DRM

If this is what you take away from the concept of a state or nation wide OC day, you missed the point. Again - the point of an organized day is that people across the state can see that a whole lot of their coworkers, neighbors, and other people are carrying every day and just going about life. The point is education that there are people all around them, every day, who are armed, and those people aren't hurting anybody by just exercising that right.

There is no maybe, it would be less shocking as people get used to it. And as people get used to it, they either get informed, or indifferent - and to be honest, I'll take either one. OC'ing is not going to create very many new anti-gun types. Sure - it may tick off the ones already out there, but they are ticked off 100% of the time anyway. The ONLY way to gain significant ground in this country is through education, period. People fear what they do not understand, and what they have not been exposed to. Increase exposure and understanding - and you remove that fear. I did not grow up as a "gun person". Dad had a 22 in the closet, and when I became teen he bought me a 20ga for squirrel hunting. I became comfortable with long guns, but my lack of exposure to handguns still left me - at late as age 30 - not really comfortable being around handguns. Was my lack of comfort rational? No. It was simply lack of exposure. I set out to remove that discomfort by purchasing, handling, shooting, disasembling, and educating myself about handguns, to the point where I got my HCP and have carried daily for over a year now. I say this because the I know first hand what it feels like to be on both sides of this fence, and I know first hand how education and exposure can shift a person's view.

I really just want to see a "OC while going about your daily business" day. I don't want people congregating together, or protesting, or anything else. The impact is from the uninformed public be educated that you can go about your daily business, carry a gun (OC or not - but the OC is how you start getting them used to guns) and the public starts to see that people with guns are just going about with life. Normal people doing normal daily stuff - just armed. I think that is the real message that needs to be sent. Maybe it needs to be a day where we all OC and dress up (shirt and tie, suit, etc.) and have some catchy slogan like "dressed for success" or the like

IMHO, the only way to get the general public used to OC is to either educate them, or acclimate them (which is in itself part education). Does OC make some uncomfortable at first? Maybe. 3 years into it - same "OC Day" each year - you think more people are informed and less people will be alarmed? Without a doubt. 5 years in you still think people will be shocked to see someone OC? I seriously doubt it. So I disagree completely with your assertion about "long term". If anything, it is the short term that you have to worry about getting past.

FYI - that attitude makes you part of the problem, not me. *edit* - I can understand not wanting to participate. Fine, your call. But it is beyond me why you would disparage someone for wanting to exercise our freedoms, instead of always playing the role of being on defensive and watching the anti-gun types nibble away at those rights.

So operating in fear of exercising our legal rights is your best suggestion? I'm wondering - can you name me ANYTHING that doesn't play right into their hands? As far as I can see - they can twist everything we actively do into their favor, and I am 100% positive they LOVE having us cowering in fear. Oh well... Join the NRA? I've been a member on and off, but they are part of the defensive position problem, IMHO.

Searched before I posted - found this closed thread: http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/handgun-carry-self-defense/1076-open-carry-day-tn-2.html I don't want to debate why OC is good or bad, I'd just like to see something like this happen. Marching on the capitol sounds good - but not everyone can attend, and then it just looks like political activists are pushing it, and the numbers would be far smaller. I would prefer to see a day - every year - where Tennesseans get behind us doing something we are already legally able to do, but are almost "shamed" into avoiding. Open carry, with a pinned-on name tag of some kind with a simple slogan like "Open Carry is legal in TN" and perhaps a pocket full of short informational business cards about the law to hand out to those who inquire. Thoughts? Maybe a National day coordinated by all states that permit open carry?

Yeah, sometimes it's hard to decide between them...

Thanks. If you can take one thing away - the core of my position is try to consider if there is "another way to skin this cat" that might be more equitable for all parties

Hey Woriedman - not trying to brush you off but I realized last night I kind of "took over" the thread. I don't want to derail it any more than I already have, so I'll probably just let what I said lie for the most part. Hope you don't mind

in relation to remedies for someone carrying a gun in your house vs. in your yard, not in regards to using deadly force on an intruder. They simply aren't comparable.

Sorry man, you are trying to compare the passive concept of a parking lot bill to the burden of proof required to take a life... It's just not the same, even though "guns" might be involved in both.

Agreed. Agreed on these counts as well - however these have nothing to do with a parking lot bill, correct? These issues can be settled with laws without even the mention of guns, correct? Agreed that the Constitution gives you the right to protect yourself. Where you glazed over the specifics is when you just came up against your previous statement that DRM has the right to ask you to leave.How you handle your security is not DRM's concern, is it? He is not stopping you from protecting yourself - you have any number of remedies at your disposal: -Find employment elsewhere -Find elsewhere to park -Rent a security locker to store your weapon off site Are these convenient, expedient, or cost efficient? Not really - but that really isn't DRM's problem - remember, you decided it was up to YOU to secure your safety - to which you have decide what you are willing to do. Two more problems here.You again draw the distinction between HCP holders and everyone else. Why? I see no Constitutional basis for this, do you? Why are you in favor of restricting the rights of everyone else? The whole "legislature is the arbiter" seems like a cop out way of saying "whatever - this is how I can get what I want". That might not be your intent - but that is how it sounds. Again - why would you be happy about securing these things only for HCP holders? Obviously - I would not know. On a personal note - if I ask you to remove your *presumed* gun from my property - the onus is now on you to comply, or refuse to leave, or deny you have a gun.Since I can't search you - unless I have seen the gun and know you to be lying I have to decide if I want you to leave anyway, or press the issue legally (trespassing). DRM, LLC should have the same remedy. Assuming I am your employer, I can ask you to leave (post the parking lot), and that puts the onus on you to comply, refuse to leave, or deny you have a gun. Since I can't search your car (remember - the other half of my proposal would be removing that from an employer's ability) - I have to decide if I want to run the legal risk of firing you for bad cause for claiming you have a gun but having not actually seen it. You have to weigh the risk of losing your job if you reveal to me you actually do have a weapon. Parking lot owner retains their rights. Employees get a BIG right back from the employer that currently have had taken from them One of the major legal *excuses* used to put no-gun policies in place has been removed (Employers have posted the lot but aren't allowed to search - not much else they can do) Gun owners can choose to enter the gray area that has been created, but that's each person's decision to make based on their own circumstances. How DRM "feels" is not really relevant. DRM can't say squat about it Seriously - is my position not clear enough so far? Of course not. Then again - it's none of my business what you and DRM, LLC agreed to in your employement contract. Why would you agree to terms such as that? And I say again - you know this to be an incorrect statement. Nobody is forcibly divesting you of anything, you are VOLUNTARILY divesting YOURSELF of your weapon. What law would that be? If an employer's only remedy is request you to leave, I'd guess the only law being broken would be pertaining to trespassing, at most.If there are other laws - perhaps they need to be addressed as well. Again, why only HCP holders?BTW< why didn't you answer all 3 questions?

Not sure if any of the rest of you check out deals.woot.com - but I noticed a few months back that they stopped "allowing" gun deals to work through the system. Seemed like every deal posted was filled with comments from the anti's, and eventually it seems Woot (now owned by Amazon.com) caved. Anyway, not sure if anyone else noticed - but I wanted to vent, and encourage someone else to start a similar "deal" type site that does allow gun related postings - I bet it would be popular

I think it ties in that TN's laws SUCK in how convoluted and silly they are! Then again - I abhor the entire HCP process (holding my nose as I went through it myself - uggggh), and personally think it runs afoul of both the US and TN Constitutions... but I digress

Sorry man, I just can't see how that is an apples to apples comparison to what we are talking about. I can walk around naked in my house without being arrested, stepping out into the yard will likely get a different result - Same thing you asked but I really don't see what that "difference" has to do with what we are talking about I believe it was you who - rightly so - suggested the focus should be on the state Constitution. In light of that: 1. Do you agree that DRM has the right to ask you to leave his property, if DRM does not want you to bring a gun on his property? 2. Of so, what Constitutional distinction do you find for taking away DRM's right to ask you to leave his property - simply because the deed to said property is registered to DRM, LLC, of which DRM is 100% owner? 3. If you maintain that DRM can ask you to leave his home or his yard if you have a gun and he would like it removed, What Constitutional basis do you have for drawing a distinction in a business setting - where you agree DRM, LLC should be able to ask you to leave the building (home), yet not be able to ask you to leave the parking lot (yard)? And let's be clear - so far EVERYONE in this thread wants the same end goal. I am just saying there MUST be a better way to achieve that goal without taking away someone else's rights. My proposed solution isn't perfect, and admittedly does create a "don't ask don't tell" type of gray area... but I still think it's a better solution that taking away rights. Just keep in mind - gun rights are a means to an end... that end being preserving all the other rights. So in my view - when gun rights butt heads with the rights they are there to preserve, common sense says the gun rights may need to step aside from time to time. I am afraid these "parking lot bills" will end up like the "smoke free" laws that were passed. Do I despise smoking? Yes. Do I enjoy smoke free eating? Yes. Would I vote to repeal those laws? IMMEDIATELY. Why? Because I do not want the government creating more laws that TAKE AWAY FREEDOMS. Period. If you guys disagree with my approach - fine. But I hope you can appreciate where I am coming from

Why I have an LLC is irrelevant - I own both. You still have not given a TN Constitutionally supported position for taking away those rights from me. And hiding behind legal definitions shows me you just want to pass the buck and not address the core problem with your position. You also refuse to address the distinctions you draw - Constitutionally - between a parking lot and a building, and how you think a business should be able to ask you to leave the building if they wish, but somehow should not be able to ask you to leave the parking lot. I also fail to see why you are so adamantly opposed to the solution I suggested. What exactly is your problem with it? I'm sure it's not perfect, but it is FAR more equitable to all parties involved, rather than FORCING someone to allow you to bring a gun on their property against their wishes. That's the disappointing thing here as this thread has turned - seeing people like you so blinded by what you want for yourself, you aren't willing to explore potential better ways to accomplish the same end result. One last thing - You can disagree with me or you can suggest better ways to get to our common goal of better gun rights, but neither of our positions are "wrong". Both are perfectly legal options, that *could* be put into place. When you stooped to calling my opinions "wrong", you pretty much wrote yourself out of the discussion as far as I am concerned.

DRM is the sole 100% owner of DRM, LLC. I own DRM, LLC, therefore I own the all property held by DRM, LLC. Please explain why you think you should be able to toss MY rights out the window so you can get what you want.

Robert, you can claim it over and over, but what you stated is not a "simple truth". The distinction you make is not based on the State Constitution, it is based on you inferring a difference based on differing legal restrictions (laws, mandates, edicts) in private residences and commercial properties. Real estate property is real estate property. An owner is an owner. Any distinction you make is simply you trying to rationalize a way to get what you want. Again, your definition of "Reasonable" and "not reasonable" is entirely arbitrary, and based solely on your wants and desires. No, allowing or restricting guns is not an "obligation" - it is an OPINION. And yet again, you can hold that opinion, and you can call it "fair" - but please don't try to claim that your opinion is fact, or without flaw. At the end of the day - and I hate to keep repeating this - you have decided that to get what YOU WANT, you are willing to rationalize property right distinctions and TAKE AWAY RIGHTS. I have yet to see someone explain to me why 2 properties - one deeded to DRM and one deeded to DRM, LLC should not both allow me to say (should I chose) "I do not want your gun on my property - please leave". I want you to explain why that sole difference allows you to take away my rights so you can exercise yours. Then I want you to explain -per the TN Constitution - how you derived that the parking lot on DRM, LLC's property is different than the building itself (which you admit DOES deserve the same rights as the ENTIRE property deeded to DRM).

Let me clarify "gun people" for you. I was not referring to gun owners - because that is the category I fall into right along with about 99% of the people reading this. What I am talking about are people who want so bad to get what *they want*, they are willing to - IMHO - trample over other rights in the process. They are also willing to use rationalizations (such as claiming that DRM on my home property deed gives me less rights than DRM, LLC on a property deed) to justify that position and take away someone else's rights, all to get what they want. Do I want a clarification and simplification of the laws concerning guns in this state? Yes. Am I willing to take away the rights of a property owner in the process? No. Sorry if some of you don't see the property rights implications, but every way I look at this topic, that is what this comes down to: For you to get what you want here, you are advocating that you TAKE AWAY someone's right to say "no, I do not want a gun on my property". Again - please keep in mind my view contains 2 parts: Property owners retain the right to seek the same remedy you do at your home (Ask the person to leave/remove the gun), they SHOULD NOT have the remedy of searching your private property (your car). What I suggest is perfectly consistent. What I see others suggesting is that somehow you think the employer should be able to say no guns in the building, but not in the parking lot. This is one of those rationalization arguments - and clearly is not supported in the TN Constitution. If - as Worriedman suggests - we were to go back to the original wording, then according to the Constitution you should be able to carry your gun right to your desk at work, correct? I don't like that kind of rationalization tactic when anti-gun people use it against ME, and I sure won't be party to the same folly when trying to support my own positions. And on a lighter note - I encourage all of my employees to carry on their person while at work - because i can't possibly cover all of the access points by myself

That is what I have said all along - gun, just sitting there, out of sight - isn't bothering anyone. The difference comes in that you want to take away a property owner's right to ask you to remove said gun from your property, and I want to preserve that right. Do I? No. Do I want to retain the right to do so? Yes. Actually, there is no *pre*clusion, but there IS a remedy - I could ask you to leave. Again, all I am suggesting is that ALL property owners should retain that right.

Robert, I simply commented based on how I read what you typed (see my "it smells like" comment). If that is not how you meant it and I read it incorrectly feel free to clarify - but there is no need for you to cop an attitude.

Sorry, I will not ever support a property owner being told he cannot ask you to remove yourself and your property (vehicle) from their property - which is what you are suggesting.

I missed this in my earlier reply - but I have a biiiiiiiiig problem with this line of thinking. It smells an awful lot like you are suggesting that there is a "right to be employed" - and that smells an awful lot like a socialist concept I want no part of. Nobody is forced to work anywhere in this state. We can all pack up and move and get a job somewhere else if we don't like the terms of employment. And as an employer myself - if I make changes that my employees don't like I have to constantly balance the very real possibility that unpopular policies could result in me losing employees.

Odd that you quoted my words, yet didn't answer the question? What is your solution if I own property - personally - that I lease to someone else to run a business on. Are you saying I have to give up my right to control what comes on to MY property? What about the person who runs a home-based business - do they have to give up their property rights so you can bring a gun into their driveway against their wishes, simply because they have a business there as well? What I see here is "gun people" simply want THEIR desires to be met - period. And - as can be seen here - any number of rationalizations and distinctions are made from whole cloth to try to reach that end goal of meeting THEIR desired outcome. To be honest, I don't like how that approach generally tends to trample on the law, and a fair application of that law. What I also see is that this isn't a gun issue as much as it is a private property issue. And the issue can be solved without even bringing up guns, which - IMHO - makes it far more likely to get a favorable response form the general voting public. Why should only HCP holders be able to keep a gun in their car? Do they have more of a right to do that - based on the TN Constitution - than the guy who wants to go squirrel hunting after work? And why even worry about it if you instead make it so that Employers can't search your private property (car) - solving both issues at once?