Working for a company banning weapons on property.

[CrazyRay]

If such were the law, unless an employee let it be known at work that he or she had a firearm in his or her vehicle, the employer would have no reason to ask the employee to remove the vehicle from the property and certainly could not use the firearm as a reason for termination of employment.

Yep - and everyone's rights get respected

[Guest HexHead]

If it's your employer, I'd suggest a more tactful approach unless you are just itching for a wrongful termination lawsuit

I'm going to start living my life by the principles of WWKD?

What would Voldemort do? :D:D:D

[leroy]

Exactly - my problem with all the folks who only want to trumpet the 'property owner's rights' is that they do not recognize my rights to determine what takes place within the scope of my property (my vehicle.) The passenger compartment of my vehicle remains my property regardless of where it is parked and a law which recognizes that would go a long way toward solving the problem. I would, however, also want to see a stipulation included that expressly forbids, in no uncertain terms, employers requiring employees to submit to vehicle searches as a condition of employment. It should be spelled out that employers cannot make such a requirement either at the time of the search or by requiring employees to sign documents authorizing potential searches at a future time. If such were the law, unless an employee let it be known at work that he or she had a firearm in his or her vehicle, the employer would have no reason to ask the employee to remove the vehicle from the property and certainly could not use the firearm as a reason for termination of employment.

JAB is exactly right. This is the solution. It complies with the Fourth Amendment and respects everybodys rights. There is precedent for it. This is exactly what happened following the bloody coal miners strikes in Southern WV in the teens and twenties. The WV (and other states too) state government passed laws that prohibited the signing of one sided employment contracts that specified odious or unconstitutional (state or federal) provisions (no joining of the union, etc) as a condition of employment. The real problem of holding the employer liable for misdeeds occuring on his property is a tort law issue that we talked about in an earlier post.

Summary: This problem can be solved if the polititians have enough backbone to do the right thing. My guess is that they wont because we might offend either a large anti gun employer or some idiot constituency.

By the way, there was nobody tougher and more vindictive that the WV coal operatiors. If the polititions stood up to them; they can stand up to this feminized bunch of weenies we have evolved into today -- hehehe.

Time will tell.

Keep up the good work!!

Kind regards,

Leroy

[CrazyRay]

I'm going to start living my life by the principles of WWKD?

What would Voldemort do? :D:D:D

If so - just make sure you share the audio and video recordings we all *know* are part of the WWKD package

[Guest ab28]

I disagree, and laid out my suggestion just a post previous. My solutions retains your right to secure your property (no private entity should be able to search your car - EVER), while retaining the property owner's rights to decide what they want or don't want on their property. And just like anything else - a property owner can either allow you to be there with a gun, or ask you to leave if they think have a gun.

But since they can't search your car - they better be *real* sure when they ask you to leave, because they will have to defend against that decision in the courts.

I think this preserves everyone's rights and is IMHO the best compromise in that regard.

Well, technically, my pants and body are my personal property. If I have a gun in my pocket, it is on my personal property. I disagree with a property owner having the right to infringe upon my ability to defend myself. I somewhat agree with the constitution being between us and the govt, but I disagree with anyone, govt or citizen, attempting to disarm me.

It is wrong, period. MTSU does not allow firearms on campus. If I am mugged in the parking lot, you can bet I will file suit against them for not allowing me to defend myself.

No one has the right to disarm you. My rights do not come and go depending on where I am standing at the time. I disagree with govt buildings being posted as well. A responsible citizen should be able to carry ANYWHERE.

[leroy]

Well, technically, my pants and body are my personal property. If I have a gun in my pocket, it is on my personal property. I disagree with a property owner having the right to infringe upon my ability to defend myself. I somewhat agree with the constitution being between us and the govt, but I disagree with anyone, govt or citizen, attempting to disarm me.

It is wrong, period. MTSU does not allow firearms on campus. If I am mugged in the parking lot, you can bet I will file suit against them for not allowing me to defend myself.

No one has the right to disarm you. My rights do not come and go depending on where I am standing at the time. I disagree with govt buildings being posted as well. A responsible citizen should be able to carry ANYWHERE.

Amen brother. You are exactly right. The right to self defense was recognized long before firearms came along. All these "supposed improvements" in the right to bear arms for self defense (and defense of others) in the states (Tennessee included) are really lessening of infringements to the Second Amendment that were originally conjured up by polititians and crooks to punish their political and thug enemies. Firearms control and permits came from such great places as Chicago and New York where polititians, judges, and the police were bought and paid for by thugs and hoodlum enterprises. To think otherwise is foolish.

Those who developed the concept of "the state shall have the right to regulate the wearing of arms.." (the exact wording of Tennessee law, by the way) did so in direct contradiction of the Second Amendment. It was done by polititians to punish their political enemies and has been sanctioned by the courts.

Keep up the good work.

Kind regards

Leroy

[Guest manofsteel]

didnt mean to start a fight .lol i dont want anyone to lose their rights, dont know why you should be allowed to search MY car as part of YOUR PROPERTY RIGHTS ?? .......Im not asking for you or any one to give up your rights as a property owner, so look at it this way. the next time you go to a park that is public land me as a tax payer owns that land along with others so we can search YOUR car to make sure you dont have anything bad in your car??????????? yea that makes sense to me...NOT!

[Guest mosinon]

No one has the right to disarm you. My rights do not come and go depending on where I am standing at the time. I disagree with govt buildings being posted as well. A responsible citizen should be able to carry ANYWHERE.

So I can come over to your yard and put whatever signs I want in it? Or I can stand on your property and spout whatever nonsense I want to spout?

I do, after all, have the right to free speech so I should be able to exercise that right on your property, yes?

My rights remain constant despite my location after all.

That said, I also disagree with government buildings being posted. Public property and all.

[Guest jackdm3]

I disagree with not being able to be armed in court with the murderer that killed my WHOLE family!

My mother agrees.

[Guest mwentllc]

Sure FedEX is totally against guns in parking lots, but the truth is where some of their operations are located (the ones in the worst parts of Memphis)are not their property. It belongs to the Airport Authority.

[CrazyRay]

No one has the right to disarm you. My rights do not come and go depending on where I am standing at the time.

Nobody is disarming you. You go unarmed on THEIR property, or you can go armed somewhere else.

You go NOT have a God given right to carry a gun on MY property, period.

The simple fact is this - my property rights trump your perceived right to cary a gun anywhere you please.

The founding fathers would find your view to be not only silly, but insulting to the owner of said property.

And in the case of publicly held property, I agree - I should be able to carry there since *I* am one of the collective owners (again - the 2nd is a contract between the people and the gov't).

[Guest ab28]

Nobody is disarming you. You go unarmed on THEIR property, or you can go armed somewhere else.

You go NOT have a God given right to carry a gun on MY property, period.

The simple fact is this - my property rights trump your perceived right to cary a gun anywhere you please.

The founding fathers would find your view to be not only silly, but insulting to the owner of said property.

And in the case of publicly held property, I agree - I should be able to carry there since *I* am one of the collective owners (again - the 2nd is a contract between the people and the gov't).

I have to disagree with you. My life is more valuable than someone's land. I do have a right to carry anywhere. If I have no intent to harm anyone, you have nothing to worry about. I find it scary that people wish to limit self protection, and feel that the founding fathers would agree with them.

[Punisher84]

I have to disagree with you. My life is more valuable than someone's land. I do have a right to carry anywhere. If I have no intent to harm anyone, you have nothing to worry about. I find it scary that people wish to limit self protection, and feel that the founding fathers would agree with them.

Actually you're very wrong. If you read the constitution it is very clear that one right shall not overpower another. The 2nd amendment is no more important than any other. You have NO right to carry on my property or in my home unless I grant you the right to do so because I am the property owner.

The intention of the 2nd amendment is that the GOVERNMENT would not limit you're right to carry or possess arms, but your fellow citizen, upon his own property, may very well tell you that you may not carry on his land or in his home.

We must never forget that, just because a particular part of the constitution is important to us, there are other parts that are just as important to the idea our founding fathers had.

[leroy]

didnt mean to start a fight .lol i dont want anyone to lose their rights, dont know why you should be allowed to search MY car as part of YOUR PROPERTY RIGHTS ?? .......Im not asking for you or any one to give up your rights as a property owner, so look at it this way. the next time you go to a park that is public land me as a tax payer owns that land along with others so we can search YOUR car to make sure you dont have anything bad in your car??????????? yea that makes sense to me...NOT!

I think ya did good!! This is called political discourse (... what the First Amendment is really about....with a smidgen of education.....) It is, indeed, a great thing and needs to be encouraged. Remember the famous quote by Ambrose Bierce ( an old time writer and commentator from the late 1800's). He said:

"There are four boxes guarding America; the soapbox (..the one we are using here..), the ballot box, the jurybox, and the cartridge box. ...".

He was a very wise man. We need critical dialogue; not a bunch of mamby-pamby "politically correct", non-offensive, non-thinking baloney that passes for erudite conversation these days.

I say: "Keep up the good work"!!!

We salute you.

Leroy

PS-- THANK YOU TGO FOR PROVIDING THIS FORUM!!! WE SALUTE YOU TOO!!!

[JAB]

I have to disagree with you. My life is more valuable than someone's land. I do have a right to carry anywhere. If I have no intent to harm anyone, you have nothing to worry about. I find it scary that people wish to limit self protection, and feel that the founding fathers would agree with them.

People have a right to freedom of religion. You do not, however, have to allow anyone to hold a prayer meeting in your living room (nor does a company have to allow anyone to hold a prayer meeting in their break room.)

People have a right to keep and bear arms. You do not, however, have to allow people to carry on your property - and neither does the owner of a company.

However, I am not aware of any law that allows an employer to tell an employee that he or she can't have religious tracts in his or her car while on company property as long as he or she doesn't attempt to distribute those tracts while on company property (and I'll bet there would be an uproar if a company tried.) What I have within the confines of my car - as long as it isn't illegal for me to have it there, in the first place - is none of anyone's business whether it be religious tracts or a .357 Magnum.

[E4 No More]

They don't need a law to prevent you from having religious material in your car just as they don't need a law to keep you from having a gun in your car. They can prohibit a particular color or car, or anything else for that matter, from their property without a law.

The problem is idiot employers who think they have the right to make such a decision, (disarming their employees) without accepting the responsibility for their decision, (liability for harm coming to said employee whom otherwise would be armed). They confuse paying a wage for ownership.

[Guest ab28]

Actually you're very wrong. If you read the constitution it is very clear that one right shall not overpower another. The 2nd amendment is no more important than any other. You have NO right to carry on my property or in my home unless I grant you the right to do so because I am the property owner.

The intention of the 2nd amendment is that the GOVERNMENT would not limit you're right to carry or possess arms, but your fellow citizen, upon his own property, may very well tell you that you may not carry on his land or in his home.

We must never forget that, just because a particular part of the constitution is important to us, there are other parts that are just as important to the idea our founding fathers had.

I am quite correct. The 2nd is the most important amendment, as it protects all the others. The intention may be to keep the government from limiting my rights, but if I won't let the .gov do it, why would I allow a citizen to do it? Anyone trying to disarm me will not be respected, whether a citizen or the gov. As I mentioned, no one I went and visited specifically told me not to carry a firearm on their property. I am not going to go around telling liberal gun-haters that I am carrying a handgun on their property. The very irrational belief that they hold negates any impact to their opinion. The defense of my life rests in no hands but my own, that is why I disagree with disarmament. You choose to disarm me on your property, you better be willing and able to defend me(not you specifically, I am making a point).

The rights of property owners are not superior to those of non-owners. That is the same crap the landowner systems and feudal organizations have tried to do throughout history. Used to be only landowners could vote, and do many other things.

Supposedly, anyone who is "not of sound mind or body" or however the phrase goes, cannot make valid decisions. Anyone telling me to disarm, I consider not to be of sound mind, in which case their opinion is invalid. As mentioned, I do not carry on posted property, or if anyone specifically asked me not to carry on their property.

Sorry I am so steadfast in defense of my rights, but I do not like to see anyone encroaching on them for any reason. My life is very important, I choose to protect it with deadly force, and resent anyone who so casually tries to disarm me. They are basically saying my life is not worth protecting.

[CrazyRay]

Anyone trying to disarm me will not be respected, whether a citizen or the gov.

I fail to see how I am being "respected" when I tell you not to bring a gun into my house, and you insist you can and WILL.

Again - you are not being disarmed... you are simply being told you must go armed SOMEWHERE ELSE.

Nobody is disarming anyone.

I'm sorry if you misunderstand how the Constitution works... and that line of thinking you have there is very troubling.

[CrazyRay]

I think ya did good!! This is called political discourse (... what the First Amendment is really about....with a smidgen of education.....) It is, indeed, a great thing and needs to be encouraged. Remember the famous quote by Ambrose Bierce ( an old time writer and commentator from the late 1800's). He said:

"There are four boxes guarding America; the soapbox (..the one we are using here..), the ballot box, the jurybox, and the cartridge box. ...".

He was a very wise man. We need critical dialogue; not a bunch of mamby-pamby "politically correct", non-offensive, non-thinking baloney that passes for erudite conversation these days.

I say: "Keep up the good work"!!!

We salute you.

Leroy

PS-- THANK YOU TGO FOR PROVIDING THIS FORUM!!! WE SALUTE YOU TOO!!!

I agree... several different views here and everyone is able to share them in a civil manner. It's a beautiful thing to see in action

[Guest TnRebel]

Fought this for over three years in Florida, now I guess we will fight it here in my home state of Tn . now that i am back where I belong.

Florida: Guns in parking lot law

It was a three year fight, and gun rights advocates won. The law even survived a legal challenge in federal court. Those with a Right-to-Carry permit from the state of Florida are allowed to keep guns in their cars in the parking lot of their workplace.

Read About It: The Orlando Sentinel

Posted: 11/3/2009 9:23:29 AM

The only exception is business that handle explosives material.

[DavidD]

Fought this for over three years in Florida, now I guess we will fight it here in my home state of Tn . now that i am back where I belong.

Florida: Guns in parking lot law

It was a three year fight, and gun rights advocates won. The law even survived a legal challenge in federal court. Those with a Right-to-Carry permit from the state of Florida are allowed to keep guns in their cars in the parking lot of their workplace.

Read About It: The Orlando Sentinel

Posted: 11/3/2009 9:23:29 AM

The only exception is business that handle explosives material.

Hopefully you'll bring us some luck in our fight.

[Punisher84]

I am quite correct. The 2nd is the most important amendment, as it protects all the others. The intention may be to keep the government from limiting my rights, but if I won't let the .gov do it, why would I allow a citizen to do it? Anyone trying to disarm me will not be respected, whether a citizen or the gov. As I mentioned, no one I went and visited specifically told me not to carry a firearm on their property. I am not going to go around telling liberal gun-haters that I am carrying a handgun on their property. The very irrational belief that they hold negates any impact to their opinion. The defense of my life rests in no hands but my own, that is why I disagree with disarmament. You choose to disarm me on your property, you better be willing and able to defend me(not you specifically, I am making a point).

The rights of property owners are not superior to those of non-owners. That is the same crap the landowner systems and feudal organizations have tried to do throughout history. Used to be only landowners could vote, and do many other things.

Supposedly, anyone who is "not of sound mind or body" or however the phrase goes, cannot make valid decisions. Anyone telling me to disarm, I consider not to be of sound mind, in which case their opinion is invalid. As mentioned, I do not carry on posted property, or if anyone specifically asked me not to carry on their property.

Sorry I am so steadfast in defense of my rights, but I do not like to see anyone encroaching on them for any reason. My life is very important, I choose to protect it with deadly force, and resent anyone who so casually tries to disarm me. They are basically saying my life is not worth protecting.

So you think you can walk into my house and I have no right to tell you that you cannot have your gun in my home? Your logic is very flawed. I hope your view of your rights doesn't end up costing you your life one day, because I can assure you, if you maintain that you have a right to carry anywhere you damn well please without regard, it will.

[Guest ab28]

So you think you can walk into my house and I have no right to tell you that you cannot have your gun in my home? Your logic is very flawed. I hope your view of your rights doesn't end up costing you your life one day, because I can assure you, if you maintain that you have a right to carry anywhere you damn well please without regard, it will.

As I said, if no one knows I am carrying, I don't see the big deal. If someone tells me not to carry, then I won't go there. I will fight as needed to defend my rights, if someone attacks me with lethal force, I will defend myself.

My logic is perfectly sound. The only reason it would "cost me my life" is if I was attacked. I am not going to go around attacking people, so someone would have to do it to me for that to happen. I will defend myself as needed, should anyone decide to do so. I don't go looking for trouble, and would rather not have it, but I won't let anyone trample on my rights.

For your first sentence, yes, I believe I should be able to be in someone's home and they have no say in disarming me. I don't break into houses, so the only reason I would be there is by invite, and if invited in, they would trust me.

[Guest ab28]

I fail to see how I am being "respected" when I tell you not to bring a gun into my house, and you insist you can and WILL.

Again - you are not being disarmed... you are simply being told you must go armed SOMEWHERE ELSE.

Nobody is disarming anyone.

I'm sorry if you misunderstand how the Constitution works... and that line of thinking you have there is very troubling.

They are disarming me, it is merely semantics. Saying that you cannot carry a gun here is being disarmed. If someone tells me not to bring a gun into their house, they are not respecting my right to defend myself, so why would I respect anything they have to say? I understand perfectly how the constitution works, yeah, the 2A applies to the gov, but a right to self defense should not be denied by anyone.

There is nothing wrong with my line of thinking, it is perfectly logical. I have every right to defend myself, anywhere I am. It makes no sense to be armed some places and not armed others. Yeah, I cannot carry on campus, but I am attempting to get that changed.

What bothers me is people thinking that property owner's rights are more important than anyone else's. Owning stuff doesn't make anyone any better, that line of thought has been with humanity since the dawn of time.

[Fallguy]

So you think you can walk into my house and I have no right to tell you that you cannot have your gun in my home? Your logic is very flawed. I hope your view of your rights doesn't end up costing you your life one day, because I can assure you, if you maintain that you have a right to carry anywhere you damn well please without regard, it will.

Give it up Punisher.....he obviously feels his rights are the only ones to be respected and that a property owner is not to have any say so as to what occurs on his property.