This is better: HB1667 (Pody)/SB1733 (Beavers)

[GKar]

http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/108/Bill/HB1667.pdf

 

"As introduced, protects the right of a person to transport and store a firearm or firearm ammunition in a privately owned vehicle; prevents any owner, lessee or manager of real property from taking adverse action against a person transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition; creates a civil cause of action for damages"

 

Expands the definition of personal property to "mean any item that is lawfully owned or possessed by a person and includes, but is not limited to, firearms or firearm ammunition."

 

States that "An individual who is lawfully in possession of a motor vehicle or an occupant of a motor vehicle may transport and store in such motor vehicle any item of personal property."

 

Hopefully, action on McCormick's inferior measures will be delayed in the House until this one can be considered.

[Guest PapaB]

Now that appears to be well written. I hope they're not allowed to mess with it, no tweeking needed.

[RobertNashville]

Unless I am mistaken I believe there is a companion bill that would encumber an employers ability to compel the search of the vehicle if the purpose of the search is to determine that the employee has a firearm in his or her vehicle.

Though perhaps not a perfect solution I do believe these two bills in combination Will make it very difficult for an employer to restrict the presence of a firearm in a person's vehicle simply because it is parked in the parking lot. Edited January 19, 2014 by RobertNashville

[Hershmeister]

I am so proud to have these two as my elected officals

[JohnC]

This looks like a well thought out amendment to the parking lot bill. I definitely would like to see this one pass! :up:

[DaveTN]

I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.


Most of the people I know and work with don’t have HCP’s; they are just normal citizens. Maybe when our legislators and the TFA get done playing games with this parking lot silliness they can spend some time on some real pro-gun legislation that would help those people carry instead of trying to make it appear they are doing something.

[JohnC]

I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.


Most of the people I know and work with don’t have HCP’s; they are just normal citizens. Maybe when our legislators and the TFA get done playing games with this parking lot silliness they can spend some time on some real pro-gun legislation that would help those people carry instead of trying to make it appear they are doing something.

:rolleyes:

Edited January 19, 2014 by JohnC

[RobertNashville]

I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.Most of the people I know and work with don’t have HCP’s; they are just normal citizens. Maybe when our legislators and the TFA get done playing games with this parking lot silliness they can spend some time on some real pro-gun legislation that would help those people carry instead of trying to make it appear they are doing something.

For many and even perhaps most of the time citizens spend outside of their home it is while they are in their vehicles commuting to and from work and all the places they need to go in between. Parking lot owners that attempt to control the legally owned and transported contents of a private vehicle effectively disarms the person for that significant period of time that he or she is away from home.

Regardless of ones position on the parking lot issue I certainly do not consider it "silly".

Odd that you apparently think that having an HCP means one is not "normal". Edited January 19, 2014 by RobertNashville

[Dustbuster]

Looks good and even better when read in its entirety.. I like that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2 of course it ate my spelling.

[DaveTN]

For many and even perhaps most of the time citizens spend outside of their home it is while they are in their vehicles commuting to and from work and all the places they need to go in between. Parking lot owners that attempt to control the legally owned and transported contents of a private vehicle effectively disarms the person for that significant period of time that he or she is away from home.

Regardless of ones position on the parking lot issue I certainly do not consider it "silly".

I do. It’s taking time away from the real issues of fighting gun control and putting the cart before the horse. Get the right to carry and then force it on business as a protected right. But the state doesn’t get to say guns are illegal except to those that pay a privilege tax, and then drive it down the throats of business owners. That’s wrong at face value.

Of course they may try whatever they like with the laws; after all they are politicians.

I didn’t think the state had any business legislating smoking in private businesses but they did it and a majority of the people were more than happy to see the government force that on business owners. And the bars that went out of business? Well they were just casualties of the government helping us.

Some of the same people here that support this will be whining in another thread about how heavy handed the government is and how we need to vote them all out of office.

 

Odd that you apparently think that having an HCP means one is not "normal".

We are 7% of the state population; hardly the norm.

[Worriedman]

Incrementally we chip away at the control by legislators of our ability to keep and bear arms.  Each step we gain means we can point back and say that the inroad last gained did not result in "blood in the streets".

The Constitution of the State of Tennessee at this present time still allows the power by law vested in the legislators to regulate the wearing of arms, we can thank the Democrats in charge in 1870 for that (and the Republicans in charge now for not doing the correct thing in giving us back our Rights).

Doing nothing results in nothing.

Edited January 19, 2014 by Worriedman

[JohnC]

We are 7% of the state population; hardly the norm.

You can't go by that number. I've been pro-Carry, but I've only had my carry permit maybe 3 months. My sister is pro-carry, but she doesn't even own a gun; she doesn't need once since she is always with an armed family member. :lol:

Anyway.... Maybe you'll get the "progressive" nature of what the TFA is doing. :up:

[DaveTN]

Incrementally we chip away at the control by legislators of our ability to keep and bear arms.  Each step we gain means we can point back and say that the inroad last gained did not result in "blood in the streets".

The Constitution of the State of Tennessee at this present time still allows the power by law vested in the legislators to regulate the wearing of arms, we can thank the Democrats in charge in 1870 for that (and the Republicans in charge now for not doing the correct thing in giving us back our Rights).

Doing nothing results in nothing.

I apologize if you think I was saying do nothing. I have been saying for months now is the time to make Tennessee the next state in a very short list of Constitutional Carry states.

The last time I suggested it here I was told by a member that claims to be in the know that it would go no where. I don’t know that and it is my understanding that Constitutional carry is about to be proposed… is that right or wrong? You of all people should know. If nothing else it will cut to the chase on who gets to stand up there and say they support gun rights and who doesn’t.

We get more people riled up over something like getting arrested for walking past a sign or losing their job over having a gun in their car at work than stuff that can really happen. Neither of those things is likely to happen or has happened. In comparison I wonder how many people have been arrested on weapons charges because they didn’t have the disposable income to pay for the privilege, or they didn’t have the time to get an HCP after being threatened in a real life situation and decided to carry. (Abused women)

[JohnC]

I apologize if you think I was saying do nothing. I have been saying for months now is the time to make Tennessee the next state in a very short list of Constitutional Carry states.

I see that is far more difficult than expanding HCP rights-wise. We can progressively maximize HCP right and then move toward constitutional carry, though. But even with that, I still want to have a permit so I can carry in other states, etc. Edited January 19, 2014 by JohnC

[DaveTN]

You can't go by that number. I've been pro-Carry, but I've only had my carry permit maybe 3 months. My sister is pro-carry, but she doesn't even own a gun; she doesn't need once since she is always with an armed family member. :lol:

Anyway.... Maybe you'll get the "progressive" nature of what the TFA is doing. :up:

I wasn’t addressing pro-carry, you before you had your permit or your sister now, if she is carrying without a permit she is a criminal. I specifically said HCP.
I watched the TFA’s progressive nature for years. I get it; and it’s time for a change.

And this isn’t an NRA issue anyway; it’s a Tennessee issue. But I’m sick of organizations that want you to send them money, stuff your mail boxes with garbage and then do nothing.

Heck with that “baby steps” non-sense we have pretty good gun laws in this state and the next obvious step is Constitutional Carry. If they were my employees I would tell them “You have lost focus and situational awareness. Now regroup and get back in there and do your job”.

I don’t know why you would post that childish .gif mocking me. Am I saying something that you don’t agree with?

If it’s the “baby Steps” issue then yes, we are in disagreement. The “Baby Steps” time has passed; that was good when we were getting the bad court rulings. We are getting the good court rulings now and it’s time for “Pit Bull” mode; strike while the iron is hot. Edited January 19, 2014 by DaveTN

[DaveTN]

I see that is far more difficult than expanding HCP rights-wise. We can progressively maximize HCP privilege HCP right (HCP is a privilege; you can’t buy rights. So I fixed that for you) and then move toward constitutional carry, though. But even with that, I still want to have a permit so I can carry in other states, etc.

Well of course it’s more difficult. We already have maximized our HCP privilege. When we are reduced down to supporting the actions of a thug government on an issue that would be taken care of with the Constitutional Carry legislation; things have went too far.

Rights? HCP is not a right.

And you will still have an HCP. If you want to carry in other states; the state isn’t going to pass up free money.

But on the other hand a poor person or an abused wife running from someone committing violence against her, that isn’t as blessed as we are to be able to buy our privileges; will still be able to defend their life.

[JayC]

There is already a market based solution to that problem...  go get a job with a less anti-2nd amendment company.

 

Why on earth do you want to continue to work for a company that promotes the taking of your rights?  Why help them earn more profit and continue to push the anti-gun agenda?

 

 

For many and even perhaps most of the time citizens spend outside of their home it is while they are in their vehicles commuting to and from work and all the places they need to go in between. Parking lot owners that attempt to control the legally owned and transported contents of a private vehicle effectively disarms the person for that significant period of time that he or she is away from home.

Regardless of ones position on the parking lot issue I certainly do not consider it "silly".

Odd that you apparently think that having an HCP means one is not "normal".

 

[JayC]

Then stop wasting money on the parking lots bill, and remove the exception to state preemption...

 

How about HCP carry at the state capital? You realize that requires a single signature from a republican (in name only) to make that happen?  No vote, just a letter sent to capitol security.

 

How about removing government buildings/property from 39-17-1359?  For all the money and political capital TFA wasted on a parking lots bill which really only impacts college students...  they could have repealed part or all of 39-17-1359.

 

How about this simple one, change a single word in 39-17-1308 from defense to exception so that certain types of carry are by default legal.

 

How about making all parks and wildlife areas in the state carry zones?  That would have caused a lot fewer issues politically than the parking lots bill.

 

I could go on and on about simple easy fixes that the TFA could have pushed for that would have done a lot more good than the parking lots bill did.

 

I see that is far more difficult than expanding HCP rights-wise. We can progressively maximize HCP right and then move toward constitutional carry, though. But even with that, I still want to have a permit so I can carry in other states, etc.

 

[Worriedman]

Anybody that has an in to getting Constitutional Carry passed in this legislative session let me know, I will bow and genuflect to your vast superior powers of persuasion. They evidently have more money than Fed Ex, Volkswagen, Amazon and Pilot all combined.  I look forward to riding their coattails to victory.

For the rest of us who live in the real world, and know the leadership of both houses of Congress in TN, and the fact that the Chamber is the largest purchaser of legislators in TN, (and the US) we understand that the road to Constitutional Carry is not one of instant gratification, just because it is the correct thing.

 

It only took 125 years to get Shall Issue Permits in TN under the political system we have from "only the Sheriff's buddies can carry legally".

[Worriedman]

Then stop wasting money on the parking lots bill, and remove the exception to state preemption...

 

 

And just how much money did the TFA "waste" on the Parking Lot Bill, and who exactly did that wasted money go to?

[RobertNashville]

Then stop wasting money on the parking lots bill, and remove the exception to state preemption...
 
How about HCP carry at the state capital? You realize that requires a single signature from a republican (in name only) to make that happen?  No vote, just a letter sent to capitol security.
 
How about removing government buildings/property from 39-17-1359?  For all the money and political capital TFA wasted on a parking lots bill which really only impacts college students...  they could have repealed part or all of 39-17-1359.
 
How about this simple one, change a single word in 39-17-1308 from defense to exception so that certain types of carry are by default legal.
 
How about making all parks and wildlife areas in the state carry zones?  That would have caused a lot fewer issues politically than the parking lots bill.
 
I could go on and on about simple easy fixes that the TFA could have pushed for that would have done a lot more good than the parking lots bill did.

I'm really kind of curious to find out what you are doing to make all that happen? ;)

It's rather easy for any of us to pontificate about what should be done and complain about what hasn't been done but getting it done takes real work (and complaining about things on the Internet form is not The kind of work I'm talking).

 

I mean no offense to you or anyone else...it's just been my observation that we have quite a few here on TGO who like to complain about what the NRA or the TFA is doing and/or how they are going about it...complain that what they think these or other groups should be spending their resources on isn't getting attention or that we need to do some kind of massive surge to overturn all existing infringements yet they often don't even belong to or help the groups they chastise and likely have never written an email (much less an actual letter) or gone to a town hall meeting or called a senator or representative to let their opinions be known.

 

If you think the parking lot issue is unimportant that's fine. But try to understand that most people in this state work for an employer and have to commute to work - for many people, the majority they spend anywhere is commuting to/from work and for those people, being able to keep their legally owned and legally carried firearm in their personal vehicle while it's parked in a parking lot is pretty important...comments like "they should just go work for someone else" does nothing to bring 2A supporters together on the issues they DO agree on.

Edited January 20, 2014 by RobertNashville

[GKar]

Well, this one lasted all of 6 posts before getting littered with the usual moaning and b******g from predictable sources.  Your objections and platitudes have been well-documented throughout many pages...what seems absent is any real actions stemming from those thoughts.  This particular thread tries to deal with a particular bill under consideration presently before this session of the GA .  Perfection?  Far from it.  Shows the work that some have tried to accomplish to improve the landscape incrementally?  Definitely.  Better than the other alternatives also actually being considered?  That's what we're trying to discuss (note the title  - "This is better" - not "this is great", nor "We've reached nirvana")  Don't like it?  Yeah, we already knew that before you told us - again.  Try starting your own thread describing your attempts to obtain CC in the current legislative session - I promise that I, and many others, will not troll it with our observations.  Wish ya luck, even!!  But until then...

Edited January 20, 2014 by GKar

[Guest 6.8 AR]

There are things you need to work on when you can, but you always should pick fights you can win, when you can. It could

very well be ripe for the picking, after the 2014 elections, to go for CC. Don't know, yet, but I would most certainly like to see

some of those correction in language bill JayC mentioned put up and voted on. Simpler laws are much better and easier to

keep lawyers and judges from redefining. Plain english is good enough for me.

[Worriedman]

Get something meaningful past Jim Coley in Judiciary sub, then the Caucus has to agree that the Chamber is not being dictated to, and finally work it out of Calender and Rules under Madam Speaker's baleful eye, (with her mentors Lamar and Bill in concurrence), what could go wrong...

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I understand exactly what you mean. The pomp and circumstance of getting any bill out to a vote has to meet with a certain

type of glee for committee head and their puppet masters. Working within the system will probably shorten anyone's life.