2011 Legislative Package

[SteamnSteel]

[fl0at]

[ebaldy]

I can whole heartedly support the parking lot legislation.

Also, and I'm dreaming big now, legislation requiring that restricted businesses (employers, malls, restaurants etc.) provide secure storage for firearms at the entrance to their parking lot. A simple group of steel boxes onto which you could attach your own padlock would do the trick.

BTW, Don't count on Lamar Alexander for support of anything conservative.posting.php?mode=reply&f=64&t=3607&sid=a4da5e1ab19aa380617ded9c870f18b7#

[marauder]

it is my opinion that we need to push for a more conservative approach to where we can carry. we need to push for a removal of the opt-out for park carry and push for parking lots etc. those should be our top priority.

[Sky King]

I have been thinking. There may be another way to crack this nut in regards to a parking lot bill. We have been approaching this thing from a handgun prospective. That brings all the negative media attention right on top of us. Just as they tagged the restaurant bill as "Guns in Bars" to get the general public all spooled up, they will tag a parking lot bill as "Guns at Work". They will bring out all the workplace violence events and spin it to say this will make things worse.

I think there could be a different approach. My employers policy is NOT specifically a "no gun" policy, it is a "weapons" policy. In the policy it specifically lists things such as "firearms and weapons include, but ARE NOT limited to, disabling tear gas dispensers (and similiar disabling devices LIKE tasers or "STUN GUNS") guns, starting pistols, flare pistols, and any knife or similiar object with a blade exceeding 3 inches in length."

What this policy does is disarm ANY and ALL employees from having ANYTHING they may have to provide for their own protection. The policy states, "Possession of or carrying of unauthorized weapons on Company property CAN RESULT in immediate dismissal. ENFORCEMENT WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH APPLICABLE GOVERNING LAW".

What this means is that even if you ARE NOT a permit holder and don't even own a firearm, you can not have a can of disabling spray or stun gun in your car on company property. What I would propose is a defensive device protection law. A law that addresses firearms only does nothing for a person who chooses to use pepper spray. If we can write a law that protects persons from disciplinary action regardless of what they may choose as their protection of choice, we MAY beable to divert some of the attention from the gun issue.

Put a lot of attention on the ladies who choose to have a can of pepper spray on their key chain and tell them that some employers will fire EVEN THEM. I know this because I was present in the security screening one morning when on girl was stopped because she had such a device on her key chain. They detained her. I don't know what ultimately happened to her as I had to go on in, but I do know she was stopped and the policy states that she could have been fired right then and there.

What do you all think about that approach?

[n24wheel]

Here is my wish list:

1. Civil Liability reform. It is sad you can be sued by a criminal or a criminals family, or interested parties for defending yourself. If you are found to be justified after a self defense shooting, civil penalities should not occur.

2. Fix the parks issue.

3. Parking lots at work or in public you should be allowed to have your permitted firearm at least in you vehicle.

4. Constitutional carry should be enacted, since that is what the constitution states as being a right.

[n24wheel]

Just another note. It should not matter who the speaker is. If the people want something we should not set back and wait for an "ideal" situation to introduce something. If we do it may never get done. The WMA bill took 4 years to get passed and this bill only allowed carry where guns were already allowed (for hunting). Many bills take time to pass because of the "educational" process of the legislature's to understand the difference between hype and the truth of the bill. Even if a bill may or may not fail it should be introduced. If the people interested in the bill will actually participate and contact their reps and governor the bill will have a good chance of passage. If we are passive and do not make the calls and send the letters the bill will surely fail. One of the biggest request I get from legislators is that we need to educate the public on carry permit holders and the truths of the issues. Most of the general public only know what they hear on the news which is usually half-truths or just bogus stories. (like the reported on TV on the parks issue that had him in the stands at a ball game telling how guns being allowed in parks would let a person sitting here shoot an umpire for making a bad call) A complete mis guided statement. How do we educate the public on the truth.

[redbarron06]

[SomeGuy]

redbarron,

That is kind of the idea. Make the car an extension of your home (I know a few other states have done that, but I don't know particulars) and simply ensure the home is sacrosanct. It will benefit many other people, and can be worded entirely with few actual firearm references, it would be a liberty bill, not a gun bill. We would just so happen to benefit from it. A lot.

[n24wheel]

The castle doctrine (Public Chapter 210) does cover you in your vehicle if someone forcible enters it when you are in the vehicle.

http://state.tn.us/sos/acts/105/pub/pc0210.pdf

Section 1 (c) Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within a residence, dwelling or vehicle is presumed to have held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury to self, family, a member of the household or a person visiting as an invited guest when that force is used against another person, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, dwelling or vehicle, and the person using defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

[RobertNashville]

Perhaps our major push for the time being is to get rid of Harwell as speaker...if she is really going to be a roadblock to a parking-lot bill, constitutional carry, getting rid of the "opt-out" provisions, etc. then discussing all those other issues will be fruitless.

[xlr8]

[redbarron06]

[ProguninTN]

[C. Richard Archie]

We all need to start being realistic in our expectations.

Until we can co-opt the hunting and fun-shooting communities into joining with us, and we all get our "thumbs out" as the Brits say, and start piling some money into a PAC and become REALLY effective, (by understanding and providing the lucre it takes to catch and hold the attention of the folks who get to vote on issues which affect our lives), we are paying lip service and not actively in the fray.

[Tim Nunan]

[2ndtonone]

1)I think that we should approach the next Legislative session by going after removal of local municipalities ability to "Opt Out" of Parks Carry, and 2), go for the "Parking Lot" Bill.3) Lower fees for Carry permits, or maybe a one time (Lifetime) payment option with just concurrent backgruond clerance checks for violators etc.4) Raise funds to join the Tennessee Gun manufacture lobbist? When in rome... enough said

[Ron W]