Gun in parking lots

[Guest canynracer]

Making other arrangements simply isn't possible for everyone, so your argument is unrealistic.

You have NO other alternatives? it HAS to be a firearm, in your car? iI your gun your primary and ONLY means of self defense?

have you seriously considered alternatives, or is it just "unrealistic"?

I used to think they same way...but creativity when you REALLLLLLLY want something will suprise you.

[E4 No More]

You have NO other alternatives? it HAS to be a firearm, in your car? iI your gun your primary and ONLY means of self defense?

have you seriously considered alternatives, or is it just "unrealistic"?

I used to think they same way...but creativity when you REALLLLLLLY want something will suprise you.

No weapons of any kind are allowed, and no public parking is available at all. That pretty much covers it at my work unless you want to bring a 4" pocket knife to a gunfight.

To be clear, I'm not worried about my safety at work. I'm not even worried about going to and from work, for I do not travel through bad neighborhoods. Even if I had the right to keep my handgun locked in my truck at work I would not do so. But that doesn't mean everyone works in the same situation as I.

But I do not believe an employer's property rights trump an employee's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Some try to draw an analogy to their home, and the difference is your home is not open to the general public to conduct business, (granted, with some exceptions). Isn't that why there's zoning laws in most areas? And yes, if I were running a business out of my home I would expect to not have the right to control what is inside my customer's personal property. When I ran my business I didn't make my customers walk through metal detectors in order to enter, and I sure as heck didn't search their cars. It was none of my business. Right to privacy anyone? You see, I see the employee's car as an extension of their home, and I see the parking lot as a transition point of their right to privacy to my property rights, (excluding the point that a majority of businesses do not own the property in which they conduct business; they lease or rent).

When neither has the right to trump another's right, then a transition point must exist, and I believe that point is the parking lot; not the home or the building in which business is conducted.

[E4 No More]

Again...the law in question is not about liability, or workmens comp, or insurance premiums...it is simply about FORCING SOMEONE TO DO SOMETHING THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH. whatever the reason as to WHY they disagree is irrelevant....

and if someone DID go postal in your business, your gun in your car is the last thing to worry about...if you get to your car, you should be driving away.

I don't agree with paying income tax, but I'm certainly forced to...right?

[Guest canynracer]

No weapons of any kind are allowed, and no public parking is available at all. That pretty much covers it at my work unless you want to bring a 4" pocket knife to a gunfight

To be clear, I'm not worried about my safety at work. I'm not even worried about going to and from work, for I do not travel through bad neighborhoods. Even if I had the right to keep my handgun locked in my truck at work I would not do so. But that doesn't mean everyone works in the same situation as I.

agreed, not all situations are the same...there are employers that ALLOW firearms...it is my choice to work where I work...and my employer allows nothing except a 3" blade...there is no public parking in the immediate vicinity...but again, I got creative, and to an from, I am covered.

But I do not believe an employer's property rights trump an employee's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

and the employers rights are the same as yours...they have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness as well, just cause their idea of what that means differs from yours, doesnt make them wrong.

Some try to draw an analogy to their home, and the difference is your home is not open to the general public to conduct business, (granted, with some exceptions). Isn't that why there's zoning laws in most areas? And yes, if I were running a business out of my home I would expect to not have the right to control what is inside my customer's personal property.

since we are talking about the masses, my employer, although is a public facing company does NOT allow customers, at all on the property I work on...so it is not open to the general public, so it can be viewed as the same as my home...as a matter of fact, the public facing part of my company does not restrict to the public.

When I ran my business I didn't make my customers walk through metal detectors in order to enter, and I sure as heck didn't search their cars. It was none of my business. Right to privacy anyone?

and I am sure your employees and customers appreciated it, but once again, you had the right to CHOOSE how you ran your business, what if the government didnt give you that choice and they said you HAVE to post, and disallow? now that would suck.

You see, I see the employee's car as an extension of their home,

unfortunatley the TN laws do not.

and I see the parking lot as a transition point of their right to privacy to my property rights, (excluding the point that a majority of businesses do not own the property in which they conduct business; they lease or rent).

own,lease or rent is irrelevant...you have just as much to say if you are renting. in my case, my company OWNS the property. but again, its irrelevant, if I rented my house, it is just as much mine.

When neither has the right to trump another's right, then a transition point must exist, and I believe that point is the parking lot; not the home or the building in which business is conducted.

I agree, if the parking lot is a public venue.

[E4 No More]

agreed, not all situations are the same...there are employers that ALLOW firearms...it is my choice to work where I work...and my employer allows nothing except a 3" blade...there is no public parking in the immediate vicinity...but again, I got creative, and to an from, I am covered.

and the employers rights are the same as yours...they have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness as well, just cause their idea of what that means differs from yours, doesnt make them wrong. since we are talking about the masses, my employer, although is a public facing company does NOT allow customers, at all on the property I work on...so it is not open to the general public, so it can be viewed as the same as my home...as a matter of fact, the public facing part of my company does not restrict to the public. and I am sure your employees and customers appreciated it, but once again, you had the right to CHOOSE how you ran your business, what if the government didnt give you that choice and they said you HAVE to post, and disallow? now that would suck.

unfortunatley the TN laws do not. own,lease or rent is irrelevant...you have just as much to say if you are renting. in my case, my company OWNS the property. but again, its irrelevant, if I rented my house, it is just as much mine.

I agree, if the parking lot is a public venue.

We'll just have to agree to disagree in principle.

Your last point is completely wrong, because if you rent a house the landlord has control over what you do on that property; not you. I've lived in apartments that disallowed firearms completely.

PS: The law has many rules telling an employer what they can and cannot do.

[Guest crotalus01]

Edit to add this is posted to canynracer....

As for me, I work at the airport. NO weapons allowed, NONE. Specifically mentioned are firearms, starter pistols, spearguns, hammers, brass knuckles, blades of any length, tear gas, mace, and any disabling chemical agent.

There is NO off property parking.

I can understand what you are saying about being for rights or against them but sometimes its not that simple - sometimes they overlap. As in my right to protect my life on the way to and from my employers property vs my employers right to tell me what I can and cannot possess in my vehicle while on their property. I personally feel my right to protect my life trumps their disdain for me having the means to do so in my car.

Oh yeah, all those armed guards that are there for "my protection" are working out really well - a few months ago our "security" found a guy shot to death in his car in the secured parking area. 3 days after the fact that is. Someone who parked next to the car smelled them and reported it to security.

At any rate I guess we can agree to disagree.

[troy917]

You missed my point.

It is your employers right to have rules as to what happens on their property...just as it is YOUR right to have rules about what happens on yours.

I wish I COULD carry, but I will not trample my employers right in order for me to gain mine.

If I owned a business, I CERTAINLY would not want the government FORCING me into doing something I disagree with

With that said, and I understand your point about a land owner deciding not to allow guns on their property..... Now to dig a little deeper.

What is your stance on "public owned companies" What if I'm a share holder in my company and I feel that in a sense, I am at least part owner of the property? Can I elect to carry and leave the weapon in the part I feel I own. Besides it is in the shareholders best interest if I'm able to return to work tomorrow.

[Guest canynracer]

What is your stance on "public owned companies" What if I'm a share holder in my company and I feel that in a sense, I am at least part owner of the property? Can I elect to carry and leave the weapon in the part I feel I own. Besides it is in the shareholders best interest if I'm able to return to work tomorrow.

If you are a shareholder, that has the share power to help set the direction for the company, then you should be speaking up about the rule in the first place. really, folks should be trying this approach first...some places just might suprise you with their response.

I honestly dont think this conversation is going to sway either sides of this...I CAN honestly say that some very good point were made, and I have learned from them...

this is a touchy subject about rights crossing...hopefully there is some common ground answer that satisfies both sides.

[Guest canynracer]

Edit to add this is posted to canynracer....

As for me, I work at the airport. NO weapons allowed, NONE. Specifically mentioned are firearms, starter pistols, spearguns, hammers, brass knuckles, blades of any length, tear gas, mace, and any disabling chemical agent.

There is NO off property parking.

I can understand what you are saying about being for rights or against them but sometimes its not that simple - sometimes they overlap. As in my right to protect my life on the way to and from my employers property vs my employers right to tell me what I can and cannot possess in my vehicle while on their property. I personally feel my right to protect my life trumps their disdain for me having the means to do so in my car.

Oh yeah, all those armed guards that are there for "my protection" are working out really well - a few months ago our "security" found a guy shot to death in his car in the secured parking area. 3 days after the fact that is. Someone who parked next to the car smelled them and reported it to security.

At any rate I guess we can agree to disagree.

and what is a firearm in your car going to deter?

the to and from argument although has some valid points, can be argued that there are still things that can be in your car and used for self defense that do not have the "weapons" status...you'd be really suprised how much it hurts to get carbuerator cleaner sprayed in your eyes. A toolkit with screwdrivers, ect. there are lots of things that with a little creativity can be classified as non weapon.

as far as security...if the parking lot is THAT volitile, I certainly wouldnt want my gun in my car to be stolen...and yes, I know that parking lot, and I know that cars are CONSTANTLY broken into...my gut feeling is that those break-ins will certainly INCREASE once the bad guys know that they have a chance of stumbling upon a gun.

I have a feeling we work for the same company, just different locations...I am not at the airport, although I do have to travel to the airport location once a week...the same rules apply for me.

[E4 No More]

Sure! Let's bring a tire tool to a gunfight! That'll work out for you.

I don't know about Tennessee offhand, but where I was a policeman you'd better be able to prove that you were on your way to a ballgame or just fixed a flat.

[Guest CrimsonTrace]

I believe the Natural Rights of property are equal in measure to all other Natural Rights.

But I question those who want to use their property rights in order to squash any other Natural Right.

During the dark era of Jim Crow here in America, such property right claims were used, and supported by the supreme court, by property owners to keep people of dark complexion from eating or even entering their establishments.

To me, this position by employers and their parking lots is not really any different then what was openly practiced during Jim Crow. They are claiming security is increased by failing to simply recognize the Natural Right of the individual.

They should thereby expect that their "presumed" right to their property may soon be taken from them in the same manner which they unjustly strip away the Right upon the individual without "due process".

Whenever liberty and security clash, liberty should be in the favored position, the default position, the presumed position.

Edited October 1, 2009 by CrimsonTrace

[TNFlyer]

I believe the Natural Rights of property are equal in measure to all other Natural Rights.

But I question those who want to use their property rights in order to squash any other Natural Right.

During the dark era of Jim Crow here in America, such property right claims were used, and supported by the supreme court, by property owners to keep people of dark complexion from eating or even entering their establishments.

To me, this position by employers and their parking lots is not really any different then what was openly practiced during Jim Crow. They are claiming security is increased by failing to simply recognize the Natural Right of the individual.

They should thereby expect that their "presumed" right to their property may soon be taken from them in the same manner which they unjustly strip away the Right upon the individual without "due process".

Whenever liberty and security clash, liberty should be in the favored position, the default position, the presumed position.

The problem I see with that logic is, you cannot choose the color of your skin, but you can choose whether or not to carry a firearm. Like canyn said earlier there are other options besides a gun.

[Guest 270win]

It would make more sense for the state to just say that the inside of a motor vehicle is treated as private property, like a home...not just give an exception for firearms. Then you wouldn't have people possibly fired FOR CAUSE and LOSE UNEMPLOYMENT over silly things that are legal but against company policy like having an empty beer can in the back floor board, a pack of cigs, can of skoal, pistol, knife, and other legal objects.

Yes, I do know that employers can find any reason to fire someone...but let them find something else other than a legal object in a person's personal motor vehicle...that is nothing but a way to screw someone out of unemployment benefits.

[jeffjeeptj]

As a follow-up.

I work for a company where the public can park on the company lots and enter the business buildings. There are absolutlely no signs about firearm restrictions or any other restrictions anywhere on the property.

A visitor, customer, contractor, or vendor can drive onto the lots, enter the buildings, including a restaurant that serves alcohol (which is not posted), with absolutely no restrictions. BUT, the employees cannot possess firearms even in a locked vehicle.

In fact, there is a shooting range (leased to a private club) on company property in a remote area.

Many think this makes employees a special class (discriminated).

Thoughts?

[E4 No More]

As a follow-up.

I work for a company where the public can park on the company lots and enter the business buildings. There are absolutlely no signs about firearm restrictions or any other restrictions anywhere on the property.

A visitor, customer, contractor, or vendor can drive onto the lots, enter the buildings, including a restaurant that serves alcohol (which is not posted), with absolutely no restrictions. BUT, the employees cannot possess firearms even in a locked vehicle.

In fact, there is a shooting range (leased to a private club) on company property in a remote area.

Many think this makes employees a special class (discriminated).

Thoughts?

Not in the classical definition of discrimination because it's not related to race, color, creed, etc. Legal discrimination takes place all of the time. In fact, illegal discrimination takes place all of the time under the guise of "At Will" employment. Have have fallen victim to this, and I have seen others fall victim to it as well. In my case, when the employer found out that I was legally disabled that required concessions in the work environment that had absolutely nothing to do with the effectiveness in which I executed my duties, he fired me without cause and hid behind the "At Will" laws of this state.

But I digress. They can legally discriminate against you in this matter.

[Guest canynracer]

Sure! Let's bring a tire tool to a gunfight! That'll work out for you.

I don't know about Tennessee offhand, but where I was a policeman you'd better be able to prove that you were on your way to a ballgame or just fixed a flat.

youre right...bring NOTHING!!

A: not EVERY bad thing is a "gunfight"

B: You are saying without a gun...you have NOTHING??? wow, we are ALL in trouble then...

[E4 No More]

youre right...bring NOTHING!!

A: not EVERY bad thing is a "gunfight"

B: You are saying without a gun...you have NOTHING??? wow, we are ALL in trouble then...

Welcome to the concept of aging.

PS: Read post #90 carefully

[Guest canynracer]

Ummm...#90 is about dicrimination...which means nothing to what I said...none-the-less...I am going to re-quote what I said earlier and just agree to disagree.

.....

I honestly dont think this conversation is going to sway either sides of this...I CAN honestly say that some very good point were made, and I have learned from them...

this is a touchy subject about rights crossing...hopefully there is some common ground answer that satisfies both sides.

[E4 No More]

Ummm...#90 is about dicrimination...which means nothing to what I said...none-the-less...I am going to re-quote what I said earlier and just agree to disagree.

Wrong! From my post #90 "In my case, when the employer found out that I was legally disabled...." When it comes to self-defense, what I could do without a gun at your age is much different from what I could do now at my age.

[Guest canynracer]

ahhh gotchya....

[RinTN]

It would make more sense for the state to just say that the inside of a motor vehicle is treated as private property, like a home...not just give an exception for firearms. ...

That's the way I think it needs to be - your vehicle as an extension of your "castle".

[Guest crotalus01]

and what is a firearm in your car going to deter?

the to and from argument although has some valid points, can be argued that there are still things that can be in your car and used for self defense that do not have the "weapons" status...you'd be really suprised how much it hurts to get carbuerator cleaner sprayed in your eyes. A toolkit with screwdrivers, ect. there are lots of things that with a little creativity can be classified as non weapon.

as far as security...if the parking lot is THAT volitile, I certainly wouldnt want my gun in my car to be stolen...and yes, I know that parking lot, and I know that cars are CONSTANTLY broken into...my gut feeling is that those break-ins will certainly INCREASE once the bad guys know that they have a chance of stumbling upon a gun.

I have a feeling we work for the same company, just different locations...I am not at the airport, although I do have to travel to the airport location once a week...the same rules apply for me.

To and From is my situation. The parking lot is just as dangerous as anywhere else you would not normally expect trouble.

You have a valid point about using other methods of defense not considered weapon status, BUT in Memphis 99.9% of crimes are GUN crimes. I dont want to bring a knife (or tear gas, or carb cleaner etc) to a gun fight.

[Guest 270win]

Crotalus,

I live outside of Memphis and have been to the airport area many times for work. I don't particularly care for that area at all day or night and avoid it like a bad disease. If you are concerned about your safety like I am over in that sewer part of town, here's what I would do.

I would get myself a gun I wouldn't care if it was stolen to keep in my car. That can be a well used 38/357 Taurus or Rossi snub hammerless revolver that is still clean and will serve you well if you have to stop for gas or get lunch in that Winchester/Lamar/Airways area and need to slip something in your pocket. It will also work great in a car jacking over there. I don't know if you work days or night...doesn't matter...too many bad folks roaming around there between the druggies, hookers, and gang bangers. Find a good place in your vehicle to secure the firearm hidden/locked maybe hidden safe and don't leave anything in the open that a potential car thief would want....if you can switch your stereo back to factory..that would be wise...no CD's..no nothing...keep the vehicle interior empty....no nice wheels that the bro's like. Hide your gun well in advance of getting to work and get your gun out a good ways after leaving work so no one sees you. Don't tell anyone at work, friends that know anyone where you work, relatives, maybe even your wife if she talks a lot that you keep a gun in your vehicle..the less that know the better....basically keep it to where if the job finds out you have a gun is when you use it on someone in self defense and at that point it won't really matter.

I've done this at various jobs for the same reasons and even carried at a couple jobs by being extremely discreet. I can't earn a living and provide if some thug hurts or kills me off Lamar...corporations don't care about employees and will just replace me if i was hurt or killed by a thug...so I just have to take care of myself and be quiet about it. I can replace a job if need be if my company fired me after me using my handgun in self defense...but those close to me would find it hard to replace me IF i didn't have that gun to use in self defense.

It's a tough decision we all have to make from time to time...policy or your life. Companies, in my book, treat employees like dirt anyway...so I just do the best to take care of myself and loved ones and overlook their policies that can get in the way of me being safe and providing for my loved ones......when in bad parts of town especially at night i generally have said forget policy and carried a handgun concealed on me b/c if company cared about me they wouldn't have me in the hood at night alone. When in good areas/suburbs my gun stays in my car. I try to weigh out the risks when breaking company policies VS the risks of being hurt/killed off Lamar or say in Brentwood.

Edited October 6, 2009 by 270win

[K191145]

That's the way I think it needs to be - your vehicle as an extension of your "castle".

I do have a problem with legislation dictating to me or any private business who or what I must allow on my property. Anyway, I also believe that I have the same property/privacy rights in my vehicle as I do in my home and just because I'm parked in a parking lot, it doesn't give anyone, especially some private security guard the right to search my vehicle. At the most they can tell me to leave their property if they have a problem with me or my vechicle. I e-mailed this to Rep. Johnson a while back and he responded.

Dear Representative Johnson.

Again I want to thank you for supporting the bills this year that strengthened our 2nd amendment rights in Tennessee. Another concern I have is some companies that may have an anti-2nd amendment agenda might harass certain employees and or violate their 4th amendment rights by demanding unwarranted searches of their vehicles on company property. If the "Parking Lot Bill" doesn't pan out in the legislature this year perhaps someone could write and sponsor some legislation that would strengthen Tennessean's 4th amendment rights against unwarranted searches of their vehicles. Add language that would place a persons vehicle as an extension of their home and allow only law enforcement, (not company or private security), to conduct searches when there's strong evidence of a felonious crime or if the owner is intoxicated and not because they may have an NRA decal on their window. I know there is a private property rights issue with the "Parking Lot Bill", but a persons vehicle is also their private property and they don't forfeit their property rights just because it may be parked on company property.

You make good points. I have forwarded your thoughts to the sponsor of HB1395 Rep. Josh Evans. We will discuss some ideas to deal with the issue.

Thanks for the input

Phillip Johnson

State Representative

78th District

Cheatham, Williamson, Montgomery Counties

(615) 741-7477

[K191145]

This would be a "don't ask don't tell" type language in some bill, they can't harrass you about what you may or may not have in your vehicle, (just because you have a Ducks Unlimited or NRA decal on your window), and also you wouldn't advertise,(leave your gun in sight, brag to employees etc.), what you may or may not have.

I just don't want my right to tell someone to get the hell off my property endangered.

Edited October 7, 2009 by K191145