What's the deal with TN Firearms Association?

[Worriedman]

Spoken like a true lobbyist.  The summation of your post is as follows.  

"Only I can make the difference and your voice is worthless.  Give me your money so I can fight for you."  

That post alone is enough to make me skip over the TFA.  You cannot have my money.  It will go elsewhere. 

Your skills in surmising the intent of my post are pretty poor.  I would much rather have your help than your money.  I do wish you would point out a single time on these pages that I have asked for money for any reason.  (no matter how much we might raise, it will never equal what the Chamber, Fed Ex, Volkswagen and Bloomberg have).

I do not come to these pages to shill for membership in any organization, I try to inspire action.  If mine do not merit that, I will never beg for mere money.  It is pretty obvious you have never been around a real lobbyist, they have golden tongues, silk suits and bags of gold, I have none of these.  But the days and miles open a number of doors that in some way I hope further the cause.

Edited February 4, 2015 by Worriedman

[Capbyrd]

Look, what I am seeing here is failure to comprehend what was written so let's take this from another angle:   SHOW ME WHERE HE INSULTED YOU.

 

I've read it several times and nowhere in there does he make a statement that seems like it was designed to insult or offend you.  I see a point where he makes the statement "If you do not have at least five meetings scheduled with legislators at LP tomorrow, you are talking, not doing." but in this case the word YOU seems to be used in the first-person.  That is the only area what I see what what he said might be misconstrued, and even that shouldn't trip up anyone who has ever written a first-person narrative before.

 

So back to my last challenge, show me where he insulted you in his post.  I maintain that you completely misunderstood the point of his post the same way you went straight to a literal interpretation of my statement about being slapped with a glove.

 

While you're doing that, I can show you where what YOU (not used in the first-person, mind you) absolutely intended to offend him with your response.  Hell, it offended me for him.

 

As I stated in my previous post, MY INFERENCE.  I'm sorry it got you so upset.  But I clearly said that my post was because of what I inferred from his.  If I took it wrong, then that's on me.  

 

 

 

 

Your skills in surmising the intent of my post are pretty poor.  I would much rather have your help than your money.  I do wish you would point out a single time on these pages that I have asked for money for any reason.  (no matter how much we might raise, it will never equal what the Chamber, Fed Ex, Volkswagen and Bloomberg have).

I do not come to these pages to shill for membership in any organization, I try to inspire action.  If mine do not merit that, I will never beg for mere money.  It is pretty obvious you have never been around a real lobbyist, they have golden tongues, silk suits and bags of gold, I have none of these.  But the days and miles open a number of doors that in some way I hope further the cause.

 

I like to think that I haven't been around real lobbyists.  I have been around people passionate about the issues that they are lobbying for though.  And I respect those people.  I suppose I owe you an apology for misreading your post.  So I apologize.  But some of us are passionate about our beliefs as well.  And I've not seen much from the TFA that would lead me to believe that they are any different than the NRA.  So I come in to this thread with misconceptions about your group.  My sincere apologies.  

[wileecoyote]

I like to think that I haven't been around real lobbyists. I have been around people passionate about the issues that they are lobbying for though. And I respect those people. I suppose I owe you an apology for misreading your post. So I apologize. But some of us are passionate about our beliefs as well. And I've not seen much from the TFA that would lead me to believe that they are any different than the NRA. So I come in to this thread with misconceptions about your group. My sincere apologies.

I take great exception with anyone that is pro-gun yet doesn't join or contribute to the NRA and TFA (or their local state equivalent). Every serious pro-gun group is going to need to raise lots of money to advertise, lobby, educate, train, donate, and otherwise actively support the many great events, candidates, and law changes (or lack thereof) to further our cause, so I don't mind any of them asking for money often. And any big organization is going to have some admin overhead and inherent inefficiencies, and occasionally a public stance that is unpopular with certain individuals, that's just unavoidable when you scale up. So they might not be perfect, and yes they focus on raising money to grow and further the cause, but they do a HELL of a lot more good than any of us could ever do alone, and there's no other more effective or efficient groups which accomplish the same for less, so I have always supported them and I always will. Now if you still want to throw rocks at them then show me what YOU have done or contributed to that is more effective or efficient, and so far reaching as what they do, and perhaps I'll send you some money too.

[JayC]

Well, count me as guilty then...  I'm a lifetime member to the NRA but won't give them a dime, I instead donate to GOA and SAF whenever they call...  

 

I'm no longer involved in the TFA and won't support them because while they do a great job they don't respect my property rights and my rights as an employer....  I was with them 110% until they started to push the current parking lot bill trying to remove the ability of employers to regulate their place of business as they see fit.

 

Want to remove 39-17-1359 altogether, or amend it to have no effect on parking lots, I'm 100% onboard...  trying to turn HCP holders into a 'special' protected class of employee, I just can't get onboard with that...  I remember listening to John Harris rail against laws that provided special access to judges, police officers, DA's, etc a few years ago at lunch...  I really believed he and the TFA were a good organization to volunteer with and help out... just don't see it that way anymore.

 

Maybe they'll see the light and start focusing on pro-2nd amendment legislation that doesn't attempt to violate other constitutional rights.

 

I take great exception with anyone that is pro-gun yet doesn't join or contribute to the NRA and TFA (or their local state equivalent). Every serious pro-gun group is going to need to raise lots of money to advertise, lobby, educate, train, donate, and otherwise actively support the many great events, candidates, and law changes (or lack thereof) to further our cause, so I don't mind any of them asking for money often. And any big organization is going to have some admin overhead and inherent inefficiencies, and occasionally a public stance that is unpopular with certain individuals, that's just unavoidable when you scale up. So they might not be perfect, and yes they focus on raising money to grow and further the cause, but they do a HELL of a lot more good than any of us could ever do alone, and there's no other more effective or efficient groups which accomplish the same for less, so I have always supported them and I always will. Now if you still want to throw rocks at them then show me what YOU have done or contributed to that is more effective or efficient, and so far reaching as what they do, and perhaps I'll send you some money too.

[Omega]

Well, count me as guilty then...  I'm a lifetime member to the NRA but won't give them a dime, I instead donate to GOA and SAF whenever they call...  

 

I'm no longer involved in the TFA and won't support them because while they do a great job they don't respect my property rights and my rights as an employer....  I was with them 110% until they started to push the current parking lot bill trying to remove the ability of employers to regulate their place of business as they see fit.

 

Want to remove 39-17-1359 altogether, or amend it to have no effect on parking lots, I'm 100% onboard...  trying to turn HCP holders into a 'special' protected class of employee, I just can't get onboard with that...  I remember listening to John Harris rail against laws that provided special access to judges, police officers, DA's, etc a few years ago at lunch...  I really believed he and the TFA were a good organization to volunteer with and help out... just don't see it that way anymore.

 

Maybe they'll see the light and start focusing on pro-2nd amendment legislation that doesn't attempt to violate other constitutional rights.

I have to respectfully disagree with you on the parking lot issue.  Businesses have a right to keep their business gun free if they so choose, but the parking lot?  I don't buy it!  By making your workers not able to store their weapons in their vehicle you are effectively disarming them for the majority of their lives.  Many workers spend more time at or in route to/from work than at home, and many run errands before or after work.  If you or your business really cared for the safety and welfare of your workers you would support this bill.  If they were to be talking about private residences then I could see the issue since nobody HAS to visit.  And what about the customers?  Are they also subject to arrest if a gun is locked away in their car?  Is the parking lot posted?

[Worriedman]

  If you or your business really cared for the safety and welfare of your workers you would support this bill.  If they were to be talking about private residences then I could see the issue since nobody HAS to visit.  And what about the customers?  Are they also subject to arrest if a gun is locked away in their car?  Is the parking lot posted?

Actually, it is not a criminal matter anymore, no one who can legally posses a firearm, and legally pilot a vehicle is subject to criminal charges for having a loaded weapon in their vehicle, if it (vehicle) is where the operator has a right to be.

Loosing your job for violating a written Company policy or being kicked out of college is still OK.

Edited February 4, 2015 by Worriedman

[peejman]

I have to respectfully disagree with you on the parking lot issue.  Businesses have a right to keep their business gun free if they so choose, but the parking lot?  I don't buy it!  By making your workers not able to store their weapons in their vehicle you are effectively disarming them for the majority of their lives.  Many workers spend more time at or in route to/from work than at home, and many run errands before or after work.  If you or your business really cared for the safety and welfare of your workers you would support this bill.  If they were to be talking about private residences then I could see the issue since nobody HAS to visit.  And what about the customers?  Are they also subject to arrest if a gun is locked away in their car?  Is the parking lot posted?

 

 

Change the law such that the employer is not responsible for what happens in their parking lot, and I bet you'll see a lot of business owners change their mind. 

[Worriedman]

.

 

 

Edited February 4, 2015 by Worriedman

[Oh Shoot]

Actually, it is not a criminal matter anymore, no one who can legally posses a firearm, and legally pilot a vehicle is subject to criminal charges for having a loaded weapon in their vehicle, if it (vehicle) is where the operator has a right to be.

 

The "car carry" exception is only for 39-17-1307, though. It still takes a carry permit for same on school property or posted lots.

 

- OS

Edited February 4, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[300winmag]

I think the time spent on a parking lot bill that kept employees from being fired for guns in cars could have been used to repeal the whole 'no gun' signs law or remove the criminal weapons charge of that law.  It's a stupid law that could have been modified with the right approach and very little media attention.  You'll do that way before you take away a company's ability to fire people.

 

 I also think that the time spent on the whole open carry bill last year could have been used to fix the dumb off limits places for people with permits.  Fix the off limits places for the handgun carry permits, then go for constitutional or open carry.  What good is having a handgun carry permit when you can't carry legally here or there because of a stupid sign?  I've traveled to a lot of places and I have seen more legally binding signs in Tennessee than any other place I have been.  Most other places either don't have any sort of weapons charge for a sign or you just never see them in the few places that do the same thing as TN.

 

I'd gladly take legal concealed carry anywhere I go VS being able to open carry but truly not being able carry everywhere.

Edited February 4, 2015 by 300winmag

[Worriedman]

The "car carry" exception is only for 39-17-1307, though. It still takes a carry permit for same on school property or posted lots.

 

- OS

You are correct as usual sir.  I have just had a permit for so long that I forget that not everyone does.

[ProfEngr]

My dilemma is the balancing act between the business owner's property rights vs my rights of self defense. I cannot in good conscience argue my right to carry while denying the owner his right to control what happens on his property. That being said, if I'm banned from carrying anywhere on said property then how am I allowed to exercise my rights anywhere else? The owner cannot be expected to provide protection except while I'm on the premises. Like a previous post brought up it's usually not an issue of worrying about point A (home) or point Z (work). It's the possibilities, whether planned or not, between those 2 points that cause the real debate, IMO. And it's also a well-documented fact that laws, barriers, and signs only keep honest people honest. A criminal (for example) will just add a relatively minor offense to their rapsheet by ignoring them. I'd wager that a lot of businesses have posted their property just to make the issue less of a legal minefield. Heck, Regions in TN is posted just about everywhere I've seen; in GA I haven't seen a posted building yet. Of course in GA the signs don't really have teeth anyway.

 

The best (though not easiest) solution is to try to sway the opinions of these business owners in our favor. I hate compromises, but at least don't make the lots off limits.

 

:2cents:

[300winmag]

Yeah that is why I think property owners should be able to ask people to leave, but on the flip side someone carrying at a place with a no gun sign should not have to worry about a weapons charge.  I think that protects property rights and also protects the gun rights of the person carrying.  If the person carrying is smart, the person would conceal the handgun well in such a location and the property owner would not know about it, if signs did not have any criminal penalties.

[Worriedman]

Safe commute was never about "carrying" on the owner's property, simply an act of "keeping" inside one's "castle" as determined already by the State via 39-11-611, out of sight, unhandled, yet available for use if necessary for the trip home to wherever (or wherever to work), as the SCOT determined in Andrews v. State:
 

"The right to keep arms, necessarily involves the right to purchase them, to keep them in a state of efficiency for use, and to purchase and provide ammunition suitable for such arms, and to keep them in repair. And clearly for this purpose, a man would have the right to carry them to and from his home, and no one could claim that the Legislature had the right to punish him for it, without violating this clause of the Constitution. (Article 1 § 26)"

Now before Dave jumps in to tell me we have LOST the Right to wear/bear arms in Tennessee under the 1871 "intent to go armed" clause, I do not disagree, but, this is not about wearing/bearing arms, it is about "keeping' them in our own castle as defined by Statutory law in Tennessee, and I have seen nothing that says I may not keep them.

 

The issue has been beat to death, and is moot, as the current TCA allows business owners to deny the Citizens ability to keep a firearm in their private vehicle, using the ability of a worker, ( and spare me JayC about quitting a job if you don't like your current employer's rules, with nearly 20% real unemployment, one must hit their knees if they have a job in today's economic environment) to feed their families as the cudgel to enforce their will.

[wileecoyote]

^^^This.

I don't mind a property owner deciding what is acceptable on their property, but they can't declare the inside of my vehicle as their property. If they don't want guns in parked vehicles on their property, then they shouldn't operate a parking lot on their land. Their right to manage their property does not trump my 2A rights. And if by some absurd rationale they are allowed to ban guns from vehicles (forcing you to be completely unarmed when you go to or from the parking lot) then they should be liable for providing ample security and liable for any damages or injuries which may occur from the lack thereof.

[btq96r]

My dilemma is the balancing act between the business owner's property rights vs my rights of self defense.

 

Even if I don't fully agree with it on principle, I can see the argument of a business owner being allowed to regulate the activities on their property.  I would also think that if they do prohibit their employees from having guns in their cars, they should incur civil liability for anything that happens to someone who would otherwise choose to carry, but was prohibited from doing it to and from work.

[JayC]

My property should be my rules...  I believe property owners have a natural right to set the conditions by which you access their property...  Doesn't mean I post my businesses, or even prohibit my employees from having firearms... but I should have the ability to.

 

Nobody has to visit a business, you can always go somewhere else if you don't like the rules...

 

I'm all for getting rid of 39-17-1359 completely...  I don't think people should be at special risk just because they're carrying a firearm and are asked to leave a business/parking lot/etc.

 

The only places I must go in my life that are posted, are government buildings (including schools) and on a rare occasion a hospital (which are limited by state law so there is no real competition).  Otherwise I'm perfectly able to avoid all other gun free zones, I just don't give the anti-gunners my money and spend it elsewhere.

 

I have to respectfully disagree with you on the parking lot issue.  Businesses have a right to keep their business gun free if they so choose, but the parking lot?  I don't buy it!  By making your workers not able to store their weapons in their vehicle you are effectively disarming them for the majority of their lives.  Many workers spend more time at or in route to/from work than at home, and many run errands before or after work.  If you or your business really cared for the safety and welfare of your workers you would support this bill.  If they were to be talking about private residences then I could see the issue since nobody HAS to visit.  And what about the customers?  Are they also subject to arrest if a gun is locked away in their car?  Is the parking lot posted?

 

[JayC]

Please tell me you have a single example of a TBR college kicking somebody out of school, because it would seem that would be a violation of state law.

 

Actually, it is not a criminal matter anymore, no one who can legally posses a firearm, and legally pilot a vehicle is subject to criminal charges for having a loaded weapon in their vehicle, if it (vehicle) is where the operator has a right to be.

Loosing your job for violating a written Company policy or being kicked out of college is still OK.

 

[Omega]

My property should be my rules...  I believe property owners have a natural right to set the conditions by which you access their property...  Doesn't mean I post my businesses, or even prohibit my employees from having firearms... but I should have the ability to.

 

Nobody has to visit a business, you can always go somewhere else if you don't like the rules...

 

I'm all for getting rid of 39-17-1359 completely...  I don't think people should be at special risk just because they're carrying a firearm and are asked to leave a business/parking lot/etc.

 

The only places I must go in my life that are posted, are government buildings (including schools) and on a rare occasion a hospital (which are limited by state law so there is no real competition).  Otherwise I'm perfectly able to avoid all other gun free zones, I just don't give the anti-gunners my money and spend it elsewhere.

Think of it this way, if you lived in an apartment complex (business) that prohibited firearms in their building and parking lot, the rent is such that you can not afford to live anywhere else or incur a longer commute (gas, time), higher rent (less food) etc.  You now have the choice of providing for your family or provide for their safety.  That business has no right to do that legal or otherwise, why should other businesses be any different?

 

You can feebly argue that someone can just live or work elsewhere but for some there is no choice but the two I listed...ok maybe there are others like hiring body guards but lets not get too complicated.  A business should not be able to dictate what is in someone's personal vehicles, and they should be totally responsible for their customers and workers safety if they don't allow carrying within their building.  A customer may very well have an option to not patronize an establishment that is posted, but your workers may not have that choice.

[Worriedman]

Please tell me you have a single example of a TBR college kicking somebody out of school, because it would seem that would be a violation of state law.

No case, as evidently no one has wanted to breech the walls of the General Council's rules.

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

[JayC]

What you're describing is already legal in TN and happening on a regular basis...  and just so you know a judge ruled that it was legal for apartment owners to prohibit the possession of firearms as a condition on the lease.

 

You keep saying the key word... choice...  in all of these cases you have a CHOICE to do A or B, doesn't mean it must be an easy choice, or a fair choice, just as long as you have a choice in the matter...  

 

We're all adults here, and we alone are responsible for our choices in life...  you make a bad choice is still a choice...  and I shouldn't be punished for you not liking the bad choices you're left with.

 

Now the exception to this is dealing with the government...  There is no choice in dealing with them, there is only 1 zoning board, or electrical inspector for a given property...  there is only one country clerk you can file papers with, and one state of TN Secretary of State where you're forced to go do business with...  There you're sometimes left with NO choice but to be disarmed when dealing with them... and that is a real problem we should focus on fixing first.

 

As an employers I can dictate what you do in your car on my property already...  I can prohibit you from smoking on the property even if it's in your car, I can prohibit you from bring liquor onto the property in your car...  I can even make it a condition of employment that you only park a certain make of vehicle in my parking lot.  All of these are legal today (yes even the make of car one) but somehow I'm not supposed to have control over something like a firearm being on my property?

 

Now keep in mind I'm as pro-firearm as somebody can get, I have no desire to post or prohibit employees from having access to firearms... frankly if I  can't trust somebody with a firearm, why on earth would I want to trust them with money or customers?  But, it should be my choice....

 

Property rights are just as important as self defense rights, and I can't support any organization that will violate either one.

 

Think of it this way, if you lived in an apartment complex (business) that prohibited firearms in their building and parking lot, the rent is such that you can not afford to live anywhere else or incur a longer commute (gas, time), higher rent (less food) etc.  You now have the choice of providing for your family or provide for their safety.  That business has no right to do that legal or otherwise, why should other businesses be any different?

 

You can feebly argue that someone can just live or work elsewhere but for some there is no choice but the two I listed...ok maybe there are others like hiring body guards but lets not get too complicated.  A business should not be able to dictate what is in someone's personal vehicles, and they should be totally responsible for their customers and workers safety if they don't allow carrying within their building.  A customer may very well have an option to not patronize an establishment that is posted, but your workers may not have that choice.

 

[JayC]

I *think* state preemption likely makes the student side of this unenforceable, since TBR is a subdivision of the state and therefore prohibited from regulating possession of firearms...  not like we have any case law one way or another on the subject though.  TBR employees are probably fair game though :(

 

No case, as evidently no one has wanted to breech the walls of the General Council's rules.

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

 

[tnguy]

The property thing is a bit of a red herring anyway. It is about the relationship between the employer and employee. It doesn't matter if it's the company lot or the lot next door, if an employer demands to search your car for firearms and you say no, should they have the right to discontinue your employment.

 

That's what it comes down to in my eyes.

 

Now, between a property owner and individuals (such as customers), that's another issue. The most a property owner can do is ask someone to leave.

 

I have to agree that the penalty for walking past a gunbuster armed needs to be fixed.

Edited February 6, 2015 by tnguy