HB118/SB142: Current "parking lot" legislation

[GKar]

The Senate Judicial Committee is scheduled to take up ths bill today (Tues, Feb 5) at 3:30pm local time. As of this posting, no amendments have been posted to the GA website, and the only fiscal note indicates no significant impact.

In the House, it has been assigned to the Civil Justice Cmte/Subcommittee. Unfortunately, Rep Lundberg from my district chairs the Cmte...Mr Corporate Image himself. I beileve we wil get a good idea of Harwell's intent for this bill by watchig what does (and doesnt) happen here. No calendar schedule as of now...

HB118/SB142 tracking page: http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/default.aspx?BillNumber=SB0142&GA=108

[GKar]

Watched the video of the session.  It did nothing to ease my feeling that something is amiss behind the scenes...although it was fun to see Jackson have to be corrected with regards to last year's passage of SB3002 by the Judiciary cmte.

 

An interesting aside...Ophelia Ford is doing a bang-up job channeling Roseanne Roseannadanna with both her appearance and her babbling...

[Worriedman]

My take from speaking with several legislators today, is that the bill is on a fast track to passage.  There are some minor issues with the bill as written, but overall, I think it is far better than nothing.  There was in fact a big push to amend it to exclude school parking lots that was met with a cold icy push back to leave the intent as it is.

 

Even the Democrat members (except for Ophelia) wanted on the band wagon as voting FOR the bill.

 

I did speak with several House members who also think that leadership there will not be averse to passage.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Worriedman

[Sky King]

My take from speaking with several legislators today, is that the bill is on a fast track to passage.  There are some minor issues with the bill as written, but overall, I think it is far better than nothing.  There was in fact a big push to amend it to exclude school parking lots that was met with a cold icy push back to leave the intent as it is.

 

Even the Democrat members (except for Ophelia) wanted on the band wagon as voting FOR the bill.

 

I did speak with several House members who also think that leadership there will not be averse to passage.

Agreed

[waynesan]

You can watch today's session at this link http://tnga.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=262&clip_id=6915 . When the link comes up click on SB0142 at the bottom of the menu. The discussion begins at 58:10.

I was somewhat confused by the comments by the head of the Chamber of Commerce. After stating why the Chamber of Commerce is against any new legislation that allows permit holders to have guns in their cars on company property, he says (at 1:14:13) "We believe that the current system of DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL approach has worked well for many years since 1997 when the handgun permit legislation passed and that the urgency of passing some legislation to expand the right of gun owners to bring their weapons onto the property of others is essentially a solution without a problem."

Now this says to me, "we know there are people who bring guns into our parking lots. And those people keep their mouths shut about it and we don't ask. Let's leave it like that." Is the Chamber saying (with a wink and a nod) "we know you got 'um, just don't talk about it and we won't either, and leave the law as it is." Any thoughts?

[Worriedman]

There is no "Don't ask don't tell" policy in effect, especially with respect to Federal Express.  Employees have lost their jobs due to inadvertently leaving a firearm in their vehicle even when no ammunition was present. The Chamber's mouthpiece was playing to the camera, (interesting fact there, we were told there would be no testimony taken, members of the committee told us that it was a slam dunk) then, they let the Chamber get up to the mic and have their say, offering their threat that "Business" entities would cut and run.  Some things never change.

[GKar]

WM - did you happen to get any info on the list of "questions" that the Chamber rep indicated had been produced?  I found his presentation to be particularly nauseating, frankly: especially the "Don't ask - don't tell" part.

[Worriedman]

None of the committee members that I talked to had seen a "list of questions".  I do understand the Governor met with the Lt. Gov. and the Republican members of the committee for a period of time just prior to the meeting, I can only assume they were simply passing the time of day, as some have insisted the Governor would NEVER attempt to lobby against this issue...

 

I am convinced they had no "questions", but would offer up some "threats", as was mentioned by their spokesman in his statement.  Always offering up a modicum of intimidation, they have to earn their money.

[Guest PapaB]

An interesting aside...Ophelia Ford is doing a bang-up job channeling Roseanne Roseannadanna with both her appearance and her babbling...

 

 

Made me wonder what was in that water bottle she had. Her appearance reminded me more of the Addams families Cousin It having a bad hair day.

[GKar]

Another question for those that were there: what was/is the purpose of the inquiry RE the types of firearms that are contemplated by the bill?  I thought the inquiry was strange...but thought the answer from legal was even stranger...

[Guest 270win]

I like how in the bill that school parking lots are included so that folks can leave a loaded handgun in the car and not be charged with 'intent to go armed' instead of presently having to unload a handgun and put it in the trunk to avoid 'intent to go armed'.

 

I would prefer that the law simply made it legal to carry at a school but this is better than nothing.  Same with local parks.

[Sky King]

Another question for those that were there: what was/is the purpose of the inquiry RE the types of firearms that are contemplated by the bill?  I thought the inquiry was strange...but thought the answer from legal was even stranger...

I was there with Worriedman all day.  This is my take on that question.  If you recall last year Stacy Campfield offered an amendment to allow hunters with valid hunting licenses to have their hunting weapons in their cars also.  The question may have been to inquire whether or not the bill would include those.  That is just my take on it, I have nothing to back that up. 

[Sky King]

I like how in the bill that school parking lots are included so that folks can leave a loaded handgun in the car and not be charged with 'intent to go armed' instead of presently having to unload a handgun and put it in the trunk to avoid 'intent to go armed'.

 

I would prefer that the law simply made it legal to carry at a school but this is better than nothing.  Same with local parks.

 

Actually I don't see anywhere in these bills where school parking lots are specifically mentioned.  The only "referance" to school property is in Section 1 (a) of the bill where it states "Notwithstanding  SS 39-17-1309, SS 39-17-1311, or SS 39-17-1359...."  SS 39-17-1309 addresses carrying weapons on school property.  This bill does nothing to change that.  In  39-13-1309 paragraph (c) (1)  it states "It is not an offense under this subsection (c) for a nonstudent adult to possess a firearm, if the firearm in contained within a private vehicle operated by the adult and is not handled by the adult, or by any other person acting with the  expressed or implied consent of the adult, while the vehicle is on school property." 

 

Any lawyers out there feel free to jump in there and correct me or comment.

[monkeylizard]

I'd like to hear a legal opinion on it too. I'm still confused by the differences between 39-17-1309 ( b ) and ( c ).

 

C gives the "keep it in your car and don't touch it" defense, but B makes no such defense. B includes "intent to go armed" but C does not.

 

I read it to mean that B applies if you intend to go armed (no defense for the car) but C applies if you don't intend to go armed (leave it in the car is good-to-go).

 

So what's the definition of "intent to go armed"?

[Sky King]

HB118 is on the schedule for House Civil Justice Subcommittee on Wednesday, February 13.  No time is given. 

[GKar]

The time for the CJ Subcmte is up now: 3pm.  HB 118 is #4 out of 8.  Looks like it picked up Jimmy Eldridge as a co-sponsor, too.

[Sky King]

The time for the CJ Subcmte is up now: 3pm.  HB 118 is #4 out of 8.  Looks like it picked up Jimmy Eldridge as a co-sponsor, too.

Thanks, I had not yet seen that.  Jimmy Eldridge told us yesterday that he was going to sign on. 

[GKar]

Any ideas on this "compromise" bill that's supposedly being worked on in the House (per the Chamber rep)?

[Worriedman]

Any ideas on this "compromise" bill that's supposedly being worked on in the House (per the Chamber rep)?

 

If there is one, it is the best kept secret on the hill, but, I would imagine it would be a Beth Harwell/Bill Haslam sponsored situation, probably carried by McCormick at their direction.  My thought is that their change would be to carve school lots out of the equation, as Haslam is hyperventilating over his handlers from UT giving him grief over Ramsey's apparent rouge move.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Worriedman

[Worriedman]

I only see one friendly face on the Civil Justice sub, that being Rep. Rick Womick. 

 

It has already been reported that Vance Dennis "thinks" that HB 118 is "unenforceable" and that he will not support it.

 

I personally saw Rep. Jim Coley stab Andy Holt's "Campus Carry" Bill to death while Rep. Holt stepped out of the room to take a phone call in the 2010 session.

 

If it gets through this one unchanged, that I think is a key indicator that the Leadership has discussed and come to an understanding.

[GKar]

My thoughts as well - this one will be the litmus test. Lundberg will only jump when Harwell tells him too, so I look at his actions as somewhat of an indicator of whats going on behind the scenes. My WAG: it gets amended here, softening considerably (likely Haslam's hallowed UT exception along with a few others), and it's this amended version that the Senate ends up accepting when it comes to reconciliation. I truly believe its been the plan all along...Ramsey gets to grandstand to what he perceives as a conservative base in this end of the state thats been quite critical of late, but still allowing him to invoke the "I tried and this is the best that could happen" crap. Thats the only explanation that makes any sense in light of his actions last year vs this year.

[Worriedman]

IF that is the case, we have to fight it, better no law than a bad one. 

[Guest PapaB]

NOTICE!!

 

SB142 is on the Senate calendar for Monday the 11th at 5pm.

[Defender]

I've corresponded with Courtney Rogers, 45th District, some, and wanted to share my most recent missive from her.  This is in response to some questions Id asked her:

 

Real quick, because I am swamped.... oh- but first, if you ever come to Nashville, would love to meet you in person!  Ok, I have signed onto the 'safe commute' bill as a co-sponsor - but there are some issues with it as it came out of the Senate the other night that may be too restrictive, will look more into that.  Am also co-sponsoring the bill that doesn't allow publication of permit holder list in TN....  Hmmm, what else.  Signing onto the HB 042 by Joe Carr that makes it a crime for anyone trying to enforce confiscation of arms in TN.   Also, FYI....  am joining the 10th Amendment Caucus!

 

Blessings!

 

Courtney

[QuietDan]

Tenth Amendment Caucus?!!

 

Well, I'm glad they've got one. . . .