The gun-nut bullies at the Tennessee Firearms Association are much more concerned with expanding gun rights than supporting the Constitution. This year, there was a proposed bill that would modify the "guns-in-trunks" bill passed last year. The bill would change the term
"privately owned vehicle" to "motor vehicle" so that if you were driving your spouses vehicle or a rental vehicle you would still be covered by the protections in the "guns in trunks" bill.
Representative Mark Pody proposed an amendment to the bill that would do more than that. His amendment did several things. It did clarify that the right to carry a gun onto the property of another did not apply to single-family homes not used as a business. It clarified that a owner of a property could still prohibit guns on his property in certain narrow cases; if he gave a specific person written notice not to carry guns onto his property and the person acknowledged that notice in writing.
The Pody amendment gave greater protection to gun owners who carry a gun onto their employers property than in the current bill. The amendment prohibited an employer from firing a person for carrying a gun onto his property or bringing criminal charges against a person for bringing a gun onto his property. And, it said the employee subject to "adverse action" could sue his employer for civil damages.
I think this was a bad amendment. I think that just as restaurants may post a "no guns" sign and that applies to everyone entering the establishment, an employer should be able to decide if he wants guns on his property or not. However, what is wrong with this amendment is something greater than the merits of the amendment; it is that is unconstitutional. Tennessee's Constitution says the body of a bill can not be broader than the caption of a bill. This is one way in which I think the Tennessee Constitution is superior the Federal constitution If you have observed Congress in action, a bill on on one topic may have a provision appropriating money for something totally unrelated and the unrelated item hitches a ride on a popular bill. That is often the way deals are made to get votes to pass bad bills. Bills get decorated like Christmas trees. You can't to that in Tennessee. So, Pody's bill was illegal and it did not pass.
The fact that Pody's bill was broader than the caption and therefore unconstitutional did not keep the TFA from pressuring Representatives to support it. I have not yet seen the fundraiser from TFA, but according to Representative Jeremy Faison, the TFA has now released a letter condemning those who voted against the Pody amendment and requesting money to use to defeat them.
See the below Facebook post from Representative Faison and the letter from Representative Pody where he says his amendment was not proper. The fact that even the sponsor of the amendment says it was not a proper amendment, does not keep the TFA from going after those who would not vote for it. The Tennessee Firearms Association has no shame.
This from Representative Jerremy Faison:
Last week the TFA (Tennessee Firearms Association) released a letter condemning my vote and a multitude of other pro gun legislators vote on a specific amendment. John Harris requested money to be able to defeat me and many other legislators that are 100% committed to the Constitution. The sponsor of the amendment, Mark Pody has come forward and admitted that his 5 page amendment to a 1 paragraph bill was not the correct way to do it. Further more, his amendment was not constitutional. I vote first and foremost for the Constitution. If you have any questions, on my support of the 2nd amendment, please check my record or feel free to call me.
To read the bill and the Pody amendment, follow this link.