HB118/SB142: Current "parking lot" legislation

[E4 No More]

With Haslam stating in the news that school parking lots being exempt is "crucial" for his support, what's the chance of a veto? I know I wrote a rather pointed email to his office telling him it's time to stop being a RINO which was acknowledged with a "thanks for your opinion" response. :shrug:

[Sky King]

With Haslam stating in the news that school parking lots being exempt is "crucial" for his support, what's the chance of a veto? I know I wrote a rather pointed email to his office telling him it's time to stop being a RINO which was acknowledged with a "thanks for your opinion" response. :shrug:

The article I read about his veto comment also stated that prior to the meeting he had with the Senate Judical Committee before the vote, he did NOT know that currently there was a provision in TCA to allow firearms on school property.  He had regularly said that his main concern with legislation of this type is the firearms on school property thing.  BUT what he DID NOT know is that under certain conditions, it is ALREADY allowed.  MAYBE this will show him that his concerns are unfounded. 

[E4 No More]

The article I read about his veto comment also stated that prior to the meeting he had with the Senate Judical Committee before the vote, he did NOT know that currently there was a provision in TCA to allow firearms on school property.  He had regularly said that his main concern with legislation of this type is the firearms on school property thing.  BUT what he DID NOT know is that under certain conditions, it is ALREADY allowed.  MAYBE this will show him that his concerns are unfounded. 

Thanks, Sky King. You'd think that a governor would make himself knowledgeable of such topics before spouting off in the press.

Edited February 8, 2013 by SWJewellTN

[Dennis1209]

Got a question for y'all?

 

I only have a high school education and at best average intelligence, however... Be it written or verbally, if I have something important to communicate and want it understood and not vague, open to interpretation or misunderstanding, I so say or write it as such.

 

Why do the courts have to interpret so much of the meaning and intent of legislation when it could have easily been discussed, debated, written and understood by the average Joe?

 

Same with the United States Constitution, a well written and easily understood document a high school student can easily interpret. Why does it take the SCOTUS to tell us the meaning?

 

Maybe I need to go back to college or law school?

[quietmike]

Got a question for y'all?
 
I only have a high school education and at best average intelligence, however... Be it written or verbally, if I have something important to communicate and want it understood and not vague, open to interpretation or misunderstanding, I so say or write it as such.
 
Why do the courts have to interpret so much of the meaning and intent of legislation when it could have easily been discussed, debated, written and understood by the average Joe?
 
Same with the United States Constitution, a well written and easily understood document a high school student can easily interpret. Why does it take the SCOTUS to tell us the meaning?
 
Maybe I need to go back to college or law school?

Short answer is that there's no need.

Real answer is that the facts of every case is based on different circumstances and there may be a valid argument whether the law should apply in each one. Plus if the law was plain, lawyers couldn't charge $250/hour.

[Guest 270win]

Yes I would like the school part of this bill to be clarified so that when I go to Univ of Memphis for a conference I do not have to unload my handgun and put it in the trunk BEFORE i get there to avoid the whole intent to go armed deal.

 

I would prefer to be able to just leave my gun on me but I guess our politicians are too weak to fix that if they are arguing over a gun left in the car.

[Guest PapaB]

Reminder;

SB142 is on the Senate calendar for today at 5pm.

 

An amendment has been added to make it effective only in the permit holders own vehicle. If it's not registered in your name you'll be out of luck. If you carpool, you can't store your gun unless it's your car.

 

With that amendment, my wife would still be disarmed on the days that she drives my car to work. That's not much of an improvement for thousands of HCP holders.
 

Edited February 11, 2013 by PapaB

[macville]

There's an article today on the KNS <Go back to Gun bill expected to pass state Senate today > about the bill and how the governor and university officials thinks that the law as written would be more restrictive and repeal the current law that allows a non student adult to have a firearm in a car on school grounds. Maybe it's because I have a degree in communications, but do they not understand what "notwithstanding" means? Have they not read the bill and seen that it doesn't repeal anything? At best it amends a section to read, "Except as provided in § 39-17-1313,".  I feel like we should be scared that the governor and officials at institutions of higher learning can't read and understand simple english. It doesn't repeal anything. All it does is add more of an exception (really super clarify) for permit holders. A non student adult will still be able to have a firearm properly stored in their car on campus. It will also add that no parking lot in TN will be off limits any more (like malls in Chatty).

[Guest 270win]

What amendments passed?  Did Kyle's amendment get added on to this bill?  Also this vehicle amendment seemed to be somewhat strict because it means that you could not keep a gun in someone else's vehicle.

[wstrnrdr]

channel 5 nashville just had breaking news, it passed 28 to 5     HOOOOORAAAY!

[rugerla1]

Just saw this myself on there. Good deal!

[rcman2010]

Just heard from channel 4 news,This is great news I will have to check out the details.

[geekitupsum]

good step forward!

[GKar]

Kyle's amendment got kicked to the curb.  He, Burks and Harper did some grandstanding.  Burks played the "big employers will leave the state after we spent millions to get them here" card.  Harper orbited the moon and several other planets, including Uranus, before landing in la-la land.  Otherwise, it was devoid of much substance...boring video except for the Dem clowns.  Ford didn't vote on Kyle's amendment, nor the bill itself...but she was definitely there...or at least her hair was.

[raydog1]

Kyle's amendment got kicked to the curb.  He, Burks and Harper did some grandstanding.  Burks played the "big employers will leave the state after we spent millions to get them here" card.  Harper orbited the moon and several other planets, including Uranus, before landing in la-la land.  Otherwise, it was devoid of much substance...boring video except for the Dem clowns.  Ford didn't vote on Kyle's amendment, nor the bill itself...but she was definitely there...or at least her hair was.

 

Poor Thelma.  She was a moonbat in every sense of the word.  I don't know where she was going with that.  She said she didn't want to talk about "guns" in 2013, but spent a long time talking about guns "downstairs", and guns in Newtown, and how we spend too much time talking about guns.  I bet she'd love to talk about gun "bans" though.

 

Glad to see this get through the Senate.  Now just waiting on my employer's legal team to rip it apart and find ways to continue to keep me from having my gun in my car.

[southernasylum]

How long till we know if Haslam will sign this bill and make it law? Hopefully from the chatter I'm reading, he seems to have made peace with the current bill.

 

-southernasylum

[jphillips63]

Don't it now have to go to the house and be voted on? Then governor has to sign it into law?

[runco]

This is very good news, I do believe the House has to pass a similiar bill.

[runco]

From the Tennessee General Assembly, the bill is now ready for transmission to the House:  http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=SB0142

[Guest PapaB]

Burks is Senator for my area (but I would not say my representative). I cannot understand why anyone votes for this airhead.

 

On the other hand, Senator Green from Clarksville made good points. Two attaboys to him for standing with us.

Edited February 12, 2013 by PapaB

[GKar]

Poor Thelma.  She was a moonbat in every sense of the word.  I don't know where she was going with that.  She said she didn't want to talk about "guns" in 2013, but spent a long time talking about guns "downstairs", and guns in Newtown, and how we spend too much time talking about guns.  I bet she'd love to talk about gun "bans" though.

 

Glad to see this get through the Senate.  Now just waiting on my employer's legal team to rip it apart and find ways to continue to keep me from having my gun in my car.

 

They don't have to.  There is nothing in this bill regarding employer's policies (which differentiates this bill from last year's, and appears to be the only reason Repub leadership is now cozy with it and all-too-eager to pass it).  So if your employer has a "no weapons" policy, you will be in exactly the same boat after passage as you are in today.  As long as you have a permit, you can't be charged criminally, but you can still be dismissed with nothing you can do about it.

[Worriedman]

Kyle's amendment got kicked to the curb.  He, Burks and Harper did some grandstanding.  Burks played the "big employers will leave the state after we spent millions to get them here" card.  Harper orbited the moon and several other planets, including Uranus, before landing in la-la land.  Otherwise, it was devoid of much substance...boring video except for the Dem clowns.  Ford didn't vote on Kyle's amendment, nor the bill itself...but she was definitely there...or at least her hair was.

Actually Ford DID vote for for the Amendment, and the Bill, as did Democrat Lowe Finney, the only two Dems to do so.

 

On the Amendment:

 

On the Bill:

Edited February 12, 2013 by Worriedman

[GKar]

I stand corrected.  Just glanced at the board when the votes went up, and could have sworn there was a blank beside her name each time.  Musta been the hair...

[Sky King]

They don't have to.  There is nothing in this bill regarding employer's policies (which differentiates this bill from last year's, and appears to be the only reason Repub leadership is now cozy with it and all-too-eager to pass it).  So if your employer has a "no weapons" policy, you will be in exactly the same boat after passage as you are in today.  As long as you have a permit, you can't be charged criminally, but you can still be dismissed with nothing you can do about it.

This has become my problem with this bill.  Right now, as a permit holder, you can be prosecuted for carrying on posted property, all this bill does is protect you from that but you can still be fired.  I would REALLY like to see one of the House representatives request an opinion from the Attorney General on this AND many of the other concerns before it gets out of committee in the House.  The privately owned vehicle issue needs fixing, the "ordinary observation" term needs definition, and the "or" language in regards to firearms and ammunition needs to say "and/or" so you can have ammunition IN your firearm.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Sky King

[Sky King]

Actually Ford DID vote for for the Amendment, and the Bill, as did Democrat Lowe Finney, the only two Dems to do so.

 

On the Amendment:

Amazing that Kyle voted against his own amendment.