RobertNashville

I replied to your PM.

I am not confused...your opinion is not "fact" no matter how often or how loudly you say otherwise. Further, I know an insult when I read one and the examples of your insults in this thread are a few of many spread over several of the threads you've participated in lately. Any of us, if we aren't careful, can slip into the pool of denigrating comments toward those we disagree with...you, however, seem to jump into that pool purposely, often and quite willfully.

No PM needed. I would also point out that you were the one who brought it up!

Well said, but I would expect that such logic is going to be lost on some here. The good news is that this bill (or at least something like it) has a legitimate chance of passage and becoming law despite the pontifications about businesses' "property rights" even to the extent of trying to control the contents of the privately owned vehicles of their employees parked in their parking lots...employees, I might add, who have been requested to work there.

No...I'm not wrong at all...you just don't like what I said. Perhaps you are the one confused at least it would seem that you are if you can't tell the difference between something being "wrong" and someone holding a different position than you hold. You are also apparently a bit forgetful since you earlier called HCP holders selfish than said you didn't and now you are back to calling others selfish again and even lazy. Is your argument so weak that you can't make your argument without insulting people or is insulting people just something you regularly do?

As has been already said multiple times, you don't need a HCP to own firearms and to have them on your property (or to transport them for the most part). More importantly, my understanding of Tennessee law is that inside your home, you have the absolute presumption that an uninvited intruder IS a threat and you can defend yourself with deadly force. I would add, however, that common sense is your friend here...3AM and a guy in dark cloths and a ski mask is different than 3PM and a guy carrying a tool box and wearing what you might expect a plumber to wear.

Somewhat right but mostly wrong and most certainly missing the point. First, the employer is not just exercising his ability to control the employer's property; that employer is, at least indirectly, extending his control to the employee's property by declaring what that employee can and cannot have inside his privately owned vehicle. It is true that an employer is not directly disarming a person on his commute (and anywhere that person might go after leaving home/before returning home), but that employer's decision has exactly that effect and that effect, I would submit, it precisely why this bill has been proposed.

Far be it from me to supportstrickj's position but, just as a point of clarification, while it's quite true that it is not part of the constitution, I believe you'll find that the Declaration of Independence is U.S. law and is codified in the U.S. Code along with all the other original documents that create the country including the Constitution.

This is directed to all and no one in particular. I've enjoyed our little debate...I don't think anyone's mind has been changed here but that's okay. What I've tried to convey is this (whether anyone agrees with me or not that's fine too). ... I do not, for reasons already stated, believe that a business has the same rights as a person for the simple reason that a business isn't a person. However, regardless of whether a "business" has or doesn't have the same "rights" (and I'm speaking here mostly in terms of property rights) as an individual, I think what most people can recognize is that when property used and/or owned by a business is used for business purposes (as opposed to private uses such as a residence, etc.); it is looked upon differently by both society in general and government in particular. To me; that simple truth seems inescapable. Whether anybody likes it or not, government (and I'm using "government" in the generic sense) imposes many, many, many rules and regulations on what that business can and can't do and how it can do it. Many of the rules that businesses must comply with didn't exist a few decades ago but they exist today because "society" has determined that they need to exist. I see a "parking lot/firearms requirement" imposed on business as no different, in concept, than a requirement that a business must pay time and a half for overtime or that it cannot allow smoking on its property (if it's a restaurant) or that is must have "X" number of toilets based on the capacity of the building, etc. Therefore, if government decides that it is in the best interest of society that those who can legally carry a loaded firearm in their vehicle should not be restricted from doing so by an employer (so long as the firearm remains in the vehicle) then I've no doubt that the sate not only can establish that requirement but that, for the overall benefit of society, it should do so. Would such a requirement be an "infringement" on the "property rights" of a business? In my opinion, no (because for reasons already stated, I do not believe that a business has "rights' save for those granted by the government). But even if businesses have "rights" and even if it is an infringement, it seems an inconsequential one to me and one that is significantly outweighed by the benefit to society when good, law-abiding citizens arm themselves and are afforded the opportunity to carry as much and as often and in as many places as possible. Now...I'm done...hopefully with the start of a new week we can get back to discussing something useful like open vs concealed carry.

If you think government can't dictate the rules then maybe you should read the Tennessee Code, EEOC laws and any number of other local, state and federal laws regarding what a business owner can and cannot do. Or...you could try hanging up a sign on the entrance to your store that says "NO WOMEN ALLOWED" then get back to us and let us know how that works out for you. ROTFLMAO

Your rights to your private property used for private purposes are wholly different and more extensive than property used for business and especially so if the business is open to the public. More importantly, your private property rights for property used private are not what the parking lot bill is about. A business can only "dictate the rules" until government dictates otherwise...a business's "authority" only goes as far as the government allows it to go.

To refuse to acknowledge the stark difference between private property used for private purposes and "private property" that is used for business and open to the public is obtuse. Whatever you think about a business being an artificial entity; the stark reality is that the laws of the land treat those two types of property very differently. This started because you asked me how a business is an artificial entity...I answered you...you don't agree. That's fine; but your agreement or lack of agreement changes nothing...your continued proclamations that that businesses aren't artificial constructs are just that, proclamations. You own a business...that's nice. But you have no RIGHT to have a business and a business has no right to exist apart from government permission/approval (which usually entails at least a business license issued by the city/county it operates in) and if you are incorporated (for profit, not for profit, charitable, LLC, S-Corp or any other form of corporation) then that corporation exists because the government created the entity. Whether you believe that tor not is irrelevant. And if you need proof of that GOOGLE is your friend. EDIT: By the way, the "business is faceless" BS is your term...I never used it so why should it be incumbent on my to "prove" something I never said in the first place?

What is truly silly is when people ascribe "humanity" and "human rights" to an artificial construct. Further, you misstate my argument...I have NOT said that a business entity "has no rights"...what I have said is that a business, as a creation of government, has not rights except what that government allows it to have. Maybe you don't see the distinction but the distinction is there and it is significant when discussing what power a legislature has to place requirements on businesses and how/when/if they can use business-owned property. So what? If the state legislature decides that people should be allowed to take outside food into a theater unrestricted or that anybody could say anything they wanted on TGO or do whatever on whatever "private property open to the public" they wanted to do then it has the power to do that...and I'm suggesting that one of the reasons it has that power is because a business is not a "person". In your opinion...and your opinion in my opinion is wrong. A business can own property only because the state says it can. A business can conduct their business in any way they want - only as long as they follow the rules established by the state...rules that state can change it wants to do so. A business may be owned by an individual or may be owned by tens of thousands of individuals and/or investment houses and/or any number of people or other artificial entities. And it most certainly does make a difference whether a business is "open to the public" or not...the rules chance in what a business can/can't do and how/when it can do it dependent on any number of things include whether it is open to the public and what its "business" happens to be. No only can and do the rules change for a business that is "open to the public", the rules also change for a person when they are in public. That's your opinion...it is not fact just because you say it is. There may or may not be only "private" or "public property" but you ignore how the rules can and do change depending on how that property is being used...who is using it...and for what purpose. I realize you want to hang your hat on the fact that "people" own businesses but that argument is a non-starter...it's moot...because businesses, regardless of "ownership", can only exist because the government creates it and allows it to exist..without government permission and government creating the actual business entity, there could be no business for a "person/people" to own. A business can only own property and can only use property because government allows it to do so. A business can only use that property it is allowed to own for the purposes that government allows and in the manner the government allows. You can say that "ain't so" or you can wish it "ain't so" until you are blue in the face but at the end of the day, that won't change anything. If government does have the power I say it has then it most certainly has the power to require businesses to allow legally carried firearms to be allowed in a locked vehicle that is parked in its parking lot and frankly, I hope the government does make that demand.

This is something we can, at least mostly, agree on...I think, with certain exceptions perhaps, most felons should regain most and perhaps even all of the rights they "lost" once it's been deemed that they've paid their "debt" to society. If we do believe in the concept that a criminal CAN repay his debt...the harm he once caused to society, then it only seems fair that they be fully returned to the status and rights of all other citizens.

I draw and I submit that society draws a distinction between private property used for private purposes and property owned/controlled by a business; especially that part of the property that is purposely open to the "public" such as a parking lot (whether that "public" is made up of employees or customers). Even with that distinction I'm drawing and even if, as I suggest, that a business did not automatically have the same rights as a "person"; I still struggle with the imposition of government on a property owner...I do believe that property rights are fundamental to a free society and must be protected. However, the benefit to society must also be considered (and our system does allow for this concept)...in my opinion and it's only my opinion, the imposition on a business being required to allow legally carried firearms to remain inside employee/customer vehicles while parked in a parking lot is smaller than the potential benefit to those employees and society at large for them to be armed in commuting to/from (and wherever else thy may go either before they arrive or after they leave that parking lot).

Of course businesses are owned by "people" (or owned by other businesses that are owned by people or in somse cases, governments). However, the business entity (ownership aside) only exists at government discretion...it cannot exist...it cannot be brought into being without the permission of government (generally a state) and the business entity is artificial by any test it would be reasonable to use to identify it as such...it has no life...I suppose if you looked at it from a religions perspective one would say that it is not a being designed in the image of God...it has no "soul". I would submit that your question itself proves the artificiality of a business and its lack of inalienable rights...no person, at least in the United States, can "own" another person...because a person DOES have inalienable rights that are not and can not be granted by any government. The fact that a business IS owned (by someone) proves that is it not a "person" and does not have the rights afforded to a person except for the rights that the government decides it can have.

Yes...I said that is the HCP process put in place by the State of Tennessee. Do you think that what I state is not what people think it does and/or what the legislature was told it would do? Nothing in that statement was to suggest that it was effective at it but I think that what I described IS the perception of it which WAS my point.

I'm not even close to agreeing...except as specifically prohibited from doing so, a legislature can force a business owner or anybody else to do whatever it deems appropriate and a benefit to society. I would suggest most of the laws we live under and businesses operate under have little or nothing to do with "rights"; it's simply what society has demanded or the legislature thinks society has demanded. Moreover, unless someone can prove me wrong, I simply do not accept that a "business" is entitled to ANY rights save those which the government allows it to have. A "business" is not a person....it's an artificial entity "created" by governments...and the governments that create businesses can tell those businesses exactly what they have to do and what they have to allow. Certainly, it's in everybody's (government, business, people's) best interest that businesses exist and be allowed to operate with at little restriction/interference as possible while balancing the needs of society. But, I reject this notion that government's "can't" impose its will on a business. And no one is shoving anything down anybody's throat...passing the Dalia Bamm's health care behind closed doors with no one having read the bill before being required to vote and in spite of the fact that a majority of the country didn't want it...that's "shoving if down" some throats. This bill is simply a proposal...I'm also sure that the reason it specifically applies to HCP holders is to make more palatable to enough of the legislature to get support. I'm sure everybody with an interest will have a chance to make their thoughts known...they might even read it and be able to understand it.

Humm....maybe my posts are really unclear as you keep ascribing to me words I've never said and positions I've never taken. I've never claimed that the HCP process was effective at keeping criminals from getting guns. Not only have I not and do I not claim it's effective at doing so, that's not even the purpose of the HCP process.

So are you suggesting that there should be and/or are you opposed to the private sale/transfer of firearms between individuals?

Please tell me precisely WHERE I've call any of this a RIGHT? Either you are purposely putting words in my mouth to bolster your argument or you are VERY confused. And by the way; receiving a benefit/compensation for expended effort is not "special"; it's just appropriate and to a large extent, what the very concept of a free market system is based on. If you truly don't believe that then I would assume that whoever you work for, you do so for free out of the kindness of your heart, correct?

I'm wondering if you are confusing my posts with someone else? I've not used the word "right" in this discussion; at least not in the way you are suggesting. As to criminals buying guns "openly"...I'm not sure what you are referring to here...I suspect a lot of weapons in the hands of criminals are at least as likely stolen as bought anywhere and if they are buying them, openly or otherwise, they are doing so illegally (and if people are knowingly selling guns to those who can't legally own them then they are no less criminals than the criminals doing the buying). All of which is besides the point since "criminals" don't usually apply for HCP nor do they generally try to buy guns legally and have to go through a background check. However, our legislature and the public at large probably feel a lot better about people who carry since thy know that THOSE people have gone though a background check. As such, it's served its purpose. In any case, I wasn't debating the effectiveness of the HCP system...it exists because without it no citizen could carry...it exists because to have gotten the legislature to to allow citizens to carry without such a process would have been impossible. How effective it is in living up to its sales pitch is far less important the the simple fact that it exists. I'm sorry it's "expeisive" for some people or even out of the financial reach for some people...I wish it were less expensive but even if it cost half what it does now, that would probably be too expensive for some. Life is almost never fair...most people can't afford an Infiniti or a Cadillac...some can't afford a car at all...that's the way life is sometimes. I feel sorry for women who are running from abusive husbands but I'm not responsible for their situation and I fail to see what any of that has to do with a parking lot bill anyway. We've got the HCP process...period. It's highly unlikely that any expansion of our carry options are going to come without first getting it for HCP holders because that concept is going to be a hell of a lot easier to "sell" to those legislators who might unsure how to vote than it would ever be to get an "all or nothing" bill passed as some suggest.

Oh really? It's selfish to expect to receive compensation or a benefit for effort expended? I suppose you think it's selfish for expecting an employer to pay me for the work I do as well? Have you not heard of the phrase "those who will not work shall not eat". If me expectations of receiving benefits for the activity I'm involved in are selfish then what is the correct term for expecting benefits for doing nothing to secure them?

Actually, many federal laws regarding hiring/firing apply to all businesses (at least once they reach a predetermined size) and do so whether the employer ever has a government contract. That isn't to say there aren't more requirements if a business does have government contracts! I hope we aren't going to move to class warfare here...the HCP process isn't inexpensive but you certainly don't have to be rich to go through the process. I would say that if you can afford to own a handgun you ought to be able to afford to go through the HCP process. In any case, it's not about "special rights"...the HCP systems is simply the process the State of Tennessee has put in place to (hopefully) weed out those who perhaps should not carry a gun on their person in public (or perhaps even legally own one). As was also, and I think quite correctly pointed out earlier, it's usually the efforts of folks like HCP holders that have expanded and continue to work to expand our carry options so why shouldn't those who have worked hard to get here enjoy some options that those who haven't gone through the process don't get? Of course, some folks seem to think that makes us selfish. Parts of Nissan's property is designated as a foreign trade zone. However, only certain areas are in that trade zone (and I don't believe the parking lots are, one reason is that they are open to the public) - even if the the lots are part of the trade zone, the specifics deal with removing property without paying proper duty/taxes, etc...unless there is some obscure federal law regarding firearms in a foreign trade zone then I don't believe there would be a conflict.

You've said this before and what is absurd is that you apparently don't understand that an employer already doesn't have the "ability" (meaning they have no authority) to search an employee's car. An employer can ask...an employee can say yes or no. That is precisely one of the primary provisions of the bill you've been railing against and said you won't support...have you now changed your mind or are you just forgetting what side of the issue you are on?