Parking lot bill, part deux?

[JAB]

I saw in the News-Sentinel that Ramsey is blaming the AG for 'muddying the waters' regarding the recently passed 'parking lot bill' and how it doesn't impact and employer's ability to fire an employee simply for having a firearm stored in the employee's private vehicle in the employer's parking lot.  Ramsey is saying that it may now be necessary to revisit the bill in order to protect employees from being fired in such instances.

 

The thing is, I seem to recall that the bill as it originally existed did protect employees but that Ramsey and a few others pushed for the gutted, nearly useless 'compromise' bill that ended up passing.  I also seem to remember some folks pointing out the problem to Ramsey when the 'compromise' was being discussed.  Am I remembering incorrectly or has Ramsey simply participated in creating a problem in one legislative session so that he can trumpet how he is working to 'fix' that problem in the next legislative session?

 

The article also said that Gov. Haslam doesn't want any gun legislation in the next session.  Well, with all due respect (which means very little) to Haslam, I don't really give a tinker's damn what he wants. 

 

Some friends and I are planning a trip to Kentucky and Ohio next weekend so I looked up the carry laws in those states on the handgunlaw.us site.  I think what we need is to pretty much copy Kentucky's 'parking lot' law verbatim.  The Kentucky law appears to be simple, straightforward and to the point.  Which is why Tennessee would never adopt the wording of this law - it isn't convoluted and confusing enough for TN firearms law.

 

That law is quoted on the handgunlaw.us site as:

 

 

237.106 Right of Employees and Other Persons to Possess Firearms in Vehicle

--

Employer Liable for Denying Right

--

Exceptions.

(1)

No person, including but not limited to an employer, who is the owner, lessee, or occupant of

real property shall prohibit any person who is legally entitled to possess a firearm from

possessing a firearm, part of a firearm, ammunition, or ammunition component in a vehicle on the property.

Edited July 15, 2013 by JAB

[Guest 270win]

The law is poorly worded.

 

The most simple fix would be to decriminalize carry for those with permits at local parks, schools, and the no gun signs.

 

The next best step would have been to word the law that a permit holder could possess a firearm in ANY vehicle, not just one that he owns.

[Garufa]

But, but Ramsey assured us that the law was good.  He said it would pass muster.

 

What a tool.  :rolleyes:

[Guest Bonedaddy]

Wadda expect?

[Oh Shoot]

.....  I think what we need is to pretty much copy Kentucky's 'parking lot' law verbatim.  The Kentucky law appears to be simple, straightforward and to the point. 

 

That law is quoted on the handgunlaw.us site as:

 

"

No person, including but not limited to an employer, who is the owner, lessee, or occupant of

real property shall prohibit any person who is legally entitled to possess a firearm from

possessing a firearm, part of a firearm, ammunition, or ammunition component in a vehicle on the property."

 

Well, unless there's more to it, that phrase doesn't prohibit an employer from firing someone for it.

 

- OS

[Randall53]

Tennessee is a right to work state which I thought meant employers don't have to have a reason to "let you go".  

 

Business Owner:  "Chip said you have a really nice 1911 in your car.  I love those things can I see it?"

 

You:  "Sure...here it is.."

 

Business Owner:  "Beautiful Pistol. I have one almost like it at home......Oh by the way.  I no longer need your services here at ABC Widgets.  Here's your check and termination slip."

[Oh Shoot]

Tennessee is a right to work state which I thought meant employers don't have to have a reason to "let you go".  

 

At-will employment. (Right-to-work has to do with union relationship).

 

- OS

[enfield]

Ramsey is a fool, and he thinks we are fools also.

[DaveTN]

Has someone been fired over having a gun in their car?

 

The biggest issue in protecting employees from being fired is “Employment at will”; unless you have an employment contract an employer doesn’t have to give a reason for letting you go.

[tnhawk]

On a notice posted for employees and contractors-

 

Entry upon the Company's premises by employees, visitors or contractors is deemed to constitute concent by such persons to personal searches pursuant to these Policies.  Searches of work areas and other Company premises may be conducted whenever designated management determines such searches are necessary or desireable.  Searches (including use of specially trained dogs) will be performed only by individuals authorized by designated management.

 

In addition, possession of the following on Company property, including private vehicles in Company parkinf lots, is a violation of Company policy:

- Weapons including all firearms, hunting equipment such as bows and arrows, and explosives.  Exceptions may be in place if this Policy conflicts with state law but only to the extent necessary to bring this Policy into compliance with state law.

 

An employee who refuses to cooperate with a search or sign an appropiate concent form shall be deemed to be in violation of Policy and will be discharged.

 

 

 

On an additional sign:

 

A valid carry concealed license does not authorize the licensee to carry a weapon onto these premises.

 

 

The law recently passed in TN is worthless, as are Ramsey and Haslam.

[Guest PapaB]

The law is poorly worded.

 

The most simple fix would be to decriminalize carry for those with permits at local parks, schools, and the no gun signs.

 

The next best step would have been to word the law that a permit holder could possess a firearm in ANY vehicle, not just one that he owns.

 

Your suggestions are good ideas but would have no effect on employers. I'd go one step further with the first one and say decriminalize everywhere for HCP holders.

 

An improvement to current law would be to ban employers from searching vehicles. Employers would have to have LE perform the searches. LE would have to be given something specific to search for and would be banned from disclosing any other contents of the vehicle. The only other thing I can think of would never happen. You'd have to treat HCP holders as a group needing anti-discrimination laws just like those about sexual or age discrimination. You could still be fired but you'd have grounds for a lawsuit.

[RobertNashville]

I saw in the News-Sentinel that Ramsey is blaming the AG for 'muddying the waters' regarding the recently passed 'parking lot bill' and how it doesn't impact and employer's ability to fire an employee simply for having a firearm stored in the employee's private vehicle in the employer's parking lot.  Ramsey is saying that it may now be necessary to revisit the bill in order to protect employees from being fired in such instances.

 

The thing is, I seem to recall that the bill as it originally existed did protect employees but that Ramsey and a few others pushed for the gutted, nearly useless 'compromise' bill that ended up passing.  I also seem to remember some folks pointing out the problem to Ramsey when the 'compromise' was being discussed.  Am I remembering incorrectly or has Ramsey simply participated in creating a problem in one legislative session so that he can trumpet how he is working to 'fix' that problem in the next legislative session?

 

The article also said that Gov. Haslam doesn't want any gun legislation in the next session.  Well, with all due respect (which means very little) to Haslam, I don't really give a tinker's damn what he wants. 

 

Some friends and I are planning a trip to Kentucky and Ohio next weekend so I looked up the carry laws in those states on the handgunlaw.us site.  I think what we need is to pretty much copy Kentucky's 'parking lot' law verbatim.  The Kentucky law appears to be simple, straightforward and to the point.  Which is why Tennessee would never adopt the wording of this law - it isn't convoluted and confusing enough for TN firearms law.

 

That law is quoted on the handgunlaw.us site as:

Ramsey is an F'ing idiot and political hack...he KNEW EXACTLY that the bill HE forced through last year was a pile of   :poop:    and went with it anyway.  All the Republican establishment were pissing in their pants because of what happened to Maggert so they went with this bill in the apparent hope that HCP holders are as stupid and easily fooled as most liberals.

[monkeylizard]

Some are. I heard more than one HCP holder state that they can start carrying in their car to work as of July 1. Their employer's lot is not posted but it's no-no in their handbook. So nothing changed 7/1 but the HCP holder sure thought it did. I'm sure coverage on the local media outlets didn;t help with the misunderstanding.

[Worriedman]

My, my, that a legislator asked the AG for an opinion kind of forced the issue, sure put a bee in said Lt. Governor's bonnet.

He may have to stand forth and declare now, seems he will not be able to straddle the line and claim victory for both sides...

Edited July 16, 2013 by Worriedman

[RobertNashville]

Your suggestions are good ideas but would have no effect on employers. I'd go one step further with the first one and say decriminalize everywhere for HCP holders.

 

An improvement to current law would be to ban employers from searching vehicles. Employers would have to have LE perform the searches. LE would have to be given something specific to search for and would be banned from disclosing any other contents of the vehicle. The only other thing I can think of would never happen. You'd have to treat HCP holders as a group needing anti-discrimination laws just like those about sexual or age discrimination. You could still be fired but you'd have grounds for a lawsuit.

There are a number of approached to fixing what's wrong with the law...what I suggest is...

 

1. Change the law so that no parking lot where the public and/or employees are allowed to be (with perhaps a VERY few exceptions such as a jail/prison parking lot) can be posted against firearms as long as the firearm remain in the vehicle and remove any chance of criminality for having a legally carried firearm in a vehicle (which is about, although not quite what we now have).

 

Second, make it illegal, as a matter of state employment law, for an employer to compel the search of an employee's vehicle. In other words, the only way an employee's vehicle could be search would be by the employer involving the police (with PC or warrant) because they believe a crime has been committed.

 

Those two changes alone would take care of about 98% of the problem and I think nothing will be 100% because as long as we are an employment at will state and employer is always going to be able to fire you with or without cause and short of changing that I see no way that a "guns in trunks" bill could ever be perfect.

 

It will probably have to stay limited to HCP holders for now but hopefully, after a while, the law can be further modified so that it doesn't just apply to HCP holders but to anyone who is otherwise legally able to possess/transport a firearm (that would take care of hunters, sport shooters, etc or maybe everyone once we get Constitutional carry in TN).

Edited July 16, 2013 by RobertNashville

[jtmaze]

That is exactly right. The guys in Nashville stood on the fence telling one group "I am doing this for you," and the other "don't worry this is an at will state, the law has no teeth."

 

My, my, that a legislator asked the AG for an opinion kind of forced the issue, sure put a bee in said Lt. Governor's bonnet.

He may have to stand forth and declare now, seems he will not be able to straddle the line and claim victory for both sides...

[JAB]

Well, unless there's more to it, that phrase doesn't prohibit an employer from firing someone for it.

 

- OS

 

True, but it does at least prohibit an employer from stating 'no firearms in vehicles on company property' in their employee rules, handbooks, etc.

 

Honestly, I think the best way to fix a whole lot of problems would be to have a state law that recognizes a person's vehicle as their private property and clearly state that the confines of said vehicle have the same protections as the confines of one's residence regardless of where said vehicle happens to be parked.  The parking space, itself, might be an employer's property but the vehicle and its contents remain my property and, unless there is some evidence a crime has been committed (which should require LEO involvement) it is none of their business what otherwise legal items I choose to keep in my own, personal vehicle.  Further, as RobertNashville said, make it clear that only LEO can compel searches of private vehicles, that even LEO must have a warrant or very strong probable cause and that an employer is committing a crime if said employer so much as insinuates that an employee will be fired if he or she doesn't 'voluntarily consent' to a search of his or her vehicle.

Edited July 16, 2013 by JAB

[Oh Shoot]

True, but it does at least prohibit an employer from stating 'no firearms in vehicles on company property' in their employee rules, handbooks, etc.

 

Yes, a good point, and an obvious one that I completely missed, duh.

 

- OS

[Worriedman]

Everyone has to remember, the original bill, brought by Josh Evans, was murdered in its sleep by Vance Dennis and Barret Rich.

 

Then, Dennis was hugely responsible for killing it two years ago.

 

He needs to be the target for Maggartization in 2014, he only won by 4 votes this last time, he can be beat!

[JAB]

Another reason I think that approaching the issue from a broader perspective - as in recognizing that the confines of a person's vehicle constitutes that person's private property just like a person's home - is that it avoids being strictly a 'firearms issue'.  Sure, the main impetus behind my desire to see such laws passed might pertain to firearms but there really is a larger issue.  That issue is private property rights.

 

Every time this comes up, you have some folks (even on here) who want to start a hue and cry about employers' property rights.  What those folks seem to ignore is that the employee also has property rights where his or her vehicle is concerned.  However, whereas the employer 'property' in question is nothing more than a rectangle of blank concrete, asphalt, etc. (parking space) that is part of a larger area of blank concrete, asphalt, etc. (parking lot), the employee property is his or her vehicle and anything contained within it.  I would argue, then, that the more complex 'property' and the rights pertaining to such property far outweigh the rights pertaining to an area of bare concrete, asphalt, etc.  By that measure, yes, employers should have every right to tell employees (or anyone else) what they can or cannot possess within the confines of the employers' buildings (or company vehicles, etc.)  Employers should also have the right to tell the employee (or anyone else) that certain items are not permitted beyond the confines of personal vehicles even within the boundaries of the parking lot.  However, when it comes to privately owned vehicles, the employer should only have the right to tell an employee (or anyone else) that he or she can or can't park his or her car in the employer's parking lot and nothing more.  Beyond that, the employer should have no ability to restrict an employee from having ANY otherwise legal item within the confines of his or her vehicle, no matter where it is parked.

Edited July 17, 2013 by JAB

[RobertNashville]

But apparently, at least according to some posters here (in prior "parking lot threads) claim that some employers are even trying to dictate the contents of one's actual home and also apparently, have the "right" to inspect the home for such "contraband" (because the employee agreed to it as a condition of employment).

 

If true and if employers can demand that sort of overreach into an person's private home, where can you go from there???

[JAB]

But apparently, at least according to some posters here (in prior "parking lot threads) claim that some employers are even trying to dictate the contents of one's actual home and also apparently, have the "right" to inspect the home for such "contraband" (because the employee agreed to it as a condition of employment).

 

If true and if employers can demand that sort of overreach into an person's private home, where can you go from there???

 

Honestly, it is just that sort of crap that causes people who might not otherwise support unions to do so.  I think most contemporary labor unions are little more than a racket to exploit the employee and employer but some employers bring it on themselves via such draconian rules.  Employees are just that - employees.  Not indentured servants and not slaves but some employers seem to think that giving a person a paycheck in return for a certain number of hours worked/amount of labor expended grants the employer the right to control the employee's whole life.

[GKar]

Everyone has to remember, the original bill, brought by Josh Evans, was murdered in its sleep by Vance Dennis and Barret Rich.

 

Then, Dennis was hugely responsible for killing it two years ago.

 

He needs to be the target for Maggartization in 2014, he only won by 4 votes this last time, he can be beat!

 

Which would be be particularly pleasing in that Ramsey is quite pleased with (and proud of) his efforts to get Vance Dennis elected to start with...

[LagerHead]

I saw in the News-Sentinel that Ramsey is blaming the AG for 'muddying the waters' regarding the recently passed 'parking lot bill' and how it doesn't impact and employer's ability to fire an employee simply for having a firearm stored in the employee's private vehicle in the employer's parking lot.  Ramsey is saying that it may now be necessary to revisit the bill in order to protect employees from being fired in such instances.

 

The thing is, I seem to recall that the bill as it originally existed did protect employees but that Ramsey and a few others pushed for the gutted, nearly useless 'compromise' bill that ended up passing.  I also seem to remember some folks pointing out the problem to Ramsey when the 'compromise' was being discussed.  Am I remembering incorrectly or has Ramsey simply participated in creating a problem in one legislative session so that he can trumpet how he is working to 'fix' that problem in the next legislative session?

 

The article also said that Gov. Haslam doesn't want any gun legislation in the next session.  Well, with all due respect (which means very little) to Haslam, I don't really give a tinker's damn what he wants. 

 

Some friends and I are planning a trip to Kentucky and Ohio next weekend so I looked up the carry laws in those states on the handgunlaw.us site.  I think what we need is to pretty much copy Kentucky's 'parking lot' law verbatim.  The Kentucky law appears to be simple, straightforward and to the point.  Which is why Tennessee would never adopt the wording of this law - it isn't convoluted and confusing enough for TN firearms law.

 

That law is quoted on the handgunlaw.us site as:

 

Jab, Jab, Jab. Careful there. You seem to be implying that an esteemed politician from our great state might say one thing and do something completely different. I'm sure I must have misunderstood you though.  :rofl:

[Chucktshoes]

Everyone has to remember, the original bill, brought by Josh Evans, was murdered in its sleep by Vance Dennis and Barret Rich.

Then, Dennis was hugely responsible for killing it two years ago.

He needs to be the target for Maggartization in 2014, he only won by 4 votes this last time, he can be beat!

Which would be be particularly pleasing in that Ramsey is quite pleased with (and proud of) his efforts to get Vance Dennis elected to start with...

That settles it. Worriedman, y'all find a candidate and I will contribute to his campaign. I never give money to politicians but I'll make an exception here.