Parking lot bill, part deux?

[jtmaze]

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.

I gave for the first time to the Lady who unseated Maggart.

[Worriedman]

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.

We are diligently working on that at the moment.

[Worriedman]

I gave for the first time to the Lady who unseated Maggart.

Thank you for that.

 

We garnered quite a bit of money from across the State from folks who do not normally contribute to campaigns, and just as importantly, we sent car loads of people up to the 45th to knock on doors and sign wave.  The NRA put a lot of money into the mix, and I saw several of their Executives give personally the legal limit.  I did as well.

 

We took 16 of 17 precincts.  It was a beautiful thing.

[waynesan]

And Ramsey hath spoken again:

http://timesnews.net/article/9065768/chamber-goes-silent-on-guns-in-parking-lots-law

 

“You can let somebody go at any time for no reason,” Ramsey said. “But if you actually let them go for a reason and tell them that, that it is for a legal or a constitutional right, you’re opening yourself up to a lawsuit. I still agree the bill we passed was good. I’m sure someone will come back next year, not me, but there will be a legislator to come back and create a right of employees to carry their gun in a car.” 

 

[JAB]

We don't need legislation to, "create a right of employees to carry their gun in a car."  What we need is legislation stating that my, personal vehicle is my, personal property and it is none of an employer's, or anyone else's, damn business what personal property I choose to keep in the confines of my personal property - no matter where said personal property (vehicle) happens to be parked at the time - unless that person is a cop who has a search warrant.  It doesn't need to be about guns, specifically.  Instead, it needs to be about an employee's private property remaining private and clearly stating that no employer has the right to search an employee's private property nor to make consent to such a search a condition of employment.

[DaveTN]

We don’t need any more laws or to copy any other state. What we need is for the state of Tennessee to recognize the right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

Because until that happens the state has absolutely no right to force a business to allow someone that simply bought a privilege from the state to carry a gun onto their property.
 

We don't need legislation to, "create a right of employees to carry their gun in a car."  What we need is legislation stating that my, personal vehicle is my, personal property and it is none of an employer's, or anyone else's, damn business what personal property I choose to keep in the confines of my personal property - no matter where said personal property (vehicle) happens to be parked at the time - unless that person is a cop who has a search warrant.  It doesn't need to be about guns, specifically.  Instead, it needs to be about an employee's private property remaining private and clearly stating that no employer has the right to search an employee's private property nor to make consent to such a search a condition of employment.

You have that right now. Give me an example of when you have to submit to a search from someone other than a cop.
 

“You can let somebody go at any time for no reason,” Ramsey said. “But if you actually let them go for a reason and tell them that, that it is for a legal or a constitutional right, you’re opening yourself up to a lawsuit. I still agree the bill we passed was good. I’m sure someone will come back next year, not me, but there will be a legislator to come back and create a right of employees to carry their gun in a car.”

Is the Lt. Governor of the state implying that having a loaded gun off your property is a right?

Edited August 5, 2013 by DaveTN

[Worriedman]

 

Is the Lt. Governor of the state implying that having a loaded gun off your property is a right?

 

He would not, if he actually understood that is what he had just intimated...

Edited August 6, 2013 by Worriedman

[Oh Shoot]

Is the Lt. Governor of the state implying that having a loaded gun off your property is a right?

 

TCA doesn't even start with the premise that having one on your own property is a right, but rather, a defense.

 

- OS

[Hozzie]

Not to start this again, but I will take the bait and I know I am in the minority on TGO on this.  I am tired of the "my vehicle is private property" bs argument for this issue.  Yes, it is private property, but it doesn't matter in this case.  If I expect anyone to respect my private property while on it or in it, I need to respect theirs when I am on or in their property.  End of story.  It may be your right to own and bear arms, but it isn't your right on or in my private property.  In fact, it is the companies private property that you are on.  Saying it is just concrete rectangles, etc, is a bunch of BS.  That sounds like a Reverend Al and JJ argument.  If you don't like their policies to the extent you feel you are unable to work there, find a new job.  It's really that simple.  If it is Government property then for me that is a different discussion and I will leave that out of this.

 

I wholeheartedly agree that your home is off limits.  That's a very different matter, but if they don't want you to have cigarettes on their property, so be it, even if it is in your car or on your person.  Their policy may be dumb, but you don't have to work there.  I agree they shouldn't be able to search vehicles without probable cause and it should only be by a LE Officer.  We should be working to clear that up, but this whole, my car is my private property and everyone must respect that,  but I don't have to respect theirs is nothing but hypocrisy.  If you come to my house and start saying anything you like, that may be your first amendment right, but I can tell you to leave or not come on my property if you are going to do that.  I can even do that if I hire you to do an odd job as a stipulation of employment.  Don't like it, go somewhere else.  If you don't leave, I can have the police to force you to leave.  No difference in that and this in my book.  Unless you want to change TN from an At Will employment State, it doesn't matter, get over it.  But no, many would like to whine and cry about how it is unfair.  Many are starting to sounds like the occupy movement.  It's our right to the 1%'s money....blah, blah, blah.  The only people who will ever have an issue with this are the ones that can't keep their mouth shut.  I suspect there are thousands of people who carried to work before this and amazingly we don't hear of hardly a single instance of an issue. (I didn't research it in detail, but is has not been a major issue up to this point as far as I know).  

 

My point, keep your mouth shut and move on.  If you really have an issue with it, find a job where you don't.  Not all companies care.  

Edited August 6, 2013 by Hozzie

[JAB]

Not to start this again, but I will take the bait and I know I am in the minority on TGO on this.  I am tired of the "my vehicle is private property" bs argument for this issue.  Yes, it is private property, but it doesn't matter in this case.  If I expect anyone to respect my private property while on it or in it, I need to respect theirs when I am on or in their property.  End of story.  It may be your right to own and bear arms, but it isn't your right on or in my private property.  In fact, it is the companies private property that you are on.  Saying it is just concrete rectangles, etc, is a bunch of BS.  That sounds like a Reverend Al and JJ argument.  If you don't like their policies to the extent you feel you are unable to work there, find a new job.  It's really that simple.  If it is Government property then for me that is a different discussion and I will leave that out of this.

 

I wholeheartedly agree that your home is off limits.  That's a very different matter, but if they don't want you to have cigarettes on their property, so be it, even if it is in your car or on your person.  Their policy may be dumb, but you don't have to work there.  I agree they shouldn't be able to search vehicles without probable cause and it should only be by a LE Officer.  We should be working to clear that up, but this whole, my car is my private property and everyone must respect that,  but I don't have to respect theirs is nothing but hypocrisy.  If you come to my house and start saying anything you like, that may be your first amendment right, but I can tell you to leave or not come on my property if you are going to do that.  I can even do that if I hire you to do an odd job as a stipulation of employment.  Don't like it, go somewhere else.  If you don't leave, I can have the police to force you to leave.  No difference in that and this in my book.  Unless you want to change TN from an At Will employment State, it doesn't matter, get over it.  But no, many would like to whine and cry about how it is unfair.  Many are starting to sounds like the occupy movement.  It's our right to the 1%'s money....blah, blah, blah.  The only people who will ever have an issue with this are the ones that can't keep their mouth shut.  I suspect there are thousands of people who carried to work before this and amazingly we don't hear of hardly a single instance of an issue. (I didn't research it in detail, but is has not been a major issue up to this point as far as I know).  

 

My point, keep your mouth shut and move on.  If you really have an issue with it, find a job where you don't.  Not all companies care.  

 

An employer or business owner has the right to tell me that I can or cannot park my car on their property.  Beyond that, it is none of the employers/owner's business what legally held items are contained within the confines of my private property.  Just because you think that my private property rights are 'BS' simply because my car happens to be occupying space in someone else's parking lot doesn't make it so.

[RobertNashville]

Not to start this again, but I will take the bait and I know I am in the minority on TGO on this.  I am tired of the "my vehicle is private property" bs argument for this issue.  Yes, it is private property, but it doesn't matter in this case.  If I expect anyone to respect my private property while on it or in it, I need to respect theirs when I am on or in their property.  End of story.  It may be your right to own and bear arms, but it isn't your right on or in my private property.  In fact, it is the companies private property that you are on.  Saying it is just concrete rectangles, etc, is a bunch of BS.  That sounds like a Reverend Al and JJ argument.  If you don't like their policies to the extent you feel you are unable to work there, find a new job.  It's really that simple.  If it is Government property then for me that is a different discussion and I will leave that out of this.

 

Regardless of what one thinks about the "guns in parking lots" issue, private property used for private purposes (your home, etc.) is simply different, both in the law and in fact, than business property used for business purposes; most especially so with regards to business property where employees and/or the public are invited to be.

 

Equating business property as private property or refusing to make the obvious distinction is a BS argument I"m getting tired of and ignores a very long history of such business property being treated differently than actual private property.

 

Further, my vehicle IS my private property and, unless what I have inside of it is illegal it is no one's damn business what I have inside of it whether that's a firearm, fishing tackle, cigars, yesterday's McDonald's wrappers, a copy of the Bhagavad Gita or a King James version of the Bible.

Edited August 7, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Paladin132]

http://www.9news.com/news/article/348974/339/Apartment-tenants-told-they-must-get-rid-of-guns

 

This is why I am concerned about allowing public businesses to refuse weapons on their property. Some day it seems to me we will all be unable to have a weapon anywhere. They will ban CC by default. Mostly it is due to uneducated folks making decisions not on safety and security but perception. The 2A guarantees a right to bear arms. What part of the constitution spells out the right to ban what is on your property when it is open to the public? 

 

No folks. 2A issues must be brought to the same level of protections and recognized as a civil right. If we do not continue to combat things like this in the court of law and the court of public opinion we will all eventually wind up keeping a baseball bat behind our door to protect us from the armed criminals who would take our things and harm our families. 

[JAB]

 

You have that right now. Give me an example of when you have to submit to a search from someone other than a cop.
 

 

 

I think you missed the part where I also said:

 

...and clearly stating that no employer has the right to search an employee's private property nor to make consent to such a search a condition of employment.

 

That second part is just as important as the first.

Edited August 7, 2013 by JAB

[DaveTN]

I think you missed the part where I also said:

 

 

That second part is just as important as the first.

I’m sure gun issues are minuscule or non-existent when compared to vehicle searches for employee theft. Most secure facilities keep the right to search your car as a condition of employment because of theft. I wouldn’t expect them to be forced to give up that protection because of a gun issue that probably will never happen.

[RobertNashville]

I’m sure gun issues are minuscule or non-existent when compared to vehicle searches for employee theft. Most secure facilities keep the right to search your car as a condition of employment because of theft. I wouldn’t expect them to be forced to give up that protection because of a gun issue that probably will never happen.

 

Give up what?

 

As far as I can see, the only thing an employer would be giving up would be the right to compel a search for whatever made-up reason they want because (while I"m not sure of the specific mechanism/procedure that would need to be followed) I'm sure that if an employer believes an employee is steeling from them or engaged in any other illegal activity and they have some evidence of same that filing the appropriate complaint with the local LE would then kick-off an investigation of the alleged crime which would include, compelling a search of whatever they (LE)  needs to search (employee's locker, vehicle, briefcase, home, etc.).

 

Other than suspicion of illegal activities I see no legitimate business reason for an employer to need to conduct a search of an employee's vehicle...if it is to be searched, it should only be done by LE with probable cause or a warrant.

Edited August 7, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Guest 270win]

The state should just totally decriminalize carry in schools, parks, and past these other no gun signs.  If a property owner wants to ask someone to leave, so be it.  Don't get the state into making it a crime for someone with a permit to carry against the wishes of a property owner.

 

It works just fine in other states and it will work just fine in Tennessee. 

 

We need to solidly get behind this effort with our elected representatives and senators and we will have some of the better gun laws in the country.

 

Some will say we need to concentrate on permitless carry.  I agree that is a good objective, but let's first decriminalize places for those with permits.  I mean I would rather be able to carry my gun anywhere, such as schools, with a fifty dollar every four years permit, than to have to stuff my gun in the car at a lot of places without a permit. 

 

People point to Arizona, and yes it is true you don't need a license to carry, but you are better off WITH the license in Arizona than without.  For example, you can carry in restaurants that serve liquor in Arizona IF you have a license.

 

Same thing with other states.  You may be able to openly carry without a license, but no way in some of those states can you carry inside a school or college building without a license.  I'd take paying the money for the license and being able to carry inside buildings at Univ of Memphis or local K-12 schools if we can get the law changed.

 

I think it is easier politically to cut restrictions on permits.

Edited August 7, 2013 by 270win

[vontar]

Before they did this, I wanted them to make it like the Parking Lot Law in KY. 

[DaveTN]

Give up what?

 

As far as I can see, the only thing an employer would be giving up would be the right to compel a search for whatever made-up reason they want because (while I"m not sure of the specific mechanism/procedure that would need to be followed) I'm sure that if an employer believes an employee is steeling from them or engaged in any other illegal activity and they have some evidence of same that filing the appropriate complaint with the local LE would then kick-off an investigation of the alleged crime which would include, compelling a search of whatever they (LE)  needs to search (employee's locker, vehicle, briefcase, home, etc.).

 

Other than suspicion of illegal activities I see no legitimate business reason for an employer to need to conduct a search of an employee's vehicle...if it is to be searched, it should only be done by LE with probable cause or a warrant.

I’ve been dispatched to many employee theft situations that involved the stolen property being in the suspect’s vehicle. Usually a witness saw them put it there or whatever. In larger companies they usually don’t want to deal with having the person arrested; they want to search the vehicle, get their property back, fire the employee and have them leave the property without incident. If they had a sign on their gate that notified anyone that entering the facility their vehicle was subject to search; I could stand by, let them do whatever they were going to do, escort the person out and leave. If the employer wanted them arrested; I would have got a search warrant to search the vehicle and then arrested the person if the property was found. I never had to do that; everyone that I can remember either tuned the stuff over or plant security searched the vehicle and took it.

 

Based solely on my experience being sent on these types of calls; that’s why those signs are there, not so they can rummage through your car.

[RobertNashville]

I’ve been dispatched to many employee theft situations that involved the stolen property being in the suspect’s vehicle. Usually a witness saw them put it there or whatever. In larger companies they usually don’t want to deal with having the person arrested; they want to search the vehicle, get their property back, fire the employee and have them leave the property without incident. If they had a sign on their gate that notified anyone that entering the facility their vehicle was subject to search; I could stand by, let them do whatever they were going to do, escort the person out and leave. If the employer wanted them arrested; I would have got a search warrant to search the vehicle and then arrested the person if the property was found. I never had to do that; everyone that I can remember either tuned the stuff over or plant security searched the vehicle and took it.

 

Based solely on my experience being sent on these types of calls; that’s why those signs are there, not so they can rummage through your car.

 

I'm sure that plays a large part in why the signs are there but I know very well that for some employers, their desire to search vehicles has nothing to do with employee theft. I'm also sure that most employers only want their property back and then fire the employee but perhaps there were be less employee theft to worry about if the thieving employees had more to lose than just their job?

 

My main point is that short of criminal activity, there is no logical business reason for an employer to search a vehicle and they have a way to make that happen if they chose to use it, without requiring every employee to pre-consent to a search as a condition of employment.

 

If companies could articulate a reasonable business reason for "searching" policies I would have a softer view but at it is, they can fire a person for any reason they chose or for no reason at all; that's a lot of power in their hands. As such, I don't think changing TN employment law so that employers can't compel or ask to search an employee's vehicle is all that much of a concession and would go a long way to cleaning up the problems with the current "guns in trunks" law while still leaving employers with a viable to address employee theft/criminal activity.

 

[Oh Shoot]

Before they did this, I wanted them to make it like the Parking Lot Law in KY. 

 

Yeah, wording is a bit stronger, but still not sure it prevents getting fired for doing it:

 

"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".

 

Of course, even if it is interpreted so that it does prevent termination for it, KY is an Employment At Will state just like us, so sans contractual agreement, can still be fired without a reason even stated.

 

- OS

[DaveTN]

I'm sure that plays a large part in why the signs are there but I know very well that for some employers, their desire to search vehicles has nothing to do with employee theft.

What does it have to do with?
 

My main point is that short of criminal activity, there is no logical business reason for an employer to search a vehicle and they have a way to make that happen if they chose to use it, without requiring every employee to pre-consent to a search as a condition of employment.

You never have to consent to an employer search. What are they going to do, force it open, pull you out?
 

If companies could articulate a reasonable business reason for "searching" policies I would have a softer view but at it is, they can fire a person for any reason they chose or for no reason at all; that's a lot of power in their hands. As such, I don't think changing TN employment law so that employers can't compel or ask to search an employee's vehicle is all that much of a concession and would go a long way to cleaning up the problems with the current "guns in trunks" law while still leaving employers with a viable to address employee theft/criminal activity.

How are they going to address the issue of employee theft without asking you to search your vehicle? They can ask and you can say no. What's the problem?
 

If companies could articulate a reasonable business reason for "searching" policies I would have a softer view but at it is, they can fire a person for any reason they chose or for no reason at all; that's a lot of power in their hands. As such, I don't think changing TN employment law so that employers can't compel or ask to search an employee's vehicle is all that much of a concession and would go a long way to cleaning up the problems with the current "guns in trunks" law while still leaving employers with a viable to address employee theft/criminal activity.

What problem is there with “Guns in trunks”? If there is a gun in a trunk how often has it become a problem?
You work in Tennessee; they don’t need a reason to get rid of you.

[RobertNashville]

What does it have to do with?
 
You never have to consent to an employer search. What are they going to do, force it open, pull you out?
 
How are they going to address the issue of employee theft without asking you to search your vehicle? They can ask and you can say no. What's the problem?
 
What problem is there with “Guns in trunks”? If there is a gun in a trunk how often has it become a problem?
You work in Tennessee; they don’t need a reason to get rid of you.

I'm not sure if what I posted was so obscure/poorly worded that you really don't understand what I was trying to get across or not.  :confused: 

 

Anyway, I don't know how to make my point any clearer so I guess we'll have to just leave things as they are.

[Paladin132]

I also have a problem with the language specifying where I can keep the weapon. Because if I wear that weapon I may break the law getting out of my car to put it in the trunk - not to mention people may notice what I am doing. I leave my weapon in a safe in the vehicle. No one is the wiser. Why specify that nonsense?

[Oh Shoot]

I also have a problem with the language specifying where I can keep the weapon. Because if I wear that weapon I may break the law getting out of my car to put it in the trunk - not to mention people may notice what I am doing. I leave my weapon in a safe in the vehicle. No one is the wiser. Why specify that nonsense?

 

Biggest dumb ass thing is that it has to be YOUR OWN car, not a rental or even a leased vehicle. Car pooling passengers would be in violation, too I guess.

 

- OS

[Guest 270win]

Yes this change was worded poorly.