Governor signs guns in parking lots bill

[Guest ab28]

I am happy with the law. If a business does not want guns on their property, then they should be able to fire you over it. You should not face any criminal charges though.<br /><br />I know that this is not a popular opinion, but I don't want to have to keep an employee if they are doing things that are not in line with my business. In my case guns would not be one of them, but other things might.<br /><br />Just don't tell anyone, and keep them out of sight. If your employer insists on searching your car, it's time to find a new job.

I disagree, this stuff leads down the slippery slope of tyranny of the rich, owners being able to fire you for any reason, like they don't like your music or some other crazy reason. An employer should only be able to fire someone because of job related reasons. If that isn't the case, you can be fired for discriminatory reasons, and they can make something up. My boss shouldn't be able to fire me just because he doesn't like random things about me. I can't see how people would think this was a good thing.

 

At will employment has always seemed like an insane idea. Being able to be fired for absolutely any reason is stupid, at best.

 

I personally don't like the idea of a business infringing on my rights. If I won't let the government do it, why would I let a private corporation?

 

I think as a country, we give property owners and business owners way too much leeway in things like this. Stepping on someone's property doesn't instantly make me a slave, and someone shouldn't be able to walk up to me and tell me to dance the polka or leave, or some such thing.

 

I guess I am in a minority on this topic, but I have studied the brutalities of the Industrial Revolution, and serfdom in middle England. With no regulations or oversight, rich business owners will grind people to dust to save a few pennies. Look up the British match companies for an example.

Edited March 19, 2013 by ab28

[Dolomite_supafly]

As generally interpreted, only:

- picking up/dropping off passengers: according to other TN laws (with permit, loaded, without permit, unloaded)
- storing in car: unloaded for all non-student adults

New law allows stashing loaded firearm for anyone with a carry permit from any state.

- OS

 

Not according to the law. Makes no mention of unloaded vs loaded. Just stating firearms are legal to be stored by non students.

 

********************************************************************************************************

 

An employer should be able to fire someone for ANY reason providing it does not violate federal discrimination laws. Discrimination laws are based on what a person cannot choose to change, like skin color or whether they are disabled. Carrying a gun is a choice and something a person can choose not to do. The Second Amendment does not protect an individual from their employer, from a property owner or from another individual. It is only there to limit the government.

 

An employer can, and should be able to, fire an employee for having a gun in their car if the employer chooses to. And the employee should have no legal recourse for being fired for violating the employer's policy, afterall it is not law. It was the employee's choice to violate his boss's policy and honestly the employee should be fired. Just because an employee doesn't break the law doesn't mean he cannot be fired. Hit on the boss's wife, which is perfectly legal, and see how long you work for that boss.

 

An employer sets the conditions of emplyment and the employee agrees to those conditions in order to work for the employer. The employer can set whatever conditions he wants providing it does not violate the discrimination laws.

 

This law does not protect the employee from being fired by their employer. I suspect a lot of fired employees are going to clog the courts thinking the law protects them from being fired for having a gun in their car, which this law does not. Even worse I think it will become the excuse to sue even when a fired employee never had a firearm.

 

Dolomite

[Worriedman]

Anybody hear any problems from States that have this law with the codicil that the employer can not fire an employee for keeping a legal item in their car?  I remember only too well asking the paid shill for Fed Ex if it cost them any money in any State that mandated the Citizen be able to keep their legal weapons in their private vehicles, to which he answered "No", then further questioned if the ability to keep those legal weapons in their private vehicles had caused any security problems, to which he answered "No" again.

 

Our State Constitution ONLY allows the legislature the power to regulate the wearing of arms, not a business owner, and that again is simply the wearing of arms, not the keeping.  Keeping them is supposed to be an inviolate Right.  Nature gave an amoeba the instinct and the natural Right to try and survive, are we as humans any less important?

 

But that is alright, that same document says that we are supposed to elect our Supreme Court Justices in TN, and that clergy are not allowed to be elected to the legislature, nobody pays any attention to any of that, so losing a few more of the Rights guaranteed is not that big of a deal, as long as private property, which the State, City, County or Federal government can take from you as easy as a horse takes a dump, and with just as little effort, is held sacrosanct, (which it is not).

[RobertNashville]

I don’t believe this issue is (or at least isn’t just) about “firearms”.  I see the real question as “just how much power should an employer have in controlling the lives if its employees”?

 

Do employers really have the RIGHT to dictate the contents of an employee’s vehicle just because they want to?

 

It seems as if whenever discussions about these “parking lot” laws come up you see a lot of words like “should” and “ought” being proffered as legitimate reasons for being for or against these laws but are they legitimate reasons?  Why “should” an employer be able to fire any employee for any reason?  Is it just because that’s how it’s been in Tennessee?  Is it just because someone thinks it “should” be that way?  Do considerations of fairness or logical thought paly no part in these discussions or are we limited to just opinions about what “ought” to be?

 

This reliance on words like “should” is not just the argument of posters on forums…such tend to be the arguments offered by businesses who have sued states to stop the enforcement of these laws.  In challenge after challenge, business (and their very high paid attorneys) have had the opportunity to present their arguments against these laws and their arguments have been found wanting. When I see a lack of well-articulated reasons coupled with a lack of Constitutional substance for opposition to these laws, it seems only reasonable for me to be in support of this kind of legislation.

 

I think it also worth mentioning that other than megalomania on the part of businesses such as Nissan and Bridgstone and FedEx, there is no reason why these businesses couldn't have reached a reasonable compromise with employees and customers about the contents of their vehicles that would have made legislative action completely unnecessary. It is, I submit, this "you can't have it in your vehicle because I say so" attitude of businesses that has forced legislatures in 19 other states (and now Tennessee) to see a need to step in. Perhaps these states shouldn’t have done so but I’d suggest that it is the hard-headedness of businesses that has brought us to this point.

 

One parting thought; aside from the reasons mentioned above; I find it difficult for me to be on the side of businesses on this issue because they want it both ways. Those of us who carry generally do so because we understand that there are evil people in the world who seek to do us harm and we also understand that a firearm is, for most of us, the single best tool we can have to protect ourselves or others from evil men.  When businesses, by signage or by policy or both, tell us that we can’t have a firearm in our vehicle they deny us the use of that tool should we need it yet they refuse to accept any responsibility for the possible consequences. If an employer believes they have the power to dictate the contents of our vehicles then I would suggest that concurrent with that power is the responsibility for consequences of exercising it. If they are unwilling to accept the responsibility whey then should that have the power?

[Guest Mbeck]

I don't understand why people think that being fired for random things should not be allowed. Its bad business to fire people "randomly" but it is (or at least should be) up to the employer to make that decision.

[TMF]

"Fairness" only exists in communism. If you're looking for "fairness" in liberty you are looking in the wrong place. Liberty means liberty. As for fairness I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who said, "tough titties."

[Oh Shoot]

Not according to the law. Makes no mention of unloaded vs loaded. Just stating firearms are legal to be stored by non students.

 

Better check the difference between the two paragraphs in that statute.

 

First one, with intent to go armed, no firearm allowed in any way, period. Felony.

 

Second one, no mention of intent to go armed, storage of firearm by non-student adult allowed. Misdemeanor.

 

Two different paragraphs, almost verbatim in regards to firearms, but with two different penalties, only diff is "intent to go armed" in the first one.

 

A loaded firearm is always intent to go armed, an unloaded one is not, hence the only differences in intent of those two paragraphs. What other difference could there be except loaded or unloaded?

 

- OS

Edited March 19, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[Dolomite_supafly]

I read it a bit differently because I cannot find any mention of loaded vs unloaded, except "hunting" firearms, in any of the "intent to go armed" statues. I read it is knowingly or intentionally bringing a firearm vs unknowingly bringing a firearm. I read it as if a person who has a firearm in a briefcase or other luggage and they likely forgot it was in there would be guilty of the lesser. While a person who would have to know, or was not allowed to possess the firearm in the first place, would be guilty of the greater charge. In the "intent" statutes it also mentions a person being guilty of "intent to go armed" if they were committing a crime with the firearm which would also warrant a greater pentaly vs a person who just forgot it was in their possession.

 

I just see it as giving someone who made an honest mistake a break.
 
It also seems like the state would have to prove you intended to bring the firearm rather than just forget it was in your possession. 
 
It also makes mention of those who are not allowed to possess firearms in the first place, because of convictions, domestics or other reasons, being guilty of "intent to go armed" if they have a weapon in their possession. So if a criminal, who is not allowed to possess the firearms in the first place, forget he had a gun in his briefcase or luggage he would be guilty of the greater charge regardless of whether he knew it was in there or not.
 
Again, I see no loaded vs unloaded in the "intent" statutes except hunting firearms. And in the definitions it specifically mentions a firearm is a firearm whether it is loaded or unloaded.

39-17-1319. Handgun possession prohibited -- Exceptions
(1) "Handgun" means a pistol, revolver, or other firearm of any description, loaded or unloaded, from which any shot, bullet, or other missile can be discharged, the length of the barrel of which, not including any revolving, detachable, or magazine breech, does not exceed twelve inches (12''); and

 

What is the TCA that a loaded firearm is always intent to go armed? I have looked and just cannot find it.

[Worriedman]

I don't understand why people think that being fired for random things should not be allowed. Its bad business to fire people "randomly" but it is (or at least should be) up to the employer to make that decision.

I personally do not think that being fired for exercising an enumerated Constitutional Right is "random", I see it more as hegemony.

[quietmike]

The difference I see is force. Government is allowed to use force to compel you do do certain things. I have never been forced to work at a particular place. If a work environment becomes intolerable, I am free to leave.

[Dolomite_supafly]

The Constitution does not protect you from the actions of "individuals" or "private entities", laws do. Having the right to bear arms is not a guaranteed right on someone else's property. Neither is protection from unreasonable search and seizure. Those can be set as the conditions of being on the property and you can choose to comply or leave. A property owner has no legal or even moral obligation to give anyone the rights as dictated in the Constitution. There is not a single Amendment in the Bill of Rights that a private individual must recognize when someone else is one their property. It is the property owners, not the guest, that choose what they will allow. Allowing a firearm on private property is a choice made by the property owner because it is not guaranteed by the Constitution. Laws dictate how private entities interact with each other, not the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

 

The right to defend yourself is a fundemental right but how or what we choose to defend is not guaranteed or dictated by the Constitution. We choose a firearm because it is the most efficient way to protect ourselves.

 

A private entity can dictate the use of a Nerf gun for defense on their property. They can also dictate that you do not have gun in your car on their property. You can choose to comply or leave the property. If you are an employee that can also mean you will get fired. And this law only enforces that. This law does not guarantee you will not be fired for having a firearm in your car. You can still be fired for having a gun in your car against your boss's wishes.

 

Like I said before, I am glad those of you who supported this got it passed but it realistically changes nothing with regards to whether you can be fired or not for having a gun in your can. All it is going to do is give employees a false feeling that they cannot be fired for having a gun in their car when, in reality, they can. And when they think they have been wrongly fired, even though they haven't, there will be lawsuits filed costing the taxpayers of this state money.

 

We don't need more laws, especially when they change nothing. Keeping your mouth shut and the gun out of sight would have been a better option as it won't cost taxpayer money to hear the lawsuits.

 

If I were an employer I would welcome people to carry firearms but that is my choice as the employer. And likewise another emplyer should have the right to choose to not allow firearms.

 

How many here think this law protects them from being fired for having a gun in their car?

 

Dolomite

[Oh Shoot]

I read it is knowingly or intentionally bringing a firearm vs unknowingly bringing a firearm. I read it as if a person who has a firearm in a briefcase or other luggage and they likely forgot it was in there would be guilty of the lesser.

 
Think about it, how could you be guilty of the lesser charge if you say it's okay to have loaded handgun under it? If the gun is loaded, why is the first paragraph a felony, yet you'd be allowed to have the same loaded gun in the second paragraph? What makes it "going armed" for the same loaded gun in the first paragraph but not "going armed" in the second? Same person, same car, same gun, eh?

 

Well, the simple logical answer would be that in the felony charge, the gun would be loaded, and the exception in the second paragraph is for the same gun, unloaded.

 

A  student would be guilty of a felony under the first paragraph (as would you) for a loaded gun. But the difference is that he'd also be guilty of a misdemeanor for an unloaded gun in the second paragraph, but you would not.

 

It also seems like the state would have to prove you intended to bring the firearm rather than just forget it was in your possession.

 
Like they have to prove you "meant" to have a loaded firearm in your car to convict you of unlawful carry if you're pulled over? Or they find one in your book bag on foot that you "forgot" about? Reckon they'd let ya slide on either the "going armed" or the "prohibited weapons"  charge if you had a loaded unregistered SBR in your trunk, because you forgot about it, or didn't know you can't have an unregistered SBR? They could, I suppose, but they wouldn't have to, easy conviction on any of those.
 

It also makes mention of those who are not allowed to possess firearms in the first place, because of convictions, domestics or other reasons, being guilty of "intent to go armed" if they have a weapon in their possession.

 
Those violations are addressed in other statutes already.
 

So if a criminal, who is not allowed to possess the firearms in the first place, forget he had a gun in his briefcase or luggage he would be guilty of the greater charge regardless of whether he knew it was in there or not.

 
Getting pretty far afield, but he'd be guilty of all kinds of stuff, some of which is not even in the weapons section of TCA, and some of which doesn't even matter if it's loaded. See reference at bottom of 39-17-1307, which leads to other statutes. And those statutes actually lead to others. And he can be charged with multiples of them Depending on why he's barred for owning a firearm, he could get three or four charges before he even faces those in the weapons section.

As far as weapons section, if the gun is loaded (and we can assume he has no HCP), he'd be guilty of:
- unlawful carry under 39-17-1307 (misdemeanor)

- unlawful possession by prohibited person under 39-17-1307 (felony) (even if unloaded)
- carrying weapon on school property under 39-17-13090  (felony)
- maybe more, giving up on this tack as it's mostly non sequitur
 

Again, I see no loaded vs unloaded in the "intent" statutes except hunting firearms. And in the definitions it specifically mentions a firearm is a firearm whether it is loaded or unloaded.
 
What is the TCA that a loaded firearm is always intent to go armed? I have looked and just cannot find it.

 
Well, you can actually be guilty of it with an unloaded firearm too, but the loaded part is always a clincher. Nowhere is it spelled out just the way we'd like it, but it seems more than obvious that the loaded state of the firearm is always a determiner for "going armed".
 
TN carry/possession law starts with "A person commits an offense who carries with the intent to go armed a firearm, a knife with a blade length exceeding four inches (4''), or a club." So everyone is guilty of that unless he fits into an exception or defense.

The first defense is "an unloaded rifle, shotgun or handgun not concealed on or about the person and the ammunition for the weapon was not in the immediate vicinity of the person or weapon".

So that's pretty plain right there that the difference in intent to go armed and not is the fact the the gun is both unloaded and unconcealed. So you can walk around with an unloaded heater obviously OWB or a long gun over your shoulder. But if it's loaded, you're "going armed".

How about, "It is an exception to the application of subsection (a) [unlawful carry/possession, "intent to go armed"] that a person who is not authorized to possess a handgun pursuant to § 39-17-1351 is transporting a rifle or shotgun in or on a privately-owned motor vehicle and the rifle or shotgun does not have ammunition in the chamber or cylinder, and no clip or magazine containing ammunition is inserted in the rifle or shotgun or is in close proximity to both the weapon and any person."

So if it's unloaded, you have no intent to go armed. If it's loaded, you're one who carries/possesses with "intent to go armed". The loaded firearm is the difference.

What could be clearer? If you don't have a specific exception or defense you can use, a loaded firearm always makes your intent that of going armed. And there are numerous exceptions and defenses to that -- but only two are found in the school carry statutes: a legal hunt conducted on school property, and picking up and delivering packages, as it can be pretty well assumed that the gun would have to be possessed in accordance with the rest of state law, ie, loaded if one has a permit, unloaded if not.
 
If there were but one section in 39-17-1309, with whatever one penalty, that included the out for possession in vehicle by non-student adult, then yeah, one could assume that it would be same as the passenger clause, possessed in whatever condition that TN law otherwise allows. But since there are two sections, with separate penalties, for exactly the same behavior, but only the second one containing the out, there must be a difference in intent, and I contend the intent is the loaded vs unloaded condition of the weapon.

- OS

[Oh Shoot]

How many here think this law protects them from being fired for having a gun in their car?

 

I agree with ya on that one.

 

I see nothing in the bill that even suggests it has the authority to prevent  that. Maybe some kind of case law could arise out of it, that one can't be fired for something specifically mentioned as legal behavior in the code, but don't know enough about all that to opine.

 

But seems clear that,  barring some kind of contractual agreement or union protection, most employers can simply fire an employee without any specific reason given at all -- so even should case law actually come about to prevent the termination for the gun in car thing, pretty easy for the employer to just not mention it, eh?

 

- OS

[JayC]

Umm can you please cite where in the new law college students with a permit are excluded?

 

No, only college staff and instructors.

 

[JayC]

Dolomite,

 

There is a ton of case law in TN on the subject of 'intent to go armed', and knowingly having a loaded firearm in your possession whether you have a permit or not is carrying a firearm with the intent to go armed under that case law.

 

So, 39-17-1309a1 would apply today to permit holders who have a loaded firearm in their possession, since there is no exception or defense against 1309a1 for permit holders.  1309b1 on the other hand would cover unloaded firearms or firearms unknowingly loaded, since both of those cases would generally lack the intent to go armed.

 

So basically today to be 'safe' you must be a non-student adult, you must stop before entering school property and unload the firearm and place the firearm and ammo out of reach of each other and the passengers in the vehicle.  Then drive onto school property, do your business, then drive off, where you can again stop and reload your carry weapon.  

 

That is unless you're only dropping people off, or picking them up, then you can have a loaded firearm as long as you don't handle it - if you have a permit.

 

The new law is a lot better it appears (until the AG makes some crazy opinions on how the law doesn't say what it says) that any permit holder can leave a loaded firearm in their vehicle while on school property.  This includes college students who were not covered under any of the previous exceptions or defenses.

 

I read it a bit differently because I cannot find any mention of loaded vs unloaded, except "hunting" firearms, in any of the "intent to go armed" statues. I read it is knowingly or intentionally bringing a firearm vs unknowingly bringing a firearm. I read it as if a person who has a firearm in a briefcase or other luggage and they likely forgot it was in there would be guilty of the lesser. While a person who would have to know, or was not allowed to possess the firearm in the first place, would be guilty of the greater charge. In the "intent" statutes it also mentions a person being guilty of "intent to go armed" if they were committing a crime with the firearm which would also warrant a greater pentaly vs a person who just forgot it was in their possession.

 

I just see it as giving someone who made an honest mistake a break.
 
It also seems like the state would have to prove you intended to bring the firearm rather than just forget it was in your possession. 
 
It also makes mention of those who are not allowed to possess firearms in the first place, because of convictions, domestics or other reasons, being guilty of "intent to go armed" if they have a weapon in their possession. So if a criminal, who is not allowed to possess the firearms in the first place, forget he had a gun in his briefcase or luggage he would be guilty of the greater charge regardless of whether he knew it was in there or not.
 
Again, I see no loaded vs unloaded in the "intent" statutes except hunting firearms. And in the definitions it specifically mentions a firearm is a firearm whether it is loaded or unloaded.

 

What is the TCA that a loaded firearm is always intent to go armed? I have looked and just cannot find it.

 

[RobertNashville]

Yes...life isn't fair...we all know that.

 

Yes, fairness isn't guaranteed in the Constitution either...I thik most of us know that as well.

 

And, based on this and the many other threads on this topic; quite a few folks seem to believe that the people, through their legislature, shouldn't seek to be treated fairly even when artifical entiteis like "businesses" seem intnet on and go out of their way to be pattently unfair in how they treat their employees/customers.  :shrug:

[TMF]

Yes...life isn't fair...we all know that.

Yes, fairness isn't guaranteed in the Constitution either...I thik most of us know that as well.

And, based on this and the many other threads on this topic; quite a few folks seem to believe that the people, through their legislature, shouldn't seek to be treated fairly even when artifical entiteis like "businesses" seem intnet on and go out of their way to be pattently unfair in how they treat their employees/customers. :shrug:

If the "fairness" they seek infringes on the rights of the private entity then no, they should not seek such "fairness" through their legislature. Instead, they should salute the flag and accept the good and the bad parts of liberty and quit their whining.

[Tim Nunan]

Umm can you please cite where in the new law college students with a permit are excluded?

 

I was not aware of changes in the new law that apparently now allows this.

[LowBb]

Must the separated firearm and ammo need to be in locked states(boxes lets say) or do they just need to be separated and out of reach?
This is school zone of course.

[Oh Shoot]

Must the separated firearm and ammo need to be in locked states(boxes lets say) or do they just need to be separated and out of reach?
This is school zone of course.

 

New law? Permit holders can have loaded guns, including long guns (without one in chamber).

 

Existing law? Non student adult with unloaded gun, with ammo not in immediate vicinity of firearm -- locking either up is not mentioned in TCA.

 

Generally conceded that passenger area for one, trunk for the other is excellent. If no trunk, as far separated as possible, and certainly also locking one or the other in case leaves no doubt.

 

- OS

[LowBb]

Nice. My HCP instructor was adamant that we have things locked apart for legal transport.

By the way, and I'm sure I speak for others, I appreciate the discussion. We MUST know and understand the laws if we are to be taken seriously.

[Oh Shoot]

Nice. My HCP instructor was adamant that we have things locked apart for legal transport.

By the way, and I'm sure I speak for others, I appreciate the discussion. We MUST know and understand the laws if we are to be taken seriously.

 

Well, you realize that once you have HCP, you can carry an arsenal in car, all loaded, extra ammo where ever, right? (as long as long guns don't have one in chamber).

 

 

Nice. My HCP instructor was adamant that we have things locked apart for legal transport.

By the way, and I'm sure I speak for others, I appreciate the discussion. We MUST know and understand the laws if we are to be taken seriously.

 
Also, btw, the new parking lot law doesn't kick in till July 1, ya know I guess.
 
- OS

Edited March 20, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[LowBb]

Right. I believe I read there is no limit to number.

HCP should be here in a month or two. Can't wait :)

[Nynick81]

So why is it bad for someone to tell you how to manage your property but okay for an employer to tell me what I can or can't store inside the confines of MY private property - my vehicle? After all, my vehicle remains MY private property no matter where it happens to be parked. The idea that an employer's property rights should be 'protected' from something that really doesn't impact his/her rights by allowing said employer to take actions that do interfere with MY private property rights kind of seems like a conflicting statement, to me.

In other words, the employer has the right to tell me that I can or can't park my car on his/her property - and that is as far as it goes. He/She does not have the right to interfere with my right to store an otherwise legal item inside the confines of MY private property nor should he/she be legally allowed to do so as a requirement for employment nor for any, other reason. Ever. Period.

^^^^ I couldn't agree more! Edited March 20, 2013 by Nynick81

[Guest Mike P]

My company is trying to find a way around this. Lawyers for the home office are looking into it. :down: