RobertNashville

I have really mixed feelings about events like this...I'm not against them but I'm not convinced that they are really the best way to make their point.

I'd order from them exclusively if I lived there...good for them!

Darn, Sky King...knowing what he had to go through and the risks he takes I'm going to have to start showing my little brother a bit more respect!  :) He was a jet engine mechanic on the C130s in the Marine Corps then when he got out, he went to school to get certified on the entire air frame (if I'm saying that correctly). He now works for TWA.

Interesting how you focus on the "haircut" issue and mostly ignore FAA requirements...people may say they'll "just die" if they get a bad haircut but I don't know of anyone who actually has. :)   On the other hand, people have actually died when aircraft that has not been properly maintained or was maintained by someone who didn't know what he was doing resulted in a critical malfunction while airborne.  If you really think people who are working on aircraft systems don't need to have minimum standards of competency then all I can say is "good luck with that idea".  :shake:

  While you can keep beating that drum, I don't see how that has anything to do with these “parking lot” bills and, as I mentioned before, the attorneys for the businesses who have challenged these laws have never raised those as part of their arguments to support their opposition to these laws. That indicates to me that they don't think they apply either!         That’s a nice theory with common sense and very believable. However, that is not what erased child labor in this country. Moreover, while there are some businesses out there who would do the right thing without any regulations; businesses have shown a considerable lack of caring for employee welfare unless they were "encouraged" to do so...THAT is the primary reason we have the regulations we have; not because businesses were doing the right thing on their own but because they weren't.         Why are you zeroing in on "zoning" laws?  As I said before “our country has a long history of treating/regulating property used for business very differently and more extensively than property used for private purposes.” Please note that I didn’t say anything about or limit my comment to "zoning"...I’m talking about government regulating business and property used for business and that history goes back to the early years of our existence as a country.   I understand that you don't agree but I believe and history shows that government has the legitimate, Constitutional power to regulate businesses and what businesses can and cannot do including how businesses use their business property...you can believe otherwise if you wish but I believe you would be incorrect.         Yes, I have been to Houston. As to their lack of zoning laws the suburbs tend to have strict housing laws and community associations that exert many more restrictions on property than most zoning laws ever do. Further, to quote a Houston resident...   “It's disingenuous to say that Houston has no zoning without mentioning that it does have strict, minimum parking regulations, strict minimum lot size regulations, and wide streets and long blocks. Though it might not have traditional single-use Euclidean zoning regulations, it does have a lot of strictures that limit density and discourage walkability and feasibility of mass transit.”   And a former resident had this to say...   ”I used to live in Houston. Interestingly enough, since pretty much any residential area in Houston is covered by CC&Rs due to no zoning, I actually have more property rights where I live now with zoning than I did in Houston. Libertarians would have you believe that things like zoning result in fewer freedoms, but in reality that isn't the case.”   All in all I think the "Houston" example is a non-starter. More to the point, an absence of zoning laws in a particular area or city doesn't support the idea that government cannot regulate or even complete take property. In my opinion and my understanding of the Constitution, the government clearly can do both.         While I agree that regulation should be no more than is necessary, the government has both the moral and the Constitutional right to regulate business and property. I understand that you don’t agree but I think I have both a couple hundred years of history and court decisions on my side so I’m not going to change my mind on that anytime soon.   As to the men in black robes,  I am not going to be drawn into an argument about alleged errors the court and/or SCOTUS has made in unrelated issues. First because we all know they have made some whoppers and secondly, because those bad decisions have nothing to do with THIS issue on on this issue I believe the courts got it right.

I didn't forget anything; they simply have nothing to do with the issue...they don’t in any way restrict the State/state from enacting regulations of business property or with employer/employee relations.   We aren’t dealing with contracts or freedom of association her nor have attorneys for businesses who have fought this issue in court gone that direction (probably because they already figured out that it’s a worthless argument). The argument they have raised was with regards to the property rights of the business; an argument rejected because the attorneys for the businesses have been unable to substantiate any example of how these parking lot laws violate the property rights of these businesses in any tangible or meaningful way. I suspect that’s why you too have not offered any examples about how they are in error. ;)     If you believe the industrial age “corrected itself” please feel free to cite your sources for that information; I'm sure they would be interesting reading! The world has a LONG, LONG history of what happens when businesses have zero regulation on them and are allowed to so anything they want in pursuit of profit.  The "profit motive" behind the free-enterprise system is not unlike the properties of fire; fire is a wonderful thing under the proper circumstances but a horrible thing when out of control. You also have a very interesting view of things given your line of reasoning that a 12 (or a 6 or an 8 why not) year old working away in a factory 6 (or 7 why not) days a week is preferable to “starving to death or turning to ‘worse’...there are probably many things "better" than "starving to death"; but I'm not so sure that "better" is a reason to embrace those alternatives.       Where exactly did you come up with your numbers as I’d love to see some citations for them! I remember business history courses referencing regulations at least as far back as the early 1800s in this country.   Moving on, I’m REALLY glad we have zoning laws here…maybe you don’t care but I suspect most people like knowing that when they plunk down a quarter million $ for a home the guy living next door can’t suddenly wake up one morning and decide to turn his property into a junk yard or a convenience store.       Really? Society has no right to violate those rights? Do you think “society” exists in some sort of vacuum?  “Society” is US and even the most “libertarian” of our founders recognized that we need some government for the benefit of “society”. As for your continued swipes at the “old men in black robes” I'm not defending every court decision ever made but I AM still waiting for you to explain how these courts and these judges are in error in their application of the Constitution in their decisions upholding these parking lot laws???

Sometimes I read threads like this and all the back and forth about what law enforcement can and can't do/should or shouldn't do and I just have t shake my head and wonder what happened to our "free country"?   I also thank God that I've never run into law enforcement officers who act like some are described in threads like this...all the interactions I've had with LE have always been cordial and polite and at least led me to think that they respected my rights...maybe I've just been lucky.

You stated that "employers can and do fire people all day long for legally protected actions that are Constitutionally protected" with which I agree when I stated that "yes they do but if a particular action is deemed to be not in the best interest of the public/society then the State of Tennessee has the power, even the responsibility to say to that employer "YOU CAN"T DO THAT" in our state anymore.   I see no "fallacy" in my statement.  The State/state has the Constitutional power to apply regulations to how businesses operate in this State and/or over their actions in regards to hiring/firing employees. If you maintain that the State/state does not have that power then perhaps you should elaborate on exactly what in the Constitution would support your position. As I read the Constitution the only language in it that actually restricts the government's power over property is the taking's clause of the Fifth Amendment and then only to the extent that the property owner must be compensated, not that the government can't infringe or even completely take property.   I understand and agree that government should be as small and as unobtrusive as possible. On the other hand, I am also aware of what can happen when government isn't as involved as it should be such as the industrial age where both adults and children were forced to work in situations that were not very far above slave labor camps; where they were almost literally worked to death in highly hazardous conditions for tiny wages.  I would hope that such situations are not the sort of laissez-faire/anything goes relationship between the government and business that you want.   As a matter of general principal I agree that the government should involve itself in business or private issues as little as possible but that does not mean it cannot or should not involve itself when the need arises...our country has a long history of treating/regulating property used for business very differently and more extensively than property used for private purposes; a history of involvement I suggest is both proper and necessary for society.   You can disparage the courts if you wish but disparaging comments is the usual tactic of the left and not an effective argument - if you actually believe the courts that have upheld these "parking lot" laws are in error in their application of the Constitution then, rather than just dismissing "...old men in black robes", perhaps you could give your analysis and show us the errors in their decisions...a good start would be explaining exactly how these laws in any way rises to the level of infringement on the so-called "property rights" of businesses that the infringement triggers the application of the Fifth Amendment...I'd bet that there are a lot of businesses out there who would like to hear that explanation since those businesses haven't been able to come up decent explanation on their own of how these laws actually infringe on their property rights.   No one has said this legislation is anywhere near perfect but a "waste of capital"...not hardly...besides, as with ALL legislation, the best way to get it improved is to stay in contact with the legislators as I've been doing (with some positive results). Even if we only get legislation that removes the ability of a business to "post" a parking lot against firearms it will be a big step in the right direction and I'm happy to support it.   As to the "special class"; "we" didn't try anything.   Maybe you feel that if we can't get it "all the first time" you shouldn't try at all but the sponsors of the bill singled out HCP holders for what should be an obvious reason, that being that HCP holders have had extensive background checks, training and a solid record of responsibility since the HCP process was initiated...those simple facts automatically remove a lot of potential opposition to a firearms related bill. Further, just because you START with HCP holders does not mean you STOP there...I fully expect such legislation to some day be expanded to cover anyone who can legally own a firearm just as I fully expect that at some future time, Tennessee will allow Constitutional carry.   Your suggestion that this legislation has failed is, at a minimum, premature. Further, this is NOT time to let this legislation die; it IS time to push harder for this legislation and for legislation that removes as many restrictions on our 2A rights as possible. If we all gave up and let legislation die just because we don't get what we want the first time we would all still be begging for legislation that allows us a process for legal carry (i.e. the HCP system) instead of at least having a uniform, "shall issue" process for carry since 1996.

California is a beautiful state...I can understand why people would want to live there...unfortunately, the sate is controlled by liberal/commie/drugged-out idiots who vote  people like themselves into office and continue to screw things up.  Even when they get a good person in office the rest of the legislature is so screwed up that there simply isn't a chance to set things right or when something is set right the 9th Circuit knocks it down.

I'm positive it is not "illegal" but (and it's been quite a while since I looked it up) while not "illegal"; if you are stopped by LE and they find that much cash on you I believe they can legally confiscate it under the assumption that it's either "drug money" or at least evidence of criminal activity. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong about that.  

Yes they do but if a particular action is deemed to be not in the best interest of the public/society then the State of Tennessee has the power, even the responsibility to say to that employer "YOU CAN"T DO THAT" in our state anymore. The power of the State has already been supported in court on many different occasions and on many different issues including this particular issue.

No, they would not be "off limits".   Nothing in this law or the proposals would prevent an employer from firing an employee if they had a legitimate cause to do so nor would it prevent an employer from discharging an employee just because they want to discharge him and that is as it should be.  But you CAN significantly limit the ability of an employer to discharge an employee simply because they legally own/carry a firearm.   If the state makes it illegal for an employer to ask if an employee (or prospective employee) owns a firearm or has an HCP, and...   If the state makes it illegal for an employer to ask or try to compel (under threat of dismissal) to search a person's vehicle, and...   If the state seals the HCP records (as they should be regardless of "parking lot" legislation), then...   It's going to be tougher for an employer to know if that employee has/carries a firearm...they can assume anything they want and they can still discharge an employee "just because" but there is a significant difference to an employee between discharged for cause (such as violation of a company policy) and simply discharging them just "because" the employee want's to.

All these bills are pretty horrid - the only question I need answered is, will any of them pass?   I may just have my rose colored  glasses on but I'm finding it a bit difficult to believe that enough Republicans OR Democrats will pass something as restrictive as this or the others proposed. More likely, I think, is that they'll pass something to placate the gun-haters that will probably fail in the house anyway.   That said, I'm still writing WDC.

I took the time today to write and voice my concerns about the current "guns in trunks" bill and sent it to, well...everybody. I've received replies from Senator Kelsey; Senator Jim Tracy and Representative Dawn White...all were generally "positive" although one seemed very "pro-forma". However, my reply from Senator Delores Gresham was different; she took the time to ask me what I thought was wrong with the bill - I've replied! I generally tend to be a pessimist so that when the good happens I can be pleasantly surprised but, I'm getting the impression that there may be some hope for enough improvement in the bill that we'll get something worthwhile

These bills essentially draw a line in the sand to define how far an employer/business can go in controlling MY property.   I look at it this way; unless it directly and demonstrably impacts that business; no employer/business has a need to know what is sitting, unmolested and out of sight inside my vehicle; it's simply none of their business.  They should have no more power to dictate the contents of my vehicle than they have to dictate what I think or feel.   It's because these laws have no negligible impact on a employer/business that these laws have generally withstood court challenges...the businesses that have taken the issue to court have claimed these laws infringe on their property rights but have been VERY unsuccessful in backing up their claims.

Frankly, I don't think a business should be forced to allow carry inside of their buildings, etc. if they don't want them. Nor would it likely pass the test of the the takings clause...making employers/businesses allow firearms to be stored in a person's vehicle while parked in a parking lot does not present a measurable infringement on the business which is largely why these laws have passed court challenges. That aside, I doubt anyone in the legislature would propose something that radical; radical in the sense that the outcry from businesses and the shutoff of campaign contributions from those businesses would be almost immeasurable.

The bill, as it stands, accomplishes virtually nothing except giving a political feather in the hats of Ramsey, Harwell and Haslam.   There are many other states with GOOD legislation addressing this issue that they could have used as a template - they didn't.   There is NO protection for employees worth the time this legislation is taking from legislator's schedules.   They could solve 95% of the issue with some very simple changes to existing law... 1.  Remove the law that currently allows commercial/business/employee/public parking lost to be "posted", In other words, any parking lot available for the public and/or employees to use cannot post against firearms (that automatically removes any criminality associated with "carrying past a sign").   2.  Change employment law to make it ILLEGAL for an employer to ask an employee/prospective employee if they have an HCP, own a firearm, ever carry a firearm, etc. and seal HCP records (meaning no one but law enforcement, etc. can see those records).   3.  Change employment law to make it ILLEGAL for an employer to compel or even to ask to search of an employee's vehicle (i.e. only law enforcement with PC or a warrant can search a vehicle). Those three changes would solve most of the problems associate with someone wanting to have their weapon with them while commuting to/from work.  Employers/businesses could still post against firearms other than their parking lots. It will not completely protect against an employee being fired but in this state, nothing will.  That said, if they want to get rid of you because of firearms at least it removes their ability to fire you for THAT reason which may at least help protect your eligibility for UI benefits.

99% of what is does is allow certain Republicans (especially Harwell, Haslam and Ramsey) to claim they are pro-2A and did something to help the TN firearm community without actually causing any heartburn to the big businesses whose campaign contributions they so love and cherish.   Other than that, it doesn't do much.   I'm not sure at this point if it's worth passing or not...I wasn't expecting to get everything on a first pass but this is almost nothing.   I just emailed the entire legislature asking them to make this a good bill or don't bother...I also asked for a response and noted that their response or lack of one would be made know to places like TGO, Facebook...I guess I'll see who even bothers to respond. ;)

I would say that he OVERSTIMULATED the firearm and ammunition industry which, while some will profit, hurts more than it helps. ;)

I suspect Obama's changes to the our military is simply part and parcel of his extreme left agenda and general loathing of the military rather than some intricate plot.   Our country is in decline except in the pot-hazed mind of the liberals who believe socialism is the only "fair" form of government (except of course the elite who don't have to answer to the same laws and conditions they impose on everyone else).   We are living in a house of cards on a foundation of shifting sand...I don't know what will topple us or when it will happen but I'm quite sure something is going to do so.

There are friends I hang around with that know I carry but to the best of my knowledge, I've never been "made" when carrying concealed (which is how I carry 99.5% of the time.   If it ever happens, however, how I'll respond will depend on where I am...out in public I will probably tell them it's my firearm; someplace more "troublesome" if someone knew I'd probably be more circumspect and say it's "personal" or something that will hopefully stop further questions. :)

It's not a matter of importance...I suppose I offered that exception because I don't think a legislator should have to allow carry in his/her officer any more than that legislator's home - as I stated above, you should be able to carry anywhere you have a right to be/invited to be...I don't necessarily feel we have a "right" to be inside the legislature/the buildings/offices...when the public are allowed to be there they are being allowed there as guest...I know it sounds a bit strange but the people we elect have a right and obligation to be there, we don't at least that's how I see it.   As to the charges, whatever the basic charge is for trespass is, I think, reasonable for someone who carries past a sign...certainly nothing more than that.  Even then, as it is now, there likely would be no charges filed at all provided the person left when asked which is how it should be.

They don't need the "right" to do so when they hold the power of the person's employment in their hands...that's the problem.   A good part of this whole issue would be solved if the employment laws were changed so that no employer could compel the search of a vehicle and searches would be limited to suspicion of illegal activity and asking the police to come and search. At that point, the police would either need a warrant or PC.  It would not stop all searches but it would protect the person's rights to be free of unreasonable S&S.

"...he is evidencing that he does not represent the America I have known and want my children to know"   That's about like saying fire burns.   His "America" has never been the America of the Constitution.

Good for her!