"Parking Lot" Bill Codified in LexisNexus

[Oh Shoot]

They've done their annual revision, so is now showing as 39-17-1313

 

http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/tncode/

----------------

 

39-17-1313.  Transporting and storing a firearm or firearm ammunition in permit holder's privately owned motor vehicle.

  (a) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1309, § 39-17-1311, or § 39-17-1359, unless expressly prohibited by federal law, the holder of a valid handgun carry permit recognized in Tennessee may transport and store a firearm or firearm ammunition in the permit holder's privately owned motor vehicle, as defined in § 55-1-103, while on or utilizing any public or private parking area if:

   (1) The permit holder's vehicle is parked in a location where it is permitted to be; and

   (2) The firearm or ammunition being transported or stored in the vehicle:

      (A) Is kept from ordinary observation if the permit holder is in the motor vehicle; or

      ( B ) Is kept from ordinary observation and locked within the trunk, glove box, or interior of the person's privately owned motor vehicle or a container securely affixed to such vehicle if the permit holder is not in the vehicle.

( b ) No business entity, public or private employer, or the owner, manager, or legal possessor of the property shall be held liable in any civil action for damages, injuries or death resulting from or arising out of another's actions involving a firearm or ammunition transported or stored by the holder of a valid handgun carry permit in the permit holder's privately owned motor vehicle unless the business entity, public or private employer, or the owner, manager, or legal possessor of the property commits an offense involving the use of the stored firearm or ammunition or intentionally solicits or procures the conduct resulting in the damage, injury or death. Nor shall a business entity, public or private employer, or the owner, manager, or legal possessor of the property be responsible for the theft of a firearm or ammunition stored by the holder of a valid handgun carry permit in the permit holder's privately owned motor vehicle.

( c ) For purposes of this section:

   (1) "Parking area" means any property provided by a business entity, public or private employer, or the owner, manager, or legal possessor of the property for the purpose of permitting its invitees, customers, clients or employees to park privately owned motor vehicles; and

   (2) "Parking area" does not include the grounds or property of an owner-occupied, single-family detached residence, or a tenant-occupied single-family detached residence.

------------

 

- OS

Edited October 17, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[Spurholder]

Thanks for posting this update.  Appreciate it.

[Guest MiniGunGal]

Well, if that doesn't take a lot of the air out of our rights to carry in parking lots?  Sounds pretty much like the law before - must be locked when not in the vehicle?  VERY convenient.  I carry a lock box and plan on upholstering, locking, and running into the store without being overtly observed.  Sheaaa.  

 

You gotta love our politicians.

 

Thanks OS - nothing like good news to boost a girl's morale!

 

MiniGunGal

[DaveTN]

Well, if that doesn't take a lot of the air out of our rights to carry in parking lots?  Sounds pretty much like the law before - must be locked when not in the vehicle?  VERY convenient.  I carry a lock box and plan on upholstering[/size], locking, and running into the store without being overtly observed.  Sheaaa.  
 
You gotta love our politicians.
 
Thanks OS - nothing like good news to boost a girl's morale!
 
MiniGunGal

Doesn’t have to be in a lock box, just locked in the vehicle out of sight. That is, if you decide to go into a store that is posted.
Of course I haven’t seen many store parking lots posted, so this changes nothing for most stores. Edited October 26, 2013 by DaveTN

[runco]

I thought there were provisions for large employers like VW, Nissan and others to opt out?  I remember discussing with HR manager back in the spring.

[DaveTN]

I thought there were provisions for large employers like VW, Nissan and others to opt out?  I remember discussing with HR manager back in the spring.

I may be wrong, but I don’t think they can “opt out”. They can still enforce company policy and take disciplinary action; it’s just not a criminal charge.

[tnhawk]

I may be wrong, but I don’t think they can “opt out”. They can still enforce company policy and take disciplinary action; it’s just not a criminal charge.

If the revision doesn't change this, it is useless.

[Oh Shoot]

Well, if that doesn't take a lot of the air out of our rights to carry in parking lots?  Sounds pretty much like the law before - must be locked when not in the vehicle?  VERY convenient.  I carry a lock box and plan on upholstering, locking, and running into the store without being overtly observed.  Sheaaa.  

 

You gotta love our politicians.

 

Thanks OS - nothing like good news to boost a girl's morale!

 

MiniGunGal

 

Echo Dave on this, read the wording, simply locked in vehicle suffices, or in outside tool box on pickups, whatever.

 

If the revision doesn't change this, it is useless.

 

How do you legislate no firing policy in an employment at will state? Unless you work under an employment contract, you can be terminated for any reason, or none.

 

If they make it "illegal" to fire you having a gun in your car, what penalty would they enact to enforce it? But more to the point, how do you prove that's what you were fired for if most private employers doesn't have to give a reason in the first place?

 

- OS

[RobertNashville]

...How do you legislate no firing policy in an employment at will state? Unless you work under an employment contract, you can be terminated for any reason, or none.

 

If they make it "illegal" to fire you having a gun in your car, what penalty would they enact to enforce it? But more to the point, how do you prove that's what you were fired for if most private employers doesn't have to give a reason in the first place?

 

- OS

I believe there are other employment at will states that have addressed this very issue but I don't have time to research them all at the moment.  I think, however, it could be handled very simply by making it a matter of law that no employer/private person, etc. can even request, much less compel on threat of termination, the search of a person's (employee, customer, etc.) vehicle. Certainly, if the employer thinks a crime has been committed they can still report it to law enforcement but there is no reason why an employer should need to search a private vehicle unless there is significant suspicion of a crime (steeling from the company, etc.). I think this would work to, or at least go a long way in strengthing the law because unless the employee voluntarily admits to having a firearm on company property or voluntarily allows a search of his vehicle, there is little chance an employer would know it was there.

 

Of course, an employer could still fire you if they want to...I don't see that ever changing or even think it should, but it would have to be a firing without cause (which is beneficial to the fired employee).

[knewcomb]

Nissan changed company policy to allow permit holders to have their firearms in their vehicles

[RobertNashville]

Nissan changed company policy to allow permit holders to have their firearms in their vehicles

Which is pretty odd considering its history.

 

When I first worked there (I retired from NNA in 2011) carrying firearms (to go hunting, shooting after work, etc.) was pretty normal. Then, about 2005 or so, they up and completely changed their policy banning all firearms, period...no reason or explanation given; just a complete 180. They also, I believe, was one of the big companies fighting against the perking lot bill yet now they have changed their policy pretty much as it was before.

 

I'm glad they changed their policy but I can't help but wonder why they changed it in the first place only to change yet again!. :)

[DaveTN]

If the revision doesn't change this, it is useless.

I would call it useless. However, it decriminalizes carrying past a sign in a posted parking lot.

The only way the government can (or should) be able to force any private business to allow you to carry on their property would be if it is a right of all citizens of the state. It isn’t; it’s a privilege the state bestows upon our special group in exchange for money. Forcing a business to recognize carrying as a right when the state doesn’t even do it would be a thug government. It doesn’t make sense to support that just because it’s something we want; at least to me it doesn’t.

[DaveTN]

Nissan changed company policy to allow permit holders to have their firearms in their vehicles

Then I would have to guess this change came about because of this legislation.

[billyscott]

Nissan changed company policy to allow permit holders to have their firearms in their vehicles

I'm surprised. I figured they would hard line that. When I was there they even added Bows and Arrows to their list of prohibited items in the parking lot. 

[RobertNashville]

I would call it useless. However, it decriminalizes carrying past a sign in a posted parking lot.

The only way the government can (or should) be able to force any private business to allow you to carry on their property would be if it is a right of all citizens of the state. It isn’t; it’s a privilege the state bestows upon our special group in exchange for money. Forcing a business to recognize carrying as a right when the state doesn’t even do it would be a thug government. It doesn’t make sense to support that just because it’s something we want; at least to me it doesn’t.

The recognized "right" or a "privilege" issue is immaterial with regards to this issue.

 

"Parking Lot" laws don't require nor do they need to require a business to recognize anything; they simply place a requirement on businesses (to allow firearms within their parking lots). These laws are no different than local/state laws that restrict what a piece of property can be used for (retail, manufacturing, etc), or that place a limit on the number of person who can be in a building at a given time or that limit size/type of signage on a storefront, etc.

[Guest 270win]

California doesn't even have a state 2nd amendment, but if you live in the right county and can get a handgun license, you can carry most anywhere, even schools.

Now that does not mean that a property owner, including schools, must allow handguns.  They can still ask you to leave, but you cannot be criminally charged for a weapons offense.  You can carry a handgun legally at ABC elementary school or Disneyland in LA, but if you are found out, you will probably be asked to leave.  You would not face a weapons charge, which is really the whole point of having a license.

 

That is a big difference between what we have going on in Tennessee where the state can tack on weapons charges for licensees carrying on private and public property.  Property owners should not be forced to allow a certain behavior, but at the same time there should not be a criminal offense for say someone not wearing a shirt or shoes in my business place. 

 

In states where you cannot be fired for having a gun in your vehicle, the employer can just come up with another reason or no reason to fire you if the employer does not like guns.  A law keeping employers from firing employees for guns in cars does not offer the protection that you think it offers.

[RobertNashville]

...In states where you cannot be fired for having a gun in your vehicle, the employer can just come up with another reason or no reason to fire you if the employer does not like guns.  A law keeping employers from firing employees for guns in cars does not offer the protection that you think it offers.

It doesn't really need to does it?

 

Unless an employee voluntarily "spills the beans" how would an employer ever know that he/she has a firearm locked in his/her vehicle (and thereby resulting in termination)?

 

I know...I know...they can demand to search your vehicle and if you refuse they can terminate you but that too could be taken care of with well crafted legislation...maybe I just don't have all the facts but the problems we seem to dwell on here on TGO with a "parking lot law" don't seem to exist in the 19 or so other states that already have these laws which leads me to believe that these problems can be addressed so they don't become problems. :shrug:

[QuietDan]

When all is said and done, I wonder how much behavior will actually change based on this law? I imagine a lot of folks were just plain ignoring the law when it was otherwise.

[Guest 270win]

If you wanted something parking lot wise that would protect people, I would figure out something to keep an employer from searching employees' cars.  That way if an employer had a policy against anything, from no alcohol and tobacco to no firearms, whatever is in your car is off limits for nosey employers to look through.

[Oh Shoot]

.....maybe I just don't have all the facts but the problems we seem to dwell on here on TGO with a "parking lot law" don't seem to exist in the 19 or so other states that already have these laws which leads me to believe that these problems can be addressed so they don't become problems. :shrug:

 

I'm pretty dubious there are 19 states that address the issue with laws? Mainly because there are only a few states where any kind of firearm posting has any weight of law (meaning a specific penalty for violation).

 

Texas is one that has actually two different penalties for violation of two different postings. What is their "parking lot" stance in the law?

 

- OS

Edited October 28, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[JayC]

You're never going to get a law through the legislature prevent companies from firing you if you violate a company policy.  The exact same Republicans you are using to vote for the pro-2nd amendment bills, and going to be pro-property rights and not want to interfere with business.

 

A much better tactic imho is to focus on removing government buildings and schools from 39-17-13xx, and if we're lucky, remove the criminal penalty for a 39-17-1359 violation.

 

If the revision doesn't change this, it is useless.

 

[Guest 270win]

I agree that the criminal penalties need to be removed in those locations.  I think there would be a very good chance cutting out the criminal penalties for local parks and 'no guns' signs.  There might be a chance with the schools.

 

 

I do not think the state can do much as far as prohibiting people from being fired when we are an at will employment state.  Maybe something to prevent employers from searching private vehicles.  It all goes back to businesses can ask people to not work for them at any time.

[DaveTN]

You're never going to get a law through the legislature prevent companies from firing you if you violate a company policy.

Exactly. I would also add that if an employer wants to fire you; your days are numbered. They won’t need to search your vehicle or catch you with a gun. They don’t need to go to those extremes.

[Oh Shoot]

Exactly. I would also add that if an employer wants to fire you; your days are numbered. They won’t need to search your vehicle or catch you with a gun. They don’t need to go to those extremes.

 

Some do. Some you must be fired for cause, and even a reduction in force goes by longevity policy. Union jobs, other contractual employment,  and state jobs for example, including state universities.

 

- OS

Edited October 29, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[Clod Stomper]

Some do. Some you must be fired for cause, and even a reduction in force goes by longevity policy. Union jobs, other contractual employment, and state jobs for example, including state universities.

- OS

Yep. And federal. It's hard to get canned from a fed job. Unless you're caught carrying an unauthorized weapon.

But doing drugs is another matter. Get caught with drugs in your system (I was subject to a random whiz quiz. Always passed, of course :) ) and you're offered rehab and counseling.