SB0142/HB0118 - Safe Commute 2013 - POORLY WRITTEN

[johnharris]

The Safe Commute bill SB0142 was passed by the Senate on Monday, February 11. The bill has potential to be good law but right now it has many holes in it. We brought those holes to the attention of the Senators prior to the floor hearings but not a single senator moved on the floor to address any of these concerns. The bill will now have to be fixed - if at all - in the House .

House Bill HB0118 was heard in the House Civil Justice Subcommittee February 13, 2013 and passed there as well without debate.

Summary: The bill as written would generally allow permit holders to store their firearms in their own cars even if parked on the parking lot of another but it has some potential omissions that should be understood and addressed :

The bill is limited in Section 1 (proposed 37-17-1313(a)) to a "permit holder’s privately-owned motor vehicle." This language could have the effect of excluding permit holders who are relying on a borrowed car, a family owned car, a parent's car, a leased car or even a temporary rental from protection under this bill. This limitation and trap should be removed.

The bill in Section 1 (proposed 37-17-1313(a)(1)) has a clause that provides that the law would only apply if the car "is parked in a location where it is permitted to be; ...." This clause could form the basis for employers and property owners to effectively "opt out" of the law's scope by posting signs or establishing employment "rules" that vehicles containing firearms can not be parked on the property or can be parked only at specific areas of the property. Another trap here would be for those permit holders who are issued permits for specific parking lots, like at Vanderbilt, and then are found to be parked in an area not covered by the employer's permit - this bill may allow those employees to be criminally prosecuted.

The bill uses the qualifier in Section 1 (proposed 37-17-1313(a)) "Notwithstanding §§ 39-17-1309, 39-17-1311, or § 39-17-1359, . . ." I am concerned that this language may be intended to protect or allow prohibitions under other statutes or that it would not address grand fathered local government restrictions under 39-17-1314 such as apply in Knoxville and Davidson Counties relative to government parking areas and/or locally managed parks.

Another similar loophole to the "notwithstanding" clause could be with the application of criminal trespass doctrines since the "notwithstanding" clause is limited to 3 specific statutes and that list does not include the criminal trespass statute. The point is that the notwithstanding clause has a self-imposed limit and that limit allows the potential for a court to find that numerous other statutes would continue to allow criminal prosecution of permit holders.

The bill in Section 1 (proposed 37-17-1313(a)(2)) does not address "incidental exposure" that could occur while the permit holder is storing the weapon in the car if that occurs on the property. Thus, a security camera or another employee that sees a permit holder placing the weapon in the glove compartment or trunk once on the property might not be protected by the legislation as presently written.

The bill does not preclude an employer from having a "no weapons" policy and firing, terminating or refusing to hire individuals with carry permits or who store their weapons in the parking areas (and consequently denying them both safe commute as well as unemployment benefits or any remedy for wrongful termination.)

The bill would criminalize under state law possession on any federal property that might be restricted. It would be better that Tennessee not bootstrap federal infringements of 2nd Amendment rights and leave the enforcement of any such restrictions to be the financial burden of the federal government.

Although not material to the bill's purpose, the bill has a factual error in the first "whereas" clause which states "WHEREAS, in 1996, Tennesseans were first given the opportunity to apply for and, if meeting the qualifications, be issued a permit to carry a handgun in public;" Tennessee's first civilian handgun permit law was actually passed 2 years earlier in May 1994 under 1994 Tennessee Laws Pub. Ch. 943 (S.B. 2182) and codified at that time at TCA 39-17-1315. It then underwent a significant re-write when the permit process was transferred from the sheriffs (under the 1994 law) to the Department of Safety by subsequent legislation.

If the objective of the bill is to full promises made in the past to permit holders and to the Tennessee Firearms Association by Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey, then TFA would support the general objective if these errors and omissions are addressed.

The Establishment Republicans in TN's legislature have pushed back against this bill for at least 4 years because big business did not like it. Now, they are rushing it through without debate or discussion. They are not responding to emails or questions about gaps, holes or consequences of the bill as written. It just does not pass the smell test at this point and the list of above problems may tell you why.....

[Sky King]

I watched the video of the House floor session. I got so mad I just wanted to throw my computer across the room. Several amendments were offered that could have made major improvements. With EVERY amendment, Speaker Harwell would immediately recognize Rep. McCormick who would quickly denounce the process of offering amendments on the floor and then make a motion to table the amendment which immediately shuts down ANY discussion on the amendment. This happend 13 times. This couldn't have been better planned if it had been scripted by a Hollywood writer. It couldn't have been more clear that they knew the content of the proposed amendments, were going to follow the "game plan" to ram this bill through with NO amendments and allow NO discussion on the amendments. Watch the video and notice the vote count on every tabling motion.

McCormick repeatedly denounced amendments that had not been "vetted" by the committee. I don't know why he thinks people are so stupid and ignorant to fall for that crap. ANYBODY who has been watching this KNOWS that these bills have been pushed HARD to go through as written. Sen. Johnson (who carried the bill in the Senate for Ramsey) stated in committee in response to the suggestion of amendments, that Ron Ramsey was clear that he wanted no amendments. The same attitude was clearly communicated in the House. This was obvious by the amount of time, (or more accurately, LACK of time) spent on these bills in the various sub-committees and committees. Limited discussion, little to no testimony by interested parties, votes right down the party line. It was so obvious the members were definately following their marching orders.

One member made a good pointed comment about how we would not be at this point on this bill had one of their leaders (he did not mention Debra Maggart by name, but we all know who he was talking about) not lost her re-election bid. Eluding that the Republican party leadership was trying to appease the NRA who while reportedly endorced this bill, remained strangely quiet about it.

Their remarks about how if employers started taking punitive action against employees, they would return next year and make changes were weak. How stupid are they? I want the drugs they are taking. Do they REALLY believe that employers will not fire employees or do they REALLY think we are so gullible to believe it?

We knocked one leg of Harwell's support out last fall. It is time to do the same with McCormick and or Vance Dennis. Vance Dennis could be vulnerable. He won his primary by only two or three votes. Had the local gun club, (with which he has strong ties) pulled their support, he would have lost.

This whole think makes me puke.

[Fred762]

It is simply the same old ring knockers club trying to control things..as usual: They WANT a law which they can ballyhoo as pro-2A, but with no real co jones so their pals can neuter it ad nauseum.

[Sky King]

All in favor of this bill can flame me all you want but I for one am NOT of the opinion that a BAD step is better than no step. This is a BAD bill. It is FULL of traps and pit falls. I for one, would hope for a VETO on this bill. IT DOES NOTHING for a majority of the permit holders in this state. I was in Nashville for the first hearings on this bill. I have been in Nashville for the last several years when legislation of this type has been debated. EVERY time without fail, the big business lobby was there in force to oppose the legislation. Why would you think they were NOT there this time? I mean NOBODY with the exception of ONE person representing the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce was there in opposition. They were not there because it does NOTHING to protect the employee and EVERYTHING to protect the employer with the liability protection language.

DO NOT DRINK THE COOL-AID. If you go to work on July 1, 2013 with your firearm in your car and your employer has a policy prohibiting it, on July 2, 2013 you could find yourself on the outside looking in AND there ARE areas in Tennessee code that you could STILL be prosecuted under.

[Tim Nunan]

http://www.wbir.com/news/article/276074 ... oyment-law

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) -- Tennessee's attorney general says a state employer could fire a worker who violates company policy by storing firearms and ammunition in vehicles parked on employers' property despite a new state law.

Gov. Bill Haslam in March signed the measure that would allow people with handgun carry permits to store firearms in their vehicles no matter where they are parked.

The signing took place despite questions about whether the legislation affects employment law in Tennessee because the measure would allow workers to store guns in their cars while parked in their employers' parking lots.

In his opinion, Attorney General Robert Cooper wrote that the law "only decriminalizes the carrying and storage of firearms and firearm ammunition" but "has no impact on the employment relations between an employer and an employee."

[ProguninTN]

[Ron W]

While I agree that the bill was poorly written, wouldn't an employer have to conduct a search of your vehicle to prove that you had your firearm in it--unless you volunteered the information? And may an employer force anyone to submit to a vehicle search? I heard one of the State Senators, I think it was Jack Johnson, on WTN 99.7 FM sometime back, basically say that one can resolve this problem by exercising their 5th Amendment right to remian silent on whether they had a firearm in their vehicle. Anyone know?

[SomeGuy]

[tnxdshooter]

I had seen where another bill was being introduced this legislative session where employers could not fire you if they found a gun in your car. It basically was an add on so to speak to the parking lot bill. Has anyone heard any updates on this?

[C. Richard Archie]

I would suppose you mean Beavers' bill 1733, Kelsey and Co. killed it.

[2ndtonone]

I am a goverment employee for The City Of Murfreesboro which requires written permission to park my vehicle ( with weapon/firearm) at any department emplyee parking area, I currently park off site and walk but this will change soon due to my transfering to another department and building which will be further away from were I currently park ( Neutral zone) Lol, but not a problem it's the point of my civil liberty ? I need input as to 1) Is this reasonable to push back on,(Retribution exists) 2) What are my options ?

I did read this in your post, ( The bill uses the qualifier in Section 1 (proposed 37-17-1313(a)) "Notwithstanding §§ 39-17-1309, 39-17-1311, or § 39-17-1359, . . ." I am concerned that this language may be intended to protect or allow prohibitions under other statutes or that it would not address grand fathered local government restrictions under 39-17-1314 such as apply in Knoxville and Davidson Counties relative to government parking areas and/or locally managed parks. )
Could you explain more on T.C.A. 39-17-1314

Thank you for your time in this matter.

P.S. In the past years of my current service, 2 employees have requested permission to the city manager and were Denied!

[johnharris]

The original post dates to 2013. The law was amended in 2014 and 2015. There are substantial changes that are still "short" of where it needs to be but better than it was.

I do not have a "codified" copy of the statute at this point with all the amendments through 2015.