RobertNashville

There won't be any winners here.   If the school/teachers take the most cautious approach by getting the kids inside and calling the police and and it turns out to be nothing then they are all "bed wetters"...if they did nothing and those gunshots they heard turned out to be someone who was coming to shoot the school and the kids then everyone would be all over those same teachers for being such idiots for not reacting sooner.   I say, if you are going to err it's a hell of a lot better err on the side of caution; if that makes me a "bed wetter" in the eyes of some then so be it; I've been called far worse LOL

Scorn, contempt, scoff, jeer, mock...pick any word you want...do I really need to quote his many posts in just in this thread where he has done all of those in referencing the "baby steps" we've been taking?   If you read the post I was replying to, Dave was bemoaning the fact that no all Tennessians's get to carry now (i.e we don't have constitutional carry)...I was pointing out that most of the laws against civilian carry stem from racism; white men didn't want black men to be armed so that passed these laws and very selectively enforced them...I don't know how to make it any more clear than that.   I simply don't buy this mantra that anyone's business is being interfered with; it's not enough to just claims that it is. If there were actual interference then these businesses wouldn't have so much trouble articulating and quantifying that alleged interference.

We have the right from our creator to arms to defend ourselves from tyranny whether it be tyranny from government or from an individual and we have that right whether any government recognizes it or not.   Only "some" get to carry in Tennessee, and many other states, mostly because of racism - the desire by certain white men to keep arms out of the hands of certain people with the wrong skin tone...it has taken a long time to start the pendulum swinging back in the correct direction but is is swinging.   If you are dissatisfied with the "speed" of the swing...with those "baby steps" you keep deriding then start spending your days knocking on the doors of and calling, emailing, writhing to our legislators in both houses (if you are already dong that, great...thanks for the effort).

I hope this catches on...   Business with ‘gun-free zone’ signs may be tagged with legal liability       http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/01/14/business-with-gun-free-zone-signs-may-be-tagged-with-legal-liability-94257

There may not be a "question" as far a you are concerned but my study of history surrounding property rights/law shows the that property rights and rights such as free speech or the right to arms have never been treated as equal and that business property has been subject to government regulations for almost as long as the country has been a country.  You can claim it shouldn't be that way if you wish but wishes won't change history.   And more important for today, the courts have already decided that these laws do not violate the 5th...businesses have brought suit and made those arguments and those arguments failed in the courts because the businesses that brought suite could not show how their property has been taken or their use of the property infringed.   Other than in their own minds, the state declaring that business property cannot forbid legally armed citizens from being armed does not violate the businesses rights and until a federal appeals court has an dissenting opinion or SCOTUS says otherwise and then the mantra of "property rights" is moot.   I'm not saying that "property rights" are not important because they ARE important. But I am saying that rights of property owners to own and use their property for private purposes are and should be and always have been afforded more protection than property used for business purposes - society (in the form of government) has the power, the legal authority and the obligation to regulate such property with the best interests of society in mind. To that end, if an armed citizenry is important to and in the best interests of society and the individual (and I believe it is) then government has an obligation to require business and public property to allow legally armed citizens on/in their property especially when such a requirement has little or not demonstrable impact/infringement on the rights of the property owner.  If any business can show me actual, quantifiable harm from being required to allow its employees/customers to be armed then I would come down squarely on the side of the business property owner but so far, not a single business has been able to do that.

I don't believe anyone said otherwise.

Perhaps it's a difference without a distinction (or is that the other way around???) but no, carry is not illegal in Tennessee if you have an HCP; effectively no different than any other law that states something is "illegal" but for enumerated exceptions (as many laws do)   I.e., it is "illegal to commit a homicide" in this state unless the homicide is committed in the course of defending yourself at which point that  homicide is not against illegal. :shrug:

Well, in every OC/CC thread I've ever read those who insist on open carry will say that they have to get people used to it which indicates to me that the fact that people aren't "used to it" is a "problem" they believe they need to solve. That's the "problem" I'm referring to. :shrug:

It's history and law that separates them and history shows that "property rights" and unalienable rights such as the right to bear arms or of free speech are not equal and never have been treated as equal; that is especially true of property used for business.   The only time it is reasonable for an person to give up a natural right (especially one actually protected by the constitution) as a condition of employment is if his exercising that right causes harm or would cause harm to the employer/business requiring it.   If you want to talk about being responsible enough to take responsibility for your actions and if you want to equate property rights and the RTKABA then any property owner that asserts its "property rights" as a basis for forbidding a person arms to provide for his own security and safety should then at least be responsible for their actions enough to be held 100% responsible (criminally and civilly) for that person's safety and security. However, these property owners want it both ways...they want to forbid citizens to be armed and they want no responsibility for the possible consequences. There is no logic that can support that hypocritical position.

No it isn't nor is this just about employers/employees.

That's a good clip...and now we know what a ghost gun is!  :)

I always find these discussions about "property rights" vs RTKABA a bit off point because such discussions are actually talking about not just different "rights" but different kinds of rights.   The right to arms is a natural (God-given) unalienable and individual right. It cannot be granted by government nor should it ever be infringed which is why, I submit, the founders (mostly Madison I believe) used those very words...free men have need of arms to fight tyranny from anyone or any institution that might seek to do them harm be that an individual or a government.   Despite much assertion to the contrary, I would submit that property rights are not and have never been absolute or fixed. Historically, property rights have always been in a state of flux in an attempt to strike a balance between the interests of the property holder and the community at large/society - they have changed over time and will probably continue to do so long after everyone here and many generations hence have assumed room temperature. I suspect that the founders knew this very well which is why we have the takings clause in the 5th amendment...they knew that government (which is a representation of society) would have need to "take" property for the good of society so they provided a mechanism whereby that could happen.   When we talk about property rights of property used for business purposes, the concept of property rights takes on an even broader interpretation of what those "rights" actually are and I would submit, are and should be far more subject to "change" than property used for private purposes. Not only have the concept of property rights been in flux in general, there is even more history of flux with regards to property used for business/where the public (be that customers or employees) are specifically invited to be.  Government has long exercised control over what the property owner of business property can and cannot do on that property on behalf of the good of the broader society.   To sum up, I find all the angst and argument about business property rights vs individual, God-given rights to be unnecessary and somewhat beside the point because if forced into a contest regarding which is more "important", the individual's unalienable rights should always prevail over a businesses' property rights. The only truly relevant factor in that comparison that could tip the scales in the businesses' favor is if the business can substantiate that they will incur real harm if forced to forgo its rights in favor of the individual (i.e. can they substantiate that their business will suffer financially if they "allow" arms on the property, etc.).  Short of that, the individual's rights should prevail.   I'm sure many won't agree with me but that's okay.

We'll that's good but begs the question about what prompted the original report!

"University of Oklahoma police tell Fox News that the school is on lockdown after reports of shots being fired.   “Shooting on campus. Avoid Gould Hall. Seek immediate shelter in place,” read a tweet from the school’s official account. There are no immediate reports of injuries."   LINK: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/22/police-investigating-reports-shots-fired-at-university-oklahoma/

Except one should neither be surprised nor take umbrage if someone calls 9-1-1 to report a "man with a gun" and the police do their duty by responding and investigating. If, during their investigation, a citizen's rights are violated that is a matter for the courts yet it often seems as if the person being investigated want to argue the Constitution on the sidewalk. :shake:

While I agree with your entire post, I think perhaps the most salient and irrefutable thing you said and said so well is the above.   When a business invites someone (employee, customer, etc.) onto their property it is unconscionable that the business/property owner can simultaneously deny that invited person his right to arms to resist tyranny (the tyranny of any who might seek to do him harm) yet also refuse to take responsibility for providing that protection from tyranny.  If a business wants to forbid arms to those they invite onto their property they should at least be held 100% liable for protecting that invited person's life and should be required to expend whatever financial resources are necessary to do do or be denied the license to conduct their business and held civilly and criminally liable for their negligence.   The right to arms, wherever and whenever we go is the singular distinction between a Free Man and a slave.  Any law or any person who supports a law that infringes on the right to arms is no friend of liberty.

Not sure where you are going with that.   I'm not opposed to constitutional carry but it will only work to our benefit if the HCP process is left in place. Hoping that the federal government will back off and/or that states would eventually sanction CC for either their residents or non-residents/travelers is likely a false hope or at best would be decades in coming.   And no, equating what JayC is saying with Reagan said is just ridiculous.

According to some FedEx employees I've know FedEx searches on a regular basis and I know of several that have happened at other companies, including one I worked for...for the most part I doubt they happen often but the absolutely happen...I was even expected to submit to a pat-down once by a "security guard" who were looking for cell phones (when it was against "company policy" to have cell phones with cameras on them"!

I always find it interesting when someone (you and at least one other springs to mind) seem so hostile to Tennessee's HCP system. For me, it always begs a few questions such as...   Do you possess an HCP yourself? If you do possess an HCP why would you have one given that you seem hostile to the system? What do you propose we have instead of an HCP system if anything? If your answer is "constitutional carry" do you really want to reduce Tennessee residents from being able to carry in almost every state in the union to just two or three? Personally, I think all this feigned indignation about HCPs and "protected classes" of firearm owners is just rhetoric without any real substance behind it.

Perhaps but where I see the emotion and passion is in regards to those who's choice of carry method causes a problem; most especially those who do it for the purpose of causing a problem.

This is "business" property we're discussing here. Until the business owner can articulate and support a valid business reason for attempting to control the contents of of a vehicle parked in a parking lot all the talk about "rights" is a distraction - A distraction to obscure the fact that these opponents have no valid business reasons for wanting to control the contents of a person's private vehicle.

It sure does.   There is no reason nor any Constitutionally protected "right" that would or should allow a parking lot owner to dictate the legally owned and legally transported contents of an individual's property (his/her vehicle).

Really? So being opposed to open carry or at least opposed to open carry based on where and when someone is supposed be is worse than anti-gun groups who want to destroy all civilian owned firearms. LOL

I ain't talking about "hot dogs" but if that's what's important to you then I guess there would be no reason to go.

Yuup. NYC, Chicago and many other places do have wonderful and intriguing and thought-provoking things to see and do. There are plenty of things I'd really like to see in NYC (aside from the airport where I've been multiple times) but I don't feel very welcome there and likely will never see.