Ron Ramsey on 2013 "Parking Lot" Bill status

[Worriedman]

[url="http://nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-news/ramsey-aims-quick-compromise-passage-guns-lots-bill-next-session"]http://nashvillecity...ll-next-session[/url]

[Chucktshoes]

If I was a betting man, the bill will include public lots and exclude fenced/secured non-public lots. That's the "compromise" I see being pushed. It would give us the bill, but cover their asses with folks like VW and FedEx.

Regardless, it looks like Ramsey got the hint that he needs to produce something quickly.

[DaveTN]

I refuse to support this until the state of Tennessee recognizes the right to bear arms. To say that the state won’t recognize your right but a business must is just a thug government. The government thinks they have the right to outlaw carrying loaded guns in your car for the safety of the public, but a business can’t come to the same conclusion for the safety of their employees? What a load of crap; this bill stinks and doesn’t deserve the support of gun owners, and won’t get the support of citizens.

[Worriedman]

[quote name='DaveTN' timestamp='1353068931' post='846441']
To say that the state won’t recognize your right but a business must is just a thug government.
[/quote]

Their true colors are showing through more and more.

[quote name='Chucktshoes' timestamp='1353068007' post='846437']
If I was a betting man, the bill will include public lots and exclude fenced/secured non-public lots. That's the "compromise" I see being pushed. It would give us the bill, but cover their asses with folks like VW and FedEx.

Regardless, it looks like Ramsey got the hint that he needs to produce something quickly.
[/quote]

In a conversation in his office in September, he says the bill will NOT include a "Fed Ex" style fenced lot exclusion.

We shall see.

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name='Worriedman' timestamp='1353070581' post='846451']


In a conversation in his office in September, he says the bill will NOT include a "Fed Ex" style fenced lot exclusion.

We shall see.[/quote]
Yep. Forgive me if I have a lack of faith in this area. I remember Ronnie courting us gun owners quite heavily when he was running for governor he said a lot then and we know how that turned out.

[Worriedman]

[quote name='Chucktshoes' timestamp='1353071547' post='846458']
Yep. Forgive me if I have a lack of faith in this area. I remember Ronnie courting us gun owners quite heavily when he was running for governor he said a lot then and we know how that turned out.
[/quote]

I could not agree with you more.

Simply reporting what was told to me while discussing the issue with him. He said that the fence issue was moot in his opinion as the TCA Code allowed a Citizen to enjoy the same protection with regard to using deadly force for personal protection in their vehicle as in their home, and that we needed to put the whole issue behind us. He was set on permit holders only, no Constitutional Carry conversation.

[RobertNashville]

I believe we would be far better off to not even attempt to get any sort of "parking lot bill" out of this legislature because anything we get will likely be so worthless that it's just not worth the effort and may do more harm than good.

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='DaveTN' timestamp='1353068931' post='846441']
I refuse to support this until the state of Tennessee recognizes the right to bear arms. To say that the state won’t recognize your right but a business must is just a thug government. The government thinks they have the right to outlaw carrying loaded guns in your car for the safety of the public, but a business can’t come to the same conclusion for the safety of their employees? What a load of crap; this bill stinks and doesn’t deserve the support of gun owners, and won’t get the support of citizens.
[/quote]First of all, that ain't 'gona' happen in my lifetime and probably not yours either but no worries; unless you own FedEx or Bridgeseone or Nissan your support or lack of it won't mean a thing to the current leadership in this legislature or governor's office

[GKar]

Worriedman - what then differentiates the features of the amended bill that died on the floor in April from those he delineated in conversation with you in September? As I've said on another forum, this would seem to be course correction #2 (or maybe #3) in his wanderings on this topic.

[JayC]

It's the wrong move... We should be pushing for removing government land and buildings from being posted under 1359. Not trying to overrule the rights of private citizens to control their own land.

[Worriedman]

[quote name='GKar' timestamp='1353084276' post='846600']
Worriedman - what then differentiates the features of the amended bill that died on the floor in April from those he delineated in conversation with you in September? As I've said on another forum, this would seem to be course correction #2 (or maybe #3) in his wanderings on this topic.
[/quote]

Have not seen the version that he is going to push, but, I do not believe that it will be substantially different from the House version of last year, permit carriers only, complete coverage of the business/property owner from any liability from actions taken with any legal firearm. Pretty much the across the board law that 18 other States have, but not including the Georgia opt out related to fences.

He told me up front that he was not in favor of the fenced lot exclusion this round.

In States that already have the law, it has not increased crime in any way, nor has it increased insurance premiums for business owners.

Personally, I think some in the Republican Party decided it was better to have the activist who worked to get this passed as partners instead of antagonist. Ramsey is still P.O.'d at anyone who had anything to do with the defeat of Debra Maggart, but, realizes that a concentrated effort against any single politician, (except for Harwell, who is protected by her liberal Democratic constituents) could be vulnerable to a similar attack. Taking this off the table might lead to actually working [u]with[/u] the most vocal entity instead of against it.

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='Worriedman' timestamp='1353091391' post='846702']
Have not seen the version that he is going to push, but, I do not believe that it will be substantially different from the House version of last year, permit carriers only, complete coverage of the business/property owner from any liability from actions taken with any legal firearm. Pretty much the across the board law that 18 other States have, but not including the Georgia opt out related to fences.

He told me up front that he was not in favor of the fenced lot exclusion this round.

In States that already have the law, it has not increased crime in any way, nor has it increased insurance premiums for business owners.

Personally, I think some in the Republican Party decided it was better to have the activist who worked to get this passed as partners instead of antagonist. Ramsey is still P.O.'d at anyone who had anything to do with the defeat of Debra Maggart, but, realizes that a concentrated effort against any single politician, (except for Harwell, who is protected by her liberal Democratic constituents) could be vulnerable to a similar attack. Taking this off the table might lead to actually working [u]with[/u] the most vocal entity instead of against it.
[/quote]It's certainly good news if this is what can get passed (unless I'm misunderstanding something) but I'll believe it when I see it.

Oh...and that fact that Ron the RINO is pissed, for some reason, doesn't bother me in the least.

[S&WForty]

[quote name='DaveTN' timestamp='1353068931' post='846441']
The government thinks they have the right to outlaw carrying loaded guns in your car for the safety of the public, but a business can’t come to the same conclusion for the safety of their employees? [/quote]

That sure is a good perspective. It's almost like such a law being enacted sets a precedent. What else can the government tell a private person/company what they can/cannot do/allow on their property?

On the other hand, HCP holders leaving a firearm in their car are no more likely to go nuts and kill co-workers than the wacko employee that takes a gun to work on the day he decides he's gonna snap. If today, November 16, 2012, I am going to snap and kill my co-workers, I don't really think I am going to be worried about losing my job when I am caught with a firearm on company property.

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='S&WForty' timestamp='1353092365' post='846718']That sure is a good perspective. It's almost like such a law being enacted sets a precedent. What else can the government tell a private person/company what they can/cannot do/allow on their property?[/quote]
There is a clear distinction, both in law and in practice, between private property used for private purposes and property used for business purposes and that distinction has been recognized for many, many decades. I agree that the rights of the property owner should be protected but no one right exists in a vacuum; they interact with other...sometimes they conflict with one another and when that happens, a fair balance needs to be sought; a balance that does the most good and least harm.

I would suggest that the larger issue that should impact whether "parking lot" legislation is or isn't passed into law is what constitutes the best outcome for society at large. We have a large amount of history/data to show that an armed citizenry is a benefit to society; as such, if we (the government) can promote citizens being armed with little or no infringement on the rights of property owners then it's appropriate to make that possible.

Other than the cry of "private property rights" (a cry I believe is misguided), I've not read or heard even one argument that has shown me any measurable, negative impact on a business owner simply because an employee or a customer chooses to have a legally owned and transported firearm in their vehicle while it's parked in a parking lot that is open to the public, and not just "open to" but where the public is invited to be. Edited November 16, 2012 by RobertNashville

[GKar]

Interesting, WM. The fence comment is in line with something he said to me back in the spring (pre-April), but then backpeddled on later. I did hear that he complained to Wayne LaPierre about the whole deal with TFA and Maggert's defeat (apparently ascribing a considerable amount of blame to the NRA lobbiest that worked in TN last spring), and Wayne supposedly said he'd look into it...but have heard nothing further. He was decidedly PO'd at John et al, and I bet that doesnt subside anytime soon.

[QuietDan]

[quote name='Worriedman' timestamp='1353080595' post='846554']
I could not agree with you more.

Simply reporting what was told to me while discussing the issue with him. He said that the fence issue was moot in his opinion as the TCA Code allowed a Citizen to enjoy the same protection with regard to using deadly force for personal protection in their vehicle as in their home, and that we needed to put the whole issue behind us. He was set on permit holders only, no Constitutional Carry conversation.
[/quote]

IMO.

Take the "permit holders only" position and run with it. Then in a year or two, campaign for Constitutional Carry. Half a loaf is always better than none. It's also incrementalism, win a battle, win another battle, win another battle, all enroute to your objective. Trying to do it all in one jump often gets you nothing. Be Strategic.

IMO.

[Worriedman]

[quote name='GKar' timestamp='1353094358' post='846734']
He was decidedly PO'd at John et al, and I bet that doesnt subside anytime soon.
[/quote]

You would be correct there. Several in the legislative business are of the same opinion, but, when the Republicans were in the ascendancy, they used his "scorched earth" policy as a cudgel against the Democrats. I have copies of Joint Resolutions signed by Ramsey that laud John's efforts, which at the time were his like treatment of Democrats that he delivered to the Republicans over the last two years.

Being no Stranger to the Rain myself, I have been sacrificed and crucified over the years, I may not constantly remind the players as to how they acted the last round, I just never forget. I am willing to work with anyone who is aiming for the same goal at the moment, but I rarely stand away from the wall far anymore.

[quote name='QuietDan' timestamp='1353095418' post='846752']
Take the "permit holders only" position and run with it. Then in a year or two, campaign for Constitutional Carry. Half a loaf is always better than none. It's also incrementalism, win a battle, win another battle, win another battle, all enroute to your objective. Trying to do it all in one jump often gets you nothing. Be Strategic.

IMO.
[/quote]

QuiteDan, I have been for reaching a reasonable accommodation from the start. From back when Rep. Josh Evans put forth the first proposal that I worked with, to the present. The tales that have been told, the "course corrections" by numerous individuals are all fresh in my mind.

I simply want to afford my daughters the ability to provide for the defense of my grand babies in a legal manner, as the government and the employers are not of a mind, nor under any obligation to do so.

This whole issue should be viewed (in my perspective) as an extension of our "Castle Doctrine" and any legal thing that is permissible for non criminal Citizen to have should be allowed in their vehicle as long as it is not taken out and displayed. A weapon's use is already covered elsewhere in the TCA code and requires no other discussion.

[QuietDan]

[quote name='Worriedman' timestamp='1353098734' post='846783']
You would be correct there. Several in the legislative business are of the same opinion, but, when the Republicans were in the ascendancy, they used his "scorched earth" policy as a cudgel against the Democrats. I have copies of Joint Resolutions signed by Ramsey that laud John's efforts, which at the time were his like treatment of Democrats that he delivered to the Republicans over the last two years.

Being no Stranger to the Rain myself, I have been sacrificed and crucified over the years, I may not constantly remind the players as to how they acted the last round, I just never forget. I am willing to work with anyone who is aiming for the same goal at the moment, but I rarely stand away from the wall far anymore.



QuiteDan, I have been for reaching a reasonable accommodation from the start. From back when Rep. Josh Evans put forth the first proposal that I worked with, to the present. The tales that have been told, the "course corrections" by numerous individuals are all fresh in my mind.

I simply want to afford my daughters the ability to provide for the defense of my grand babies in a legal manner, as the government and the employers are not of a mind, nor under any obligation to do so.

This whole issue should be viewed (in my perspective) as an extension of our "Castle Doctrine" and any legal thing that is permissible for non criminal Citizen to have should be allowed in their vehicle as long as it is not taken out and displayed. A weapon's use is already covered elsewhere in the TCA code and requires no other discussion.
[/quote]

My opinion only. No criticism intended, especially for those who have shouldered the load, such as yourself. Hope nobody's heading for "a bridge too far."

Oh, and on picking off a politician and defeating them, golly geez! Sorry! Hey, it shows the power of a constituency in a form a politician can understand -- Power. You don't want to pick 'em all off, one in ten is enough for the other nine to get the word. (IMO.)

Let us know what we can do too help.

Sometimes it's little things, like finding out what restaurant one of them you want to persuade eats at for lunch, and arrange for a lot of like minded folks to yourself eat lunch there too, and behave, and tip well, and absolutely flood the place at lunchtime on a particular day. It communicates. Edited November 17, 2012 by QuietDan

[Worriedman]

[quote name='QuietDan' timestamp='1353113319' post='846942']
My opinion only. No criticism intended
[/quote]

None taken. I agree with your perspective on steps to achieve a long journey by the way.

[quote name='QuietDan' timestamp='1353113319' post='846942']

Let us know what we can do too help.


[/quote]

Right now I perceive the single most important thing for the firearm friendly to be concerned about is the move by the cohorts of, and Madam Speaker to punish Judd Matheny for standing up for our side over the last two years. Rep. Steve McDaniel (the last remaining member of the Naifeh 8) and the other ultra Liberal House members have drafted Rep. Curtis Johnson of Clarksville to challenge Matheny for his position as Speaker Pro Tempore.

Rep. Matheny is the last vestige of Conservatism in House Leadership, and if he is divested of his post we will all suffer. We should all work to gather support for Rep. Matheny to keep his post.

[JayC]

Robert,

I'm about as ProGun as it comes... And the parking lot bill is a BAD bill, and I can't support it.

The argument you make is that of a progressive who believe they know what is best for me and my property. The person who knows best what to do with their business is the owner of that business, period. His business isn't there for the 'best interest' of society at large, it is there solely for what is the best interest of the OWNER of said business.

There are much simpler methods to deal with anti-gun businesses which choose to post... don't do business with them... just like you won't go do business with a restaurant that said 'whites only', you shouldn't do business with a business that posts. I know, it's a tough economy, you can't go spend an extra $1 on a hamburger, or find a job with a pro-gun company... well that is your problem, not the problem of the property owner.

We should be focusing our efforts on the one part of society where we have no choice, [b]government buildings and land[/b], unlike private businesses we're forced by law to interact with these groups, there are no other choices available, we end up paying taxes and can't use parks, and government buildings because the government can use 1359 to ban otherwise lawful carry. That should be our real target...

Ask yourself why is the capitol building still posted? All it takes is 2 signatures to remove the postings... The missing signature Beth Harwell.

As for your argument that people need a 'good enough for you' reason to want to ban firearms, I disagree, private property even if it's a business should not have to explain to you, me, or anybody else why they want to ban firearms, only that they choose to... and You, I, and anybody else can avoid that business and vote with our pocket books.

We have so many really bad firearm laws on the books, which seem to be a lot less likely to run rough shot over other peoples constitutionally protected rights... We should be focusing on those laws first, and let this bad law die.

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353093907' post='846728']
There is a clear distinction, both in law and in practice, between private property used for private purposes and property used for business purposes and that distinction has been recognized for many, many decades. I agree that the rights of the property owner should be protected but no one right exists in a vacuum; they interact with other...sometimes they conflict with one another and when that happens, a fair balance needs to be sought; a balance that does the most good and least harm.

I would suggest that the larger issue that should impact whether "parking lot" legislation is or isn't passed into law is what constitutes the best outcome for society at large. We have a large amount of history/data to show that an armed citizenry is a benefit to society; as such, if we (the government) can promote citizens being armed with little or no infringement on the rights of property owners then it's appropriate to make that possible.

Other than the cry of "private property rights" (a cry I believe is misguided), I've not read or heard even one argument that has shown me any measurable, negative impact on a business owner simply because an employee or a customer chooses to have a legally owned and transported firearm in their vehicle while it's parked in a parking lot that is open to the public, and not just "open to" but where the public is invited to be.
[/quote]

[GKar]

WM - is the vote for Speaker Pro Tempore a public one, or does it too fall behind the revered cloak of secrecy? If the latter, that's one tough row to hoe.

RE the parking lot bill - any ideas who might be inclined to bring such bills in each house? As suggested by the Matheny situation, seems there's a lotta whipped pups on that side...would be interesting to see who Harwell et al would choose to do the lifting. Shipley has on occasion stated that he would be in support of such...maybe it might be time to light a fire under him and see if he will put up. Unfortunately, my rep is useless as t**s on a boar hog when it comes to this: Lundberg is the penultiimate corporate stooge. RR sure as heck aint gonna sponsor such on his side of the aisle, but finding a Senate sponsor shouldn't be too hard...just please, Lord, dont let it be Campfield.

[Worriedman]

GKar, it is a secret ballot, all the more reason to put pressure on the rank and file, Madam speaker can not punish those she can not count...

If, (and that is a big word in relationship to this whole conflagration) Ramsey holds true to his word and supports the issue. I think Bell might be the best Senate sponsor, or even the ever ambitious Jim Tracy. Either, knowing that Ramsey will support would like to have the feather in the bonnet of sponsoring a [b][i]passed[/i][/b] initiative showing the Conservative bent. Then there is always Mae Beavers or Dolores Gresham, both who proved to like the bill last year.

House side, Matheny will carry if no one else will regardless of the results of his Pro Tempore results, then there is Freshman Courtney Rogers, I know she would have the "tener cojones" to carry the bill in the House.

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='JayC' timestamp='1353122031' post='847006']
Robert,

I'm about as ProGun as it comes... And the parking lot bill is a BAD bill, and I can't support it.

The argument you make is that of a progressive who believe they know what is best for me and my property...[/quote]
I understand you don't agree with me but why start slinging terms like "progressive"?

I believe your argument is flawed , in part, because you refuse to recognize the very clear distinction between private property and business property; a distinction the law and society has recognized for many, many decades and for very good reason...I'd hate to live in any society where a "property owner" could do anything he wanted with no regard to society or anyone else.

No single right is absolute be it the right to carry arms or to practice (or not practice) religion or engage in speech or the right to own real property and use in any way desired.

However, whether you agree with me and for that matter, whether I agree with you is immaterial because your argument has been tested in courts in states where similar "parking lot" legislation has been been put into place and the courts have rejected your arguments.

Sure, there are plenty of laws relating to firearms that stand improvement and I'm doubtful any real movement will be made on a parking lot bill for the next two years but if we can get a good parking lot bill passed into law in Tennessee I'm certainly for it. Edited November 17, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Paladin132]

I have been following this for a bit and have decided to add my quarter (penny thought plus inflation).

My right to have my tools is a personal right guaranteed in the constitution. A business owners right to deny my rights does not trump my rights. A business owner cannot block a person from entry based on their race or other qualifiers, do why should they be able to block me entry based in my right to bear arms. What's worse is the fight to tell me what is in my car, and why? It is in my car, not yours. Unless it comes out and into play in the commission of a felony what business is it of yours? None in my opinion.

Either you support the constitution in its entirety or you don't. Business owners that do not support the second amendment in its entirety receive no sympathy from me when their rights are violated or when they find themselves disarmed and then confronted by those with nefarious intent. The basic concept of the 2A is the ability to have weapons available to citizens to defend themselves.

I see now I was rather long winded. I am just tired of folks trying to infringe on my rights, the ones written into the constitution, based on flawed logic that then place me at a disadvantage when my life is at risk. My rights do not trump yours and vice versa. Leave me alone about what is in my pants and I will leave you alone about what is in yours.

[DaveTN]

[quote name='Paladin132' timestamp='1353183752' post='847289']
I have been following this for a bit and have decided to add my quarter (penny thought plus inflation).

My right to have my tools is a personal right guaranteed in the constitution. A business owners right to deny my rights does not trump my rights. A business owner cannot block a person from entry based on their race or other qualifiers, do why should they be able to block me entry based in my right to bear arms. What's worse is the fight to tell me what is in my car, and why? It is in my car, not yours. Unless it comes out and into play in the commission of a felony what business is it of yours? None in my opinion.

Either you support the constitution in its entirety or you don't. Business owners that do not support the second amendment in its entirety receive no sympathy from me when their rights are violated or when they find themselves disarmed and then confronted by those with nefarious intent. The basic concept of the 2A is the ability to have weapons available to citizens to defend themselves.

I see now I was rather long winded. I am just tired of folks trying to infringe on my rights, the ones written into the constitution, based on flawed logic that then place me at a disadvantage when my life is at risk. My rights do not trump yours and vice versa. Leave me alone about what is in my pants and I will leave you alone about what is in yours.
[/quote]
You have no [i][b]right[/b][/i] to be in a private business at all.

A private business owner can ask you to leave and if you refuse he can call the Police and have you removed. He doesn’t have to give the cops a reason either. Being black (race) isn’t against the law; carrying a loaded gun is a crime in this state. Not only is it a crime, but civil law allows for the business owner to be sued if someone is shot by you while you are carrying your gun on his property. That is a very heavy burden you want a business owner to accept on your behalf.

“Other qualifiers”, you mean like saying that you must wear a shirt and shoes, and you can’t enter with a cigarette hanging out of your mouth? What if you are carrying a five gallon can of gasoline? All those things are legal, but a business owner doesn’t have to allow those or anything else he doesn’t like including guns.

We all believe that we should have a right to bear arms. But to believe that we actually have that right is preposterous. The state on Tennessee openly acknowledges that you have a right to own a gun, but you do not have a right to carry one; that is a crime. The Supreme Court of the United States is the legal interpreter of the Constitution and they agree with that.

The fact that you or I have bought the privilege of an HCP doesn’t make it a right and doesn’t allow us to drive it down the throat of a business owner and call it a right.

If my interpreting this (along with things like the smoking ban) as a thug government is flawed logic…. Then I’m guilty. Edited November 17, 2012 by DaveTN