Worriedman

I agree, so in standing, the Declaration of Independence, while actually codified as law, is superseded when a later act or law is added. The United States Supreme Court and The Declaration of Independence

From a discussion that started in another thread, I thought this forum was more rightly suited for the direction that one was headed. I feel we all could use a refresher regarding the Constitution, it's place in our law making, and the history leading up to what we have today as recognized by the Supreme Court. I know I could, I learn something every day, and can be taught by anybody. It has been suggested that the Declaration of Independence, having been added into the US Code, makes it part of the "Organic Law" of the Nation. My take is, that the U.S. Code includes the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Northwest Ordinance, and the U.S. Constitution in their original order of passage. The first three are superseded by the incorporation of the last, (the Constitution), and are held as precursors, but not used by the Supreme Court in deciding cases.

Thanks.

I am simply asking for your assistance in becoming informed, as I can find no date or copy of an action that codifies the Declaration of Independence as law, I am seeking to learn, but felt it was not germane to the discussion on HB 0355. Thought it best to take that discussion offline. If you are not willing to help educate me, then so be it.

PM sent, this discussion does not belong on the thread.

A sound thrashing of said proposed Legislation may make a bigger statement than just having it die in subcommittee.

I have done so already, but will re-post it. Tenn. Code Ann. § 54-14-102(a) allows a landlocked property owner to TAKE your property , (although requiring recompense decided upon by a jury of peers) not just to trespass upon, but to own. If having personal property stripped away from ownership is allowing "enjoyment", well we have different opinions of what the word means. The court case: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE June 14, 2001 Session DANIEL B. BARGE III v. EARL H. SADLER, ET AL. Appeal from the Court of Appeals, Middle Section Chancery Court for Humphreys County No. 24-175 Allen W. Wallace, Chancellor http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/opinions/tsc/PDF/021/BargeD.pdf allows not only an individual who does not own the property to be on it, but to take it completely away from the owner. The Declaration of Independence that you continue to trot out as "proof" to your stance on property rights is a statement of platitudes, it is NOT part of the Constitution and it's Amendments. It was penned at a time when part of it's intent was to protect the owning of another person for goodness sake. The sum and total of words in the document you purport as your "proof" related to "Unalienalbe Rights" is this: I see nothing else that points to property "Rights" being the pinnacle of reasons to wage war,which is what the Declaration was about, a statement for justification to revolt. The Constitutions, the one for the Union, and the one for our State, codify explicitly limitations on the powers of the Governments, and the extent of the Rights of the People. If a discussion is raised as to their applicability, we have the courts and a process to amend those documents. In both, the statement is made that a Citizen shall not be deprived of their personal property, except by due process of law. Eminent Domain gives the Government the ability to take your property if they can convince a court that is in the best interest of the community, they will have to pay a fair market value, but take it they can. Does loosing title and control of a piece of land that you previously owned fit your "unalienable right to enjoyment of property."?

You have not proved anything, you have made an unsubstantiated statement with no back up at all. Show your documentation please. Prove to me by listing the Article and Section which states that property rights supersedes all others. I have, on three continents actually, not sure that has anything to do with it, but the answer is yes. You see one around here with a sign on the front door that says Mennonites must eat in the back? But By God, according to your way of thinking a proprieter should be able to write that rule, if the power to control via ownership of a mortgage is a real thing. Give that a shot and let me know how it works out. And, if I show up in the parking lot of one that requires a suit and tie, I could have driven there with them off, and put them on just before I step over the threshold, all legal like! Sorry, but you just don't get that any owner does not have full discretion to require whatever might suit his pleasure, and that is the point I have been trying to get you to see. There is no ABSOLUTE Right via ownership to set up a dictatorship within the confines of a property line, keeping all other powers at bay like some kind of force field.

The Federal Constitution itself is a list of chains placed on the Government by the People, the word right is listed one time only, in Article 1 Section 8, and says you have a Right to the proceeds of your inventions or paintings, it is the only mention of the word in the entire document. Rights guaranteed, are listed in the Amendments. It was added because the Cosntitution in and of itself left a lot of important stuff out, mostly to the mind of George Mason, and his ideas versed in the Virginia Declaration of Rights. Jefferson and Madison at first blush thought it a waste. The Federal Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788, the First 10 Amendments were apporved by congress on September 25, 1789, then sent 12 out to the States for ratification. After approval by the last required State, Virginia on December 15, 1791, the first 10 became formally incorporated, known as the Bill of Rights.

Again you argue absolute "rights" of business owners when they do not exist. Are the "dress codes" you speak of the purvey of the business owner alone? What of specified protective clothing, hard hats, safety glasses, harnesses and lanyards for work over 6' off the ground, steel toed boots, hearing protection, all manner of PPE's mandated not by the business owner, a heinous cost and burden assumed by some, and not wanted by many employees, yet required none the less. Businesses can mandate certain items, but they are not the end and be all. "No shirt, no shoes, no service" would be enforceable in most establishments, (I suspect that if you owned and ran an outdoor style snow cone stand on the beach, you would not be able to make even that stick, from a law or business sense stance) but if you put that "No Polka Dot" sign up, I bet you get some grief, ACLU would be on you like stink on stuff, just to stay in practice. Can you preclude crutches or wheelchairs if you have some phobia about them? It would be a business owner's prerogative according to your lights. All this excreting and moaning about your belief's or mine, concerning what is correct about were a person should be able to carry or keep a handgun is moot anyway, as neither of us is a Legislator, and as such it is not up to us. The State Constitution leaves that discernment to the Legislature only, and that is an incontrovertible fact. They preempt all others via Article 1 Section 26, be they City or County Governments, or individual business owners with respect to where firearms can be carried, or if they can be. It is on their watch, not yours or mine.

I did see your other post and this is what you said: Put up your sign saying that you refuse to sell to, or hire someone who likes or wears "polka dots" as you referenced earlier, and I hope you have a second hand on your watch, so you can easily keep track of how much longer you will be in business. You purport that owning a business is akin to some totalitarian dictaroship, when it is not, then you want to gloss over incidents where a business owner can not "write his own rules" just because they want to, just because you want it to be so. That is one of those things which disprove your basis. The EEOC in fact does limit a business owners ability to run a dictatorship. It either does hinder your "Right" to write your own rules for a business or it does not, which is it?

A business owner has some ability, but is not in total control, as evidently you would wish. A business owner can not deny to any group of people he wants, just because he wants to, access as customers if he offers goods for sale, that is preposterous, and you are smarter than to think they can. A business owner can not deny employment by virtue of race, creed, color, gender and a whole host of things. If I owned a business, I would want my good employees to be able to show up again tomorrow, I would not want it on my conscience that I was responsible for one of them not being able to provide for their own safety off my premises, just so I could feel in control of a parking lot. I personally would rather know I had done the right thing by them than to enjoy some strong arm level of control for whatever reason.

Stores (businesses) invite people (Citizens, at least some of them, called customers) into their establishments. If the average Citizen has no "right" to be there why do they (the business) pay large sums of money to invite them in (advertising in print, on radio and TV)? and without those visitors, how would that business be able to operate, without customers there is no store. Businesses (manufactures) invite people (Citizens, mandated legally here in TN, called employees) into their places of work to get from them their labor to help make a product to sell in stores. The business owners invite them to apply for the jobs advertised. Do they have the "right" to be there once employed? Should then the owners be able to dictate the Citizens ability to enjoy a State mandated method of providing for their own protection (the only protection available is self employed) by utilizing the best tool (that is State sanctioned) as of this date to do so, if in fact , they have been invited to that location by the owners, for the trip to and from their homes? Do you deny your friends or you family members their ability to provide for their own safety via carrying a handgun if they are legally allowed by the State for their traverse to and from your area of control when they come to visit at your home?

There may be a couple of co-sponsors, who will add some changes to it's current form, removing the "employee" wording from the proposed bill so as to cover all parking lots, if what I have heard tonight is followed up on. (Spent the evening at an event that had several State Representatives in attendance). The final form has to be filed by Thursday, as that is the cut off for proposed Legislation for this session. Upon further study, the Thursday cutoff is for introducing legislation only, there is no limit for amending timely introduced bills.

Are you for making it a requirement that every sale of a gun go through an FFL?

Who on this board made that assertion? I know Robert did not, and anyone who did is a few brick shy of a full load. No law, or anything else is going to prevent that. He said the HCP program sectioned out who should be able to enjoy that privilege, but did not take a stance that it kept guns out of the hands of criminals. Any felons get guns in IL? Can you do a personal transfer in Chicago of a handgun without a background check? Has that ever stopped a criminal from getting a gun?

Please expound on that, are you saying convicted felons can legally buy guns openly in Tennessee?

Just because the State of Tennessee does not recognize it, (that we have a Right to keep and bear arms) in no way minimizes the fact that we do, I suspect that is more out of ignorance than intent. I get your point, but allowing the defense against the intent to go armed is in fact giving those with a HCP the legal ability to carry, and as the Legislature has the power by the Constitution to either allow or restrict that, however correct it is or not by our reckoning, (and I would warrant that 99% of our Legislators do not understand the difference) we can carry our handguns legally if we jump through the hoops prescribed. I would bet the average Representative or Senator would, if questioned, answer in the affirmative if asked if the Citizens of this State have such a Right. Given the direction the makeup of the Legislature is headed apparently (more conservative) there is a chance that we could educate a sufficient number to the facts of the "intent to go armed" nature of the T.C.A. and get that changed to a more Constitutionally correct statute. The current law is a holdover from Reconstruction, and is due to be changed. Every advance in "privilege" to the ability to carry more places increases our ability to provide data that supports our arguments for the realignment of the law that we really want. I would also warrant that a sufficient number of TN Citizens have a doubt about the advisability of allowing unrestricted carry Rights to make kicking down the door on that issue difficult to achieve. If we can get the "parking lot" exemption being sought by the current offered legislation, and that does not result in shoot outs at quitting time, it may just move our agenda forward.

John Dingell: If I were to select a jack-booted group of fascists who are perhaps as large a danger to American society as I could pick today, I would pick BATF [the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms].

There goes that denying natural rights thing again. In my turned over leaf of trying not to be argumentative for the very sake of arguing... I must, however, say this is not a true statement. I have a rack of books on my wall, and a ton of paper from attorneys and years of Human Resource training that say different. If you advertise for individual employees, you may not discriminate re sex, race, national origin, age, physical ability, having children, religion, ad infinitum. If seeking sub contractors, status of collective bargaining agreements, regional affiliations, political predispositions are all issues that MAY not be considered.I have a large button that I wear by order of my firm and their labor attorneys that says "I Don't Care" for all interviews. Hiring and firing takes more time than demolition and building any more, IF you want to stay in business. I agree that it is ridiculous, and was postulated to be so, but was simply included to exemplify that being a property owner does not give a property owner carte blanche for any action he may desire to enforce on that said property or business. Individuals have natural rights that no one can abridge, crimes are normally tied to denying or acting against a natural right in some way, by an individual, business or Government. I am ignorant of that situation, but deals are made all the time....

I do not so much disagree with some of your statements, in fact, I have to admit that I have learned some things from you. My perception of what the 2nd Amendment protects and defends is due in large part to your arguments over the last few months. I have come to agree with your understanding that is does not in fact, have any direct bearing to personal protection usage of firearms, outside of the fact that the Feds may not infringe on my ability to OWN firearms and keep them on my property. The Federal government has no say in where I am allowed to carry, or even IF I am allowed to carry in my home State, that is the prerogative of the Tennessee Legislature only. In studying the law relative to property rights, I have come to the understanding that the Constitutions of the Union and the State simply put forth that they are ruled by Common Law, as set forth in English Common Law, and for Tennessee, what was accepted in North Carolina Common Law at the time of Tennessee's founding, and that any and all of those accepted, understood natural laws can be adjusted by our Legislature and Courts. I especially agree with your last sentence, the owners should have immunity if they are in no other way responsible for an action involving a firearm on their property except proximity of it's occurrence, but you are right again, that lawyers, which wield an undue amount of influence over our Legislature due in large part to the the amount of money they pour into campaigns, will fight to keep the "deep pockets" available for their picking. I do however think, that if an owner of a business property decides to deny the natural ability of the individual to provide for their own defense, then they owe a duty to provide for that individual's security while on their property, more especially if they are aware that location is prone to acts of violence by being aware of it's history, and that is gaining acceptance in our courts. It comes down to who can exercise the most influence on the Legislature, or the Courts.

Of course the unalienable right to self protection can be taken from you. If an employer has a "no fighting" clause in the "conditions of employment" agreement, and Big Bubba has a bad day with his gang buddies, and decides to beat Little Suszie to death as a vent to his frustration, bare handed, would that "condition of employment" outweigh Suzies's right to try and save her life if say she were versed in Karate? If she fought back against the aggressor with her bare hands, would that be grounds for dismissal? Reminds me of the Radical Islamist flogging the rape victim. By your stated reasoning, any property owner can set forth any condition relative to their property, or the jobs offered. Can an employer who advertises a position chose who he wants to fill said position at will? Or are there rules prescribed, by law, that remove the absolute "right" to enjoy their property with respect to who may and may not apply for that position? Does equal opportunity stop at the gate of an employer's parking lot? Can the property owner (employer) take from the employee any personal item without due process? According to your perception, no individual has any "Rights" while within the confines of another's property, when there is ample proof that any individual Citizen retains their innate natural rights, regardless of what specific block of terra firma they might be presently standing on. If a proprietor of a coffee shop hires your daughter to work the counter, does it give him the ability to demand that she allow him to have sex with her while on his property? Would she be within her "rights" to refuse his advances, can he legally fire her is she refuses? If you were well heeled enough to own all the land and cattle in Texas, you are denied the ability to "own" another person there by the 14th Amendment, or do you portend that simply because of proximity on personal property you would have the ability to keep a slave? The "if you get arrested and hauled off to jail" statement is inapplicable to this discussion, as we are talking about leaving a handgun locked up in a personal vehicle, which if not handled or brandished, and the individual has the HCP, would not rise to an arrestable offense. If our Legislature decides to institute a statute that allows HCP holders to keep their lawfully prescribed weapons in their private vehicles, that will be a legal, Constitutionally based decision under the powers granted by the consent of the governed, and as currently prescribed by that document. No common law can be set above that basic premise.

Do you think any individual has the power to infringe on my "Right" to keep and bear arms? Now, as far as making my bearing arms or not on their premises as a condition of emplyoment, that is up to the State, and not the individual. srtickj, I think you are confusing my approach, in no way am I insinuating "2nd Amendment" anything. I am speaking of a "natural right" to provide for my personal safety, and to enjoy the ability to be armed on my trip to and from home to work, as described in case law of the Supreme Court of TN, in Andrews v. State, it pointedly says in those findings, that if my use of a firearm does not cause harm to another, then I am entitled to carry it on that trip. Then too, there is that sticky Article 1 Section 26 thing. Can an individual deprive another of Life or Liberty without restraint? If the Government may not, can your neighbor do so with impunity? The 2nd Amendment deals with keeping sufficient arms to forestall and defeat a rouge government. Natural law demands that we use all instruments at our disposal to preserve our lives. From time immemorial, mankind has striven to construct and perfect weapons for it's protection, from sticks sharpened in a fire to ward off the beast of the night, and those that competed with us for food, to the firearms we build and use today. The reason we prevail is our opposable thumbs and intellect to let us make weapons to kill or drive off our enemies. If my carrying of a firearm does not cause crime, the State, (which is the only entity which may restrict that Right) by Constitutional edict has said that I should be able to do so, for the common defense, individual personal safety fits right in there. If the State Legislature decides that it is a good idea to allow handguns locked in personal vehicles in parking lots, that in no way violates the Constitution of the Union or the State. In fact, I have proven that the Legislature and the Courts of Tennessee have the power to abrogate (change) any portion of Common Law as necessity may require. Has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, and everything to do with natural common law, and sense. Governments make laws with great frequency to regulate activities on personal property, you do not have the right to produce noxious smoke to the detriment of your neighbors, you can not raise cattle in an urban setting, municipalities regulate a multitude of activities which might be construed as "natural rights" all the time, they deny the individual "enjoyment" of private property to the benefit of the surrounding persons with regularity. Noise, light emission, grass height ordinances are a standard thing of life. Businesses and corporations are not Citizens, they do not have individual Rights, why should their prerogative outweigh an individual's? I agree it should inside any building owned by anybody, I do not see it that way in my personal property, e.g. my vehicle parked outside the confines of that building. Is ours a dangerous society? Would a HCP holder, who has perfected that permit through background check and State required class, and is adjudicated by law as allowed to carry his or her prescribed weapon into stores, restaurants, churches, parks and along our streets and highways, be likely to pose a problem by leaving it locked in a personal vehicle in a parking lot? We all know that criminals are not going to pay any attention to any sign, so simply restrain the legal and ethical individual to enjoy security by virtue of adhering to the old adage, "God created man, Samuel Colt made them equal". Are we as a society so stiff necked and narrow sighted as to cause a legal gun owner to be denied their ability to provide for the ONLY protection that can be offered Constitutionally, on a piece of parking area, outside the confines of any building?

So, in understanding the Constitution and the Amendments, which are the codification of limits of power of the Government, and an expression of the explicit Rights guaranteed to each individual, you suggest that this is the definition of "unalienable rights": Even though the above quote that you posted speaks of the right of personal security before the right of enjoying property, in it's chronology of importance, (as does the Declaration of Independence itself, where it list them in this order, "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness", without life, you have no need of a guarantee of liberty) you would deny the individual right to avail oneself of the implicit ability to provide for personal security on the traverse to and from one's home, as specified in case law, (which may set aside Common Law, or do you deny that) if the TN Legislature or Courts set forth a statute that allowed it?There is no absolute "Right" to enjoy property, the City, County State or Federal Government can take it for their use, as long as they justly compensate you for it. A neighbor can take it, again, they are required to compensate you for it, but the veil of absolute "Right" to property has been pierced, other individuals or governments may take your property, or your "right" to enjoy it for a variety of reasons. I think that since no other entity, be that governmental or individual, is charged with providing that "right of personal security" that you so correctly pointed out, except for myself, I should be afforded the opportunity to provide it for myself. If the State Legislature decides to alter Common Law, deeming the need of the individual to be armed to provide for their own defense and security to be more important than the absolute "Right" to "enjoy property" as another may seem fit, it has standing in our Law. I purport that I am "landlocked" in a parking lot, and need an easement to the nearest "public road" to enjoy my right to personal security. If the State Legislature decides to abrogate the employer's ability to set standards denying the employee's ability to keep a certain weapon in their personal vehicle, (condition of employment) that is a legal, and in no way, unconstitutional situation.

I can find no mention of "Private Property Rights" mentioned in our State Constitution, except for these: Article 1 Section 21. "That no man’s particular services shall be demanded, or property taken, or applied to public use, without the consent of his representatives, or without just compensation being made therefore." Article 1 Section 25. "That no citizen of this state, except such as are employed in the army of the United States, or militia in actual service, shall be subjected to punishment under the martial or military law. That martial law, in the sense of the unrestricted power of military officers, or others, to dispose of the persons, liberties or property of the citizen, is inconsistent with the principles of free government, and is not confided to any department of the government of this state." Article 2 Section 28. "In accordance with the following provisions, all property real, personal or mixed shall be subject to taxation..." the rest deals with percentages and type of properties that may and may not be taxed. I believe all other provisions of accepted Tennessee Law which pertain to "Private Property Rights" are contained and covered by "Common Law", or am I mistaken about that? The Legislature, or Courts of Tennessee can abrogate Common Law by statute or ruling respectively. According to Daniel Lewis, in his treatise on "Tennessee Common Law", The Common Law in Tennessee, "The common law of a country will, therefore, never be entirely stationary, but will be modified, and extended by analogy, construction and custom, so as to embrace new relations, springing up from time to time, from an amelioration or change of society... It is universally conceded that the fundamental principles of the common law are unchangeable, yet the courts recognize the necessity of flexibility in the application of old rules to new cases, so as to enable them to adapt these rules to the every varying conditions and emergencies of human society. The common law is not like the statute law, fixed and immutable by positive enactment, except where a principle has been adjudged as the rule of action. Where the reason for the rule fails, the rule should not apply.... § 6. Effect of Adoption. -- The common law governs in a state unless changed by statute. The General Assembly is not prohibited from changing or abolishing the common law in force at the adoption of the state constitution, in the absence of restriction in that state or federal constitution; the phrase "law of the land" as used in the state constitution merely refers to the common and statute law then existing, but does not prohibit the change of the common law." Case in point, the "Landlocked Property" instance, from Tennessee Supreme Court case, June 14, 2001 Session, DANIEL B. BARGE III v. EARL H. SADLER, ET AL. "The Tennessee legislature was not only concerned with providing vitally important outlets for landlocked property owners, it was also concerned with rights of citizens to enjoy their property without infringement by neighbors.", http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/opinions/tsc/PDF/021/BargeD.pdf, this sets aside an absolute "Property Right" of one party versus the other, and extends the benefit of any one set of "owners" regardless of the proximity of property, and mandates an ability of one to condemn property of one, although requiring just compensation for the loss, to realize an easement for the beneficial use of one, over the ownership of the other. As the Legislature has deemed a private vehicle similar for one or more reasons in it's description of the "Castle Doctrine" and has extended the ability to defend oneself in a personally owned vehicle (weapon type consideration IS different, I agree, but for the sake of the benefit sought, a handgun is much preferable to nothing, and if the law was passed to allow handguns only, I for one would be satisfied) the same as in a personally owned dwelling, I see the ability to keep a legally owned and permitted weapon to facilitate that ability, IF the Legislature deigns to abrogate that section of Common Law, entirely legal and permissible under our State Constitution. To make it legal for an individual Citizen to be able to keep a weapon, (decided upon by the Legislature, which by Law has the power to restrict the wearing [keeping] of arms, or not) in their personal vehicle in any parking lot, by it's charter in the Constitution, the Legislature has only to pass the law to do so, it would not require a Constitutional Amendment. One man's opinion, I welcome critique.