RobertNashville

Oh really??? So you didn't say... You didn't use the word "all" but you most certainly didn't offer any qualifier to indicate that you ment anything other than "all". So if not "all"; which ones, exactly? Would that be everyone but you (because you are passing yourself off as some champion for "all gun owners")??? Perhaps you should either be more precise in the future or if you are going to make bull statements at least own up to them. As was pointed out earlier, a lot (in fact I'd suggest the majority) of "gun owners" don't lift a finger to secure or improve the gun related laws we live under...if they aren't willing to do any of the heavy lifting I see no reason why they should get to enjoy "equal treatment".

I'm sorry to say that it doesn't look as if I'm going to make it; at least not before most everyone will probably be ready to leave. I'm going to have to spend at least most of the morning on Saturday working. Thankfully; I'll be able to do it from home but it still means I couldn't leave until at least late Saturday morning (central time).

I think our primary difference is that I simply do not (and I do not believe society or the government) believe that an artificial entity has the same rights to "property" as a person...one is a creation of government and one is not..."rights" enjoyed by an artificial entity such as a corporation are only available because the government grants them. If that is a true statement then it follows that a government can take such rights away or modify them. I would think that if such were not the case, virtually any law affecting a corporation/business "property" in any way would never pass constitutional scrutiny. I suppose I also have a bit more empathy for the private property rights of a business if so many businesses actually posted their property rather than simply make it a matter of "policy"...not posting seems almost cowardly to me. If keeping firearms off their property, including inside my locked private vehicle were really that important to them then they ought to be willing to post their property as we would expect any other business to do.

I see a significant difference between private property used by an individual and for private purposes (my driveway and your truck at 3AM) and property that is being used for/open to the public (whether that "public" is made up of employees or of customers of the business). I see an even larger distinction if the property owner isn't a person at all but an artificial entity such as a corporation - such an entity doesn't even have a right to exist at all except at the pleasure of the state and no other "rights" except those afforded it by the state. I would also say that existing law and the way business is regulated would tend to support that distinction as there are many federal, state, and local laws that has either direct or indirect control over what a business can and can't do as well as how it can do it. In the case of a "parking lot bill", I would offer that the benefit to society and people in general to be able to provide for their own protection is sufficient for the state to say that a parking lot can't be placed "off limits" and most especially so by mere "policy" rather than by actually posting. Keep in mind that a company's "policy" against firearms even in their parking lots effectively disarms a person not just for the time their vehicle is parked but for their entire commute to and from and anywhere else the person might need to go in between...in other words, an employer's "no firearms policy" extends far beyond the confines of their parking lot. I am a strong supporter of property rights but in my opinion, a "parking lot" bill isn't an undue burden on an employer/business...it simply isn't a significant infringement on a business's property rights...no one is saying they must allow firearms within their facility proper and a legally carried firearm sitting in a person's private vehicle isn't a threat to anyone or any one's property rights especially since the firearm would be sitting inside my private property (although if my firearm started yelling as loud as it could at 3AM then that might be a different matter).

Since this is "all about money"...I wonder how much the State of Tennessee is losing in fees and taxes from people conducting private sales? While I boufht a couple of guns last year from a dealer, I bought several others (and sold a few) privately...I didn't do so specifically to avoid the taxes and background check fee but it sure didn't bother me any that I DID avoid the taxes and fee.

No vehicle of any configuration will do well when there is a lack of traction; especially if the lack of traction is due to ice! As a general rule; a front wheel drive vehicle will do better than a rear wheel drive vehicile. A four wheel drive vehicle will do better than a two wheel drive regardless of which to wheels are doing the driving. An intelligent four wheel (all wheel) drive system will usually do better yet. Adding chains should always help some (and some areas of the country REQUIRE them for some roads)....also, the type of tires you have on the vehicle will have an impact (sometimes a significant impact) on how well a vehicle can do in snow. Overall...shame of you for buying a two wheel drive SUV!!!

Amen I think DRM just want's to argue...you don't have to read very many of his post in the the recent thread where the subject of employees keeping their firearms in their locked vehicles in company parking lots came up before you realize that he doesn't really want a business' employees or customers to be able to keep a firearm in their vehicle while parked in a parking lot...this sudden and overwhelming concern for the "average"/non-HCP holder firearm owner rings VERY hollow. I think this prior post (below) makes his real position pretty clear... It seems clear from the above that DRM feels that property rights trump all others...that while he feels employees can leave firearms in their vehicles, he thinks they should or at least can be fired for doing so. Given the above, I doubt that there can be a parking lot bill that Mr. DRM would support; especially if it only applies to us selfish HCP holders! ROTFLMAO

First of all, just where the hell do you get off calling all HCP holders selfish? Do you have some clairvoyant powers that you haven't told us about? Do you have some insider knowledge about the author of this bill that supports your ridiculous insult or are you just talking out of your back side? I'm sorry that you seem to have such a lack of understating of the political process. I wonder if, when you play poker, you keep your cards face up on the table so your opponents know what's in your hand (because that is effectively what you are suggesting this bill and bills like it ought to do)??? Let me offer some some common sense. Although it apparently disgusts you; we have an HCP process which now has substantial history behind it to show that those who carry are responsible, law-abiding citizens. Even those who don't especially like guns (or even hate them) have a difficult hurdle to climb over in arguing with the facts that we haven't had the "old-west" style shootouts in the streets that many of them predicted...nor can they argue with the fact that those who have gone through the HCP process have had some (albeit not great) training and gone through background checks. By limiting the bill's reach to only HCP holders it automatically and I would suggest significantly weakens the arguments of those who always oppose an expansion of our carry options - thus making this bill a lot more palatable and much more likely to get support and pass. Starting out with some broad, comprehensive bill that would allow anyone who might want to pick up a gun (assuming they can legally possess one) would mean that instead of climbing a steep hill to get this through we would be climbing Mt. Everest. If you are going to wait for the perfect bill (on any issue) before you will give your support to it then I guess you'll be waiting for a long, long, long time...which probably also means that you don't vote very often either since you are likely holding out for the "perfect" candidate. Moreover, had we had a lot of people with that attitude in Tennessee in the mid-90's most law-abiding Tennesseans would still not be able to carry their weapons outside of their home - the bill that made that possible wasn't a perfect bill either but we got it passed and we've improved our carry rights since. The fight doesn't begin or end with any one bill...it's a process...it will always be a process...as long as good people keep pushing for our firearms rights we'll keep getting improvements even if it takes a long time; the fact that you don't see the "mention or intention" in this bill that you want notwithstanding.

Now that's a shocker! And in politics, "all or none" usually gets you the "none" part of the equation. I'm not sure if the concept of incremental steps escapes you or if you do understand that but, given your prior statements on the subject, "none" is simply what you want.

You are right I don't know but, respectfully, neither do you...we are all just "supposing" here. While I don't have any idea what all businesses do with regards to firearms in their parking lots, I can say that my employer and several large employers I'm aware of haven't "posted" their property at all...it's simply a matter of company "policy"; I doubt that a company policy will provide them any protection from liability. Besides, such a "policy" has absolutely no impact on a non-employee or a simple criminal thug...in fact, such a visitor and/or criminal wouldn't even know the policy existed. I'm also not aware of any precedent in the law that an employer's obligation to provide a "safe work environment" extends beyond what is specifically required by Federal/state laws or that any responsibility extends to being responsible for the illegal/criminal acts of others (especially non-employees)...of course, i don't get out much and I'm not an attorney! Finally...I don't wish to start a huge argument here but I'm not convinced that the Second Amendment is an individual to "carry"...to possess, yes...to be ready to defend their state and their country...but not necessarily to "carry" without restriction. If I"m correct then the individual states DO have a right to regulate the "wearing of arms". Now...let me add that I think the right to protect yourself is even more basic...dare I say even more important then the Second amendment...so basic that the founders didn't see a need to explicitly state it in the Bill of Rights. It also follows that people should be allowed the tools to effectively defend themselves...but...since the Constitution isn't (in my humble opinion) explicit on the issue; I think that the states, not the Federal government, is where this has to be hashed out and the battle won.

I don't know if there are any examples one way or the other but I have serious doubts that any law or any company policy or any posting against firearms is going to stop/protect a business from getting sued (and the company likely settling rather than fight it)...further, i don't see that changing whether there is or isn't a "parking lot bill". In other words, on a realistic basis, I doubt that a parking lot bill truly represents greater liability for a business/employer. The only way I can see a business/employer truly being held harmless would be if the legislation in some way made it virtually impossible for a plaintiff to ever collect on such a suit should they bother to file (and can find an attorney to do so without money up front since the chance of winning would be slim in that case). I'm not opposed to such language...I'm just suggesting that the wording would have to be very strong and unassailable to actually have an impact!

I would very much like to see, eventually, a general “parking lot†bill where NO parking lot that exists for the “public†and/or for “employees†(in other words, not solely for individual/private use) can be either “posted†against firearms or in any way be able to limit the ability of a person from having a legally carried firearm in his/her vehicle provided the weapon(s) is kept in the vehicle and out of sight. I wouldn’t just limit it to HCP holders but to anyone provided they can legally possess the firearm(s) and provided they are otherwise legally being carried/transported. As I said initially, however, it think getting there is going to be a “baby step†process. Specifically with this bill, I expect that, if it makes it through the legislature it will be modified to make it more palatable; that would include some provision for limiting a business/employer’s liability. That said, while I understand why such a provision might make the bill more "acceptable", I do wonder, however why such a provision is actually necessary or how it would accomplish anything??? Whether a business or parking lot is or isn’t posted or firearms are prohibited as a matter of just “company policy†OR even if employers/businesses are required by legislation (like this bill) to allow firearms in locked vehicles in parking lots; how could the actions of a criminal be the business/employer’s responsibility (absence some actual negligence on the part of the business)? Whether it’s an employee or non-employee or just a general thug/bad guy; how is any business/employer “liable†for the illegal acts of an individual? We all know we live in a litigious society…that said, is ANY law going to stop a lawsuit if someone is shot? If there truly is any negligence on the part of the business/employer I doubt any “liability†provision would protect them. I suppose something like the provision we have in Tennessee protecting a justified shooter from civil liability could be included but even that provision won’t prevent a lawsuit and in will NEVER protect a shooter from liability when an innocent is hurt/killed by his bullet even if shooting the BG was justified.

I would think that an "employer" is an "employer" but it's difficult to say if it really applies to universities/colleges/schools or not...I'm am pretty certain, however, that without legislation to the contrary, a school can still keep "students" from having firearms on their respective campuses as a matter of school policy.

Certainly you are entitled to your opinion but I doubt that there is a autoloader on the planet from any manufacturer of any design that hasn't had a FTF problem at one time or another...that's probably why one of the basics of pistol fighting taught at most ranges is to learn how to clear such problems. I'm not discounting personal experience here but 2 experiences seems a little thin to me, especially given the number of things that can cause such problems. Just my $0.02

I wouldn't mind if the "drama" wasn't there but I"m not so sure it's "fake" as was mentioned above. You've got 16 "A" types of various ages and backgrounds competing and living together for what, 2 or 3 weeks or so??? You ARE going to have drama and emotion and all that goes with it. Now, how much of what they let the audience see is another matter. I like the show...a lot...been looking forward to the new season...while I have no illusions about my abilities I'd certainly love the chance to do what they make the contestants do in the show. Best line so far is "Who doesn't want to see a little Asian chick kick butt" And yeah; I already have some strong likes and dislikes among the group!

Not yet...I'm recording it...I like to skip through the commercials. I've been watching the "stories' of the contestants as they've posted them on facebook and I've been looking forward to this season for quite a while! We should have had a Murfreesboro TGO "Top Shot" party!

Baby Steps. I agree, I think that anyone who can legally possess a firearm ought to be able to leave it in their locked vehicle (as described in the bill and of course, so long as they are abiding by all other laws regarding the firearm and not just HCP holders). I also wish they didn't specifically and only mention handguns...when I shoot skeet (or try to) on summer evenings I need to have my shotgun and gear in my vehicle, not just a handgun. But...this is a good start and just because we start here this year doesn't mean it has to end with just this bill. Moreover, I think this legislature stands a good chance of passing it and, judging from what (now) Governor Haslam said when he came to our TFA meeting, I suspect he'll sign this if it gets to his desk.

You must have been looking in the mirror when you wrote that. Perhaps it's time for you to start a "Parking Lot Bill"...I know you love that subject too...that way maybe the forum can go at least through the end of the week without talking about open carry. EDIT!!! Ask and you shall receive...no need to start a thread of your own on the parking lot question; you can just post in this one to complain http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/tennessee-politics-legislation/52971-hb0355-mcdonald-parking-lot-bill-filed-2-7-11-a.html

What ^ he said.

Sure...the reasons why these threads turn out that way are obviously the fault of those that participate in the threads (including me). However, I wasn't trying to examine why they turn out that way or place blame; just making what I believe is an accurate observation of the usual outcome.

I don't know....maybe for the same reason as you??? It could be I just missed it but other that parroting DRM I haven't noticed any significant contribution from you either.

I know I didn't and I doubt that punisher "failed to comprehend" anything...I listed my thoughts on the purpose of the thread a few posts above - whether you agree with my "take" on the stated purpose or not it doesn't mean I didn't understand the OP's stated intent. What , perhaps you don't comprehend is that punisher, myself and many others know that, "intent" not withstanding, these threads always go on for page after page and devolve into NOTHING constructive.

Attacked? The fist post that had anything remotely negative to say about the thread was Post No. 4 when Punisher84 said... However, if that simple statement constitutes an attack by your definition then you might want to consider revising your definition of the word. I took it as nothing more than one person expressing what many of us feel; that being that we are tired of the almost constant threads about Open Carry/Concealed Carry...yes, I realize that the OP says this one is to "gather facts" but even if that is the intent, many of use would like to see the entire subject given a rest for a while...expressing that desire isn't an attack; they are just a hope.

I would suggest that you have that exactly backwards. It's been my experience that it is those who open carry who are far less accepting of those who carry concealed than the other way round. There is a significant difference between choosing "not" to open carry vs. being "anti-open carry", I am the former, not the latter yet I've been verbally attacked/accused on this forum as being "anti" simply for stating why I chose to conceal. I, and I suspect most who conceal carry, am/are perfectly content to let those who chose to open carry do so...it is those who open carry that seem to want to "convert" us "lost souls".