New parking lot law takes effect Monday, July 1

[RobertNashville]

The use of random searches and dogs trained to detect firearms, out of sight and silence is not enough.

Any employer so draconian that they would use dogs trained to detect firearms is probably not a place I'd want to work at. Everyone's decision about that has to be their own but I'd certainly be looking for a new place to work or taking retirement as soon as I was eligible.

Personally, I'm going to be pushing for changes in the law that simply makes it illegal, as a matter of state employment law, for an employer to passively search a vehicle (such as with the dogs you describe) or to even ask or compel a search of a vehicle. No one should be able to compel a search of a vehicle except a law enforcent officer with either probably cause or a search warrant. It should be that way for a person's body...it shoudl be that way for a persons home...it shoudl be that way for a person's vehicle.

[Sky King]

They may break company policy but at least they aren't breaking the law, it would be so simple for anyone who keeps a gun in their vehicle to keep it out of sight and not tell anyone, no one, nadda. Not your best friend, brother, sister not anyone at all, if asked, lie.

That would generally be the way to conduct yourself. Keep it in your car, just don't get caught. However many large employers include in the terms of employment a clause that states you agree to allow your vehicle to be searched while on company property. If you refuse the search, it won't matter if you had a firearm or not, you can be terminated for violating your terms of employment.
 
 

Any employer so draconian that they would use dogs trained to detect firearms is probably not a place I'd want to work at. Everyone's decision about that has to be their own but I'd certainly be looking for a new place to work or taking retirement as soon as I was eligible.

Personally, I'm going to be pushing for changes in the law that simply makes it illegal, as a matter of state employment law, for an employer to passively search a vehicle (such as with the dogs you describe) or to even ask or compel a search of a vehicle. No one should be able to compel a search of a vehicle except a law enforcent officer with either probably cause or a search warrant. It should be that way for a person's body...it shoudl be that way for a persons home...it shoudl be that way for a person's vehicle.

I have not heard of any employer using such passive searches but I guess that doesn't mean they dont take place. I agree that conditioning employment on a consent to search should be illegal. But untill it is banned, it does exist.

[Guest 270win]

The best thing to do is be low key.  Your gun should not be discovered unless you are patted down or run through a metal detector.  That avoids 99% of problems.

 

Most corporate places don't even follow their own little handbooks.  It is about as valuable as the toilet paper in the bathroom. 

[tnhawk]

I can risk loss of employment (bad option) or leave weapon at home while I travel, leaving me unarmed most of the time (bad option).

The option I've been using, has been to store my weapon in a hotel safe, while visiting a work site. 

[K191145]

Any employer so draconian that they would use dogs trained to detect firearms is probably not a place I'd want to work at. Everyone's decision about that has to be their own but I'd certainly be looking for a new place to work or taking retirement as soon as I was eligible.

Personally, I'm going to be pushing for changes in the law that simply makes it illegal, as a matter of state employment law, for an employer to passively search a vehicle (such as with the dogs you describe) or to even ask or compel a search of a vehicle. No one should be able to compel a search of a vehicle except a law enforcent officer with either probably cause or a search warrant. It should be that way for a person's body...it shoudl be that way for a persons home...it shoudl be that way for a person's vehicle.

 

I would like to see that law.

If a company ever went so far as to use dogs, I would make up a solution of burned powder residue and gun oil in a spray bottle and spray every vehicle in the lot.

[LowBb]

And it could be a felony on school grounds, not just fine for Class B 'meanor for carrying past a sign.
 
- OS

Can I keep my firearm in my car at a public school if I have a permit?

[monkeylizard]

If you're a non-student adult, maybe...maybe not (as OS is about to point out, the new law doesn't change anything with schools).

 

TCA 39-17-1309 governs weapons on school grounds (including non-school property while being used for official school business). The key parts that make the "maybe" are sections (b ) and (c ). Part (b ) says it's a Class E felony if there is "intent to go armed". Part (c ) says it's a midemeanor if there is no "intent to go armed". (c ) has an exception where it's OK if the firearm is not handled nor caused to be handled and it never leaves the vehicle, but (b ) does not have that exception. It has been construed that any loaded firearm is indeed intent to go armed. Notice that 39-17-1309 never mentions 39-17-1351 (HCP process), so the exception for leaving it alone applies to all persons with firearms, not just HCP holders. By the letter of the law, the way I understand it, you'd have to stop away from school grounds, unload and separate to remove the intent to go armed (as if you don't have an HCP) then go on school property. You could relaod after leaving school property.

 

I don't recall anywhere that an HCP (39-17-1351) has any bearing on 39-17-1309, but I thought there might be some other 39-17-13xx law that may be important regarding school carry. I couldn't find it in a quick search through Lexis Nexis, so if anyone is a mind reader and knows what I might be thinking of, please post it. I may be thinking about parks carry being touched on by multiple statutes.

 

I don't have the news articles/interviews bookmarked, but I recall some lawmakers stating that the intent of the exception in (c ) is to allow HCP holders to leave it in their cars, but by not providing the exception in (b ) that they put in (c ), that's not the case, the way the law is written. The process described above is asinine and a safety hazard, and I doubt anyone does that. Remember that 39-17-1322 protects your from prosecution under all 39-17-13xx laws should you use your firearm in justified self defense of yourself or another.

 

 

Finally, if you're an employee of the school, then I'm quite certain it will be a no, per your employee handbook. Given the above, it may or may not be a criminal offense, but it's certainly one that would get you fired, just like anyone else working for a company with a "no weapons" policy.

 

 

 

The TFA has a nice write-up on just how weak the new "safe commute" law is and include the AG's opininon on several aspects of it.

http://www.tfaonline.org/index.php/news

Edited July 1, 2013 by monkeylizard

[Oh Shoot]

Can I keep my firearm in my car at a public school if I have a permit?

 

Yes, loaded,  in your own private vehicle, with a carry permit. Without a permit, still the same old gray area as always, which MonkeyLizard mentions: Note that is does not prohibit being fired or expelled if you work for the school or are a student, however. I'll bet we'll eventually see case law on this, though, or the bill amended, at least for state supported schools, which is most of them.

 

 

If you're a non-student adult, maybe...maybe not.

 

TCA 39-17-1309 governs weapons on school grounds...

 

The new law specifically exempts 39-17-1309, by name, for its purposes.

 

 "Notwithstanding §§ 39-17-1309, 39-17-1311, or § 39-17-1359, unless expressly prohibited by federal law..."

 

- OS

Edited July 1, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[monkeylizard]

Thanks OS. I think I was looking at the text of one of the older versions of wht eventually got passed. I have edited my earlier post.

[K191145]

Well it's July 1st. Where can I go today and keep my gun in my vehicle? I think i'll swing through the kingston Springs city park later on, Wednesday i'm driving my mom for an appointment at St. Thomas. Hey, i'll go to the court house parking area in Ashland City, roll down my window and start yelling, I'VE GOT A GUN, I'VE GOT A GUN. :)

Naa I think i'll pass on that one. Edited July 1, 2013 by K191145

[Guest ab28]

I can risk loss of employment (bad option) or leave weapon at home while I travel, leaving me unarmed most of the time (bad option).

The option I've been using, has been to store my weapon in a hotel safe, while visiting a work site. 

You could also keep a .380 on you, in a pocket holster that breaks up the outline. I've lied to employers before, and not felt bad about it, because I was in the right. Unless they pat you down or have detectors, they aren't going to find it.

 

I carried my Glock at work, IWB, and my manager was a friend. He knew about it, and was fine, but I had to bend and kneel, ect, at work and sometimes it showed. I got my .380 for that reason, and for ease of carrying. I didn't have to put on a belt, ect, to carry.

 

The only time I won't carry is state or federal property. I don't carry most of the time, because I am on my college campus, I also leave it in the car if I am going out and am going to be drinking.

[waynesan]

Well Sen. Ron Ramsey has once again gone on record explaining the "intent" of the new law going into effect today. Too bad he/they didn't incorporate their "intent" into the wording of the law.

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/jul/01/new-laws-in-effect-in-tennessee/

 

 

The state attorney general said in a legal opinion released in May that under the law, employers still would be allowed to fire workers who violate gun bans.

Senate Speaker Ron Ramsey disagreed with the opinion, saying in a statement that 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 Blountville Republican said.

Edited July 1, 2013 by waynesan

[rockman6]

Eastman Chemical Company sent out a note to employees that the law did not change the company policy and that firearms are not permitted on company property.