from Ramsey and replied with this:

I feel that my vehicle is my property and I should be able to keep any legally possessed item in my vehicle as I choose. I promise you that I and as big a defender of property rights as anyone, but my vehicle is my property. My employers rights stop where my tires begin, or so it should be. This bill is very important in many ways. It would show that Tennessee cares more for its citizens than big business.

James Morris

Sent from his iPhone

[Guest TnRebel]

why cant Tennessee structure the law on Florida law .. they had Disney and Martin and all the other theme parks to contend with and they got one that stood up to the courts . and made everyone happy .

Just saying after all I was one of many who fought for the " Parking Lot Law" in Florida .

[Worriedman]

why cant Tennessee structure the law on Florida law .. they had Disney and Martin and all the other theme parks to contend with and they got one that stood up to the courts . and made everyone happy .

Just saying after all I was one of many who fought for the " Parking Lot Law" in Florida .

Do you have a copy of their Bill? I have a meeting Tuesday with someone who that might be a good thing to have on hand.

[Sky King]

Do you have a copy of their Bill? I have a meeting Tuesday with someone who that might be a good thing to have on hand.

You should have a copy of their law in the packet of information you got from me. If not, I am pretty sure I can get one to you. Florida's is much lengthier than the one we have pending. A lot of it would not be applicable in Tennessee, but I agree that it could serve as a good model to work from. I have felt for a long time that the Florida law was a good one and as you have pointed out more than once, it was one of the two laws that withstood Federal Appeals Court challenge.

Actually, if I am not mistaken, a question about Florida's law was asked on this forum and I posted the entire law. I should be on here someplace.

Also if nothing else, it can be found on line and printed. I'll see if I can find a link and post it.

[Sky King]

Here is Florida's. I particularly like paragraph (3) LEGISLATIVE INTENT; FINDINGS

Title XLVI

CRIMES Chapter 790

WEAPONS AND FIREARMS View Entire Chapter

790.251 Protection of the right to keep and bear arms in motor vehicles for self-defense and other lawful purposes; prohibited acts; duty of public and private employers; immunity from liability; enforcement.—

(1) SHORT TITLE.—This section may be cited as the “Preservation and Protection of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Motor Vehicles Act of 2008.â€

(2) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section, the term:

(a) “Parking lot†means any property that is used for parking motor vehicles and is available to customers, employees, or invitees for temporary or long-term parking or storage of motor vehicles.

( “Motor vehicle†means any automobile, truck, minivan, sports utility vehicle, motor home, recreational vehicle, motorcycle, motor scooter, or any other vehicle operated on the roads of this state and required to be registered under state law.

©â€ƒâ€œEmployee†means any person who possesses a valid license issued pursuant to s. 790.06 and:

1. Works for salary, wages, or other remuneration;

2. Is an independent contractor; or

3. Is a volunteer, intern, or other similar individual for an employer.

(d) “Employer†means any business that is a sole proprietorship, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, professional association, cooperative, joint venture, trust, firm, institution, or association, or public sector entity, that has employees.

(e) “Invitee†means any business invitee, including a customer or visitor, who is lawfully on the premises of a public or private employer.

As used in this section, the term “firearm†includes ammunition and accoutrements attendant to the lawful possession and use of a firearm.

(3) LEGISLATIVE INTENT; FINDINGS.—This act is intended to codify the long-standing legislative policy of the state that individual citizens have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, that they have a constitutional right to possess and keep legally owned firearms within their motor vehicles for self-defense and other lawful purposes, and that these rights are not abrogated by virtue of a citizen becoming a customer, employee, or invitee of a business entity. It is the finding of the Legislature that a citizen’s lawful possession, transportation, and secure keeping of firearms and ammunition within his or her motor vehicle is essential to the exercise of the fundamental constitutional right to keep and bear arms and the constitutional right of self-defense. The Legislature finds that protecting and preserving these rights is essential to the exercise of freedom and individual responsibility. The Legislature further finds that no citizen can or should be required to waive or abrogate his or her right to possess and securely keep firearms and ammunition locked within his or her motor vehicle by virtue of becoming a customer, employee, or invitee of any employer or business establishment within the state, unless specifically required by state or federal law.

(4) PROHIBITED ACTS.—No public or private employer may violate the constitutional rights of any customer, employee, or invitee as provided in paragraphs (a)-(e):

(a) No public or private employer may prohibit any customer, employee, or invitee from possessing any legally owned firearm when such firearm is lawfully possessed and locked inside or locked to a private motor vehicle in a parking lot and when the customer, employee, or invitee is lawfully in such area.

( No public or private employer may violate the privacy rights of a customer, employee, or invitee by verbal or written inquiry regarding the presence of a firearm inside or locked to a private motor vehicle in a parking lot or by an actual search of a private motor vehicle in a parking lot to ascertain the presence of a firearm within the vehicle. Further, no public or private employer may take any action against a customer, employee, or invitee based upon verbal or written statements of any party concerning possession of a firearm stored inside a private motor vehicle in a parking lot for lawful purposes. A search of a private motor vehicle in the parking lot of a public or private employer to ascertain the presence of a firearm within the vehicle may only be conducted by on-duty law enforcement personnel, based upon due process and must comply with constitutional protections.

©â€ƒNo public or private employer shall condition employment upon either:

1. The fact that an employee or prospective employee holds or does not hold a license issued pursuant to s. 790.06; or

2. Any agreement by an employee or a prospective employee that prohibits an employee from keeping a legal firearm locked inside or locked to a private motor vehicle in a parking lot when such firearm is kept for lawful purposes.

(d) No public or private employer shall prohibit or attempt to prevent any customer, employee, or invitee from entering the parking lot of the employer’s place of business because the customer’s, employee’s, or invitee’s private motor vehicle contains a legal firearm being carried for lawful purposes, that is out of sight within the customer’s, employee’s, or invitee’s private motor vehicle.

(e) No public or private employer may terminate the employment of or otherwise discriminate against an employee, or expel a customer or invitee for exercising his or her constitutional right to keep and bear arms or for exercising the right of self-defense as long as a firearm is never exhibited on company property for any reason other than lawful defensive purposes.

This subsection applies to all public sector employers, including those already prohibited from regulating firearms under the provisions of s. 790.33.

(5) DUTY OF CARE OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE EMPLOYERS; IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITY.—

(a) When subject to the provisions of subsection (4), a public or private employer has no duty of care related to the actions prohibited under such subsection.

( A public or private employer is not liable in a civil action based on actions or inactions taken in compliance with this section. The immunity provided in this subsection does not apply to civil actions based on actions or inactions of public or private employers that are unrelated to compliance with this section.

©â€ƒNothing contained in this section shall be interpreted to expand any existing duty, or create any additional duty, on the part of a public or private employer, property owner, or property owner’s agent.

(6) ENFORCEMENT.—The Attorney General shall enforce the protections of this act on behalf of any customer, employee, or invitee aggrieved under this act. If there is reasonable cause to believe that the aggrieved person’s rights under this act have been violated by a public or private employer, the Attorney General shall commence a civil or administrative action for damages, injunctive relief and civil penalties, and such other relief as may be appropriate under the provisions of s. 760.51, or may negotiate a settlement with any employer on behalf of any person aggrieved under the act. However, nothing in this act shall prohibit the right of a person aggrieved under this act to bring a civil action for violation of rights protected under the act. In any successful action brought by a customer, employee, or invitee aggrieved under this act, the court shall award all reasonable personal costs and losses suffered by the aggrieved person as a result of the violation of rights under this act. In any action brought pursuant to this act, the court shall award all court costs and attorney’s fees to the prevailing party.

(7) EXCEPTIONS.—The prohibitions in subsection (4) do not apply to:

(a) Any school property as defined and regulated under s. 790.115.

( Any correctional institution regulated under s. 944.47 or chapter 957.

©â€ƒAny property where a nuclear-powered electricity generation facility is located.

(d) Property owned or leased by a public or private employer or the landlord of a public or private employer upon which are conducted substantial activities involving national defense, aerospace, or homeland security.

(e) Property owned or leased by a public or private employer or the landlord of a public or private employer upon which the primary business conducted is the manufacture, use, storage, or transportation of combustible or explosive materials regulated under state or federal law, or property owned or leased by an employer who has obtained a permit required under 18 U.S.C. s. 842 to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials on such property.

(f) A motor vehicle owned, leased, or rented by a public or private employer or the landlord of a public or private employer.

(g) Any other property owned or leased by a public or private employer or the landlord of a public or private employer upon which possession of a firearm or other legal product by a customer, employee, or invitee is prohibited pursuant to any federal law, contract with a federal government entity, or general law of this state.

History.—s. 1, ch. 2008-7.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Sky King

[Sky King]

I did a straignt copy and paste from the Florida statutes so I have NO idea how the "smiley sun face" got in there.

[jtmaze]

Just got this email from Curtis Halford:

Mr. Morris,

I support this bill. I would contact the sponsor Mike Faulk in the Senateand make sure he puts the bill on notice for the Calender. It should then move to the Senate floor. We are moving it in the House.

Thanks,

Rep. Halford

[Guest TnRebel]

Do you have a copy of their Bill? I have a meeting Tuesday with someone who that might be a good thing to have on hand.

http://www.leg.state...s/0790.251.html

This is what we ended up with the only loop hole that Disney used was storage of exploves ( Their Fireworks )

Edited April 21, 2012 by TnRebel

[Oh Shoot]

I did a straignt copy and paste from the Florida statutes so I have NO idea how the "smiley sun face" got in there.

With this forum software, a "b" in parentheses = ( and a "c" in parentheses = ©

- OS

[Oh Shoot]

http://www.leg.state...s/0790.251.html

This is what we ended up with the only loop hole that Disney used was storage of exploves ( Their Fireworks )

Let's be clear: the explosives section was put in the thing FOR Disney.

- OS