RobertNashville

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.

And they are allowed to think that and/or call me that but they would be wrong.   I'm not a fascist because I can disagree with someone and still respect, work with or even be very good friends with that person (and some of my very closest friends in the world are light years apart form me on some issues)...a fascist can't do that...it's not enough for them to disagree; a fascist has to silence those who disagree or even expel them (or in the extreme; exterminate).

Based on JayC's post I guess anyone in Tennessee who wants "constitutional carry" should just "man up" and move to a state where it's already a matter of law.  :shrug:

Look at this outrage...   New York Officials Move to Seize WWII Vet’s Property – and With Taxpayer Dollars   http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/21/new-york-officials-move-to-seize-wwii-vets-property-and-with-taxpayer-dollars/    

They are still prosecuted in NY and I'm pretty sure they were in Illinois as well (although maybe not now).

  And those who open carry for the purpose of causing an incident or do so without regard for where/when they will be are also our own worst enemies. I don't have a problem with those who chose to open carry but I do and will continue to have a problem with those who carry to:   Make a "statement", In hopes of making one of those "bed wetters" you mentioned, overact and call 9-1-1, or Who cause a bed wetter/9-1-1 incident (even if that was not their intent) and THEN act all surprised/get bent out of shape because the LEO comes and investigates.   There is nothing noble...nothing to be celebrated when carrying openly causes a problem. We can bemoan the fact that the "bed wetters" are bed wetters but complaining about it will never solve the problem.

Amazon has video service that is similar to Netflix  If you are an Amazon Prime member (yearly fee) you get free 20 day shipping on anything Amazon actually sells you get a huge amount of stuff (movies, tv shows) for free from their video service. You can also rent movies (new releases, etc) from Amazon Video. As with Netflix, you have to have software "somewhere"...my TV has Netflix and Hulu preloaded; I use my PS3 for other services such as Amazon. I'm still struggling with figuring out the best combination for me and then figuring out what to do with my flatscreen in the bedroom as the only thing feeding it right now is my DirectTV service!