RobertNashville

So...since you believe James is an asshat it's fine that that state suspend his HCP. Is what he said really all that different than what many have been thinking in the privacy of their own thoughts or, more directly, said by some posters here on TGO? I've read some posts here that seemed to me to be as or at least close to being over the top as what he said....is everybody who thinks that way a "danger to the public"? Should TN suspend their HCPs as well or should that action be reserved only for those you consider them to be "asshats"?

I wonder; If James really does present a danger to the public, how exactly does suspending or revoking (or whatever they officially did) his HCP gong to protect anyone??? If he were truly a "danger" isn't he still a danger? Does he have permits from other states? If he really is intent on "killing people" do we think the lack of an HCP is going to stop that any more than a "gun free zone" stops crazy people from shooting up movie theaters or elementary schools? I think this is TNDHS flexing its muscles and doing so in a way that ought to make all of us a bit nervous.

Is what James said really all that different than what many have been thinking in the privacy (or sometimes not so private) of their own thoughts? I've read similar statements from some posters here on TGO as well as heard people say basically the same from people in face to face conversations. Beck made an interesting observation on Thursday (I think)...he was referencing Alex Jones' little rant but per Beck (highly paraphrasing of course); if you go the route of Jones and start another 1776 "we lose"...if you go the route of Martin Luther King Jr and passive resistance and allowing arrest, "we win"...the theory being that if enough people simply refuse to comply and say "arrest me", it will overwhelm the system. I don't know if Beck is right but seems to be the idea has some merit; I certainly don't see armed rebellion/fighting 1776 all over again as being a winning course of action.

If they can present a good argument they've certainly failed to do so; both in Tennessee and in numerous courtrooms. I'm certainly not saying that there can't be problems but such as NDs, etc have not been experienced in the many states that have had such legislation in place for many years now. Perhaps more to the point, many of the large businesses that opposed this legislation already operate facilities in states that have this legislation in place and they've not had any problems. And, so long as the law is written to exempt property owners from liability in the event of such problems then their objection on that basis is moot.

Yeah...I think we are too and yes, this is really just restoring something that should never have been taken in the first place.   A little over a year ago, I retired from one of the largest corporations in the work who has a major presence in Tennessee and is one of the major opponents to this legislation. They never posted their parking lots; just had a company policy which of course, only employees could know about (visitors had no restrictions on them since the property wasn't posted). The funny thing is, this "policy" was put into place with no warning and no explanation and this after there had been no policy for almost twenty years...suddenly, they didn't want firearms in vehicles anymore!  It affected a lot of people; not just those who carried to/from work but lots of people who did things like hunt, skeet shoot, etc. after work and/or before work.   As I had mentioned above, if these businesses could present a rational, logical reason for not allowing firearms in vehicles while parked I'd probably come down on the side of the property owner/business but I've yet to hear one (and I've been looking). ;)

You are "giving up control" only in your own mind. You don't and should not have any control over the contents of a vehicle you don't own. The only exception to that would be if you believe the contents are illegal (in which case you should contact law enforcement so they can do their job).  Further, the courts have already decided that this alleged infringement on "property rights" argument is without merit because no employer who has sued over this type of legislation has been able to present rational case for how "their property rights" are actually being infringed.   Unless you've got something in your quiver better than "my property my rules" I'd say your reason for opposition is without any real foundation.

I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly here or for that matter, "who" you are actually replying to - anyway, I've used that phrase in this thread so I'll assume it's me. :)   When I said "in the best interests of society" I had something very specific in mind...our (TN) constitution specifically gives power to and instructs the state to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.  I would suggest that "preventing crime" IS in the best interests of society and we understand that and history proves that more guns really does mean less crime. Therefore, the state has both the permission and the responsibility to do what it can to promote the wearing of arms and to remove restrictions to the same.   That's why I said that, in this intance, legislation such as this "parking lot bill" is in the best interest of society; especially when opponents don't seem able to present a valid argument against the idea other than "it's my property/my rules" sort of argument.   Clear as mud, right?  :)

You can call it not the same but that isn't the point. The point is the government has both a right and the responsibility to regulate property. Sometimes, it is for the benefit of neighboring property. Sometimes, it's for the best interests of society. I would probably come down on the side of property owners if they could offer a reasonable/logical reason(s) for their opposition but they have not (And I don't think they can)

Except that they do allow it; loaded if you have an HCP, unloaded for anyone provided you aren't a prohibited person (felon, etc..)   The ONLY reason our illustrious legislators have having a "hard time" with this is because many of them value their election campaign contributions from the likes of FedEx, Nissan, Bridgstone and others more than they value their alleged conservative principles.  This bill would have passed last session were it not for Maggart and her bosses (Harwell, Ramsey and Haslam).

It's not and never has been about whether something has a "lot of supporters" but even if it were I'd say the PETA argument is just a bit fanciful at best.   1. Individuals have a right to bear arms.    2. Property owners have a right o enjoy their property as they see fit.   3. Government has a role and a responsibility to see that the rights of all are protected as much as possible while concurrently infringing on those rights as little as possible...that's why we have "noise ordinances" and zoning laws and may other restrictions/rules/requirements; a "guns in parking lot" bill is no different in concept or legality than your city telling you that you can't open a livestock slaughterhouse in your back yard in a residential area.

I can understand a business owner having a problem with the government applying regulations to property used for business purposes but the government has always been able to do so and has done so for most if not all of our nation's history...just as it can, does and in may cases, should apply regulations to actual private property (used for private purposes). The ONLY question is not whether the government "can" but whether the government should do so and that can only be decided on an issue by issue basis. Beyond that,  the ONLY impediment to such government regulations/requirements on property is the takings clause. When good citizens carry their weapons with them, I think it's clear, based on both statistics, experience and common sense that there is a large overall benefit to society in general and to that citizen in particular for him/her to do so. It follows, then, that government should do what it can to facilitate and encourage the carrying of arms by removing as many impediments as possible.  In this case, by mandating that a parking lot owner can't forbid the existence of a firearm from within a vehicle when lawfully parked there.  If the parking lot owners could present a compelling argument for why this should not be the case then there might be something worthy of discussion but none of the employers who have been opposed to such legislation has ever presented a rational argument against...it always seems to come down to "my property my rules" and, while I don't mean to insult anyone, that argument sounds a bit like "it's my toy and I don't want him to play with it even though I wasn't playing with it". Or in other words; childish and without any real merit behind it (nor common sense for that matter).   With regards to the takings clause, when it comes to legally owned/transported firearms locked in a vehicle on an employer's parking lot, the issue of whether such "parking lot laws" violate the protections afforded the property owner under the takings clause has already been decided - in favor of the firearms legislation.   Finally, we now have quite a few yeas and quite a few states of history to show that these parking lot laws have not really been a problem for anyone (except maybe some bad guys who want to prey on some folks while they are commuting)...in fact, many of the same companies who have been most vocal in the Tennessee legislature against this legislation operate quite well and with no problems or incidents in states that already have similar legislation in place...it makes me wonder sometimes if these businesses just want to flex their muscles and get in a pissing contest with the legislature as I've yet to hear a rational argument to support their opposition to the legislation.

No employer (or anyone else) should ever be able to search a person's vehicle unless it's with a law enforcement officer with a 1) warrant or 2) probable cause.  No one who doesn't own the vehicle has a "right" to know what is in that vehicle any more than than they have a right to know what is in a person's house.

I thought this was pretty interesting!             http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/brass-vs-steel-cased-ammo/  

I decided not to participate last night to give my knee a few more days to heal up but it's progressing nicely...I WILL be there in the future! :)

Yuup....disabled due to the problems it was causing the forum servers.   It may be a while before it's sorted out.

Basically it helps certain "Republicans" look pro-gun without making their corporate contributors unhappy.   I think this "parking lot" thing could be done very simply:   Declare that no employer and/or no business can, by signage or by "policy", forbid legally carried firearms that remain inside a vehicle while parked in a parking lot provided by the employer/business for that purpose.   Declare that no employer can forbid an employee from owning or using firearms as a condition of employment.   Forbid an employer the ability to compel a search of an employee's vehicle (of course, if they suspect a crime has been committed they can always contact law enforcement and go from there).   Remove any liability to the employer/business because of a weapon left in a vehicle per the above.  In other words, if something happens, no one can sue the business.   I think that pretty much covers it.

I don't think anyone has said differently...the point some are trying to make is that saying "no" will likely mean hearing "you're fired". ;)

It isn't an illegal search if you agree to it.   Unless a bill carries strong language against an employer searching a vehicle (except of course if they involve police who can search with PC and/or a warrant) then any parking lot bill will always have this problem. But, let's be realistic, in this state, any employer can fire you for any reason or no reason...the only thing they have to be careful of is getting sued if they actually did something wrong/illegal (age discrimination, etc).  "Right to work" laws; like most laws, have good and bad potential consequences.

Thanks - will do!

Well, coming to the end of an implementation project I’ve been working on with a company since October 2011; I was just told this afternoon that my job is ending.  It wasn’t a surprise and I was already doing some casual looking but now that will be put into high gear.   If anyone here knows of what might be a good position for me please let me know!   I hold two bachelor degrees (one in Accounting and one in Public Fiscal Management which is non-profit/governmental accounting) and a Master’s in Information Technology.  After eight years active duty (USN) I’ve had 32 years in the civilian world mostly integrating IT and Finance with a lot of reporting, data mining, etc. including over 10 years with Nissan North America in their Corporate Finance area.   Happy New Year 2013 I guess!  

I've been thinking about doing a course or two at one of the Gander Mountain Academy simulators just to see what it's like.  It sounds like a lot of fun as well as a different way to train.   I also really want to so a force on force/simunition course soon too!

No "legitimate country left at this point" - Ridiculous.   I was pretty...no...very bummed after the November election but we aren't "done" yet...I hate the road this county is on but we've only truly lost our country if we all give up.  If I'm wrong then I'm wrong but I believe our country and our Constitution can survive much bigger tyrants and fools than Feinstein, Obama and/or their ilk.

Have you tried going to the admin's office in person? If it were me I would have filed a small claims suite by now then add my lost wages, fees, etc to the amount they already owe. This sounds like major, grade "A" incompetence to me and it often takes punishment to resolve.

I don't like Diane Black...I don't trust her...but I agree, I don't think she is our problem either!

I've been thinking of buying one as part of my "bug out" plan. Since I'd want to have extra fuel with me I don't want to carry it inside of my SUV.   That said, I'd also buy a cover/tarp so not everyone can see what I'm carrying! ;)