RobertNashville

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?

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!!!