RobertNashville

[font=Times New Roman","serif][size=4]There have been several threads over the past few months and two or three just in as many weeks where a “convicted felon” has been arrested for using a firearm to protect himself from an intruder or some similar instance.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman","serif][size=4]My basic question is; should someone convicted of a crime and, as a result, has lost his/her “rights”, such as the right to vote or the right to own a firearm, be able to get those rights back at some point in time?[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman","serif][size=4]Of course, restoration of rights already happens on a state by state basis and with many variations but I think it’s a subject that is worthy of discussion and it’s a question I’ve been wrestling with for some time now. I’m interested in knowing not just what you think but why you think it…your reasoning behind it.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman","serif][size=4]Please answer the survey and then, if you would, post your thoughts.[/size][/font] [font=Times New Roman","serif][size=4]Regards.[/size][/font]

[quote name='Chucktshoes' timestamp='1353713018' post='849885'] If she pulls a Naifeh, then I think she will get Maggarted. Next election. [/quote]She already needs to go and I hope that she is the next target of the TFA and NRA regardless of what she does now. She is not now nor has she ever been partial to the original intent of the Constitution/constitution and she needs to go. I also concur, the best way to get reasonable action out of Republicans is to not have too many of them around...we need more Democrats in the legislature; at least enough to make Republicans very nervous about their re-elections.

[quote name='OhShoot' timestamp='1353781987' post='850107'] If TN were run by referendum, we'd likely have scary weapons ban, no hipcap mags, and no handgun carry. For sure, that would be the nationwide result. Half the actual gun owners in the nation and probably in this state would vote that way too. A lot of Kali state law comes out of their endless referendums. There's a real clue there as to why the USA was set up as a representative Republic and not a pure democracy. - OS [/quote]Amen...there is a damn good reason why we DON'T have a democracy in this country and our founders knew that reason very well.

I don't always feel at the top of the gene pool but when I do I'm usually at Walmart.

Seems harsh considering that the ###hole officer in Canton who threatened to shoot a concealed carry permit holder in the face was determined to have done nothing wrong and could be rehired.

All calibers of all handguns are pretty much nothing more than glorified peashooters when talking about stopping power. Unfortunately, carrying around a rifle would be a bit problematic not to mention illegal in most places.

Okay, now I see how this goes. You ask a question it gets answered and then you change the particulars of your question to make it appear that your question wasn't answered. That's very slick. Still waiting for my questions to be answered… And the silence continues. Lots of protestations and diversions but no serious presentations of how these laws are either unconstitutional or a measurable infringement on the property rights of businesses. However I'm not surprised - neither these businesses nor their well paid attorneys have been able to do so either. With that I'm done and unsubscribing from the thread. It hasn't been entirely a wast of time for me however as I'm more convinced than ever that this bill is needed and constitutional and I will be vigorously working to see it enacted.

[quote name='JayC' timestamp='1353679229' post='849735']Ok fair enough... Find me a single test case then... There has to be a single person on this forum who can't have a firearm stored in their vehicle at work, and they are forced to be unarmed. You say show you the harm to the business... and I say that isn't the way our laws are supposed to work... We're supposed to allow people (even the people who run businesses) to be free unless their is a strict need of the community that can not be solved any other way. So show me a single person that is being harmed by not having this law passed... Show me a single adult that is forced to disarm at a private business... If there are such people, then this law might make sense... [b]but I contend you can't find a single case.[/b] This is a law to make a special interest group (permit holders) to be able to avoid making hard choices about their safety and their income, and has nothing to do with freedom.[/quote] I can offer you a few thousand real cases; everyone who currently works for Nissan, FedEx, Bridgestone/FIrestone, Gibson and I'm sure many, many other businesses; I'm fairly certain there are people "on this forum" who work for one of those employers or another employer who either as a matter of "policy" or "posting" or both, reach out of their headquarters (often headquarters in states outside of Tennessee) and forbid their employees from having an unmolested firearm inside of their locked vehicle. And have you not seen the signs at the entrances to the parking lots of entire malls and other stores that would make me criminal if the tires of my vehicle touched their property even though those very same malls and stores depend on my $$$ to survive? Do you not know those situations exist? Do you not think thousands and thousands (at least around 300-400 thousand in Tennessee) are affected? If you want names, just read the Memphis paper since they publish the names of HCP holders. You say that's not how laws are supposed to work...would you like to explain the Constitutional and legal theoretical basis for that assertion rather than just make the assertion? I suspect you make the assertion simply as a diversion because that's a lot easier than showing the harm to the business since there is no harm from these laws. And what is all this railing about HCP holders being a "special interest group" or "special class"? And how does that apply to this bill in any case? Perhaps you haven't paid attention but these bills as originally written and intended were to cover EVERYONE so long as the person wasn't precluded from owning a firearm. I also want the law to cover ALL parking lots that are open to the public whether that "public" are employees, customers or just someone looking for a place to park. I've not doubt we won't get all that the first time around; it will likely apply on to HCP holders and/or only to certain parking lots because as is almost always the case in politics, you get what you can get and keep trying to move the ball down the field. If would be really nice if we could always make touchdown on the first play every time we are on offense but neither life, football nor politics works that way. Now that we have that settled, I'm still waiting for someone to explain how these laws violate the property protections as provided for in the Constitution and two put together an substantive and convincing argument to show why such a law shouldn't be passed in Tennessee.

[quote name='zort' timestamp='1353616613' post='849530'] no one is asking for nothing free....just freedom to have a legaly owned firearm in my vehicle. i just dont know how it affects anyone by doing so. ive read all of this and still no one can tell me how this law will hurt a business owner if a employee has anything kept in his vehicle that is legal. [/quote]No one has told you because no one can tell you how this law harms a business owner in any way...they can't tell you because it doesn't harm them. People can argue about how this infringes on a property owner's rights in theory; but as a practical matter is has no effect on property owner's at all.

[quote name='DaveTN' timestamp='1353638662' post='849638'] Because if I’m a business owner I am going to be held liable for what goes on at my property; I have the ultimate right to make those decisions. I also have the responsibility to make my property as safe as I can for my employees. If I do not want you to bring a deadly weapon on my property, and I properly post my property; that is the way it is going to be. If you are a customer, don’t do business with me, if you are an employee, go find a job somewhere else. Are you going to give business owners absolute immunity from a negligent shooting on their property? Of course you aren’t because the lawyers aren’t going to allow that. Give the business owners absolute immunity from lawsuits, drop the HCP and recognize the right to bear arms as a Constitutional right for all citizens of the state and I will gladly step over to the other side. Until then it’s just a special interest group trying to use the government to push around business owners. [/quote]Sorry, I don't find "I'M THE OWNER" and "I'LL DECIDE WHAT'S BEST" to be a terribly convincing argument. Do you think a "business" property is protected from liability now if there is a shooting (negliegent or otherwise) on the property; posted or not? If some employee or jsut some stranger off the streets walks in and starts shooting do you think that business won't be sued? I suspect you will...I suspect others have. However, keeping in mind that we are discussing a bill that hasn't been presented yet, if it is in any way similar to prior bills businesses are protected from liability. For some reason, however, even if absolutely ironclad, I don't think being protected from liability is really going to change your mind about the bill.

[quote name='JayC' timestamp='1353635994' post='849609'] This isn't the time or place for an argument about the pros and cons of our court systems, and the abuses of God given rights that it allows in the name of our Constitution... a little off subject for this discussion... but I'd be happy to have that discussion offline. Again, my issue is with certain permit holder... people who aren't willing to take personal responsibility for their choices. I've agreed repeatedly that the courts would most likely find this law to be constitutional, but just because we can pass a bad law and it won't be ruled unconstitutional doesn't mean we should. Since this bill would remove a right/ability from current business owners I think we should be very careful and make sure all other options have been fully explored and I feel we haven't done that. Again I ask you as a supporter of this bill to answer the following questions that you seem to ignore time and time again... prove to me that there is no other option in your case, that the ONLY recourse is to use the force of the government to remove a property owners current right to prohibit employees from having firearms stored in their vehicles on company property: [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(247, 247, 247)]It's clear you're in support of this law... Are you unable to properly prioritize your own safety in your day to day life? Are you working for an employer that either through flawed logic or on a whim is placing you at greater risk, and ignoring your valid safety concerns? Are you in a situation where you can park in a public street or parking lot? [/background][/size][/font][/color] [b]Explain to me in YOUR situation how you're unable to properly prioritize your own safety, and the ONLY remedy is for the government to come in and use force to protect you from your employers poor judgement.[/b] [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(247, 247, 247)]We as free and responsible adults should be responsible for our own safety, and only when the we unable to protect ourselves ([/background][/size][/font][/color][u]note unable, not unwilling[/u][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(247, 247, 247)]) should we use the force of government to mandate a solution on others.[/background][/size][/font][/color] [/quote]I'm not asking for anyone to write a master's thesis on the inequities and shortcomings of the court system; I'm asking for someone to explain how this measure violates the Constitutional protections afforded property in the 5th amendment. I believe these laws do not violate the Constitution and the 10th Circuit doesn't either and I'll continue to believe that until someone can make a better argument than the attorneys who appeared in front of the 10th circuit. Since I believe and the courts have agreed that these laws are constitutional, the only remaining issue is whether such a law should be adopted in Tennessee. I think such a measure is excellent public policy because it further encourages citizens to be armed. The Constitution, three decades of recent experience and common sense tells us that an armed citizenry is a good thing and a worthy goal to be pursued - anytime the citizens, through their government can remove a barrier to having that armed citizenry I believe it should do so. If some want to call such government action "thuggish" or any other pejorative they wish, they can do so but insults do not an argument make. Oh an by the way, I have no dog in this legislative fight - I'm not personally affected by this bill one way or the other. I'm in favor of seeing it become law because I believe it's excellent public policy.

[quote name='DaveTN' timestamp='1353635363' post='849604'] Not once Robert, have I implied they can’t decide they have that authority. A thug government has the authority to do anything the people allow them to do. You are one of, if not the, most vocal about cops and how you perceive they abuse their authority. Passage of this bill would be an abuse of government power; am I to understand you are okay with it when it’s something you want? [/quote]It's really easy, isn't it,to make accusations about someone when you don't have to back up your innuendo....I've never been anything but supportive of "cops" in this and any other forum I'm a member of. There is nothing thuggish about this bill nor the people, through their elected representatives should they push for it's adoption. Throughout all the bluster, chest pounding, insults and repeating of the "property rights" chant, no one has yet make a coherent explanation of how such a measure violates the Constitutional protections afforded to property nor has anyone offered a logical argument as to why the bill shouldn't be adopted.

[quote name='DaveTN' timestamp='1353619691' post='849548'] Correct, and the legislature has outlawed the carrying of loaded firearms throughout the state for all citizens. For $115 plus the price of a class... [/quote] And the state has the constitutional authority, both state and federal, to decide that people can carry and keep their firearms in their vehicles even when parked in a parking lot over the objections of the business property owner.

[quote name='JayC' timestamp='1353602115' post='849472'] I've never said the law wouldn't be upheld by a court, only that it violates the God given rights of property owners, and isn't needed. Again I ask you the following: [/quote] Those God given rights are protected by only one thing which is the Constitution. A constitution written by God-fearing men And they saw fit to provide specific protection for property. Unlike some other rights the right to own and control property CAN be infringed because the Constitution specifically allows it to be. If you don't like that your problem is with the Constitution not with me and not with Tennessee permit holders

There is no flawed logic involved - the people, through the government has the right to regulate private property even up to and including confiscation per the Constitution. If you don't like that simple truth your problem is with the Constitution and the men who penned it; not with this law.

Okay, obviously I am still waiting! Some of you are certainly going to a lot of trouble just to keep from answering the question.

It is a constitutional issue because it is the constitution that provides for the protection of property. Why do you need me to restate what the 10th circuit has already gone into great detail to explain? Have you read the decision? My laymen's interpretation of both the appellate court's decision and the constitutional issue is that these parking lot laws do not violate the fifth amendment protections granted to private property. The Constitution specifically allows for up to and including the complete confiscation of property provided there is due process and/or compensation. I believe that the court found that the alleged infringement of property rights was so slight as to be inconsequential and therefore not a violation of the only constitutional protection of property rights. After looking at the issue for several years now I too have concluded that whatever infringement on a property owner by these laws is so slight as to be unquantifiable in any substantive way...much more a matter of theory than of substance.

Still waiting for someone to explain, using the Constitution, how the 10th District got it wrong. I'm also waiting for someone to make a convincing argument for why this law should not be passed Tennessee without falling back on the court rejected property rights argument.

I am still waiting for someone to explain in detail how the 10th Circuit got it wrong In rejecting the claim that the parking lot laws violate the rights of the property owner. Until Someone can do that the whole discussion about property rights is meaningless because the issue has already been decided. Since we already know these laws are constitutional the only issue still on the table is whether or not we should have such a law in Tennessee. With all these dozens and dozens of pages in this and other threads I have yet to hear a convincing argument presented against the laws.

Might I suggest to the OP; what kind (quality, size, etc) depends on a lot of factors. I didn't buy the most expensive safe out there because when I looked at the variables I didn't think I needed one. Those variables included but were not limited to... [list=1] [*]Overall cost [*]That my local FD station is less than 4 minutes response time away (don't ask me how I know this). [*]I have a pretty good multi-layered monitored security system, including fire monitoring and a four-legged hall monitor...no one is going to get into my house without tripping the alarm (and the alarm has multiple ways to send out a signal to the monitoring company) and the police here seem to respond pretty quickly (again, don't ask how I know this). [*]We also have a pretty good Neighborhood Watch group here and I actually know some of my neighbors! [/list]

[quote name='TripleDigitRide' timestamp='1353532044' post='849229'] My safe with an electronic lock came with a key, in the event the electronic lock malfunctions. [/quote]Is that your way of saying my logic sucks?

I have heard rumors of some insurance companies not "wanting" to cover firearms. I can tell you that when I listed all mine out the underwriter I worked with, who didn't seem to know anything about firearms at all, had some interesting discussions. I'm with Travelers for auto, home, listed property riders and an umbrella policies and I've been happy with them but I can't really say they are especially "better" than many others. As with everything and especially insurance; it's prudent to shop around!

The bonuses make sense....about 15 years ago I was part (a small part) of shutting down the Singer Furniture Company (yes, [u][i]that[/i][/u] Singer; part of Singer Sewing Company)...it takes a lot of time and work and you absolutely want people who know what's going on to be there as long as possible (which isn't easy given that people know they are working themselves out of a job). If you don't have those people to see that things are done right the only people you'll really end up screwing is the people that Hostess stills owes money too because done the wrong way, buildings and equipment (not so much intellectual property) can become worthless junk. Sad time for those employees now out of work but they brought it on themselves, either directly or indirectly.

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353526282' post='849199'] First of all, if you have a problem with me or anything that I have said, then address me on the issue or report my post. Secondly, I ponder on the mental capabilities of anyone who can not make the behemothic distinction between the government stopping forced admittals to asylums, lobotomy and torturous practices and choosing to carrying an inanimate object. [/quote] Do you really think that this post (above) and especially the "mental capabilities" comment was either needed, helpful or appropriate; especially for a moderator to make toward a member? I don't think so given that barewoolf made absolutely ZERO reference to admittances, forced or otherwise to "asylums". Maybe I missed it but I don't see anything he said that would warrant or justify you lashing out at him as you just did.

[quote name='Lester Weevils' timestamp='1353521577' post='849184']...[b]To Serve Man[/b]. Wait! Don't go on the ship! Its a cookbook![/quote] That is one of my all-time favorite episodes.