TN College Employee Carry Bill

[300winmag]

The way I read the bill with the amendments that passed it does not have an opt out clause for public colleges.  It's still a joke of a law that only allows full time employees to carry and they have to notify the security department or another administrator that they are carrying.  At least the employees' names are supposed to be kept private under this law and not released to their bosses.  I'm of the opinion that other people are bound to find out when you can't keep your carrying to yourself.

 

The private K-12 school and private college bill is even worse because the private schools and colleges basically have to give you permission to carry on their property.  We all know that 99% of private entities (whether schools or any other property) will NOT give express permission to carry so that is another supposedly 'pro gun' law that doesn't change anything.  Think if you had to ask permission everywhere you carried?  You would not be able to carry anywhere. 

[Oh Shoot]

The way I read the bill with the amendments that passed it does not have an opt out clause for public colleges.  It's still a joke of a law that only allows full time employees to carry and they have to notify the security department or another administrator that they are carrying.  At least the employees' names are supposed to be kept private under this law and not released to their bosses.  I'm of the opinion that other people are bound to find out when you can't keep your carrying to yourself. ....

 

Also seems to nuke anyone who is also a student, even if they also are a full time employee.

 

Also also, there seems to be no prohibition or recourse if the college simply fires you for it. Yeah, shouldn't happen, right, but then again they had to add legislation for the "guns in cars" both for private employers and colleges in separate bills over the last two years to keep exactly that from happening.

 

- OS

[macville]

Can anyone explain how this law doesn't violate the Equal Protection clause ("nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws") of the 14th amendment? Suddenly permit holders who are also employees of public universities suddenly have more rights than the rest of us permit holders. That seems like a simple, clear violation of the 14th amendment. What am I missing here?

Edited April 22, 2016 by macville

[Oh Shoot]

Can anyone explain how this law doesn't violate the Equal Protection clause ("nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws") of the 14th amendment? Suddenly permit holders who are also employees of public universities suddenly have more rights than the rest of us permit holders. That seems like a simple, clear violation of the 14th amendment. What am I missing here?

 

Pockets deep enough to get the legal ball rolling, and keep it rolling?

 

- OS

[macville]

Pockets deep enough to get the legal ball rolling, and keep it rolling?

 

- OS

 

 

Yeah, that's what I figured. People always say, "well if it's unconstitutional why has no on challenged it?" Maybe because it takes millions of dollars to successfully win a court case these days. Makes me think of this: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” 

― George Orwell, Animal Farm

 

I wonder if we have a rep/senator ask for an AG opinion about it wouldn't help the situation? I've already emailed my rep about the bill expressing my 14th amendment issues with it.

[JAB]

The way I read the bill with the amendments that passed it does not have an opt out clause for public colleges.  It's still a joke of a law that only allows full time employees to carry and they have to notify the security department or another administrator that they are carrying.  At least the employees' names are supposed to be kept private under this law and not released to their bosses.  I'm of the opinion that other people are bound to find out when you can't keep your carrying to yourself.

 

The private K-12 school and private college bill is even worse because the private schools and colleges basically have to give you permission to carry on their property.  We all know that 99% of private entities (whether schools or any other property) will NOT give express permission to carry so that is another supposedly 'pro gun' law that doesn't change anything.  Think if you had to ask permission everywhere you carried?  You would not be able to carry anywhere. 

 

I work at a satellite campus of a private college and have to wonder why in the hell a PRIVATE college is treated any differently by the law than any, other PRIVATE business or organization.  What is the difference whether the PRIVATE business or organization is question is a college, an accounting firm or a hardware store?  Not that I could carry at work, anyway but the state shouldn't even be involved in that decision.

[macville]

You know that private colleges & schools now have to decide if they are going to allow carry or not. So actually they are treated different now. I don't remember the bill number but it was passed and signed I believe.

[JAB]

You know that private colleges & schools now have to decide if they are going to allow carry or not. So actually they are treated different now. I don't remember the bill number but it was passed and signed I believe.

 

What I am saying is that private colleges should not get any, specific mention at all any more than any, other private business type gets specific mention.  There shouldn't be any need to actively 'decide to allow'.  Just like any, other private business they should either have to actively take steps to disallow (legal postings, etc.)  Otherwise, carry should be allowed by default by anyone who holds a HCP.  Yeah, 'employee handbook' stuff could still result in an employee getting fired - if there is such language in the employee handbook and if the employee is 'found out' - but there shouldn't be anything specifically mentioned by law that distinguishes private colleges from any other private establishment.

Edited April 26, 2016 by JAB

[300winmag]

We have a lot of lite Democrats here that run as Republicans, especially after Obamacare made Democrats fairly unpopular in TN.  It's pretty obvious that they really don't want pro gun bills but will promote what appears to be a pro gun bill for the camera, especially in an election year.  In reality, they will put as many restrictions as possible on carry at a college that not many people will legally carry.  You may end up with a handful of employees carrying at a big public university.  You would have more if all people with a permit could carry, especially visitors, vendors, and students.  I seriously doubt any private university will allow it thus making carry still illegal with a permit the way the law has been rewritten.

[macville]

What I am saying is that private colleges should not get any, specific mention at all any more than any, other private business type gets specific mention.  There shouldn't be any need to actively 'decide to allow'.  Just like any, other private business they should either have to actively take steps to disallow (legal postings, etc.)  Otherwise, carry should be allowed by default by anyone who holds a HCP.  Yeah, 'employee handbook' stuff could still result in an employee getting fired - if there is such language in the employee handbook and if the employee is 'found out' - but there shouldn't be anything specifically mentioned by law that distinguishes private colleges from any other private establishment.

 

 

I agree, but it's at least a baby step in the right direction. Though, I really wonder how many private schools (K-College) are even going to be aware that they need to decide if they are going to allow or not allow carry. Almost none that I've been to in TN are even posted like they are supposed to be by law. Do we assume that if they are not posted that they allow carry?

[300winmag]

The way I understand the private K-12 and private college carry law is that the K-12 school or college will have to specifically allow by policy people to carry.  If the private school or college does not allow carry by policy, then it is still illegal to carry even without certain signs.  Between the lack of awareness and also unwillingness to specifically state in policy to allow carry, I highly doubt you'll be able to carry legally at very many private schools or colleges.

[macville]

The way I understand the private K-12 and private college carry law is that the K-12 school or college will have to specifically allow by policy people to carry.  If the private school or college does not allow carry by policy, then it is still illegal to carry even without certain signs.  Between the lack of awareness and also unwillingness to specifically state in policy to allow carry, I highly doubt you'll be able to carry legally at very many private schools or colleges.

 

 

Does anyone have the bill number for this so we can actually see what the text that was passed says? You may be right but we should always go off what the actual text says.

[300winmag]

It was HB 1644 / SB 1559  .

[macville]

Okay, so dug into the text of the bill that was passed and signed (at least what I am reading I am assumed was signed) Here are the two key elements:

 

(1) The handgun carry policy for each private institution shall be reduced to writing and disseminated in a manner most likely to ensure that it is known by students attending the institution, the parent or guardian of each student, the faculty, staff, and employees of the institution, and others who may go upon the grounds or enter a building on property owned or operated by the institution. The policy shall be made available in the administration building to anyone desiring a copy, distributed to all interested parties, including parents of minor students enrolled at the institution, and others by a method or methods reasonably likely to ensure dissemination of the policy, such as emails, text messaging, or posting on the school's web site. 

 

I would assume by the bolded section that it should mean that buildings or property (which in general can no longer be posted if kept in a car) would need to have signs posted saying that carry was not legal for them to legally ban carrying. I am sure that many of you will say "intent" of making a policy is good enough, but the communications degree in me says that actual intent would require you to clearly communicate your "intent" for it to actually be legal. Signs have been and are the standard currently in TN, so I would say legally that would be the best shot of "intent" possible. 

 

But here's the interesting part:

 

(1) The chief administrative officer of each private K-12 school

shall devise and implement a handgun carry policy for any property on which the school is located that is owned or operated by the school and for any building or structure located on the school property. 

 

and then later:

(2) The policy shall go into effect thirty (30) days after it is announced by the chief administrative officer and disseminated to the students and parents. 

 

So they are supposed to decide and implement a policy, and it's supposed to take effect 30 days after they announce it. But what happens if they aren't even aware that they are supposed to come up with a policy? TNDOS is not exactly known for letting schools know what they are supposed to post about weapon right now (the fact that every school and college is supposed to be posted with visible signs at each door) What happens if a school doesn't post because they don't know, or doesn't post because they don't want to post signs but has decided to ban weapons? With that second section can a school just never come up with a policy since there's no other legal ramifications for not doing so (beside maybe getting sued by someone.) Isn't this the kind of crappy lawmaking that got the original carry in restaurants thrown out because it was so vague and fraught with gotchas for permit holders? But of course, I am maybe thinking too logically that when a place doesn't have "no gun" signs posted that they are okay with carry.

I may try emailing Tilman Goins and Mike Bell about their intent and what I see as huge flaws with the language of this bill.

[xjsnake]

I need to read the text of the bill, but from the summary I've seen, I'm not happy.

[bronco302]

I don't know about private K-12 but I was talking about this with my supervisor this week. The new law was a topic of discussion at the Tennessee Independent Colleges and Universities Association meeting last week. The school where I work has a 2a friendly policy developed after discussions with the county Sheriff's department lawyers. That said I don't think they will be adding carry around campus to our allowed activities.

 

Joe W.

[300winmag]

You might want to look at the final amended version that became law.  It is Public Chapter 0698 for private school carry .  The way I read the final version, a private school is NOT required to develop a handgun carry policy.  If the private school does not have a policy, then it is still by default illegal to carry at the school.  Also the law was changed so that private schools do not have to put up signs like the public schools to make carry illegal.

[macville]

You might want to look at the final amended version that became law.  It is Public Chapter 0698 for private school carry .  The way I read the final version, a private school is NOT required to develop a handgun carry policy.  If the private school does not have a policy, then it is still by default illegal to carry at the school.  Also the law was changed so that private schools do not have to put up signs like the public schools to make carry illegal.

 

 

Okay, thought I was reading the amended version as it was labeled as the latest, but it was in not in fact. So you are correct in that it authorizes, but not not requires. However, the schools are supposed to be posted as required by 39-17-1309 (d) 1 yet, probably the dozen+ private schools & colleges that I have visited in the last five years, only one has been posted according to the law. So why can we be arrested for going on a school ground that is not posted according the requirements of the law, but school administrators won't be arrested for not following the law? Something has got to give about this as it creates a trap for permit holders when there are school officials not following the law. Before, you knew that it was illegal, but now how are you supposed to know if it's legal or not? Amendment two makes it clear that if you ban, you are supposed to be posted as TN law requires. What a mess, but that's normal as carry laws go in TN.

[JAB]

Okay, thought I was reading the amended version as it was labeled as the latest, but it was in not in fact. So you are correct in that it authorizes, but not not requires. However, the schools are supposed to be posted as required by 39-17-1309 (d) 1 yet, probably the dozen+ private schools & colleges that I have visited in the last five years, only one has been posted according to the law. So why can we be arrested for going on a school ground that is not posted according the requirements of the law, but school administrators won't be arrested for not following the law? Something has got to give about this as it creates a trap for permit holders when there are school officials not following the law. Before, you knew that it was illegal, but now how are you supposed to know if it's legal or not? Amendment two makes it clear that if you ban, you are supposed to be posted as TN law requires. What a mess, but that's normal as carry laws go in TN.

 

Add in that - at least where I work - there is language in the employee handbook prohibiting carry.  We have to sign a copy of certain rules, including that one.  So, even though you won't find a single sign on or around this building, I'm thinking that employee rule and the requirement that we sign off on it would likely count as the policy having been 'reduced to writing and disseminated in a manner most likely to ensure that it is known' to employees - and isn't this bill mostly about allowing employees to carry (or not)?

Edited May 2, 2016 by JAB

[GKar]

Haslam took the (typical) chicken$hit way out: he didn't veto it, but he didn't sign it either.  So it will go into effect, yet he can still say he didn't support it.

[ffr1910]

A win is a win in my book. I am interested to see how this plays out at state institutions, particularly the one in the boro.  Bill

[homeagain]

As a full time staffer at UT I'm interested in seeing how this all plays out in application. Not that it would apply to me, since I lost all of my firearms, ammunition, gear, and old issues of Guns and Ammo in a tragic boating accident.

[ffr1910]

Does anyone have a link to the ACTUAL text of what was passed? Complete with whichever amendments made it? tku-Bill

[Garufa]

Does anyone have a link to the ACTUAL text of what was passed? Complete with whichever amendments made it? tku-Bill

 

 http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=SB2376

Edited May 3, 2016 by Garufa

[ffr1910]

I figured it out. All of the house amendments were dropped but the senate one were retained, it appears-Bill