HB118/SB142: Current "parking lot" legislation

[StPatrick]

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.

 

Until the above is fixed, this is not a solution to a problem anybody has.  It's not like the local mall, movie theater, or restaurant reservethe right to search your car at any time, as many employers do.  Some kind of protection from unreasonable search, e.g. including strict probable cause requirements, would be a start.  Better would be protection from firing due to a weapon in the car, but I suspect that the legal issues involved there are so thorny and extensive nobody wants to take a run at squaring that circle.

[Worriedman]

Amazing that Kyle voted against his own amendment.

Sam, Kyle voted against tabling the amendment.  A "no" vote on the motion to table was a "yes" vote for the amendment.

Edited February 12, 2013 by Worriedman

[GKar]

Brief conversations with some legislators close to the bill suggest that leadership has no stomach for addressing the policy issue or any other peceived weakness, and this one will be rammed home as is. Troublesome is that, while there is great awareness among legislators of the employer policy 'trap' the bill enables, no one on the Hill will bring it up in public. To me, that intentional deception is just as aggregious as last year's stonewalling by the same leadership. They are quick to point out that this bill is more restrictive than last years', but alway mention that its "limited to permit holders" in the saem breath...knowing full well that it is the omission of action RE employer policy that is the REAL restriction that made it palatable to leadership, because it likely got the nod-and-wink from big business in that the bill practically has no effect on them as it is currently written.

[Guest 270win]

Why only make it legal to keep a gun in your car on 'posted' property, parks, and schools?  I think if the legislature was going to pass a bill that thankfully cuts restrictions on permit holders but does not keep people from being fired, why not just do away with the signs, local park fines, and school restriction?

 

I mean i'm glad to at least legalize keeping one in the car VS nothing, but honestly why not fix it for the better?

[Oh Shoot]

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. 

 

"Notwithstanding" means "despite anything to the contrary" or "regardless of".

 

Meaning that the statutes mentioned do not override this one. Meaning school property is included in the right to stash your heater.

 

Question has been raised, does that still allow any "non student adult" to do the same, or now allow only permit holders to do so? Of course, the existing one seems quite gray as to loaded status of firearm, whereas this one isn't. Except this one requires the gun to be locked up and existing one doesn't.

 

I would be of the opinion that the previous exception is still legit, myself.

 

 

 

- OS

Edited February 12, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[Guest 270win]

I don't think this is a great bill at all but it does address concerns for those with permits to absolutely leave loaded pistols in cars on school property.  I think the bill should be changed to any vehicle and not just the permit holder's vehicle.

 

In an ideal world, I would legalize carry in all those places, but this legislature and governor has shown it does not really want to do anything substantial to help those with permits.

[Sky King]

Sam, Kyle voted against tabling the amendment.  A "no" vote on the motion to table was a "yes" vote for the amendment.

Yes you are right.  I mis-read that. 

[Sky King]

Brief conversations with some legislators close to the bill suggest that leadership has no stomach for addressing the policy issue or any other peceived weakness, and this one will be rammed home as is. Troublesome is that, while there is great awareness among legislators of the employer policy 'trap' the bill enables, no one on the Hill will bring it up in public. To me, that intentional deception is just as aggregious as last year's stonewalling by the same leadership. They are quick to point out that this bill is more restrictive than last years', but alway mention that its "limited to permit holders" in the saem breath...knowing full well that it is the omission of action RE employer policy that is the REAL restriction that made it palatable to leadership, because it likely got the nod-and-wink from big business in that the bill practically has no effect on them as it is currently written.

Yes, this bill is going to be rammed home.  I too have had conversations this morning with folks in Legislative Plaza and it was acknowleged that they KNOW the employees are NOT protected against termination.  That makes it obvious why the big business lobby has not made a big stink about this bill.  Ramsey and Harwell will now want to puff out beat their chests, boasting how they helped further gun rights without being badgered by the NRA or TFA. 

 

Big business gets what they want, no mandate AND they get liability protection while we get the shaft.

[waynesan]

If this bill doesn't protect the gun owner from being fired from his/her job then this isn't really a "safe commute" bill at all. What in this bill would encourage business owners to allow gun storage in the vehicles of employees? It doesn't seem like it does. I don't see this as a step in the right direction at all. If all we get is that the state won't prosecute us for some trespassing type infringement then I don't see how weve progressed one step. Nothing changes as far as our job security if we are caught or known to have a gun in our car.

Does anyone know how the other states who have dealt with this issue have written their laws? Are their laws similar to what this Senate version proposes or do they also include employee protection from job termination?

[Sky King]

If this bill doesn't protect the gun owner from being fired from his/her job then this isn't really a "safe commute" bill at all. What in this bill would encourage business owners to allow gun storage in the vehicles of employees? It doesn't seem like it does. I don't see this as a step in the right direction at all. If all we get is that the state won't prosecute us for some trespassing type infringement then I don't see how weve progressed one step. Nothing changes as far as our job security if we are caught or known to have a gun in our car.

Does anyone know how the other states who have dealt with this issue have written their laws? Are their laws similar to what this Senate version proposes or do they also include employee protection from job termination?

Most states all specifically protect the employee from termination.  The only "carrot" for business owners to change their policy is that this bill does give them liability protection but I wouldn't hold my breath. 

 

One thing I have not included because my main concern focusses on employer/employee issues, the way I read this bill is that we do get protecton to drive onto other parking lots at restaurants, shopping centers and malls where they may prohibit carrying INTO the business.  But if you work there, your are toast.

[GKar]

Yes, this bill is going to be rammed home.  I too have had conversations this morning with folks in Legislative Plaza and it was acknowleged that they KNOW the employees are NOT protected against termination.  That makes it obvious why the big business lobby has not made a big stink about this bill.  Ramsey and Harwell will now want to puff out beat their chests, boasting how they helped further gun rights without being badgered by the NRA or TFA. 

 

Big business gets what they want, no mandate AND they get liability protection while we get the shaft.

 

Precisely.  This is nothing more than a big PR exercise, with not a d**n bit of real interest in offering meaningful changes.  It's an attempt to look better than last year's debacle left them.  I would encourage every body to be sure and talk this shortcoming up to as any as can...I talked to a local talk show host today who had no idea that the key provisions RE policy were not in this years bill. Likewise, I've talked to at least 15 or more folks over the past two days who initially expressed positive feelings about the bill...until they found out what it did NOT do.  They were all both significantly disappointed, and thoroughly pissed off at leadership for hiding the truth about it from view.  This thing could make them look worse than last year, if we hold their feet to the fire and make it widely known how they sold it out.

[RobertNashville]

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.

I agree but in a right to work state if the employer wants to fire an employee they don't need a reason so regardless of what a "guns in trunks" bill says about it if your employer wants you gone; you are gone, correct?

 

What needs to happen is to SEAL the records of everyone who has a HCP and perhaps take it step further and make it illegal for am employer to not hire and/or to fire someone just because they have an HCP.  If that happened the only thing left would be to make it illegal for an employer to compel or even ask to search a person's vehicle (except of course on suspicion of a crime/police involved/probable cause, etc.).

I'm not saying this is anything close to a perfect bill but how often do we get perfect bills?

[Sky King]

Precisely.  This is nothing more than a big PR exercise, with not a d**n bit of real interest in offering meaningful changes.  It's an attempt to look better than last year's debacle left them.  I would encourage every body to be sure and talk this shortcoming up to as any as can...I talked to a local talk show host today who had no idea that the key provisions RE policy were not in this years bill. Likewise, I've talked to at least 15 or more folks over the past two days who initially expressed positive feelings about the bill...until they found out what it did NOT do.  They were all both significantly disappointed, and thoroughly pissed off at leadership for hiding the truth about it from view.  This thing could make them look worse than last year, if we hold their feet to the fire and make it widely known how they sold it out.

All last fall, prior to the elections and after, Ramsey said he was working on a bill and several times indicated that a draft would be available for review.  That "draft" never materialized.  Now I know why, he obviously knew the flaws would be found and he didn't want a strong opposition to gain momentum.

 

I SERIOUSLY hope my interpretation of this is WAY WRONG.  If it is, I will publically admit my mistake.  However in mean time I ask everybody to ask your representatives in the House to ask for an opinion on the issues raised from The Attorney General.  The general public can not ask for opinions from the AG but members of the General Assembly can.  We need an opinion before the bill gets to the full committee.  Having that opinion could either confirm or dispell my concern and MAYBE bring this thing out in the light.

[Sky King]

I agree but in a right to work state if the employer wants to fire an employee they don't need a reason so regardless of what a "guns in trunks" bill says about it if your employer wants you gone; you are gone, correct?

 

What needs to happen is to SEAL the records of everyone who has a HCP and perhaps take it step further and make it illegal for am employer to not hire and/or to fire someone just because they have an HCP.  If that happened the only thing left would be to make it illegal for an employer to compel or even ask to search a person's vehicle (except of course on suspicion of a crime/police involved/probable cause, etc.).

I'm not saying this is anything close to a perfect bill but how often do we get perfect bills?

You are right.  They don't need a reason to fire you.  But they usually do state one.  I would love a law that says they can not make consent to search a condition of employment.  While I want what works for us as a whole,  for some of us it wouldn't matter if the records were sealed.  Our activity in this "fight" has pretty much put a target on our backs and made anonymity impossible.  It really wouldn't surprise me if my first day to work following July 1, they come to me to search my car. 

[Guest 270win]

If they are going to legalize guns in cars in parking lots BUT not affect policy, why not legalize carry past these 39-17-1359 signs and in local parks.  That would be a lot better bill and SHOULD have a chance at passing.  I would like to see schools legalized, but i don't see it happening.

[RobertNashville]

Well, the imperial Republican legislature has better things to do right now...they aren't worried about the "conservative" vote - their primary concern is not pissing off their big business campaign contributors.

 

Ideally, we should be able to legally carry and transport our arms without need of a "permit" anywhere in this state that we are legally allowed to be.  The only reasonable exceptions being private property used for private purposes and, the interior of businesses and "public facilities" such as the legislative offices, court rooms, etc.  "Parking lots" at that point would be a total non-issue....no "opt out" for any city or county, etc.

Carrying past a sign should never entail more than a trespassing charge and I think we also need changes in the employment law so that employers cannot ask if an employee/prospective employee owns or uses firearms and the records of those who have HCPs should not be public information to anyone.

[Guest 270win]

I don't have a problem carrying in legislative offices and other public facilities.  What makes a politician more important than me?

 

I can understand people asking folks to leave if discovered, by why should someone with a permit be fined for a weapons offense?

[Wingshooter]

For the companies that search the vehicle, how well do they actually search? Are they going to pull the dash or trunk apart looking for "secret compartments" or do they just look around? Are dogs used? I'm not advocating doing anything that will cause someone to loose their job, but I'm just curious how well these types of employers will search your car. Edited February 13, 2013 by Batman

[E4 No More]

I'd like to know why the legislature ignores the point of...what entitles any private entity to search anyways?

[RobertNashville]

I'd like to know why the legislature ignores the point of...what entitles any private entity to search anyways?

They don't need the "right" to do so when they hold the power of the person's employment in their hands...that's the problem.

 

A good part of this whole issue would be solved if the employment laws were changed so that no employer could compel the search of a vehicle and searches would be limited to suspicion of illegal activity and asking the police to come and search. At that point, the police would either need a warrant or PC.  It would not stop all searches but it would protect the person's rights to be free of unreasonable S&S.

[RobertNashville]

I don't have a problem carrying in legislative offices and other public facilities.  What makes a politician more important than me?

 

I can understand people asking folks to leave if discovered, by why should someone with a permit be fined for a weapons offense?

It's not a matter of importance...I suppose I offered that exception because I don't think a legislator should have to allow carry in his/her officer any more than that legislator's home - as I stated above, you should be able to carry anywhere you have a right to be/invited to be...I don't necessarily feel we have a "right" to be inside the legislature/the buildings/offices...when the public are allowed to be there they are being allowed there as guest...I know it sounds a bit strange but the people we elect have a right and obligation to be there, we don't at least that's how I see it.

 

As to the charges, whatever the basic charge is for trespass is, I think, reasonable for someone who carries past a sign...certainly nothing more than that.  Even then, as it is now, there likely would be no charges filed at all provided the person left when asked which is how it should be.

Edited February 13, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Guest 270win]

We need to concentrate on the legislature to change the 500 dollar fine and the park fine and possible jail time to trespassing if someone does not leave when asked.  This would appease places like Memphis and give them this big park 'option' and also still preserve property rights for private businesses.  This bill should have been expanded to all properties and not just the parking lots as far as removing fine/jail time penalty.

 

What so many people do not realize is, especially politician types, is you do not have to have a criminal weapons penalty to enforce a property owner's policy. 

[GKar]

Well, the Civil Justice Subcommittee rammed it through with nary a whimper.  The one positive spot: Sherry Jones' questioning finally brought into the public light (with the sponsor's admission) the fact that the bill intentionally steers away from any attempt to deal with employers policy...in fact, the sponsor sounded like the intent will never be there to do so.  But Mr. Tighe's explanation of the Senate amendment left me scratching my head...hopefully, someone can explain to me how the wording of the Senate amendment extends the proviso of the bill to cover instances of incidental exposure of the weapon while stored (which, unless I badly misunderstood his mumblings, is what he said it did)?

[1pointofview]

How long before deb maggart runs to the first news outlet to spout off and pee her pants about this

[Oh Shoot]

.....As to the charges, whatever the basic charge is for trespass is, I think, reasonable for someone who carries past a sign...certainly nothing more than that.  ....

 

Criminal trespass is Class C 'meanor. $50 fine, but possible 30 days too, unlike the penalty for carrying past a sign.

 

- OS