HB118/SB142: Current "parking lot" legislation

[GKar]

Have thought this one over a lot, and have come to realize that my problems with the bill lie as much or more with the way it was promulgated than its actual content. In particular, two dynamics are infuriating: first, it seems quite clear that the sponsors had no intention of acknowledging the lack of engagement of employee policy...best highlighted by Rep Faison's reticence to admit that in committee, and only did so when directly challenged by Rep Jones. The second is illustrated by the grandstanding by McCormick on the House floor, constantly saying that no amendment that hadn't been properly vetted by the committee process should be allowed...yet, in their initial remarks to the first committeees to see the bill and consistently therafter, sponsors on both sides declared that they would not entertain any amendments from the get-go. All which makes thier "promises" of future revision just seem like so much fairy dust...

[Sky King]

Have thought this one over a lot, and have come to realize that my problems with the bill lie as much or more with the way it was promulgated than its actual content. In particular, two dynamics are infuriating: first, it seems quite clear that the sponsors had no intention of acknowledging the lack of engagement of employee policy...best highlighted by Rep Faison's reticence to admit that in committee, and only did so when directly challenged by Rep Jones. The second is illustrated by the grandstanding by McCormick on the House floor, constantly saying that no amendment that hadn't been properly vetted by the committee process should be allowed...yet, in their initial remarks to the first committeees to see the bill and consistently therafter, sponsors on both sides declared that they would not entertain any amendments from the get-go. All which makes thier "promises" of future revision just seem like so much fairy dust...

Hard to disagree with you on all this.  Every time an amendment was offered, Harwell IMMEDIATELY went to McCormick whose only action was to make a motion to table the amendment after he commented on not vetting the amendment in committee.  This was planned and scripted.  They knew the amendments were comming and they were going to kill them. 

 

I also have to take issue with the NRA on this bill as well.  In my conversation with Faison's office prior to any of the committee hearings, I was told that the NRA had helped or agreed with this bill as a compromise.  I have to question the NRA as to why they would introduce a good bill last year, fight tooth and nail to pass it, help fund the defeat of Debra Maggart in the aftermath and THEN come back and support a piece of crap like this.  WHAT GIVES? 

 

I too agree with you "fairy dust" assessment of the possibility of future revision.  It is for this reason I have stated on several forums why we MUST work with every other pro-gun group and forum to get the word out.  He HAVE to collect information about EVERY time a permit holder is sanctioned in ANY way by his employer because of either he has a permit or carries a firearm in his vehicle.  We also need to know if it is possible to determine when an employer inquires with the Dept. of Safety to see if an employee is a permit holder.   WE NEED TO KNOW ALL THIS.

[Worriedman]

All which makes their "promises" of future revision just seem like so much fairy dust...

 

There you go being kind again, I sense it more as a flat footed, bold faced expression of BS.  The House sponsor is out and about, spreading the lie that the Republican caucus has passed 22 "good gun bills" in the last 4 years. I get nearly nauseated at the low esteem that these so called servants of the People display when addressing their constituents.

[Guest 270win]

Even without a permit, it is legal for someone to generally have a firearm in the trunk unloaded at his work, a park (unloading removes the intent to go armed), and for a nonstudent adult to have one at a school again unloaded in the trunk.

 

The new bill helps a little for people with permits but not a lot.

[Oh Shoot]

...  We also need to know if it is possible to determine when an employer inquires with the Dept. of Safety to see if an employee is a permit holder.   WE NEED TO KNOW ALL THIS.

 

Can just use the Commercial Appeal database for the majority of them, TNDOS not required.

 

- OS

[Sky King]

Can just use the Commercial Appeal database for the majority of them, TNDOS not required.

 

- OS

Well you kind of lost me on this.  How can we use the CA data base to  know when your employer inquires with the TNDOS to find out whether or not you have a permit?  If my employer made a inquiry with the TNDOS asking "does Sam Cooper" have a permit, how would I know this?

[Worriedman]

I think Oh Shoot was saying that the employers can access the information through the Commercial Appeal's web site, that they do not need to go to TDOS for information, therefore there is no way you can track to see if they are looking up the information.

Edited March 5, 2013 by Worriedman

[Oh Shoot]

I think Oh Shoot was saying that the employers can access the information through the Commercial Appeal's web site, that they do not need to go to TDOS for information, therefore there is no way you can track to see if they are looking up the information.

 

Yup.

 

Actually, not even sure TNDOS will tell you HCP status on an individual. Though the state will sell you access to the database, go figure.

 

- OS

Edited March 6, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[Sky King]

Yea, Ok.  I understand that they could use the CA database to find this out.  And if they did so, I would never know. What I would like to see is the bill that is currently being considered to close the data base, (which I would support) that Ramsey is saying he would not want to COMPLETELY close, amended, IF Ramsey gets his way, to state that IF inquiries are made to the DOS, the permit holder would be notified of the inquiry, telling them who made the inquiry and the cost of the inquiry and notification would be paid by the inquirer.

 

But I know THAT will never happen. 

[Guest 270win]

Let's close the permit database to the public.

[Guest CheezWiz]

Like "pro gun" politicians would want to lose free access to all those voters information.

All comes down to money.

[S&WForty]

Like "pro gun" politicians would want to lose free access to all those voters information.
All comes down to money.

You're definitely right. What makes this more pathetic is the fact People Like Us are the most informed voters out there. These politicians spamming us is useless. We lose our privacy for nothing, and they don't even gain anything either. Lose-lose.

[Guest hickok45]

Hope we get a signature from the Governor on this soon!

[QuietDan]

Hope we get a signature from the Governor on this soon!

Maybe he's waiting until he can be surrounded by supportive County Sheriffs -- and by young women who have fended off rape attacks with their firearms. I'd pay to see THAT.

[Guest hickok45]

Hopefully, he's just waiting for a Friday afternoon so that he won't get raked over the coals by the liberal news media as badly on the weekend.

[Sky King]

All in favor of this bill can flame me all you want but I for one am NOT of the opinion that a BAD step is better than no step.  This is a BAD bill.  It is FULL of traps and pit falls.  I for one, would hope for a VETO on this bill.  IT DOES NOTHING for a majority of the permit holders in this state.  I was in Nashville for the first hearings on this bill.  I have been in Nashville for the last several years when legislation of this type has been debated.  EVERY time without fail, the big business lobby was there in force to oppose the legislation.  Why would you think they were NOT there this time?  I mean NOBODY with the exception of ONE person representing the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce was there in opposition.  They were not there because it does NOTHING to protect the employee and EVERYTHING to protect the employer with the liability protection language. 

 

DO NOT DRINK THE COOL-AID.  If you go to work on July 1, 2013 with your firearm in your car and your employer has a policy prohibiting it, on July 2, 2013 you could find yourself on the outside looking in AND there ARE areas in Tennessee code that you could STILL be prosecuted under. 

[Oh Shoot]

All in favor of this bill can flame me all you want but I for one am NOT of the opinion that a BAD step is better than no step.  This is a BAD bill.  It is FULL of traps and pit falls.  I for one, would hope for a VETO on this bill.  IT DOES NOTHING for a majority of the permit holders in this state.  ...

 

I can't help but think that changing a felony to legal behavior is a positive step. (loaded weapon in vehicle on school property).

 

- OS

[Sky King]

I can't help but think that changing a felony to legal behavior is a positive step. (loaded weapon in vehicle on school property).

 

- OS

 That is why I did qualify my statement with "a majority of permit holders".  There are permit holders who work on school properties that will benefit from this bill.  However, they are in the minority and represent the VERY few who will benefit.  The majority of permit holders will not benifit at all and can very well find themselves prosecuted.  As has been pointed out, while you may not be prosecuted specifically for having a firearm, you can still be prosecuted for criminal trespass.   By the bill specifically calling out sections of the Tennessee Code with the "not withstanding" wording, it only gives you protection in certain circumstances.  It leaves the others wide open to be used for prosecution. 

 

There are too many ways in this bill that a permit holder can find themselves in trouble.  That is why the small step forward in this case in no way justifies the HUGE traps that remain.

[Guest 270win]

I'd honestly rather be asked to leave than have the chance for a weapons offense.  I think the parks law, sign law, and school law should just be deleted or provide an exception for permit holders, but still allow property owners to ask people to leave if they do not approve of weapons. 

[Oh Shoot]

....   By the bill specifically calling out sections of the Tennessee Code with the "not withstanding" wording, it only gives you protection in certain circumstances.  It leaves the others wide open to be used for prosecution. 

 

No, "notwithstanding" means "despite" or "regardless of" -- ie,  that any contrary provisions in those statutes mentioned are superseded, and do not apply to the circumstances allowed in the new bill when codified.

 

- OS

Edited March 9, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[Sky King]

No, "notwithstanding" means "despite" or "regardless of" -- ie,  that any contrary provisions in those statutes mentioned are superseded, and do not apply to the circumstances allowed in the new bill when codified.

 

- OS

 Yes, I understand that. Perhaps my wording was bad.  I did not mean that the "notwithstanding" meant those statutes were not effected by this bill.  When I said " it only gives you protection in certain circumstances." it was to say that there are still other areas in TCA that you still have no protection with this bill.

 

Regardless.  I am still opposed to the bill.  I sent an email to Governor Haslam asking for a veto and I stand by that.

[JayC]

They will, you just need to make the request to review the records for anyone with a last name of X, and show up in person.  No charge to view the records in person per state law.

 

Yup.

 

Actually, not even sure TNDOS will tell you HCP status on an individual. Though the state will sell you access to the database, go figure.

 

- OS

 

[GKar]

They will, you just need to make the request to review the records for anyone with a last name of X, and show up in person.  No charge to view the records in person per state law.

 

That would change if HB 0009 (on the House floor today) manages to go the distance without any further amendment: it makes any records relative to HCP applications confidential, and restricts them from public view.  They would remain available to LEO if part on an investigation, and others can request verification whether a single person has an HCP IF they accompany their request with a government-supplied document demonstrating a reason that the person in question should not qulaify for HCP (ie, felony conviction record, commitment to a mental health facility, etc).

 

we'll see where that one goes...so far, it has cleared all HOuse cmtes with nary a whimper.  Troubling is that it has zero Senate co-sponsors (while the House version has about 20), and has been assigned to the Senate Judiciary cmte, where it doesn't have a date assigned yet to be heard.  A competing bill by Campfield does have a Jud date (tuesday) - and it is a much weaker bill, IMO.

[Worriedman]

Will never clear the Senate, the bill as written would preclude legislators from purchasing the list and mailing lies to permit holders about how 2nd Amendment friendly they are.

[Sky King]

I mailed this letter today to Chis Cox of the NRA:

 

Mr. Cox,

 

As an NRA Member from Tennessee, your home state, I am writing to express my disappointment in NRA support in Tennessee regarding legislation in this state this year.

 

House bill 118 and Senate bill 142 were reported to be employee parking lot protection bills.  Close examination will show them to be a major sham. Only a SMALL number of permit holders will benefit from this legislation while big business and employers are the big winners. 

 

Last year the NRA fought HARD to pass the Safe Commute bill.  That legislation was good.  The measure was killed by House and Senate leadership inappropriately by violating the rules of The General Assembly.  In the aftermath, the NRA then partnered with others by providing major support in defeating Debra Maggart, a major player in the defeat of the bill, in her bid for re-election to the Tennessee House.

 

This year represented a major about-face by the NRA in Tennessee.  Few people even know who the NRA representative is for Tennessee this year.  My attempt to contact the NRA ILA to find out who this person is and to express my opposition to these bills were met with stone walling.

 

It was only through the office of the House sponsor of HB118, that I even found out that the NRA actually supported this legislation and MAY have been party to the negotiations.  No one I know who are NRA members recall ever receiving any alerts about these bills.  This makes it appear that the NRA wanted to keep its support quiet.

 

This is BAD legislation.  It is full of pit-falls and traps for the permit holder.  The Tennessee Firearms Association has outlined the problems with these bills in detail repeatedly to its members AND to members of The Tennessee General Assembly. 

 

Attempts to work with Senate leader and Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey and House Speaker Beth Harwell have been met with TOTAL rejection, saying that these bills WILL pass with NO amendments.  They also have more than once indicated that this legislation IS supported by the NRA.

 

I have worked HARD for MANY years to get parking lot legislation passed in Tennessee.  I have been interviewed by local TV AND by your on-line host via phone.  I worked with Darren LaSorte last year to pass this.  I work for an employer who bans my ability to safely commute.  I KNOW the importance of this as well or better than anybody.  Yet nobody I know is aware of any attempts by the NRA to work with anybody at the state level on this bill THIS YEAR. 

 

As a result, we have a BAD BILL that has passed both the House and Senate and will likely be signed by Governor Haslam.  The old adage that SOME progress is better than NO progress is WRONG when applied to this bill.

 

Problems, (and I brought these to the attention of the person I spoke with at NRA ILA) with this bill;

 

1) While it DOES remove the criminal aspect of carrying on a posted property, it DOES NOT require an employer to allow a permit holder to keep a legal firearm in their private vehicle.  AND the criminal aspect is only in regards to the Tennessee Code that speaks to the posting requirement.  You will not be prosecuted under THAT code.  HOWEVER you can STILL be prosecuted for CRIMINAL TRESPASS AND you can still be FIRED.

 

2) The bill specifically states "the permit holders privately owned vehicle".  This would have been an easy fix but again, the "no amendments" attitude was upheld.  What if MY vehicle is in the shop for repairs and I am driving a rental or loaner?  What if I carpool?  What if I lease a vehicle?  What if I borrow my wife’s car? 

 

3) The bill only provides protection from "ordinary observation".  What defines "ordinary observation"?  If I am in the process of removing the firearm from my holster and placing it in the glove box and it is seen via a surveillance camera on a pole that can look down into my car, is this protected?

 

These are just a FEW of the problems with this bill that the sponsors refused to discuss or address.  This also shows why before the NRA endorses or works on legislation in a given state, they should contact state based groups who are closer to the situation and in a better position to know what is needed.