Firearms issue bills for this session.

[JohnC]

Well, our Gov did sign one bill today.  Todd and Green's parking lot bill.
 
http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/billinfo/default.aspx?BillNumber=HB0994

I've been super busy and not able to follow this. Can you summarize what we gained or lost here?

[phiferran]

Quick summary..

 

"The bill's sponsors, Sen. Mark Green of Clarksville and fellow Republican Rep. Curry Todd of Collierville, said the new measure clears up legal confusion over the original law and would place the burden on fired workers to prove that they were fired solely for storing their guns in company lots."

 

Link to a previous article...  

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/politics/state/story/2015/mar/23/tennessee-lawmakers-pass-right--sue-update-guns--parking-lots-law/294874/

[phiferran]

Anyone know if the park carry bill is being voted on today in the House or is that bill now dead? 

 

Supposed to be addressed later tonight. 

[GKar]

House takes it up on the floor as part of their message calendar.  As it currently stands, they will consider the version as amended by the Senate, likely stripping the Senate amendment by Yarbro that added carry on the Capitol grounds.  Two other amendments were filed today, and I presume they will be considered as well. One establishes a rebuttable presumption that anyone carrying ia park that discharges a firearm in the presence of or within the line of sight of children without just cause would be civilly liable for assault and an additional fine of $5000.  The other adds a defense to prosecution for carry in a park that is "used" by school if (i) no school activity is taking place, or (ii) if the HCP holder is reasonably unaware that such a school event is occurring and takes reasonable steps upon becoming aware.

 

I'm assuming the latter amendment is aimed at Casada's melon-headed remarks over the weekend indicating that if a school ever once used a park, that said park would always fall under the "used" provision and thus be permanently off-limits...which appears to run diametrically opposed to the AG opinion from 2009...

 

Link to amendment pack is here.

 

You can get to the video of the proceedings (starting at 5pm CDT, 6pm EDT) here

Edited April 6, 2015 by GKar

[phiferran]

House takes it up on the floor as part of their message calendar.  As it currently stands, they will consider the version as amended by the Senate, likely stripping the Senate amendment by Yarbro that added carry on the Capitol grounds.  Two other amendments were filed today, and I presume they will be considered as well. One establishes a rebuttable presumption that anyone carrying ia park that discharges a firearm in the presence of or within the line of sight of children without just cause would be civilly liable for assault and an additional fine of $5000.  The other adds a defense to prosecution for carry in a park that is "used" by school if (i) no school activity is taking place, or (ii) if the HCP holder is reasonably unaware that such a school event is occurring and takes reasonable steps upon becoming aware.

 

I'm assuming the latter amendment is aimed at Casada's melon-headed remarks over the weekend indicating that if a school ever once used a park, that said park would always fall under the "used" provision and thus be permanently off-limits...which appears to run diametrically opposed to the AG opinion from 2009...

 

Link to amendment pack is here.

 

You can get to the video of the proceedings (starting at 5pm CDT, 6pm EDT) here

 

I still get the feeling this bill is going to die today!!  But, I have thought that several times lately and it is not dead yet!! 

[GKar]

I've been super busy and not able to follow this. Can you summarize what we gained or lost here?

 

For the parking lot bill, not a whole lot.  While it does open the door to legal action by the employee, it places the entire burden of establishing that the ONLY reason they were terminated was because of otherwise legal possession in the employer's parking lot on the employee.  Only then does any burden shift to the employer.

 

Makes a nice talking point/sound bite come next election, though...

[GKar]

I still get the feeling this bill is going to die today!!  But, I have thought that several times lately and it is not dead yet!! 

 

Prolly won't actually die today.  If it dies (and personally I wouldn't be surprised if it does, but then I'm a cynical curmudgeon), it will be from either (1) Ramsey and Harwell playing who-can-screw-the-other-last and ending the session without ever coming to resolution on a version agreeable to both Chambers, or (2) because of ll this back-and-forth, it is passed very late in the session, the GA recesses for the summer, and King Billy finds out that he, too, has a pen, just like his buddy Obasm...

[Worriedman]

It is listed as first on the "Message Amendment" calender for this evening's House Session:

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/109/AmendmentPacks/2015-4-6_H_message.pdf

 

Sorry GKar, your post came in while I was hitting "send".

Edited April 6, 2015 by Worriedman

[Worriedman]

For the parking lot bill, not a whole lot.  While it does open the door to legal action by the employee, it places the entire burden of establishing that the ONLY reason they were terminated was because of otherwise legal possession in the employer's parking lot on the employee.  Only then does any burden shift to the employer.

 

Makes a nice talking point/sound bite come next election, though...

Can a firm still have a prescription in their Employee Handbook outlawing legal possession and making it a term for dismissal?

[Worriedman]

And by the way, Mike Stewart is the sponsor of Amendment #13 on HB0995 (establishes a rebuttable presumption that anyone carrying in a park that discharges a firearm in the presence of or within the line of sight of children without just cause would be civilly liable for assault and an additional fine of $5000.)

[Oh Shoot]

And by the way, Mike Stewart is the sponsor of Amendment #13 on HB0995 (establishes a rebuttable presumption that anyone carrying in a park that discharges a firearm in the presence of or within the line of sight of children without just cause would be civilly liable for assault and an additional fine of $5000.)

 

Geez, we'd all have to quit doing that then I guess.

 

- OS

Edited April 6, 2015 by Oh Shoot

[phiferran]

House had a non concur vote. No mention of the other two amendments. Back to the Senate??

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2

[Twitch]

And by the way, Mike Stewart is the sponsor of Amendment #13 on HB0995 (establishes a rebuttable presumption that anyone carrying in a park that discharges a firearm in the presence of or within the line of sight of children without just cause would be civilly liable for assault and an additional fine of $5000.)

Because, ya know, most people were planning on using the parks as firing range.

Mewling idiots.

[Worriedman]

Yes phiferran, back to Senate to see if it will get a motion to "recede" (concur with House version) if that passes then on to governor. If no motion to recede or if the vote on that motion fails, to conference committee.

Then the Speakers of each House pick three members, normally one of which is the sponsor of the bill and two more to hash out a compromise.  One it leave the conference committee, no amendments may be made and only up/down votes at that point. A billcan come out looking like a two headed bastard version of the original...

 

[phiferran]

Well, the saga continues. Notice Senator Norris comments in this article.

http://wate.com/2015/04/06/haslam-says-he-favors-stripping-guns-at-capitol-provision-of-guns-in-parks-bill/


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[macville]

I know that writing Haslam is like writing a brick wall. One, because probably an intern reads it and files it in a category without it ever being passed on to him, and two, because be probably couldn't/wouldn't want come up with a honest, intellectual reply. However, I did it anyway for some stress relief and to try and make our Constitution heard, known, and followed.

 

"Governor Haslam, reading an article today that quoted you about the legal guns in parks bill has me wondering if you actually know what our State Constitution says about what laws can be enacted to restrict carrying guns.

 

Our Constitution states about arms, ""That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.” (Even though I think it’s important, I am not going to into the fact that the last part was only added in 1870 to restrict black people after the civil war because the “whites only” provision of the 1834 constitution would have been struck down.) One comment you made was that you believed the local governments should hold the power to decide about legal carry in their parks. However, the Constitution clearly states that only the Legislature how the power the regulate the wearing of arms, not local governments. Allowing local governments any regulation in the wearing is a direct violation of this. Any control the legislature gives local governments in regulating wearing of arms exceeds the the power granted the legislature.

 

Second, the Constitution only allows for regulation of wearing of arms “with a view to prevent crime.” Tennessee Permit holders have gone through a written test, shooting test, and background checks to prove they are not criminals. How in your mind does the Constitution allow the government to restrict the carry of people who have overwhelmingly proven they are law abiding?  Even if you went only off the TDOS carry permit yearly report of revoked permits you would see that it’s about a tenth of one percent of permits are revoked a year. Of that, less than half are because of criminal convictions and maybe one or two a year are because of actual crime committed with a gun. So I want to know why you think a group of people who are typically more law abiding than the police when it comes to guns (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/02/24/guns-and-new-york-times-why-shouldnt-americans-be-able-to-defend-themselves/) need to be prevented from carrying pretty much anywhere in TN? What evidence can you show that permit holders are going to commit crimes if they are allowed in all local owned parks in TN? Or in the State Capital? Or even, God forbid, schools! I believe you owe all TN permit holders an honest answer to that questions since we have proven we aren’t criminals and history says we probably won’t be i the future."