TN AG: “guns-in-parking-lots� law does not forbid employers from firing employees

[JayC]

I agree if a college expelled or punished a student for following state law, it would set up a very interesting court case, that might result in the colleges having even more restrictions placed on what they can and can't do.

 

My guess is that FIRE would love such a test case.

 

Changing possession in vehicle on school property from a felony to legal behavior seems most significant part to me.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if some case law might come from TN college campus at some point too -- dunno about the employment part, but I'm not so sure at all it's going to be okay to expel a student for complying with state law, and especially one that takes funds from the state in the first place.

 

- OS

 

[jgradyc]

I had this issue of no guns in the employer's parking lot a few years back. I just parked in the lot next door. It was literally only 50 feet farther to walk. I also never told anyone that I worked with that I had a permit. I was never asked if I had a gun in the car.

Edited May 30, 2013 by jgradyc

[Dolomite_supafly]

You are overlooking a couple of points.

 

Yes, an employer can fire you for virtually any reason or no reason. However, it matters to an person's UIB if he is fired for cause or not.

If a person violated company policy (doesn't matter what the policy is) and is fired then they should not receive any UIB, doesn't mattter what the law says. Carrying a firearm, or any other object, against the employer's wishes should result in a person being fired and not receiving benefits. If a person thinks they are entitled to benefits after being fired for violating their employer's rules then they are one of the ones who will sue, clog up our legal system and force their will upon others.

 

This law does take away the ability of an employer to press criminal charges against you for carrying on a "posted property"; while I don't know if it's EVER happened at least it can't happen now.

 

It also negates the threat of criminal charges for having a firearm in your vehicle while parked in "posted" parking lots at places like shopping malls, etc.

 

We'll get a good parking lot law eventually; similar to those that some 19 other states already have...we'll just have to wait until we get a governor and legislative leadership with some balls.

 

I am pro gun but I am pro property rights and employer rights even more. I wish I could carry my firearm everywhere I go but I can't. And I am fine with that because if I can force someone to do something against their will then that means someone can do the same to me.

 

I am glad, I truly am, that everyone got what they wanted but I just don't understand what this did to really change things for employees. It does not protect them from termination for having a firearm in the parking lot, just says they can legally possess it there. The employer can still fire an employee as well as dictate no firearms on his property as a condition of employment. We will have taken a major hit to our freedoms when the government tells a boss he cannot fire an employee that violated company policy.

 

Nothing in the law says you can having anything on the private property that the owner doesn't want there. The owner of the property can still ask you to leave for having a gun. And if you don't you are breaking the law.

 

It was, and still is, legal to have a firearm in the vehicle on school property if you are delivering or picking up. Once you become and employee you follow your boss's rules or don't work there. Students are not employees so they should be able have the firearm left in the car IAW the law providing it isn't a condition of attending the private school. In that case they follow the institution's rules or find another school.

 

I am glad I can have a gun in the parking lots but the law doesn't keep the owner of that parking lot from removing me.

[RobertNashville]

I am pro gun but I am pro property rights and employer rights even more. I wish I could carry my firearm everywhere I go but I can't. And I am fine with that because if I can force someone to do something against their will then that means someone can do the same to me.

 

I am glad, I truly am, that everyone got what they wanted but I just don't understand what this did to really change things for employees. It does not protect them from termination for having a firearm in the parking lot, just says they can legally possess it there. The employer can still fire an employee as well as dictate no firearms on his property as a condition of employment. We will have taken a major hit to our freedoms when the government tells a boss he cannot fire an employee that violated company policy.

 

Nothing in the law says you can having anything on the private property that the owner doesn't want there. The owner of the property can still ask you to leave for having a gun. And if you don't you are breaking the law.

 

It was, and still is, legal to have a firearm in the vehicle on school property if you are delivering or picking up. Once you become and employee you follow your boss's rules or don't work there. Students are not employees so they should be able have the firearm left in the car IAW the law providing it isn't a condition of attending the private school. In that case they follow the institution's rules or find another school.

 

I am glad I can have a gun in the parking lots but the law doesn't keep the owner of that parking lot from removing me.

So you are in favor of the law sometimes such as laws concerning UIB?

 

Businesses have no unalienable rights; they are artificial constructs (and in the case of most schools, extensions of government)...this is not a property rights issue and never was as at least one federal appeals court has already ruled.

[Worriedman]

I am glad, I truly am, that everyone got what they wanted

 

Well Ramsey, Harwell, Haslam and all the Establishment Republicans got what they wanted, that is, what Fed Ex, Volkswagen and Amazon wanted , and paid for, control.  The Big Business boys got complete absolution for any act committed with a firearm, legal or illegal, and the Establishment got cover for the low information voters who want to be able to provide for their own protection, (seeing as to how they can not count on government or their employers to be responsible for that production).

[Guest nra37922]

TENNESSEE ATTORNEY GENERAL ISSUES OPINION CONFIRMING TFA'S WARNINGS REGARDING THE DANGERS AND RISKS OF THE RON RAMSEY "PARKING LOT" BILL.

Lt.  Gov.  Ron Ramsey started 2013 with the apparent goal of demonstrating once and for all that he is a champion of the 2nd Amendment and the darling of the constitutional conservatives in Tennessee.   He personally introduced and carried SB0142 which is commonly called the "parking lot" bill.  It was bad the moment it was introduced and never got any better.   It was a bad bill.  It is a bad law.  It must be fixed but that will take new legislation in another year.

Throughout the 2013 Legislative Session, TFA issued press releases, news stories and other information to legislators and the public warning that the 2013 "parking lot" bill that was being rammed through the Tennessee Legislature by Lt.  Gov.  Ron Ramsey and Rep.  Jeremy Faison was a clear and present danger to your rights.  Indeed, even the two sponsors did not fully agree in their public statements about what the intent and effect of the law was.  To his credit, Rep.  Faison was more accurate.

On May 28, the Tennessee Attorney General issued Opinion 13-41 confirming several of the critical flaws that TFA members across the state were concerned about and asking the legislators to fix before passing this law.  These pleas fell on intentionally deaf ears because Lt.  Gov.  Ramsey had put out "the word" that this bill was going to pass "as it was written" with no amendments.  And, he had the NRA's new lobbyist in Tennessee rubber stamping that order.

So what has the attorney general said in Opinion 13-41?  Here are the high points from the attorney general's own summary (the entire opinion is on the link).
 

QUESTIONS

1. Does 2013 Tenn. Pub. Acts, ch. 16 ("Chapter 16") prohibit an employer from terminating an at-will employee who brings a firearm or firearm ammunition onto the employer's property?

2. Does Chapter 16 apply to a handgun carry permit holder operating a privately-owned motor vehicle that has been leased, rented, or borrowed by the permit holder?

3. Under the provisions of Chapter 16, does the permit holder violate the requirement that the firearm or firearm ammunition be "kept from ordinary observation" when a parking lot security camera records him or her placing the firearm or firearm ammunition into a nonobservable location in the vehicle?

4. Would Chapter 16 authorize a handgun carry permit holder to transport and store both a firearm and firearm ammunition in the permit holder's vehicle?

OPINIONS

1. No. Chapter 16 does not impact the employer/employee relationship.

2. No.

3. Yes.

4. Yes.

As, TFA said before it was voted on - the bill does NOT remove all risk of criminal prosecution.  The bill does NOTHING to protect your job.  The legislators knew it and those who did vote to pass it voted for it knowing that these serious problems existed which created numerous criminal traps and risks to your jobs.  The NRA patted them on the back and encouraged them to pass it just as Lt. Gov. Ramsey wanted.

Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey has issued a response to the Attorney's General's opinion regarding the many serious flaws in "his" parking lot law:

"The Attorney General's analysis ignores the clear legislative intent of the law. Tennessee's status as an at-will employment state is crucial to its economic success. It was never the intent of the law to disturb that status.

The General Assembly created a clear statutory right allowing permit holders to lawfully keep a firearm stored in their car while at work. Any employer explicitly terminating a permit holder for keeping a gun locked in his car would violate the state's clear public policy, opening himself or herself up to legal action.

The Attorney General is entitled to his opinion but it does not change the General Assembly's intent or the law."

This statement is troublesome because it raises some serious questions. 

First, Ramsey says that it the first paragraph was "never" the intent of the legislation to "disturb" the employment at will doctrine.  Then, in the second paragraph, Ramsey asserts that it was the legislative intent to disturb (override) the employment at will doctrine by the passage of this law.   Those two statements cannot logically or rationally co-exist.

Second, it demonstrates that the Lt. Gov. does not really understand the concept of "legislative intent" and how its applied.  Ramsey seems to apply it as sort of a "listen to what I meant, not what I said" kind of theory.  While that might work in kindergarten, that would be clearly inappropriate for governments to use in crafting laws.  Legislatures are to write their laws clearly.  The failure to do so renders them vague and thus unconstitutional.  The courts may attempt to determine "legislative intent" where legislation is ambiguous, or does not appear to clearl address a particular issue, or even when it appears that there is a drafting error.  When the language used in a law is not ambiguous, it must be applied by the courts as written and there is no inquiry into "legislative intent". 

One has to ask given the plain language of the law that he wrote and the attorney general's explanation of it in response to the questions that were asked, whether Lt. Gov. Ramsey and others who have proudly "boasted" of this law as being good for citizens really understand what an atrocious law it is?  If they do not, serious inquiry must be made by their respective constituents because that lack of capacity and comprehension may indicate a risk that other legislative functions at similarly at risk of serious error.  If Lt. Gov. Ramsey does clearly understand the law but represents its effect to be contrary to that accurately reported by the Attorney General, then it may be appropriate to ask of him "why, why would he not accurately represent the law that he wrote?"

What does this mean for Tennesseans?  DO NOT RELY ON THE RON RAMSEY PARKING LOT LAW !!!  It puts you at risk of criminal prosecution and loss of employment!!!

TFA will be releasing in June a report on the 2013 legislative session on 2nd Amendment legislation.  Please watch for it.

[RobertNashville]

I wonder what kool-aid Ramsey is drinking 'cause it must be pretty powerful stuff to make him go blind like that. ;)

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The Kool Aid was evidently campaign contributions.

[Worriedman]

The Kool Aid was evidently campaign contributions.

 

Ding, we have a winner!

[LawVol]

Well, Ramsey does have a point about the AG not addressing the public policy exception to the employment at will doctrine. 

 

Here are the elements of a retaliatory discharge claim in Tennessee:

 

(1) that an employment-at-will relationship existed; (2) that the employee was discharged, (3) that the reason for the discharge was that the employee attempted to exercise a statutory or constitutional right, or for any other reason which violates a clear public policy evidenced by an unambiguous constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provision; and (4) that a substantial factor in the employer's decision to discharge the employee was the employee's exercise of protected rights or compliance with clear public policy.

 

I'm sure this will all be litigated at some point.  The question is: are you willing to be a test case?  

[Guest 270win]

The AG's write up seems to have sound basis.  He is correct that it was a flaw of the law in that leased, borrowed, or rented cars are not covered.  What a stupid mistake by the legislature that could have been easily avoided.

 

Let's say I have a business and do not want employees drinking beer at work.  There is no law against a worker drinking beer at work, but it is my rule.  Now if you pop that beer open at your desk I can say "Hey it's time for you to go".  Now I would be wasting my time calling the police if the person voluntarily left because the guy didn't break the law, just my policy.

 

It is the same thing with guns.

 

I think that if you changed the 500 dollar sign fine law and the guns in parks law so that property owners  could still ask people to leave, you could pass that reform just like this parking lot bill.  I think you would even have a chance at legalizing carry in schools IF the schools could ask people to leave when discovered.  Just cut the criminal penalty for those with permits, but don't force property owners, parks, and schools to have to allow guns.  There is a big difference between property owners allowing a behavior (say school or work policy) and a behavior being a crime.

 

Next year, let's push the legislature to remove the criminal penalties but not force property owners to change policies.

Edited June 2, 2013 by 270win

[LawVol]

There are articles on the new law in a couple bar publications this month:

 

Tennessee Bar Journal:

http://www.tba.org/journal/guns-in-trunks

 

Dicta (Knoxville Bar Assoc.):

http://www.knoxbar.org/images/DICTA.June2013.pdf

[Oh Shoot]

There are articles on the new law in a couple bar publications this month:

 

Tennessee Bar Journal:

http://www.tba.org/journal/guns-in-trunks

 

Dicta (Knoxville Bar Assoc.):

http://www.knoxbar.org/images/DICTA.June2013.pdf

 

 

From the KBA article:

 

"As such, the law acts as an exception to the posting law, which is an exception to the carry permit law, which is an exception to the general prohibition against carrying firearms.  Not too confusing." :)

 

The TBA article mentions that the true nature of the law won't be defined without some case law. And neither article mentions state government or state schools at all -- which I expect to be the most likely target of litigation, as the status of state institutions can be seen quite differently legally than that of private employers/orgs.

 

- OS

[GKar]

Just to underscore the idiocy of R leadership pushing this version of the bill, there were amendments offered that would have clearly and easily rectified items 2 and 3, without touching the all-hallowed employer provision...yet, the pig-headed asses refused and insisted that the bill pass untouched.

[eapking]

+1for this!

And the 16th as well.

[tnhawk]

Well, Ramsey does have a point about the AG not addressing the public policy exception to the employment at will doctrine.....
 
I'm sure this will all be litigated at some point.  The question is: are you willing to be a test case?  

If I could afford the legal expenses of being a test case, I wouldn't need employment.

[Guest ab28]

I don't know how you missed it. We flogged it as hard as homosexuals in the boy scouts. :)

Nothing wrong with homosexuality. Some people are born that way. As far as the instructors or students? If it is either, it is no one else's business, or concern. "Sexual orientation" is a personal matter, and has nothing to do with the skill of an instructor. A gay person teaching me to start a fire would know the same skills as a straight one. As for the worry about "pedophilia", they are two separate things.

 

Normal gay men are not pedophiles, I think the biggest issue with that is public misperception, as well as a misinterpretation of the bible(and whether the bible is even true or not is a whole 'nother argument).

 

For the guns in parking lots thing, you shouldn't be able to get fired for it, period. The employers not wanting guns around them is based on lies and misconceptions, which invalidates that rule. If an employer is giving me rules that aren't based in logic and reasoning, I have no obligation to follow them. Rules for employees should be based on actual circumstances, not just a business owner's whims.

 

Knowing the reason for a rule defines whether you need to follow it or not. If a box says "no knives to open", I take it to mean use a knife, but be careful not to cut the contents. The reason for the rule is people go hog wild and stick a blade 3 inches past the packing tape and destroy everything. The same applies to the carry on company property rule. The rule has no basis other than an owner's wishes.

Edited July 1, 2013 by ab28

[mikegideon]

Nothing wrong with homosexuality. Some people are born that way. As far as the instructors or students? If it is either, it is no one else's business, or concern. "Sexual orientation" is a personal matter, and has nothing to do with the skill of an instructor. A gay person teaching me to start a fire would know the same skills as a straight one. As for the worry about "pedophilia", they are two separate things.

 

 

 

I agree. I've been sticking up for them in our monthly TGO gay outrage thread :)

[tnhawk]

[quote name="ab28" post="991861" timestamp="137270068....For the guns in parking lots thing, you shouldn't be able to get fired for it, period. The employers not wanting guns around them is based on lies and misconceptions, which invalidates that rule. If an employer is giving me rules that aren't based in logic and reasoning, I have no obligation to follow them. Rules for employees should be based on actual circumstances, not just a business owner's whims.
 
Knowing the reason for a rule defines whether you need to follow it or not. If a box says "no knives to open", I take it to mean use a knife, but be careful not to cut the contents. The reason for the rule is people go hog wild and stick a blade 3 inches past the packing tape and destroy everything. The same applies to the carry on company property rule. The rule has no basis other than an owner's wishes.


I still risk becoming unemployed if I violate an employer's rules. Edited July 1, 2013 by tnhawk

[1pointofview]

Well, i just noticed a blurb here in my middle tn employer's notifications board about the guns in trunks law. I was fully expecting it to read that they were against it and you will be fired if you where caught with it. Well, what they asked is if you are a permit holder the. Go to the security desk, fill out the form and provide a copy of your hcp.

Apparently they ran out of forms and had to print more because so many people came down to fill it out

I read the updated hr policy updated as of july 1 st that they changed the policy that any unauthorized weapon was prohibited. It use to be that all weapons where prohibited. So in my mind, as long as you provide proof you are a permit holder you are ok. I am still a bit leery but since a load of others have already singed up, they at least know. Load of their employees are hcp. Edited July 1, 2013 by 1pointofview