RobertNashville

People who think they "already know" often don't. Maybe your "real world" isn't where most of the population lives? I just personally saw, less than two weeks ago, a guy call the police because he saw people openly carrying their firearms...maybe you consider that a positive effect but I don't...I'm sure this guy would have been more than willing to go about his business had it not been an open carry situation. As it is, he is likely more convinced than ever that armed, law-abiding citizens are just a brief angry moment away from becoming a murderer. Perhaps you should avoid blanket statements that include phrases like "No one. Anywhere. No negative affects have ever arisen" because that's just completely untrue (as blanket statements always...I mean usually are). I think this issue/thread has more to do with public perception than legislative bills. In any case, why should people who carry organize a day to openly carry and likely, give more fodder to those who want to introduce more bills? Those who want to restrict gun rights only have to win now and then; those of us who don't want to see what we've gained become loss have to win every time...more bills give the anti-gun crowd more chances to get what they want. Yes; which happens but not all that often and in any case, openly carrying is more likely to bother someone than a once in a while accidental exposure of a concealed weapon. I don't think anyone here has a problem with that....I don't recall that anyone here said you or anyone else shoudln't carry in whatever manner you feel is appropriate for you and for your circumstances....the issue is whether openly carrying as some sort of organized protest is truly a good idea or not (and think most here are saying that it probably isn't a good idea).

I don't think this is or needs to be about open carry vs. concealed carry and/or which one is "better"; those arguments have been made over and over again (usually with people getting mad at each other). For me, as I think of this idea and read through the thread, I simply see little to be gained by an "open carry day" or any sort of "organized protest". I like the fact that, in Tennessee, if I inadvertently show my otherwise concealed weapon I haven't automatically broken the law (as it would be in some states)..beyond that, I guess I really don't care if we can or can't open carry - I'm not trying to be selfish here; just relating my viewpoint. Also, I'd likely have a very different view if we couldn't open carry at all. However, regardless of my personal view or whether I "care" really only mattes to me...it doesn't impact or matter otherwise because, as we know, we already CAN open carry if we want to do so (that said, based on what I've learned of Tennessee's law regarding open carry, I would certainly like to see the law slanted a little more in favor of the person carrying but at least we can and I don't think we should lose sight of that). Getting people more "accustomed" to open carry sounds like a good cause but to what end, really? Are some saying that they want to open carry but don't now because of how they know people react? I guess I can understand that but at the same time I wonder about how serious the conviction about open carry really is. I don't think I'm just "giving up" but I do have strong doubts that this country will ever again see the day that open carry will be either widely done or widely accepted. We are a long, long way, both in terms of time and in attitude, when people did open carry and it was accepted to be as normal as walking down the street. In other words, I've think we've traveled too far down the road in the opposite direction and because of that, I don't know that "open carry" is where "activists" should spend their time and resources...I think there are other issues that are both more important and in more jeopardy that need our attention.

Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done. Maybe doing something today might not be a bad idea but waiting and doing it tomorrow might be a better one (and give a better outcome). Advocating a bit of discretion doesn't make one "part of the problem" I see an event like this as having only a small possibility of a positive impact on Tennessee gun rights with a real possibility of having a negative impact given the "freshness" of the Arizona shooting when you have ideologues calling Glock pistols "assault weapons".

Businesses put them up for any number of reasons but their reasons are immaterial - they have a right to do so. Businesses either thrive or barely survive or go out of business because of the business decisions they make; that's how the free enterprise system works. Unless I simply cannot do otherwise for some reason I will not give my custom to a business that isn't as welcoming of my firearm as they are of my dollars and I urge everyone else to do the same. On a related note, here is a little story you might enjoy... At TFA meetings, many people open carry their firearms. At the meeting we had on the 18th of this month, I noticed that there was a "young" (probably early 20s) man standing outside the restaurant and very obviously agitated...obviously angry at/about something which immediately cause me to be a bit wary of him. Anyway; when I got inside and was paying for the buffet, the cashier asked if I was there for the TFA meeting (we get a small discount) and I said "yes"...she then asked if I had noticed the guy outside and again I indicated I had - she then told me he was upset/angry because "there were people with guns in the restaurant" and that he demanded the restaurant call the police to which the manager replied "why...they'll just show up with guns too?". Apparently the kid did call the police and I suspect they told him what he could do with himself.

Much has been made, in a somewhat derisive way, that this argument is “all about guns†and what “gun owners wantâ€â€¦well, if that is true, it’s true only because the argument has been framed that way primarily by employers! It’s these employers who have singled out “guns†in what I think most of us would say is an arbitrary and capricious way that has precipitated the problem. They haven't singled out "junk food" or "chain saws" or any other legally carried item/tool; just guns. If these same employers had banned employees from listening to “Rush†or “Air America†on their vehicle’s radio during a break/lunch hour while the vehicle was parked in their parking lot I suspect we would be having similar discussions about the right to listen to what we want to listen to in our private vehicles (although that discussion would likely be happening on some other forum than this one). Let’s also be clear that in any “parking lot billâ€, we are not really talking about private homes/residences and private driveways; we are talking about, primarily, employers (but also businesses that sell to the public) and the parking lots that exist for employees/customers to use (and mostly use for the benefit of the business). As such, comparisons to “driveways†are somewhat misguided and not overly helpful. Some suggest that there is no difference between the rights of a private person in his private home and the rights afforded a business operating in the public arena. I disagree with that position for reasons already stated earlier. That said, as I’ve thought through this issue I’ve come to the conclusion that, while similarities should not be discounted, the argument is somewhat irrelevant in any case. I think we all can acknowledge, and it’s been long established, that “government†has both a right and a duty to regulate and control what businesses can and can’t do and where they can and can’t do it for the overall benefit of society. They try, albeit often with limited success, to strike a balance between conflicting concerns/interests such as worker safety, environmental issues, efficiency, competitiveness, etc. So whether a “business/business owner†automatically has the same “rights†of any private individual is somewhat moot – the “state†regulates business to a great extent now and a “parking lot bill†would be no different - suggestions that the State of Tennessee doesn’t have a right, for example, to forbid employers from disallowing otherwise legally carried firearms on their property so long as the firearms remain in a locked vehicle is simply not viable. The state surely can do so…the only real question is whether the state should do so. With the question of whether the state “shouldâ€, I think we must look at (at least) three conflicting (or at least potentially conflicting) interests and as with placing any restriction/regulation on a business or a person, the state has a responsibility to balance conflicting interests. One interest is the right of a business to control what happens on their property; I suspect most of us agree that, in general, they do. Another interest is of the individual and the right of individual citizens to do a completely legal thing (and in this case, moreover, not just a “legal†thing but a right specifically recognized by the U.S. Constitution). The other interest is the interest of society at large and what is most beneficial to it. I can understand and support that a business, in general, should be able to/has the right to control what happens on their property and while some here may disagree, I believe they clearly have the right to take the position of disallowing firearms inside their actual facility such as their office building, factory floor, etc (that said, I would add that such a position should not be simply “company policy†but that they must POST their property as such IAW Tennessee state law). I also support that an individual has a right to control what happens on or in HIS property and this would include his private vehicle - in most respects, a private vehicle is viewed, by law, as an extension of that person’s home (I’m not trying to misuse the castle doctrine here…I do understand that there is a difference). As such, as long as what we are doing/have contained inside our private vehicles is otherwise legal, including legally carried firearms, the contents and/or our activities in our vehicles should not be subject to the control of others; at least not without sufficient reason. Finally, while clearly not everyone in society agrees; those of us who own and/or carry weapons know that an armed society is good for society at large…our ability to defend ourselves and other innocents is a GOOD THING and restrictions on our ability to do that should be as few as possible. I believe, as a matter of principle, that when rights or various interests “bump up†against each other, no one “right†or interest should automatically trump the rights/interests of the other and in absence of some demonstrated, viable business reason for doing so, I see no obvious justification for an employer/business to forbid the existence of legally carried firearms (or legally carried anything else) inside a person’s private vehicle just because it happens to be parked in a parking lot. I take this position for several reason; one of the reasons is because, in my opinion, while an actual facility is somewhat akin to a private residence; I would suggest that a “parking lot is more akin to “public property†than to private property. I think we can acknowledge that the only reason for such parking lots to exist is for the benefit of the public and to invite the public to be there (the shopping public, the employed public, etc). Moving on, 2) people have a right to have/do/carry otherwise legal things inside their homes and inside their vehicles. 3) An armed society of law-abiding citizens is good, overall, for society. 4) Businesses existing/operating/selling is good for society and for that to happen, businesses need employees and they need customers. As such, placing unnecessary burdens on those customers/employees or restrictions on THEIR rights should be resisted as much as possible. I may well change my mind on this if a business/business owner can offer up a truly good/viable/measurable business reason for not allowing legally carried firearms inside a locked, parked privately owned vehicle. However, I’ve yet to hear one and I suspect I never will. Bottom line for me is that the "right" of a business or any other entity to control what happens on its property ENDS at the doorjam of my private property (whether that door jam is the front door of my house or the door of my vehicle)...and that this is so regardless of where my house or my vehicle is located at any given time (and if a business wants and needs customers/employees and provides a parking lot to further that end, it ought to be able to accept the concept that what is in a private vehicle, if otherwise legal, is not subject to their control). In other words, it is really no g** damn business of anybody else what is inside my vehicle provided what is inside there is legal…if I have or I’m suspected of having something in my vehicle that isn’t legal then the police should be summoned, the vehicle searched (if there is sufficient cause to do so) and then let the chips fall where they may.

There are specific and clear legal differences between the human being "DRM" and the legal entity known as "DRM, LLC"; which I'm sure you are aware of and which, I'm sure, is why you went through the trouble of establishing the LLC; a Limited Liability Corporation (either that or you just like adding letters after your initials). As I said above, there is a very large difference between a sentient human being with rights that can never be "granted" by a government; and an artificial entity like a corporation that is created by a government body which only has the "rights" afforded to it by the body that created it. You can refuse to acknowledge that difference all you want; you are simply wrong. Why should I or for that matter how can I "explain" something I never said? What I did say was that... If that sounds to you like "thrown out the window" then so be it but I think you are engaging in exaggeration in order to bolster a weak argument.

You can claim forever that there is no difference between DRM and DRM, LLC but there is a very significant difference and always will be. One is a sentient human being with rights that can never be "granted" by a government; the other is an artificial entity created by a government body and only the "rights" afforded to it by the body that created it.

No...you are really suggesting that private property rights should trump other rights; concurrently refusing to see the simple truth that a parking lot held out to the public/employees for their use (and for the obvious benefit of the business that owns the parking lot) is simply not and never will be equivalent to a driveway of a residence. It is reasonable for an individual human being to expect a significant degree of privacy and control over his/her driveway especially if the presence of a person/vehicle is uninvited. It is not reasonable for an artificially created entity such as a business that has/utilizes a parking lot for its customers/employees (and invites them to be there) to expect the same level of privacy and control. When a business holds itself out to the public as a business and desirous of customers/employees to utilize that business, there are obligations that come along with it that do not apply to the private citizen on his private property which is as it should be...the "rights" of a business should not be allowed to simply trump the rights of the individual; rather, they must be weighed against the rights of both so that both are treated fairly. In that vein; it seems wholly fair to me that a business/employer has an absolute right to say "you can't bring "X" (when "X" is something completely legal) into my store/restaurant/factory but very overreaching and very unfair if a business can say not only can you not bring "X" into my business, you can't even have it in your locked, privately owned vehicle sitting in a parking lot because when a business says "not in my parking lot" they are effectively saying "no where in your travels to or from my parking lot as well since one can't magically make "X" disappear upon arrival the parking lot.

You seem to want to argue a point that isn't in contention...no one, at least no one in this thread that I'm aware of, used the word "license"...the phrase used was "federal paperwork" and if you don't have it, you are in big trouble.

I would say that would be exchanging a difficult/expensive solution when a simpler one is available (such as the electronic ear protection I mentioned above...a lot less expensive than a suppressor and no federal paperwork to fill out!). Moreover, while any firearm in hand is better than any not in hand, a handgun really shouldn't be the "first choice" for defending yourself unless circumstances dictate it....we carry a handgun on our person because it's isn't practical to carry a rifle or shotgun everywhere we go but I think most would agree that when defending your life, the rifle or shotgun would be what you would want to have.

I'm suspecting that there is more to your opinion than your "property rights" stand...when you talk about us "gun people" I can't help but wonder if you are, perhaps, more worried about "guns" and "gun people" than you really are worried about "property rights". A "business" is NOT the same as an individual..."property" used in the course of business is NOT the same as property used as a place of residence...a parking lot is NOT the same as a private driveway and trying to boil everything down to "property rights" flies in the face of logic. Have a nice day.

If I'm "coping an attitude" it's likely because the "right to employment" assertion was just the latest of other incidents of where you either ignored what I said or twisted the meaning of what I did say to be exactly the opposite of what I said. It's very difficult to have a discussion with someone when things I clearly never said or implied are ascribed to me anyway in an apparent attempt to give you a point to argue.

That's a very valid point. I would say that discharging any firearm of any caliber inside a room/home presents a hearing problem. When I'm home and "up" I have either a .45 or my little LCR somewhere close by if not actually on my person and if I have to fire I'll fire and hope my ears can take it...at night, however, along with spare keys, alarm system control, tactical flashlight and my SCAR, I also have a pair of electronic ear protectos...not only will they protect my hearing in the event I have to discharge my SCAR but me having hearing protection and the bad guy likely not having it is a "+" for me...also, the amplification of ambiant sounds provided is a further "+" for me. Since I don't have any children at home I don't need to take the precautions many of you do...most of my weapons are locked in my safe but the one's I have around and accessible for quick protection are not!

You would have less of a problem if you didn't twist words into something you can argue against...how does "the need of people to be employed" get translated to a "right to be employed" in your mind? Is it a comprehension problem of do you just like to put words into people's mouths so you can argue? People need to be employed...society needs people to be employed that is simply not the same as people having a "right" to be employed nor did I say otherwise.

To a large extent, you DO give up a lot of your right to control what "comes on to your property" by virtue of the lease; most of "your" rights are transferred to the lessee. A business is a business...if they run a business from their home in which they need and expect people to come to their house and park in their driveway then yes, they are no longer simply a private person living in a private home. The comparison is rather odd anyway since in most communities, such activities (running a business that is open to the public) would be contrary to zoning laws. You can see what you want and apparently you do. I didn't mention "guns" at all in the post you quoted nor did I mention HCP holders. I said that whatever a person can legally carry in their vehicles parked in a parking lot should be completely irrelevant and beyond the control of a business/employer so long as what is being carried/transported/left in the vehicle is otherwise legal...that would include loaded handguns and loaded but unchambered long guns for an HCP holders and properly (unloaded) firearms carried by anyone else or any other item...if it's not illegal to be there in the first place then it shouldn't be anybody's business that it is there.

Actually, I would suggest that and AR .223/5.56, especially with home defense ammo is LESS prone to over-penetration (with the benefit of better performance when they hit the bad guy) and why many law enforcement agencies are switching from shotguns to ARs when entering homes (warrant service, etc). I've seen some pretty eye-opening demonstrations of how various rounds/calibers penetrate drywall...even the lowly .38 Spcl went a lot further than one might think. I have a 12 ga pump too and will use it if necessary but my weapon of choice for home defense (assuming I can get to it) is my SCAR in .223; the shotgun second and my.45 third.

double post...deleted.

I suggest that there is a significant difference between a "parking lot" and a private driveway. I am a big supporter of private property rights and while real-property (land, building, etc. are private property) I think it worth noting that "businesses" are artificially created entities...the "rights" that a business entity has and the fact that they exist at all is only because society allows them to exist. Businesses/stores/employers need customers/employees to make a profit and/or operate and they are given permission to exist and hold themselves open to society for that purpose. In my opinion, that is a significant difference compared to the private home of an individual. Whenever you have the rights of one (such as an employee) bumping up against the rights of another (such as an employer), what is most fair is for some common ground to be found...given the benefits to society and to the business and the need of people to be employed, I believe a solution can be found that is not overly burdensome to business/employers that would prevent a business/employer from controlling what a customer/employee can have in their private vehicle while parked in a "parking lot"that exists so that customers/employees can be there and benefit the business!

Whether government entities SHOULD and/or whether the actions pays back for the communities involved has nothing to do with the discussion at hand and is an entirely different mater which was why I said "Putting aside whether states should..." and ..."will, in theory, get back more than was put in" apparently I wasn't clear.

With the weapons kit of the OP I'd be more worried about killing my next door neighbor than whether the gun looked "mean" or not...over-penetration is a real risk that everyone should take into consideration unless they live in a steel box with no windows and 5 miles from the nearest neighbor! I have an LCR...great little gun for easy carry. While the recoil isn't bad all things considered It DOES kick; the LCR is not a gun I would ever shoot just for fun!

Putting aside whether states should be giving tax statements, provide utilities and infrastructure, etc. to attract business; the fact that they give them doesn't, in my opinion, make those businesses less than "private"...state and local governments do that because the community (meaning the taxpayer) will, in theory, get back more than was put in through eventual tax revenue, etc...the simple fact that the business can chose to go elsewhere or go out of business altogether is evidence that it is still a "private" enterprise. In other words, just because the government does things to attract business or new facilities or expansions nor just because government entities require certain standards (ADA, etc) for them to be in business, it doesn't immediately follow that a government can demand anything it wants or negate all the rights of a business entity to maintain a level of privacy and self- determination.

I work for an employer that currently forbids any firearms on their property, including the parking lots, as a matter of company policy only (no posting). It IS posted that all vehicles, persons and/or bags, etc. on the property are subject to search. There have been random searches of persons/belongings when entering the facility proper although I've never heard of a vehicle actually being searched). Of course, any person can refuse such a search of their person or their vehicle but by dong so, any non employee would be forced to leave (or be guilty of trespassing) and any employee would be in violation of company policy and subject to dismissal. It has not always been so..this change has happened withing the past 6 years or so...prior to that it was not unusual at all for employees to have firearms in the vehicles (HCP holders, huntes, etc). While the company has never explained the reason for the change, I'm sure potential liability was the overriding reason. I am a significant supporter of private property rights but there is also the issue of what is in the best interests of society overall as well as the right of a person to be have the means to defend himself...approached from that standpoint, I think a convincing argument could be made that the need of a person to be able to defend himself overrides any restrictions on parking lots while retaining the right of the business/employer to forbid the carrying of firearms on the person within the actual facilities, provided the firearm is left in a locked vehicle. As was mentioned above, I don't like leaving a firearm in my vehicle but there are times that I must...when I do, I lock it in a small safe which is tethered to the vehicle itself (not foolproof by any means but enough to slow down any potential thief). I guess what I'm saying here is that I think we can find some middle ground on this issue. Whether "this" year is the year to push for it I don't know...I suspect we won't see a lot of firearm related legislation this year (although I'm hoping otherwise)!

Almost anything, when the original sells for some significant dollars is ripe for knock-offs. Unless you KNOW something is legitimate you are taking a risk to buy it. One way (although not sure it's the best) is to always check the manufacturer's website and to know you are dealing with a legitimate, authorized vendor of whatever you are buying. Although I like going, I've purchased very little at gun shows as far as merchandise and partially for the reasons stated above...of course if it's a local vendor I'm already familiar with I wouldn't hesitate; it's the ones that I don't know that I am more wary of!

I wouldn't have thought of "Gunproof Your Children" since I don't have children...I'm glad you added it. I haven't read "Lessons from Armed America" but it just made my list!

I find it annoying when any business decides to post; I find it especially annoying and troubling when it's a bank since 1) I am often entering or leaving my bank with a good bit of cash and 2) bank robbers have a habit of robbing banks. Thankfully, my bank (Fifth-Third) has not posted but if they ever do I'll be moving my accounts elsewhere.