Pulling out all the stops

[Worriedman]

TO: ABC Members and TCC Members

RE: Guns in Business Parking Lots – ALERT!!!

(SB3002/HB2560) (SB2992/HB3559)

The hottest issue at the State Capitol is “guns in parking lots legislationâ€. While most of us support the right for everyone to be able to have firearms theses bill go too far. These proposals are supported by The Tennessee Firearms Association and the National Rifle Association.

These bills not only deal with guns but would significantly impact Tennessee’s employment law and could become a costly legal nightmare for employers. These bills override business property rights by prohibiting employers, currently your choice, from denying employees and visitors from having guns in employer’s parking lots.

We believe these proposals should be opposed for the following reasons:

·This legislation eliminates constitutionally protected private property rights.

·Employers have an obligation to maintain a safe working environment and are liable for unintended acts that occur on their property.

·Workplace violence is a real threat, and businesses must do everything reasonable to deter violence in the workplace.

·Allowing weapons to be stored in locked cars creates a security burden for employers. Firearms are an attractive item for thieves to steal, especially if they are stored in cars.

·The bill is not restricted to handgun owners with legal carry permits but appears to authorize a much broader group of gun owners to keep a wide variety of legal weapons in the cars on all privately owned or public property.

·The bill eliminates current restriction against guns in public parking places such as those at parks, in government buildings, in school parking lots and on college campuses.

·The bill does not make allowance for employers to be able to post a “no-gun†policy on private property where cars are parked.

·The bill does not recognize federal regulations or requirements affecting airports and other employers with special security concerns or requirements.

We urge you to contact your legislators by phone or e-mail and express your opposition as soon as possible. Be sure to e-mail House Speaker Beth Harwell and Lieutenant Governor Ron Ramsey. Also, Governor Bill Haslam who’s e-mail is bill.haslam@tn.gov

Here is how you get e-mail addresses and phone numbers:

www.capitol.tn.gov main page/ click on Legislators/ click on Senate members or House members and this will give you an alphabetical list of Names/phone numbers and e-mail addresses.

[Oh Shoot]

What orgs are ABC and TCC?

[gnmwilliams]

Umm...I thought we supported the 2nd ammendment on this site.

Edited February 17, 2012 by gnmwilliams

[TGO David]

I think it some important information was omitted. Namely, who sent that email?

[Worriedman]

It was sent out by the Senior Policy Advisor of the ABC (Associated Builders and Contractors), http://www.abc.org/ and TCC is Tennessee Construction Coalition.

ABC is supposed to be the home of Merit Shop Contractors. TCC includes Farm Bureau and such.

Point being that the other side is pressing every entity they can to generate opposition.

Edited February 21, 2012 by TGO David
Correction posted by Worried Man

[TGO David]

Bob Pitts

Senior Policy Advisor

bpitts@abctennessee.com

Feel free to email him your thoughts on this.

www.abctennessee.com is the organization's site. You can find other leadership emails there as well.

[gnmwilliams]

OIC whatcha meant!

[Worriedman]

[Sky King]

I think it is important to know what your opposition is saying and doing. Most successful business monitor the activites of their competition. By knowing this, we can know how to resond or counter. This is how I view each of their claims.

·This legislation eliminates constitutionally protected private property rights.

No, this legislation is simply recognizing the property rights I have with my private vehicle and telling telling your employer his property rights end at his fence, not my front door.

·Employers have an obligation to maintain a safe working environment and are liable for unintended acts that occur on their property.

They may have an obligation to maintain a safe working environment INSIDE the actual workplace but this bill SPECIFICALLY gives them liability protection and imunity against civil action that may result from "unintended acts".

·Workplace violence is a real threat' date=' and businesses must do everything reasonable to deter violence in the workplace.[/quote']

Workplace violence IS real but most occurances of workplace violence are at the hands of a disgruntled or unstable individual who is not going to be stopped by a law or policy. Most end in the death of the perpetrator either by self inflicted wounds or suidide by cop.

·Allowing weapons to be stored in locked cars creates a security burden for employers. Firearms are an attractive item for thieves to steal' date=' especially if they are stored in cars.[/quote']

Name the security burdens. There are none. Firearms ARE an attractive item for thieves but why is this law going to cause an increase in car break-ins?

·The bill is not restricted to handgun owners with legal carry permits but appears to authorize a much broader group of gun owners to keep a wide variety of legal weapons in the cars on all privately owned or public property.

That is correct' date=' permit holders would be able to keep a LOADED firearm in the vehicle but everybody else would still have to abide by the laws regarding the transport of firearms, unloaded, ammunition separated from the firearm, no different than it is today. AND, that has been brought up to the bill sponsor and we have suggested that be changed.

·The bill eliminates current restriction against guns in public parking places such as those at parks, in government buildings, in school parking lots and on college campuses.

I don't recall seeing all those places specifically listed but even if they were, why is that so bad as long as the firearm remains in the car?

·The bill does not make allowance for employers to be able to post a “no-gun†policy on private property where cars are parked.

Where does it say that?

·The bill does not recognize federal regulations or requirements affecting airports and other employers with special security concerns or requirements.

The bill DOES recognize properties specifically prohibited by federal law. Airports are not special. The TSA has stated to me they do not care about the employee parking areas, they are only concerned with the level 1 secure areas.

[Guest Smitty]

They have a similar law in Kentucky. Seems to work fine there. I don't see why it would be a problem here.

[Oh Shoot]

They have a similar law in Kentucky. Seems to work fine there. I don't see why it would be a problem here.

We have a basic problem that seems to set a different tone than for Ky and some other states: it's a crime to have a loaded gun, on person or in car.

Also, the fact that it's a crime to possess a loaded gun past a no-carry sign lends weight to the employer side of the issue.

Those two premises in our law just seems to make expanding carry an uphill battle, as they are a mindset that has to be ever overcome.

- OS

Edited February 18, 2012 by OhShoot

[Worriedman]

From the "Alert"

The hottest issue at the State Capitol is “guns in parking lots legislationâ€. While most of us support the right for everyone to be able to have firearms theses bill go too far. These proposals are supported by The Tennessee Firearms Association and the National Rifle Association.

I would hazard a guess, (knowing that it is just that, a guess) that many construction personnel are members of the NRA, and more closely relate to the liberties and Rights espoused by that organization than to some liberal, firearm hating perspective. I intend to contact the many firms I work with on a daily basis that pay into the ABC and seek to have them ask why we were not polled about our response to the issue rather than have an apparent "take" personified by the organization.

[Sky King]

They have a similar law in Kentucky. Seems to work fine there. I don't see why it would be a problem here.

There are similiar laws in about 20 other states. I can work here just as it has worked elsewhere. It seems that Tennessee is usually FOLLOWING other states. That can be frustrating at times that we don't ever seem to be a leader in rights but it CAN be used (and has many times) in our argument. By having other states granting expansions of these rights before us, we can point to their example AND show how there has been no problems related to those expansions. This gives law abiding gun carriers a track record that can be shown. And believe me, it is pointed out often.

Also two states that have this provision have had their laws challenged and upheld in courts at the federal level, (Oklahoma and Florida). That too is a good thing to be able to bring up.

[Worriedman]

From the letter to the membership:

The hottest issue at the State Capitol is “guns in parking lots legislationâ€. While most of us support the right for everyone to be able to have firearms theses bill go too far. These proposals are supported by The Tennessee Firearms Association and the National Rifle Association.

The question I am having those with a pro 2nd Amendment stance in the membership ask today is, what segment of the administration of the Association is NOT in favor of the "right for everyone to be able to have firearms"??

Edited February 20, 2012 by Worriedman

[Worriedman]

I was informed to day that the TCC referenced in the e-mail "Alert" is NOT the Tennessee Council of Cooperatives, it is in fact the Tennessee Construction Coalition.

I regret the error.

[leroy]

My guess is that the reason that the ABC and TCC wants this stopped is their problem with "undocumented labor". "Providing a safe work enviornment" is a minor issue to them. They work on someone else's property. They have a small headquarters property and shop (...generally...). The working on government and airport property is already covered by other statutes, and they know that (...they are lawyers...).

This is an attempt to keep the "undocumented workers" and delightful rustic citizens in their employ on the reservation (...think "no firewater" to the indians here...); nothing more. Their big problem with "workplace safety" is the individual construction activities themselves.

Their position is a disgrace.

They apparently neither trust their own personnel nor do they trust citizens like you and me. Looks like they could use a cleaning up themselves.

leroy

Edited February 21, 2012 by leroy

[1gewehr]

I can tell you this; I have written instructions to my wife and friends to sue the pants off of any organization that prevents me from defending myself while on their property! After all, while I completely agree with their right to contrl events on their property, if they forbid me from defending myself, then THEY have taken on that obligation! Failure to protect me while on their property will be met with a suit for damages.