Tennessee Firearms Assoc. Inc.

And the one I personally would like to see go by-by is the penalties for being in a posted area in lieu of a trespassing violation if you refuse to leave.

John, will employers be able to use a company policy clause if the parking lot carry bill should pass?

Sam,

Can you post a link to Florida's parking lot law? Or at least, Public chapter, etc, so we can read up on it?

David

I think this law has something for everybody. I has a lot of protection provisions for the employee/visitor plus considerable liability protections for the employer/property owner. Plus it specifically states that there are no additional duties or responsibilites on the part of the property owner/employer. That has been one of the arguments from the business community. They have said that they would be required to either provide segregated parking, conduct background checks of the person carrying the firearm, maintain records of those keeping weapons in their vehicles on their lots and so on. These assertations are simply not true and Florida's laws specifically states that.

There are other details in their law that probably not apply in Tennessee but this law would make a great framework to build such a law in Tennessee.

Just need to leave out section 7 all together. Make no exceptions on parking lots.

The part of the parking lot issue I disagree with is the language geared toward employers only. We shouldn't limit this to employers, we need to include any parking lot available for use by employees or the public in general.
Here's my point; Why is another party given the right to decide what I can have in my car? If they're allowed to ban "weapons", couldn't they include tire irons, baseball bats, golf clubs, chains and various other items? Those items, just like guns, have more than one purpose, can be used as a weapon (or not) and they are not illegal for most people to otherwise posess. Businesses should have the right to decide whether or not they'll allow guns to be carried in their buildings, but not what I may have in my car, as long as it stays in my car. Allowing the posting of property such as a shopping mall, airport parking area or an employee lot should be ended. Providing decent liability protection for the property owner is a good thing and may even be what's needed to get this passed.

I'd also like to see the end of criminal penalties for carrying past a sign. Allow for trespassing charges upon failure to leave when asked of course.

Finally, let's stop the jigsaw law; Parks and greenway bans by individual communities. Where, in the TN Constitution, is the State legislature authorized to allow communities to pass regulations regarding enumerated rights? I know it's not in the U.S. Constitution and I doubt that it's in the TN Constitution either.

Criminey, does anyone here see how danged RIDICULOUS this all foldeeroll is?????

Example: The CRIMINALS, muggers, rapists, murderers, and even terrorists amongst us do not obey laws, even gun laws, and therefore will continue to carry whatever guns and other weapons they wish...regardless of what rules and laws there are in place.

The honest TAXPAYING citizens are the ONLY folk herein who will try to obey the laws...and they are the only folk herein who will therefore have no weapon and become senseless victims of crime......when the ARMED criminals do their dirty work.

Sure makes no sense to me. What say ye??

Fact is, we need to perhaps stop talking about citizens in certain context and focus on voters. Too many "citizens" are sheep, are apathetic, have given up and sit back and wait for others. At a minimum, voters do at least vote.

We are facing a 2012 legislature and to the extent it operates under the influence of Beth Harwell and Bill Haslam we are probably not going to see anything related to firearms, the 2nd Amendment and related topics get a fair debate, consideration or vote. The question is becoming whether Harwell, who professes 100% support for the 2nd Amendment although her voting record proves otherwise, is ultimately as bad or worse on this issue than Jimmy Naifeh.

Just got John's broadcast about this bill which would prohibit medical types from inquiring of their patients whether or not there are guns in the home. Here's what I sent to my state rep Scotty Campbell and state senator Ron Ramsey.

Terry
***************************************************************************************************************************************

Gents:

Please support this bill AFTER strengthening Section 1, subsection (b)(1).

As introduced, this subsection has a big loophole:
"unless the practitioner in good faith believes that the inquiry is relevant to the patient’s medical care or safety, or to the safety of others."

Doctors who are making these inquiries of their patients are doing so because they "in good faith believe" that gun ownership is a danger to "public health". They "in good faith believe" that they have a duty to warn their patients about this "danger", just as they would warn them of the dangers of smoking, eating fatty foods, or having unprotected, promiscuous sex.

This bill should put much tighter constraints on practitioners' desire to make such inquiries. At the least, the bill should completely prohibit entering into a patient's medical records any information "as to whether the patient or the family member owns, possesses or stores a firearm or ammunition."

Thank you.

Terry Wintroub

Better to simply ban routine asking, but leave it for inquiry, with cause. I am actually in my Pediatric rotation in a Nurse Practitioner program. Some of the material we use is from the American Academy of Pediatrics. One of the sections, regarding routine healthy exams of an early teen is to ask about firearms; it then goes further and advocates removing firearms from the home. Such a position is indefensable, and is clearly pushing an agenda. Such routine inquiry, and routine advocation of firearm removal ought to be banned (I would penalize licenses, whether through fines or suspension, don't make it criminal or you open it up to claims you are infringing the 1A), however, the wording must be precise as you don't want to inhibit questions should we be assessing a person with mental issues, who may cause self-harm or harm to others.

As I recall under Obamacare all medial records will become electronic and available "to those with a need to know". Perhaps a backdoor registration of households with firearms?