TN College Employee Carry Bill

[ffr1910]

Reading the amendments, does Senate Amendment 3 look like it add an opt out feature for school? I am not fluent in legaleeze but it seems to allow you to carry only if the school adopt a carry policy.

[ffr1910]

and now after further reading i see that amendment 3 did not go forward. amazing what reading does for you...

[conn_air7]

I feel more confused and brain fried after reading this thread [emoji22]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JohnC]

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.

Because private colleges accept a ton of Govt money, etc., and Govt always has strings attached to their money.

[Just2Honor]

Just like after the HCP passed there will be blood in the streets.   Not!

[RinTN]

Does anyone here works for an institution where this would apply?  If so, have you gone through the process of notifying the campus police about your eligibility to carry?  I'm curious to hear about how you did it and what kind of response you got out of them.

[ffr1910]

I will go through the process but have not heard anything about it yet. I am assuming I will  not hear anything until after 7/1 since the colleges are not really excited about this anyway, wait until the last minutes ya know-bill

[xjsnake]

We are having a meeting to discuss the new laws and their impact. Should be fun to watch.

[RinTN]

Thanks for the replies guys.  If/when you hear anything more, please share it here.

[homeagain]

Spoke with UTK PD today, as well as other jurisdictions where my work takes me (Oak Ridge, Cookeville, Chattanooga, Metro PD, etc.) as most of my work locations aren't under campus PD jurisdiction. UTK was surprisingly positive and helpful, as were other agencies...even Commander Drake's office of the Central Precinct for MNPD. Will need to fill out a UTK form for their campuses statewide. Some municipal PD's and SO's as well as metro allowed me to simply fax a letter to them. Overall, somewhat simple, considering having to send upwards of a dozen letters throughout the state. 

Here's UTK official policy promulgated today: http://policy.tennessee.edu/safety_policy/sa0875/

Edited June 16, 2016 by homeagain

[ffr1910]

I have an appointment Monday to  submit my registration form for carrying on campus. No mention of a class. I was told earlier that there would be a voluntary class, not complaining.  Bill

[chances R]

Had a student in my carry class recently tell me he was taking the class because of this new law.  I think it would be a sure bet he is in the minority of his colleagues.

Edited June 27, 2016 by chances R

[Oh Shoot]

10 minutes ago, chances R said:

Had a student recently tell me he was taking the class because of this new law.  I think it would be a sure bet he is in the minority of his colleagues.

Hope he's aware new law doesn't cover him unless he's a full time employee too.

- OS

[ffr1910]

4 hours ago, Oh Shoot said:

Hope he's aware new law doesn't cover him unless he's a full time employee too.

- OS

and not even then. full time employees, once they sign up for even one class, become students and thus forbidden to carry. stupid-Bill

[chances R]

I edited my post.......can see where you are coming from.  Nope, he was faculty.  All's good.

[300winmag]

I'm surprised that there are not equal protection issues with this law.  How can it be legal for only full time employees to carry but the rest of the population with permits, such as students and visitors, cannot carry at a public college?  The politicians should have written a clean law exempting people with permits on college or even better all school property and left it at that.  I'm guessing this is one of those laws a politician wanted to pass and then fix the right way the next time around, kind of like the original park carry law. 

Edited June 27, 2016 by 300winmag

[ironsniper1]

I wish this law applied to me but I work for Vandy medical and not uni

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[macville]

9 minutes ago, 300winmag said:

I'm surprised that there are not equal protection issues with this law.  How can it be legal for only full time employees to carry but the rest of the population with permits, such as students and visitors, cannot carry at a public college?  The politicians should have written a clean law exempting people with permits on college or even better all school property and left it at that.  I'm guessing this is one of those laws a politician wanted to pass and then fix the right way the next time around, kind of like the original park carry law. 

I wrote my rep with the same argument and his reply that the equal protection under the law had to do just with slavery/racism...even though only a handful of the 100+ SC cases addressing equal protection had to do with race issues. It's frustrating when politicians don't understand that the full constitution applies to ALL the people.

[bubbadavis]

6 minutes ago, luke9511 said:

I wish this law applied to me but I work for Vandy medical and not uni

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Since Vandy's a private university, it wouldn't apply anyway. Vandy could allow carry with a HCP but I wouldn't hold my breath...

[Oh Shoot]

16 hours ago, ffr1910 said:

and not even then. full time employees, once they sign up for even one class, become students and thus forbidden to carry. stupid-Bill

 I admit I haven't perused the subtleties of this one yet since it doesn't affect me, but seems that may indeed be the case.

"Employee" does not include a person who is enrolled as a student at a public institution of higher education, regardless of whether the person is also an employee"

- OS

 

[JAB]

1 hour ago, Oh Shoot said:

 I admit I haven't perused the subtleties of this one yet since it doesn't affect me, but seems that may indeed be the case.

"Employee" does not include a person who is enrolled as a student at a public institution of higher education, regardless of whether the person is also an employee"

- OS

 

If that is the case then it was probably intended to prevent a 'loophole' that might allow work-study students to carry.  The idiots in Nashville probably didn't even stop to consider that some full-time employees might want to take the opportunity to further their own education as they are on a college campus on a daily basis, anyhow.  Heck, full-time instructors with Masters degrees would, it seems, be disqualified even if they had completed course work and were only 'enrolled' to work on their doctoral thesis in order to gain a PhD.

[ffr1910]

38 minutes ago, JAB said:

If that is the case then it was probably intended to prevent a 'loophole' that might allow work-study students to carry.  The idiots in Nashville probably didn't even stop to consider that some full-time employees might want to take the opportunity to further their own education as they are on a college campus on a daily basis, anyhow.  Heck, full-time instructors with Masters degrees would, it seems, be disqualified even if they had completed course work and were only 'enrolled' to work on their doctoral thesis in order to gain a PhD.

Bang! you hit the nail on the head. The law also says we cant carry during meetings discussing tenure, so an irate professor being denied tenure wont loose it on the committee members. But, the way it is worded, I cant even carry in my own department when we have our internal tenure meetings with no one around us who is going up for tenure. Maybe some things will get fixed in the future-bill

[East_TN_Patriot]

On April 22, 2016 at 0:21 PM, JAB said:

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.

Because private institutions have different legal obligations than public institutions and are treated much like private businesses. They are generally granted great flexibility and autonomy in setting their own policies and governing their own affairs.  In fact, it's why I will never teach for a private college ever again.

Regardless, I am quite uneasy about carrying at the institution I work for.  I don't trust that the list of people who choose to carry will be kept confidential and I certainly believe that info would be used against someone who is going up for promotion or tenure.

Edited June 27, 2016 by East_TN_Patriot

[300winmag]

I don't think the politicians really wanted people to carry on college campuses.  It is an election year so they wanted to bump their NRA ratings and look pro gun.  The politicians made the law so complicated and such a mess that it is either unappealing to carry through the whole campus police notification requirement for public colleges or your private colleges flat out will not give permission.   None of the surrounding states that have legal college carry went about it this stupid.  In the surrounding states (with college carry), if you have a permit, you are legal. 

[JAB]

23 hours ago, East_TN_Patriot said:

Because private institutions have different legal obligations than public institutions and are treated much like private businesses. They are generally granted great flexibility and autonomy in setting their own policies and governing their own affairs.  In fact, it's why I will never teach for a private college ever again.

Regardless, I am quite uneasy about carrying at the institution I work for.  I don't trust that the list of people who choose to carry will be kept confidential and I certainly believe that info would be used against someone who is going up for promotion or tenure.

I think my posting wasn't clear.  I wasn't saying that I don't understand why private colleges are treated differently that public ones.  Instead, I was saying that there should be absolutely no difference between how a private college is treated regarding this issue vs how any private business is treated.  In other words, rather than laying out 'rules' stating that private colleges would need to come up with their own carry policy it should simply say that 'private colleges will be viewed the same under the law as any, other private business.'   By that, I mean that the way I read the law it still seems that carry on a private campus is illlegal by default until and unless the college specifically creates a carry policy.  Instead, the default should be that it is legal to carry there unless a policy is developed which restricts carry - just like any, other private business.  I believe that if private colleges want to restrict or prohibit carry they should have to actually make the effort to do so rather than being off limits by default with the effort required only if they want to allow carry.

My understanding is that before the change private colleges were treated just like any, other school - which is not the correct approach.  Now, there are distinctions made between private and public colleges but it appears that private colleges are still viewed differently under the law than other private businesses.  That is the part with which I take issue.

Edited June 28, 2016 by JAB