Numerous Pro-Gun Bills Filed as TN 2013 Legislative Session Convenes

[Sky King]

Regarding HB118/SB142: "...allows person with a valid handgun carry permit to transport and store a firearm OR firearm ammunition in the permit holder’s privately-owned motor vehicle in public or private parking areas under certain conditions." Don't they proofread this stuff before publishing it? If the summary is accurate and the bill becomes law, we will only have the freedom to choose whether to store a firearm OR ammunition in our vehicles. One is useless without the other. Also, what restrictions/prohibitions are included in the "certain conditions"?

 

Well I didn't read it enough to see whether they clarified the "OR" thing or not but the summary only states "certain conditions".  If you click on the link it will take you to the Tennessee General Assembly web site bill summary.  Then if you click on the bill number itself, it will bring up the actual bill as written and you can read the whole thing which lists the conditions.

 

They include things like the firearm and ammunition have to be kept out of sight.  That could include being in a locked glove compartment, trunk or other storage box that makes the firearm not visable from outside the vehicle or just under the seat if the vehicle is locked.  The vehicle has to remained locked while unattended and you can not remove the firearm from the vehicle while on the property in question. 

 

This bill is good.  Yes, there may be some items that could be added that may improve it but it really is fine the way it is.  I wouldn't be surprised to see some amendments as it progresses.  The REAL concern is that they don't add any exemptions for property owners based on fenced/secured parking lots.

[Guest 270win]

Why not get permits as an exception to having a gun at any school just like the school shooting teams and hunter ed instructors get.  How are we any less qualified than a hunter ed instructor or the school shooting teams?

 

These politicians are making this more complicated than necessary when in surrounding states this not an issue like in Alabama and Mississippi.

Edited January 31, 2013 by 270win

[Guest mike.]

[quote name="Sky King" post="901029" timestamp="1359654844"]Well I didn't read it enough to see whether they clarified the "OR" thing or not but the summary only states "certain conditions".  If you click on the link it will take you to the Tennessee General Assembly web site bill summary.  Then if you click on the bill number itself, it will bring up the actual bill as written and you can read the whole thing which lists the conditions.   They include things like the firearm and ammunition have to be kept out of sight.  That could include being in a locked glove compartment, trunk or other storage box that makes the firearm not visable from outside the vehicle or just under the seat if the vehicle is locked.  The vehicle has to remained locked while unattended and you can not remove the firearm from the vehicle while on the property in question.    This bill is good.  Yes, there may be some items that could be added that may improve it but it really is fine the way it is.  I wouldn't be surprised to see some amendments as it progresses.  The REAL concern is that they don't add any exemptions for property owners based on fenced/secured parking lots.[/quote] Thanks. I checked the actual bill, and the summary is accurate. The bill reads firearm OR ammunition throughout. Call me paranoid, but I can easily imagine lawyers for the very large corporation that employs me (and has vigorously opposed previous attempts to pass similar legislation) testing the law by firing an employee who stores a firearm AND ammunition in his vehicle parked on company property. I would rather see the bill written correctly than have to rely on the AG's interpretation.

[Guest PapaB]

Thanks. I checked the actual bill, and the summary is accurate. The bill reads firearm OR ammunition throughout. Call me paranoid, but I can easily imagine lawyers for the very large corporation that employs me (and has vigorously opposed previous attempts to pass similar legislation) testing the law by firing an employee who stores a firearm AND ammunition in his vehicle parked on company property. I would rather see the bill written correctly than have to rely on the AG's interpretation.

 

To that point, changing it to "and/or" would be better. If changed to just "and" you couldn't have ammo without a firearm or vice versa.

[Guest mike.]

Re:HB118/SB0142
I'm glad it passed, but what will prevent an employer from terminating an employee who has a gun legally stored in his vehicle under the new law but in violation of company policy prohibiting weapons on company property?

[Guest Nunya]

I wondered about the K-12 part myself.  Maybe the thinking is that most, maybe all, of the colleges and universities have armed security already.  I'd like to see the bill extend to all schools though.

 

The college where I work has ONE armed officer about 40 hours a week.  And, that's one more than they had last year.

[GKar]

Re:HB118/SB0142
I'm glad it passed, but what will prevent an employer from terminating an employee who has a gun legally stored in his vehicle under the new law but in violation of company policy prohibiting weapons on company property?

 

Only Ron Ramsey's word that they can't.  Which, along with a quarter...

[Sky King]

Re:HB118/SB0142
I'm glad it passed, but what will prevent an employer from terminating an employee who has a gun legally stored in his vehicle under the new law but in violation of company policy prohibiting weapons on company property?

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.  This is the "Commute Loose Your Job" bill.  The ONLY protection you get with this bill is not being criminally prosecuted for keeping a firearm in your car while on a posted parking lot. 

 

I watched the video of the House floor session.  I got so mad I just wanted to throw my computer across the room.  Several amendments were offered that could have made major improvements.  With EVERY amendment, Speaker Harwell would immediately recognize Rep. McCormick who would quickly denounce the process of offering amendments on the floor and then make a motion to table the amendment which immediately shuts down ANY discussion on the amendment.  This happend 13 times.  This couldn't have been better planned if it had been scripted by a Hollywood writer.  It couldn't have been more clear that they knew the content of the proposed amendments, were going to follow the "game plan" to ram this bill through with NO amendments and allow NO discussion on the amendments.  Watch the video and notice the vote count on every tabling motion.   

 

McCormick  repeatedly denounced amendments that had not been "vetted" by the committee.  I don't know why he thinks people are so stupid and ignorant to fall for that crap.  ANYBODY who has been watching this KNOWS that these bills have been pushed HARD to go through as written.  Sen. Johnson (who carried the bill in the Senate for Ramsey) stated in committee in response to the suggestion of amendments, that Ron Ramsey was clear that he wanted no amendments.  The same attitude was clearly communicated in the House.  This was obvious by the amount of time, (or more accurately, LACK of time) spent on these bills in the various sub-committees and committees.  Limited discussion, little to no testimony by interested parties, votes right down the party line.  It was so obvious the members were definately following their marching orders.

 

One member made a good pointed comment about how we would not be at this point on this bill had one of their leaders (he did not mention Debra Maggart by name, but we all know who he was talking about) not lost her re-election bid.  Eluding that the Republican party leadership was trying to appease the NRA who while reportedly endorced this bill, remained strangely quiet about it. 

 

Their remarks about how if employers started taking punitive action against employees, they would return next year and make changes were weak.  How stupid are they?  I want the drugs they are taking.  Do they REALLY believe that employers will not fire employees or do they REALLY think we are so gullible to believe it?

 

We knocked one leg of Harwell's support out last fall.  It is time to do the same with McCormick and or Vance Dennis.   Vance Dennis could be vulnerable.  He won his primary by only two or three votes.  Had the local gun club, (with which he has strong ties) pulled their support, he would have lost.

 

This whole think makes me puke.   

Edited March 2, 2013 by Sky King