Tndeer Logo

Page 1 of 1 1
Topic Options
#3163744 - 02/14/13 10:29 AM HB 118/SB 142, smoke and mirrors
worriedman
6 Point


Registered: 10/12/06
Posts: 977
Loc: Bells

Offline
http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=HB0118

Supposed "Parking Lot" bill being railroaded through the legislature does NOT protect employees from being fired, if they have a permit. IT is smoke and mirrors, The points to consider are listed below.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.)
7. 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.
8. 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.


Edited by worriedman (02/14/13 10:32 AM)
_________________________
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." Samuel Adams

Life Member NRA, TFA, Tennesseans for Liberty

Top
#3164022 - 02/14/13 02:50 PM Re: HB 118/SB 142, smoke and mirrors [Re: worriedman]
Wes Parrish
16 Point


Registered: 06/12/02
Posts: 19042
Loc: Knoxville-Dover-Union City, TN

Offline
I suppose much of the above is much of why our Forefathers had the wise foresight to state in our Constitution's 2nd Amendment, "these rights shall not be infringed."

And they considered this so important that it was the 2nd thing they had to say, 2nd only to the Freedom of Speech to say it.

It's the politicians who have "progressively" infringed upon our 2nd Amendment rights, often doing so in small progressive infringements that have taken decades to take their toll. But most have been in violation of our 2nd statement made in what is supposed to be the supreme law of our land --- OUR Constitution.

Perhaps if these politicians hadn't created such a myriad of unnecessary laws that run counter to our Constitution, and had instead simply focused on enforcing existing basic laws, we wouldn't be having this discussion, much less the extensive crime problems with gangs and illegal aliens.

Thousands of unnecessary laws have created an inability to enforce the most important and basic laws to our society, causing the progressive lack of respect for any rule of law. We're going no where fast the more we get away from respecting our Constitution.

I know we may need to be a tad more definitive in a court of law, but really, how many more "laws" do we really need beyond just some simple elaboration of what many of us know as the 10 Commandments?

Top
#3164626 - 02/15/13 06:18 AM Re: HB 118/SB 142, smoke and mirrors [Re: Wes Parrish]
MUP
Non-Typical


Registered: 08/01/07
Posts: 43818
Loc: Just North of Chatt-town

Offline
I'm afraid that the courts are useless at this point anymore....
_________________________
MUP

Amateurs: Built the Ark

Professionals: Built the Titanic

Top
#3164683 - 02/15/13 07:45 AM Re: HB 118/SB 142, smoke and mirrors [Re: MUP]
Rebel
TnDeer Old Timer
12 Point


Registered: 03/16/99
Posts: 5248
Loc: East Tennessee USA

Offline
Our legal system is broken. It's paralyzed by multiple layers of due process from all the unintended consequences of the myriad of unnecessary laws as you so eloquently pointed out....
_________________________
Good night Chesty, wherever you are!

Tolerance is a virtue of those who believe in nothing.

Deo Vindice

Top
Page 1 of 1 1


Moderator:  Crappie Luck, Tennessee Todd, RUGER, Unicam, stretch, Cuttin Caller, Bobby G, Kimber45 
Hop to:
Top Posters
4104903
RUGER
86337
Deer Assassin
64839
BSK
60518
Crappie Luck
51375
spitndrum
Newest Members
tnduckhunter, draw2drop, Oh Deer, Deer slayer85, Deadeye14
13111 Registered Users
Who's Online
6 registered (OldFart, Vermin93, cleatus2506, Rickym, ZachMarkus, 1 invisible) and 63 anonymous users online.
Forum Stats
13111 Members
42 Forums
89229 Topics
1043541 Posts

Max Online: 788 @ 11/11/13 08:06 PM
Moon Phase
CURRENT MOON
July
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31
Forum Donations
The TnDeer.Com Deer Talk Forum is for Tennessee Deer Hunters by Tennessee Deer Hunters. If you enjoy using our Talk Forum and would like to contribute to help in it's up-keep. Just submit your contribution by clicking on the DONATE button below and paying with PayPal or a major credit card. Any amount is much appreciated. Thanks for your support!

TN Burn Safe

Generated in 0.276 seconds in which 0.013 seconds were spent on a total of 14 queries. Zlib compression enabled.