Parking Lot bill

[Sky King]

I am new here. I have been reading many of the posts and threads concerning the various parking lot bills that have been introduced over the past few years.

I have been quite active in supporting these bills. In 2009 I traveled to Nashville twice to testify before the House Judiciary Criminal Practices Sub-Committee in support of Josh Evans' bill. Once that spring and then again at the Summer Study.

I would like to offer some insite based on what committee members said and some of the opponents said.

Regarding the issue of property rights. I believe there is a major differance between a persons house and driveway and the parking lot of a business set aside for parking of vehicles owned by employees or customers.

The argument about government telling a business owner what he/she can or can not do being wrong, does not hold water. If you build a business and an associated parking lot, government is already going to tell you what to do and how to do it. Building codes dictate curbing, lighting, guardrails, drainage, markings and so on. The Americans with disabilities act will dictate handicap accessability, ramps, parking spaces. These are just a few of the ways that government will tell a business how to build and manage their parking lot.

Other arguments that have already been made involve whether a persons private vehicle can be considered his or her private property and therefor you can not dictate what a person keeps in it.

Others have posed the theory that an employer could be held liable for any damages or injuries to an employee if he or she could have provided for their own protection had their employer not prohibited them carrying a weapon for self defence. I am not a lawyer so I really don't want to go into that. It is an interesting theory anyway.

Last session, Josh Evans was persuaded not to push his bill because the business lobby pressured the Republican leadership that if he did push the bill or any other similiar bill were pushed, they would work hard to see that their party lost their slim majority in the next elections. Mr. Evans told me that personally prior to my speaking at the summer study.

This past election has seen several of our gun friendly legislators voted out. Ben West, one of our strongest supporters retired and Mr. Fincher, who co-sponsored his bill last session I guess was not re-elected. Senator Mark Norris from Collierville had sponsored a similiar bill last session. I checked the General Assembly web site and found that Senator Norris has introduced a couple of gun friendly bills but not one that addresses the parking lot issue.

I have complied a rather fat folder of information on the laws or pending legislation in other states. I personally think we could learn a lot from those states. Predominantly, the issue of liability protection for the employer. Let's face it, I doubt the big companies really care about us, they are more concerned about their vulnerability in a law suit. None of the proposed bills in Tennessee have ever addressed this concern.

I would like to invite anybody out here to help push legislation to accomplish this important goal. I any of you know of any members of the General Assembly who have or would be willing to champion such bill this session, I would like to know who they are. As in the past I am willing to work with these people and travel to Nashville if necessary.

Please contact your representatives. Tell them we need such a bill.

Sorry for the long rant but I have been working on this for several years and have learned a lot.

Sam Cooper

Memphis Tennessee

ps, if you watched the videos of the sub-committee and summer study, I am the FedEx employee who spoke both times. And yes, knock-on-wood, I still have my job.

[Guest Knightsr25]

I have a good friend at Fed-Ex, we decided long ago that our protection was best left to us. A law guaranteeing our inherent rights may be a nice touch, but they do not affect the civil duties of a citizen. It is sad that people still believe the police are there to protect you. You!, are there to protect you. As usual I will send letters to my representatives in an effort to show support.

[DRM]

Welcome, Sam!

The argument about government telling a business owner what he/she can or can not do being wrong, does not hold water. If you build a business and an associated parking lot, government is already going to tell you what to do and how to do it. Building codes dictate curbing, lighting, guardrails, drainage, markings and so on. The Americans with disabilities act will dictate handicap accessability, ramps, parking spaces. These are just a few of the ways that government will tell a business how to build and manage their parking lot.

Actually, it is your position that holds no water.

Based on your logic - since the government can already tell you you can't own X weapon, and can make you get a tax stamp to get a silencer, and any other number of regulations, then the government can go ahead and tell you you can't own a firearm at all.

It is the same as saying "well, they already took too much freedom away, let's pile on a few more for them to take away".

Sorry, but I refuse to use that logic when it comes to taking away rights and freedoms.

Just because a person chooses to run a business on their property is NOT a defacto reason to strip away that property owner's property rights, especially not based on the fact that the government has already taken away other rights.

Property rights should be retained - period.

If I don't want you carrying a gun on my property - business or personal - that should be my right as a property owner.

I have discussed this here before, and there ARE solutions that preserve property rights and carry rights. For example - an employer should have the right to restrict guns from his property, however the property owner should ONLY have the recourse of asking someone to remove a gun from their property. An employer should not have the right to search or inspect a vehicle of an employee for guns - because that too would be infringing on property rights. Just as people carry - on their person - guns into places where they are legally not allowed, you would still have employees keep guns in their vehicle if they deem the need worthy of the risk (being asked to leave, or losing their job), and still retain everyone's rights.

Gun rights are here to PROTECT property rights, not trample on them. I will not ever be party to taking away property rights in that manner.

[Guest GLOCKGUY]

Welcome, Sam!

Actually, it is your position that holds no water.

Based on your logic - since the government can already tell you you can't own X weapon, and can make you get a tax stamp to get a silencer, and any other number of regulations, then the government can go ahead and tell you you can't own a firearm at all.

It is the same as saying "well, they already took too much freedom away, let's pile on a few more for them to take away".

Sorry, but I refuse to use that logic when it comes to taking away rights and freedoms.

Just because a person chooses to run a business on their property is NOT a defacto reason to strip away that property owner's property rights, especially not based on the fact that the government has already taken away other rights.

Property rights should be retained - period.

If I don't want you carrying a gun on my property - business or personal - that should be my right as a property owner.

I have discussed this here before, and there ARE solutions that preserve property rights and carry rights. For example - an employer should have the right to restrict guns from his property, however the property owner should ONLY have the recourse of asking someone to remove a gun from their property. An employer should not have the right to search or inspect a vehicle of an employee for guns - because that too would be infringing on property rights. Just as people carry - on their person - guns into places where they are legally not allowed, you would still have employees keep guns in their vehicle if they deem the need worthy of the risk (being asked to leave, or losing their job), and still retain everyone's rights.

Gun rights are here to PROTECT property rights, not trample on them. I will not ever be party to taking away property rights in that manner.

I understand what your saying but, if my car is on your property I don't think its any of your business what I have in my car, because my car is MY property....

[DRM]

I understand what your saying but, if my car is on your property I don't think its any of your business what I have in my car, because my car is MY property....

I agree - and that is what I said above:

An employer should not have the right to search or inspect a vehicle of an employee for guns - because that too would be infringing on property rights.

So at most - the employer could only ask the employee to leave or remove the car if they suspect a weapon is in there. And that puts the employer in the position of having to decide if they want an employment lawsuit for not letting their employee come to work without actual cause. I think this is a fair offset for the employee who keeps a weapon in their car, and has to decide if retrieving said weapon to protect themselves is worth the risk of losing their job.

Again - this is like carrying on your person at a business. The business does not have the right to search you, but they can ask you to leave. I think the same thing should apply to your car when at someone's business.

I think this gives all parties pause before they decide what to do - yet does not take away the rights of anyone.

[Pain103]

I personally feel they shouldn't dictate to any business they have to let someone park on their property while a firearm is in the vehicle. I think making another law telling someone what they have to do with their property is not needed. But I don't like the fact legal handgun permit holders are not carrying on their way to and from work due to this. If they feel this is such a great issue and refuse to stop carrying I guess they better park elsewhere or ride the bus. Who is going to find out if your handgun is in the car unless it's visible, one of those what they don't see won't hurt them deals.

[Sky King]

Posted by DRM

"I have discussed this here before, and there ARE solutions that preserve property rights and carry rights. For example - an employer should have the right to restrict guns from his property, however the property owner should ONLY have the recourse of asking someone to remove a gun from their property. An employer should not have the right to search or inspect a vehicle of an employee for guns - because that too would be infringing on property rights. Just as people carry - on their person - guns into places where they are legally not allowed, you would still have employees keep guns in their vehicle if they deem the need worthy of the risk (being asked to leave, or losing their job), and still retain everyone's rights."

The problem with what you think should be the case is that, as has been explained to me by member of our management and security, yes, they must ask your permission to search your car. However in your employement agreement you have already consented to a search upon entering or leaving the property. You can refuse and they can not search but they will then terminate your employement. They can only search your car without your permission IF they have strong suspicion that you have stolen company property or customer shipments in your car. In that case, they must call law enforcement to conduct the search.

So all they have to do is ask you if they can search your car. If you refuse, you will loose your job. It is a condition of employement. Tennessee is an employement at will state and they can terminate you at will.

When you work in a very bad part of town, at all hours of the night or day, you are at risk. Pull out of the company parking lot and have a flat tire at 3:00 AM. Good luck. The company should not have the ability to say to you that you have no right to provide for your own protection in such circumstances as a condition of employment which is what they can do now.

Do I have to give up my Constitutional right in order to have a job? Parking somewhere else may be an option for some people but not all, and what if you live in a town that does not have bus service at all hours?

I am not trying to say this is not a delicate balancing act of personal property rights vs the right to protect yourself. But where does the companies property rights end and my personal property rights regarding what is in my car which is MY personal property begin? So let's say a person decides to use a tire iron to attack a co-worker. The company decides that tire irons can be used as weapons and bans them from their property? Where does it stop?

My employer not only bans firearms but they also ban starter pistols, flare guns, knives, disabling sprays, (pepper spray or mace) clubs. The weapons policy states that this list "includes but is not limited to". How many of your female friends have a small can of pepper spray on their key chain? Well they can be fired for that where I work. I actually was in the screenning facility when a young lady was stopped for having such a device on her key chain. So they have in effect told her that she can not even have pepper spray for personal protection during her commute. They have decided, with their policy, that no employee can be prepared to provide for their own safety or protection during their commute if you want to work there.

Some have advocated that such a situation means that the company assumes a custodial relationship when they take from you the ability to protect yourself and therefor could be held liable. Again I am not a lawyer but I have heard some advocate legislation that specifically places such responsibility on the employer if they deny your ability to provide for your own protection.

The Declaration of Independence states that you have a right to "life, liberty and the persuit of happiness". If I have a right to life, a right to defend my life must also exist. Does your employer have a right to deny your right to defend your life? By telling me I can not have my firearm locked in my private vehicle while I am parked on his parking lot, he has effectively disarmed me from the moment I leave my front door to the time I return home.

[Sky King]

Welcome, Sam!

I have discussed this here before, and there ARE solutions that preserve property rights and carry rights. For example - an employer should have the right to restrict guns from his property, however the property owner should ONLY have the recourse of asking someone to remove a gun from their property. An employer should not have the right to search or inspect a vehicle of an employee for guns - because that too would be infringing on property rights. Just as people carry - on their person - guns into places where they are legally not allowed, you would still have employees keep guns in their vehicle if they deem the need worthy of the risk (being asked to leave, or losing their job), and still retain everyone's rights.

.

So you would advocate breaking company rules? It's ok as long as you don't get caught? You advocate taking away the right of a property owner/employer to search a vehicle for weapons. What is the differance? In one instance you say government shouldn't tell a property owner what they can or cannot do but then you support the notion that the government should take away the right of a property owner to search a vehicle on their property for guns. Sounds quite contradictory to me. Also, many employers place in the employement agreement that you conscent to such searches as one of many conditions of employement. So regardless if the state takes away the blanket right to search, you have given them permission when you accepted the job.

So please tell me how to achieve this balance.

[Sky King]

Welcome, Sam!

Actually, it is your position that holds no water.

Based on your logic - since the government can already tell you you can't own X weapon, and can make you get a tax stamp to get a silencer, and any other number of regulations, then the government can go ahead and tell you you can't own a firearm at all.

It is the same as saying "well, they already took too much freedom away, let's pile on a few more for them to take away".

.

Well no. the SCOUS has ruled in Heller and McDonald that the Second Amendment is a personal right. So No, regardless of any other restrictions they may impose in regards to weapons or weapon accessories, they can not completely take away your right to own a gun.

[DaveTN]

No 2nd amendment rights should be involved in the debate of this type of legislation. The minute you do that you are done.

[Fallguy]

I agree that liability (real or perceived) is the largest and main reason any business bans firearms, whether by posting or policy.

It would be nice if this issue could be addressed in firearms legislation, but it is really part of a much larger problem.

While I am one that has recently come around to the way of thinking that the government shouldn't force a property owner to do anything, also don't fully go along with, well they already force them to do things, why not force them to allow firearms in cars.... I do have to say, I personally feel that if an employer provides a place for you to park your vehicle, they really shouldn't be able to dictate what can and can not be in it, as long as it is legal to have it there.

Also while I don't advocate violating the law...if a person chooses to violate company policy.....as long as they are willing to accept any possible consequences...that is up to them to decide what to do for themselves.

While I would like to see this addressed, I work on Federal Property so it won't help me regardless.....

[DRM]

The problem with what you think should be the case is that, as has been explained to me by member of our management and security, yes, they must ask your permission to search your car. However in your employement agreement you have already consented to a search upon entering or leaving the property. You can refuse and they can not search but they will then terminate your employement.

Then why aren't you seeking a law that does not let an employer violate your personal property rights by searching your car? If that is the problem - fix THAT problem.

So all they have to do is ask you if they can search your car. If you refuse, you will loose your job. It is a condition of employement. Tennessee is an employement at will state and they can terminate you at will.

Again - if that is the problem, change the law so you cannot be fired for an employer wanting to take away the private property rights of your car. Problem solved.

When you work in a very bad part of town, at all hours of the night or day, you are at risk. Pull out of the company parking lot and have a flat tire at 3:00 AM. Good luck. The company should not have the ability to say to you that you have no right to provide for your own protection in such circumstances as a condition of employment which is what they can do now.

This is yet another common fallacy - the employer is NOT taking away your rights. YOU GAVE UP YOUR RIGHTS if you took a job where you AGREED not to bring a gun to work.

This is a stark difference from you actively trying to TAKE AWAY THE RIGHTS of property owners.

To recap: one right is being GIVEN UP VOLUNTARILY, the other (proposed by you) is FORCIBLY TAKEN.

The company decides that tire irons can be used as weapons and bans them from their property? Where does it stop?

Today you want to take away a *business* property owner's right to say "I do not want guns on MY property". Tomorrow - do you plan to take away personal property (i.e. - my home) rights to say "no guns"? Where does it stop?

How many of your female friends have a small can of pepper spray on their key chain?

With all due respect, these kinds of "heartstrings" and emotional arguments aren't going to get very far with me. This is a discussion about rights, and mentioning "female friends", what about your wife and kids" and such arguments really just cloud the discussion with things trying to sway emotions. I'd rather just talk about rights

Some have advocated that such a situation means that the company assumes a custodial relationship when they take from you the ability to protect yourself and therefor could be held liable. Again I am not a lawyer but I have heard some advocate legislation that specifically places such responsibility on the employer if they deny your ability to provide for your own protection.

I have no problem with a business property owner being held responsible in civil litigation for failing to provide protection when they actively restrict guns on their property. That seems perfectly fair to me.

The Declaration of Independence states that you have a right to "life, liberty and the persuit of happiness". If I have a right to life, a right to defend my life must also exist. Does your employer have a right to deny your right to defend your life?

Please let's be honest here: The employer is not denying anything. YOU AGREED TO THE TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT. In a free market - if enough people refuse those terms, the employer WILL change them if they want to stay in business.

[DRM]

So you would advocate breaking company rules? It's ok as long as you don't get caught?

What I advocate is retaining private property rights. You retain the rights to your vehicle not being searched, they retain the rights to control what is on their property.

What I also advocate is YOU deciding how important your safety is. Everyone here knows that people with carry permits still carry in prohibited places. Every second of the day - we make decisions and weigh the risks and rewards. What I propose is no different - you weigh the risks ans rewards and act accordingly.

I prefer to think of it as a "don't ask, don't tell" type of policy (er, maybe after that just got struck down it's not the best analogy - )

You advocate taking away the right of a property owner/employer to search a vehicle for weapons. What is the differance?

Let's be clear on terms, here. Searching someone's car is not a "right". That is a concept that was created by the stroke of a pen. I am simply suggesting that the right to secure your car as private property is greater than any perceived right of the employer to search your car. And the remedy should be the same as if someone carries at hour home: you ask them to leave your property.

[DRM]

BTW, thanks Sky and others for engaging in a good debate here

[Guest tnrider]

Good post, good thread, thoughtful and respectful. Also, no easy answers while protecting everyones "rights". I do stand on the side that it is my auto and if it is locked inside, why is it any buisness of the property owner. I believe if someone was so for out that they would go to their vehicle and retrieve their weapon, they would most likely go home and get it anyway as has been previously demonstrated per news reports. None of this would do me any good either, I work in a school, and we all know nothing bad ever happens at schools. Bottom line, there are no easy answers.

[DRM]

I do stand on the side that it is my auto and if it is locked inside, why is it any buisness of the property owner.

I have no clue who first through it was an employer's "right" to search your vehicle - but it needs to stop, and NOW. Like I said - a business property owner should have the exact same remedy I have at my home - ask them to leave. I can't go searching your car just because you park in my driveway, and an employer shouldn't be able to do it either.

I think fixing this would go a LONG way in stopping further property rights from being violated.

[Guest 270win]

I guess I don't see what this bill accomplishes. Someone with a handgun carry permit can already generally carry on or in their work property without worrying about getting arrested. I am not a fan of leaving a gun in a car where it can be stolen. I would rather the handgun be carried on my person.

I think that if this bill becomes law, then businesses that do not like guns will just come up with other reasons to fire employees they find with guns in cars. They will can the employee in a lay off, give a bad employee review and can, or say there is no work. Bosses will come up with something or no reason at all and just not bring up the gun in the car that they found out about to keep from being in trouble with the state.

I think that people's cars should be treated like their houses everywhere if you want to avoid the companies from finding guns in cars. Keep the companies from doing warrantless searches of cars. That would be a better law. No one but a cop with a warrant/probable cause should be able to dig through a car. That would be a much better law and protect all employees.

[Sky King]

Then why aren't you seeking a law that does not let an employer violate your personal property rights by searching your car? If that is the problem - fix THAT problem.

I could go with that but that in itself could be countered by the business lobby that taking away their ability to search vehicles on their property itself is telling them what they can and cannot do on their property.

Again - if that is the problem, change the law so you cannot be fired for an employer wanting to take away the private property rights of your car. Problem solved.

In essence, that is what a bill such as this would accomplish, is is just a matter of symantics

This is yet another common fallacy - the employer is NOT taking away your rights. YOU GAVE UP YOUR RIGHTS if you took a job where you AGREED not to bring a gun to work.

I agree that you can't complain about a situation you accepted with the terms at the time you accepted it. In my case, the current weapons policy did not exist. In fact, there was a time when employees were actually given permission to bring rifles and shotguns to work if they were planning to leave on a hunting trip directly from work. In times before that, it was not unusual for persons to bring in kit weapons to work on during breaks. This policy has evolved. I know this does not applly to everybody.

Today you want to take away a *business* property owner's right to say "I do not want guns on MY property". Tomorrow - do you plan to take away personal property (i.e. - my home) rights to say "no guns"? Where does it stop?

I see a major distinction that I suppose you do not feel exists. I feel that there is a real differance between property, (parking lots, buildings etc) that is associated with a business, open for public access or employee parking and the private property accociated with a persons residence. If there is a belief that this distinction does not exist, then that could easily be incorporated into law.

With all due respect, these kinds of "heartstrings" and emotional arguments aren't going to get very far with me. This is a discussion about rights, and mentioning "female friends", what about your wife and kids" and such arguments really just cloud the discussion with things trying to sway emotions. I'd rather just talk about rights

I don't feel these are emotional arguments at all. While some companys may only specify firearms, others include the other devices often used for self defence. While I am obviously a major advocate for firearms rights, I do NOT say firearms are for everybody. The choice of what to use for personal self defence is a personal choice as long as it is legal to possess. Some may not to have ANY device, they take lessons in self defence or martial arts, it is a choice.

I have no problem with a business property owner being held responsible in civil litigation for failing to provide protection when they actively restrict guns on their property. That seems perfectly fair to me.{/QUOTE]

I agree. But in todays litigious environment, the first such case would take many years to settle. Only after a precidence is set could such liability be assessed unless a law was enacted specifically placing liability on a business property owner for such instances.

Please let's be honest here: The employer is not denying anything. YOU AGREED TO THE TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT. In a free market - if enough people refuse those terms, the employer WILL change them if they want to stay in business.

Well again some of us were employed prior to such policies being put into place.

[Sky King]

What I advocate is retaining private property rights. You retain the rights to your vehicle not being searched, they retain the rights to control what is on their property.

What I also advocate is YOU deciding how important your safety is. Everyone here knows that people with carry permits still carry in prohibited places. Every second of the day - we make decisions and weigh the risks and rewards. What I propose is no different - you weigh the risks ans rewards and act accordingly.

I prefer to think of it as a "don't ask, don't tell" type of policy (er, maybe after that just got struck down it's not the best analogy - )

Let's be clear on terms, here. Searching someone's car is not a "right". That is a concept that was created by the stroke of a pen. I am simply suggesting that the right to secure your car as private property is greater than any perceived right of the employer to search your car. And the remedy should be the same as if someone carries at hour home: you ask them to leave your property.

I understand what you are advocating in your posts. But many of those are concepts not specifically numerated. An example would be many of the civil rights that have been written into law for minorities and women. When in many of the founding documents race or sex were not qualifiers in statements like, "all men are created equal", those concepts were not made reality untill there were laws actually passed to do so.

I also agree that there are people with carry permits who go places where weapons are prohibited. A choice to ignore these prohibitions does not make it right and as a permit holder, they are subject to stronger penalties than a person who does not have a permit. If a employer chooses to ban the weapons and posts according to the law, then carrying on that property is not just a violation of the company policy, it is a violation of state law and you become subject to termination AND prosecution.

BTW, I too appreciate the debate on this. I believe such debate can exist and respect the views of others even of you don't agree. You can disagree without being disagreeable. I always learn and learning new views helps me be prepared.

[Worriedman]

If in fact, the Tennessee Constitution has any bearing on this discussion, then the only individuals who are to have a say relative to this issue are in fact our State Legislators. Article 1 Section 26 clearly states that the people have a Right, (and that is the word that is used, not privilege), to keep and bear arms for the common defense. Note that there is no mention of a militia or protecting the People from a despotic federal government in this document, merely the Right of the citizens of this State to provide for their own defense, knowing that the State has no charter for any other entity to provide the same. The Legislature shall have the power by law to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime, only. There is no mention of land, property or business owners to have a hand in that decision, only the Legislature, and then, and only then, if they can prove that restrictions on the Right as written down in the document can be proved to prevent crime.

We have already had an opinion from the Tennessee AG to that effect, that any law restricting the keeping and wearing of arms MUST be proved to prevent crime, or that law is unconstitutional.

The only "property right" which is germane to the conversation at all is the one which decides whether every citizen of the State of Tennessee personally owns the Constitution of this State, or whether it belongs only to those who own businesses. Or more clearly to whom does the Legislature owe it's allegiance, the President and CEO of Fed Ex or the average Citizen.

Fed Ex sits in Mogadishu on the Mississippi due to geography and cost of running it's business. Why else would it chose to locate in one of the most dangerous locations in America. The price of Jet A fuel is the single biggest limiting factor for it's location in Memphis, and being the geographical center of the US is the reason why. They are not going to pick up and run if the State Legislature grew a pair and decided to honor our Constitution, allowing HCP holders to keep their handguns locked in their personal vehicles on their parking lot. The millions of dollars already invested in infrastructure, and the Government teat they suckle on at the airport to their benefit will preclude that from happening. They just have the bluff in on our Representatives and Senators, and we as the money stream to them allow it, because we bicker on the issue instead of reading the document that controls it and demanding our Legislators do the right thing according to the Constitution.

[DRM]

If in fact, the Tennessee Constitution has any bearing on this discussion, then the only individuals who are to have a say relative to this issue are in fact our State Legislators. Article 1 Section 26 clearly states that the people have a Right, (and that is the word that is used, not privilege), to keep and bear arms for the common defense. Note that there is no mention of a militia or protecting the People from a despotic federal government in this document, merely the Right of the citizens of this State to provide for their own defense, knowing that the State has no charter for any other entity to provide the same. The Legislature shall have the power by law to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime, only. There is no mention of land, property or business owners to have a hand in that decision, only the Legislature, and then, and only then, if they can prove that restrictions on the Right as written down in the document can be proved to prevent crime.

We have already had an opinion from the Tennessee AG to that effect, that any law restricting the keeping and wearing of arms MUST be proved to prevent crime, or that law is unconstitutional.

The only "property right" which is germane to the conversation at all is the one which decides whether every citizen of the State of Tennessee personally owns the Constitution of this State, or whether it belongs only to those who own businesses. Or more clearly to whom does the Legislature owe it's allegiance, the President and CEO of Fed Ex or the average Citizen.

Fed Ex sits in Mogadishu on the Mississippi due to geography and cost of running it's business. Why else would it chose to locate in one of the most dangerous locations in America. The price of Jet A fuel is the single biggest limiting factor for it's location in Memphis, and being the geographical center of the US is the reason why. They are not going to pick up and run if the State Legislature grew a pair and decided to honor our Constitution, allowing HCP holders to keep their handguns locked in their personal vehicles on their parking lot. The millions of dollars already invested in infrastructure, and the Government teat they suckle on at the airport to their benefit will preclude that from happening. They just have the bluff in on our Representatives and Senators, and we as the money stream to them allow it, because we bicker on the issue instead of reading the document that controls it and demanding our Legislators do the right thing according to the Constitution.

If I read this correctly, it seems you have fallen into the same trap - You start off by saying we all are called in the state Constitution to go armed for the common defense, yet you draw the line at only HCP holders being able to carry at work, and even then only carry in the car - locked up - while working.

Why the later distinctions? If the Constitution truly says that - then NOBODY should be able to "post" any business to stop ANYONE from carrying inside. Further - doesn't your original theory on the Constitutionality basically negate the HCP process entirely?

How are you drawing distinctions there?

[Worriedman]

If I read this correctly, it seems you have fallen into the same trap - You start off by saying we all are called in the state Constitution to go armed for the common defense, yet you draw the line at only HCP holders being able to carry at work, and even then only carry in the car - locked up - while working.

Why the later distinctions? If the Constitution truly says that - then NOBODY should be able to "post" any business to stop ANYONE from carrying inside. Further - doesn't your original theory on the Constitutionality basically negate the HCP process entirely?

How are you drawing distinctions there?

We have to start with the situation at hand, and as of now, we HAVE the HCP restriction in place. Returning to Constitutional legality will take years to achieve, but, it can not begin until we assert the basics. As the Legislature is given the power to restrict the wearing of arms, we must abide by the laws in place, until such time as we can change them, in the Legislature. We must affect change incrementally, and as such, offering up the ability of HCP holders to enjoy the ability to keep a weapon locked up in their vehicle seems salable, legal gun owners vetted to be allowed to carry by virtue of background check and at least some modicum of schooling, I believe is the best place to start.

And I did not say no one should be able to "Post" a business that they own, just as any persons home is their "castle", and inside the confines of that, they should be in control. But, that home owner does not control whether a visitor can leave a weapon locked in their vehicle parked on the street. The home owner's ability to control stops at the confines of his castle, and does not intrude into the visitors vehicle. I believe that business owner should have the same ability, if they want to preclude carry inside the physical work space, then so be it, but not in the vehicles of it's employees.

Again the Constitution states it is up to the Legislature to decide all things related to the keeping and wearing of arms, that is an irrefutable fact. No other entity is entitled to be responsible for restrictions, not City Councils, County Commissions, or business owners, it is a black and white thing, for those who will see it and honor the Law.

As to what class of individual that should be able to have a weapon on their person or in their vehicle, at this point we have laws in effect, rightly or wrongly, and till such time as we can change them, render unto Caesar.....felons and the proved mentally incompetent accepted of course.

[Worriedman]

If I read this correctly, it seems you have fallen into the same trap - You start off by saying we all are called in the state Constitution to go armed for the common defense, yet you draw the line at only HCP holders being able to carry at work, and even then only carry in the car - locked up - while working.

Why the later distinctions? If the Constitution truly says that - then NOBODY should be able to "post" any business to stop ANYONE from carrying inside. Further - doesn't your original theory on the Constitutionality basically negate the HCP process entirely?

How are you drawing distinctions there?

I did not say we are "called" to go armed, I quoted the Constitution as saying we have the Right under restrictions placed by the Legislature, which by the chains placed on them by the document, must be related to reducing crime.

The distinctions I draw relate to being a law abiding gun owner, reading and understanding the rules. Willing to use the system in place to attempt to change the things I think are incorrect, and which do not adhere to the written words of our current Constitution.

As most applauded the change in law that allowed HCP holders to carry their long guns in their vehicles with ammunition in the magazine, just not in the chamber, (until such time as conditions warrant) it is an incremental regain of our Rights. This was a change won by talking to our Legislators, and having the law mitigated from it's previous restriction on that ability. The next year, we were able to remove the ridiculous restriction against the non HCP holder being able to carry their long gun with ammunition in the same compartment of the vehicle, (just not in the magazine of that weapon), again, small steps. Different abilities for different groups based on the current laws. Good changes, I think so. We will not win all we want in one fell swoop, but approaching our Legislators with the document in hand, pointing out the words and making them understand is the first step in regaining what were our rights in the original Constitution.

[Worriedman]

If I read this correctly, it seems you have fallen into the same trap - You start off by saying we all are called in the state Constitution to go armed for the common defense, yet you draw the line at only HCP holders being able to carry at work, and even then only carry in the car - locked up - while working.

I am lucky enough to work for a Company that allows carry on the premises, I get to keep my weapon on me in my office. (My Owner stated he considered me Company Armorer and Designated Shooter.) On some of my job sites I am precluded from having it in my vehicle, not my firm's choice, but the whim of the Owners of the businesses we work for.

I simply am advocating for others to at least have the ability to keep theirs in their vehicles, as it really bothers me to have to traverse the long miles across the State sans protection, knowing I can not count on any other entity to provide it for me.

[RobertNashville]

I work for an employer that currently forbids any firearms on their property, including the parking lots, as a matter of company policy only (no posting). It IS posted that all vehicles, persons and/or bags, etc. on the property are subject to search. There have been random searches of persons/belongings when entering the facility proper although I've never heard of a vehicle actually being searched).

Of course, any person can refuse such a search of their person or their vehicle but by dong so, any non employee would be forced to leave (or be guilty of trespassing) and any employee would be in violation of company policy and subject to dismissal. It has not always been so..this change has happened withing the past 6 years or so...prior to that it was not unusual at all for employees to have firearms in the vehicles (HCP holders, huntes, etc). While the company has never explained the reason for the change, I'm sure potential liability was the overriding reason.

I am a significant supporter of private property rights but there is also the issue of what is in the best interests of society overall as well as the right of a person to be have the means to defend himself...approached from that standpoint, I think a convincing argument could be made that the need of a person to be able to defend himself overrides any restrictions on parking lots while retaining the right of the business/employer to forbid the carrying of firearms on the person within the actual facilities, provided the firearm is left in a locked vehicle.

As was mentioned above, I don't like leaving a firearm in my vehicle but there are times that I must...when I do, I lock it in a small safe which is tethered to the vehicle itself (not foolproof by any means but enough to slow down any potential thief).

I guess what I'm saying here is that I think we can find some middle ground on this issue. Whether "this" year is the year to push for it I don't know...I suspect we won't see a lot of firearm related legislation this year (although I'm hoping otherwise)!

Edited January 25, 2011 by RobertNashville