Jump to content
GKar

HB118/SB142: Current "parking lot" legislation

Recommended Posts

The only thing I don't like is there are no employee protections. At most workplaces HCP holders just have a don't ask don't tell policy, but if you work someplace like Eastman where they check your vehicle at the guard shack you can be fired. They need to make a law that makes your vehicle an extention of your home, what ever you can legaly have in your home you can have in your vehicle, and no one has any say about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what was the big stickler about insisting that it had to be the "permit holder’s privately-owned motor vehicle"? Rather than any frigging privately-owned vehicle? Could have added "with permission of owner" or some such.

 

Maybe extension of castle law theory, or was there actually a logic to it at all?

 

- OS

Edited by Oh Shoot
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what was the big stickler about insisting that it had to be the "permit holder’s privately-owned motor vehicle"? Rather than any frigging privately-owned vehicle? Could have added "with permission of owner" or some such.

 

Maybe extension of castle law theory, or was there actually a logic to it at all?

 

- OS

This way, the Establicans can tell their masters that nothing changed and that they stayed as obstructionist as possible, plus Ramsey has poked Haslam in the eye over allowing firearms in the parking lots of UT.  He is grinning from ear to ear at the moment. Fed Ex will keep writing him checks, he will proclaim for all to hear that he has once again been the savior of the 2nd Amendment, win/win for the Lt. Gov.

Edited by Worriedman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, it's all over but the shouting? The Governor's gonna sign it, huh?

More like a sigh.  Since the bill has so little real effect, why not sign it.  It's really not worth the space it will take in the Tenn. Code.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This way, the Establicans can tell their masters that nothing changed and that they stayed as obstructionist as possible, plus Ramsey has poked Haslam in the eye over allowing firearms in the parking lots of UT.  He is grinning from ear to ear at the moment. Fed Ex will keep writing him checks, he will proclaim for all to hear that he has once again been the savior of the 2nd Amendment, win/win for the Lt. Gov.


I still say we Maggart his ass.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what was the big stickler about insisting that it had to be the "permit holder’s privately-owned motor vehicle"? Rather than any frigging privately-owned vehicle? Could have added "with permission of owner" or some such.

 

Maybe extension of castle law theory, or was there actually a logic to it at all?

 

- OS

 

Prolly to exclude employees that drive company owned vehicles.

Could also be something there from constructive possession or some such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prolly to exclude employees that drive company owned vehicles.

 

Anyone's "privately owned vehicle" would exclude that.

 

- OS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This way, the Establicans can tell their masters that nothing changed and that they stayed as obstructionist as possible, plus Ramsey has poked Haslam in the eye over allowing firearms in the parking lots of UT.  He is grinning from ear to ear at the moment. Fed Ex will keep writing him checks, he will proclaim for all to hear that he has once again been the savior of the 2nd Amendment, win/win for the Lt. Gov.

 

I don't understand your comment in regard to mine though.

 

Why would FedEx be necessarily happy? They now have to allow HCP folks to keep guns in their own cars, right?

 

I'm just asking about the restriction of the gun owner and the car owner having to be the same person, still don't see the real intent?

 

- OS

Edited by Oh Shoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More like a sigh.  Since the bill has so little real effect, why not sign it.  It's really not worth the space it will take in the Tenn. Code.

 

You don't think HCP holding teachers and staff being able to keep their loaded heaters in the car on school grounds is significant? And HCP holding college students?

 

Previous felony changed to legal behavior seems significant to me.

 

- OS

Edited by Oh Shoot
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we sure with this bill that we won't get charged for 'intent to go armed' at a school parking lot by having the handgun loaded in the car?  Does the handgun have to be in a locked glove box or can it be in an unlocked glovebox?  Does the car have to be in my name or if the car is in my wife's name but i drive it all the time, is it considered my car?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would not be surprised if someone sends it to the AG for an opinion on these ad some other questions...you know, the same AG that opined that HCP holders COULD be prosecuted for carry in city parks where the city prevented carry by ordinance yet did NOT post the "required" signage...  Can't wait to see his convoluted viewpoints on this one...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still say we Maggart his ass.

I agree with this! I am so sick of politicians thinking that they serve businesses rather than the people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone's "privately owned vehicle" would exclude that.

 

- OS

 


Kinda like it would exempt companies that are on privately owed property? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More like a sigh.  Since the bill has so little real effect, why not sign it.  It's really not worth the space it will take in the Tenn. Code.

Well my wife and I are both college students,,,,,now we cant be arrested and expelled for keeping our guns in our vehicles, so it wasn't totally useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, you could be expelled, right?  Just not arrested?

 

I mean, the school could set its own policy or regulation that is stricter than the law, right?

Edited by Wheelgunner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Kinda like it would exempt companies that are on privately owed property? :)

 

Freudian slip there? [owed v. owned]

 

Would suspect you want to keep the language at managed or leased, not owned, or most large corporations would not be able to enforce policies?  They mostly exist in leased buildings on County owned property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sponsor in committee answered (House Video) a question from one of the other Legislators and basically said and I'm paraphrasing, "this bill does one thing, keeps a permit holder from being criminally prosecuted if they have a firearm locked up in their owned vehicle". Glad it passed. Could it have gone further, yes. I'm one of those that feel the 2nd Amendmend grants that right anyway but I'll take it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we sure with this bill that we won't get charged for 'intent to go armed' at a school parking lot by having the handgun loaded in the car?  Does the handgun have to be in a locked glove box or can it be in an unlocked glovebox? ..

 

You, um, you know, read the bill? :) Answers those two questions exactly.

 

As far as "ownership" part, dunno regarding husband/wife. Communal property law take effect there, regardless of which name is on registration?

 

Can cars be registered jointly in TN?

 

- OS

Edited by Oh Shoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think that if the car is husband's or wife's you would be "OK" but better to be versed in the law to answer that one..Tell you the truth I'm not worrying that point to much.... As I read it, if you lock your vehicle you "OK" as long as your firearm is not visible. If you don't lock your vehicle then the firearm must be locked in trunk, car safe etc or the trunk. The firearm must be locked up in some way if you are not in the car and the car is in a parking lot. The sponsor also stated that the bill was kept short, simple and to the point. There I go paraphrasing again. Kudo's to Rep. Faison of Cosby, TN. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another thing to consider, while the bill doesn't go as far as we'd like, it can be amended next year to include more of the things we like.  To me it's a step in the right direction.  Now we need to keep it moving, and push for more next year!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You, um, you know, read the bill? :) Answers those two questions exactly.

 

As far as "ownership" part, dunno regarding husband/wife. Communal property law take effect there, regardless of which name is on registration?

 

Can cars be registered jointly in TN?

 

- OS

Yes. Cars and trucks can be registered jointly. Ours are. Boats cannot be registered with more than one name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another thing to consider, while the bill doesn't go as far as we'd like, it can be amended next year to include more of the things we like.  To me it's a step in the right direction.  Now we need to keep it moving, and push for more next year!

 

Yeah, and the legislature has such a good track record on that.  Parks opt-out comes immediately to mind...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still say we Maggart his ass.


Maggart is the worst type of republican. When she does not get her way she has no trouble running all over the liberal media attacking everyone and because she is attacking other republicans, the liberal media gibes her all the time she wants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I normally put my gun in the trunk anyway when I go to Univ of Memphis and that is still legal no matter what car I drive.  I would probably be tempted to still put it in the trunk just to avoid theft.

 

 

I think who this does help from a legal standpoint are students who have handgun carry permits keep guns in their cars when going to class.  About the only exception they had before would be just dropping off or picking up passengers.  I don't see anything keeping the student from being expelled, but at least the student cannot be convicted of a crime. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sponsor in committee answered (House Video) a question from one of the other Legislators and basically said and I'm paraphrasing, "this bill does one thing, keeps a permit holder from being criminally prosecuted if they have a firearm locked up in their owned vehicle". Glad it passed. Could it have gone further, yes. I'm one of those that feel the 2nd Amendmend grants that right anyway but I'll take it.  

Not trying to be a smart a$$ or anything but this is a common misconception about the Second Amendment.  The Constitution and Bill of Rights did not "grant" our right to keep and bear arms.  It has been accepted and even stated in SCOTUS opinions over the years that the right to keep and bear arms pre-dated our constitution.  The wording of the Second Amendment ".....THE right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  (emphasis added).  The words "the right" is a form that implies that it already exists, and the amendment just states that it shall continue un-infringed. 

 

Too bad too many  of our legislators don't understand the part about "shall not be infringed". 

 

You also posted:

"I would think that if the car is husband's or wife's you would be "OK" but better to be versed in the law to answer that one..Tell you the truth I'm not worrying that point to much.... As I read it, if you lock your vehicle you "OK" as long as your firearm is not visible. If you don't lock your vehicle then the firearm must be locked in trunk, car safe etc or the trunk. The firearm must be locked up in some way if you are not in the car and the car is in a parking lot. The sponsor also stated that the bill was kept short, simple and to the point. There I go paraphrasing again. Kudo's to Rep. Faison of Cosby, TN."

 

We better be careful with this one.  During the bill discussion on the House floor, on more than one occasion it was stated that the firearm had to remain INSIDE the vehicle and to emphasize this point, either Faison or Dennis stated that even removing the firearm to move it from the passenger portion of the vehicle to the truck would constitute a violation under this law. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

The Fine Print

Tennessee Gun Owners (TNGunOwners.com) is the premier Community and Discussion Forum for gun owners, firearm enthusiasts, sportsmen and Second Amendment proponents in the state of Tennessee and surrounding region.

TNGunOwners.com (TGO) is a presentation of Enthusiast Productions. The TGO state flag logo and the TGO tri-hole "icon" logo are trademarks of Tennessee Gun Owners. The TGO logos and all content presented on this site may not be reproduced in any form without express written permission. The opinions expressed on TGO are those of their authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the site's owners or staff.

Before engaging in any transaction of goods or services on TGO, all parties involved must know and follow the local, state and Federal laws regarding those transactions. TGO makes no claims, guarantees or assurances regarding any such transactions.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to the following.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines