Parking Lot Bill?

[jughead]

havent heard this mentioned. but when does my property rights override the self defense of life and limb. people drive miles just to get to work. the car is my property. as long as it stays there it should be legal. should the parking lot owners rights override my so-called right to self protection. if someone is protecting himself in my parking lot with firearm and i should be anti-gun should i have the right to say take your beating or death in stride. i think not. this is something all should think hard about including the trip to and from work.

[Guest crotalus01]

Same thing my post said. My car should be an extension of my domicile and therefore whatever is locked in my car should be considered to be locked in an extention of my home - where I have the absolute right of self defence.

[Guest canynracer]

havent heard this mentioned. but when does my property rights override the self defense of life and limb. people drive miles just to get to work. the car is my property. as long as it stays there it should be legal. should the parking lot owners rights override my so-called right to self protection. if someone is protecting himself in my parking lot with firearm and i should be anti-gun should i have the right to say take your beating or death in stride. i think not. this is something all should think hard about including the trip to and from work.

Same thing my post said. My car should be an extension of my domicile and therefore whatever is locked in my car should be considered to be locked in an extention of my home - where I have the absolute right of self defence.

This is true...BUT, you dont have the right to park on their lot either....you can park elsewhere.

just playing devils advocate here.

[Fallguy]

This is true...BUT, you dont have the right to park on their lot either....you can park elsewhere.

just playing devils advocate here.

Well there ya go....

[DRM]

They can ban guns on their property but can't search to find them.

I've said all along that is the approach I prefer.

Well said...

The question is, does a handgun in a locked container and/or in my locked vehicle unreasonably infringe on the rights of the property owner?

My opinion is, No.

Reminds me of something my dad always said..."Your right to swing your first stops where my nose begins." Dad just seems to get smarter and smarter the older I get.

You seem to be contradicting yourself, and your dad.

Their property is their "nose".

[DRM]

Kind of my point on the whole discussion, both the TN Constitution, and the 2nd Amendment call it a "Right". Allowing the Government, be it State or Federal to erode that into a "privilege" standing is not good.

It was important enough to our Founders and framers to name it a "Right", we should honor their wishes and continue to demand that it remains such.

If you want to take that approach, the founding fathers were not even discussing the ability to carry a gun around. I'd about guarantee they would say "duh, of course you could carry a gun around!".

On the other hand, the founding fathers would have also had the RESPECT to NOT carry a gun on to the property of someone who wishes no guns to be there. They would have checked them at the door, or kindly left the property and never come back.

It is absurd to think the founding fathers would have EVER tried to force a property owner to give up their property rights in this way, and I challenge you to find evidence to the contrary that would support this notion.

[Guest misanthrope747]

If you want to take that approach, the founding fathers were not even discussing the ability to carry a gun around. I'd about guarantee they would say "duh, of course you could carry a gun around!".

On the other hand, the founding fathers would have also had the RESPECT to NOT carry a gun on to the property of someone who wishes no guns to be there. They would have checked them at the door, or kindly left the property and never come back.

It is absurd to think the founding fathers would have EVER tried to force a property owner to give up their property rights in this way, and I challenge you to find evidence to the contrary that would support this notion.

I agree with you completely when it comes to the buildings of a business or employer. Set your rules as you see fit. However, I see the parking lot as a convergence of my right to carry (a gun or whatever) and your right to control your property. I am very in favor of property rights to the point that I believe discrimination for whatever reason should not be illegal. It's your business so you should run your business as you see fit. If you don't want to hire white people, that's your choice. Don't even allow them on your property. However, if you have a black employee that has a white spouse, you should not be able to stop that white spouse from dropping off the black employee in your parking lot. Same goes for guns. Or alcohol, or whatever. Your parking lot, while your property, is a merging of your rights and mine just like a public sidewalk that runs across my front yard.

m747

[Fallguy]

You seem to be contradicting yourself, and your dad.

Their property is their "nose".

I kind of meant this discussion about different rights just reminded of me of what he said, not that it directly applies or even if it did I that it was a good comparrison to this situation.

[DRM]

I agree with you completely when it comes to the buildings of a business or employer. Set your rules as you see fit. However, I see the parking lot as a convergence of my right to carry (a gun or whatever) and your right to control your property. I am very in favor of property rights to the point that I believe discrimination for whatever reason should not be illegal. It's your business so you should run your business as you see fit. If you don't want to hire white people, that's your choice. Don't even allow them on your property. However, if you have a black employee that has a white spouse, you should not be able to stop that white spouse from dropping off the black employee in your parking lot. Same goes for guns. Or alcohol, or whatever. Your parking lot, while your property, is a merging of your rights and mine just like a public sidewalk that runs across my front yard.

m747

I guess I don't see the arbitrary definition of 'property" you seem to be applying... re: building vs. parking lot.

Oh, and as I made clear - I think a property owner should be able to ask anyone to leave his property for whatever reason... period.

[DRM]

I kind of meant this discussion about different rights just reminded of me of what he said, not that it directly applies or even if it did I that it was a good comparrison to this situation.

Gotcha... and for the record I do think your dad's comment is VERY applicable here.

[Guest rlgray3]

I have been doing a lot of research on the guns in parking lots laws. I am 100% for being able to leave my weapon in my locked car. I have gone through a lot to get my permit and believe I have paid that price to be able to do this legally. The criminals are not going to care one way or the other about any stupid law in place or not. If they are determined they are going to do it regardless. They are going to carry under any circumstance, they have no remorse. If a friend or family member comes to my house and leaves it in their car, I don't really care, that is their car, chances are anyone who comes to see me I know about them and their beliefs and nothing is going to come as a surprise to me, being armed or not; I don't let just anyone come to my house.

One thing to strongly think about is the fact that a company can open themselves for a liability suit of restricting someone the right to leave the weapon in a locked car. What if something happened on the way home or to work that could have been prevented if they had been armed. I would sue my employer for revoking me that right. The only parking options I have at my work are owned by my company so I don't have a choice but to park on company property. One thing to think about also is that I might have the right to leave it locked in my car but that does not give me the right to have it outside of that car, that is a big difference and I can respect that right.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=193

Here is a great link to the NRA website talking about the pros for leaving a weapon in locked automobile and I completely agree with each of them.

[dunndw]

Everyone seems to be missing the real issue here. These employee rules are written by the compay's lawyers to limit their liability in the event of an employee shooting. Just like the restaurant owners threatening to post their establishments come July 14th. Some may be rabid anti-gun types, but most are just afraid of the liability exposure. The legislature needs to pass a bill limiting or eliminating the liability of a civil suit for not postng and a lot of this nonsense will go away.

I wish it would go further. If they DO post, then they SHOULD be responsible for providing security for their employees and/or patrons...and they are responsible for anything that happens to you on that property.

I'm sick of this "have your cake and eat it too" BS they are pulling. They want to use their percieved libility for posting, but IF they do post and something happens..then they don't want to be responsible for what happens.

Why would they be responsible for a permit holders actions, but not a bad guys? If they can get sued for ME shooting someone, why cant someone like Nikki sue them for the lack of security?

[Guest joeharris]

When will this bill be voted on?

[JayC]

When will this bill be voted on?

Nest session (Jan/Feb 2010) at the earliest.

[Guest joeharris]

Thank's!

[LagerHead]

Isn't "Lobbying" just another word for legal bribery of our elected officials??????????

Possibly, but you have a carry permit because of the oldest lobbying group in the U.S.