DRM

Robert, it seems you've got a problem. Perhaps it's in your best interest to stop replying to my posts if you can't handle open discussion on a forum such as this. Best of luck...

Sorry, but that makes no sense. By definition - it IS their business, both in the fact that it is - quite literally - their business, and also the fact that since it is their property, it is their concern/business what happens on their property. They should have the right to ask you to remove your car from their property for WHATEVER reason they want, period. It is THEIR property - not yours to dictate how and why you get to use their property.

It's not an opinion - it's simple facts. Employers are not disarming you for your commute, YOU decide to disarm for your commute, based on you refusing to use various options at your disposal to arm yourself during your commute (or to just work elsewhere). Robert, it's not my problem if you still can't understand what I actually said.

What I said is 100% correct and factual. No, you seem to be confused about where that car is located. You can bring a locked box on my property - and I can and should be able to tell you to remove that box from my property, period. You do NOT have a right to park your car on someone else's property. What you want to do is take away property rights and say they cannot ask you to remove your car from their property. Again, you are wrong. There are HUNDREDS of options to arm yourself for your commute to and from work: -Park somewhere else -Go work somewhere else -Move to an apartment across the street -Go work somewhere else -Rent a storage locker nearby to keep your weapon -Go work somewhere else And on, and on, and on. The point remains: your employer has done NOTHING to disarm you anywhere but their own property. What YOU choose to do outside of their property has to do with YOUR decisions and what steps YOU are willing to do to arm yourself. For you to want to strip their property rights because you are too lazy to take the steps necessary to arm yourself is, well... back to that selfish thing I brought up earlier.

Like I said a few weeks ago, started building my buggy...

Your employer is NOT disarming you for 72 miles, each way. Your employer is simply exercising the same rights you exercise at your own property. It is YOUR decision to work there. It is YOUR decision to park in their property. It is YOUR decision to comply with state law in regards to your HCP. Your employer is not stopping you from carrying on your commute to and from work - YOU are choosing not to take the steps necessary to do so.

Why are you ok with him disarming you in the building, but not in the parking lot?

The problems are many when it comes to people who like to draw distinctions between individually held property, and corporate held property. My house and yard are in my name. My friend's house and yard are deeded to a business, their family farm - that makes his home a "business". Some people own "business" property in their own name, not in the name of a business (One of the doctors I used to work with owned a lot and building - in his name - that housed an AutoZone. Run an eBay business out of your home? That's a BUSINESS address. Are you a doctor, PA, NP, etc. that is credentialed with your home address as your "business" address? I see it all the time. Point is - none of us have a clue who owns what when it comes to property. To even try to say the law should be different for individually held vs. corporately held property is not only silly IMHO, it is an exercise in futility.

Just because the government has, doesn't mean your or they *should*... or that it is fair, or just, or equitable. That is a cop-out to shift the discussion that direction, IMHO. The government has -in the past - restricted gun rights far beyond what they *should*, based on the Constitution. For me to use that - like you are doing - as justification to get what I want, does not make my wants or the government's actions right, fair, or equitable.

I hear ya, man... Ever time I convince myself to go again, I leave with the same mindset.

And that, boys and girls, proves my point about "selfish".

Interesting, never looked at it from that angle.

The solution - as I see it - is twofold: 1. Remove an employer's ability to search your private property (your car) - only giving them the same right every other property owner has: ask you to remove that car from their property. Letting employers search employee's car is ABSURD. 2. Remove an employer's ability to fire you for having a gun in your car. Sure, they can fire you for no or valid reasons in an at-will state, but the employee now has legal grounds to bring a wrongful termination suit if you were fired due to the gun, because that would no longer be a legal reason to fire.

I did not call "all HCP holders selfish". I am an HCP holder, and I favor laws that are EQUAL for ALL gun owners - that is not a selfish position. By definition, HCP holders seeking to get special privileges for only HCP holders are being selfish: define: selfish - Google Search

There is nothing natural about forcing a property owner to let you on their property against their will. Just because governments do it, or laws are made about it. doesn't make it right, or "natural".

And the property owners should be able to ask you to remove your car from their property - just like you can ask me to remove my car from your driveway.

Really? That fast? I wasn't aware, thanks. I was thinking more along the lines of there is a mental condition or incident that taken place which would disqualify them, but has not triggered the HCP revocation process yet (I assume that is possible). True, the FFL probably has some protection - but I could still see a civil case popping up from the family of a victim, along the lines of a "bartender should have cut them off" lawsuit. Win, lose, or tossed - the FFL might think it is easier to do the check up front than deal with that kind of mess.

Is that coming from the author of the bill, or just your speculation? Is that your strategy to convince the average gun owner they need to support this - that they "may" get this ability one day too? If we presumably can't get all gun owners this right *now*, do you have reason to believe that you can get all gun owners this right next year? Or perhaps in 3 years? What is the game plan for moving forward with that (Assuming that is the eventual goal)? And in 3 years, when HCP holders have the right and nobody else does, are you satisfied knowing you got what *you* wanted, tough-luck for all of the other legal gun owners? I'm just not satisfied with that position, personally.

When you want to move mountains - you generally don't get it done by telling the bulk of your workforce "no, really - help us get this done for our little group to reap the benefits, and we promise we'll come back to get the rest of you!"

I see no mention or intention of this later transitioning to adding rights for ALL legal gun owners. What this bill says to me is selfish HCP holders just wanting to get *their* way, "who cares about anyone else". I have no problem standing firm in my position that does not further drive a wedge between legal gun owning citizens and the special HCP holder "club", even if that means I - as an HCP holder - don't get special perks.

Were I an FFL holder, I'd probably be against this, from a liability standpoint... i.e. - I visually check to see that their HCP looks valid, however without a check that HCP has been revoked and the buyer actually doesn't have the legal right to purchase. As an FFL, I'd think I would want to "CYA" and run a background anyway...

Well, this won't get my support. As we covered in other threads, I am opposed to removing a property owner's right to ask someone to leave their property if they do not want guns on their property. More than that - I think the limitation to only HCP holders is what stinks in this bill - and it stinks of choosing favorites so that a select few can get what they want, everyone-else-be-damned. In short - *if* this was a bill to allow ALL legal gun owners the ability to have a gun in their car, I'd probably hold my nose and support it in some way. But as it stands, it's nothing more than a special interest bill (HCP holders) and although I am an HCP holder, I'm not that selfish. All, or none - that's my stand.

What was the deal with you finding an apartment, then they immediately raise the rent on you? Hello? That is what a CONTRACT is for And the arbitrary sliding scale that you could only find more expensive rent closer to work, as if there aren't deals to be had out there? I pretty much closed the tab on the browser at that point, not even worth finishing just to see them make EVERY choice go wrong.

Then you fail to understand what minimum wage is for. If you're still making minimum wage well past the "college years", that is your fault, not anyone else. If you can't find a job where you are - move to where the jobs are. If you want to make more money than your current job, your "second job" should be a 2-3-5 year plan to make you a more marketable (and consequently more valuable) employee. That might be college, that might be apprenticing to learn a trade, that might mean you wear out the local library reading everything - and I mean EVERYTHING - you can get your hands on in regards to a field you want to go into. Donald Trump has been bankrupt more times than I can count. Why do you think he keeps coming back and making the big bucks? Because he decided to, that's why. I met a 17 year old girl the other day at Waffle House, who was in HS with straight A's, working 40 hour weeks and Waffle House AND Sonic. Her dad was out of work, and she was pitching in to help the family get by (she also mentioned a deadbeat 19 year old brother). You think she's going to make minimum wage forever? Nope. That kind of drive is what caused people to excel. I know "stuff happens", but the mentality that a disabling injury or "bad luck" is just around the corner means you are already looking for failure. Take charge of your future and MAKE IT HAPPEN. Good stuff doesn't fall into people's laps by accident, you have to go out and get it.

That game is dumb, and proves no point at all.