Worriedman

From the article speaking of the weapons used in gang related shootings:     How about we get the judiciary to drop the hammer on some of the crooks who are breaking and entering, maybe slow down the availability of stolen weapons?

Walker is a member of the Bells PD, currently on administrative leave, with pay.   Should specify that is Johnathan M. Walker that is the Bells PD Officer.

Is it just me, or is anyone else having trouble accessing the video archives from the TN House and Senate committee meetings? :tinfoil:

Some of the comments are really interesting.

I wonder how many folks remember the traitors who voted for Naifeh in 2005?  Included in that number were Joe McCord, (current Chief Clerk of the House for Harwell) Doug Overbey (current sitting Senator) and Rep. Steve McDaniel (only surviving member of the Naifeh 7, who later joined the Naifeh 8, Republicans who voted in favor of a TN Income Tax) currently Harwell's handpicked Deputy Speaker.

Yeah, none of them took place under Naifeh's reign.  Kent Williams as Speaker was far better for firearms issues than Beth Harwell will ever be. However, my personal take is the scant Republican inhabitants in the House in 2009 needed us in the 2010 elections, and so voted in favor of firearms issues (along with Democrats too, don't forget). The Senator fails to mention that the Senate sponsor of the two biggest issues (guns in "bars" twice actually) was a Democrat.   Now that they rule the world, they do not need our pitiful little band...

Those unalienable Rights are mine, no human or group of humans has the power to give them to or take them from me.  A far more intelligent man than me said they came from Nature or Nature's God, you pick'em. (I have my own opinion) They CAN take my life, but not my Rights.

I have had my dealings with Stacey, I would not consider him overly amenable to the 2nd Amendment, but my last statement was over the top, Sen. Beavers is pro 2nd Amendment, the rest have failed to raise any hope that they are other than politicians.   And no, this is not Campfield's bill, a new one named Haile.  There may be some other pro 2nd Amendment State Senators, I just don't know them, and I know most, other than freshmen.

I don't know any pro-2nd Amendment State Senators except Mike Bell, please introduce me to the one you know.   Why would any one of them suppose that the electorate (at least ones smart enough to make a passing grade on that simpleton test required to get your permit) is so stupid as to believe anything any of them would have to say at this point?

I am computer challenged, never made any assertions otherwise, mess ticks me off when you think you have it figured out and it goes all screwy. :rant:   You have to admit though, I do not give up easy...

Had a long conversation with a sitting Senator last evening on another venue, and he professed that we should be so very happy with the efforts by our legislature on our behalf, saying that he and his cohorts had passed 21 "Pro Gun" bills in the last 4 years. I asked him to send me his list, as I have no remembrance of such Herculean efforts on the part of Tennessee, or maybe I had fallen down and bumped my head. The 107th General assembly produced these public chapters by his own accounting: Seems to be one clarification of an existing situation regarding receiving shipments of a block powder weapon to or from a personal residence, but did not advance any rights as I can tell. Other than that, deals with the production of "protected class" instances regarding judges and Law Enforcement. Maybe it is just me being ungrateful to the first majority Republican House, Senate and holder of the Governor's mansion. The two years before, when there was basically and even number of Democrats and Republicans in the House, a Republican majority in the Senate and a Democrat in the Governor's seat there were 17 supposed "Pro Gun" bills passed: Appears to be some more "Protected Class" stuff in that period as well.

For those of you in the Clarksville area, your Senator, Mark Green is likely the swing vote in this issue.  Please contact him to make sure he knows that your desire is that the issue go to the floor for a vote, Ramsey and Kelsey are choking the life out of the bill as I type.

An interesting exchange on a different venue from a sitting Senator, explains that the fiscal note put the legislation "behind" the budget, effectively killing any chance is has in its current for for passage.   I suspect that the Establishment Republicans are desirous of strangling this baby in its bed, might interfere with their place in line for some Federal Grant...

Ron is simply shilling for his campaign donors, Big Business wants to be able to keep a record of all permit holders so they can manage their property, no nefarious intent there. That the results can be horrific are, well, simply collateral damage.  Such is the fate of those not included within the ruling elite.

Seems enough dollars can purchase an exception to nearly everything.  The exemption was their back-up position, as killing it outright was their first option.

Oklahoma and Florida are "at will" employment States as well, and the "Parking Lot' bill survived judicial review all the way to the Federal Appellate court level in both. In fact these are the only two States that have challenged the implementation of such legislation, and in both cases, (Florida's major claimant was Disney, that is no light-weight foe) the Right of the Citizen to keep their weapons in their personal vehicle was found to be of more import than the ability of an employer to forbid it.   Though I knew it already, I had forgotten that there are instances whereby "At Will" employment rules (outside those protected "classes" of race, sex, religious,  family medical etc.) preclude the ability to fire, e.g. asking an employee to commit an illegal act and their refusal, is NOT a permissible reason to terminate, there are others, but my head hurts at the moment...

  Since Heidi Keesling "moved on" as our lobbyist, and Daren LaSorte was instituted as interim last year, I have not seen a posted replacement.  I know that Daren was here on a temporary basis.  Have not seen or heard from the NRA at Nashville or via e-mail this year.

  That is true, lots of things that are unacceptable to me would not violate a Constitutional Right.  Each to his own.

You are correct, the operative issue is employment at will, and since you seem to have the handle on the correct technical jargon, which would indicate knowledge, how does Texas, which is too an "at will" State remedy their interest in having a "Parking Lot" bill which precludes termination for keeping a handgun in a personal vehicle.   One attorney out there I asked said they applied "adjoining property' principals, recognizing that the adjoining property was vertical instead of horizontal.  The do not allow keeping your property in their property, (company vehicle) but do allow it in your private vehicle on their property.

  Let's pretend that the firm you work for decides that they have had enough of Democrats or Republicans, and they put a spotter out in the parking lot to espy the bumper stickers on cars, and fire anyone who is politically active.  Or, they decide they don't like folks with children, so they mark any vehicle that has a "My Kid" sticker for termination.  Or, they go through the insurance records, and let anyone who is married go, because that may lead to divided loyalties.   You are good with all that, remind me never to depend on you for anything.

The House seems to be at least considering closing down non-LE access to the HCP database, as evidenced by the number of Prime co-sponsors who have signed on to Lambert's initiative:  (Watson, Lundberg, Durham, Evans, Weaver, Johnson C, Rogers, Womick, Eldridge, Tidwell, Spivey, Carr J, Goins, Doss, Van Huss, Shipley, Kane, Carter, Travis, Lollar, Todd, Forgety, McDaniel, Moody, Hill T,  and Towns). Curiously absent is a single co-sponsor in the Senate, wonder whose direction that is falling underneath? Seems like a good bill to me, and could cure some problems with other situations. HOUSE BILL 9 By Lamberth   AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 10-7-504 and Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13, relative to confidential records. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE: SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 10-7-504, is amended by adding the following new subsection: (o) (1) The following information and records are confidential, not open or available for public inspection and shall not be released in any manner: (A) All information contained in any application for a handgun carry permit issued pursuant to § 39-17-1351, a permit renewal application, or contained in any materials required to be submitted in order to obtain such a permit; [B] All information provided to any state or federal agency, to any county, municipality, or other political subdivision, to any official, agent, or employee of any state or federal agency, or obtained by any state or federal agency in the course of its investigation of an applicant for a handgun carry permit; and(C) Any and all records maintained relative to an application for a handgun carry permit issued pursuant to § 39-17-1351, a permit renewal application, the issuance, renewal, expiration, suspension, or revocation of a handgun carry permit, or the result of any criminal history record check conducted under this part. (2) Any information or other records regarding an applicant or permit holder may be released to a law enforcement agency for the purpose of conducting an investigation or prosecution, or for determining the validity of a handgun carry permit, or to a child support enforcement agency for purposes of child support enforcement, but shall not be publicly disclosed except as evidence in a criminal or child support enforcement proceeding. (3) Nothing in this subsection (o) shall prohibit release of the handgun carry permit statistical reports authorized by § 39-17-1351(s). SECTION 2. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law, the public welfare requiring it.  

One last part of the conversation I had with the staffer, he insisted that the legislature has the power to restrict (his word, not mine) the keeping and bearing of arms in TN.  I maintain that they do not, that they are given the power to regulate the wearing of arms only, and that supposedly, with a view to prevent crime only.  The first 9 stanzas of the current bill under consideration laud the class of Citizen who is afforded the privilege of paying a tax to purchase a defense against prosecution related to going about with a loaded firearm which is still regarded as an intent to go armed, a crime.   Does that not define a protected class?

In last years bill, we inserted "prevailing party" language, which required an individual who put forth the argument that he was terminated for having a firearm to prove it, or, pay the legal expenses of the other side.  No one wants to admit that, but it is so.   I have worked in Human Resources long enough to know that you never fire someone for no cause, you always structure a termination carefully, Right to Work State or not, a  wrongful termination suit takes up time and money, are filed every day and avoided like the plague.  Normally if a plaintiff can engineer a charge related to race as the causal agent that is the preferred venue.  Granted, the Business community has just about choked the life out of Article 1 Section 6 of the TN Declaration of Rights, but not quite.

I got a call from one of the Lt. Gov.'s staff persons yesterday,  the mantra is "We are not in the business of creating "protected classes"", which is a load of what Farmer Brown hauls off from the barn.  They have given and are in the process of giving judges the ability to carry which go beyond what the average citizen may enjoy, and seems they have no compunction at all about providing that.  There are a plethora of bills on the docket this year which create exemptions for certain people to bear arms in schools, are these not "protected classes"?   The thing that stuck with me, was the fact that he intoned that employers who have "policies" could in fact go to the HCP database and collect information about which of their employees had permits, and fire them for that simple reason under our current "Right to Work" rules but had not.  Not sure if I was to take that as a threat, or if collectively they are actually that dense on the hill.   He suggested that if a firm fired an employee who had perfected their carry permit for violating a policy against keeping a legal weapon in their personal vehicle, that individual COULD sue, and I agreed that was correct, and I could win the lottery this weekend, with about as much certainty as prevailing.  My father has been involved with the "legal' system against a convicted meth manufacturer and dealer for over two years, and has yet to get a day in court.  The Chancery Court issued a restraining order against the neighbors to preclude any activity on their part that would keep my parents from enjoying their property, and they let the individual park his truck at the line, shine his headlights into my parent's bedroom all night and set off his alarm by remote, the Sheriff's Department has no intention of making the worms next door cease and desist. If an 85 year old land owner is afforded no protection under the law in such and incident, there is no possibility that an individual might prevail against a firing for violation of a stated policy under Right to Work rules, and to suggest otherwise is ludicrous.   The most damning thing is he intimated it was the intent and purpose of the current legislation to protect the HCP holder from losing their jobs over the legal act of keeping a weapon in their vehicle on an employer's parking lot, and that if business in fact DID terminate people for having a firearm in their vehicle, they could "look" at it next year.  I am just filled with faith that they would be able to "see" the issue any clearer next year, just as they have on the parks opt out.

If an employer can fire you for a legal action, which is in fact Constitutionally protected, and in that protection there is no limit in where it may be enjoyed, then we have bigger problems.  The Legislature is the ONLY entity which has any power related to possession of guns, no property owner does.  If you are not committing a crime whilst attending an invitational event on their property, that owner may not kill you, or do you think they should have that ability as well at their whim?