Worriedman

There is no undue burden placed on the property owner by not breaching the 4Th Amendment sanctity of a person's "Castle" (personal vehicle). Tennessee has already decided that one's home and personal vehicle are coequal in their status of protection, why does an employer enjoy a precedent ( for any LE no probable cause, no warrant, no warrant, no search) for powers that the Governmental agency does not have? It is a ludicrous supposition that a contract for labor supersedes inalienable Rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Tench Coxe said " Their swords, and every other terrible instrument of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American. ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." In the instance of attack upon my person, can we suppose that a weapon allowed for carry by the HCP holder is not acceptable? I personally do not want to be guilty of carrying a less than 4' pocket knife to a gun fight. Our LE Officers deem it necessary to go armed with firearms, why should I not be able to provide for my protection in the same manner? I have been vetted and judge worthy, I have paid my tax to the man. If the State allows me to have in on my person in a store, why not allow it in a locked, safely stored compartment in my vehicle while I am work, not in proximity to it until my trip away from the location. What we are dangerously close to is being DISARMED for no good reason. The edge we stand near to is one of acceptance of serfdom. Where is it written that property rights (outside the owner's Castle, of course) contain the ability to deny any other's right to provide for self defense, if the otherwise legal instrument is not shown, brandished in some way, or as the Supreme Court has decried in Andrews v. State "he shall not use them for violation of the rights of others"? I have looked, I can not find it. Please quote it.

If in fact the 4th Amendment 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." is to be enjoyed by the individual Citizen, and as the State of Tennessee has extended it's "Castle Doctrine" to include a person's personal vehicle with the same protection as their house, sans evidence of intent to misuse any legal possession kept inside it re Andrews v. State "that in such use, he shall not use them for violation of the rights of others", what power does the employer have to search an individuals vehicle? Also, our Supreme court has said in the same ruling "The right to keep arms, necessarily involves the right to purchase them, to keep them in a state of efficiency for use, and to purchase and provide ammunition suitable for such arms, and to keep them in repair. And clearly for this purpose, a man would have the right to carry them to and from his home, and no one could claim that the Legislature had the right to punish him for it, without violating this clause of the Constitution." speaking of Article 1 Section 26 of the Tennessee Constitution. What next, the employer denies the ability of the individual to put a political bumper sticker on a personal vehicle in the parking lot? Should they not have the power to quash the 1st Amendment as well as denying a person's right to self protection? None of those "protected" classes you mentioned are explicitly mentioned in the Amendments, nor are they referenced in any of our founding documents or commentaries, yet a God given Right (self protection) which is spoken about by nearly all of our founders as universally accepted as necessary is relegated to the trash heap under the auspices of Property Rights?

That's the best, most succinct argument against the parking lot bill I've ever heard. I will ask the same question again, what Constitutional edict allows private property Rights to trump the Right to self protection? Is there an Article that requires the individual to NOT attempt to preserve their life in case of an attack. Is there some preemption to not spill the criminal's blood on an employer's parking lot, but allows the victim's to flow? If in fact the "liability" is the issue, what of the non permit holder that is parked in the same lot, and is attacked because an employer chooses not to supply any security for those who labor to provide for that owner's profit potential. Keep in mind, that we allow the property or business owner to not just deny the ability for the individual to provide for their own defense while in that parking lot via this line of reasoning, but for the full time and length of travel that it takes to get from the individual employee's home to work, and back again. That extends the employer's control far beyond the confines of their private property. Government seems to be fairly restrictive in what they allow private property owners to do with their possessions, there is no carte blanche issued along with a deed. I don't see them championing unlimited Rights to the use of individual parcels of land or buildings. Can't park your car in your yard, don't mow the grass, they do it for you and fine you, leash laws are the norm, governments regulate your ability to do with your possessions all the time. From the second any life form draws it's first breath it fights to live, self preservation is an innate desire of any living thing. Is there a more basic freedom, or instinct than that of the pursuit of continued life? Should any one be able to deny that to a person for any reason? Capital Projects of all kinds are halted because some assay of the flora and fauna turns up the fact that some bot nosed fruit fly inhabits a particular square yard of ground, keeping the largest Corporation from creating huge factories and thousands of jobs, denying the beneficial use of a piece of property that millions of dollars are paid for. Yet it seem reasonable to deny a human being, who simply ask to provide for their own preservation when their employer or Government can not, and will not assume the role, and by law has assigned the requirement of that preservation of life to the individual? Show me an Article in the Constitutions of the Union or the State that expresses the priority of property over life, and I will cease my arguments.

Michael Corleone to Tom Hagan in The Godfather II: It is simply a line from a movie, but I think it is true, similar to the "death and taxes" thing. Because a single disturbed individual can get past the Secret Service, does not mean we should turn over the ability to rape, murder and pillage at whim without the means to contest it, if there remains a will to do so.

Which life is it that we are supposed to value? If I get a vote, I suggest mine, and the ones which belong to my family, are worth far more than the criminal who might try to take them. There was an old saying "God created man, Samuel Colt made them equal." Is a person more dead from a gunshot than say a stabbing or beating with a crowbar? Nefarious people have been depriving innocents of their lives since day one, and will continue to, regardless of laws to the contrary. If they develop a light saber or photon blaster, I want one, because the home invader will have theirs, (and if I have enough lucre of the present, I can have one, legal or not). Any sentient being has to admit that methamphetamine production and sale is legislated against, has that stopped it? (Just one example of the inability of any law to regulate any activity.) The highest courts have mandated that Law Enforcement and it's legal bond agents, City, County, State of Federal Government have no duty to provide protection to the individual. Evil exist, I would just as soon have the ability to confront it. If you choose not to, fine, but that "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" thing leads me to believe that I need the ability to protect me and mine.

I did not so indicate. My point is that when the management creates a "gun free" zone, it will by necessity foster a more likely atmosphere conducive for criminals to ply their trade. By so doing, it is going to cost the customer more, not the Bank. I do not like being disarmed anywhere, be it bank, grocery store, Dr.'s office. There has been a rash of robberies and beatings at hair salons in Jackson, no place is safe from thugs. It is my own personal belief that if banks (and any other business type) had signs saying in effect "Legal permit holders and their weapons welcome here" it would have a much different consequence. If our society promoted the ability of the legal weapons holders to provide for their own defense at large, I truly believe we would see less crime of all types.

Maskirovka! The advantage they are taking is to obscure the sorry state of affairs that they have wrought in the last two years. What better issue to polarize and demonize the right, while keeping the eyes of the country off the real issues that are driving a surge against the Left. If they can polarize the country with this issue, they do not have to deal with the inflation that is beginning to grip us, rapidly rising gas and food prices, a shrinking dollar etc. If they threaten take away gun rights, it could be that we are too focused on that to the extent that maybe we will not notice them trying to slip off with our 401K's.... Never let a crisis go to waste, and if there is not one, make one up!

And I am sure they pick the dollars for their premiums off the government cash tree out back, instead of taking it out of the customers via service charges, did not cost us a dime, huh?

No problem, it has been a good exercise for the coming contest with the Legislature. I have meetings set for next week with some folks who actually can help foster a change with regard to this specific issue. The give and take has been beneficial, as it made me pull out my old notes and study up.

We are promised "Life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness" by those same governments. Any thug with a stick can deprive any one of us of those commodities, and who do the survivors petition for redress in the case of loss of them? We are instructed by those same courts you reference that the government has no responsibility for offering the protection of them. So if it is the individual's responsibility to provide the most rudimentary protection of those possessions, the basic tenants of God given Rights to continue life in a hostile environment, I for one will read the Constitutions and Declarations and Bills of Rights as I see fit, and if a small group of men who desire control over all that they survey does not suit me, and if my understanding of the written documents varies from their twisted take on the matter, it is my prerogative. I am sure the British Empire had a different view of these issues than did the "Rebels" which were the Founders of our Nation. Which view won out in the end of the contest. To give up debate and advocacy of what I think is the correct interpretation of these maters and subscribe to the perception that you hold would be cowardice in the face of duty that I owe to my children and grand children, to leave them a future that holds some semblance of Liberty. Samuel Adams spoke of this mindset: “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!â€

That the Governments of the union and the State of TN have manipulated by regulation the Constitutions of both, with respect to the stated Right to keep and bear arms, that does not mean that that Right does not exist, it simply means that some accept the yoke of tyranny imposed upon them, while others continue to advocate for the Right as intended. Because you accept the premise of a Police State that offers no surety of protection or safety willingly, does not mean the rest of us have to.

DRM, I would like to see your Constitution cites that reference private property ownership as a trump on the individual right to keep, bear or carry arms.

No, you started this one by stating the difference inside and out with relation to dancing naked, and the difference in how the law would look at that. They also look at the use of deadly force differently per location. My belief is that there is a difference, that the yard of the home is governed by different rules than the inside is, i.e. the Castle Doctrine. The State has extended the same personal protection to a personal vehicle. I say let the same difference apply to the work place, Government properties, stores, and schools. There is no empirical data to suggest that HCP holders pose a risk of committing crime just because they have their weapons locked in their small little pieces of their Castle in a parking lot, which is required by the Constitution to restrict the individual from "keeping" their weapons in their private vehicles, as was stated by the Supreme Court in the same case, Andrews v. State: On this you and I disagree. I say that someone should be required to prove a material risk on the part of HCP holders by proximity to their legally approved weapons to retain the restriction.

It is the best chance to advance the issue. The fact that the Legislature recognizes that the HCP holders as a group, having been vetted via an FBI background check, and trained in the knowledge of the law regarding the use and prescriptions enumerated by the TCA against the incorrect use of their weapons, makes it more likely they will approve a change to allow this group to enjoy their basic, Constitutional Right to keep a weapon in their vehicles.Prior to the institution of the HCP program, we were divested of the legal ability to carry handguns at all, (except for those who could co-opt a County Sheriff to issue a Special Permit). Do I agree with the premise, no, but I obey the law as I can. So now I advocate for moving more to what I think are the Constitutional guarantees that I think are necessary to allow me to protect my life. I have answered this in previous post, but once again, I believe that as businesses are seeking a profit, and are basically open to the public, drawing in the public, depending on the public, as customers and laborers, then that business involves the Rights of many, not just one, and as the Constitution says that the individual has the Right to carry their weapons, and places the burden of their safety and security squarely on the shoulders of that individual, the Rights of the individual to provide for that in their traverse to and from their homes as stated in Andrews v. State should be protected.

No, you posed the difference in inside and outside the house. There is no requirement for "burden of proof" inside the home or personal vehicle. The burden is on the perp to stay out of those places. Plus I did not say anything about taking a life, I said use deadly force, which does not always equate with loss of life. The purpose of a defensive weapon is to make the individual stop the course of action they have chosen, whether they live or die is immaterial, as long as they are incapacitated to the extent that they can no longer pursue the course of action that precipitated the response.

In your home or vehicle, you do not have to attempt to discern whether an intruder is intending to do you harm to avail yourself of the use of deadly force by Tennessee Law.You do not have the same ability or "defense" if you will, outside your home, in your yard or on your driveway. If you wake up in the middle of the night (or at any time) and notice an intruder in your home, you can fire on that person instantly, you are not required under the law to retreat, nor do you have to wait till they commit an overt act of aggression to employ deadly force. Neither do you have to make a determination of intent if a person lays hands on you in your vehicle, both scenarios valid under current law. If that person is armed or not, you still have the weight of the law on your side for using deadly force, i.e. employing a weapon. You are armed with the presumption of intent to do you harm within the confines of your home or your private vehicle. On the other hand, if you are confronted with the appearance of an intruder OUTSIDE your home or vehicle, even if they are on your personal private property, you are not provided the same largess, and if you utilize deadly force, and the suspect is proved to be unarmed or is moving away from you, you are not afforded the same protections, "defense", as you are in your home or vehicle. That is the difference.

I think DRM has the right to ask any one to leave his property, for any reason. If however DRM desires or needs my expertise and agrees to employ me, then I think DRM should be able to require I enter DRM's building sans weapons, it that be DRM's choice. Inside that work space, if something of a violent nature befalls me, I can sue DRM for damages. However in my personal vehicle parked on the lot outside the workspace, I think the TN Constitution says I have the right to avail myself of the God given right to self protection for my traverse to and from DRM's property.Currently the Legislature agrees that any business owner should be able to trump my right to provide for my self protection, but that is going to come up again, and if we, the "gun guys" can convince them that it is Constitutionally directed to allow the legal HCP holder to enjoy that lack of restriction, that will be all that is necessary, as our Constitution is set up to allow the Legislature to be the single arbiter of that situation. How does DRM know I have a weapon, if it is locked in my car, to ask me to leave in the first place? If I back out of your drive way, (assuming we are at DRM's home and not DRM LLC), and park in the street, (assuming again, that there is not a civil statute against leaving the vehicle there), would you feel misused, knowing a firearm was only say 3 feet away from DRM' property? If at DRM LLC, I rent a parking space from the property owner across the street, and leave my weapon in my personal vehicle there, would DRM LLC, suspecting that I did so in an effort to keep a weapon in my vehicle, (now 24 feet away from DRM LLC jurisdiction) be justified in terminating my employment? That every legally entitled Citizen has the right to carry State allowed instruments of self protection, (knowing that no other entity is responsible for that act, but each individual, a fact you keep disregarding). That you don't like the HCP rule in TN is tough, and your not liking it is moot, it is Constitutionally mandated at the present time, just as I don't like the ability of a business owner to divest me of my instruments of self protection, but as that is Constitutionally mandated for the time being, I have to abide by it. If I and others who share my view can convince the Legislature to change that, it will then become the law, that is the crux of the whole conversation. I am not sure what your "solution" is. Are you advocating knowingly violating the law?It is already established in Tennessee, that your private vehicle is an extension of your "castle" (sorry for the inference Fallguy). I personally believe that is going to be the tipping point of the law, and, I believe that HCP holders will be able to keep their legally carried weapons in their vehicles in the near future. We all know with certainty that a criminal intent on committing an illegal act will not be dissuaded by posting, signs or laws. We also know that no Law Enforcement entity is responsible for our security and safety, that they are charged only with the investigation of crime, and that Article 1 Section 26 puts the onus on the individual to provide the same. the supreme Court of TN has said we have the Right to carry our weapons that are approved for our own defense, from the Andrews v. State findings:

Two questions for you. 1. If you wake and find an individual in your home, are you legally allowed to use deadly force to remove them as a threat, without determining if they are armed and pose a possibility of danger to you or your family? 2. If you hear a person outside your home, are you legally allowed to use deadly force to remove them as a threat, without determining if they are armed and pose a possibility of danger to you or your family? My contention is that there is a HUGE difference between the inside of a building and the outside. I will go further, and intimate that the inside of your personal vehicle is vastly different than outside the same.

First, you have chosen a "gun site" to post on, it would appear that those who have interest in the topic might be the general participants, and in so far as one might suppose that the general focus would be for Constitutional issues relating to gun ownership and the freedom to enjoy those, I am surprised that you tend to act as if this is abhorrent to you. What you "see here"as you put it, is in fact "gun people" wanting the Constitution to be applied as it was meant to be, not as some would wish it. Currently there are unconstitutional measures relating to carry on the books, that us "gun people" want to advocate for corrections to those, and discussing them on a "Tennessee Gun Owners" forum to forward that would be normal? The outcome "desired" as you put it, is one of following the intent of the document that rules, in the manner proscribed, and not as some wishy-washy feel good, want to just get along appologist for the Kumbaya crowd wish it to be. Simply read and follow the law.

If you intend to honor the Tennessee Constitution, which says that the citizens have a right to own and transport their weapons, and be secure in their possessions, if they are behaving with those weapons in such a manner as to not alert you as to their existence, I fail to see where it would be a problem. Do you, as a matter of course, ask every visitor to your home if they have weapons in their vehicles? If you post your private property against carry, (which you have every right to do, however, if you do not, then there is no preclusion against carry by HCP holders on your property) then I suggest you make yourself a target, we all know how criminals love a "gun free" Zone!

You evidently do not earn your daily bread from dealing with such issues. Failure of industry to provide viable payback of that public support is legendary. The billions invested in "Green power" initiatives is but one instance showing where good money has been thrown after bad. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/15/business/energy-environment/15solar.html They going to pay our $43 million back?

I work with many government agencies with letters for names, OSHA, EPA, COE, DOJ etc., there is NO end to their intervention. As "Dead Fish" Emanuel said, either legislate or regulate.

Each and every one of these types and kinds of "business" has some component of their ability to function owed to public sector support, ranging in magnitude from minor for "Mom and Pop" venues to complete for governments. The fact that we are talking about parking lots points out the reliance by each business on the public finance and ownership of the streets, roads and drainage public works which bring the employees and customers to that parking lot, without which those businesses could not function. The average Citizen helps to finance the infrastructure for every commercial venture, some more so than others, depending on the level of graft or largess, (which is the prerogative of the viewer to discern) of the Government officials in charge of reaching into our back pockets to take/give our money to entice new business for the "common good".

This issue of "private property" rights is bothersome to me for a couple of different reasons, especially when it comes to the parking lot issue. My employment is in the Construction field, I build larger than bread box structures such as factories and distribution centers. In every instance of a major Project, I deal with various governmental entities with respect to utilities and infrastructure enhancements for those industries. I can promise the State of Tennessee puts a lot of public money into every new employer that comes to the State, some of them huge sums. You and I gifted a certain industry with the land gratis, the civil work prior to beginning actual construction, and all the roads and bridges necessary to bring in raw materials and to ship finished products out, for a Project in North Central Tennessee that began just recently. For the millions of dollars the State pumped in to this Project, (our tax dollars by the way) I find it difficult to call it "Private Property", not to mention the Federal Dollars given to them as it is a 'Green Power" endeavor. Yet they deny the right to employees to keep weapons in their personal vehicles for personal protection. Every business reaps the benefits of public monies via the roads and streets that bring customers to them, the electrical power that is a public utility, the water, sanitary sewer and storm sewers that each of us finance to the benefit of the "private business" without which they could not exist or earn a profit. Without publicly funded streets and roads, no business could function. I feel I have a vested interest in all these businesses, and I do not appreciate my largess being repaid by denying my Constitutional Right to provide for the only safety and security I might enjoy, as it is my job and no one else's to provide. In Andrews v. State the Supreme Court of TN found: "The right to keep arms, necessarily involves the right to purchase them, to keep them in a state of efficiency for use, and to purchase and provide ammunition suitable for such arms, and to keep them in repair. And clearly for this purpose, a man would have the right to carry them to and from his home, and no one could claim that the Legislature had the right to punish him for it, without violating this clause of the Constitution. But farther than this, it must be held, that the right to keep arms involves, necessarily, the right to use such arms for all the ordinary purposes, and in all the ordinary modes usual in the country, and to which arms are adapted, limited by the duties of a good citizen in times of peace; that in such use, he shall not use them for violation of the rights of others, or the paramount rights of the community of which he makes a part."

I am lucky enough to work for a Company that allows carry on the premises, I get to keep my weapon on me in my office. (My Owner stated he considered me Company Armorer and Designated Shooter.) On some of my job sites I am precluded from having it in my vehicle, not my firm's choice, but the whim of the Owners of the businesses we work for. I simply am advocating for others to at least have the ability to keep theirs in their vehicles, as it really bothers me to have to traverse the long miles across the State sans protection, knowing I can not count on any other entity to provide it for me.