Nashville Business Journal on Firing workers with guns in cars

[MacGyver]

At least the employer loophole in the current law is getting some press.  From the Nashville Business Journal this morning:

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/nashville/morning_call/2013/02/guns-bill-wont-protect-workers-jobs.html

 

 

[10-Ring]

What is the point in even passing the law?  Only thing that I can think of is maybe someone who was found with a gun in their car at work could not be prosecuted for having a gun in a posted area? 

[bronco302]

What is the point in even passing the law?  Only thing that I can think of is maybe someone who was found with a gun in their car at work could not be prosecuted for having a gun in a posted area? 

Looks like that would be the only thing. I have yet to see a posted parking lot in Knoxville.

 

Edit: They are just patting us on the head and hoping we will go away.

Edited February 14, 2013 by bronco302

[LI0NSFAN]

What is the point in even passing the law?  Only thing that I can think of is maybe someone who was found with a gun in their car at work could not be prosecuted for having a gun in a posted area? 

That is the reason for the law. My wife's company won't allow her to carry at work, and because the person that owns the building has posted the parking lot, she can not carry at all. This bill would allow her to leave it in her car. From my understanding this bill makes it so no parking lot can be posted anymore. We talked to the strip mall manager and they said if it passes they have to take down the signs. I think it also means you can leave your gun in your car while picking your kids up from school but I am not sure of that.

Edited February 14, 2013 by STAHDKnoxville

[macville]

That is the reason for the law. My wife's company won't allow her to carry at work, and because the person that owns the building has posted the parking lot, she can not carry at all. This bill would allow her to leave it in her car. From my understanding this bill makes it so no parking lot can be posted anymore. We talked to the strip mall manager and they said if it passes they have to take down the signs. I think it also means you can leave your gun in your car while picking your kids up from school but I am not sure of that.

 

You could already have a gun in your car on school grounds anyway. This at least reaffirms that for permit holders. And it does help those of us that visit parking lots that are currently posted, but it does nothing to help employees.

[Worriedman]

That is the reason for the law. My wife's company won't allow her to carry at work, and because the person that owns the building has posted the parking lot, she can not carry at all. This bill would allow her to leave it in her car. From my understanding this bill makes it so no parking lot can be posted anymore. We talked to the strip mall manager and they said if it passes they have to take down the signs. I think it also means you can leave your gun in your car while picking your kids up from school but I am not sure of that.

Incorrect, any private lot can be posted, and no employee is protected from being fired.

[Worriedman]

You could already have a gun in your car on school grounds anyway. This at least reaffirms that for permit holders. And it does help those of us that visit parking lots that are currently posted, but it does nothing to help employees.

Unless you were an employee of the school, or a student, in either of those cases you could not.

[Guest PapaB]

From my understanding this bill makes it so no parking lot can be posted anymore.

 

This bill just carves out an exception for the HCP holder to ignore the posting if the gun is in their own car. The firearm must be out of sight and the vehicle must be locked. If you commute with someone you can't leave your firearm in their vehicle. Law has no effect on federal property and doesn't stop any employer from banning firearms for employees or firing them for having firearms on the property..

Edited February 14, 2013 by PapaB

[mikegideon]

Incorrect, any private lot can be posted, and no employee is protected from being fired.

 

So, it accomplished nothing but making the TCA a little fatter. Sounds like these folks are ready to move to DC :)

[Guest PapaB]

The article just quotes a larger article in the Chatt times free press,

 

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

 

Republican Senate Speaker Ron Ramsey brought the bill in an effort to resolve a four-year battle between gun-rights groups and businesses over the original "Safe Commute" bill.

 

No, he brought the bill to claim he's a gun rights supporter in the 2014 elections. We'll make sure that dog won't hunt.

[monkeylizard]

Here's an example of what it does, as I understand it.

 

Cool Spring Galleria mall is posted at all parking lot entrances. This currently makes the whole place off-limits to lawful carry. With this bill, we could "violate" the sign to the point of parking our cars in the lot and leaving the gun locked up in the car while we shop. It doesn't remove the fact that the property is posted, just that as long as it stays in the car, you're OK. We still can't legally carry in the mall itself or in the parking lot when we're outside our POVs.

 

If you're an employee of the mall property manager, or of a retailer in the mall, and that employer has a no guns policy that includes your POV and they include a clause that they can search your car, this bill does nothing to help you except that after you get fired, you can't be charged under 39-17-1359.

[Hozzie]

Let's be honest.  If a company wants to fire you for a gun, they will, but they aren't going to come out and say that.  They can fire you for any or no reason at all already.  Making a law that says they can't fire you for keeping a gun in your car isn't going to stop them from firing you if they want to.  I am of the opinion that if you are good at your job, no one is going to even think about firing you.  If you're being an imbecile and talk about having a gun in your car, you get what you get.  No one needs to know you have a gun in your car or otherwise.  No one needs to know you have a collection of guns at home.

This is better than nothing.  At least you don't have to worry about where you are at every single point while having a gun in your car. I suspect there are already plenty of people carrying and the mass firing's haven't started yet.  

[JayC]

I disagree, it's done a lot without really damaging property rights, or removing the ability of employers to regulate their employees...  It allows customers to keep firearms in their own car in parking lots.  This means you might be disarmed going into the hospital or mall, but you're not violating the law by having your firearm in your car.

 

So, it accomplished nothing but making the TCA a little fatter. Sounds like these folks are ready to move to DC :)

 

[Worriedman]

I disagree, it's done a lot without really damaging property rights, or removing the ability of employers to regulate their employees...  It allows customers to keep firearms in their own car in parking lots.  This means you might be disarmed going into the hospital or mall, but you're not violating the law by having your firearm in your car.

Now JayC, the owner is loosing their ability to keep you from bringing a weapon onto their property, what a travesty of justice.

[jtmaze]

As stated above this keeps no one from getting fired. I work for a major retailer that owns all of their stores and they have a no weapons policy(not even a personal knife), Thhey will Provide you with a company aproved box knife if you need one. I have a pocket knife everyday and know several upper managers that keep guns in POV while at work. Company policy says NO, but enforcement is don't ask don't tell. And you could already have a gun in vehicle when picking up children from school, but it will allow teachers to keep a weapon in vehicle.

Edited February 14, 2013 by jtmaze

[RobertNashville]

The bill, as it stands, accomplishes virtually nothing except giving a political feather in the hats of Ramsey, Harwell and Haslam.

 

There are many other states with GOOD legislation addressing this issue that they could have used as a template - they didn't.

 

There is NO protection for employees worth the time this legislation is taking from legislator's schedules.

 

They could solve 95% of the issue with some very simple changes to existing law...

1.  Remove the law that currently allows commercial/business/employee/public parking lost to be "posted", In other words, any parking lot available for the public and/or employees to use cannot post against firearms (that automatically removes any criminality associated with "carrying past a sign").

 

2.  Change employment law to make it ILLEGAL for an employer to ask an employee/prospective employee if they have an HCP, own a firearm, ever carry a firearm, etc. and seal HCP records (meaning no one but law enforcement, etc. can see those records).

 

3.  Change employment law to make it ILLEGAL for an employer to compel or even to ask to search of an employee's vehicle (i.e. only law enforcement with PC or a warrant can search a vehicle).

Those three changes would solve most of the problems associate with someone wanting to have their weapon with them while commuting to/from work.  Employers/businesses could still post against firearms other than their parking lots. It will not completely protect against an employee being fired but in this state, nothing will.  That said, if they want to get rid of you because of firearms at least it removes their ability to fire you for THAT reason which may at least help protect your eligibility for UI benefits.

[Guest 270win]

If the state was going to pass a bill that does not affect workplace policy, why not just legalize carry in the parking lots AND in the buildings AND still give places lawsuit protection?

[Volzfan]

This is one of the most useless bills ever presented IMO!

[RobertNashville]

If the state was going to pass a bill that does not affect workplace policy, why not just legalize carry in the parking lots AND in the buildings AND still give places lawsuit protection?

Frankly, I don't think a business should be forced to allow carry inside of their buildings, etc. if they don't want them. Nor would it likely pass the test of the the takings clause...making employers/businesses allow firearms to be stored in a person's vehicle while parked in a parking lot does not present a measurable infringement on the business which is largely why these laws have passed court challenges.

That aside, I doubt anyone in the legislature would propose something that radical; radical in the sense that the outcry from businesses and the shutoff of campaign contributions from those businesses would be almost immeasurable.

[Guest 270win]

Right, i don't think any entity, government or private should be forced to allow guns on property.  I just don't think it should be made ILLEGAL by the state even with a permit.

 

The state of TN should never add weapons offenses to back up someone's policy.  I mean i could have a sign or whatever policy at my business banning weapons, but at most what should happen if I discover that weapon, then I fire and ask the person to leave.  IF THEN the person refuses to leave it is trespass.  This works in most states, why not in TN?

[Guest 270win]

This is how Missouri handles carrying past signs, government buildings, and even schools.  I wish TN did this because it is much better and strikes the balance between property rights and also gun rights.   This is from handgunlaw.us : 

 

 

"Carrying of a concealed firearm in a location specified in subdivisions (1) to (17) of subsection 1 of this section by any individual who holds a concealed carry endorsement issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 shall not be a criminal act but may subject the person to denial to the premises or removal from the premises. If such person refuses to leave the premises and a peace officer is summoned, such person may be issued a citation for an amount not to exceed one hundred dollars for the first offense"

[RobertNashville]

Right, i don't think any entity, government or private should be forced to allow guns on property.  I just don't think it should be made ILLEGAL by the state even with a permit.

 

The state of TN should never add weapons offenses to back up someone's policy.  I mean i could have a sign or whatever policy at my business banning weapons, but at most what should happen if I discover that weapon, then I fire and ask the person to leave.  IF THEN the person refuses to leave it is trespass.  This works in most states, why not in TN?

These bills essentially draw a line in the sand to define how far an employer/business can go in controlling MY property.

 

I look at it this way; unless it directly and demonstrably impacts that business; no employer/business has a need to know what is sitting, unmolested and out of sight inside my vehicle; it's simply none of their business.  They should have no more power to dictate the contents of my vehicle than they have to dictate what I think or feel.

 

It's because these laws have no negligible impact on a employer/business that these laws have generally withstood court challenges...the businesses that have taken the issue to court have claimed these laws infringe on their property rights but have been VERY unsuccessful in backing up their claims.

Edited February 15, 2013 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

I took the time today to write and voice my concerns about the current "guns in trunks" bill and sent it to, well...everybody.

I've received replies from Senator Kelsey; Senator Jim Tracy and Representative Dawn White...all were generally "positive" although one seemed very "pro-forma". However, my reply from Senator Delores Gresham was different; she took the time to ask me what I thought was wrong with the bill - I've replied!

I generally tend to be a pessimist so that when the good happens I can be pleasantly surprised but, I'm getting the impression that there may be some hope for enough improvement in the bill that we'll get something worthwhile

Edited February 15, 2013 by RobertNashville

[JayC]

I've never been a fan of this legislation, it's the reason I'm not helping out at the TFA anymore, hopefully I'll change my mind after this issue is done and over with.

 

But, in the grand scheme of things it appears the only infringement is on the least concerning of my issues with the legislation...  They're basically removing 39-17-1359 postings from public parking lots...  Since I'm fine with doing away from 1359 altogether, this isn't a big loss of freedom for business owners in my book.

 

Private lots will continue to be off limits, employers and employees can continue to engage in contracts at will....  in the grand scheme of things this is about the least bad version of the legislation I could imagine.

 

Not sure it was worth all the political capitol that the NRA and the TFA has spent.

 

Now JayC, the owner is loosing their ability to keep you from bringing a weapon onto their property, what a travesty of justice.

 

[Guest 270win]

Yeah i am now wondering if you can have a handgun in your car with 'intent to go armed' with the 'notwithstanding' language on school property and local parks?  I don't think this bill does much of anything.