HB118/SB142: Current "parking lot" legislation

[Guest nicemac]

The fact is you can be fired for any reason-or no reason at all. You can't make it illegal to fire someone for having a gun in their car. All the company has to say is FIRED! No reason given. It is not a civil rights violation to fire you for no reason…

[GKar]

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.

 

It is oh so funny to read this, after having heard these same legislators make just the opposite argument last year...right before they got a bad case of the "turtles" and pulled their heads back into a protected orifice.  Indeed, IIRC it was the attorneys for the FedExs, VWs and NIssans that made this argument, and were summarily brushed off by leadership - at first.  Gee...wonder what changed their mind?

[Chucktshoes]

So, when is Ramsey up for reelection? I think it is time to start looking for a primary challenger. This fucker sold us down the river and it is time to Maggart his ass.

I can deal with it if he honestly believes the desired legislation to be a bad idea and not supporting it. I can't deal with being pissed on and being told that it is rain and that message from his office given to Worriedman is exactly that. Edited February 15, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[GKar]

Unfortunately Mr "Boots" was re-elected with no opposition in last year's cycle. so we're stuck with him for awhile.

[Chucktshoes]

Unfortunately Mr "Boots" was re-elected with no opposition in last year's cycle. so we're stuck with him for awhile.

I guess that means we need to develop a longer memory. At tis point I'd vote for and contribute to a nominee from the Communist Party USA over this guy. An honest enemy is preferable to a dishonest "friend". Edited February 15, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[Guest nicemac]

So I ask again: How do you craft a law-in a right to work state-that prevents an employer from firing you because you have a gun in your car?

 

You can't have it both ways-dicate why an employer can't fire you and be a right to work state. Everybody with a  gun in their car would become effectively off limits in regards to firing. 

[Worriedman]

So I ask again: How do you craft a law-in a right to work state-that prevents an employer from firing you because you have a gun in your car?

 

You can't have it both ways-dicate why an employer can't fire you and be a right to work state. Everybody with a  gun in their car would become effectively off limits in regards to firing. 

In last years bill, we inserted "prevailing party" language, which required an individual who put forth the argument that he was terminated for having a firearm to prove it, or, pay the legal expenses of the other side.  No one wants to admit that, but it is so.

 

I have worked in Human Resources long enough to know that you never fire someone for no cause, you always structure a termination carefully, Right to Work State or not, a  wrongful termination suit takes up time and money, are filed every day and avoided like the plague.  Normally if a plaintiff can engineer a charge related to race as the causal agent that is the preferred venue.  Granted, the Business community has just about choked the life out of Article 1 Section 6 of the TN Declaration of Rights, but not quite.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Worriedman

[Worriedman]

One last part of the conversation I had with the staffer, he insisted that the legislature has the power to restrict (his word, not mine) the keeping and bearing of arms in TN.  I maintain that they do not, that they are given the power to regulate the wearing of arms only, and that supposedly, with a view to prevent crime only.  The first 9 stanzas of the current bill under consideration laud the class of Citizen who is afforded the privilege of paying a tax to purchase a defense against prosecution related to going about with a loaded firearm which is still regarded as an intent to go armed, a crime.

 

Does that not define a protected class?

[GlockSpock]

At first I fell into the mindset that this bill is worthless. Then I thought it through and I actually support it as is. Why? Two reasons:

 

1) This legally protects you parking in parking lots owned by private individuals. I've seen some parking garages legally posted. Although it's a shot in the dark, someone could legally be prosecuted for driving, parking, and then leaving their firearm in their car in one of these garages. My understanding is that this bill would make it legal to do so universally.

 

2) This is America. I believe that a private individual has the right to hire and fire for whatever reason they want. Are you a Tennessee Vols fan? Then you should be able to hire someone just because they are too. Did you hire someone and find that they are a Florida Gators fan? You should be able to fire them for no other reason than if you want to. If an employer wants to say "I want everyone here to drive a Ford or else you are fired because I want to be able to advertise that everyone I employ drives a Ford.", they should be able to do that. Why? Because it is their money. They earned the money. They choose who they give that money to in exchange for services. A prime example of this is that supposedly Coca Cola Bottling employees will be fired if they are caught drinking Pepsi branded drinks in public. Soda racism? You bet.

 

This bill is good because legally speaking, anyone will be able to keep a gun in their car at work. However, if an employer feels that their employees should not have firearms in their vehicles and an employee does anyway, then the employer should have a choice to say "I am not paying you anymore for your services here, end of story". 

 

It's hairy because finding the meeting point between personal property and private business. Personally, I would like to see 2nd Amendment rights trump slightly over private business rights, but this bill is a step in the right direction. There are already "protections" regarding sex, age, race, etc. An employer cannot legally say "Take off your shirt or I'll fire you". That's a big no no. So there is obviously some exceptions as to what exactly an employer can and cannot require, and for what exactly an employer can and cannot fire you. What needs to happen, where applicable, is that mindsets change in companies. In my mind, it's a private issue, not a government issue. The mindsets of those that hire need to be educated regarding firearms. 

 

Although I respect the work that LEO's do, I'll say this. Even though there are many, many, many cases of LEO's making poor decisions or even evil decisions and abusing their carrying of a firearm, you don't see businesses banding together and attempting to prohibit LEO's from carrying a weapon onto their premises. There is a sense of "faith" that LEO's are 100% accountable with firearms. The is a lack of "faith" that HCP's are 100% accountable with firearms. The truth is that LEO's are somewhere less than 100% accountable with firearms, and HCP's are somewhere over 0% accountable with firearms. In truth I would say that the "accountability" of the use and carry of firearms in dealing with LEO's and HCP's is probably very, very close. What needs to be done in this society is increase the amount of "faith" that employers have regarding the accountability of those with HCP's, and then "Parking Lot Bills" that protect employees from termination will not be needed. 

[JayC]

Yes, because the 1st Amendment is so much less important than the 2nd :)

 

Lets all say this together, the Constitution restricts the government NOT private people or the businesses they own.

 

The TFA and NRA look like fools today, they wasted all of this money and 'good will' and what do they have to show for it?  They spent at least twice the political capitol it would have cost to remove 39-17-1359 completely.

 

This is what happens when we as 2nd Amendment supporters try and make ourselves a protected classes and cause the loss of rights for others.  It was a bad plan, and set back the 2nd amendment movement in this state.

 

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.

 

[GlockSpock]

The TFA and NRA look like fools today, they wasted all of this money and 'good will' and what do they have to show for it?

 

It wouldn't be illegal to keep a firearm in your vehicle when parked in parking garages and parking lots, whereas now some lots are legally posted. Perhaps someday the same can be done for places of business, in a sense adopting the Alabama style law that basically says you can put up "No Guns" signs all you want, but it won't be illegal for people to ignore it. What it will be illegal for is if someone does carry onto your property and you ask them to leave and they don't leave. That's a trespassing issue. 

[JayC]

Employers can and do fire people all day long for legally protected actions that are Constitutionally protected.  Try telling your boss he's a jerk and an idiot, and he'll fire you for it...  protected speech is protected from the government, not from individuals...  You keep pushing this thought process that somehow the government can force your boss to be associated with you...  That violates another one of his rights called freedom of association.

 

Just like your freedom of association allows you to not buy products or services from a company that posts their business under 39-17-1359, and for you to choose not to work at a business that prohibits permit holders from carrying firearms.

 

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?

 

[JayC]

Lets pretend what you say happens in the future...  Repealing 39-17-1359 would give you what AL has, and it would have cost a lot less political capitol to repeal 1359 than it did to get this law passed.  

 

I think the only good that *might* come from this law is that it might allow some permit holders to park in government parking lots and schools with a firearm in the vehicle where they can not today.  And I've been arguing all along we should have pushed legislation to remove the ability of governments to post first, instead of trying to target private businesses.

 

It wouldn't be illegal to keep a firearm in your vehicle when parked in parking garages and parking lots, whereas now some lots are legally posted. Perhaps someday the same can be done for places of business, in a sense adopting the Alabama style law that basically says you can put up "No Guns" signs all you want, but it won't be illegal for people to ignore it. What it will be illegal for is if someone does carry onto your property and you ask them to leave and they don't leave. That's a trespassing issue. 

 

[Worriedman]

Employers can and do fire people all day long for legally protected actions that are Constitutionally protected.  Try telling your boss he's a jerk and an idiot, and he'll fire you for it...  protected speech is protected from the government, not from individuals...  You keep pushing this thought process that somehow the government can force your boss to be associated with you...  That violates another one of his rights called freedom of association.

 

Just like your freedom of association allows you to not buy products or services from a company that posts their business under 39-17-1359, and for you to choose not to work at a business that prohibits permit holders from carrying firearms.

 

Let's pretend that the firm you work for decides that they have had enough of Democrats or Republicans, and they put a spotter out in the parking lot to espy the bumper stickers on cars, and fire anyone who is politically active.  Or, they decide they don't like folks with children, so they mark any vehicle that has a "My Kid" sticker for termination.  Or, they go through the insurance records, and let anyone who is married go, because that may lead to divided loyalties.

 

You are good with all that, remind me never to depend on you for anything.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Worriedman

[Guest 270win]

JayC,

 

What you just said about repealing 39-17-1359 is exactly what I have been saying for a long time.  It is a worthless law that puts the state into enforcing property owners' policies by giving a permit holder a criminal offense. 

 

Has anyone even talked to a legislator about just simply repealing 39-17-1359?  What does the NRA think and TFA? 

 

Who is our NRA contact?  I'd be glad to email that NRA contact.

Edited February 15, 2013 by 270win

[JayC]

Worried,

 

I'd find any such action to be shocking, even if I wasn't targeted for termination I would look for employment elsewhere, because I would find those actions indefensible.  But I personally don't think any of that should be illegal.

 

But, none of those actions would violate your Constitutional rights.

 

And if you knew such a company was acting like this, you and many other people would stop doing business with them, and they likely would go out of business or reform their ways.  Which is how the market would solve these problems.

 

Let's pretend that the firm you work for decides that they have had enough of Democrats or Republicans, and they put a spotter out in the parking lot to espy the bumper stickers on cars, and fire anyone who is politically active.  Or, they decide they don't like folks with children, so they mark any vehicle that has a "My Kid" sticker for termination.  Or, they go through the insurance records, and let anyone who is married go, because that may lead to divided loyalties.

 

You are good with all that, remind me never to depend on you for anything.

 

[GlockSpock]

Exactly. Just because something a business does is unethical does not mean it should be illegal. 

 

Worried,

 

I'd find any such action to be shocking, even if I wasn't targeted for termination I would look for employment elsewhere, because I would find those actions indefensible.  But I personally don't think any of that should be illegal.

 

But, none of those actions would violate your Constitutional rights.

 

And if you knew such a company was acting like this, you and many other people would stop doing business with them, and they likely would go out of business or reform their ways.  Which is how the market would solve these problems.

[homeagain]

So I ask again: How do you craft a law-in a right to work state-that prevents an employer from firing you because you have a gun in your car?

 

You can't have it both ways-dicate why an employer can't fire you and be a right to work state. Everybody with a  gun in their car would become effectively off limits in regards to firing. '

 

Agree with you there, Mac.  The State could legislate gun ownership as a protected class, but then membership would have to be treated the same as discrimination cases are through the THRC/EEOC.  Messy, messy, messy.

 

Just reading through some of the board comments, it appears there is some confusion as to what constitutes employee 'rights'.  I see many mention 'right to work,' but that phrase only deals with the labor environment of the state.  Being a 'right to work state' only prohibits union security agreements that force membership in a union.....has nothing to do with whether an employer can fire an employee who is 'at will.'

 

What we are really referring to here is the 'employment at-will' doctrine.  Tennessee is both 'employment at will,' and 'right to work.'  However 'right to work' has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the particular employer/employee relationship at issue.

 

Employment at will means, in essence, that either party may terminate at any time, any employment relationship that is not in writing and is for an indefinite period of time, for any reason or for no reason at all.  Basically an employee working for an employer under 'at will' can be fired for good cause, no cause, bad cause, as long as it isn't for 'illegal cause' such as membership in a protected class (Title VII, THRA, etc.; being a 'whistleblower'; or for filing a worker's comp claim. 

In all states (due to the Civil Rights Act of 1964) it is illegal to terminate employment because of membership in a protected class ; many states have similar state-level legislation expanding protected classes (such as CT, NY, etc. where gender-identification/assignment is included as protected).

 

In essence in Tennessee, if you're not in a union, or your employee manual grants you no 'due process' expectation and establishment of property interest in continued employment [most don't and do clearly include disclaimers indicating the 'at will' nature] you can be fired for absolutely no stated reason.  Having this bill guarantee employment rights and not simply protect against prosecution would unravel a pretty big ball of established conservative emloyment doctrine and have some dire unintended consequences.

   

[Guest nicemac]

Agree with you there, Mac.  The State could legislate gun ownership as a protected class, but then membership would have to be treated the same as discrimination cases are through the THRC/EEOC.  Messy, messy, messy.

 

Just reading through some of the board comments, it appears there is some confusion as to what constitutes employee 'rights'.  I see many mention 'right to work,' but that phrase only deals with the labor environment of the state.  Being a 'right to work state' only prohibits union security agreements that force membership in a union.....has nothing to do with whether an employer can fire an employee who is 'at will.'

 

What we are really referring to here is the 'employment at-will' doctrine.  Tennessee is both 'employment at will,' and 'right to work.'  However 'right to work' has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the particular employer/employee relationship at issue.

 

You are correct. I will state that correctly in future discussions. Thank you.

[homeagain]

Sorry if my earlier post seemed directed at you.  Everybody was using the phrase 'right to work' and I just wanted to get everybody on the same page.  I just re-read my post and I kinda sounded like a know-it-all asshat.....sorry dude.

[Worriedman]

Sorry if my earlier post seemed directed at you.  Everybody was using the phrase 'right to work' and I just wanted to get everybody on the same page.  I just re-read my post and I kinda sounded like a know-it-all asshat.....sorry dude.

You are correct, the operative issue is employment at will, and since you seem to have the handle on the correct technical jargon, which would indicate knowledge, how does Texas, which is too an "at will" State remedy their interest in having a "Parking Lot" bill which precludes termination for keeping a handgun in a personal vehicle.

 

One attorney out there I asked said they applied "adjoining property' principals, recognizing that the adjoining property was vertical instead of horizontal.  The do not allow keeping your property in their property, (company vehicle) but do allow it in your private vehicle on their property.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Worriedman

[Worriedman]

But, none of those actions would violate your Constitutional rights.

 

That is true, lots of things that are unacceptable to me would not violate a Constitutional Right.  Each to his own.

Edited February 15, 2013 by Worriedman

[homeagain]

Seems to me they have, in essence, created a protected class of sorts.  You can't fire a person because they are 'purple.'  But you can fire a purple person for no cause, good cause, or bad cause.  Seems to me if an employer is truly 'at will' (as TX allows) the employer could still fire an 'at will' handgun posessor for no good reason.  But I'm not intimate with the nuances of TX employment law. 

 

Have no idea what the venue for this claim would be under this statute, or if they've even designed a process.  Did your attorney friend indicate who would handle the claims, how they would be processed, venue, handlijng agency, and so forth?  If nothing else, they may have inadvertently created some more government jobs.  Can't wait to see the test cases from TX.

[Guest 270win]

I have never thought these 'parking lot' laws in other states would keep people from being fired with a gun in the car.  That is why I have always called them feel good laws that accomplish nothing.  It sounds good and gets the NRA endorsement.  If you work for someone that does not like guns, they just figure out a different way to fire you if they find out you have one in your vehicle.

 

I'm legal right now with a gun in my trunk at a school.  I'm also legal with one in the trunk at a local park that bans guns.  I just can't have 'intent to go armed' when I leave one in my car at some local parks and schools.  About the only place I technically could not have a gun legally would be say at FedEx if their property is properly posted.

 

The real improvement would be to pre empt local parks to make those legal and to do away with 39-17-1359.  I'd go on a limb and say legalize permits in schools.  Those are real second amendment improvements. 

 

Who is our TN NRA contact that deals with the legislature? 

[Worriedman]

Who is our TN NRA contact that deals with the legislature?

 

Since Heidi Keesling "moved on" as our lobbyist, and Daren LaSorte was instituted as interim last year, I have not seen a posted replacement.  I know that Daren was here on a temporary basis.  Have not seen or heard from the NRA at Nashville or via e-mail this year.