SB 51 - Right To Keep Guns in Vehicles at Work

[dawg23]

Sb 51 is due to be brought back up on the House floor for debate tomorrow, June 19.

We need for everyone to email, or call, his Representative and urge him to vote in favor of this bill. It didn't pass the first time. This is probably our last chance in the 2008 session.

Here's a link to the roster of Representatives.
http://house.louisiana.gov/H_Reps/H_Reps_ByName.asp

 

[spanky]

Emailed my rep.

I also, last week, emailed everyone on the list that was posted that didn't vote for it last time.

 

[dzelenka]

I emailed my Rep. (Schroeder), but I also emailed Tim Burns who recently ran for Congress, the following:

Representative Burns,

In the recent election for the US House, you represented yourself as a pro-gun candidate. A review of the legislative history of SB 51, protecting a person’s right to keep a firearm in his/her locked auto while on his/her employer’s property, casts doubt on that representation. I understand that SB 51 will again be debated on the floor of the House today. In Louisiana, a person's auto is an extension of his/her home and whether a person chooses to keep a firearm for protection in their locked auto should not be subject to the whims of their employer. The citizens of Louisiana should not have to choose between their safety in driving to and from work and their job. Therefore, I am requesting you support SB 51 without amendment on the House floor.

Thank you

I think candidates should be called on the carpet when appropriate.

Dan

PS Thank goodness that Scalise won the House race. He is an unwavering supporter of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[dzelenka]

The word that I get is that the bill will pass tomorrow with amendments. Unfortunately, one of the amendments will be the removal of the civil enforcement provision. As written, if you were fired, you could sue for lost wages and damages. As amended, if they fire you (in violation of the law), you are screwed. That is the tata to the business lobbiests to not kill the bill. I am glad I work for myself. Good luck guys.

Dan

 

[spanky]

That pretty much makes the entire bill pointless.

 

[dzelenka]

That pretty much makes the entire bill pointless.

I think that is the point.

 

[dzelenka]

Plus alot of guys will get to say that they voted for the bill after having gutted it and claim that they are pro gun.

 

[Conceyted]

So.... you can keep a gun in your car, but they can fire you for it. What else does SB51 do, exactly?

 

[swagge1]

So.... you can keep a gun in your car, but they can fire you for it. What else does SB51 do, exactly?

Yeah, I'm confused now. Maybe its he Jim Beam Black Label.

 

[jgwalt1]

I'm not seeing the amendment that was mentioned earlier relating to an employee not being able to sue for being fired due to having a gun in his car.

C. Any person who is prohibited or obstructed from transporting or storing a firearm pursuant to Subsection A of this Section shall have a right to bring a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction and shall be entitled to recover actual damages, including lost and back pay and benefits, reasonable court costs and attorney fees, and statutory damages of one thousand dollars per violation of this Section.

This is taken from the current form of the bill. I wasn't able to listen this morning, has the text not been updated?

 

[dzelenka]

That is the original bill text (as it reached the House floor). You need to look at the House Floor Amendments - specifically the one by Wooton. Take the amendment and the original bill and look at the changes.

Dan

 

[jgwalt1]

Ok I see it now. So the amendment takes away the employee's specific right to sue and allows the employer to set policies reguarding the visibility of the gun an whether it must be in a locked container, but still cannot ban the presence of the gun. Is that correct?

 

[Nick]

my Representative didn't support it (Richardson-R), I have emailed him asking for an explanation of his actions. I am emailing my state Senator for their view and asking for their support.

I don't see in any amendments online where it has been "gutted"

 

[dawg23]

That is the original bill text (as it reached the House floor). You need to look at the House Floor Amendments - specifically the one by Wooton. Take the amendment and the original bill and look at the changes.

Dan

Looks to me like they found a different way to gut the bill. this is the wording I see in the latest posted version:

D. This Section shall not apply to:
(1) Any property where the possession of firearms is prohibited under
state or federal law.
(2) Any vehicle owned or leased by a public or private employer or
business entity and used by an employee in the course of his employment, except
for those employees who are required to transport or store a firearm in the
official discharge of their duties.
(3) Any vehicle on property controlled by a public or private employer or business entity if:
(a) Access is restricted or limited through the use of a fence, gate, security station, signage, or other means of restricting or limiting general public access onto the parking area.
(b) The employer or business entity provides an alternate parking area reasonably close to the main parking area in which employees and other persons may transport or store firearms

This means all the employer has to do is post a sign saying "no guns allowed," and we're right back where we started. They SHOULD have inserted the word "and" after that sentence provide a the requirement that alternate parking be provided.

After further review, it looks as if the final engrossed amendment by Wooten has language that differs from the "Current language" that is listed on the legislature's website. I have sent Senator McPherson an email asking for clarification.

Wootens' amendment has language saying "if one of the following conditions applies." I think Wooten's amendment (assuming it has been published accurately) is OK.

 

[dzelenka]

Dawg,

You are not looking at the final version. The amendment cleans that up somewhat although it adds the option of the employer providing on site locked storage for unloaded weapons. You need to look at the amenments and compare them to the reengrossed version of the bill.

Dan

Go to http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/byinst.asp?sessionid=08RS&billtype=SB&billno=51 click on amendments. Look at Wooton's amendment that passed - #5947.

 

[dawg23]

Dawg,

You are not looking at the final version. The amendment cleans that up somewhat although it adds the option of the employer providing on site locked storage for unloaded weapons. You need to look at the amenments and compare them to the reengrossed version of the bill.

Dan

I think we were typing at the same time. On one hand (the signage issue) I hope Wooten's amendment is the final version. On the "right to sue" issue, you're correct...Wooten's amendment weakens the bill a LOT.

I isn't a attorney BUT the bill states: " No property owner, tenant, public or private employer, or business entity shall prohibit any person from transporting or storing a firearm pursuant to Subsection A of this Section.......". Even though the bill doesn't specifiy that there is a right to seek damages, it surely doesn't limit or preclude legal action. It seems that if an employer violates a law and fires or punishes an employee, the employee should have grounds for a suit ??

 

[dzelenka]

I spoke to a friend last night and he told me that Wooton's amendment was a requirement to get enough votes from those who put LABI's interests over NRA's interests. It is why we get crappy laws. The bill as passed by the House, while somewhat weaker (for the employee) than the Senate version, is better than nothing (probably alot). My friend is very confident it will become law.

As an example of how it is better: Pre SB 51 a company could have a policy of no guns and fire you for violating that policy. You end up with no job, probably no unemployment and definitely no recourse. Post SB 51 the company cannot have a no gun policy. If they fire you anyway, you can get unemployment and you probably have some sort of action if you can prove they violated the law. The problem is that an employer can fire an employee for any reason or no reason in Louisiana and the employee's only recourse is unemployment benefits unless you can prove some sort of discrimination. This is an "at will" employment state. I do not think that gun owner is a protected category like race, age, religion, etc.

Dan

 

[dzelenka]

Next time you really understand an issue that is before the legislature or Congress, watch or listen to the debates among the lawmakers. It will truly scare the **** out of you. Most of the people that are voting on or even drafting legislation do not have the vaguest idea what they are talking about. If you want to see something funny, watch the interview with Carolyn McCarthy concerning her proposed Assault Weapons Ban. The reporter asks her what a barrel shroud is and why it is bad and she cannot form an intelligble answer. Funny - yes. Pathetic - definitely.

Dan

 

[dawg23]

I'd like to put a client of mine in charge for a couple of days.

He's the president of a large petrochemical storage terminal on the Houston Ship Channel. We have become pretty good friends over the years.

The first time I visited him at his office I was on my way to the annual Texas State IDPA Match in Pearland. When I pulled up to the security gate I saw the usual signs saying "no alcohol, no drugs, no cameras and no guns." So I called "Mike" on my cell and told him we'd better meet at the restaurant since I had a truck full of handguns.

His answer: "Hell, that's my sign. And since you have a concealed handgun permit, it don't apply to you. Get your ass in here and let's get some lunch."

At lunch he confirmed that the policy applies to all employees and visitors. if they have a CCW permit, they can have as many firearms as they want in their vehicle.

p.s. Mike is also of the opinion that anyone who owns fewer than 50 guns is unarmed.

 

[Nick]

my reps response:

Dear Nick,

Thank you for your interest in SB 51. This was a very tough bill for
me. Like you I believe it is your right to be able to protect yourself.
I am a firm believer in the Right to Bear Arms. I also have a concealed
handgun permit and do keep my gun in the car with me. Being a business
owner and homeowner I also believe property rights.

Like any tough decision I polled people in my district on their
thoughts. I even consulted with private business and large companies
such as ExxonMobil. Exxon told me that they have a place to check your
guns, bows and any other hunting items at the gates. I was satisfied
that they had made provisions for their employees.

At the end of my questing, property rights outweighed heavily. Like I
said this was not easy for me. I do believe as a property owner I
should have the say of what comes on my property that I pay taxes on. I
hope this helps you understand my decision.

Sincerely,

Rep. Clif Richardson

ExxonMobile's property would be off limits as is b/c it's regulated by state and federal laws with the chemicals within it's gates... relevance? NONE