On March 6th, opponents of TN SB2992 (and SB3002) were given an hour before the Senate Commerce Committee to explain why they should not be prohibited from discriminating against gun owners when making hiring and firing decisions. You can view the testimony here.
And yes, I do mean discriminate. The bill prohibits employers from firing you if they find out you are a gun owner. It is a companion bill to SB3002, which is more commonly known as the parking lot bill, so both bills were addressed in the testimony.
There were several folks that testified, and they all made the same general claims that allowing employees who have carry permits to lock their guns in their cars is a safety hazard.
There were three company security reps (Fedex, Volkswagen, and a Knoxville Hospital*) who made the same statement at one point or another:
“I am personally responsible for the [safety/security] of every [employee/customer/visitor] that comes to this facility.”
I heard this same thing from the Metro Parks Director during the park carry debate. It was bullshit then, and it’s bullshit now.
My suggested follow up when someone uses a statement like that as an argument for disarmament is: “Really? So if I’m murdered in your establishment, what happens to you, personally? If you’re responsible for my safety, what are the consequences for failure?”
I doubt that there are any consequences at all.
When questioned by committee members, none of the witnesses would accept responsibility for the personal safety of employees going to and from work–which is proper. Putting employees in danger while commuting is not.
I have proposed to a sponsor of the House version, tongue mostly in cheek, that a compromise can be reached with a relatively simple amendment:
You want to claim to be responsible for my welfare? Fine. Companies may prohibit people visiting their facilities from carrying firearms, but if any person is a victim of a violent crime from the time they leave their home until the time they return, the person who is “personally responsible” for the safety and security of visitors shall be charged as an accessory and receive the same sentence as the perpetrators.
Now, for some ridiculous statements heard during testimony (from memory, may not be exact):
“Employees have plenty of places where they can drop off their guns on the way to work.” Really? I’ve never heard of such places, except my home.
When asked if employers could ban Bibles from employees’ vehicles: “Well, there are laws saying we can’t do that.” Sen. Faulk eventually came back with something along the lines of “isn’t this just another one of those kind of laws?” Except Fedex. That guy said it was totally ok to ban discussion of religion at Fedex facilities.
There was a guy from MAPCO who testified, but after he announced that I couldn’t stop laughing. At least three MAPCO gas stations get robbed every week in the Nashville area. Sometimes it’s the same gas station, they just rob it three times. I’m sure he knows a lot about keeping his employees safe.
*The anecdotal evidence the hospital administrator gave was one incident where a non-employee who was also a suicidal prohibited person walked right past an armed security guard and killed a doctor, and another where a teacher was fired and went to his car to get a handgun that he had been storing there–a serious felony. It’s unclear how this law would have affected those incidents.
I agree with you 110%. I am certainly in support of these bills with one additional expansion.
I work on state government property. It is also a National Guard Military Installation with fences, gates, check points, and contracted armed guards. While that is great, I don’t feel even slightly more safe. I’ve seen how the guards conduct vehicle searches. I’ve also seen how VERY RARELY they conduct a search in the first place. They are about as effective as the TSA which is to say they are not effective at all. We have an annual training class on how to respond or react to an active shooter incident (which means someone easily made it through security). What does this tell me? It tells me they are concerned about the possibility, but not about my well being or anyone else’s well being at the facility. They say, “We have an armed Tennessee Highway Patrolman inside the building”. I say, “He leaves between 4:00 and 4:30 everyday and this is a 24 hour facility”. So am I to assume that you don’t care about your staff after 4:30? What about 3rd shift? Are they subject to being less of an employee, citizen, liability?
Just as a test, I have had an AIRSOFT AR15 in my trunk for about 10 months. My vehicle has been searched twice in that period. Not even a question about it. Not one damn raised eyebrow!
It is also obvious, that this prohibition of personal protection devices means that I am unprotected during my commute to and from work.
Being that it is a military installation I have an additional obstacle to get through. Even if the law passes and the rest of you are allowed to take your firearms to work, I will not be able to unless the commander (general) of the installation approves it. It’s like working in a little “may issue” portion of Tennessee. It’s my understanding that that the “allowed” list is very short and arbitrary. Mostly law enforcement of various kinds. So once again we are dealing with “just the same as you, only better” on top of the other subversion of Federal and State Constitutional Rights. We could very well have a repeat of Ft. Hood, but that doesn’t matter to them.
They trust me with sensitive material, I was trusted as a police officer (in their eyes that is different, but not mine), I was trusted in the US Army (again, their eyes not mine), but since I do not wear those hats anymore, I am somehow less trustworthy? Really? I haven’t changed (except for the better), I’ve just changed jobs.
I truly hope these pass into law. I just wish they would include me and those like me who will remain unprotected while at work, and during our commutes.
Disavowed With Honor
Here in Arizona, the law was passed and went into effect in September 2009. Guess how many employees have lost their minds and run out to their car for a weapon. That’s right, none. I work in a hospital, and we have put up the signs at entrances banning weapons. Until they come up with a sign that leaps off the wall and tackles a bad guy, they are worthless. Our “active shooter” policy assumes that the shooter WILL enter the building. Unless we completly lock down the building and allow only one entrance and exit, there is no way to prevent this scenario. This means that not allowing employees to carry to and from work will not result in any change in the safety of the facility. With a ban in place, an employee that is wanting to do something crazy will have plenty of time to go home, gather all the weapons and ammo they want, and come back in the next day. Almost all of the active shooters in recent history have been found with multiple weapons and lots of ammo.
Most of the places I have worked, security is pretty much a joke. Not sure which is scarier, them saying they are responsible for my personal safety (and not doing anything) or seeing them with their guns drawn. Neither give me a sense of security. I have my concealed carry license because I know that I am the only one responsible for my personal safety!