In TN
WBIR:
Gov. Bill Haslam has signed legislation that allows workers to sue their employers if they are fired for storing guns in cars parked on company lots.
18 Responses to “In TN”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
April 7th, 2015 at 7:05 pm
Big whoop. You can sue. Who do you think can hire more lawyers, your former employer or your fired ass?
April 7th, 2015 at 7:50 pm
Right, the threat of wrongful discharge/discrimination suits doesn’t shape employer behavior in massive ways.
That right there is an example of the “ignorant contrarian” / reflexive lemon-sucker streak of the gun rights community. Its prevalence is a real head-shaker.
April 7th, 2015 at 7:58 pm
Even before the current law, I just used the old, ” don’t ask, don’t tell.” I always thought it was a legality that your vehicle was an extension of hour house. So it would seem that a more general law would be better, designating that the interior and storage areas of a vehicle were considered to be an extension of your dwelling and thus protected by the 4th Amendment and the corresponding one in Article I of the Tennessee Constitution.
April 7th, 2015 at 8:23 pm
— Hello, Mr. Widgetmacher?
— Yes?
— This is your insurance agent from Wee, Skruem and Howe Insurance Agency.
— Yes?
— Well, you know how you’ve been paying us lebenteen gazillion simoleons in case Jamal gets upset because the pickle slicer turned him down for a date and he shoots up the cafeteria?
— Of course I do. I sign the check.
— Well, I have good news and bad news.
— What’s the good news?
— You don’t have to pay us that lebenteen gazillion simoleons anymore.
— What’s the bad news?
— We’re cancelling your insurance policy and all others like it in Tennessee, and not providing that coverage anymore.
— Holy guacamole. What am I going to do?
— We still offer that coverage in all the other 49 states.
April 7th, 2015 at 9:07 pm
Being one of the few states with a constitutional amendment against the establishment of a state income Tax will offset that eventuality, nk.
April 7th, 2015 at 9:14 pm
Right to work, reasonable minimum wage, good climate and infrastructure, etc., as well. Businesses weigh all the factors, that’s true.
April 7th, 2015 at 9:36 pm
nk, cute skit but flawed conclusion.
Now as a business owner gov telling me what I can’t do on my property and what policies I can’t set for my workers pisses me off.
Here though, gov is confirming that employees’ vehicles are sovereign in the same way their homes are; I don’t get to tell them what they can do in either. Good interpretation of existing law.
And I’m no more likely to get my insurance cancelled because Jamal grabbed his gat from his hoopty and shot shit up than his landlord would be if he got it from his crib and popped a few from his porch. Would you have the landlord pre-emptively restrict his tenants’ 2A rights?
April 7th, 2015 at 9:57 pm
I remember when New York state passed a strict liability law for ladder falls – whoever owns the property is wholly liable. Everyone predicted that insurance rates would skyrocket, and no business would ever be able to use ladders again in NY. Didn’t happen. Turns out insurance companies are economically literate.
April 8th, 2015 at 1:10 am
The gov’t telling a business what to do and what not to do pisses JTC off? Guess what? The gov’ts already do tell you what to do. Federal, state, and cities have many rules already.
April 8th, 2015 at 12:03 pm
harp1034: Yeah, no shit…nobody is more aware of that than a small business owner. Point here is, that’s not what happened, it just confirms Castle Doctrine for vehicles of which I am a huge fan…you?
April 8th, 2015 at 1:11 pm
JTC, “Castle Doctrine for Cars” or considering a vehicle to be an extension of your domicile (as it is in Misssissippi) could have been written into the original legislation.
How many years / sessions of the Legislature have we Tennesseans been fighting to keep our employers from negating our carry permits?
We don’t see other states passing this type of legislation having to revisit it over and over and over, and that’s pretty embarrassing when you think about it.
April 8th, 2015 at 3:56 pm
“Castle Doctrine for Cars…as it is in Mississippi”
FL too. And more to come no doubt, based on recent progress. But stop-gap legislation is what they do, and that’s what this is. And there is no “negating of carry permits”, employers and property owners have the right to decide policy, always have, even if it’s dumb and self destructive, as preventing legal carry certainly is.
That’s irrelevant to C.D., your home and your vehicle are sacrosanct; you set policy there no matter where your home (as a mobile home on rented property) or your vehicle (as a car in a business’ parking lot) may be.
Y’all will get there; as we’ve seen these past years, codifying firearms legislation is a process, and it’s going our way. This TN bill is a good step in that direction, and revisiting it over and over is what it takes. Keep up the good fight.
April 8th, 2015 at 5:09 pm
It’s a start but I would prefer criminal prosecution for said business owner.
April 8th, 2015 at 5:40 pm
“ And there is no “negating of carry permits”, employers and property owners have the right to decide policy, always have, even if it’s dumb and self destructive, as preventing legal carry certainly is.”
Beg to differ. If I’m your employee and cannot store my legally-carried firearm in my vehicle in your parking lot, then I have to leave my firearm at home, rendering my permit useless. This is even more exasperating when there is no alternative to the employer’s parking lot, as in the case of FedEx and VW employees.
If you’re going to limit what is allowed in an employees POV in your parking lot, why stop at guns? Why not books? Why not Bibles? (The right version of the Bible?)
I can understand your concern about having employees with firearms on your property, but until there’s a rash of licensed CCW’ers shooting up their employer’s premises, I’m going to side with the guy who has has jumped through the hoops to make the government happy but is still not trusted by his employer. (Unless of course you want to provide an armed escort to and from the employee’s home every day.)
The original title of this legislation was “Safe Commute.” Then it became “Guns in cars.” Now it’s “GUNNNNZZ in TRUUUUNNNKS!” The further along the process goes, the more the hysteria rises and the further away from the original intent we get.
“Your property rights stop at the bottom of my tires.” It’s a simple concept, but is evidently beyond our Betters in Nashville.
April 8th, 2015 at 7:54 pm
So much for property rights for the owners of the parking lot.
April 8th, 2015 at 8:08 pm
rickn8or, I have no idea whose comments yours is in response to, but since you quote some of mine, I’ll assume you’re talking to me. And if so it is apparent that you didn’t read mine, or if you did, didn’t comprehend it or my position at all. Try again.
April 8th, 2015 at 8:45 pm
JTC, I did read and understand your comments.
You believe you can regulate and ban lawfully-owned and -carried objects inside my car simply because it’s in your parking lot. This lessens my ability to defend myself while traveling to and from your parking lot. This additional risk is unacceptable to me, especially after going to the trouble and expense of obtaining a carry permit.
I believe that anything inside my car us and indeed the car itself mine and that your property rights end at the bottom of my tires. I refuse to subject myself to greater risk because of your (self-admitted) “dumb and self destructive” policy.
We’re never going to come to an agreement on this, so let’s drop it, okay?
April 8th, 2015 at 9:49 pm
You drop whatever you want, but your reading comprehension is completely for shit, and you apparently believe and imply that I oppose Castle Doctrine, so I’ll quote for you one last time my position and my belief, simplified and in caps for your benefit:
“That’s (business property rights) irrelevant to Castle Doctrine, (which holds that) YOUR HOME (even on rented property) AND YOUR VEHICLE (even in a business’ parking lot) ARE SACROSANCT; YOU SET POLICY THERE NO MATTER WHERE YOUR HOME OR VEHICLE MAY BE.”
Get it now? Damn dude…I’m on your side. But get some help with your comp skills, ‘kay?