Safe commute law

[Ranger431]

New to the site, but had a quick question. I heard a while back that the state tried to pass a law that would allow you to keep a gun locked, out of site, in a locked car even if an employer or business prohibited firearms on the premises. If I remember right, this was defeated but thought there was going to be another attempt. Seems stupid that someone would have to commute unarmed over something like this. And parking in the street sure sends the wrong message, not to mention it makes your vehicle much more likely to be broken into.

Anyone have an update or any more information on this?

[Ranger431]

Nevermind, looks like it is at the Governors desk. The only problem is that although it won't be a crime to have one, an employee can still be fired for breaking a company rule due to the "Employment at will" laws. Looks like it'll be parking on the street for me.

FL has a better law, believe it protects employment status.

[2.ooohhh]

Nevermind, looks like it is at the Governors desk. The only problem is that although it won't be a crime to have one, an employee can still be fired for breaking a company rule due to the "Employment at will" laws. Looks like it'll be parking on the street for me.

FL has a better law, believe it protects employment status.

 

 

FL law does NOT protect employment status. If the employer lists no firearms in the employee handbook, rules, or employment contract the employee can be fired "for cause" if they violate the rule.

[Ranger431]

Wasn't aware of that. I thought the law did protect employment status.

[DaveTN]

Wasn't aware of that. I thought the law did protect employment status.

Protecting your job in Tennessee has nothing to do with guns. This is an “Employment at will “ state. They don’t have to give you or anyone else a reason unless they are disputing your unemployment claim, or unless you have an employment contract.

Edited May 4, 2013 by DaveTN

[Worriedman]

FL law does NOT protect employment status. If the employer lists no firearms in the employee handbook, rules, or employment contract the employee can be fired "for cause" if they violate the rule.

As of July 1, 2008, Florida became a "Take your gun to work" state (F.S. 790.251). This law prohibits most businesses from firing any employee with a Concealed Weapon License for keeping a legal firearm locked in their vehicle in the company parking lot. The purpose of the new law is to allow carry licensees to exercise their Second Amendment rights during their commutes to and from work. Exceptions listed in F.S. 790.251(7) include:

• school property;
• correctional institutions;
• property where a nuclear-powered electricity generation facility is located;
• property upon which substantial activities involving national defense, aerospace, or homeland security are conducted;
• property upon which the primary business conducted is the manufacture, use, storage, or transportation of combustible or explosive materials;
• a motor vehicle owned/leased/rented by your employer;
• any other property upon which possession of a firearm is prohibited pursuant to any federal law, contract with a federal government entity, or general law of Florida.

A case was filed against Disney by Edwin Sotomayor, a former Disney security guard who was fired, despite having a CWL, for having a firearm locked in his car, in violation of Disney's pre-existing no weapons allowed policy. The case was later dropped by the plaintiff citing personal and financial reasons. Disney claims that they are exempt from the new state law, on the basis of their having a fireworks license for conducting nightly fireworks shows at Disney World

If you have enough bucks, you can carve out your own rules.

 

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.251.html

Edited May 6, 2013 by Worriedman

[2.ooohhh]

As of July 1, 2008, Florida became a "Take your gun to work" state (F.S. 790.251). This law prohibits most businesses from firing any employee with a Concealed Weapon License for keeping a legal firearm locked in their vehicle in the company parking lot. The purpose of the new law is to allow carry licensees to exercise their Second Amendment rights during their commutes to and from work. Exceptions listed in F.S. 790.251(7) include:

• school property;
• correctional institutions;
• property where a nuclear-powered electricity generation facility is located;
• property upon which substantial activities involving national defense, aerospace, or homeland security are conducted;
• property upon which the primary business conducted is the manufacture, use, storage, or transportation of combustible or explosive materials;
• a motor vehicle owned/leased/rented by your employer;
• any other property upon which possession of a firearm is prohibited pursuant to any federal law, contract with a federal government entity, or general law of Florida.

A case was filed against Disney by Edwin Sotomayor, a former Disney security guard who was fired, despite having a CWL, for having a firearm locked in his car, in violation of Disney's pre-existing no weapons allowed policy. The case was later dropped by the plaintiff citing personal and financial reasons. Disney claims that they are exempt from the new state law, on the basis of their having a fireworks license for conducting nightly fireworks shows at Disney World

If you have enough bucks, you can carve out your own rules.

 

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.251.html

 

 

As I understand it that was Disney's mistake, they should have fired the security guard for "not liking mustard on hot dogs". In an employment at will state all the "protection" some are requesting from TN does is force the company to fire you for some BS reason rather than saying that it was b/c you had a gun in your car (which is completely legal) or face litigation.

[monkeylizard]

TN's new 39-17-1313 law (not yet effective...goes into effect July 1, 2013) is not specifically related to the employee/employer relationship. It simply says that HCP holders can legally have their gun in their car in posted lots so long as they meet the specifics of the new law. The areas of properly posted property outside of the HCP'ers vehicle is still properly posted. This means places like Cool Springs Galleria mall and the 100 Oaks movie theater will be OK to leave it locked up in the car but you still can't legally carry it in. Having it in the car will no longer be a violation of 39-17-1359.

 

The 2nd thing that 39-17-1313 does is remove civil liability from the property owner/employer if the HCPer goes on a rampage. That could open the door for some employers to revise their no-weapons policies if the only reason they had it was for liability insurance reasons. I expect that to be a very small number of employers, if any.

 

My employer prohibts firearms by policy, and does not have postings on the doors or parking lots. I can carry in my office or have one in my car today and not break any laws. I can do the same on July 1st and not break any laws. Both instances can get me fired. Even after July 1st, it's still no guns for me during the week.

[Worriedman]

I believe that the basis of the laws in TN and FL are vastly different.  It is my understanding that employers in FL may not have a "policy" in their handbooks:

 

(4) PROHIBITED ACTS.—No public or private employer may violate the constitutional rights of any customer, employee, or invitee as provided in paragraphs (a)-(e):

(a) No public or private employer may prohibit any customer, employee, or invitee from possessing any legally owned firearm when such firearm is lawfully possessed and locked inside or locked to a private motor vehicle in a parking lot and when the customer, employee, or invitee is lawfully in such area.

 [b]     No public or private employer may violate the privacy rights of a customer, employee, or invitee by verbal or written inquiry regarding the presence of a firearm inside or locked to a private motor vehicle in a parking lot or by an actual search of a private motor vehicle in a parking lot to ascertain the presence of a firearm within the vehicle. Further, no public or private employer may take any action against a customer, employee, or invitee based upon verbal or written statements of any party concerning possession of a firearm stored inside a private motor vehicle in a parking lot for lawful purposes. A search of a private motor vehicle in the parking lot of a public or private employer to ascertain the presence of a firearm within the vehicle may only be conducted by on-duty law enforcement personnel, based upon due process and must comply with constitutional protections.

 [c]   No public or private employer shall condition employment upon either:

1. The fact that an employee or prospective employee holds or does not hold a license issued pursuant to s. 790.06; or

2. Any agreement by an employee or a prospective employee that prohibits an employee from keeping a legal firearm locked inside or locked to a private motor vehicle in a parking lot when such firearm is kept for lawful purposes.

(d) No public or private employer shall prohibit or attempt to prevent any customer, employee, or invitee from entering the parking lot of the employer’s place of business because the customer’s, employee’s, or invitee’s private motor vehicle contains a legal firearm being carried for lawful purposes, that is out of sight within the customer’s, employee’s, or invitee’s private motor vehicle.

(e) No public or private employer may terminate the employment of or otherwise discriminate against an employee, or expel a customer or invitee for exercising his or her constitutional right to keep and bear arms or for exercising the right of self-defense as long as a firearm is never exhibited on company property for any reason other than lawful defensive purposes.

This subsection applies to all public sector employers, including those already prohibited from regulating firearms under the provisions of s. 790.33.

 

Exemptions:
 

(7) EXCEPTIONS.—The prohibitions in subsection (4) do not apply to:

(a) Any school property as defined and regulated under s. 790.115.

[b]     Any correctional institution regulated under s. 944.47 or chapter 957.

[c] Any property where a nuclear-powered electricity generation facility is located.

(d) Property owned or leased by a public or private employer or the landlord of a public or private employer upon which are conducted substantial activities involving national defense, aerospace, or homeland security.

(e) Property owned or leased by a public or private employer or the landlord of a public or private employer upon which the primary business conducted is the manufacture, use, storage, or transportation of combustible or explosive materials regulated under state or federal law, or property owned or leased by an employer who has obtained a permit required under 18 U.S.C. s. 842 to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials on such property.

(f) A motor vehicle owned, leased, or rented by a public or private employer or the landlord of a public or private employer.

(g) Any other property owned or leased by a public or private employer or the landlord of a public or private employer upon which possession of a firearm or other legal product by a customer, employee, or invitee is prohibited pursuant to any federal law, contract with a federal government entity, or general law of this state.

 

Vastly different from the law in TN.

 

Edited May 6, 2013 by Worriedman

[Guest nra37922]

Disney pull gutted the FL law.

 

Question" 

 

You have a HCP

You leave your gun at home for employment reasons

You are assaulted on the way to/from work

Your handgun could have stop the assault

Can you sue your employer for damages

Edited May 6, 2013 by nra37922

[monkeylizard]

You can sue someone for just about anything, but you won't win that one.

Edited May 6, 2013 by monkeylizard

[DaveTN]

You have a HCP You leave your gun at home for employment reasons
You are assaulted on the way to/from work
Your handgun could have stop the assault
Can you sue your employer for damages

No, if you could any citizen that is assaulted could sue the state. The state of Tennessee is who is keeping citizens from having a gun in their car. We are a special group that bought the privilege; not hardly a right.

[sigmtnman]

This violates property rights.  If an employer does not want guns on his property that is his right.  It is also everyones right to find someplace that will allow them to carry.  My only exclusion from this right should be the government since it is supposed to serve the people.

[jphillips63]

Just use the don't tell anyone personal law. If they don't know they just don't know period. Kinda simple don't ya think?

sent from my RAZR Maxx HD using Tapatalk 2

[Smith]

This violates property rights.  If an employer does not want guns on his property that is his right.  It is also everyones right to find someplace that will allow them to carry.  My only exclusion from this right should be the government since it is supposed to serve the people.

Not to get into it again but my personal property rights (ie Vehicle) are not trumped by someone else's property rights (ie parking lot) simply because they come into contact with one another. The law simply allows both property rights to be exercised and used in conjunction with one another and not at the exclusion of one over the other.

 

Of course others like FedEx and some on this forum disagree. 

[sigmtnman]

Not to get into it again but my personal property rights (ie Vehicle) are not trumped by someone else's property rights (ie parking lot) simply because they come into contact with one another. The law simply allows both property rights to be exercised and used in conjunction with one another and not at the exclusion of one over the other.

 

Of course others like FedEx and some on this forum disagree. 

 

So, do you have to let me park my vehicle on your property as I see fit?

[Oh Shoot]

So, do you have to let me park my vehicle on your property as I see fit?

 

If I'm offering parking for employees or customers, certainly it should be that way.

 

As far as what really is -- me as a customer, you now can't do anything at all about my gun in my car in your parking lot.

 

You can still fire an employee for it, though (in perhaps most cases).

 

- OS

Edited May 9, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[sigmtnman]

If I'm offering parking for employees or customers, certainly it should be that way.

 

As far as what really is -- me as a customer, you now can't do anything at all about my gun in my car in your parking lot.

 

You can still fire an employee for it, though (in perhaps most cases).

 

- OS

 

So, you are saying that because the employer allows employees to park, it becomes quasi-public property?

[Worriedman]

So, you are saying that because the employer allows employees to park, it becomes quasi-public property?

 

If there is public money spent on the parking lot, (and in 99% of the factories being built today anywhere, there is a LOT of public, e.g. tax money being spent on the construction of facilities for industry) it is in fact, quasi-public property.

 

Case in point, Hemlock in Clarksville, millions of dollars of State tax money spent on the purchase of land and infrastructure production, and yet they acted like it was "private property".  Every "Big" employer that comes into TN now is plied with bribes from the public treasury, but so many tout their "Private Property' Rights.

I have many times before asked this question, and will again, what Constitutional protection of private property exist in TN?  The only text relating to private property I can find Constitutionally, explains how a group of your peers can take anything you possesses, (including your life) from you if they feel it in the best interest of the community, on a State, County, or City level.

[Oh Shoot]

So, you are saying that because the employer allows employees to park, it becomes quasi-public property?

 

Fine with me, but I lean more toward the fact that the employee's vehicle is personal property, and the fact that the employer allows it onto his lot does not give the employer any more say as to what is legally contained in it than an employee has a say in what is legally contained in a company owned vehicle.

 

If the employer does not want to offer parking for his employees' private vehicles, fine. Let him compete in the workforce only for workers who are willing to arrive by other means.

 

- OS

Edited May 11, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[sigmtnman]

If there is public money spent on the parking lot, (and in 99% of the factories being built today anywhere, there is a LOT of public, e.g. tax money being spent on the construction of facilities for industry) it is in fact, quasi-public property.

 

Case in point, Hemlock in Clarksville, millions of dollars of State tax money spent on the purchase of land and infrastructure production, and yet they acted like it was "private property".  Every "Big" employer that comes into TN now is plied with bribes from the public treasury, but so many tout their "Private Property' Rights.

I have many times before asked this question, and will again, what Constitutional protection of private property exist in TN?  The only text relating to private property I can find Constitutionally, explains how a group of your peers can take anything you possesses, (including your life) from you if they feel it in the best interest of the community, on a State, County, or City level.

I agree with you in situations where public money is given.

 

To answer your question, the 5th Amendment:

 

"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

 

Enacting a law to force a property owner to do something is in violation, without just compensation.  The question would be what is just compensation, and who decides.

Edited May 11, 2013 by sigmtnman

[sigmtnman]

Fine with me, but I lean more toward the fact that the employee's vehicle is personal property, and the fact that the employer allows it onto his lot does not give the employer any more say as to what is legally contained in it than an employee has a say in what is legally contained in a company owned vehicle.

 

If the employer does not want to offer parking for his employees' private vehicles, fine. Let him compete in the workforce only for workers who are willing to arrive by other means.

 

- OS

I'll have to ponder this a bit, but off the cuff, we both know that carrying a firearm is illegal and that the HCP is a defense  against violation of the law.

[Worriedman]

I agree with you in situations where public money is given.

 

To answer your question, the 5th Amendment:

 

"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

 

Enacting a law to force a property owner to do something is in violation, without just compensation.  The question would be what is just compensation, and who decides.

Asked and answered in Ramsey Winch v. Henry when the courts found that temporally allowing a legal gun owner to keep their legal property (firearm) inside their private property (vehicle) did not constitute an illegal "taking" of any right or privilege.  Allowing another to keep a legal item inside a personal vehicle is not an infringement of any property right.

Edited May 11, 2013 by Worriedman

[DaveTN]

To answer your question, the 5th Amendment:
 
"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"
 
Enacting a law to force a property owner to do something is in violation, without just compensation.  The question would be what is just compensation, and who decides.

Tennessee (and many other states) did it with the smoking laws. Many businesses lost money and some went out of business because of it. No compensation; just a thug government exercising their control over private business owners.

[DaveTN]

Asked and answered in Ramsey Winch v. Henry when the courts found that temporally allowing a legal gun owner to keep their legal property (firearm) inside their private property (vehicle) did not constitute an illegal "taking" of any right or privilege.  Allowing another to keep a legal item inside a personal vehicle is not an infringement of any property right.

What about companies that have “No firearms” on the property at specific facilities because they have large tanks on the property that are explosive; like hexane tanks at soybean plants?
What rights are involved when it’s a “safe commute” vs. the safety of a community?