Attempts to "fix" Safe Commute

[Sky King]

Today the Senate took up two bills (SB 1700, and SB 1701) to "fix" the poorly written Safe Commute law that Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey and Speaker Beth Harwell rammed through last year. 

 

The bills sponsored by Sen Green only addressed two issues.  The issue of the privately owned vehicle and the issue of the term "ordinary observation".  Needless to say, these bills fall way short of really fixing the problems with the Safe Commute law.  Senator Mae Beavers offered an amendment to both bills that would have totally rewritten the bills and replaced the current law with one that really fixes the problems.   However, as expected, the amendments were both voted to "the table" which kills them.

 

My personal opinion is that too many members think, contrary to the opinion of the state Attorney General and others, that there is little wrong with the current law.  The current law is NOT a mandate to employers requiring them to allow permit holders to keep a firearm stored in their vehicle while parked on their employers lot. 

 

Lt.Governor Ron Ramsey thinks that even though it is not a mandate, that they must still allow the firearms in permit holders cars.  Well, contrary to his belief, many employers have NOT changed their policies including state colleges. 

 

There will be a time when I will travel to Nashville to work on getting this law changed but I need all of your all's help.  I need information.  While FedEx in Tennessee has amended their policy, (and the General Assembly will point to this and say, "the law worked"), many other employers did not.  So many other permit holders in Tennessee still have to commute to and from work unarmed. 

 

What I need is the names of the other employers in Tennessee that have NOT changed their policies.  I also need to know of any punitive actions taken against permit holders.  The members of The General Assembly need to know that the law as written is inadequate and needs to be replaced.  So please, any of you who know of employers who have not changed their policies or have taken action against employees, list them here.

 

Thanks in advance

[Oh Shoot]

So please, any of you who know of employers who have not changed their policies or have taken action against employees, list them here.

 

Thanks in advance

 

All state universities have not changed policy, employees still subject to dismissal and students to expulsion, as per TN Board of Regents. Link is from ETSU site, but TBR sets policy for all state unis:

 

http://www.etsu.edu/humanres/documents/FirearmsOnCampus.pdf

 

I'm pretty sure that the first lawsuit filed changes this. No way a court would let stand a policy from a state supported institution that punishes someone for following state law. I don't believe you see any other state offices forbidding firearms in vehicles anymore, eh?

 

- OS

Edited February 6, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Sky King]

All state universities have not changed policy, employees still subject to dismissal and students to expulsion, as per TN Board of Regents. Link is from ETSU site, but TBR sets policy for all state unis:

 

http://www.etsu.edu/humanres/documents/FirearmsOnCampus.pdf

 

I'm pretty sure that the first lawsuit filed changes this. No way a court would let stand a policy from a state supported institution that punishes someone for following state law. I don't believe you see any other state offices forbidding firearms in vehicles anymore, eh?

 

- OS

It may be questionable how the courts will deal with state institutions like the colleges, universities and other state offices.  I will be interested in hearing how that works out.  But the  real problem is how the PRIVATE business has handled this.  As I stated, FedEx did change their policy but because the law is NOT a mandate, they can change it back at their descretion.  Also there is the question about the other private employers.  I really would like to hear from people on this forum about that.

[jphillips63]

UTC aerospace policy is no firearms in premises sent from RAZR Maxx HD using Tapatalk Pro

[Sky King]

UTC aerospace policy is no firearms in premises sent from RAZR Maxx HD using Tapatalk Pro

Where are they located?

[Oh Shoot]

It may be questionable how the courts will deal with state institutions like the colleges, universities and other state offices.  I will be interested in hearing how that works out.  But the  real problem is how the PRIVATE business has handled this. 

 

The law applies equally to public institutions. What's the diff if a public or private institution punishes you for following it?

 

Besides, as you well know,  it's not unlawful for either of them them to do it. Good luck changing it, as far as I'm concerned, though at least half the folks here will disagree.

 

- OS

Edited February 6, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Sky King]

The law applies equally to public institutions. What's the diff if a public or private institution punishes you for following it?

 

Besides, as you well know,  it's not unlawful for either of them them to do it. Good luck changing it, as far as I'm concerned, though at least half the folks here will disagree.

 

- OS

You are correct in that the law applies to both private and public institutions.  But that only protects you from the criminal aspect of keeping the weapon in a vehicle on a posted property. (they can still charge you with trespass)  It does not require the institution to change their policy.  I know there are many who disagree with this and it has been debated many, many times here and I am not interested in re-starting that debate. 

 

I do want to see it changed, and I know it will be an uphill battle.  But I will still fight that fight.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Sky King

[E4 No More]

My large employer monitors the web for their name, so I'll PM you their name. They have changed nothing.

[jphillips63]

[quote name="Sky King" post="1106773" timestamp="1391657556"]Where are they located?[/quote] Tullahoma sent from RAZR Maxx HD using Tapatalk Pro

[RobertNashville]

...My personal opinion is that too many members think, contrary to the opinion of the state Attorney General and others, that there is little wrong with the current law.  The current law is NOT a mandate to employers requiring them to allow permit holders to keep a firearm stored in their vehicle while parked on their employers lot. 

 

Lt.Governor Ron Ramsey thinks that even though it is not a mandate, that they must still allow the firearms in permit holders cars.  Well, contrary to his belief, many employers have NOT changed their policies including state colleges.

I think you are giving these a-holes; especially Ron Ramsey, far too much credit.  I don't believe the problem is that what they think/believe about the current law...I think they just truly don't give a ####.

Haslam/Ramsey/Harwell set out to pass "firearms legislation" that did almost nothing so as not to piss off their big corporate campaign donors while still being able to claim that they did "something" so as to shut-up the TFA and as far as they are concerned, they are "safe" come election time.

 

Batesvilel Casket Co in Manchester - they put up a big "NO WEAPONS" sign on the front gate last summer (where there had been none before) but I believe their policy has always been the same (they just didn't have the sign). No action taken against anyone that I know of.

Edited February 6, 2014 by RobertNashville

[JayC]

You're going to loose a lot of support from business owners trying to tell them what they can and can't do with their employees....  The parking lots law is about as good as you can make it with the exception of these 2 changes that are being proposed.

 

We need to make those 2 small fixes and move onto new legislation that protects every-bodies rights...  instead of trying to make a special class of HCP holders employees.  As it stands now, I can carry in my car when I go to vote at the local school, and can visit friends on college campuses without breaking the law...  It was a massive improvement in my book.

 

If you work for a private employer and you don't like the terms of employment find somewhere else to work.

[RobertNashville]

Well gosh...this may be some sort of a record!!!

 

This one went 10 whole posts before someone decided to chime in with the same old rhetoric

[DaveTN]

Problem 1: Tennessee does not recognize the 2nd amendment as an individual right.

Problem 2: They (The State) thinks that although they don’t recognize it as a right they can bully private business into recognizing it.

Until you fix problem number 1, #2 ain’t happening.

[E4 No More]

Problem 1: Tennessee does not recognize the 2nd amendment as an individual right.

Problem 2: They (The State) thinks that although they don’t recognize it as a right they can bully private business into recognizing it.

Until you fix problem number 1, #2 ain’t happening.

Not true: They could have simply passed a law prohibiting an employer from searching an employee's vehicle.

[RobertNashville]

Not true: They could have simply passed a law prohibiting an employer from searching an employee's vehicle.

You are wasting your time...the rhetoric is going to flow.

[Guest Bolt_Overide]

Embraer Aircraft maintenence in nashville.

 

No policy change so far. Unaware of any punitive actions taken thus far. When pressed about the policy, HR replies with they are only following what the Airport police say.

[DaveTN]

Not true: They could have simply passed a law prohibiting an employer from searching an employee's vehicle.

Why would they need a law; you can refuse a search of your vehicle? (Unless that is a requirement for entry to the property)

[Oh Shoot]

Why would they need a law; you can refuse a search of your vehicle? (Unless that is a requirement for entry to the property)

 

Because you couldn't be fired for refusing a search if they couldn't ask to do it in the first place is one way to look at it, I guess.

 

- OS

[No_0ne]

 

"There will be a time when I will travel to Nashville to work on getting this law changed ..."

 

Will you take the 310, or the old "Bamboo Bomber'?

[Sky King]

You're going to loose a lot of support from business owners trying to tell them what they can and can't do with their employees....  The parking lots law is about as good as you can make it with the exception of these 2 changes that are being proposed.

 

We need to make those 2 small fixes and move onto new legislation that protects every-bodies rights...  instead of trying to make a special class of HCP holders employees.  As it stands now, I can carry in my car when I go to vote at the local school, and can visit friends on college campuses without breaking the law...  It was a massive improvement in my book.

 

If you work for a private employer and you don't like the terms of employment find somewhere else to work.

 

Well I, like Robert, am surprised that it actually went 10 posts before somebody tried to turn this thread into a worn out debate.  This is a subject which has two very passionate sides and neither is going to convice the other, that is why I said that the purpose of this thread was NOT to restart that debate but to simply ask the members for information.  There are likely as many members of this forum who agree with this as do not.  For those who do, we want this law changed and I will work tirelessly, as I have for over 10 years to that end.  Again I will ask for information that I can use in communicating with members of The Tennessee General Assembly.

 

JayC, you are certainly entitled to your opinion and have expressed it often on this subject, as have I.  I respect your opinioin but I will never agree with it.  The age old and worn out rebuttal of telling a person to simply quit their job is so over the top it is laughable.  Why? Because NOBODY in their right mind is going to quit a job in this economy especially if they have been with a given employer as long as I have. 

 

I am sure you whole heartedly agreed with the FedEx representative who last year  said that they had the right to fire a person for having a Bible in their car if they choose to ban Bibles on their property. 

 

The issue at hand is property rights.  Their parking lot, MY car.  The Castle Doctrine passed several years ago in Tennessee extended the same property protections to your car as exists for you house.  The fact is that as long as what I possess is LEGAL for me to possess, as long as it REMAINS inside my car, it is NOBODYS business.  An employer constructs and operates a parking area for their employees with an implied invitation to park MY PRIVATE car on that lot.  That includes what ever is INSIDE that car.

 

That is the last I will say about this as far as debating it goes on this thread.  If you want to further debate this topic, I would invite you to start a new thread for that and I will gladly jump in on it.

[Sky King]

Why would they need a law; you can refuse a search of your vehicle? (Unless that is a requirement for entry to the property)

 

 

You CAN refuse the search of your private vehicle on their property, BUT IF, as it is at my employer, you will be terminated.  Not for what you may or may not have in your car because they will not know, (you refused to let them search it), but for violating your terms of employment.  Consent to search is part of the terms of employment at a lot places. 

[Sky King]

Will you take the 310, or the old "Bamboo Bomber'?

Well the Bamboo Bomber is what is pictured in my avitar but I personally always liked the 310.  Unfortunately, I own neither.  Unfortunately I do not fly.  I was well on my way to accomplishing my dreams of a flying career when a 1968 Oldsmobile Cutlass took a motorcycle out from under me the hard way when I was 18 and the aeromedical branch of the Federal Aviation Administration had some issues with some of my injuries.  That put an end to that career goal so I redirected my love for aviation and went on and got my Airframe and Powerplant mechanics license and have worked on airplanes for close to 40 years now.  So I just have to "fly" the Toyota Tacoma pick-up.