JayC

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353604339' post='849481'] Those God given rights are protected by only one thing which is the Constitution. A constitution written by God-fearing men And they saw fit to provide specific protection for property. Unlike some other rights the right to own and control property CAN be infringed because the Constitution specifically allows it to be. If you don't like that your problem is with the Constitution not with me and not with Tennessee permit holders [/quote] This isn't the time or place for an argument about the pros and cons of our court systems, and the abuses of God given rights that it allows in the name of our Constitution... a little off subject for this discussion... but I'd be happy to have that discussion offline. Again, my issue is with certain permit holder... people who aren't willing to take personal responsibility for their choices. I've agreed repeatedly that the courts would most likely find this law to be constitutional, but just because we can pass a bad law and it won't be ruled unconstitutional doesn't mean we should. Since this bill would remove a right/ability from current business owners I think we should be very careful and make sure all other options have been fully explored and I feel we haven't done that. Again I ask you as a supporter of this bill to answer the following questions that you seem to ignore time and time again... prove to me that there is no other option in your case, that the ONLY recourse is to use the force of the government to remove a property owners current right to prohibit employees from having firearms stored in their vehicles on company property: [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(247, 247, 247)]It's clear you're in support of this law... Are you unable to properly prioritize your own safety in your day to day life? Are you working for an employer that either through flawed logic or on a whim is placing you at greater risk, and ignoring your valid safety concerns? Are you in a situation where you can park in a public street or parking lot? [/background][/size][/font][/color] [b]Explain to me in YOUR situation how you're unable to properly prioritize your own safety, and the ONLY remedy is for the government to come in and use force to protect you from your employers poor judgement.[/b] [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(247, 247, 247)]We as free and responsible adults should be responsible for our own safety, and only when the we unable to protect ourselves ([/background][/size][/font][/color][u]note unable, not unwilling[/u][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(247, 247, 247)]) should we use the force of government to mandate a solution on others.[/background][/size][/font][/color]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353601585' post='849469'] There is no flawed logic involved - the people, through the government has the right to regulate private property even up to and including confiscation per the Constitution. If you don't like that simple truth your problem is with the Constitution and the men who penned it; not with this law. [/quote] I've never said the law wouldn't be upheld by a court, only that it violates the God given rights of property owners, and isn't needed. Again I ask you the following: [quote][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]It's clear you're in support of this law... Are you unable to properly prioritize your own safety in your day to day life? Are you working for an employer that either through flawed logic or on a whim is placing you at greater risk, and ignoring your valid safety concerns? Are you in a situation where you can park in a public street or parking lot? [/font][/color] [b]Explain to me in YOUR situation how you're unable to properly prioritize your own safety, and the ONLY remedy is for the government to come in and use force to protect you from your employers poor judgement.[/b] [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]We as free and responsible adults should be responsible for our own safety, and only when the we unable to protect ourselves ([/font][/color][u]note unable, not unwilling[/u][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]) should we use the force of government to mandate a solution on others.[/font][/color][/quote]

Worriedman, This is flawed logic, show me where in the Federal or State constitutions that cites the power to regulate speech is available to private citizens. I'll save you the trouble, there isn't... That is because the constitution (both state and federal) are limits placed on the government, not limits placed on individuals. No business today (or private individual) is regulating firearms, or firearms ownership. [u]When you have to start using this type of flawed logic to support a law, it's an indication that it is a bad law.[/u] [quote name='Worriedman' timestamp='1353600466' post='849460'] [size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]The individuals who wrote the Tennessee Constitution were concerned enough about the ability (Rights) of the People to be able to keep and bear their arms for their defense that they put specifically in the Declaration of Rights, that ability. In 1796 it was enumerated in Article 11 Section 26 " That the free men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." There is no limitation espoused as to where they may be carried. There are a listed group of situational issues that were important enough to be vouchsafed as necessary, important enough that the Constitution says it should never be held inviolate per Article 11 Section 16: "The declaration of rights hereto prefixed is declared to be a part of the Constitution of the state, and shall never be violated on any pretense whatever. And to guard against transgression of the high powers we have delegated, we declare that everything in the bill of rights contained, is excepted out of the general powers of the government, and shall forever remain inviolate." No mention that "Private Property" rights shall be held above all other laws is anywhere written. In fact the only mention of them in our Constitution is to codify how they may be abridged by judgment of one's peers or the law of the land. The TN Constitution specifically cites that the power to regulate arms outside of the stated Right to keep and bear them is to be held solely by the Legislature, not private Citizens.[/font][/size] [/quote]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353595665' post='849431'] Still waiting for someone to explain, using the Constitution, how the 10th District got it wrong. I'm also waiting for someone to make a convincing argument for why this law should not be passed Tennessee without falling back on the court rejected property rights argument. [/quote] Robert, I'll give it one final shot. First, I'm not going to address the 10th District ruling, there are a lot of court ruling we all don't agree with and think they got it wrong, including many SCOTUS rulings. Courts are made up of men and women, and they make very bad choices, sometimes decades later society as a whole corrects those mistakes, and sometimes they don't. Second, this entire problem is because of poor judgement on the part of HCP holders who want this law. There I said it, it's the 800 lbs gorilla in the room that none of us have been talking about. So I'm just going to call everybody out on it. Lets walk through this logically... I'm going to focus primarily on employers because the argument for the business/customer relationship is even simpler and uses many of the same arguments. So, you have an employer that through a mixture of 39-17-1359 signs or just a simple note in their employment handbook prohibits the possession of weapons/firearms in their buildings and property. These businesses basically fall into 2 different groups... The first group has a reasonably held belief that the rule/posting is needed for the safety of their employees and customers, while you and I might disagree with the logic of their belief, they really feel it is a necessary rule to protect their employees. The second group does it on a whim, they have no real reason to. Now, if you work for a company that really believes firearms in your car are a real safety concern, and you as a logical HCP holder realize they are completely wrong... Do you want to continue to work for a company that has such flawed logic? If their logic is this flawed on the danger of firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens then what else are they getting wrong? If for some reason their logic isn't flawed, do we really want the government to come in and overrule them? Who knows what is in the best interest of their company better, the owner(s), or the government? Now, lets say you work for the second kind of company who just bans firearms on a whim, do you really want to continue to work for a company that places their whims above your safety? Again, if they're willing to place their whims above you in this respect can you trust their judgement as to the running of the company? At the end of the day, the HCP holders across this state are choosing to work for both types of companies. Nobody is forcing them to work for these companies, they can quit tomorrow and find employment elsewhere. Agreed? This boils down to personal responsibility, something that we preach as a community on a daily basis... and the fact is a large chunk of the HCP community and to a lesser extent the members of this forum don't take that personal responsibility seriously enough. They now want the government to come in and pass a law that keeps them from having to make hard choices, by substituting the governments judgement (which is always flawed at the best of times) over that of the business owner who in theory is running a successful business. HCP holders need to take personal responsibility for their own safety, not the government. If they work somewhere that prohibits possession of firearms in their personal vehicles, it's up to them to make the right judgement call on whether that situation imposes too much risk on their safety or not. Even if all of that doesn't convince somebody to quit and find a better job where the owners aren't running around in fantasy land when it comes to firearms... The VAST majority of HCP holders have other choices available to them... They can park somewhere off property, they can refuse to follow stupid rules and suffer the fallout if they so desire (obviously following the law at all times). Now I'm going to ask a pointed question, please don't take offense, but it must be asked. It's clear you're in support of this law... Are you unable to properly prioritize your own safety in your day to day life? Are you working for an employer that either through flawed logic or on a whim is placing you at greater risk, and ignoring your valid safety concerns? Are you in a situation where you can park in a public street or parking lot? [b]Explain to me in YOUR situation how you're unable to properly prioritize your own safety, and the ONLY remedy is for the government to come in and use force to protect you from your employers poor judgement.[/b] We as free and responsible adults should be responsible for our own safety, and only when the we unable to protect ourselves ([u]note unable, not unwilling[/u]) should we use the force of government to mandate a solution on others.

[quote name='zort' timestamp='1353586768' post='849386'] after reading all this i fail to see how this law affects the employer at all. just give me a chance to defend myself on my commute to and from work. also it isnt easy for me to just find another job that allows me to carry a legal weapon in my car. i think its wrong for a employer to ask that of me and if employers would act right we wouldnt need any bill. i just dont see why this whole thing is even debatible, no one is being hurt. [/quote] Zort, I don't want this to come across as a personal attack, so please don't take it that way... but your logic escapes me. You have a lot of choices available to you to carry on your commute everyday, yet fail to make those choices. Lets just go over some of the choices you could make... Find a different job, yeah it's hard, you might make less money, but this is a choice that you can make. You just continue to place your current job over your safety, which is your right as a free person... but don't complaint about a choice you're making. Second, park on the street instead of your companies parking lot, while they can prohibit you having a firearm at work, they can't prohibit you from having a firearm in your car on a public street... Again, this may have added cost, or time to your morning commute but you have a choice in the matter. Finally, if the parking lot isn't posted per 39-17-1359 you have the choice to just ignore your employers rule and leave your firearm in the vehicle, in a game of don't ask, don't tell. You do run the risk of someday being fired over it, but in the vast majority of jobs that is extremely unlikely unless you personally do something to out yourself. Now your employer has made a choice, and it could be for a ton of different reasons, to make the carrying of firearms by employees against their rules... If they have no good reason, then do you really want to work for a company that would disregard your safety on a whim? If you continue to do so, is it really their fault, or yours? But, because you refuse to prioritize your own safety and security, you want the government to come in and force your employer to change their rules just for you? How is that right? Again, this isn't a personal attack, there are a lot of people out there that just don't want to make the hard choices in life, they want to government to give them stuff... Do you really want to be one of those people?

[quote name='DaveTN' timestamp='1353592809' post='849412'] Tennessee isn’t in the 10th District, it in the 6th. If the law is passed and is challenged it will work its way to the 6th. We will be bound by what is decided there; unless the SCOTUS decides to hear it. The Federal Districts Court have made mistakes before. All but two ruled that the 2nd amendment was not an individual right. The SCOTUS split the 2nd amendment in half and said they were wrong on half of it. However, I don’t see how this law can pass in Tennessee. Our state legislators would truly have to be a bunch of hypocrites to force allowing gun possession on business owners when they have outlawed gun possession in public and in private vehicles by citizens. Will I be shocked? No, I was shocked when many states passed the smoking legislation and caused some businesses to go out of business. So I won’t be shocked if the state delivers another blow to business. [/quote] Dave, You keep repeating this incorrect information. [b]SCOTUS has not ruled on the right to bear arms.[/b] The lawyer running the Heller and McDonald cases purposely did not include the right to bear arms in the complaint filed against DC and Chicago. The Heller decision says that the right to bear is out of scope of the complaint and was not being ruled on, if anything it seems like they left the door open for a ruling on it down the road. We're likely to get the chance to find out how SCOTUS will rule in Palmer vs Washington, DC which is slowly working it's way through the federal court system (recently Chief Justice Roberts stepped in the help speed the case along). That case is by the same lawyer who sucessful won the Heller and McDonald cases, and the complaint is about the right to bear arms in public spaces. We all know your opinion that SCOTUS won't or can't force carry on states because of states rights, and you may very well be correct (I disagree) on that fact. So please stop telling people that SCOTUS has ruled there is no right to bear arms, it just isn't true.

By law the state is only supposed to use the money it gets today to run the HCP program, so those numbers are really valid. If the state continues to charge $115 for a one time permit for those who want to carry outside the state. Then TDOS would be forced to cut "jobs" associated with the HCP program. This would be no different than if fewer people choose to get permits in the first place, they would be forced to cut those same "jobs". I use the term 'job' loosely, as they are nothing more than make work positions... Also, TDOS is wasting money left and right in that program, because it's use it or loose it. The local revenue is money paid by TDOS for the 'records check' of your local CLEO, again that money is only supposed to be used for these records checks, not for anything else.

Level 2 retention holster, the gun isn't ever going to fall out while goofing off... The entire holster will rip/fall off long before the gun comes out of it. I have a 2 year old daughter myself.

[quote name='Chucktshoes' timestamp='1353381625' post='848594'] Agreed. I think that the Op-Ed piece is working off of the assumption that entitlements would remain essentially unchanged. I would assert that is a seriously flawed premise. A more likely scenario, I think, would be a near elimination of welfare/social safety net programs in the former red states and very possibly a migration of poor to the former blue states that maintained generous welfare programs prior to final severance of the two new countries. Combine that with the likelihood of a more favorable business atmosphere with a lower corporate tax rate and no Obamacare in the former reds and you may see some business headquarter migration as well. All conjecture of course, but I think a far more plausible scenario than assuming a maintenance of the status quo post split. [/quote] We could do this today... The legislature could remove funding of TennCare and other welfare programs tomorrow, allowing private groups such as churches to fill that roll.

[quote name='GKar' timestamp='1353306513' post='848049'] Perhaps the best ending to this lovely discourse was alluded to earlier: if a "parking lot" bill is introduced into the next legislative session, and it contains proposals that are objectionable to some, then those that are so adamantly convinced that such is a bad bill should expend the same amount of energy that's been exhausted within this and similar threads over the last year into efforts directed at the legislators...you know, those people that can actually DO (or not do) something about it. In the meantime, those who believe it is a step in the right direction can continue to do the same...and save a hell of a lot of bandwidth. [/quote] People here wonder why we can't get this bill passed.... The TFA and NRA went to town on legislators who don't want to see this bill passed... There are very [b]valid conservative[/b] reasons to not support this bill. We as 2nd amendment advocates should be pushing the legislature to pass laws that recognize our God given rights for self defense, and a smaller government (at all levels government needs to get much smaller). Not pass legislation that makes the government bigger, and interferes with God given property rights. [b]The 'problem' this bill attempts to solve doesn't exist[/b], nobody is being forced to work at, or do business with a posted company in this state. HCP permit holders willingly choose to enter into agreements with these businesses, and tomorrow could choose to not enter into those agreements with those businesses. Therefore the law in question is nothing but an expansion of government, and further restricts private property rights. IMHO, people who support this bill have lost their way on the fundamentals of conservative principles, they want to government to give them a privilege over the rights of property owners to store a firearm in their vehicle, instead of making the hard choice to not do business with said companies. That violates everything I've been taught about conservative principles of less government, and allowing the market solve problems. I'm not saying that the legislator won't pass this bill, I'm also not saying that a court would find it unconstitutional... The legislature passes all sorts of bad bills on a regular basis that violate natural rights of the citizens of our state... Courts often IMHO get it wrong and trash God given rights... I suspect in this case they would continue to do so... Doesn't mean because you can, you should... I for one am not willing to toss aside my core principles of smaller, limited government... belief in true God given rights of men... because some refuse to make hard choices in their own daily lives. I've lost a lot of respect for certain of members of this forum in this thread, who have repeatedly advocated smaller government, fewer firearm laws to get us closer to our God given rights, but are happy to throw those principles away to get the state to pass a law because it saves them from making some hard choices.

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353285391' post='847861'] I've also said and do say that the state should pass legislation on this issue...they should because I believe it's in the overall best interest of society and because many employers and businesses have refused to act on their own...I'll continue to think the state should so regulate until someone can provide compelling reasons why the state should not; simply wanting the regulation is not compelling, at least not to me. [/quote] If we're going to cite the TN Constitution, then this proposed law would seem to be unconstitutional on it's face, since the legislature can only regulate the wearing of firearms in an attempt to avoid criminal behavior. An untouched firearm located in your vehicle is not worn, and as such would not fall under the single exception to the right to keep and bear arms in the TN constitution for the legislature to regulate. I don't think employers and business have failed to act, they have posted signage or posted warnings to their employees to not have firearms on their property, that is the very definition of acting. They have made a choice to prohibit that activity on their property. And again, you keep pushing a progressive agenda, that the state should act unless the business can provide a compelling reason as to why the state should not? That is the very opposite of conservative principles. You have o refuted my point that all HCP holders already have another option available to them, don't do business with employers and businesses which post their property... How does this method fail? Who is forced to work anywhere in this state? Who is forced to do business with posted properties? You're the person wanting more regulation, not those of us who are in opposition of this proposed bill, again why not just repeal 1359 to only include buildings (or even better yet repeal it completely)? I'd be happy to support that bill, as it doesn't interfere with private property rights. How is it in the best interest of society to force business owners to allow carry on their property, just because HCP holders continue to willingly accept conditions of employment? Keep in mind I'm very pro-carry, I'm 100% behind repeal virtually all of our gun laws in TN.. I'm just also very pro-natural rights, and private property rights, the last thing that conservative small government pro-2nd amendment advocates should be doing is attempt to encourage an out of control legislature and court system to impose on others rights just to get us some special 'privileges'. We must fight to repeal stupid gun laws in TN, there are 100's of lines that can and should be removed, adding more regulation on business people who want a smaller government isn't the best way to build that coalition. As to your question about other states and using HCP for hiring, I have no clue, but nothing in the proposed law would stop it... and you're kidding yourself if you don't think that information isn't available and being used by employers today. When somebody performs a background check, it's included in that background check today, and I'm 100% positive that hiring managers are taking that into consideration, some likely see it as a positive, and some likely see it as a negative, but it's happening, and will happen more if this legislation becomes law.

[quote name='jtmaze' timestamp='1353279605' post='847812'] There is no question about property rights in this bill. The bill has nothing to do with property rights except for the fact that it re-enforces the castle doctrine that has been upheld to show that a persons vehicle is the same as there home and this bill only re-enforces that I have the right to keep any legally pocessed items that I want no matter what your employer thinks about them. My vehilce, My property, My employer has no business wondering what I have in My Property. What would you say if your employer was going to fire you because you have a refrigorater in your home. Would that be legal? My car is just like my home in Tennessee law and this bill just re-enforces that. It has nothing to do with property rights. [/quote] Again, I've shown time and time again, it is a question about property rights. But, lets look at the nonsense you're bringing up. I think you have a great misunderstanding of the employer, employee relationship. Lets talk about some of the legal stuff I can control with my employees... I can say you can only park a Ford on my parking lot as a condition of employment. I can say can can't have pierced ears, or hard that is too long as a condition of employment. I can even tell you exactly what color pants and shirts you'll wear everyday, the color and style of your belt. These are all legal things an employer can do today. And should be able to continue to do. Nobody is suggesting we shouldn't extend castle doctrine full into vehicles, I'm ALL for that... I'm even all for removing the governments ability to interfere... But, the government shouldn't get involved in a private contract between me and you over the conditions of your employment. You want to park in my lot, then you follow the rules I set forth, don't like it, find another place to work, nobody is forcing you to agree to my terms and conditions. And your car is not your home under TN law, or you'd be allowed to have a loaded firearm in it without a permit. Here is what is going to happen if they pass this law, employers who don't want employees carrying loaded firearms in their vehicles will just make it a condition of employment to not have a valid HCP. Since who has an HCP is a matter of public record, they'll just go through yearly and terminate anybody who does. So, I'm going to assume you work somewhere that doesn't allow you to have a firearm on your person or in your vehicle? Why don't you park your car on the street instead of your employers parking lot? Why not find a job somewhere else that doesn't have such silly rules? Both of these solutions would solve your problem without removing the ability of an employer to set conditions of employment.

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353262486' post='847693'] [size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]This is not about feelings or whims; it’s about laws and the good of society at large. Is it “[i]progressive[/i]” of me to want zoning laws in my city so that my next door neighbor can’t suddenly decide to convert his “private property” into a petting zoo or a garbage dump or a half-way house for child molesters? [/quote][/font][/size] Yes, I'd say this is a very progressive stance, we don't need zoning laws, and a perfect example of a large city without zoning laws is Houston, they seem to be making it work wit no problems. If my choice are having the zoning system we have today, or having a system for no zoning laws, I'd surely pick no zoning laws. [size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][quote] Is it “[i]progressive[/i]” for me to believe that I should be able to control the contents of my vehicle provided the contents are legal to own/have in my vehicle? [/quote][/font][/size] I think it's perfectly fine for you to control the contents of your vehicle, I'd be perfectly fine with extended loaded carry without a permit to a persons private vehicle (I'm also all for constitutional carry). Your vehicle is your property and you should have control of it while in the public sphere. I think your property rights end when you enter somebody's property, and you're a guest on their property visiting under the conditions they place on you. This is not a violation of your rights, because 1. it's not the government imposing these conditions on you, and 2. you do so freely and willingly. [size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][quote] Is it “[i]progressive[/i]” of me to believe that a restaurant shouldn’t be allowed to refuse to serve a black man or a Chinese woman because of their respective races or to think that a business shouldn't be able to require employees to work 16 or 20 hour days or even force eight year old children to do the same? [/quote][/font][/size] This is clearly a very progressive view point, and clearly both a violation of a persons natural rights and a violation under the Constitutions freedom of association principle. Now don't get me wrong, racism is BAD... but between 2 private people, the market place can work that out without interference from the government. I would personally refuse to eat in a restaurant that only offered service to a single race, but I feel that closed minded individuals should have the freedom to ruin their business if they so choose. As for child labor laws, I think we could largely live without those today, and I've person spent a great number of days in my life working 16 hours a day, both for myself and somebody else, and I'm not harmed in the least. [size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][quote] If the above examples are examples of “[i]progressiveism[/i]” then color me progressive but I suggest that there is nothing libertarian or conservative or patriotic OR Constitutional in allowing anyone/any business/any property owner to do whatever the hell he wants to do on or with his "property" with no regards to anyone else or regards to society at large.[/font][/size] [/quote] While there maybe some limits that need to be placed on property owners, those pose a direct physical risk to those around them, we're not talking about those limits here. We're talking about somebody being denied the ability to carry a firearm onto private property willingly. If you don't like the conditions under which you're granted access to private property, do business somewhere else, or get a job with another company. You are not forced to leave you firearm anywhere, you choose to do so as a condition of access. [size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][quote] If you believe the courts have blundered in upholding these laws then please explain how they have done so…show specifically how a legal, inert thing, whether it’s a firearm or a set of golf clubs locked inside of a vehicle while parked on a piece of ground provided for the purpose of parking vehicles is a violation of the takings clause.[/font][/size] Until you or someone can do that, I'll remain, "[i]progressive[/i]" and armed. [/quote] I'll turn this around because first and foremost, the property is MINE, not yours, not the governments, but MINE. Show me how you're harmed by my not allowing you to do business with me, or work for me? If you know the conditions of the contract upfront, then you can always choose to not agree to the terms and go elsewhere. And obviously if there is a solution available that solves the problem without infringing on my property rights, then conservatives should always opt for that market based solution over more government regulations. [quote] I believe we are left with two issues...[list=1] [*]Can the government install such a law without violating the Constitution's takings clause. [*]Should the government install such a law. [/list] I believe the first issue has been addressed sufficiently well by the courts - I think the courts were right. Others can disagree but disagreement doesn't change anything unless others can show how the courts got it wrong. The second issue is, I believe, the only issue that truly matters at this point. The "it's my property and I should be able to do what I want" statement certainly sounds reasonable...it even sounds patriotic but when examined in detail it is, I believe, unconvincing. It's unconvincing because it really just states an opinion....it's unconvincing because it can (and in many cases was) used to justify any manner of abhorrent, disgusting and even dangerous practices and shows absolutely zero concern for anyone or anyone else s rights; including [u][i]their[/i][/u] property rights. [/quote] I think you're right, current progressive courts would uphold such a law, doesn't mean it's truly constitutional or doesn't violate a persons natural rights, but those are the times we live in. As for your second point, your argument is because in the past some small number of business owners did dangerous thing that all business owners should have their natural property rights violated for ever? Here we're not even talking about dangerous activity, disgusting activity, we're talking about a business setting conditions for employment and people willingly agreeing to those conditions. Again, explain to be exactly why we need the government to solve this problem? Is there not another valid way to solve this problem without passing this law and violating property owners rights? Let me answer the second question first... We could much more easily change 1359 to limit it to buildings only, this change would have a far great positive impact than the parking lot bill, as it would prohibit governments for using 1359 to keep their parking lots posted, ground etc. And doesn't impact a business owners property rights... They could still ask you to leave and charge you with trespassing (frankly I'd have no problem with completely removing 1359 altogether, because that doesn't impact a property owners rights. This law won't solve anything for employees... Employers who don't want firearms on their property will just go one step further in filtering out employees. Some will make it an out and out violation of company policy to even have an HCP, making the holding of the permit a fire-able offense, instead of the possession of a firearm. Or they will be much more sneaky about it, current background checks that a vast majority of employers already do, tell you if somebody has a permit. They'll just instruct the HR department to exclude anybody with a permit from the hiring process. At the end of the day, all of this can be avoid... Just don't do business with a business that doesn't allow you to carry let alone leave a firearm in your vehicle. Problem solved with no law being passed. And the conservative thing to do is not pass a law when there is already a market force in place to deal with the problem.

Robert, I'm sorry but it is a progressive argument that somehow societies 'feelings/whims' trump a persons property rights. I'm not suggesting that progressives haven't been very successful in getting courts to violate those rights for the last few decades, but it doesn't change the fact that property rights are a natural right, the same as the right to own and carry a gun is a natural right, and the government has no legitimate reason to violate either of them. I'm never going to post a business I own, when certain laws were changed a few years back, I got into a number of arguments with progressive leaning members of the family on why we should not post our family owned business... I even had to fire an employee who answered the phone and told a customer we would be posting. (BTW that is the only time I've lost an unemployment claim but that is an entirely different story) But, I should have full control over my business, I should be able to ban carry over the entire property if I so (IMHO incorrectly) choose. Like with any other policy I make, employees who don't like it can find another job... Customers can do business elsewhere if they don't like the policies. Somebody else will come along and cater to those folks, and get their business and labor if they so choose. I use to work for a corporation that prohibited carry for employees, and it was one of the reasons I choose to leave and start my own business. I make less money, but I don't have to disarm everyday to go to work... Nobody is forced to work somewhere they must disarm, they choose to... That is their choice. Again, we should be focused on removing stupid laws, and laws that prohibit carry n government control lands and buildings... because none of us have a choice when it comes to those locations... Not try and tell some business person he must do something he fundamentally disagrees with. [quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353176819' post='847249'] I understand you don't agree with me but why start slinging terms like "progressive"? I believe your argument is flawed , in part, because you refuse to recognize the very clear distinction between private property and business property; a distinction the law and society has recognized for many, many decades and for very good reason...I'd hate to live in any society where a "property owner" could do anything he wanted with no regard to society or anyone else. No single right is absolute be it the right to carry arms or to practice (or not practice) religion or engage in speech or the right to own real property and use in any way desired. However, whether you agree with me and for that matter, whether I agree with you is immaterial because your argument has been tested in courts in states where similar "parking lot" legislation has been been put into place and the courts have rejected your arguments. Sure, there are plenty of laws relating to firearms that stand improvement and I'm doubtful any real movement will be made on a parking lot bill for the next two years but if we can get a good parking lot bill passed into law in Tennessee I'm certainly for it. [/quote]

[quote name='TrickyNicky' timestamp='1353112907' post='846933'] Not sure that's true for all departments... A lot of them do in fact unfortunately turn those turned in guns into scrap metal. [/quote] If you are aware of a department destroying functional firearms you need to report that to the state police and your legislator. It is a crime under state law to do so.

Robert, I'm about as ProGun as it comes... And the parking lot bill is a BAD bill, and I can't support it. The argument you make is that of a progressive who believe they know what is best for me and my property. The person who knows best what to do with their business is the owner of that business, period. His business isn't there for the 'best interest' of society at large, it is there solely for what is the best interest of the OWNER of said business. There are much simpler methods to deal with anti-gun businesses which choose to post... don't do business with them... just like you won't go do business with a restaurant that said 'whites only', you shouldn't do business with a business that posts. I know, it's a tough economy, you can't go spend an extra $1 on a hamburger, or find a job with a pro-gun company... well that is your problem, not the problem of the property owner. We should be focusing our efforts on the one part of society where we have no choice, [b]government buildings and land[/b], unlike private businesses we're forced by law to interact with these groups, there are no other choices available, we end up paying taxes and can't use parks, and government buildings because the government can use 1359 to ban otherwise lawful carry. That should be our real target... Ask yourself why is the capitol building still posted? All it takes is 2 signatures to remove the postings... The missing signature Beth Harwell. As for your argument that people need a 'good enough for you' reason to want to ban firearms, I disagree, private property even if it's a business should not have to explain to you, me, or anybody else why they want to ban firearms, only that they choose to... and You, I, and anybody else can avoid that business and vote with our pocket books. We have so many really bad firearm laws on the books, which seem to be a lot less likely to run rough shot over other peoples constitutionally protected rights... We should be focusing on those laws first, and let this bad law die. [quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353093907' post='846728'] There is a clear distinction, both in law and in practice, between private property used for private purposes and property used for business purposes and that distinction has been recognized for many, many decades. I agree that the rights of the property owner should be protected but no one right exists in a vacuum; they interact with other...sometimes they conflict with one another and when that happens, a fair balance needs to be sought; a balance that does the most good and least harm. I would suggest that the larger issue that should impact whether "parking lot" legislation is or isn't passed into law is what constitutes the best outcome for society at large. We have a large amount of history/data to show that an armed citizenry is a benefit to society; as such, if we (the government) can promote citizens being armed with little or no infringement on the rights of property owners then it's appropriate to make that possible. Other than the cry of "private property rights" (a cry I believe is misguided), I've not read or heard even one argument that has shown me any measurable, negative impact on a business owner simply because an employee or a customer chooses to have a legally owned and transported firearm in their vehicle while it's parked in a parking lot that is open to the public, and not just "open to" but where the public is invited to be. [/quote]

Well at least they can't destroy the guns... So whatever they buy that isn't stolen, will end up being auctioned off to better homes

It's the wrong move... We should be pushing for removing government land and buildings from being posted under 1359. Not trying to overrule the rights of private citizens to control their own land.

If DV is such a serious problem, it should be a felony, not a misdemeanor charge. A misdemeanor conviction should not prevent a person from owning/carrying a firearm period. If the crime is so outrageous it should be a felony. [quote name='Dolomite_supafly' timestamp='1352858000' post='845156'] Yes, but in all my years in LE I have yet to see one person be forced to plead guilty. The judge asks the defendent if he agrees to the plea and when the person says "yes" they become convicted of domestic abuse. If you don't want to plea then go to trial, that way you can explain your side of the story and let the jury make the decision. Heck, in a lot of cases they will let the abuser plea down to a lesser charge if it is their first time. A bruise is all it takes IMHO. If you are manhandling a women enough to leave a bruise then you are a POS and should loose [u]everything[/u]. Not just your gun rights. And most of those who[u] are [/u]abusers tned to be whiny asses and will cry anytime they think they are being abused. If you lay hands on a women during an argument in order to comtrol her or win the argument you are a POS. Dolomite [/quote]

Who is watching TV and thinking that we'd be cut off without food and power? Recent history doesn't seem to support your argument, look at the break up of the Soviet Union... States were allowed to leave and form their own countries, and while all of that happened under a massive economic turmoil... trade didn't stop, cross board travel didn't stop, and life went on in a crappy way. If a single state or small group of states left under peaceful circumstances, trade would continue between those states and the rest of the country, agreements would be reached on power, water rights, trade and travel between the states which left and the states that stayed. When it happens we might well be starving but it won't be because of some blockade... it will be a total economic collapse within the US as a whole. I don't really support secession at this time, we're not there yet... The TN legislature has a lot to do to get our house in order first.... The most important thing we could do in TN, is repeal all social welfare spending, pass a law that only provides education funding to US citizens. Those 2 provisions would do a lot towards making this state a lot more free. [quote name='DaveTN' timestamp='1352895165' post='845370'] We would gain all or industry shutting down, our banking system gone, our external food supply greatly reduced if not shut off altogether. We would not have control of TVA and would probably be without power. In short, we would be cut off from all the life sustaining supplies we need and we would either die or be forced to stop the non-sense. We live in an age on TV; not reality. Most of those suggesting this picture themselves running through the country side carry a gun and being a hero (that’s how it works on TV). Reality is most of us couldn’t run across the street let alone the country side, and most don’t have the skills to stay alive or out of the way of a bullet for more than a couple of days. [/quote]

[quote name='Clod Stomper' timestamp='1352746759' post='844363'] Winning a war does not determine rights vs. non-rights. If you beat me up and take my lunch money, did you determine that I had no right to that money? As far as Texas secession, I'm not so sure that they need a petition. I'll have to look into it further, but wasn't a right of secession a part of their treaty with the US when they joined the union? Not sure, but I'm curious. [/quote] That is an urban myth, the treaty allows them to dived into a total of 5 states without permission from Congress. Remember Texas attempted to secede from the Union with the rest of the South during the civil war.

[quote name='The Dude' timestamp='1352743580' post='844351'] Plus he totally ignored the 10th Amendment. [/quote] Yeah, 10th Amendment Boy, how we gloss over history of our first despot How about sending troops into New York to fire on protesters? Or having a US Congressman arrested and exiled from the country for speaking out against the war? Or shutting down a number of newspapers who were against the war? Or threatening a Priest with arrest over a prayer? The least of Lincoln infractions were disregarding the 10th Amendment.

1. I can agree to disagree, but even if you don't think we've crossed that line yet, you must admit it doesn't appear to be too far off? 2. The system has become so corrupted that it's virtually impossible to change it from within, the soap box and ballot box have failed to resolve this issue. The changes that do need to take place, are so unpopular because people have become so use to government help they can't imagine cutting the size of government. I don't have a crystal ball, but I suspect that our current trend of borrowing and printing money we don't have will 'self correct' in the not so distance future. But, it will be bloody and nasty when the collapse starts to happen. My outlook isn't very positive on this nation, not because there are a large chunk of takers in our country today who live off of wealth stolen from doers... but because the doers refuse to stand up and say no, and back up that not with violence if needed. But, again I'm a sunshine patriot just like everyone else. My only hope is the current 20-30 something generation who seems to be waking up and realizing that the baby boomers are selling us into slavery, they may very well wake up and so no in such a way that it forces change, but again I seriously doubt that change with be peaceful in nature. [quote name='leroy' timestamp='1352638022' post='843657'] Jay: Final question(s): 1. You have stated that:"...we're way past the point our founding fathers were.....". I simply dont agree, so we need to agree to disagree on this one. 2. What should be done by the citizenry to correct this problem? This aint a trick or gotcha questiton. I'm vitally and genuinely interested in this one; as im shure that many others are here too. leroy [/quote]

I agree Samuel Adams was a great founding father, and risked everything (long before 1776) to fight for God given rights, and liberty from tyrannical rule. Sure things are completely different today... or are they? Confiscation of property... not happening here? Kelo vs City of New London? civil forfeiture laws? Sackett vs EPA? No the government is taking out property the same way the British did, by hiding behind the 'law'. Confiscation of firearms? not happening now? Katrina Gun Grab? ATF 'relaxing' due process standard for confiscations? No the government is trying to disarm us, and if Obama appoints 3 new justices in the next 4 years the Heller ruling is likely to be overturned. You are right they are quartering troops in our homes... but as for the government and our wives and children? TSA groping anybody? But, we can go one further... our President has murdered US citizens via executive order without the 'terrorist' even being charged with a crime, let alone found guilty.... His administration claims to be able to use the same legal theory on citizens within the US... Congress passed the NDAA last year authorizing indefinate detentions of US citizens by the military with no rights to an attorney or access to our court systems. The Boston Tea Party was over a 10% tax on tea, we pay that here in TN for every good we purchase. Between local, state, and federal taxes... I'm paying 50+% of my income to the government, and I'm not rich, just a middle income American with a wife and a child. I'm not suggesting anybody take up arms, but we all need to understand that we're way past the point our founding fathers were. [quote name='leroy' timestamp='1352506018' post='842777'] Jay. I understand the point and it is well taken. Some things to consider: Samuel Adams staked this life, liberty, and personal fortune to help found this country. He and his associates succeeded in whupping the the superpower of his day; creating the country that everybody admires, wants to come to, and be a part of for over 200 years. All that happened between 1776 and 1784. Samuel Adams and folks like him handed us the greatest country that had ever existed. For that i am, indeed, thankful. I can accept the argument that Sam would not recognize nor approve of what is goin on (....and, in fact, has gone on in this country since 1861....) since this country's founding. Havin said all that, im not sure that you can compare then with now. Then, the British were running rough shod over the populace, taking their arms, confiscating their property, quartering troops in their houses, and tellin them they better like it or else. No one is doin that today. I will grant that government in some places is encroaching on personal liberty and picking the pockets of the producers in this country. What happened in British colonial times is a far cry from what is goin on in this country today. No one is comming to your door to kick your door down, take your stuff, or ravish your wife while wearing the uniform of the united states. No one has come to take your brothers and sisters away and impress them into military service (...in the last few years, anyway....). No one is comming to disarm you. I will grant that they would like to; but i doubt they will. To me, at least, you simply cant compare what happened then with what is happening now. It aint the same thing. We have had thoroughout the history of this country crooks, oppressors, and pickpockets in high political office. I predict that that situation will continue. It always has. It is, sadly, the nature of things. As i see things, its our job to try to fix this problem thru the vote. This country has morphed into an empire that has the tendency to go around the globe and meddle in affairs it should never be involved in; and has been doin so ever since WW1. We have, in fact, become what Sam Adams and the founding fathers abhored. We are now citizens of the american empire. We are reaping the harvest of imposing our national will on others. Our country as it has been constituted and governed over the last hundred or so years looks nothin like i believe it was envisioned by the founding fathers. It may well be that we implode due to our own differences and selfishness. In the mean time, i think we should try to fix what we can. That fix has got to start by determining what is and is not the responsibility of government toward its citizens, its business, its national neighbors, and the individual states making up the union. What is right. What is wrong. The list goes on and on. The fact is that there is no 'taking of quotes" out of context, because the context aint the same. We should, indeed, have serrious discussions as to how to fix these great problems. That is what we are doin here. leroy [/quote]

I'm sorry Leroy, but I'm not trying to 'win friends' and influence people on an internet forum. My point is that I believe you're taking the quote completely out of context. I made some assumptions in my post, first that you're not happy about the results of the current election, and feel the government is becoming the hand that people are licking, and the chains which rest softly on our backs... that people are unknowingly voting for this... correct me if I'm wrong. My point is that quote was not aimed at 'loyalist' who knowingly asks to be ruled over... but was directly pointed at fence sitters, who were unwilling to stand up, because it would cost their wealth, or tranquility.... I'm not picking a fight... I'm just pointing out that we are the crowd that Samuel was speaking to when he said those words, not to 'loyalists' who wanted to be ruled by the crown. As for Samuel Adams and taking up arms again tyranny, we're well past the point they had given up 'changing the system from within' when he spoke these words... he was speaking to those who wanted to try and find a peaceful solution to the problem, to continue to work within the 'system'... So in closing, I stand by my point, we're all fence sitters that Samuel Adams was speaking of... we see the way our government is abusing us, violating God given rights... yet we continue to try to 'compromise' and 'work from within the system'... instead of meeting violent force with violent force. I've not picked up my rifle either, and not that I'm asking but I suspect virtually all of the people visiting this forum haven't either... all I'm saying is IMHO this quote today would be directed at us, calling us out for our timid response to tyranny we see daily... and our founding fathers would have long ago taken up arms against our current form of government. It's not meant as a personal insult, just an observation that this quote is not meant for the people who voted for Obama, but meant for the rest of us who accept the tyranny of the majority. [quote name='leroy' timestamp='1352490622' post='842609'] Jay: I'm all for "self assessment"; and i think its ok and even proper to do some soul searchin and self evaluation. Havin said all that; I dont know that after the "evaluation" you are in a position to call folks (...other than you...) out as "...people like you...". At the minimum, I would recommend that you give folks the benefit of the doubt seein as ya dont know whether they are "....down for the stuggle..." or a pinko commie statist operative in drag. I'm all for you thinkin that you are one of the "fence sitters" and "cowards" if ya want to. It's even ok to even think that others are "sittin on the fence" and "cowards" too; but the way i see things; it aint your business to call them out publically. Remember, that self-evaluation includes you; not you and everyone else. I'm ok with you publishin the results on "you" but not on "....you and me....". The way i see things right now, i think ya could use a Dale Carnege course on winnin friends and influencin people. I can tell ya (...in my case at least...) this aint the way to do it. If you are into shockin folks; it might work out; but ya need to remember that some folks dont take kindly to bein called out by others who they dont know on a personal basis. I can also understand and can identify with ya bein a bit upset about what has happened in the election; and in the downward course this country has taken in general over the past few hundred years. That doesnt mean that i think ya ought to pick a fight with folks that pretty well see things the way you do and are tryin to help in their own small way. I wuz simply postin what my take on all this is; not cruzin for a lecture and a bit of name callin from someone i dont know. Ya might want to consider the possibility that there are folks with a bit of forebearance that may be somehere on the continuum of movin to change the system from within. I dont know that im ready to take up my rifle just yet; nor would i advise anyone else to take them up either. In the American Revolution, the "changin from within" thing didnt work out too well; and folks like Sam Adams took their rifles up. I happen to think that the jury is out on this one, and everybody aint made their minds up yet. leroy [/quote]