Make Guns in Cars Legal Everywhere

[Guest General_Mayhem]

What's been the history of any efforts to make it legal to keep a gun in your car, even on posted property? IMO, an employer who prohibits guns on its property is exerting a disproportionate control over employees; the prohibition effectively prohibits carry while traveling to and from the posted property as well as on the property. I don't think that employers have legal authority to prohibit any other legal and ethical behavior by employees that extends beyond the physical bounds of the employer's property and/or that occurs when the employee is "on his own time". So what efforts have been made to correct this in TN law?

[Guest Ghostrider]

I'd say ANY personal rights in personal vehicles was forfeit when no one complained when NIH got to fire an employee for smoking in her car in the parking lot on an authorized break with the windows up.

Law of unintended consequences...

[Guest Strac]

Great argument, General. Sadly, Ghost is right as well. And yet another twist to this issue can be summed up in 3 words - "Life in Memphis".

By that I mean: in Memphis, it is not a question of IF your car will be broken into, it is not a question of WHEN your car will be broken into, it ain't even a question of HOW OFTEN will your car be broken into... It's a question of why won't the police even come out and take a report when your car is broken into?

So that said, I'm just as nervous leaving a weapon in my car to be stolen as I am NOT being allowed to carry it to the office - a place I've come to call the Duck Pond.

[Guest CrazyLincoln]

By that I mean: in Memphis, it is not a question of IF your car will be broken into, it is not a question of WHEN your car will be broken into, it ain't even a question of HOW OFTEN will your car be broken into... It's a question of why won't the police even come out and take a report when your car is broken into?

So true! In one case I witnesses, theives broke a $200 window to steal a $30 drill. And then a prostitute left her business card on the winsheild.

Funny stuff happens in Memphis.

[Guest General_Mayhem]

Well, it sounds as if there's been little if any effort to advocate for such a change to the carry law with the legislature. Why is that? While I'm all for carry in parks, I go to work a lot more often than I go to a park. So why not broaden our target selection a bit and advocate for permitting carry in cars statewide?

[Marswolf]

Until we get some of the anti-gunners out of the House, it would be a futile effort.

But this isn't a cut and dried issue.

Telling an employer he can't enforce certain employee restrictions in the use of his own property as a condition of employment is problematic. I don't agree with banning guns on company property for a lot of practical reasons, including one local double murder a few months ago when an estranged ex-husband came to a company and shot and killed his former wife and her boyfriend who were defenseless since they didn't have a gun. They were at one of their vehicles.

Companies that allow guns in cars should be protected from lawsuits, but IMO forcing the company to allow it smacks a bit of Big Brother and we have too much of that now.

[molonlabetn]

Until we get some of the anti-gunners out of the House, it would be a futile effort.

But this isn't a cut and dried issue.

Telling an employer he can't enforce certain employee restrictions in the use of his own property as a condition of employment is problematic. I don't agree with banning guns on company property for a lot of practical reasons, including one local double murder a few months ago when an estranged ex-husband came to a company and shot and killed his former wife and her boyfriend who were defenseless since they didn't have a gun. They were at one of their vehicles.

Companies that allow guns in cars should be protected from lawsuits, but IMO forcing the company to allow it smacks a bit of Big Brother and we have too much of that now.

I think a better solution would be to prohibit any business from being able to invade their employees' privacy by searching their vehicles (or persons), as part of an 'employment agreement'.

They can have whatever rule they want on their property, but they have no right to detain, search, or seize any of my property or person, without having contacted the authorities to issue and exercise an applicable warrant with probable cause for illegal activity.

[Marswolf]

I'd like to agree with that, but I just can't. I respect private property rights too much.

A no gun policy is foolish but I can't say that is something that should be forbidden by law. But it is something that should make good people at the company look for a place that respects self-defense. There is nothing that makes you work for such a company. It's a voluntary decision.

And the public should boycott the company's products and let them know about it.

I know that probably isn't a popular thing to post here.

[molonlabetn]

I see your point. I was heading more towards the position that of course any business can prohibit anything they wish on their property, but they should not be able to search me or my vehicle randomly.

Concealed is concealed.

Another issue is government employees, or contractor who works on federal property. Now, we all know that lowly serfs cannot be armed in those places, but it is a relevant question to ask... Should the government have the power to prohibit the possession of arms anywhere? I know of no Constitutional law which allows them to do this. Who answers to who?

The government should answer to the people, not vice-versa... Even if those people are employed by the government which owns that property (paid for by tax-payers, you and me).

The way that the 2nd Amendment is written does not specify that the RKBA shall not only be protected from infringement by the government... it says in absolute terms that it "shall not be infringed", period. And, while I would not detract from the sovereignty of any business or property owner from having the last say about whether they are open to the public or not... if they are indeed 'open to the public', let them not discriminate based on anything which is recognized as a right, or other characteristic already protected from discrimination.

I do not argue that it is reasonable to wish for patrons to simply go to another business, if that business does not recognize American freedoms... but it is just as reasonable to wish for those businesses to simply go find another country to discriminate against their patrons in!

[Marswolf]

I think you make a good point that there is nothing in the Constitution which allows the government to prevent arms on any property, including Federal installations. But if the government can and does do so, it seems to me that private institutions have the same right.

[Guest tjbert47]

This is a tough one isn't it. I can't add anything to this thread so I'll just set back and watch.

Tom in TN

[fury2neon]

Private property is private property and the onwer can deside who they want to be armed or unarmed on their property. But government buidlings, land, etc... are public (government "owned") and anything public should fall under the governance of the Constitution.

Unfortunately we have a lot politicians that say if a business serves the "public" then it is public property which is a twist on the english language rather than being factual.

[Guest General_Mayhem]

Marswolf, I think that you're making a personal value judgement by favoring property rights over the right to keep and bear arms. A quick look at the Bill of Rights makes clear that different standards apply to the right to keep and bear arms and the right to private property; the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed" whereas private property may not be taken "without due process of law". Now it seems to me that there's a higher standard to be met to curtail the right to keep and bear arms than there is to the right to private property, and so the right to keep and bear arms ought to trump private property rights. Note that in many states this is essentially the case -- private property owners can forbid firearms on their property, but carrying firearms onto the property is not a crime, per se, but a trespass.

[fury2neon]

The whole purpose of the right to keep and bear arms is to defend said private property (and defend the family, friends, nice aquintances, etc...) that the Government only has the right to seize if it is for the public good like a road or government office building. Of course our current politicians think that building a new megasuperstore meets that whole public good clause, which is NOT what was intended.

[Marswolf]

This thread more or less shows my original point - that this is not a simple issue. There appear to be some rights that could be viewed as in conflict.

Since you don't have a "right" to work for a particular company, I don't see that your rights are violated if they say you can't have a gun in your car while you do your work there. Companies also have all sorts of restrictions on free speech while at work that don't apply once you leave the work site.

There are some interesting twists in legislating this sort of "gun rights" law. See http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/24/86/79.html for some interesting reading. It largely parallels our discussion here.

See also http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/state/orl-guns2807mar28,0,6474382.story?coll=orl-news-headlines-state

This year's legislation (SB 2356) is much more far-reaching than last year's bill. Dubbed the "Individual Personal Private Property Protection Act of 2007," it would forbid an employer from stopping workers or customers from storing any "lawfully possessed" product in their cars when they park on a company's property. It would also make it illegal for employers to search an employee's car.

I suspect the union support is so they can have union materials in their car rather than a concern for 2A issues. I think they see personal property rights as affecting their 1A rights.

[Guest General_Mayhem]

I agree that this appears to be a complex issue. A company's (or the state's, for that matter) prohibition of firearms on its Tennessee property extends beyond just its employees to any people who have a need to enter or pass through the property -- delivery drivers, salespeople, utilities workers, etc. It also extends into such people's private time, as they effectively cannot legally carry a firearm in their vehicle if at any point during their day they must enter or pass through property with a firearms prohibition.

Other employer restrictions on employees typically do not extend outside the scope of the employee acting in some capacity for the employer, or using the employer's equipment. Restrictions on speech, lifestyle choices (smoking, etc.) and so on typically do not have the force of law behind them as does the firearms prohibition. What Tennessee's carry law provides is an additional power for a property owner that does not have an equivalent for other legal commodities (i.e. a property owner can ban anyone bringing alcohol onto the property, but if someone does so they have not commited a crime).

The Florida legislation does seem to parallel our discussion. Similar legislation died on the floor in Utah this year.

[Guest RN MEDIC]

Folks, enjoy the discussion. As for me, I HAVE been very VERY close to being harmed and having to kill a bad guy with a firearm. I WILL keep a firearm in my car. Now it may be a semi-auto that I will disassemble when I get there and maybe even put a small piece in my case for seperating the parts. Thus, the bad guy could break in, get the pieces left, BUT he wouldn't have them all and the gun won't shoot.

After work, I'll get to my car, put it together, and go on to wherever I have to go, then home. I did that and carried guns before permits. I do it now with a permit, and I'll still do it after they take permits away.

I'm just too old and in too much pain all the time to get hurt/beat up. I'm not going to go that way. I'll just kill the bastard and let the "rough end drag."

Everyone suit your selves. Discuss the laws. Try to get them changed in our favor, and I will work with you on that also. Just that I'm not going to be the victim in the mean time while we try to get socialists out of the legislature and freedom minded people in there. PERIOD.

RN

[Marswolf]

I'm not particularly concerned with the possibility of a thug getting another firearm. Criminals will always be able to get guns.

It's like carrying into a restaurant that serves alcohol. Do you want to obey the law or do you want to protect your family? But you know the consequences of being caught - don't you? (Class A Misdemeanor - 11 months 29 days - $2,500. Not a felony as I've seen some people write)

For getting caught at work with a gun you aren't supposed to have, you get fired. If it's posted, you also might get a $500 fine.

Here is the incident I mentioned above. It's good support for being allowed to carry in your car at work. But it doesn't address employer condition of employment rights.

Note the bullet hole in the window

Woman, man gunned down in parking lot

Saturday, Dec 09, 2006 - 02:00 AM

BY Daniel Taylor

BRISTOL, Va. – A man shot his estranged wife and another man to death Friday afternoon in Dana Corp.’s parking lot and then waited for police to arrive and arrest him, authorities said.

Yellow tape surrounded a section of the parking lot and police scoured the scene for evidence after authorities said Carl David Ray, 35, 19486 Manchester Drive, Bristol Virginia, shot two plant employees.

The victims were his wife, Tracy Ray, 36, 18371 Ironwood Loop, Abingdon; and Randall O’Quinn, 42, 22245 Green Spring Church Road, also of Abingdon.

The pair was shot "multiple times" with a .45-caliber semi-automatic pistol as they sat in O’Quinn’s pickup truck at around 1 p.m.

Authorities said Carl Ray worked near the plant, although police weren’t sure exactly where. He recognized the couple and drove to the plant armed with a pistol, according to city Police Detective Steve Crawford.

Carl Ray, who had a concealed weapons permit, parked his car near the truck, got out and shot the couple, Crawford said.

Police said Tracy Ray was separated from her husband. Several plant employees said she and O’Quinn had a relationship and the shooting likely stemmed from jealousy, but police would not discuss a possible motive.

"We’re not willing to speculate on a motive yet," said city Police Detective DeeDra Branson.

After the shooting, Carl Ray sat down next to his car and surrendered peacefully when police arrived, authorities said.

O’Quinn died at the scene. Tracy Ray was taken to Bristol Regional Medical Center, but was pronounced dead soon after.

Police weren’t sure how many times the couple were shot, but O’Quinn had been shot at least once in the head, Crawford said. The bodies were taken to Roanoke for autopsy.

Crawford said Carl Ray did not have a criminal history and that the shootings did not appear to be planned.

Despite the double-murder, employees continued to come and go as the plant continued operations throughout the day.

It has been about a year since Dana filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and the plant on Thomas Road was expected to close by early 2007 and outsource its jobs to Mexico. The facility employed about 270 people at the time of the announcement.

James Gilley, who has been a sales technician at the plant for 16 years, said all the employees were "numb" after learning of the shooting.

"I’m stunned," he said. "It hasn’t sunk in real good yet."

Carl Ray remained in the city jail Friday night without bond on two counts of first-degree murder and two counts of using a gun while committing a felony. He has a court appearance set for Monday.

dtaylor@bristolnews.com | (276) 645-2531

[DaveTN]

In most cases companies not wanting guns on their property is not a “gun issue†it is a liability issue.

I feel the same way about that as I do about businesses posting that they do not allow firearms on their property…. In a shooting the lawyers will go after the “deep pocketsâ€. It does not matter to them who is at fault; their only concern is who is capable of giving them a payday. If you work for General Motors and accidentally cripple your friend with a ND while showing him your new carry gun in the parking lot; an attorney will know that he can’t get much out of you even if he gets a judgment. But he may be able to get something out of GM. Same thing if you shoot a bad guy and one of your rounds go astray in a business and kills an innocent bystander… sure your done financially but that doesn’t mean much to the attorney; he needs a judgment against the business to get a payday.

This is not a 2nd amendment issue or even a Constitutional one. The state of Tennessee (as most states) recognizes the 2nd amendment as a protection for the state; not as a right of the individual.

Since carrying a firearm onto your company’s parking lot is not a right; it would require legislation to to keep them from banning you from doing so. I think that legislation might not be hard to get through if it included language that insulated the company or business from civil action; without that protection I don’t think it would ever happen.

This issue has absolutely nothing to do with the laws that ban you from carrying where liquor is served. Transporting your firearm in your vehicle onto a company parking lot is required if you want to be protected to and from work. Making an argument for illegally carrying a firearm into a restaurant that serves liquor; makes no sense. By doing that you are putting everyone’s carry permits in danger. There are obvious reasons for not allowing carry in establishments that serve liquor just as there are obvious reason for your carry permit not be valid when you are drunk.

In my opinion trying to add the restaurant/Liquor issue to any “business/private property/employee parking possession†legislation would insure certain defeat of some good legislation.

[Marswolf]

There are obvious reasons for not allowing carry in establishments that serve liquor....

You were doing fine up to this point. I can't see any reasons, obvious or otherwise to not carry in a restaurant if you aren't drinking. The fact that some drunk may ignore the law and be packing is a very good reason for sober people to have a gun too.