Working for a company banning weapons on property.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

No, he doesn't. He is simply stating that his right is an

individual right and that it isn't based on property

ownership. I don't think that is crazy at all. Yours or

my property can't protect the individual. Only the

individual can do that. He isn't using that to trample

on your rights as an individual. If you give it more

thought, rather than try to view it as a threat, which

is what all those feel good laws have done to our

ideas about rights, you might see that this right does

protect all the others.

I don't understand the opposition to ab28 unless you

view everyone as a criminal by default. I think he is

being consistent in his statement about it being a right

over property considering the property rights have been

trampled so often by eminent domain. Good argument,

ab28!

[Fallguy]

I'm not saying I feel threatened by a HCP holder being armed.

I'm saying that I can restrict or deny access to my personal private property PERIOD

I don't have to allow Law Enforcement onto my property (without a warrant) so why should I have to allow a private citizen?

Now I personally think there is a difference between my private property and property that is "open to the public", but in many situations (including handgun carry) the law does not.

I personally feel that on property open to the public the owner should not be allowed to ban any legal activity (like carry with a permit) that does not disrupt him being able to do business. But that is not the law of the land as of today.

But...on my own personal private property, I don't have to allow anything I don't want to, you do not have a right to be there in the first place. If I place conditions upon your entry and you do not want to meet them, then you simply do not enter my property. I'm not denying your right to carry, I'm exerting my right to control my property.

[leroy]

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

Amen brother!!!

Keep up the good work!

Kind regards,

Leroy

[Punisher84]

I'm not saying I feel threatened by a HCP holder being armed.

I'm saying that I can restrict or deny access to my personal private property PERIOD

I don't have to allow Law Enforcement onto my property (without a warrant) so why should I have to allow a private citizen?

Now I personally think there is a difference between my private property and property that is "open to the public", but in many situations (including handgun carry) the law does not.

I personally feel that on property open to the public the owner should not be allowed to ban any legal activity (like carry with a permit) that does not disrupt him being able to do business. But that is not the law of the land as of today.

But...on my own personal private property, I don't have to allow anything I don't want to, you do not have a right to be there in the first place. If I place conditions upon your entry and you do not want to meet them, then you simply do not enter my property. I'm not denying your right to carry, I'm exerting my right to control my property.

Exactly. Either ab can't make a coherent argument or he thinks that he can do whatever he want on anyone's property. That is most certainly NOT the case. If I don't want someone to carry in my home for ANY reason that is my right on my private property. Now, as Fallguy said, a business that is open to the public should be different, but for a person to think that the 2nd Amendment trumps a person's right on their own property is asinine.

[CrazyRay]

No, he doesn't. He is simply stating that his right is an

individual right and that it isn't based on property

ownership.

Is your right to protect yourself based on the ownership of a gun? Of course not.

Neither is your right to property based on the actual ownership of property.

Property rights *are* individual rights - even if the property is owned by two people (you and your wife, for instance), or a corporation (a collective group of like-minded INDIVIDUALS).

Again - gun rights are necessary to PROTECT property rights (and a whole host of other inalienable rights)...

They are a means (protection) to an end (securing OTHER rights). That is not to say they are not important - but their place in the order of rights is pretty clear.

[Guest ab28]

Exactly. Either ab can't make a coherent argument or he thinks that he can do whatever he want on anyone's property. That is most certainly NOT the case. If I don't want someone to carry in my home for ANY reason that is my right on my private property. Now, as Fallguy said, a business that is open to the public should be different, but for a person to think that the 2nd Amendment trumps a person's right on their own property is asinine.

My argument is perfectly coherent. I believe no one, government or private citizen, should be able to restrict my ability to defend myself with a handgun. Period. I am not sure how to make it any more clear. You don't have to worry about me carrying on anyone's property. I do not go anywhere I am not invited. I don't just walk onto someone's land or in their house. That is what your argument seems like. You seem to feel I will just walk in your house without permission, like a burglar.

I will state it again. If a private homeowner/landowner specifically tells me not to carry on his property, I just won't go there. If I am carrying and someone realizes it and asks me to leave, I will. I don't see how you have a problem with this. If they don't want me there, I will go.

I believe self defense rights trump property rights because my life is more important that someone's land.

[Guest ab28]

Is your right to protect yourself based on the ownership of a gun? Of course not.

Neither is your right to property based on the actual ownership of property.

Property rights *are* individual rights - even if the property is owned by two people (you and your wife, for instance), or a corporation (a collective group of like-minded INDIVIDUALS).

Again - gun rights are necessary to PROTECT property rights (and a whole host of other inalienable rights)...

They are a means (protection) to an end (securing OTHER rights). That is not to say they are not important - but their place in the order of rights is pretty clear.

EFFECTIVE self protection is based on a gun. I am OK at martial arts, not Bruce Lee by any means, but the range of that is limited. It is an important skill to have, but guns are the most effective means of self defense today.

I agree that gun rights are necessary to protect property rights, but my life is worth more than someone's property, therefore the right to defend my life supercedes their property rights.

[CrazyRay]

Now I personally think there is a difference between my private property and property that is "open to the public", but in many situations (including handgun carry) the law does not.

I personally feel that on property open to the public the owner should not be allowed to ban any legal activity (like carry with a permit) that does not disrupt him being able to do business. But that is not the law of the land as of today.

Fallguy, if you don't mind - can you expand on this view?

Particularly, Where in the Constitution do you find justification for the .gov take away those specific property rights?

Let me be clear - I don't want the .gov having *any* more power than it absolutely needs. That said, I'd like to see exactly what Constitutional reason is given for the government to have the power to take away property rights, *just* based on a pretty vague definition of "open to the public".

Again - don't look at this from a gun rights view, look at this from a standpoint "WHY am I allowing the government to take away rights from someone?

Thanks for your input.

[CrazyRay]

I agree that gun rights are necessary to protect property rights, but my life is worth more than someone's property, therefore the right to defend my life supercedes their property rights.

You're still missing the point.

You can defend your life any way you wish - you just have to remove your "life" from the person or persons' property at their request.

I will ask again - can you prove by providing text in the Constitution or any other document that lays out your perceived right to force a property owner to allow you to carry a gun on their property?

[Fallguy]

My argument is perfectly coherent.....

I have to disagree. The two below paragraphs seem to be in conflict.

I will state it again. If a private homeowner/landowner specifically tells me not to carry on his property, I just won't go there. If I am carrying and someone realizes it and asks me to leave, I will. I don't see how you have a problem with this. If they don't want me there, I will go.

I believe self defense rights trump property rights because my life is more important that someone's land.

In the first paragraph above, you say you will respect property owner's rights.

In the second paragraph you say your right trumps a property owner's rights.

Don't think you can have it both ways.

[Fallguy]

Fallguy, if you don't mind - can you expand on this view?

Particularly, Where in the Constitution do you find justification for the .gov take away those specific property rights?

Let me be clear - I don't want the .gov having *any* more power than it absolutely needs. That said, I'd like to see exactly what Constitutional reason is given for the government to have the power to take away property rights, *just* based on a pretty vague definition of "open to the public".

Again - don't look at this from a gun rights view, look at this from a standpoint "WHY am I allowing the government to take away rights from someone?

Thanks for your input.

I don't necessarily find it in the Constitution for the government to restrict property owner's right, but the legislature and courts apparently have.

The government has already told property owners they can not deny doing business with someone because or gender, race, ethnicity etc...

The state of TN (and others) has told property owner they can not allow smoking on their property unless certain conditions and/or restrictions are met.

As I said the "open to the public" is my own opinion and is not necessary based in law or the Constitution. My feeling is, if you open your property to the public, then you are voluntarily giving up, or at least suspending, some of your rights, by your own choice. So (again IMO) if you have chosen to allow someone on your property, unless they do something that prevents you from being able to do business, they should not be denied access or thrown out for a legal action. As to whether I want the government telling the property owner that...well that is a different question that I admit I'm not 100% keen on.

Now I admit it would be hard to do this for most businesses, but a business owner can have more control over his property (IMO) by not making it open to the public but restrict access only to members, such as Sam's Club. If a condition of membership is no carrying of weapons and you still choose to join, then so be it.

But as this applies to employer parking lots...the employer has agreed to set aside part of it's property for employee vehicles, IMO they should not restrict or deny access to that parking for something that is otherwise legal, being armed with a HCP, driving a green car or the like. Now the employer has not duty or legal requirement to provide parking so....they could choose to do that too.

But without some government regulation all the places that provide a particular service or sell a certain item could conspire and effectively prevent anything from occurring they didn't want to.

It's a hell of a balancing act that usually seems to tip one way or the other most of the time.

[CrazyRay]

I don't necessarily find it in the Constitution for the government to restrict property owner's right, but the legislature and courts apparently have.

The government has already told property owners they can not deny doing business with someone because or gender, race, ethnicity etc...

The state of TN (and others) has told property owner they can not allow smoking on their property unless certain conditions and/or restrictions are met.

Would it shock you to know I don't agree with the government doing any of that?

As I said the "open to the public" is my own opinion and is not necessary based in law or the Constitution. My feeling is, if you open your property to the public, then you are voluntarily giving up, or at least suspending, some of your rights, by your own choice. So (again IMO) if you have chosen to allow someone on your property, unless they do something that prevents you from being able to do business, they should not be denied access or thrown out for a legal action. As to whether I want the government telling the property owner that...well that is a different question that I admit I'm not 100% keen on.

Now I admit it would be hard to do this for most businesses, but a business owner can have more control over his property (IMO) by not making it open to the public but restrict access only to members, such as Sam's Club. If a condition of membership is no carrying of weapons and you still choose to join, then so be it.

But as this applies to employer parking lots...the employer has agreed to set aside part of it's property for employee vehicles, IMO they should not restrict or deny access to that parking for something that is otherwise legal, being armed with a HCP, driving a green car or the like. Now the employer has not duty or legal requirement to provide parking so....they could choose to do that too.

But without some government regulation all the places that provide a particular service or sell a certain item could conspire and effectively prevent anything from occurring they didn't want to.

It's a hell of a balancing act that usually seems to tip one way or the other most of the time.

I appreciate you laying it out like that - and even though I disagree with your conclusion, I'm right there with you on that last line: It can be a real balancing act to keep rights from stepping all over one another.

[Punisher84]

My argument is perfectly coherent. I believe no one, government or private citizen, should be able to restrict my ability to defend myself with a handgun. Period. I am not sure how to make it any more clear. You don't have to worry about me carrying on anyone's property. I do not go anywhere I am not invited. I don't just walk onto someone's land or in their house. That is what your argument seems like. You seem to feel I will just walk in your house without permission, like a burglar.

I will state it again. If a private homeowner/landowner specifically tells me not to carry on his property, I just won't go there. If I am carrying and someone realizes it and asks me to leave, I will. I don't see how you have a problem with this. If they don't want me there, I will go.

I believe self defense rights trump property rights because my life is more important that someone's land.

OK you're a little more clear this time. If you think you're right to life is is so important you won't go somewhere where you can't carry then I agree. If you think you're right to life is more important than my own rights in my own home,invited or not, then you're out of you're effing mind

[CrazyRay]

If you think you're right to life is more important than my own rights in my own home,invited or not, then you're out of you're effing mind

I giggled a little at that last part

[Guest TnRebel]

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.

+1.... I would rather be judged by 12 then carried by 6

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I think ab28 is consistent due to the fact of the way the 2nd

Amendment is worded. "the right of the people to keep and bear

arms, shall not be infringed". The word "people" sticks out like a sore thumb for a reason. It never was intended to say people could trample on other people's rights, but bearing a firearm on

someone else's property, is not a crime, until a crime is committed. It amazes me that some of you take what he said as some kind of threat. If we all understood the Bill of Rights the same way, this wouldn't even be considered.

The point was made in the restaurant carry bill. No crimes were committed by lawful HCP holders, during it's short term. It's also like some of you guys agree with Randy Rayburn. Property rights trump everything else? I don't think so. It doesn't trump the individual.

[Punisher84]

I think ab28 is consistent due to the fact of the way the 2nd

Amendment is worded. "the right of the people to keep and bear

arms, shall not be infringed". The word "people" sticks out like a sore thumb for a reason. It never was intended to say people could trample on other people's rights, but bearing a firearm on

someone else's property, is not a crime, until a crime is committed. It amazes me that some of you take what he said as some kind of threat. If we all understood the Bill of Rights the same way, this wouldn't even be considered.

The point was made in the restaurant carry bill. No crimes were committed by lawful HCP holders, during it's short term. It's also like some of you guys agree with Randy Rayburn. Property rights trump everything else? I don't think so. It doesn't trump the individual.

Um...what? Being on my property uninvited is a crime. It's called Criminal Trespass and maybe in a perfect world bearing a firearm anywhere you damn well please wouldn't be a crime, but in the state of TN there are alot of places where carrying is a crime.

I didn't take anything he said as a threat I just think he's got tunnel vision about the 2nd amendment and can't see that there are other rights that are just as important. The 2nd amendment is only important because it gives us a means to protect the others.

[GKar]

Soooo...can we all put the rulers away and get back to an actual consideration of the bill/bills at hand? Theoretical posturing aside...how should our elected legislators approach these pieces of legislation?

Here's the actual text of a similar bill (HB 171) passed by the VA House and awaiting consideration in the Senate:

1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 18.2-308.1:01 as follows:

§ 18.2-308.1:01. Firearms in locked vehicles; immunity from liability.

A. No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall maintain, establish, or enforce any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting a person who may lawfully possess a firearm from storing a firearm locked in or locked to a firearms rack in a motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking space, or other similar property set aside for motor vehicles.

B. No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall be liable in any civil action for any occurrence that results from or is connected to the use of a firearm that was lawfully stored pursuant to subsection A, unless the person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity commits a criminal act, willful misconduct or gross negligence involving the use of the firearm.

C. Any person may enforce this section by filing a petition for injunction in the court of record of the county or city in which the person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity prohibiting the firearm is located. The court shall award actual damages, court costs, and reasonable attorney fees to a prevailing party.

D. This section shall not apply to (i) property on which a person is prohibited from possessing a firearm by § 18.2-308.1; (ii) vehicles on property (a) to which access is restricted or limited through the use of a gate, security station, or other means of restricting or limiting general access onto the property; or ( upon which a building occupied by a single employer and its affiliated entities is located and in which access to the building is restricted or limited by card access, a security station, or other means of restricting or limiting general public access into the building; (iii) vehicles owned or leased by an employer or business entity and used by an employee in the course of his employment; or (iv) personal vehicles while such vehicles are being used for the transport of consumers of programs licensed by the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services; (v) vehicles on property controlled by an employer required to develop and implement a security plan under federal law or regulation.

BTW: 18.2-308.1 is the section of VA code preventing firearms carry on school property. Permit holders are allowed to possess (concealed) if they remain their vehicle.

There are several features of this bill I personally don't like (1.D(a) and (); however, one attractive feature is the release of liability contained herein. This serves to allay the fears/hesitations expressed by many businesses, and was discussed during the TN summer session meeting as a potential amendment to pending TN legislation.

Edited February 19, 2010 by GKar

[StPatrick]

Whatever your opinion on the subject, we all can use this link to make our voices heard: Legislators - TN General Assembly

Enter your address, and it will provide you with links to your state Rep and Senator.

Personally, I want the option of keeping a weapon in the car, since I commute 25 miles each way from Franklin to Nashville five days a week, and don't appreciate being disarmed Monday through Friday. I've seen some good suggestions in the previous posts on how to make that happen without disenfranchising employers of their rights, and I hope that the pro-2A crowd can come together to provide an option for keeping weapons safely in cars, without infringing on the rights of employers or employees.

National politics is what gets the blood boiling, and is the most interesting, but the county and state level is much more easily changed, and impacts your lives on a daily basis. Start from the ground up.

[Guest ab28]

Um...what? Being on my property uninvited is a crime. It's called Criminal Trespass and maybe in a perfect world bearing a firearm anywhere you damn well please wouldn't be a crime, but in the state of TN there are alot of places where carrying is a crime.

I didn't take anything he said as a threat I just think he's got tunnel vision about the 2nd amendment and can't see that there are other rights that are just as important. The 2nd amendment is only important because it gives us a means to protect the others.

I already stated that I do not go on people's property uninvited. I am not really talking about the second amendment, in a way it is, but I feel that no one has the right to disarm you. Self defense is a basic human right, in addition to anything the 2nd says.

[Guest faust921]

Is this really a huge problem? Are there really places that inspect your car when you work there to make sure you don't have a gun?

I'm asking cause I don't know.

An anesthesiologist at UT was fired because a coworker apparently heard him talking about his gun to some other coworkers and ratted him out to hospital officials, campus police search his car and he loses his job. This is a problem for people who work for big companies with chicken sh*t human resources departments.

This law is being passed in other states and with good reason. I shouldn't have to give up my right to self defense because I'm working/driving home late, or early or whatever. If I have to go to ATL from my office, damm right I want to have my gun along for the ride.

[smopoim86]

The company policy bans all weapons ("firearms, knives, swards, explosives, or any object that can potentially inflict harm") from their property including the parking lot. By my interpretation, you should be stripped naked on a concrete pad with noting within 100 yards for that to be possible. I dont understand the BS.

What do you guys do when your primary destination during the day prohibits carry even in the car?

[lowbud]

leave your weapon at home unless you want to find a new job.

[Fallguy]

There's not much you can do.

Either leave it at home, or violate company policy, keep your mouth shut and be ready to take the consequences if ever found out.

[Guest rockbottom12]

are they searching cars? making you walk through scanners? i mean i can see where this would be in a handbook on a shelf somewhere to help with insurance pricers. is that the case or are they paranoid? cause if so they need to remove pencils pens, any piece of metal form the building.... ties are a no no.. you see where this is going, "or any object that can potentially inflict harm"