RobertNashville

One week away folks, I hope some of you can come! If so, please send me PM so I know to expect you and/or if you have any questions at all!

I think most of us know that's absolutely true when it comes to hard-line "Brady Bunch types. However, such vehement anti-gun folks aren't the majority of people (at least not yet). There are still folks out there who, if presented the facts and the arguments in the right way, still have the capacity to use their brains and see the fallacy of all "gun control legislation". Then again, considering how many pro-gun folks actually think background checks accomplish anything good, maybe we've already lost the argument!

Also for all to see is the similarity between businesses having rules and laws imposed on them (be they zoning, OSHA, ADA, or any other) and a "parking lot bill" being imposed on them..claiming their is no similarity as you did is a claim that just doesn't seem to have any substance.

I think your comparison is flawed...flawed because of a disparity in impact between the two and flawed because of the disparity of underlying facts and evidence; the "validity" of the argument. IMPACT on RIGHTS: You've already said that "Honestly, I see plenty of good in it as well and I don't see any burdens to businesses in that aspect either...." You seem to agree that in the case of a firearm left in a locked vehicle, any loss of a business' "property rights" is minimal at most. However, the impact to a HCP holder when the "anti-gun folks" restrict our right to go armed, the impact on us is much larger; it can even have devastating impact on us should one of those restrictions place us in an environment where we are in a gunfight without a gun. VALIDITY of the ARGUMENT: The fact that both "sides" may use the "for the greater good" argument doesn't mean that the argument isn't valid. As I said above, the restriction of no firearms in our vehicle, even because of one parking lot we might have to park in, can have devastating impact on us should such a restriction place us in an environment where we are in a gunfight without a gun. Our need to be armed is valid because we can show it's valid in any number of ways, even as simply as looking in today's newspaper...we have facts and history on our side...we can show that an armed public is a good thing...that it decreases crime...that it truly is for the "greater good". On the other hand, the "anti-gun" folks base their arguments on emotion and rhetoric and very little if any facts. Their arguments have been such things as "wild west shootouts" and "drunken gunfights" and the like...they have little and in most cases NO facts to back up their claims and their arguments are baseless...they are invalid. They may claim it's for the "greater good" but the claim is meaningless because it's simple not true (I'm not casting doubts on their sincerity...they may well think...they may well believe their "greater good" claim is true). You may see a "similarity" in the arguments of the two groups but the similarity not material; no more material that noting that a Ferrari F1 and a Ford Pinto are both "cars".

I have no knowledge of your or cmimpsonaudio's "business" so I've no idea what rules and regulations apply or don't apply to you but I wasn't referring to any particular business. I'm also not talking about tainted chicken or singling out any specific set of rules/regulations for that matter - I'm referring to "businesses" and "rules and regulations" placed on businesses in general. I understand that not all laws and regulations apply to all businesses. My point is and where I draw the similarity is that all the laws and regulations that place requirements on a business constitute a burden on that businesses but society has decided that the need for those rules and regulations...the "benefit" to society; is more important than the burden placed on the businesses the rules apply to. I see these "parking lot bills" as being no different in that regard than any of these other laws and regulations that already exist. Just as with all these other laws, if society, as expressed by the legislature, feels that the benefit to society of a "parking lot bill" outweighs whatever burden such a law would place on an employer, then there is certainly precedence for putting that law into place, even if it mildly violates those businesses' "private property rights".

I think I knew all that and while I haven't checked any facts/figures, I agree with your post but that doesn't really answer my question (or perhaps I posed it poorly). For the most part, I am allowed to carry anywhere that isn't posted (with specific exceptions of course). Yes, I do agree that posted or not, the property owner can still ask the armed citizen to leave and if he doesn't, he can then be arrested/charged with trespass. However, when it comes to "employers" and "employees" this seems a much more nebulous situation...they have a "policy" but don't post...they enforce and they enforce this policy with threat of termination. That seems at least inconsistent with what most businesses are required to do under sate law. I suppose it's six one half-a-dozen of another but most businesses (restaurants, bars, etc) have to post to enforce their "policy"; it just seems reasonable to me that an employer should be required to post well. Anyway...thanks for your post.

I think a case could be made that such laws (above) and these proposed "parking lot" bills have significant similarities. Don't such laws as "food safety", OSHA, ADA, etc. exist because society (the government) has decided, rightly or wrongly, that these laws and the requirements/restrictions they place on businesses are important enough to the "public good" or "public welfare" that the burden they place on businesses need to be subservient to that public good? If so, then could not the "public good" argument apply equally well to these "parking lot" bills? I certainly think that it's not only in my own best interests but that it's in the best interests of society in general that good, decent, law-abiding people like me...like you...like many others, be able to carry a firearm away from our homes. If it is in the best interest of the public at large then why should society not place this additional requirement on businesses just as they have with "food safety, OSHO, and the rest? Perhaps such a restriction is a violation of a businesses' "private property rights" but is leaving a firearm in a parked and locked vehicle really so much of a burden for a business? I think the "good" to be gained from a parking lot bill far outweighs any burden that such a law would place on a business; in fact, I don't see how there is any real burden on the business at all...but that's just my opinion.

While we are on this subject... As of last summer, the state of Tennessee has told businesses (including those that serve alcohol) that they either... 1) must allow HCP holders to carry in their establishments, OR 2) they must properly post their places of business. Why does this requirement not apply to ALL businesses equally? By that I mean, why is an "employer" allowed to restrict firearm carry (even to the point of the firearm being left in a locked vehicle) simply with "company policy" rather than being required to post all their property like any bar, restaurant or store has to do? This difference seems like a glaring inconsistency to me.

Maybe we are only discussing semantics here but please bear with me. As I understand contract law; the employer does not have a "right" to do anything with regards to my private property or my person...the only thing they have is my permission (in this case, to search my vehicle or my briefcase etc) which I have voluntarily given to them as a condition of employment. What I'm saying is, permission is not the same thing as a right...to me, saying they have a right to do something implies that no permission from me is necessary. Just because I've previously and voluntarily given my permission for a search of my vehicle, I can, just as voluntarily, rescind such permission can I not? Unlike a law enforcement officer who can search my vehicle without my consent (assuming of course they have just cause); the one and only thing my employer has the power to do if I don't let them search my vehicle is to fire me. Again, maybe this is just semantics but I see a significant difference between an employer having a "right" to do something vs an employer having and needing my permission to do something.

If I'm mistaken please tell me but to the best of my knowledge, no one but law enforcement has the power to compel a search of my vehicle and only then with proper cause to do so. Is that not because or our Constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure? If there is some other law that applies here, please let me know or if you think an employer does have the right to search my vehicle without consent, feel free to elaborate. I wasn't trying to insult; sorry if you took it that way...I just find it odd that this issue raises such a fuss from pro-gun folks.

As I said above, there may be; perhaps almost certainly will be repercussions to not consenting to a search but an employee always retains the right to refuse; were that not so, an employer would not need to ask you to "agree" as a "condition of employment" in the first place. Regardless of what an employee may or may not have agreed to when they took the job or anytime after taking the job, that employee can always change their mind...a contract voluntarily entered into can be voluntarily withdrawn from by either party; such agreements don't simply go on to infinity. Changing their mind...denying the search of the vehicle may mean termination; it might even guarantee termination, but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to deny permission to search. Only law enforcement and only with probable cause (or a search warrant) can compel a search of a vehicle.

Well, I was just carrying your statement to what seems like a logical extension. Frankly, I believe your statement is, at best, inaccurate…were it accurate then an employer would have the right to search a privately vehicle without permission of the owner; I suspect we both know that they don’t’ have that right. They must ask for permission and the person who owns the vehicle decides to give or not give permission. Of course, there can be repercussions (required to leave the premises; termination of employment, etc.) but to say that the U.S. Constitution only applies to government is simply not true. No I don't think it makes sense but I'm not and no one is suggesting that people should be allowed to "carry anything" on our person and walking onto a factory floor or inside an office building. I think most people know that an inanimate object that is perfectly legal to possess and have in a vehicle is not going to have any impact on anyone…there simply is no burden placed on a business simply because someone has something in their vehicle that the business doesn't want there. I haven't heard (read) anyone here here and none of these bills are proposing that businesses should be forced to allow these objects to be brought into their buildings/office spaces, etc. All this chest-thumping about private property rights seems like dramatic posturing to me and makes about as much sense as the Brady Bunch wanting to ban “assault clips” as a response to the Tucson shooting.

By extension then, does that also mean that I don't have the "right to life" while on "private property"??? Just asking. I suppose you can kick me off your land for any reason you chose...but why should you have the right to dictate what is inside of my private property? Why should an employer's "right" cross the door jam of my vehicle? If an employer's "private property rights" are so inviolate; how about we at least have a little reciprocity??? I was taught that with "rights" comes responsibility but it seems to me that employers like the "rights' part of the equation but have very little enthusiasm for taking on any responsibility. If my employer has the absolute right to control what I have inside of my vehicle then, along with that absolute right of control over my vehicle should they not also have to assume absolute responsibility for anything that happens to that vehicle while it's parked on their property? Employers are quick to tell their employees that they can't have a firearm in their locked vehicle and claim it's their "private property rights" to do so but let someone plow into that vehicle at 30MPH while it's parked on "their" parking lot; causing tens of thousands of $$$ damage, and that employer will be VERY quick to proclaim that the vehicle is NOT THEIR PROPERTY and refuse any responsibility for repairs. That seems a bit unfair to me.

Unless you've either conducted your own unbiased scientific studies or can quote such studies that already exist, your "majority" and "many, many other pro-gun people who don't like this bill" is nothing more that a baseless assertion but I guess that's all that needed as a basis for an argument on an internet forum.

I was being sarcastic but I'm not sure that you are.

What "majority of us" would that be, exactly??? I've no doubt that a "majority" of business that don't allow firearms on their property now don't want a "parking lot bill" to pass...but I have real doubts that anything close to a majority of the pro-firearms public in Tennessee are against such a bill. I've also no doubt that a FedEX or a UPS, etc who don't want such a bill passed have a hell of a lot more influence with the legislature than you or me or Crimpsonaudio or thousands like us. For those who are adamant that a "business" should not be required to allow certain inanimate objects (i.e. a legally possessed firearms) be in privately owned vehicles while those vehicles are parked, at the business's invitation, in the business's parking lots; then how about we at least require that such businesses properly post their property...this cowardly "company policy" bulls**t is exactly that, cowardly bulls**t...if my firearm is not welcome then at least have the guts to say so in a public way. Hiding behind "company policy" reminds me of Randy Rayburn who, while anti-gun, didn't want to have to post his restaurants and publicly reveal his convictions.

Careful...if the Brady Bunch hears that bit of logic then their next step will be to ban the existence of ALL places (including on our own private property) where people can practice with their weapons...after all...it's for the children.

I've had a very, shall I say..."interesting" discussion about this subject with a couple of liberal Democrat friends of mine. These are really great people whom I consider very good friends but I must say, they have a remarkable ability to completely ignore all logic and reason when it comes to firearms and criminals and what to do about them!

Actually, Visa and Master Card debit cards have the exact same protections as a "credit card". Banks who issue debit cards sometimes have to be "reminded" of this rather forcefully (i.e.with a lawsuit) but the protections are there nevertheless. Other than food, I buy about 90% of my things online but I generally use a third party for the transaction...I have also used "one time" Visa numbers where the number is only good for that one, single purchase and then is never available again/tied to any actual account of mine. That said, as has been mentioned, ID Theft is the much bigger problem and we can thank our "online" society and most especially, the never ceasing push of providing credit quickly and easily for much of this problem...in making it easy for us to go into debt (i.e. our credit reports being easily obtained in seconds) and for the sake of convenience, we've also made it very easy for scum to pretend to be us. The sad part is, so much of our information that we consider "private" is in the public domain and is now available online to any/all who know how to find it meaning that there is very little we can really do to avoid that exposure. I use Lifelock to provide some protection but like my security system at home; it's a deterrent but not a perfect shield - we have to constantly monitor our records/reports to ensure we aren't a victim/respond quickly if we have been victimized.

Lifestyle, genes, cosmic dust...I don't care what makes someone homosexual or heterosexual...how about we just do away with all benefits government bestows on "married couples"? If that wont' fly then as I already said earlier that I've no problem with "civil unions". I am also all for doing away with any special tax benefits/breaks for "married couples" or any other group...regardless of whether it's the "fair tax" a flat tax or whatever; tax policy should be about collecting taxes, not manipulating social policy.

I agree but I don't think anyone here was suggesting otherwise...I think the point of departure is when any class of people want "more rights" than another. People need to be treated equally but no one deserves to be treated as a special class.

Good guess...it was, in fact, my representative (Rick Womick)! I'm not the least bit surprised at nothing from Speaker Harwell...wasn't really expecting anything from Ron Ramsey but I know from speaking with him in times past that I don't think he would ever be a problem anyway. Senator Ketron was a bit of a disappointment, however as he/his office has always been very good in the past about responding to contact...it's usually almost immediate!

Obviously your wife is a very intelligent woman.

Perhaps it's time to get rid of the "extra laws". I've nothing against civil unions or "domestic partnerships" but "marriage" is a concept rooted in religion. I don't think it's an issue that the Federal government should even involved in. Even civil unions are rather unnecessary...proper legal contracts can "grant" pretty much any significant benefit that a "marriage" license can (property/equity rights, etc.). Most people could not care less whether someone is or isn't homosexual - where problems often begin is when homosexuals (usually "activists") start throwing their sexuality into the faces of others which is often followed by not just demands for "acceptance" by heterosexuals but dictates regarding what others are supposed to "think" about homosexuals.

I am as conservative as they come and I absolutely believe in and am a proponent of "homosexual rights" - the same rights enumerated in the Constitution. Other than that they don't deserve nor does anyone deserve "special rights".