Sky King

Well needless to say, it was a "Gun Free Zone". 

This may sound old, too simple or general but every time something like this happens, my first thought about "why" goes way back to when I really believe we lost our moral compass.  We quit teaching our children responsibility and accountability.  We took morals out of our schools and instead of supporting our teachers ability to maintain civility and control in their classrooms, we started sueing them for looking at our kids sideways.   If I got spanked at school, I got spanked again when I got home.  No questions asked.      Our system of values went to "there is no absolute right and wrong".  We look for someone to blame for our woes.  It is no longer OUR OWN fault.   When I was young in the late 50's and 60's, my father had firearms in the house.  I was a small, skinny, nerdy kid who was bullied.  But I NEVER, EVER gave any thought of taking one of my fathers guns to school to "settle the score".   I know I am preaching to the choir here, but folks is isn't the guns.  My dad's guns were never locked up but I knew they were not toys and were not to be played with or touched. 

The House has already refused to pass the bill with the Yarbro amendment on it so now it is either up to the Senate to remove the amendment or have a Conferance Committee established to resolve the differance.  I am not going to speculate about what will happen.  The General Assembly is rushing to wrap up the session.  Anything that delays the progress of the bill is not good and likely what Haslam would like to see.  Like many of the gun bills during his administration, he has tried to see that the bills never make it to his desk so he can "keep his hands clean". 

I would not disagree

The amendment was by Yarbro.  It in itself is not bad.  I think we should be able to carry on the Capital grounds but it could be, as I mentioned before, a poison pill.  Haslam would use it as an excuse to veto the bill.

If it was Yarbro who added the amendment, it likely was intended to be a "poison pill"  He is a Democrat.  Not that the Repbulicans have done us many favors lately.

What I think is just as good, all these years and STILL no drunken shootouts, nobody shot because somebody looked and somebody's date or spilled my drink.  So now they are dusting off their tin foil hats for the "predictions" about what will happen in the parks. 

The  vote yesterday was in the SUB committee.  It now has to go to the FULL committee.  THEN it would normally go to the Calendar And Rules Committee whose job it is to schedule it for the floor.  HOWEVER, in a response I got from the sponsor, Reb Goins, yesterday following the sub-committee vote, he said it has four more committees to go through.  He did  not say what they were and I can not think of what they may be.  The FULL committee and the Calendar and Rules Committee are only TWO more committee meetings, so I don't know what the other two may be.   In any case, I agree with the post about Haslam.  He has come out publically that he opposes this bill.  A veto from him would not surprise me but as one has said, he may just let it become law without his signature so as not to pi$$ off the pro gun folks.    It think it is "amazing" (sic) how he cancelled his MAIG membership prior to his run for governor.  If Haslam is pro gun then I am Mother Teresa.

It did pass the sub committee.  No mention of an amendment to prohibit carry in parks with childrens playgrounds.  Needless to say the expected rebuttal were about "safety of children" and the question about why we want to tell local communities they can not decide what they want for their parks.

Well it is obvious to me at least that Mr. James Kaleda was on point and correct.  The problem with most anti-gun legislators is that when faced with facts, they have no rebuttal and in this case chose to just kick him out of the hearing.  What I can not determine, and it may be just me, is whether the people in the room are applauding Mr. Kaleda or the police.  It was pretty obvious that when the chairman was calling Mr. Kaleda out of order that the booing was in response to the chair so one could presume that the applause was for Mr. Kaleda.

Well if we all just adopted operating on the world standard, "Z", or Cordinated Universal Time, there would be no time shift. If you worked for a company that is global, like an airline like I do, you are already acustomed to that format. With "Z" time, there are no time zones or time shifts. For example, as I type this, it is 09:38 local time OR it is 15:38 (3:38 PM) Z time. When an airplane crosses the ocean or continents, it takes a given or fixed AMOUNT of time to make that flight. SO if it takes 6 hours to make the flight and it takes off at 12:00 Noon Z time, it will arrive at 18:00 (6:00 PM) Z. By looking at LOCAL times a flight that crosses multiple time zones STILL takes 6 hours to make the flight BUT the time shown on the clock on the wall will not reflect the 6 hours of travel time. If you are going east, the time on the clock will be as though it took LONGER than 6 hours and the reverse is true if going west.   By-the-way, in case anybody is interested and does not already know, you can get Coordinated Universal Time by calling 606-499-7111 or going the the "Official US Time" web site at http://www.time.gov/timezone.cgi?Central/d/-6/java.

The Senate version of the bill has passed.  HOWEVER, while the House bill as introduced by Representative Tilman Goins, HB 1407 is the same as the Senate version, House Speaker Harwell, wants a provision to exempt any park that has a childrens playground.    The bill, HB 1407 is scheduled to be heard in the House Civil Justice Sub-Committee on Wednesday, March 5th.  Any and all attempts to amend the bill to include an exemption for parks with a playground MUST BE STOPPED.  Such an exemption will create a back door path to allow cities and counties to continue to have their parks closed to permit holders.  All they have to do is spend a couple of hundred dollars at Home Depot for a swing set and instantly, their park has a playground and is AGAIN closed.    Also a MAJOR step backwards, such an exemption could close to permit holders, all state parks which were open.  How many state parks do any of you know that DOES NOT have a playground area?  WELL HELLO, by having such a provision in the bill, previously open state parks will now be closed because they have a playground.   PLEASE contact the members of the House Civil Justice Sub-Committee and urge passage of HB 1407 AS INTRODUCED with NO exclusions for parks with playground areas.  IF the bill proceeds with such an amendment then it MUST be killed.   The following is the email I sent to Representative Goins:   Representative Goins   First I would like to say I am in support of your bill, HB1407 to remove the local opt-out provision in the parks carry law. As you likely know, the companion bill in the Senate by Stacy Campfield has passed. I noted that your bill is set to be heard this Wednesday, March 5th in the Civil Justice Sub-Committee.   Media coverage has indicated that Speaker Harwell would like to see a provision in the bill to exempt parks that have childrens play areas. Any attempt to amend your bill to include any such provision MUST BE STOPPED. Such a provision could be used by any municipality as a back door means to make their parks off limits to permit holders. The simple purchase of a play set at the Home Depot and suddenly your park has a childrens play ground. Also, the law as it now stands did NOT provide for any "opt-out" for any state or federal parks. However I know of no state parks that do NOT have a playground area. Thus IF this bill is amended to include such a provision, all parks with a play ground area will now be prohibited.   Such an amendment would be a MAJOR step backwards and I believe could be the "poision pill" for this legislation. IF such an amendment were to be made to this bill, I would have to urge it's defeat.   Thank you for introducing this important legislation. Please do all you can to keep it intact.

For any of you who had the pleasure to attend a Tea Party sponsored event in Jackson Tennessee last night, Thursday, February 27th,  you will agree that it was an event that was TOTALLY worth the money and drive.  If you missed it, you really missed hearing some truely inspired presentations.    John Harris and Sheriff Mack were dead on target in their addresses.  If any of you have not had the opportunity to hear either of them speak, (I have heard Sheriff Mack twice and along with knowing John Harris personally have heard him speak publically twice) I can only suggest you do so at your next opportunity.    I would like to thank the 7th and 8th Districts of the Tennessee Tea Party and Richard Archie, moderator for bringing these two Constitutionally strong speakers together.

I read in the Memphis paper today that the Tennessee  Senate did pass the parks carry bill.  BUT the article made referances to what Beth Harwell indicated could be included in the House version.  It appears that the House version could include a provision to exclude any park that was used as a childrens playground.    The problem with that is two fold.  First, how is a person, especially a visitor to a given area supposed to know if a park has or is being used as a childrens playground.  I know of one park in Memphis that you can not see into the park from the entrance.  The entrance to Kennedy Park off Raleigh LaGrange Road has a hill and a curve which blocks any view of the park from the road.    Next, the law passed did not provide for any "opt out" for any STATE parks.  BUT if this provision is included, it could, depending on how it is written, immediately make any state park  with a playground in it, off limits.  Meeman Shelby Forest in Shelby County is huge and has several playgrounds in it.   We all need to be contacting our House representatives to oppose any such provision.

  Well such behavior is not uncommon when it comes to the General Assembly and personal ambition.  Remember Mike Faulk?  He was the prime sponsor of Safe Commute in the Senate two years ago,  Got it out of all the committees only to kill it in the very committee HE CHAIRED.  Now in hind sight we all know why.  In bowing to Ramsey and Haslam, he was rewarded with a judgeship upon leaving the General Assembly.    I guess the rewards are good for a person willing to totally submarine his own bill.

Well the Bamboo Bomber is what is pictured in my avitar but I personally always liked the 310.  Unfortunately, I own neither.  Unfortunately I do not fly.  I was well on my way to accomplishing my dreams of a flying career when a 1968 Oldsmobile Cutlass took a motorcycle out from under me the hard way when I was 18 and the aeromedical branch of the Federal Aviation Administration had some issues with some of my injuries.  That put an end to that career goal so I redirected my love for aviation and went on and got my Airframe and Powerplant mechanics license and have worked on airplanes for close to 40 years now.  So I just have to "fly" the Toyota Tacoma pick-up.

    You CAN refuse the search of your private vehicle on their property, BUT IF, as it is at my employer, you will be terminated.  Not for what you may or may not have in your car because they will not know, (you refused to let them search it), but for violating your terms of employment.  Consent to search is part of the terms of employment at a lot places. 

  Well I, like Robert, am surprised that it actually went 10 posts before somebody tried to turn this thread into a worn out debate.  This is a subject which has two very passionate sides and neither is going to convice the other, that is why I said that the purpose of this thread was NOT to restart that debate but to simply ask the members for information.  There are likely as many members of this forum who agree with this as do not.  For those who do, we want this law changed and I will work tirelessly, as I have for over 10 years to that end.  Again I will ask for information that I can use in communicating with members of The Tennessee General Assembly.   JayC, you are certainly entitled to your opinion and have expressed it often on this subject, as have I.  I respect your opinioin but I will never agree with it.  The age old and worn out rebuttal of telling a person to simply quit their job is so over the top it is laughable.  Why? Because NOBODY in their right mind is going to quit a job in this economy especially if they have been with a given employer as long as I have.    I am sure you whole heartedly agreed with the FedEx representative who last year  said that they had the right to fire a person for having a Bible in their car if they choose to ban Bibles on their property.    The issue at hand is property rights.  Their parking lot, MY car.  The Castle Doctrine passed several years ago in Tennessee extended the same property protections to your car as exists for you house.  The fact is that as long as what I possess is LEGAL for me to possess, as long as it REMAINS inside my car, it is NOBODYS business.  An employer constructs and operates a parking area for their employees with an implied invitation to park MY PRIVATE car on that lot.  That includes what ever is INSIDE that car.   That is the last I will say about this as far as debating it goes on this thread.  If you want to further debate this topic, I would invite you to start a new thread for that and I will gladly jump in on it.

You are correct in that the law applies to both private and public institutions.  But that only protects you from the criminal aspect of keeping the weapon in a vehicle on a posted property. (they can still charge you with trespass)  It does not require the institution to change their policy.  I know there are many who disagree with this and it has been debated many, many times here and I am not interested in re-starting that debate.    I do want to see it changed, and I know it will be an uphill battle.  But I will still fight that fight.

Where are they located?

It may be questionable how the courts will deal with state institutions like the colleges, universities and other state offices.  I will be interested in hearing how that works out.  But the  real problem is how the PRIVATE business has handled this.  As I stated, FedEx did change their policy but because the law is NOT a mandate, they can change it back at their descretion.  Also there is the question about the other private employers.  I really would like to hear from people on this forum about that.

I wonder if the managment of Baretta really knows just how much of an a$$ kisser and fair weather friend Lt. Governor Ramsey is?  While I appreciate the move Baretta is making and the message it should sent to Maryland, I do seriously doubt that our General Assembly gets it either.  If they did, they wouldn't stonewall real fixes to Safe Commute and the Parks Carry bills.  They also would be more receptive to a bill to allow Constitutional Carry in Tennessee.    I wonder if the managment of Baretta is aware of the problems we have had in Tennessee in getting these issues fixed.   To qualify my remark about Lt. Gov. Ramsey.  Before the Republican party had the majority in the General Assembly, Ramsey sucked up to the pro-gun, pro-second amendment people like the TFA and NRA.  Since they have gained the majority, these people are no longer needed and he treats us as such.

Today the Senate took up two bills (SB 1700, and SB 1701) to "fix" the poorly written Safe Commute law that Lt. Gov. Ron Ramsey and Speaker Beth Harwell rammed through last year.    The bills sponsored by Sen Green only addressed two issues.  The issue of the privately owned vehicle and the issue of the term "ordinary observation".  Needless to say, these bills fall way short of really fixing the problems with the Safe Commute law.  Senator Mae Beavers offered an amendment to both bills that would have totally rewritten the bills and replaced the current law with one that really fixes the problems.   However, as expected, the amendments were both voted to "the table" which kills them.   My personal opinion is that too many members think, contrary to the opinion of the state Attorney General and others, that there is little wrong with the current law.  The current law is NOT a mandate to employers requiring them to allow permit holders to keep a firearm stored in their vehicle while parked on their employers lot.    Lt.Governor Ron Ramsey thinks that even though it is not a mandate, that they must still allow the firearms in permit holders cars.  Well, contrary to his belief, many employers have NOT changed their policies including state colleges.    There will be a time when I will travel to Nashville to work on getting this law changed but I need all of your all's help.  I need information.  While FedEx in Tennessee has amended their policy, (and the General Assembly will point to this and say, "the law worked"), many other employers did not.  So many other permit holders in Tennessee still have to commute to and from work unarmed.    What I need is the names of the other employers in Tennessee that have NOT changed their policies.  I also need to know of any punitive actions taken against permit holders.  The members of The General Assembly need to know that the law as written is inadequate and needs to be replaced.  So please, any of you who know of employers who have not changed their policies or have taken action against employees, list them here.   Thanks in advance

  I hope so

The real problem with this is NOT the dumb A$$ comments, it is that most people don't KNOW it was a mistake and are only focusing on "THAT BIG ASS GUN" and are agreeing that we need to ban it.  Why?  Because the "Senator" has a bully pulpit and we ALL know they wouldn't say something that isn't true, right????   Just like the senator in Colorado who made the comment about once all the high capacity magazines in response to a question or comment about all the magazines that are already in circulation, once they are all shot, then they will be gone.   I work in aviation and have done so for close to 40 years.  I want to throw something at the television every time some jerk on TV makes a totally bogus statement about aircraft or air travel but again, my frustration does little good because a majority of the flying public are totally ignorant of the facts and all they see is the smoking hole.