HB118/SB142: Current "parking lot" legislation

[Sky King]

The way I understand the amendment, it just EXPANDS the liability protection for the property owner/employer.  I spoke with Jeremy Faison's office yesterday.  In a nutshell I was told that this bill is going to pass with NO amendments.  Yes they knew well in advance that this bill has NO real protection for the employee outside of protection from criminal prosecution.  I was told if I was fired, I would have grounds for a wrongfull termination suit, which is TOTALLY NOT TRUE, that if private employers start searching vehicles and/or terminating or disciplining employees on the basis of firearms, the they will come back next year and address that.  Well if you believe that, I have several acres of prime beach front property on the moon I want to sell you. 

 

What we MUST do is communicate to EVERY permit holder we can in every manner possible, that after this bill becomes law, we need to KNOW EVERY time a permit holder has their vehicle searched, they are terminated or otherwise disciplined or repremanded in regards to firearm possession.  We NEED a list of names and circumstances to throw on the desks of Ron Ramsey, Beth Harwell, Jeremy Faison and EVERY other member of the General Assembly.

 

Next, while it will likely have little to no effect at this point, I think everybody should contact their representative and tell them that this is a BAD, USELESS bill for the permit holder.  They need to know that we are not stupid people who can so easily have the wool pulled over their eyes.

 

This is almost exactly the kind of bill that Vance Dennis wanted by convincing Josh Evans to gut his legislation.  He called it an "incentive" bill.  When will they learn that a private business is not going to change unless TOLD to.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Sky King

[Worriedman]

I hope that the Leadership of the Republican party in TN doesn't have anything that penicillin will not cure...

[ted]

Well it passed WZTV FOX 17 NEWS
House panel advances guns bill after 6 minutes
February 13, 2013 17:33 EST
By ERIK SCHELZIG Associated Press
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- A bill to keep businesses, schools and colleges from banning firearms in their parking lots has been approved by a House subcommittee after a six-minute hearing.
The measure sponsored by Republican Rep. Jeremy Faison of Cosby was advanced to the full House Civil Justice Committee on a voice vote on Wednesday.
Republican leaders are intent to avoid a repeat of last year's drawn-out fight over the measure opposed by large Tennessee employers like FedEx in Memphis and Volkswagen in Chattanooga.
House Majority Leader Gerald McCormick of Chattanooga says he and colleagues just want to put the measure behind them so they can move on to other issues.
In McCormick's words: "We can argue about it and then pass it, or we can just pass it."

[GKar]

The way I understand the amendment, it just EXPANDS the liability protection for the property owner/employer.  I spoke with Jeremy Faison's office yesterday.  In a nutshell I was told that this bill is going to pass with NO amendments.  Yes they knew well in advance that this bill has NO real protection for the employee outside of protection from criminal prosecution.  I was told if I was fired, I would have grounds for a wrongfull termination suit, which is TOTALLY NOT TRUE, that if private employers start searching vehicles and/or terminating or disciplining employees on the basis of firearms, the they will come back next year and address that.  Well if you believe that, I have several acres of prime beach front property on the moon I want to sell you. 

 

What we MUST do is communicate to EVERY permit holder we can in every manner possible, that after this bill becomes law, we need to KNOW EVERY time a permit holder has their vehicle searched, they are terminated or otherwise disciplined or repremanded in regards to firearm possession.  We NEED a list of names and circumstances to throw on the desks of Ron Ramsey, Beth Harwell, Jeremy Faison and EVERY other member of the General Assembly.

 

Next, while it will likely have little to no effect at this point, I think everybody should contact their representative and tell them that this is a BAD, USELESS bill for the permit holder.  They need to know that we are not stupid people who can so easily have the wool pulled over their eyes.

 

This is almost exactly the kind of bill that Vance Dennis wanted by convincing Josh Evans to gut his legislation.  He called it an "incentive" bill.  When will they learn that a private business is not going to change unless TOLD to.

 

Yeah, I heard the same thing from Faison several days ago.  His words today in response to Jones said a lot more than you could hear.  Lets see...we're still waiting on them to fix the city parks opt-out, aren't we?  But its only been four years...  I'd forgotten about the Evans bill and Dennis' goof-ball idea there - you're right, this one ends up in the same crapper.

[wewoapsiak]

So I'm guessing since ORNL is federal facility they won't have to play by this?

[mcurrier]

"Guns In Trunks"

[wstrnrdr]

Well, wonder how many companies will stand up and allow employees to actually store their weapons in their vehicles when this takes effect. A coworker today said he would email HR and get their opinion. HAHA, told him might not be a real good idea. Would probably put a big ole target on his back and get his vehicle searched at their whim. This just plain sucks, no weapons, illeagal searches, and termination. For sure the legislators are just plain scared to take on business on this topic. Interesting to see how many searches and/or terminations will occur.

[Oh Shoot]

So I'm guessing since ORNL is federal facility they won't have to play by this?

 

Far as I know, it has always been legal to have guns in car on most federal property.

 

From 18 U.S.C. § 930 : US Code - Section 930: Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities

 

The term "Federal facility" means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.

 

So would think that any prohibition on parking lots would be by virtue of the contracted agency rather than the fed?

 

Then again, I know Post Office employees are banned from having firearms anywhere on property, so not real sure how this all plays out federally.  Know that military bases are under a different section of the USC somewhere also.

 

- OS

Edited February 14, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[enfield]

[url]http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/feb/14/guns-in-parking-lot-bill-wont-protect/[/url]

 

What is it we're expecting this new law to do?    I'm confused.

[Chucktshoes]

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/feb/14/guns-in-parking-lot-bill-wont-protect/
 
What is it we're expecting this new law to do?    I'm confused.

Nothing anymore. They managed to gut this legislation of any value. It is useless and those voting for it should get no credit. This bill is the pro-gun equivalent of gun control legislation. A feel good measure that doesn't actually accomplish anything.

[RobertNashville]

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/feb/14/guns-in-parking-lot-bill-wont-protect/

 

What is it we're expecting this new law to do?    I'm confused.

99% of what is does is allow certain Republicans (especially Harwell, Haslam and Ramsey) to claim they are pro-2A and did something to help the TN firearm community without actually causing any heartburn to the big businesses whose campaign contributions they so love and cherish.

 

Other than that, it doesn't do much.

 

I'm not sure at this point if it's worth passing or not...I wasn't expecting to get everything on a first pass but this is almost nothing.

 

I just emailed the entire legislature asking them to make this a good bill or don't bother...I also asked for a response and noted that their response or lack of one would be made know to places like TGO, Facebook...I guess I'll see who even bothers to respond. ;)

[Guest nicemac]

I wrote my senator (Jack Johnson) yesterday about this and included my contact information. Two hours later, he called me on my cell phone.

 

His explanation (and I believe it is a good one):

 

They cannot make it illegal for your company to fire you because you have a gun in your car. Your company can fire you for any/ no reason whatsoever. Crafting the law in that manner would create a protected class that was essentially un-fireable. Anyone who got fired and had a gun in the car would immediately file a lawsuit that would cost the company money. Then people who had Bibles in the car would ask for protection from firing. Then people with Korans, sex toys, etc…. You would then have a bunch of protected classes of people that could not be fired. He told me that if that type of provision is put in the bill, it will NOT pass.

 

After thinking about it, I agree with him. We have enough exceptions to laws already. If your gun is concealed, your company should never know you have it. If you are worried they will search your car, invest $20 in a lockable handgun safe. You would likely not have to open such a tiny safe in event of a search (if they found it at all). On the other hand, if all it takes to get you fired is this, you were probably on thin ice already…

[Guest nicemac]

I wrote my senator (Jack Johnson) yesterday about this and included my contact information. Two hours later, he called me on my cell phone.

 

His explanation (and I believe it is a good one):

 

They cannot make it illegal for your company to fire you because you have a gun in your car. Your company can fire you for any/ no reason whatsoever. Crafting the law in that manner would create a protected class that was essentially un-fireable. Anyone who got fired and had a gun in the car would immediately file a lawsuit that would cost the company money. Then people who had Bibles in the car would ask for protection from firing. Then people with Korans, sex toys, etc…. You would then have a bunch of protected classes of people that could not be fired. He told me that if that type of provision is put in the bill, it will NOT pass.

 

After thinking about it, I agree with him. We have enough exceptions to laws already. If your gun is concealed, your company should never know you have it. If you are worried they will search your car, invest $20 in a lockable handgun safe. You would likely not have to open such a tiny safe in event of a search (if they found it at all). On the other hand, if all it takes to get you fired is this, you were probably on thin ice already…

[Guest 270win]

This bill does not do a lot.  All it legalizes is for people with permits to keep firearms in their cars in parks that have banned carry, no gun signs properties, and schools.  The intent to go armed part does not apply to local schools and parks as far as i can tell so you can leave a loaded pistol in your car in those places.

 

The bill does not do much honestly.  There are places like Louisiana and Mississippi where it is LEGAL to have a gun in your car without a permit, even on school property.  Get a certain type of permit in MS and Louisiana, and you are legal to carry INSIDE the schools.

 

I personally think this is a weak bill to look like the politicians are doing something when in fact they really are not advancing our rights. 

[Worriedman]

I wrote my senator (Jack Johnson) yesterday about this and included my contact information. Two hours later, he called me on my cell phone.

 

His explanation (and I believe it is a good one):

 

They cannot make it illegal for your company to fire you because you have a gun in your car. Your company can fire you for any/ no reason whatsoever. Crafting the law in that manner would create a protected class that was essentially un-fireable. Anyone who got fired and had a gun in the car would immediately file a lawsuit that would cost the company money. Then people who had Bibles in the car would ask for protection from firing. Then people with Korans, sex toys, etc…. You would then have a bunch of protected classes of people that could not be fired. He told me that if that type of provision is put in the bill, it will NOT pass.

 

After thinking about it, I agree with him. We have enough exceptions to laws already. If your gun is concealed, your company should never know you have it. If you are worried they will search your car, invest $20 in a lockable handgun safe. You would likely not have to open such a tiny safe in event of a search (if they found it at all). On the other hand, if all it takes to get you fired is this, you were probably on thin ice already…

Works in 19 other States, especially in TX, which is also a Right to Work State.  Keeping your firearm in your castle is Constitutionally protected, keeping a Bible in it is not.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Worriedman

[Guest nicemac]

Works in 19 other States, especially in TX, which is also a Right to Work State.  Keeping your firearm in your castle is Constitutionally protected, keeping a Bible in it is not.

Has nothing to do with the gun. It has to do with the government telling an employer why he may or may not fire someone. 

[GKar]

Ramsey once told me that what was actually needed was legislation prohibiting at-will searches, and instead requiring a defined, supported cause esentially requiring a search warrant. Funny he didn't offer THAT legislation in conjunction with this stinker... Until then, this is a save-face effort. Nothing more, nothing less. The way it was handled should tell you that. They didn't want folks to know what it didn't do until the train was too far down the track...and that's exactly what they got. Why do that unless you KNOW you are selling folks down the river? Every legislator that spoke about the bill in public (including Johnson when he presented it to the Senate Jud cmte and the full body) pointedly avoided saying anything suggesting that the bill did NOT address policies until Sherry Jones forced Faison to finally do so in yesterday's committee meeting...if they are so damned proud of this bill, why approach it in that manner?

[Worriedman]

Has nothing to do with the gun. It has to do with the government telling an employer why he may or may not fire someone. 

If an employer can fire you for a legal action, which is in fact Constitutionally protected, and in that protection there is no limit in where it may be enjoyed, then we have bigger problems.  The Legislature is the ONLY entity which has any power related to possession of guns, no property owner does.  If you are not committing a crime whilst attending an invitational event on their property, that owner may not kill you, or do you think they should have that ability as well at their whim?

Edited February 15, 2013 by Worriedman

[R_Bert]

So I'm guessing since ORNL is federal facility they won't have to play by this?

 

privately owned firearms are NOT permitted within the boundaries of Y12 or ORNL, and no state-level legislation will change this.

 

(Permitted hunts are the exception)

Edited February 14, 2013 by R_Bert

[Oh Shoot]

This bill does not do a lot.  ...

 

From TFA email:

 

The Safe Commute bill SB0142 was passed by the Senate on Monday.  The
bill has potential to be good law but right now it has many holes in it. 
We brought those holes to the attention of the Senators prior to the floor
hearings but not a single senator moved on the floor to address any of these
concerns.  The bill will now have to be fixed - if at all - in the
House
.

House Bill HB0118
is scheduled to be heard in the House
Civil Justice Subcommittee February 13, 2013 at 3pm. 

Summary:  The bill as written would generally allow permit
holders to store their firearms in their own cars even if parked on the
parking lot of another but it has some potential omissions that should
be understood and addressed



:

1. The bill is limited in Section 1 (proposed
   37-17-1313(a)) to a "permit holder’s privately-owned motor
   vehicle."   This language could have the effect of excluding permit
   holders who are relying on a borrowed car, a family owned car, a parent's car,
   a leased car or even a temporary rental from protection under this bill. 
   This limitation and trap should be removed.
    
2. The bill in Section 1 (proposed 37-17-1313(a)(1))
   has a clause that provides that the law would only apply if the car "is parked
   in a location where it is permitted to be; ...."  This clause could form
   the basis for employers and property owners to effectively "opt out" of the
   law's scope by posting signs or establishing employment "rules" that vehicles
   containing firearms can not be parked on the property or can be parked only at
   specific areas of the property.  Another trap here would be for those
   permit holders who are issued permits for specific parking lots, like at
   Vanderbilt, and then are found to be parked in an area not covered by the
   employer's permit -  this bill may allow those employees to be criminally
   prosecuted.
    
3. The bill uses the qualifier in Section 1 (proposed
   37-17-1313(a)) "Notwithstanding §§ 39-17-1309, 39-17-1311, or § 39-17-1359, .
   . ."   I am concerned that this language may be intended to
   protect or allow prohibitions under other statutes or that it would not
   address grand fathered local government restrictions under 39-17-1314 such as
   apply in Knoxville and Davidson Counties relative to government parking areas
   and/or locally managed parks. 
    
4. Another similar loophole to the "notwithstanding"
   clause could be with the application of criminal trespass doctrines since the
   "notwithstanding" clause is limited to 3 specific statutes and that list does
   not include the criminal trespass statute.  The point is that the
   notwithstanding clause has a self-imposed limit and that limit allows the
   potential for a court to find that numerous other statutes would continue to
   allow criminal prosecution of permit holders.
    
5. The bill in Section 1 (proposed 37-17-1313(a)(2))
   does not address "incidental exposure" that could occur while the permit
   holder is storing the weapon in the car if that occurs on the property. 
   Thus, a security camera or another employee that sees a permit holder placing
   the weapon in the glove compartment or trunk once on the property might not be
   protected by the legislation as presently written.
    
6. The bill does not preclude an employer from having
   a "no weapons" policy and firing, terminating or refusing to hire individuals
   with carry permits or who store their weapons in the parking areas (and
   consequently denying them both safe commute as well as unemployment benefits
   or any remedy for wrongful termination.)
    
7. the bill would criminalize under state law
   possession on any federal property that might be restricted.  It would be
   better that Tennessee not bootstrap federal infringements of 2nd Amendment
   rights and leave the enforcement of any such restrictions to be the financial
   burden of the federal government.
    
8. Although not
   material to the bill's purpose, the bill has a factual error in the first
   "whereas" clause which states "WHEREAS, in 1996, Tennesseans were first given
   the opportunity to apply for and, if meeting the qualifications, be issued a permit to carry a handgun in
   public;"    Tennessee's first civilian handgun permit law was
   actually passed 2 years earlier in May 1994 under 1994 Tennessee Laws Pub. Ch.
   943 (S.B. 2182) and codified at that time at TCA 39-17-1315.  It then
   underwent a significant re-write when the permit process was transferred from
   the sheriffs (under the 1994 law) to the Department of Safety by subsequent
   legislation.

If the
objective of the bill is to full promises made in the past to permit holders and
to the Tennessee Firearms Association by Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey, then
TFA would support the general objective if these errors and omissions
are addressed




.

[enfield]

Seems to me that firing someone for exercising his 2nd Amendment RIGHT is an illegal civil rights violation.  I believe that conspiring to do that is a felony.

 

Getting rid of the 'at will' searches sounds good to me.  I won't consent to a search by my employer, even though I know it's a condition of my employment.  I'll quit first.

[southernasylum]

I'm conflicted. The bill definitely has problems, however, we're not going to get everything we want in the first pass. Gun control advocates make incremental steps towards their ends and claim victory at every step. It seems we're lamenting every small step because we've not reached our goal. The journey of a thousand steps... Yes, this bill doesn't do much but it is not a move toward gun control. I think I'll celebrate this tiny victory and start planning for the next step.

Just my .02

 

-southernasylum

[Currently]

Is a locked car like a safe?

Would one need a search warrant to search my car?

[waynesan]

I'm conflicted. The bill definitely has problems, however, we're not going to get everything we want in the first pass. Gun control advocates make incremental steps towards their ends and claim victory at every step. It seems we're lamenting every small step because we've not reached our goal. The journey of a thousand steps... Yes, this bill doesn't do much but it is not a move toward gun control. I think I'll celebrate this tiny victory and start planning for the next step.

Just my .02

 

-southernasylum

I think you are exactly right southernasylum, and as much as I dislike it, facts are facts.

[Worriedman]

I got a call from one of the Lt. Gov.'s staff persons yesterday,  the mantra is "We are not in the business of creating "protected classes"", which is a load of what Farmer Brown hauls off from the barn.  They have given and are in the process of giving judges the ability to carry which go beyond what the average citizen may enjoy, and seems they have no compunction at all about providing that.  There are a plethora of bills on the docket this year which create exemptions for certain people to bear arms in schools, are these not "protected classes"?

 

The thing that stuck with me, was the fact that he intoned that employers who have "policies" could in fact go to the HCP database and collect information about which of their employees had permits, and fire them for that simple reason under our current "Right to Work" rules but had not.  Not sure if I was to take that as a threat, or if collectively they are actually that dense on the hill.

 

He suggested that if a firm fired an employee who had perfected their carry permit for violating a policy against keeping a legal weapon in their personal vehicle, that individual COULD sue, and I agreed that was correct, and I could win the lottery this weekend, with about as much certainty as prevailing.  My father has been involved with the "legal' system against a convicted meth manufacturer and dealer for over two years, and has yet to get a day in court.  The Chancery Court issued a restraining order against the neighbors to preclude any activity on their part that would keep my parents from enjoying their property, and they let the individual park his truck at the line, shine his headlights into my parent's bedroom all night and set off his alarm by remote, the Sheriff's Department has no intention of making the worms next door cease and desist. If an 85 year old land owner is afforded no protection under the law in such and incident, there is no possibility that an individual might prevail against a firing for violation of a stated policy under Right to Work rules, and to suggest otherwise is ludicrous.

 

The most damning thing is he intimated it was the intent and purpose of the current legislation to protect the HCP holder from losing their jobs over the legal act of keeping a weapon in their vehicle on an employer's parking lot, and that if business in fact DID terminate people for having a firearm in their vehicle, they could "look" at it next year.  I am just filled with faith that they would be able to "see" the issue any clearer next year, just as they have on the parks opt out.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Worriedman