New Parking lot bill by McCormick-BAD

[Sky King]

HB3660 has been introduced by McCormick, (SB3451 by Sutherland) is on the schedule to be heard in the House Consumer and Employee Affairs sub committee on Wednesday, March 8th. THIS IS A BAD BILL. It has big business written ALL over it. If your employer has a fenced, gated lot with an attendee at the gate checking IDs, you can forget it. They will be exempt. Also with that exemption, there is no requirement for them to provide secure storage for your weapon, so again, you can forget it. It has tons of protections for the employer but is not much more than a token bill.

We all know what is happening here. Speaker Harwell and Rep McCormick, (in business's pocket) have been opposed to helping us on a parking lot bill for the last two years. The ONLY reason they are making this "gesture" is because they are beginning to feel the heat. This is nothing more than throwing the dog a bone. This is a worthless bill and they KNOW it. They KNOW we will not like it and THEN they can say they offered us a bill but we rejected it.

Again THIS IS A BAD BILL. We CAN NOT let it usurp SB3002 by Faulk and HB3560 by Bass. STAY THE COURSE.

[Worriedman]

The "Fed Ex" Bill has been transfered to Gerald McCormick as Sponsor, and has been put on notice in the Employee and Consumer Affairs Sub-Committee next Wednesday, the 7th.

This bill really does nothing but assure further donations to the Leadership Triad of the House. Not sure who was the original Sponsor as I did not pay any attention to this less than desirable piece of scat.

Probable amendments from McCormick will include School parking lots, (which will take away the ablility that has been enjoyed by non students for years).

Harwell at her finest.

[Worriedman]

Not just that Sam, they intend to amend it to make it worse, and then pass it.

[Guest bkelm18]

Not just that Sam, they intend to amend it to make it worse, and then pass it.

That's the American way.

[Sky King]

Not just that Sam, they intend to amend it to make it worse, and then pass it.

Well Richard, we all know how they want this to go down. The evil axis in the House will make sure Eddie Bass's bill dies in favor of this bill. They will pass McCormick's bill trying to be able to claim that they "tried" to work with us. The Senate will not pass the companion bill and refuse to substitute and conform to McCormick's bill. This will force a conferance committee that will undoubtedly be stacked in Harwell's favor. Needless to say, the House members will bow to Harwell's wishes and pass what ever comes from the conference committee. The best we can hope for at that time would that the Senate would not accept that reccomendation.

I can't help but feel that they are trying to retaliate against Eddie Bass's attempt last year to return Josh Evan's bill to it's origional form essentially killing the bill. They wanted their "incentive bill" but lost it and so they are going to kill the bill sponsored by Bass. Now they want to force this crap down our throats. If we are successfull in getting this bill killed, they will point the finger at us for killing two bills that they will claim was their attempt to further Second Amendment rights. They will also vote for this bill which they hope will count as a "pro" vote in the eyes of the NRA to give them a better score.

I doubt VERY seriously that there will not be any opposing testimony allowed at the sub committee hearing next week. I would be VERY interested in hearing if the usual group of big business lobbiest will be there and just what their comments would be.

[Worriedman]

Yes sir, that remains to be seen, just how strong armed it will be.

[QuietDan]

Stop calling representatives and start calling the involved businesses with suggestions of boycott? If FedEx is exerting undue influence, transfer biz to UPS?

Just a thought, not a call to action.

[Sky King]

Sent to my Senator and my Representative and the members of The House Consumer and Employee Affairs sub committee:

These two bills are an attempt to divert attention from and kill the bills known as the Safe Commute Bills by Faulk and Bass. HB3660 and SB3451 REAK of corporate influence peddaling. They are BAD BILLS and need to fail.

I OPPOSE these bills and ask you to do the same. The House bill is scheduled to be heard on March 7th in the Consumer and Employee Affairs sub committee. If asked to become a co-sponsor of either of these bills, please REFUSE!

I continue to ask for your support of the Safe Commute bills by Mike Faulk in the Senate and Eddie Bass in the House.

[R_Bert]

I sent this to the sub-committee, with copies to Rep. John Ragan, Senator McNally, Bill Haslam, Ron Ramsey, Beth Harwell, and some friends -

Email Heading - OPPOSE the "FEDEX BILL"HB3660 (McCormick) / SB3451(Sutherland)

Dear Tennessee House Sub Committee on Consumer and Employee Affairs,

I ask you to oppose HB3660 submitted by Rep. McCormick. It is an a blatant attempt by FEDEX donors to divert attention from the citizen favored “Safe Commute Bills†by Bass and Faulk.

HB3660 has been introduced by McCormick, (companion SB3451 by Sutherland) is on the schedule to be heard in the House Consumer and Employee Affairs Subcommittee on Wednesday, March 8th. These two bills are an obvious attempt to divert attention from and kill the bills known as the Safe Commute Bills by Faulk and Bass.

Indeed, McCormick HB3660 and Sutherland SB3451 are Obvious Examples of Corporate Influence Peddling. They are BAD BILLS and need to fail.

Thus, again, I OPPOSE these bills - HB3660 / SB3451 and ask you to do the same. If asked to become a co-sponsor of either of these bills, please REFUSE!

I continue to ask for your support of the Safe Commute bills by Mike Faulk in the Senate and Eddie Bass in the House.

Thank You,

Bert

[R_Bert]

I sent this to the sub-committee, with copies to Rep. John Ragan, Senator McNally, Bill Haslam, Ron Ramsey, Beth Harwell, and some friends -

BTW, I received earnest feedback from John Ragan, asking what part of the bill was I opposed to; in that on the surface, it seems "friendly". He want to know what the differences were. (I cited exemption #3 as related to employee parking lots, and gave examples that it would deny employees of private companies such as FEDEX Memphis, Nissan Smyrna, the lockable storage unit, and many downtown resturants.

So tell your legislator *why* you oppose this one and favor SB3002 / HB3560.

[Worriedman]

Schedule for the sub-committee hearing on this bill has been moved to 8:00 A.M. Wednesday morning of March 7th, from 11:00 A.M. A little unusual, and smacks of gamesmanship on the part of the Triad.

[Sky King]

Schedule for the sub-committee hearing on this bill has been moved to 8:00 A.M. Wednesday morning of March 7th, from 11:00 A.M. A little unusual, and smacks of gamesmanship on the part of the Triad.

Yup, makes it hard for people to travel and get there in time if they oppose the bill, and they know that.

I am still "confused" as to what differance a fence makes. The question is often asked, "why do you need a gun at work". Well, for the most part, I don't, it is the commute and the commute is the same whether there is a fence around the destination parking lot or not.

Also, what if there isn't a fence. Does that mean I can just enter the lot from any point I choose? I see a parking space I want, so to get to it quickly, I just drive over the curb and sidewalk rather than going to the entrance? What if they don't have a fence but just segregate the area with landscaping, trees or hedge, I'll just plow my way through their hedge.

Unless the lot is fenced, GATED with a PERSON there to verify the identity of the person(s) entering, it is NOT a secure lot. And STILL it does NOTHING to change the circumstances of my commute while OUTSIDE their fence.

[daddyo]

SSDD. No surprise.

[Worriedman]

Evidently there is an amendment coming that will re-write the bill, (HB 3660) of course no one in the public has been made privy to the content.

Supposedly elements from the Chamber, "Business" interest, Hospital concerns, and upper management from Police Departments etc. have been involved with framing the discussion, and the resultant language. It has been suggested that Leadership has demanded that any bill that is to be passed MUST be sponsored by a Republican, and that the current HB 3560 does not pass muster relative to the fact that a Democrat sponsored it in the House.

[R_Bert]

Evidently there is an amendment coming that will re-write the bill, (HB 3660) of course no one in the public has been made privy to the content.

Supposedly elements from the Chamber, "Business" interest, Hospital concerns, and upper management from Police Departments etc. have been involved with framing the discussion, and the resultant language. It has been suggested that Leadership has demanded that any bill that is to be passed MUST be sponsored by a Republican, and that the current HB 3560 does not pass muster relative to the fact that a Democrat sponsored it in the House.

If only they could so easily inquire of the "little" people ....

[Worriedman]

If only they could so easily inquire of the "little" people ....

Access to the discussion seems to be somewhat weighted, not sure of the metric used to score the contestants for entry. (sarcasm off)

[R_Bert]

Access to the discussion seems to be somewhat weighted, not sure of the metric used to score the contestants for entry. (sarcasm off)

probably have to be a "herder" instead of the "herded"