RobertNashville

[quote name='BigK' timestamp='1339556520' post='771038'] I gotta call BS on this whole story. I saw Crocodile Dundee, he didn't get arrested...and that was a real knife. [/quote]Now...that [i][b]WAS [/b][/i]a knife!

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353361424' post='848384']...[/quote] Is there something unclear when I said "[i][b]I'm done...you can keep arguing if you want but it won't be with me.[/b][/i]"??? Apparently there is. Unfortunateky,I don't know what I can say to make it any more understandable.

If I might inject a personal observation; while I do feel sorry for the folks that have to work, I have to say I'm glad that at least some restaurants are open on Thanksgiving day. I too have been deployed on the holiday or stationed a LONG way from "home" or had other challenges to face...so...were some restaurants not open there would have been no "Thanksgiving" dinner for me and for many other people who either can't cook, don't know to cook and/or don't have family that they can get to on that particular day.

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353357165' post='848330']Seriously?....[/quote] Yes, seriously It isn't all about "firearms" for me and never has been...it appears that is is all about firearms vs property rights for you and that's fine but it's not about that for me and won't be no matter how much you claim it is. With regards to your question; I already answered it when I said... "[i]I care about all rights, not [u][i]JUST [/i][/u]the rights of a property owner; [b]even if I'm the property owner[/b]. Not only do I care but I also understand that society, through the government, has the Constitutional power and I would submit, even the responsibility to regulate property; most especially property used for business purpose. [b]My personal “feelings” about that or whether I “like” the regulations are immaterial[/b]. I'm not in favor of regulation for the sake of regulation but I am in favor of appropriate and needed regulation.[/i] You are fee to not like my answer but that is still my answer.

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353352255' post='848274']…Sigh…[/quote] “Sigh” is right. I can’t help but sigh when you ascribe positions to me I don’t hold and put words in my mouth that I’ve never uttered or make your arguments against legislation based on unsupported emotion and platitudes. I’ve never said I have a right to carry a gun onto private property; if you think I believe I do have that right you are wrong…if you think I’ve ever said I have that right you are equally wrong. I understand that it's your opinion that a parking lot law infringes (removes) a property owner’s right. However, the court's opinion is that the infringement, if it exists at all, is so slight that it does NOT violate the protection of property rights as granted in the 5[sup]th[/sup] Amendment to the Constitution. I don't think that the wording of the 5th Amendment is accidental meaning that if the Founders thought that property could/should never be subject to regulations or wanted to provide stronger protections than they did they could have done so; but they didn’t do so. You can dislike the level of property rights protection the Constitution provides and you can dislike/disagree with the court’s decision until hell freezes over…you can claim it’s “not right in any way” but saying it’s “not right” is an assertion without substance. While you apparently think otherwise, I care about all rights, not [u][i]JUST [/i][/u]the rights of a property owner; even if I'm the property owner. Not only do I care but I also understand that society, through the government, has the Constitutional power and I would submit, even the responsibility to regulate property; most especially property used for business purpose. My personal “feelings” about that or whether I “like” the regulations are immaterial. I'm not in favor of regulation for the sake of regulation but I am in favor of appropriate and needed regulation. You can state your opinion about “property rights” all you want but per the Constitution, I would suggest that property rights are not preeminent to all others; especially property used for business purposes and most especially property where the public is invited to be. Based on the 5th Amendment, the courts and decades of history, its' my opinion that the actions of property owners CAN be regulated and it's also my opinion, based on several factors, that in the case of the "parking lot" bill, it's appropriate for the sate to do so. Since I see no hope that you and I will ever agree on this issue; I'm done...you can keep arguing if you want but it won't be with me.

[quote name='JayC' timestamp='1353337356' post='848138']People here wonder why we can't get this bill passed.... IMHO, people who support this bill have lost their way on the fundamentals of conservative principles [/quote] To be accurate, the TFA and NFA didn’t just go “to town” on legislators who don’t want to see this bill passed; they went “to town” on one particular (soon to be former) legislator who violated her oath of office by not following the rules of the legislature [u][i]and[/i][/u] violated her alleged conservative principles to kill a bill that had successfully passed every hurdle needed to get to the floor for a vote. Her actions in this matter were worthy of Jimmy Naife as there was no evidence that she opposed the bill on principles or because she thought it was a bad bill and even if she was opposed on principle; it is the floor of the people’s house where such opposition or support for the bill is [i]supposed[/i] to be shown. The evidence showed that this legislator acted for the sake of political expediency in that she didn’t want to have to record a vote on the bill and either anger the pro-firearms community and lose those votes [u][b]OR[/b][/u] anger the likes of FedEx and Nissan and Bridgestone and lose their campaign contributions. Since she couldn't have it both ways, she punted and her actions were the epitome of exactly the kind of legislator that no state legislature needs...she deserved to be removed and I’m very proud that I played a small part of making that happen through my membership in both the organizations you cite as well as some significant, for me, donations to the campaign of that legislator’s opponent. I agree, 2[sup]nd[/sup] Amendment advocates [u][i]should[/i][/u] be pushing the legislature to pass laws the recognize our rights to keep and bear arms [b][i]including the passage of laws that push back against entities like businesses who overreach their authority by adopting policies that attempt to control what a citizen can have or not have in his/her privately owned vehicle[/i][/b]; especially when these entities do so without offering any rational or logical reasons for doing so (at least none they are willing to articulate in public). That you have decided that the problem this bill addresses isn’t a problem or isn’t a problem that the legislature should address can be debated. However, to cavalierly say the people can chose to work or shop somewhere else both ignores some harsh realities about our economy right now and doesn't do much to bring people to agree with you...I could just as easily and correctly say that this wouldn't be a problem at all if businesses didn't overreach their authority by attempting to control the legal contents of a vehicle and that many, including me do believe it’s a problem and one that, because of the actions of some businesses, the legislature needs to address. Your assertion that such a law would be an expansion of government is an exaggeration - a “parking lot” bill, if one is passed, will not necessitate the creation of or expansion of a state agency nor would such a law require an business to do anything at all except to not dictate to employees/customers what they can/can’t have inside of their vehicles. I will agree, on principle, that I would rather not have to add words to the Tennessee Code but I would also prefer the businesses don't arbitrarily and without rationality, attempt to dictate what I can and can't have inside of my vehicle just because that vehicle is parked in a parking lot where they have invited me, indeed, [u][i]NEED[/i][/u] me to be. Their actions, which I believe are arbitrary and capricious, have brought us to the point that society, through the state, feels it needs to react. Our founders, in their wisdom, addressed property rights in the 5[sup]th[/sup] Amendment which specifically both protects property rights and allows for the manner that those property rights can be infringed, even up to and including confiscation…courts, based on the 5[sup]th[/sup] Amendment, have found such “parking lot” laws Constitutional…many businesses with some very high-priced attorneys have made their arguments against these parking lot laws and those arguments have been found wanting. Can and do courts make errors? Of course they do. Are some courts "liberal"; of course some are. However, I don't see any evidence to show that the makeup of the 10th Circuit is "liberal" and if they were, it would seem counter-intuitive for them to find in favor of a "guns in parking lots' bill. This was, after all, a unaminous decision; one I've read (at least most of) and I can see why they decided as they did. Further, no one here has offered any significant facts that would lead me to think the court is wrong. If these laws truly are Constitutional, we are left then with the issue of whether such a law should or should not be passed in Tennessee. On that question, I’ve heard a lot of opinions and phrases such as “it’s wrong” or “it’s not a conservative position” and even my principles have been called into question. However, I'm more than content with where my principles lie and I believe such a law should be passed and will continue in that position unless or until someone can present a cohesive and rational argument against such a law in Tennessee.

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353302821' post='848042'][url="http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/55092-ron-ramsey-on-2013-parking-lot-bill-status/page__st__40#entry847778"]I answered you the last time you asked me that.[/url][/quote]So...when I asked you to "[b][i]show how the 10th circuit was wrong in rejecting the Constitutional argument against these laws and to submit reasonable and logical arguments to show why such a law shouldn't be passed Tennessee[/i][/b]" your answer was "[color=#b22222][i]It's wrong because the law violates a person's rights while giving nonexistent rights to someone over convenience.[/i][/color]" I don't understand how that "answer" is supposed to answer either of the two-part question I asked. What person's "rights" does such a law violate? If you mean a company's property rights, the courts have said otherwise...you certainly can believe the courts were wrong but belief doesn't show how the 10th Circuit was wrong which was the question posed and not answered. "Nonexistent rights"? What are these "nonexistent rights" and in what way are they being "given" to someone? [quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353302821' post='848042']You refuse to accept that property owners can dictate rules. And I certainly can not help it that you feel your convenience is more important than property rights.[/quote]I absolutely agree that property owners can dictate any rules they want. But, you keep leaving out something important which is that property owners can dictate rules [i][b]until society, through government action and IAW the Constitution, says otherwise[/b][/i]. [quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353302821' post='848042']You still haven't answered my questions, BTW. My answers in [color=#0000ff][b]blue[/b][/color]... Do you value your property rights? [i][b][color=#0000ff]Absolutely I do[/color][/b][/i] Do you want the government to make you do something with your property simply to satisfy a stranger's convenience and sense of entitlement? [i][b][color=#0000ff]No, but I [u]DO[/u] want the government to regulate property when doing so is for the overall benefit of society; especially when the regulation has little to no actual impact on the property owner (such as these "parking lot" laws).[/color][/b][/i] Care if my bullhorn and I visit your home at 2am tonight? Your property rights mean nothing to me and I have a constitutional right to yell stuffs [i][b][color=#0000ff]Yes, I care[/quote][/color][/b][/i] [quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353302821' post='848042']Bill has been written and proposed for sever years now. I assume it will be much the same as years past. [/quote]So you made an assumption and then berated OhShoot for not "[i]keeping up[/i]" with you? That seems a bit inappropriate.

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353300794' post='848032']...This bill will target all businesses.Try to keep up.[/quote] Really...you know this for a fact? I thought we were discussing the possibility of a bill...I didn't realize that a bill has already been written and passed and that you know the specific contents of it.

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353300794' post='848032']...Most certainly does amke a difference.[/quote] Yes, I guess it does make a difference...when you decide to ignore that entirety of what I said on the matter and only deal with one part of what I said. [quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353300794' post='848032']...[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353299917' post='848025']...19 stats have already decided they should regulate on this issue and the highest court that has heard the Constitutional arguments against these "parking lot" regulations has rejected the arguments and nothing is going to change the "can" or the "should" parts of the discussion no matter how much you chant "private property...private property".[/quote][/quote] The "so what" is that despite all the time and electrons you've used up with your posts in this thread you still have not offered any argument to show that Tennessee doesn't have the right, under the 5th Amendment, to pass a "parking lot" bill nor have you offered any reasonable or logical arguments to show why Tennessee shouldn't do so. That's the "so what".

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353297747' post='847996'] Name one non-tax or wage related law that all businesses or "business property" owners must follow. [/quote]There is no reason to name one or 100 or 0 because I don't believe there is an answer that you would not have some objection to. Moreover, your veiled assertion that there is a difference between a regulation that is based on "taxes" or "wages" as opposed to any other regulation is both flawed and immaterial because it entirely misses the point - society, through the government, both can and does regulate what a property owner can and cannot do on the property owner's property and whether a property is used for private purposes or business purpose has a direct impact on how/whether government regulates it. If I bothered to look, which I'm not, I suspect there are more than a few examples that could answer your demand but I really don't care if there is now or has ever been a regulation applied to business property that wasn't either "tax" or "wage" related because whether or not that is the case has no bearing on whether or not society [u][i]can[/i][/u] regulate business property and it has no bearing on whether or not society [i][u]should[/u][/i] regulate business property. 19 stats have already decided they should regulate on this issue and the highest court that has heard the Constitutional arguments against these "parking lot" regulations has rejected the arguments and nothing is going to change the "can" or the "should" parts of the discussion no matter how much you chant "private property...private property".

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353296156' post='847981'] There is private property and public property. Pick one....Being open to the public doesn't change that. [/quote] Yes...private property IS private property; thanks for clearing that up. However, according to society, many, many decades of history, and common sense; what the property is used for has a significant impact on whether and what regulations apply to it and are appropriate to apply to it.

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353287980' post='847880']Private property is private property.[/quote] You can call it "private property" all you want but society has decided that how a property is used has a bearing on what can and should be regulated with regards to that property. You may not like it...you can ignore it all you wish...you can disagree with it all you wish but the reality is that society, through the government, treats property used for business purposes differently than property used for private purposes and has done so, as best I can tell for at least 130 years and perhaps longer.

[quote name='JayC' timestamp='1353290173' post='847910']If we're going to cite the TN Constitution, then this proposed law would seem to be unconstitutional on it's face, since the legislature can only regulate the wearing of firearms in an attempt to avoid criminal behavior. An untouched firearm located in your vehicle is not worn, and as such would not fall under the single exception to the right to keep and bear arms in the TN constitution for the legislature to regulate.[/quote] For the sake of clarification, I haven’t cited the Tennessee Constitution; when I’ve used the word Constitution I’m referring to the U.S. Constitution because that’s the one the 10[sup]th[/sup] Circuit cited. In any case, I think your reasoning misses the mark since what is actually being “regulated” is not “firearms” nor the wearing of them; the issue is whether a business should be allowed to control the legally owned/possessed contents inside of a private vehicle while parked in a parking lot that they own/control. Granted, the object under discussion is a firearm but the exact same issues (the issues being can the government act without violating the Constitution as it pertains to property and if it can, should it do so) would exist if we were talking about a set of golf clubs or a copy of a book or any other inanimate object. [quote name='JayC' timestamp='1353290173' post='847910']I don't think employers and business have failed to act, they have posted signage or posted warnings to their employees to not have firearms on their property, that is the very definition of acting. They have made a choice to prohibit that activity on their property.[/quote] Your assertion about “posting” is a bit flawed in that many businesses, including one I once worked for, don’t “post” anything at all, they simply make it a matter of “policy”. Anyway…I don’t think I said whether or not employers have acted, but I agree, they have…the problem is they’ve acted in a way that I believe is contrary to the public good which is why this state or any other state has seen a possible need to react. [quote name='JayC' timestamp='1353290173' post='847910']And again, you keep pushing a progressive agenda, that the state should act unless the business can provide a compelling reason as to why the state should not? That is the very opposite of conservative principles.[/quote] What I’m “pushing” is an understandable and reasonable response to what I and others believe is an unreasonable act of many businesses in trying to control the legally possessed contents of a private vehicle. Moreover, it's a response specifically provided for in, what you must think to be, a very “progressive” Constitution. You can call it any name you want but it was our Founders who wrote the Constitution that addressed “property rights” in the 5[sup]th[/sup] Amendment and I think they knew one or two things about conservative principles and about "property rights"...if you don’t like how they addressed the issue of property rights your argument should be with the Founders, not with me. Further, what I’ve asked for is for opponents of this type of measure (be that you or strickj or a business such as Bridgestone or FedEx, etc.) to present a compelling and reasonable argument against the measure other than just chanting “property rights”…”property rights”. Apparently; that’s too much to ask for given that even in last year's hearings, no one managed to present such an argument. [quote name='JayC' timestamp='1353290173' post='847910']You have refuted my point that all HCP holders already have another option available to them, don't do business with employers and businesses which post their property...How does this method fail? Who is forced to work anywhere in this state? Who is forced to do business with posted properties?[/quote] I think it would be more accurate to say I’ve ignored your point, not refuted it. In any case, while the “free market” is a wonderful thing; it doesn’t always get the job done; especially when you have businesses acting stupidly and to the detriment of society…also, people don’t always have a lot of options about where to work, especially when an employer suddenly and with neither warning nor giving a reason, changes its policy after an employee has worked there for many years. [quote name='JayC' timestamp='1353290173' post='847910']You're the person wanting more regulation, not those of us who are in opposition of this proposed bill, again why not just repeal 1359 to only include buildings (or even better yet repeal it completely)? I'd be happy to support that bill, as it doesn't interfere with private property rights.[/quote] I only want more regulation in response to the unreasonable actions of some businesses. Repealing 1359 would be meaningless since, as I said, many employers don’t bother to “post”; they just make it a matter of policy. As to this bill interfering with your property rights, you may think it does but the 10[sup]th[/sup] Circuit says it doesn’t and so far, no one has made a case for why the 10th Circuit is wrong. [quote name='JayC' timestamp='1353290173' post='847910']How is it in the best interest of society to force business owners to allow carry on their property, just because HCP holders continue to willingly accept conditions of employment? Keep in mind I'm very pro-carry, I'm 100% behind repeal virtually all of our gun laws in TN.. I'm just also very pro-natural rights, and private property rights, the last thing that conservative small government pro-2nd amendment advocates should be doing is attempt to encourage an out of control legislature and court system to impose on others rights just to get us some special 'privileges'.[/quote] I say it’s in the best interest of society because as a matter of history and as a matter of principle supported by about 30 years of modern experiential data, we know that it is in the best interest of society that we have an armed citizenry and as a small-government, pro-2[sup]nd[/sup] Amendment advocate, I will support actions and laws that make it easier for us to have an armed citizenry and/or to fight against the actions of businesses or government entities that make obtaining that goal more difficult to realize. [quote name='JayC' timestamp='1353290173' post='847910']We must fight to repeal stupid gun laws in TN, there are 100's of lines that can and should be removed, adding more regulation on business people who want a smaller government isn't the best way to build that coalition.[/quote] Yes we should…we should also fight against the actions of businesses who arbitrarily and without logical reasons, restrict the legal acts of their employees/customers such as attempting to control the legally owned and transported contents of the employee’s/customer’s private vehicles. [quote name='JayC' timestamp='1353290173' post='847910']As to your question about other states and using HCP for hiring, I have no clue [/quote] Then why bring it up? These “parking lot” laws have been in effect for many years in some states…if what you asserted was really a problem I would think it would be known and not something that had to be guessed at.

[quote name='Worriedman' timestamp='1353284834' post='847857'] So that weapon in the car out in the parking lot is going set the flammables off without any person pulling the trigger?[/quote] I'm sure that an unmolested firearm is also far more dangerous than the 15 or 20 gallons of flammable liquid know as "gasoline" most vehicles carry. I also wonder, how much more dangerous is an unmolested firearm sitting in a parked, unoccupied vehicle sitting in a parking lot than is a firearm inside an occupied vehicle being driven down the highway just a few feet outside the fence of that parking lot??? While I'm not suggesting that the decision about the appropriateness of a "parking lot" law should be based on risks; if we were going to do so I would think the far greater risk is the gasoline most vehicles carry or the firearm in the occupied vehicle driving down the road who could pull the trigger.

[size=4][font=tahoma,geneva,sans-serif]Sorry, I see nothing in your post JayC to convince me I'm wrong.[/font][/size] [size=4][font=tahoma,geneva,sans-serif]You are being disingenuous saying Houston has no zoning because it does have strict regulations addressing such things as minimum parking regulations, minimum lot size regulations, street width/block regulations. While not a completely accurate comparison, saying Houston has no zoning laws is akin to the “rose by any other name” concept. I don’t know how many different states and cities or countries you’ve live in but given the number I’ve experienced, I’ll take good zoning laws any day over allowing people to do whatever they happen to feel like doing with no consideration for the effect of their actions on their neighbor’s properties.[/font][/size] As to the rest of my progressiveness, the laws and regulations we have on private property and businesses and business property have, for the most part, arisen precisely because businesses didn't do the right thing...left solely to their own standards individuals did things that harmed their neighbors and businesses did harmful, horrible and even dangerous things to the people who worked for them including the very young. To say that we could do without such regulations today is a pipe dream; people simply haven't changed. If people always did the right thing and treated others fairly we could do away with all laws; I'm not holding my breath for that to happen. Putting aside that the law has long treated what is true private property differently than property used for business purposes; I'm not saying and don't believe I ever have said that I have a "right" to carry a weapon onto someone's property. What I am saying is that government has the Constitutional power to regulate whether a business can forbid weapons in an individual's vehicle and that these laws do not violate the property rights of a business (as protected in the 5th Amendment)...I'll continue to say so until someone can convince me that the state doesn't have the Constitutional power to do so - just claiming that "liberal courts" will find such laws Constitutional is just avoiding the question. I've read their decision and I think the 10th Circuit got it right and that their reasoning is absolutely sound (and I think it worth noting that it was a unanimous decision)...there is no way to know but I think I'd think there were right even if I disagreed with their decision; I just don't happen to disagree. However, if you believe the 10th circuit was wrong then point out, in their decision how they were wrong. I've also said and do say that the state should pass legislation on this issue...they should because I believe it's in the overall best interest of society and because many employers and businesses have refused to act on their own...I'll continue to think the state should so regulate until someone can provide compelling reasons why the state should not; simply wanting the regulation is not compelling, at least not to me. Your raising the possibility of businesses finding ways around the law, if it's passed, is interesting...do you have any actual examples of where businesses have found such ways in any of the 19 states that already have such laws? I haven't heard of any but maybe you have.

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353272288' post='847758']...[/quote] Still waiting for you to show how the 10th circuit was wrong in rejecting the Constitutional argument against these laws and/or to submit reasonable and logical arguments to show why such a law shouldn't be passed Tennessee. Of course, there is no reason to respond to either part of the above unless you want to have an actual discussion - if all you want to do is chant the mantra of property rights then you can continue to do so but the "it's my property" mantra isn't going to sway me any more than it did the 10th Circuit or sway the legislatures in 19 states where these laws already exist.

Wow...lots of the same sentiments against theses "parking lot" laws without any substance offered to support the sentiments. I'm still waiting for someone to submit reasonable data/examples to show how the 10th circuit was wrong in rejecting the Constitutional argument against these laws. [i][b]and...[/b][/i] I'm still waiting for someone to submit reasonable and rational and logical arguments to show why such a law shouldn't be passed Tennessee except for the empty "it's my property" mantra. Bueller....Bueller....???

[quote name='JayC' timestamp='1353251602' post='847603']I'm sorry but it is a progressive argument that somehow societies 'feelings/whims' trump a persons property rights. I'm not suggesting that progressives haven't been very successful in getting courts to violate those rights for the last few decades, but it doesn't change the fact that property rights are a natural right, the same as the right to own and carry a gun is a natural right, and the government has no legitimate reason to violate either of them. I'm never going to post a business I own, when certain laws were changed a few years back, I got into a number of arguments with progressive leaning members of the family on why we should not post our family owned business... I even had to fire an employee who answered the phone and told a customer we would be posting. (BTW that is the only time I've lost an unemployment claim but that is an entirely different story) But, I should have full control over my business, I should be able to ban carry over the entire property if I so (IMHO incorrectly) choose. Like with any other policy I make, employees who don't like it can find another job... Customers can do business elsewhere if they don't like the policies. Somebody else will come along and cater to those folks, and get their business and labor if they so choose. I use to work for a corporation that prohibited carry for employees, and it was one of the reasons I choose to leave and start my own business. I make less money, but I don't have to disarm everyday to go to work... Nobody is forced to work somewhere they must disarm, they choose to... That is their choice. Again, we should be focused on removing stupid laws, and laws that prohibit carry n government control lands and buildings... because none of us have a choice when it comes to those locations... Not try and tell some business person he must do something he fundamentally disagrees with.[/quote] [size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]This is not about feelings or whims; it’s about laws and the good of society at large. Is it “[i]progressive[/i]” of me to want zoning laws in my city so that my next door neighbor can’t suddenly decide to convert his “private property” into a petting zoo or a garbage dump or a half-way house for child molesters? Is it “[i]progressive[/i]” for me to believe that I should be able to control the contents of my vehicle provided the contents are legal to own/have in my vehicle? Is it “[i]progressive[/i]” of me to believe that a restaurant shouldn’t be allowed to refuse to serve a black man or a Chinese woman because of their respective races or to think that a business shouldn't be able to require employees to work 16 or 20 hour days or even force eight year old children to do the same? If the above examples are examples of “[i]progressiveism[/i]” then color me progressive but I suggest that there is nothing libertarian or conservative or patriotic OR Constitutional in allowing anyone/any business/any property owner to do whatever the hell he wants to do on or with his "property" with no regards to anyone else or regards to society at large. Most of the laws we have regulating what property owners and businesses can and can’t do on their “property” or in running their business exist in response to the sometimes idiotic and sometimes even dangerous things that property owners/businesses have done that harmed others/society and while we probably have far too many laws and regulations, on the whole, I say such laws and regulations are a good thing, even “Constitutional”...even conservative. The government certainly can have legitimate reasons for infringing on or even completely taking our rights away, including, among others, the right to keep and bear arms and the right to own property - our founders understood that which is why we have the 5[sup]th[/sup] Amendment. If you believe the courts have blundered in upholding these laws then please explain how they have done so…show specifically how a legal, inert thing, whether it’s a firearm or a set of golf clubs locked inside of a vehicle while parked on a piece of ground provided for the purpose of parking vehicles is a violation of the takings clause.[/font][/size] Until you or someone can do that, I'll remain, "[i]progressive[/i]" and armed. -------------------- I believe we are left with two issues...[list=1] [*]Can the government install such a law without violating the Constitution's takings clause. [*]Should the government install such a law. [/list] I believe the first issue has been addressed sufficiently well by the courts - I think the courts were right. Others can disagree but disagreement doesn't change anything unless others can show how the courts got it wrong. The second issue is, I believe, the only issue that truly matters at this point. The "it's my property and I should be able to do what I want" statement certainly sounds reasonable...it even sounds patriotic but when examined in detail it is, I believe, unconvincing. It's unconvincing because it really just states an opinion....it's unconvincing because it can (and in many cases was) used to justify any manner of abhorrent, disgusting and even dangerous practices and shows absolutely zero concern for anyone or anyone else s rights; including [u][i]their[/i][/u] property rights.

There are things I'll buy and use if they are made in China or Mexico; food isn't one of those things no matter what brand name is on the package.

[quote name='Raoul' timestamp='1353201511' post='847369']So tell me, is this normal? Not me...the arbitration agreement.[/quote] I'm glad you clarified the question in that you are asking if arbitration agreements are normal. In my spare time, I counsel people having credit problems and in much of the lending world, companies are trying to force arbitration on people as a way to avoid court (both to save costs and because they often lose in court). Arbitration, is not a bad thing. However, many of the arbitration boards are beholding to the very finance companies and businesses they are making decisions about (can anyone say "conflict of interest??). At the end of the day, I would suggest that these agreements don't mean much...if you WANT to take an issue to court you can take an issue to court. However, you did exactly the right thing by walking out...if a car dealer has enough problems that they feel they need you to sign an arbitration agreement; that tells me that this is a dealer you DON'T want to do business with.

[quote name='vontar' timestamp='1353215100' post='847469'] I still find it hard to believe you can go bankrupt selling food in America. [/quote]I think it happens when you can't sell your product for enough of a profit to cover the costs of your union contracts.

[quote name='OhShoot' timestamp='1353210859' post='847436']...Certainly, allowing folks to keep a legal possession in their vehicles is rather minor as far as any kind of legal precedent. It's a mostly emotional argument.[/quote] Yuup...hit the nail square on the head with that one.

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353209246' post='847426']It's a property rights vs. no rights thing.[/quote] Actually, it's about whether a specific governmental regulation, in this case, a regulation regarding firearms in vehicles while the vehicle is parked in a parking lot, violates the Constitution. [quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353209246' post='847426']You do not have a right to be on private property. Doesn't matter one iota if it's my house or Walmart. Period. End of debate.[/quote]Well I think that would be called trespassing and I'm not advocating trespassing so I don't know what debate that ends. [quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353209246' post='847426']So why do you think that a gun somehow magically changes that? Because it's mentioned in a document that has no barring on citizens?[/quote]Not exactly sure what you mean by that statement...I don't think a gun "magically changes" anything. Whether or not Tennessee [u][i][b]should[/b][/i][/u] pass a "parking lot bill" is a debatable issue and one I'm willing to engage in, so, if you have some specific reasons why you think such a law shouldn't be passed then let's talk about them...I see no reason not to have such a law here but I'm not so closed-minded on the issue that I can't change my mind. However, just chanting "property rights"..."property rights" is not debating and it's not a reason to not have such laws; it's just chanting. It's just changing because until you can show how these "parking lot" laws violate the Constitution your chanting is a non-starter because I don't think they do violate the Constitution and the courts don't think so either. If you [i][u][b]can[/b][/u][/i] show how these laws violate the Constitution then I'm sure there are some attorneys who have represented the likes of Whirlpool and ConocoPhillips in these cases who would love to hear from you.

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353201630' post='847370'] Read it again. The Constitution does not grant you the "right" to carry a gun onto private property no more than it grants you the "right" to yell "fire" in a theater. The Constitution keeps the government from infringing on your rights. Not business owners. Not homeowners. Only the government.[/quote] To be accurate, the Constitution never mentions "guns" or "firearms" at all (which is a good thing). Society has the long established right to regulate what can and cannot be done on property or even confiscate property - the only Constitutional argument against such regulations/taking is the takings clause of the 5[sup]th[/sup] amendment. On the issue of firearms in a parked vehicle, society, through the government has determined (in 19 states last time I counted) that states have the right to preclude property owners from restricting firearms in parked vehicles and these laws have survived court challenges. The 10th Circuit specifically :"...[i][font="Calibri","sans-serif"]rejected the employers’ arguments that, as a “property owner,” they could regulate if firearms were stored in employee vehicles. The appeals court ruled, however, that the Oklahoma law could most accurately be “characterized as a restriction on plaintiff’s use of their property.” In short, the appeals court ruled that the employer’s property could be regulated in this manner and withstand constitutional “taking” arguments." [/font][/i] While some throw up the "your second amendment right doesn't trump my private property rights" phrase, that statement is a red hearing because it diverts the argument from the real issue. Tthere is no "trumping” of rights" going on; more to the point, no one who has challenged these laws in court has been able to show any harm/infringement on their rights as property owners from a firearm in a parked vehicle. In other words, no violation of the protection of the 5[sup]th[/sup] amendment. Without such demonstrable infringement, these “parking lot” laws do not violate the Constitution.

On a more important note; I just confirmed that my local Kroger is completely out of all Hostess products.