http://www.commercialappeal.com/news...s/?partner=RSS

Stalemate: FedEx squares off against gun advocates

By Richard Locker (Contact), Memphis Commercial Appeal
Wednesday, April 8, 2009

NASHVILLE -- The National Rifle Association and gun advocates found an adversary they couldn't roll over at the Tennessee legislature Wednesday -- FedEx Corp. and business groups.

Their setback came when a House subcommittee deferred until 2010 one of the gun lobby's major initiatives: a bill prohibiting any employer from banning employees from bringing guns onto employee parking lots.

The issue pitted gun rights against property rights, the gun lobby against the business lobby.

After hearing from both sides, the criminal procedures subcommittee sent House Bill 1395 into a study committee to examine and report its findings to the General Assembly next year.

The panel heard testimony from FedEx employee Sam Cooper in favor of the bill and FedEx lobbyist William Primeaux against it.

Cooper said he's worked at FedEx for 29 years and that he's been approached in his car by people near his work. Although he has never been subjected to violence, he said several co-workers have been held up at gunpoint in the vicinity.

"Some have said this legislation will usurp authority of the private property owner to maintain control over their property. ... It could be argued that their prohibition usurps my rights as to what I can carry in my vehicle when I'm not on their property because obviously I can't have it in my car before I arrive in the parking lot and after I leave.

"Much of our time is involved traveling to and from work. I've often felt quite vulnerable during this time, especially when I arrive in the area of Memphis International Airport," Cooper said.

Primeaux said FedEx Corp. opposes the bill "because we feel it's incumbent upon an employer to provide a safe and secure working environment not only for our employees but our customers and vendors who do business on our property."

He told the committee of the 1994 hijacking of a FedEx aircraft "by a disgruntled employee" while in flight in which three crew members "were savagely beaten ... and will never be able to fly again."

Primeaux also cited the February incident outside a Cordova restaurant in which a gun-carry licensee shot a FedEx employee to death in the parking lot.

NRA lobbyist Heidi Keesling and Tennessee Firearms Association executive director John Harris spoke for the bill. Keesling said 10 states have enacted similar laws.

"What we're seeing across the country is employers have chosen to fire their employees if they keep a firearm locked in their vehicle. That kind of goes against, you know, everything we kind of stand for in being able to protect yourself when you're commuters going to and from work," she said.

Kenny Crenshaw said he is both a carry-permit holder and small-business owner in Shelby County and said he favors the bill. "There seems to be some tension between the rights of a business owner to control his property -- and I think everybody appreciates that -- but there's also the right of a person to be able protect himself and I think the bill accommodates both of those."

Dan Haskell, chairman of the Tennessee Jobs Coalition, a lobbying umbrella group of business associations, and Bradley Jackson of the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce and Industry, testified against the bill.

"I can say that our membership as a whole is adamantly against this bill," Jackson said.

Victory for firearms

Alcohol no ban to guns in eateries

NASHVILLE -- The Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday approved a bill allowing people with handgun-carry permits to take their guns into restaurants that serve alcohol -- places where they are currently banned by law.

Details

The committee stripped out restrictions that remain in the House version of the bill, including one that bans guns in the restaurants between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. and one banning guns in restaurants that restrict admissions to minors. (Under state law, restaurants that allow smoking may prohibit minors from entering.)

The committee sent the bill to the Senate for a floor vote that hasn't been scheduled. But the House and Senate must reconcile difference between the two versions before it can become law.

-- Richard Locker

The National Rifle Association and gun advocates found an adversary they couldn't roll over at the Tennessee legislature Wednesday

As unpopular as it may be around here, I think it is a violation of the property owner's right to require him to allow things to happen on his property that he doesn't agree with.

As unpopular as it may be around here, I think it is a violation of the property owner's right to require him to allow things to happen on his property that he doesn't agree with. I also think it is a violation of the employer's rights to set forth any contract with his employees that he sees fit.

I do not see any rights violation in a private entity requiring any policy be followed, weather it be no guns, no booze, no smoking, no nudity, no Irishmen, no girls allowed, etc.

My employer has no property rights to my car, or what is in it.
He can tell me I may not park on his property. He may not tell me what I can keep in the car.

I think you would agree that your pant's pockets are also your private property. Would you suggest that your employer has no rights to tell you what you may not have in your pockets while you are at work for him?

I think you would agree that your pant's pockets are also your private property. Would you suggest that your employer has no rights to tell you what you may not have in your pockets while you are at work for him?

When it turns to an employer/employee relationship I think that the employer is well within his rights to define your job to include any such meanial requirements as he sees fit. It is your right to accept or not accept compensation to follow his requirements.

everything we kind of stand for

I think you would agree that your pant's pockets are also your private property. Would you suggest that your employer has no rights to tell you what you may not have in your pockets while you are at work for him?

When it turns to an employer/employee relationship I think that the employer is well within his rights to define your job to include any such meanial requirements as he sees fit. It is your right to accept or not accept compensation to follow his requirements.

But because it is "on your person", meaning easily and readily accessible to you, it is private property which may be used - or misused - by you at a moment's notice, is therefore of concern to the property owner

No, it's not.