Parking Lot Bill Moving

[Guest JMB]

The Parking Lot Bill (s) were reported out of a Senate Committee with amendments that were recommended by the Governor and Lt. Governor. It is moving forward quickly and some business groups are in a panic, sending out e-mail blasts encouraging business owners to lobby their legislators next week.

Might be advisable for anyone wishing to have the bills become law to make sure your House and Senate members hear from you, since they will likely be hearing plenty from the other side.

Members are likely in their hometowns this weekend, so if you know how to connect with yours, a FTF or phone chat may be more convincing.

[Parrothead]

I got a email this afternoon from the Kingsport Chamber of Commerce. They ask that we contact our congressman and oppose this bill. Thankfully, they gave the contact info to all the congressmen across the state. This made it really easy to contact them for the opposite reason. Below is the email--use it has you see fit.........

Chamber members,

The guns and ammunition in parking lots bills have gained some unexpected momentum.The Senate committees passed both bills this week which sent them to the Senate Calendar Committee to be scheduled for a floor vote.

Please call your Senators and Representatives today to express your opposition to SB 3002 and SB 2992.

SB3002 (Senator Faulk)/HB3560 (Representative Bass) allows for guns and ammunition to be kept in a vehicle as long as they are secured and out of sight.

Business would not be able to prohibit the possession of these weapons from being on their property, nor create policies contrary to the provisions in the bill.

The bill also does not allow inquiry about weapons owned, possessed, transported or used by employees. It also allows conceal and carry permit owners to possess guns on private property.

Please CALL your Senator and Representative to voice your opposition to these bills.

These bills are moving quickly!

The General Assembly will reconvene Monday. Please call first thing Monday morning and ask to speak directly to your Senator or State Representative. Please be persistent in trying to talk directly with your Senator or Representative.

You may also e-mail over the weekend, or speak with them about this important issue if you see them in the district.

Here are some talking points that might be helpful:

• Private property rights must be protected.
  
• Employers must provide a safe environment for employees, customers and guests.
  
• The bills don't limit the number or types of firearms a person can have in their vehicle.
  
• A new protected class of citizens with a risk for more and bigger law suits is a JOBS KILLER.
  

Senate

District 1

Senator Steve Southerland - (615) 741-3851 or sen.steve.southerland@capitol.tn.gov

District 2

Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey - (615) 741-4524 or lt.gov.ron.ramsey@capitol.tn.gov

District 3

Senator Rusty Crowe - (615) 741-2468 or sen.rusty.crowe@capitol.tn.gov

District 4

Senator Mike Faulk - (615) 741-2061 or sen.mike.faulk@capitol.tn.gov

Representatives

District 1

Representative Jon Lundberg - (615) 741-7623 or rep.jon.lundberg@capitol.tn.gov

District 2

Representative Tony Shipley - (615) 741-2886 or rep.tony.shipley@capitol.tn.gov

District 3

Representative Scotty Campbell - (615) 741-2050 or rep.scotty.campbell@capitol.tn.gov

District 4

Representative Kent Williams - (615) 741-7450 or rep.kent.williams@capitol.tn.gov

District 5

Representative David Hawk - (615) 741-7482 or rep.david.hawk@capitol.tn.gov

District 6

Representative Dale Ford - (615) 741-1717 or rep.dale.ford@capitol.tn.gov

District 7

Representative Matthew Hill - (615) 741-2251 or rep.matthew.hill@capitol.tn.gov

District 9

Representative Michael Harrison - (615) 741-7480 or rep.michael.harrison@capitol.tn.gov

District 11

Representative Jeremy Faison - (615) 741-6871 or rep.jeremy.faison@capitol.tn.gov

If you do not know your district, visit the Tennessee General Assembly website and enter your address. Your elected officials will be identified for you.

Click on their picture and the office direct phone line will be provided.

<img border="0" height="135" hspace="5" name="13664da56e25077f_ACCOUNT.IMAGE.2103" vspace="5" width="135" />

_________________

For more information on government in Kingsport,

visit our new website!

Guess we won't renew our membership next year.........

[Volzfan]

I've sent numerous emails and have just sent another to all legislators thru the TFA site. We should be flooding thier inboxes and answwering services. Hold them to their promise. Pay close attention to who opposes this and get ready to boot them to the curb on election day. We hold the power of term limits if they won't vote them in themselves.

[1pointofview]

I would make sure these chambers of commerce get an email letting them know that some of their members are for the bill

[Motasyco]

Emails sent to my legislators, Sen. Steve Southerland and Rep Don Miller. Get involved folks. BTT.

[Rowdy]

There are two opposing rights here. Gun rights and private property rights. I support both strongly but I understand that they occasionally come into conflict. That is why I don't support the "parking lot" bill. None of us wants to be told we must allow someone to be able to bring something on to our property we don't want there. In that situation your private property rights should trump my gun rights.

I believe that everyone should be able to specify who and want can enter their property even if they are wrong. It's still their property.

[QuietDan]

There are two opposing rights here. Gun rights and private property rights. I support both strongly but I understand that they occasionally come into conflict. That is why I don't support the "parking lot" bill. None of us wants to be told we must allow someone to be able to bring something on to our property we don't want there. In that situation your private property rights should trump my gun rights.

I believe that everyone should be able to specify who and want can enter their property even if they are wrong. It's still their property.

I disagree.

I'm thinking your property rights end at my car door. A private property holder does not have the right to inspect the contents of my vehicle. The police do, after establishing probable cause.

If that's not clear in Tennessee Law, we've got other problems, and this point ought to be made clear before we move forward on this bill.

[Rowdy]

I'm not disagreeing with you QuietDan. It's two different issues. Inspection is one thing, but allowing you to set policy for your property is another. If you own a piece of property you control what happens on that property. If I don't like the policies you set for your property than I have some decisions to make.

Anything on your property is subject to your policies. That's what private property rights are.

[Volzfan]

The bill only gives the HCP holder the right to park his/her car on the property and keep the gun concealed inside of a locked car. I don't see how this has much for the property owner to worry about. It will not cover those who are not approved by the State of TN to carry a weapon.

If it allowed for concealed carry anywhere on the property then I could understand the argument for the rights of the property owner.

To me it seems to be another version of don't ask, don't tell.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm not disagreeing with you QuietDan. It's two different issues. Inspection is one thing, but allowing you to set policy for your property is another. If you own a piece of property you control what happens on that property. If I don't like the policies you set for your property than I have some decisions to make.

Anything on your property is subject to your policies. That's what private property rights are.

And those decisions impact the way you are allowed to protect yourself while traveling to and from work.

This law doesn't trump anyone's private property rights, it just allows safe passage. What is wrong with that?

It doesn't allow you or force you to display your weapon and doesn't allow for punishment while your weapon

is safely store in "your" private personal property.

The property rights argument is just a distraction to allow a politically correct argument to proceed and trump

your 2nd amendment rights.

[Guest A10thunderbolt]

Once this law is passed allowing someone to BRING their personal property onto someone else's personal property (keeping in mind they can't remove themselves from the situation but the person who is invading their property can always leave) Lets run some scenarios where the liberals use this law to force themselves on our property and can legally stay against the property owners will.

[Oh Shoot]

I'm thinking your property rights end at my car door....

Yep, that's the simple way I think of it.

TN already includes your vehicle under the "castle doctrine", which does little good it you can't keep something in there with which to avail yourself of that right.

- OS

[Guest 270win]

I would have liked to see the 500 dollar fine removed from the 'no guns' signs instead of this bill. That would legalize carry in a lot of places that may be against a 'policy' but you couldn't possibly get fined over a sign.

[Rowdy]

Property rights have been eroded just like 2nd amendment rights have, one little law at a time. Our founders were very clear on this point. After having been forced to lodge British soldiers in their homes they spoke very clearly to this point: property owners have complete control of their land.

Do any of us want to be told by the government what we must allow on our land? It may just be firearms this time around but could this set another precedent to allow something else later?

If you don't control what comes on your property is it really all yours?

[Oh Shoot]

Property rights have been eroded just like 2nd amendment rights have, one little law at a time. Our founders were very clear on this point. After having been forced to lodge British soldiers in their homes they spoke very clearly to this point: property owners have complete control of their land.

Do any of us want to be told by the government what we must allow on our land? It may just be firearms this time around but could this set another precedent to allow something else later?

If you don't control what comes on your property is it really all yours?

We're talking state here. A state can enact laws for their own residents that the Fed can't for all states. This was mentioned even in regard to the Obamacare thing.

The states that have enacted the parking lot possession thing show no signs of billeting their Guard troops in same locations. Though if you wanted to keep one or two of them inside your car, I'd say it should be okay.

- OS

Edited April 5, 2012 by OhShoot

[TripleDigitRide]

I understand both sides of the argument. With that being said, I couldn't care less how this turns out because no one knows if or when or where I'm carrying or where my firearm is located. My life won't change either way.

[Rowdy]

Points are well made and well taken. I will leave it at this: I want to decide what and who comes on my property.

[1pointofview]

Let me ask this question. If I park my car on someone's property and it is broken into, is it my car or the property owner's? My car is my property. If a business owner is not going to take responsibility for my vehicles being vandalized on their property then they do not have grounds to restrict me from keeping my property locked in my property

[Guest PapaB]

Do any of us want to be told by the government what we must allow on our land? It may just be firearms this time around but could this set another precedent to allow something else later?

This isn't about the government telling you what you have to allow on your land. You can still stop people from parking on your property if you wish. Businesses allow people to park on their property for the convenience of the business. It's not easy getting employees or customers when parking isn't available.

This is about you not controlling what's in someone elses property. Real estate is not the only thing that's classified as property. Maybe it would be more correct for some to say they're only for real estate property rights, not all property rights.

[K191145]

I disagree. I'm thinking your property rights end at my car door. A private property holder does not have the right to inspect the contents of my vehicle. The police do, after establishing probable cause. If that's not clear in Tennessee Law, we've got other problems, and this point ought to be made clear before we move forward on this bill.

I have thought this over many times, I wouldn't want anyone telling me who or what I have to allow on my property but you are correct that I can't search anyones vehicle on my property, all I can do is tell them to leave my property. You are also correct that your vehicle is your private property therefore absolutly no one has any right to search it unless they are city, county, state, or federal police with probable cause of a crime or warrant. No company should be allowed to force any employee to sign any contract or agreement to search any private vehicle on their property no more can they force any employee to support a particular political candidate or subscribe to a particular religion. You still have your constitutional rights no matter what company you work for. I know the old rule that they can fire you for what ever reason but try to fire someone because they're black or hispanic and see what happens.

[Fallguy]

Points are well made and well taken. I will leave it at this: I want to decide what and who comes on my property.

....and you can. If you don't want to provide parking or allow vehicles period, you can very well do that. However if you do choose to allow other's vehicles onto your property...whatever legally kept items that they have in said vehicle shouldn't be any concern of yours as long as it is out of site and stays within the vehicle.

[Guest A10thunderbolt]

....and you can. If you don't want to provide parking or allow vehicles period, you can very well do that. However if you do choose to allow other's vehicles onto your property...whatever legally kept items that they have in said vehicle shouldn't be any concern of yours as long as it is out of site and stays within the vehicle.

So, Before this is passed, I will be able to tell someone to leave my property for any reason, after it is passed I will have to have a valid reason? I should be able to deny anyone I want on my property for any reason.

[Fallguy]

So, Before this is passed, I will be able to tell someone to leave my property for any reason, after it is passed I will have to have a valid reason? I should be able to deny anyone I want on my property for any reason.

Are you an employer or business owner? This really only applies to them, it does not apply to a residential driveway.

But even if this passes and you are an employer or business owner you can still simply not provide a place for people to park, then it won't matter what is in their car.

But I see your point to some degree...I feel if I own a business I should be able to tell anyone to leave even if it is because of their race, sex, religion, creed, eye color, hair color and so on, but I can't. None of those particular things are mentioned directly in the Constitution, but the right to bear arms is.

So if the government can tell me I have to do business with certain people, even though not mentioned in the Consitution....I don't see it as a big intrusion for them to allow a firearm to be stored in a vehicle in the parking lot.

[Guest A10thunderbolt]

Fallguy

"So if the government can tell me I have to do business with certain people, even though not mentioned in the Consitution....I don't see it as a big intrusion for them to allow a firearm to be stored in a vehicle in the parking lot."

Well, I am sure liberals don't think taking gun rights away is a big deal either. It isn't only the bill, its what the bill gives the Gov the right to control. The only reason your supporting this is because it supports your personal beliefs, but what it also does is say Its ok to force personal beliefs on others. That can go both ways Left or Right. I would rather leave it be than give them a bigger opening for future control.

[JAB]

Fallguy

"So if the government can tell me I have to do business with certain people, even though not mentioned in the Consitution....I don't see it as a big intrusion for them to allow a firearm to be stored in a vehicle in the parking lot."

Well, I am sure liberals don't think taking gun rights away is a big deal either. It isn't only the bill, its what the bill gives the Gov the right to control. The only reason your supporting this is because it supports your personal beliefs, but what it also does is say Its ok to force personal beliefs on others. That can go both ways Left or Right. I would rather leave it be than give them a bigger opening for future control.

As others have said, my car is my personal, private property. My gun is my personal, private property. As a business owner or even employer, you have every right to tell me to get my car off of your property. You should not, however, legally be able to control what legally owned, private property (gun, knife, fishing lure or hammer) I can store inside my legally owned, private property (car) regardless of where my legally owned private property (car) is parked.

Now, if you want to make a rule that I can't drive or park my car on your property you have the right to do so and these bills would not change that. If you want to make a rule that I cannot remove my gun, knife, fishing lure or hammer from the confines of my private property (car) while my car is on your property then you have the right to do so and these bills would not change that. I do NOT, however, believe that you or anyone else should have the right to infringe on MY private property rights by telling me that I can't, as someone else put it, store my private property inside my private property. Again, as someone previously stated, real estate is not the only type of private property and real estate property rights are not the only kind of private property rights.

This bill does not force any personal beliefs on others. This bill simply prohibits employers and business owners (who seem to think that THEIR private property rights are the only ones that matter) from infringing on the private property rights of their employees and others. Personally, I think the bills should be broadened to simply say that an employer's/business owner's business has no right to question, search or prohibit what is stored inside a private vehicle - with no, specific mention of firearms - but the bills are what they are.

Edited April 17, 2012 by JAB