Parking Lot Bill?

[Guest SUNTZU]

If you allow my vehicle on your property, great. You are not searching my vehicle. If you ask to search my vehicle, I will tell you to get ****** and leave. (Keep in mind this is hypothetical).

You can't search my vehicle at DRM's hardware store.

If you ask to search my vehicle, I'll leave.

I won't return, and I'll tell everyone I know about your Gestapo tactics.

DRM's Hardware will sadly, close, due to everyone in town thinking he is a busybody.

Where do your rights end and mine begin is the question, and vice versa.

My vehicle is my property. Just because I work for a company does not mean that they now "own" me. If they ask to search your vehicle and you refuse, you'll probably be canned without recourse, depending on where you work.

[E4 No More]

I'll ignore the first part - because it's irrelevant.

So is it your position that you can have ANYTHING (otherwise legal) in your vehicle you want - on my property - and I have to let you leave your vehicle on MY property?

Is that really the position you are advocating? Because I'll be honest - I have no clue how some of you can advocate wholesale abandonment of basic property rights just because you want to have your gun with you.

Well, I am so glad that I have you to define whats relevant for me!

Go tell your employees that you are going to do random searches of their vehicles so that you can control your property. Post a sign telling your customers that you will do random searches of their vehicles too so that you can control your property. See how well that flies.

And yes, I once owned my own business.

[DRM]

Privilege, you say. I always thought the Second Amendment was a Constitutional right.

That sounds all cute and all, but can you actually articulate that point? As in - can you detail how the retention of property rights infringes on the 2nd Amendment?

And while you are at it, can you explain what you think the founding fathers would say if you told them you want to take away property rights over an issue like this?

IMHO, they would be appalled at the concept that you think you have a right to bring your gun on to THEIR property - regardless of their wishes. That is something that invading forces do, isn't it?

[E4 No More]

If you allow my vehicle on your property, great. You are not searching my vehicle. If you ask to search my vehicle, I will tell you to get ****** and leave. (Keep in mind this is hypothetical).

You can't search my vehicle at DRM's hardware store.

If you ask to search my vehicle, I'll leave.

I won't return, and I'll tell everyone I know about your Gestapo tactics.

DRM's Hardware will sadly, close, due to everyone in town thinking he is a busybody.

Where do your rights end and mine begin is the question, and vice versa.

My vehicle is my property. Just because I work for a company does not mean that they now "own" me. If they ask to search your vehicle and you refuse, you'll probably be canned without recourse, depending on where you work.

Absolutely! Now if I were to remove my weapon from my truck while on his property, then he has a legit beef.

[E4 No More]

That sounds all cute and all, but can you actually articulate that point? As in - can you detail how the retention of property rights infringes on the 2nd Amendment?

And while you are at it, can you explain what you think the founding fathers would say if you told them you want to take away property rights over an issue like this?

IMHO, they would be appalled at the concept that you think you have a right to bring your gun on to THEIR property - regardless of their wishes. That is something that invading forces do, isn't it?

I think it a given that the founding fathers understood that dang near everyone had a shotgun or rifle in their wagon!

[DRM]

If you allow my vehicle on your property, great. You are not searching my vehicle. If you ask to search my vehicle, I will tell you to get ****** and leave. (Keep in mind this is hypothetical).

You can't search my vehicle at DRM's hardware store.

If you ask to search my vehicle, I'll leave.

I won't return, and I'll tell everyone I know about your Gestapo tactics.

DRM's Hardware will sadly, close, due to everyone in town thinking he is a busybody.

I have made it quite clear I should not - nor do I *want* to search your person, or your car. I simply have the right to ask you to remove the item or yourself and the item from my property.

And yes - if my business closes, that is MY problem - and is between me and my customers, or potential customers.

Why on earth do you want the government involved?

Where do your rights end and mine begin is the question, and vice versa.

My vehicle is my property. Just because I work for a company does not mean that they now "own" me. If they ask to search your vehicle and you refuse, you'll probably be canned without recourse, depending on where you work.

but your car is on MY property. I should have every right to ask you to remove anything from my property that i do not want there.

Oh, let's have fun...

You are parked on my property.

I get in your car.

I am carrying a gun.

Do you have a right to ask me to get out of your car? If so - why? I have a gun on my property, right? I should be able to sit anywhere on my property, right? YOu ask me to remove myself from your car - I ask you to remove yor car from my property - and I intend to remain right where I am... on my property.

So whose rights a re 'right'?

[DRM]

Well, I am so glad that I have you to define whats relevant for me!

Go tell your employees that you are going to do random searches of their vehicles so that you can control your property. Post a sign telling your customers that you will do random searches of their vehicles too so that you can control your property. See how well that flies.

And yes, I once owned my own business.

I think some of you are having some reading comprehension issues, because you continue to confuse the separate issues of "searches" and "asking you to leave".

[DRM]

I think it a given that the founding fathers understood that dang near everyone had a shotgun or rifle in their wagon!

You seem to have not answered the question...

[E4 No More]

I think some of you are having some reading comprehension issues, because you continue to confuse the separate issues of "searches" and "asking you to leave".

How are you going to know it is there in order to ask me to leave?

[E4 No More]

You seem to have not answered the question...

Talk about reading comprehension. Wow!

[Guest Jamie]

I think you need to brush up on what is a right, and what is a privilege. Those are clearly defined terms, not just me tossing words around.

You carrying a gun on to my property is NOT a right - it is a privilege by definition in the state of TN.

Oh, I understand the terms clearly enough.... I also understand exactly how an attorney is gonna twist and turn it and present it to a judge or jury when that discrimination suit is filed. And if you'll notice, I turned it right back around from a privilege - carrying a weapon on your property - to a right; self-defense.

Speaking of property rights though, think on this for a minute; it's the county and state that decides what those rights are, based on how the property is classified. There are no hard and fast rules saying you have a right to do this or a right to do that, where property is concerned. It's just not the same as the Bill of Rights and any of the amendments.

Let me give you an example: There's a piece of property near me that my in-laws looked at, and were interested in buying. They wanted to build a small house on it.

The problem, it turns out, is that thanks to a peculiarity in the county codes, and the way the land was sub-divided when it was first sold, you can't build anything on it. It's too small to build a house on and stay out of the right-of-ways, and it's not zoned for a mobile home. So although you could buy this plot of land, and you would have to pay taxes on it each year, you couldn't use it for anything past keeping one or two horses on.

I guess the point I'm trying to get across here is that people - and the law - do view a business differently than a private residence. And that there are things expected from or for one that aren't for the other. And also that those property rights are apparently far more... malleable?... than some of our other rights are expected to be.

Of course, we could always throw Eminent Domain into the mix, just to really muddy the waters. Talk about rights ceasing to exist....

Edited June 17, 2009 by Jamie

[Guest SUNTZU]

I have made it quite clear I should not - nor do I *want* to search your person, or your car. I simply have the right to ask you to remove the item or yourself and the item from my property.

And yes - if my business closes, that is MY problem - and is between me and my customers, or potential customers.

Why on earth do you want the government involved? I don't want the government involved. The situation I showed is what could happen between two parties over property rights. I'd leave if you asked to search my vehicle, gun or no, because you don't belong in my vehicle. In turn, you can ask me to leave, as I should once you have asked me to leave.

but your car is on MY property. I should have every right to ask you to remove anything from my property that i do not want there. Agreed.

Oh, let's have fun...

You are parked on my property.

I get in your car.

I am carrying a gun.

Do you have a right to ask me to get out of your car? If so - why? I have a gun on my property, right? I should be able to sit anywhere on my property, right? YOu ask me to remove myself from your car - I ask you to remove yor car from my property - and I intend to remain right where I am... on my property.

So whose rights a re 'right'?

My vehicle my rights, your property your rights. You've allowed me on your property with my property, which contains even more of my property. If you get into my property, that is sitting on your property, I can ask you to get out of/off of my property. And you should. You can ask me to leave your property. And I should. I don't have a right to stay on your property if asked to leave. You don't have a right to stay on/in my property if asked to leave. Nowhere do you have a right to search my property, nor do I have a right to search YOUR property.

The property right argument becomes a bubble in a bubble. Searching MY property isn't part of YOUR property rights. You may ask me to leave, and I should if you ask, that is all.

[DRM]

My vehicle my rights, your property your rights. You've allowed me on your property with my property, which contains even more of my property. If you get into my property, that is sitting on your property, I can ask you to get out of/off of my property. And you should. You can ask me to leave your property. And I should. I don't have a right to stay on your property if asked to leave. You don't have a right to stay on/in my property if asked to leave. Nowhere do you have a right to search my property, nor do I have a right to search YOUR property.

The property right argument becomes a bubble in a bubble. Searching MY property isn't part of YOUR property rights. You may ask me to leave, and I should if you ask, that is all.

So it seems we both agree that "search" is not part of the rights of the property owner. Good.

But it seems that you agree that a property owner should be able to say "If you have a gun on my property, please remove the gun from my property", and you should comply.

And I would assume that you also agree that if the property owner feels they are being lied to at that point, they should have the right to say "leave my property", and that person should leave, correct?

[PC7]

That sounds all cute and all, but can you actually articulate that point? As in - can you detail how the retention of property rights infringes on the 2nd Amendment?

And while you are at it, can you explain what you think the founding fathers would say if you told them you want to take away property rights over an issue like this?

IMHO, they would be appalled at the concept that you think you have a right to bring your gun on to THEIR property - regardless of their wishes. That is something that invading forces do, isn't it?

I’m glad you think the Bill of Rights is cute. What more do you want me to say about the Bill of Rights? It speaks for itself.

No one said anything about taking away your property rights. If you don’t want me on your property, that is fine. That is your right, just ask me to leave. The fact that I carry a pistol should make no difference, as long as I’m not threatening you with it.

BTW, what is your take on civil rights? Do you think it is ok to put up a sign that says “no blacks allowed”? How is that any different? Let me guess, you think you have the right to do that too, as a property owner, right?

Edited June 17, 2009 by PC7

[DRM]

I guess the point I'm trying to get across here is that people - and the law - do view a business differently than a private residence. And that there are things expected from or for one that aren't for the other. And also that those property rights are apparently far more... malleable?... than some of our other rights are expected to be.

Then is it your position that if the Kroger parking lot was owned by DRM, and leased to Kroger - DRM *does* have the right to ask that you not come on my property with a gun, but if DRM and his wife own a piece of property in an LLC, then DRM does *not* have the right to ask you to leave if you have a gun on the property?

[Guest tonybon]

DRM. I got nothing but love for you brother and yes I own a auto custom bussiness when im not at my factory job ( i paint cars) and the place i work does search our cars if they want to and yes you can refuse and find another job. i will never ask someone to leave my property under NORMIAL bussiness. i dont care what they have in their car. i dont feel i should have the right to tell them what they can and cant have in their cars its non of my bussiness. at my home different story its not set up for any joe blow to visit. so i quess i have to agree to disagree with you. their is a difference between personal and bussiness property. and yes i can put a sign on my house that says no blacks but not at my body shop.

[DRM]

I’m glad you think the Bill of Rights is cute.

No, I said the comment was "cute" because it was a flippant catch phrase that the poster used to avoid actually discussing the issue.

No one said anything about taking away your property rights.

The Parking Lot Carry Bill does exactly that - it removes a property owner's right to ask control what takes place on their property.

If you don’t want me on your property, that is fine. That is your right, just ask me to leave. The fact that I carry a pistol should make no difference, as long as I’m not threatening you with it.

See, that's not your call to make, is it? You don't get to come on my property, and then tell me what does or does not "threaten me". It is my decision and my call to decide at what point - on my own property - I feel threatened. That could be you pointing a gun at me, or you simply standing there with a gun, or even you having a gun in your car.

My property - my call.

Just like it is your call to decide if me merely sitting in your driveway holding a shotgun is "threatening" - regardless of whether I say it is threatening or not.

BTW, what is your take on civil rights? Do you think it is ok to put up a sign that says “no blacks allowed� How is that any different? Let me guess, you think you have the right to do that too, as a property owner, right?

Pretty much an apples to oranges comparison, but I'll answer it anyway:

Yes, I think a business should be able to serve or refuse service anyone at their leisure. If refusing to serve a segment of the population (gun owners, whites, redheads, whatever) causes their business to prosper - good for them. If it causes their business to fail - well, better luck next time. Either way - FREE people can decide to patronize a FREE business or not... without the government getting in the middle of it. I'm pretty confident that it what the founding fathers had in mind.

Me, personally, I'm keeping my business open to anyone who wants our services - gun owners, whites, even crazy redheads - their money all spends the same

[DRM]

and the place i work does search our cars if they want to and yes you can refuse and find another job.

That's a shame - and IMHO there should be laws against that kind of retaliation. At most - they should be able to ask you to leave. I do NOT agree with a civilian having the right to search your property.

i will never ask someone to leave my property under NORMIAL bussiness. i dont care what they have in their car. i dont feel i should have the right to tell them what they can and cant have in their cars its non of my bussiness.

YOu may not feel like you have the right to dictate what is allowed on your porperty, but plenty of the rest of us do. So should we all give up our rights just because you chose not to exercise yours?

Some people think you only need guns for hunting, others disagree. YOu better be careful - or one day you'll lose a right you care about because others decided it wasn't all that important to them. Point is - there are prenty of rights I may not chose to exercise, but I dang sure don't want them taken away.

[PC7]

DRM,

There is nothing to discuss about the Bill of Rights. It is just that. Many people have died for it and the rights you enjoy now.

So you think you have all the rights since you own the business? Well if you don’t want people on your property, don’t open a business. How about this, if you get to tell me when and where I can exercise my Second Amendment Right, then you should be liable, along with the judge and parole board who put the criminal back on the street, for anything a criminal does to me on your property. You willing to pay all my damages, even if it means you have to give up your house and live on the street? That is the way it should be if you and the lawyers want to take responsibility for my rights and safety.

BTW, it is nice to know you think it is ok to discriminate against people based upon appearance.

Edited June 17, 2009 by PC7

[E4 No More]

DRM,

So you think you have all the rights since you own the business? Well if you don’t want people on your property, don’t open a business. How about this, if you get to tell me when and where I can exercise my Second Amendment Right, then you should be liable, along with the judge and parole board who put the criminal back on the street, for anything a criminal does to me on your property. You willing to pay all my damages, even if it means you have to give up your house and live on the street? That is the way it should be if you and the lawyers want to take responsibility for my rights and safety.

BTW, it is nice to know you think it is ok to discriminate against people based upon appearance.

And since workman's compensation covers employess going to and from work, the same should be for a customer who had to disarm to go to his property...right?

[DRM]

DRM,

There is nothing to discuss about the Bill of Rights. It is just that. Many people have died for it and the rights you enjoy now.

So you think you have all the rights since you own the business? Well if you don’t want people on your property, don’t open a business. How about this, if you get to tell me when and where I can exercise my Second Amendment Right, then you should be liable, along with the judge and parole board who put the criminal back on the street, for anything a criminal does to me on your property. You willing to pay all my damages, even if it means you have to give up your house and live on the street? That is the way it should be if you and the lawyers want to take responsibility for my rights and safety.

Let me know when you are ready to discuss this based on logic, not emotion. Because I really don't have the time nor the interest to discuss this with people who can't seem to separate the two.

Oh, and if you think what I said was about discrimination, you have a perception problem my friend...

[Guest Jamie]

Then is it your position that if the Kroger parking lot was owned by DRM, and leased to Kroger - DRM *does* have the right to ask that you not come on my property with a gun, but if DRM and his wife own a piece of property in an LLC, then DRM does *not* have the right to ask you to leave if you have a gun on the property?

If the parking lot is used for a business the public has access to, then neither one of you have a right to tell the people that park there what they can or can not have in their cars, in my opinion.

However, if the person leasing the lot has a legitimate reason for asking someone to leave, they can, of course. Searching their vehicles or questioning them over the contents just doesn't fall under the heading of "legitimate".

( When you lease or rent out a property, it falls under the person who's leasing it's authority, within the limits of any contract or lease agreement they have. If you don't have it in the agreement that you can tell people to leave if you desire, or that you maintain some sort of authority over traffic onto and off of the property, then you can't over-ride the person leasing it's permission for others to be there. )

[PC7]

Let me know when you are ready to discuss this based on logic, not emotion. Because I really don't have the time nor the interest to discuss this with people who can't seem to separate the two.

Oh, and if you think what I said was about discrimination, you have a perception problem my friend...

This was the best you could come up with? Ok……

I AM discussing this based on logic, YOUR logic; so if it doesn’t make sense than that is a reflection upon your logic.

Yes, I think a business should be able to serve or refuse service anyone at their leisure. If refusing to serve a segment of the population (gun owners, whites, redheads, whatever) causes their business to prosper - good for them.

From Webster's...

Main Entry: dis·crim·i·nate Pronunciation: \dis-ˈkri-mə-ˌnāt\ Function: verb Inflected Form(s): dis·crim·i·nat·ed; dis·crim·i·nat·transitive verb1 a: to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features of b: distinguish, differentiate <discriminate hundreds of colors>2: to distinguish by discerning or exposing differences ; especially : to distinguish from another like objectintransitive verb1 a: to make a distinction <discriminate among historical sources> b: to use good judgment2: to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit <discriminate in favor of your friends> <discriminate against a certain nationality>

Edited June 17, 2009 by PC7

[Guest Jamie]

Let me know when you are ready to discuss this based on logic, not emotion. Because I really don't have the time nor the interest to discuss this with people who can't seem to separate the two.

Oh, and if you think what I said was about discrimination, you have a perception problem my friend...

DRM, you've been playing games with this pretty much the whole time now.

On the one hand, you claim you the property owner have the right to ask people not to bring certain items onto your property.

However, you also say you don't want or have a right to search their vehicles.

Well, that being the case, you're obviously aware that there's no way you can or cannot verify if the item you dislike is there or not, and therefore have no tangible reason to ask anyone to leave.

And that being the case, there really isn't a problem, so long as people lie to you if you ask and tell you there's none of said item on their person or in their vehicle. This removes any need for anyone to be asked to leave, or to get fired from their job.

The problem, however, and what I believe the "parking lot bill" is intended to address, is that employers and business owners seem to believe that they do have a right to search any thing or any one on their property, and are not willing to let that go.

It all really does come down to telling property owners that they can indeed decide who does or does not enter their property, but that they DO NOT have a right to search those people or THEIR property.

So what do you think? Do I have it about right, or am I missing something here?

[Guest tonybon]

If my car could not be searched when and for what reason they wanted, i would be ok with that. just keep my gun hidden no problem. But thats not good enough for most BIG bussiness's. They feel if you work for them they OWN you they can tell you what to do at work ,going to work, and at home. Just look at some of the new smoking rules being put down. Proctor and Gamble you smoke your fired PERIOD!! I dont smoke but i do care. If companys can get by with this how long before big brother thinks he should to. i understand you dont want to give up any rights as a property owner and im tired of loseing mine as an american. i will do all i can to help this bill pass and thats my