Parking Lot bill

[RobertNashville]

...They are also willing to use rationalizations (such as claiming that DRM on my home property deed gives me less rights than DRM, LLC on a property deed) to justify that position and take away someone else's rights, all to get what they want.

You can claim forever that there is no difference between DRM and DRM, LLC but there is a very significant difference and always will be.

One is a sentient human being with rights that can never be "granted" by a government; the other is an artificial entity created by a government body and only the "rights" afforded to it by the body that created it.

[DRM]

No...you are really suggesting that private property rights should trump other rights; concurrently refusing to see the simple truth that a parking lot held out to the public/employees for their use (and for the obvious benefit of the business that owns the parking lot) is simply not and never will be equivalent to a driveway of a residence.

Robert, you can claim it over and over, but what you stated is not a "simple truth". The distinction you make is not based on the State Constitution, it is based on you inferring a difference based on differing legal restrictions (laws, mandates, edicts) in private residences and commercial properties.

Real estate property is real estate property.

An owner is an owner.

Any distinction you make is simply you trying to rationalize a way to get what you want.

It is reasonable for an individual human being to expect a significant degree of privacy and control over his/her driveway especially if the presence of a person/vehicle is uninvited. It is not reasonable for an artificially created entity such as a business that has/utilizes a parking lot for its customers/employees (and invites them to be there) to expect the same level of privacy and control.

Again, your definition of "Reasonable" and "not reasonable" is entirely arbitrary, and based solely on your wants and desires.

When a business holds itself out to the public as a business and desirous of customers/employees to utilize that business, there are obligations

No, allowing or restricting guns is not an "obligation" - it is an OPINION.

In that vein; it seems wholly fair to me that a business/employer has an absolute right to say "you can't bring "X" (when "X" is something completely legal) into my store/restaurant/factory but very overreaching and very unfair if a business can say not only can you not bring "X" into my business, you can't even have it in your locked, privately owned vehicle sitting in a parking lot because when a business says "not in my parking lot" they are effectively saying "no where in your travels to or from my parking lot as well since one can't magically make "X" disappear upon arrival the parking lot.

And yet again, you can hold that opinion, and you can call it "fair" - but please don't try to claim that your opinion is fact, or without flaw.

At the end of the day - and I hate to keep repeating this - you have decided that to get what YOU WANT, you are willing to rationalize property right distinctions and TAKE AWAY RIGHTS.

I have yet to see someone explain to me why 2 properties - one deeded to DRM and one deeded to DRM, LLC should not both allow me to say (should I chose) "I do not want your gun on my property - please leave".

I want you to explain why that sole difference allows you to take away my rights so you can exercise yours.

Then I want you to explain -per the TN Constitution - how you derived that the parking lot on DRM, LLC's property is different than the building itself (which you admit DOES deserve the same rights as the ENTIRE property deeded to DRM).

[DRM]

You can claim forever that there is no difference between DRM and DRM, LLC but there is a very significant difference and always will be.

One is a sentient human being with rights that can never be "granted" by a government; the other is an artificial entity created by a government body and only the "rights" afforded to it by the body that created it.

DRM is the sole 100% owner of DRM, LLC. I own DRM, LLC, therefore I own the all property held by DRM, LLC.

Please explain why you think you should be able to toss MY rights out the window so you can get what you want.

[RobertNashville]

DRM is the sole 100% owner of DRM, LLC. I own DRM, LLC, therefore I own the all property held by DRM, LLC.

Please explain why you think you should be able to toss MY rights out the window so you can get what you want.

There are specific and clear legal differences between the human being "DRM" and the legal entity known as "DRM, LLC"; which I'm sure you are aware of and which, I'm sure, is why you went through the trouble of establishing the LLC; a Limited Liability Corporation (either that or you just like adding letters after your initials). As I said above, there is a very large difference between a sentient human being with rights that can never be "granted" by a government; and an artificial entity like a corporation that is created by a government body which only has the "rights" afforded to it by the body that created it. You can refuse to acknowledge that difference all you want; you are simply wrong.

Please explain why you think you should be able to toss MY rights out the window so you can get what you want.

Why should I or for that matter how can I "explain" something I never said? What I did say was that...

...the "rights" of a business should not be allowed to simply trump the rights of the individual; rather, they must be weighed against the rights of both so that both are treated fairly

If that sounds to you like "thrown out the window" then so be it but I think you are engaging in exaggeration in order to bolster a weak argument. Edited January 25, 2011 by RobertNashville

[DRM]

There are specific and clear legal differences between the human being "DRM" and the legal entity known as "DRM, LLC"; which I'm sure you are aware of and which, I'm sure, is why you went through the trouble of establishing the LLC; a Limited Liability Corporation (either that or you just like adding letters after your initials). As I said above, there is a very large difference between a sentient human being with rights that can never be "granted" by a government; and an artificial entity like a corporation that is created by a government body which only has the "rights" afforded to it by the body that created it. You can refuse to acknowledge that difference all you want; you are simply wrong.

Why I have an LLC is irrelevant - I own both. You still have not given a TN Constitutionally supported position for taking away those rights from me. And hiding behind legal definitions shows me you just want to pass the buck and not address the core problem with your position.

You also refuse to address the distinctions you draw - Constitutionally - between a parking lot and a building, and how you think a business should be able to ask you to leave the building if they wish, but somehow should not be able to ask you to leave the parking lot.

I also fail to see why you are so adamantly opposed to the solution I suggested. What exactly is your problem with it? I'm sure it's not perfect, but it is FAR more equitable to all parties involved, rather than FORCING someone to allow you to bring a gun on their property against their wishes.

That's the disappointing thing here as this thread has turned - seeing people like you so blinded by what you want for yourself, you aren't willing to explore potential better ways to accomplish the same end result.

One last thing - You can disagree with me or you can suggest better ways to get to our common goal of better gun rights, but neither of our positions are "wrong". Both are perfectly legal options, that *could* be put into place. When you stooped to calling my opinions "wrong", you pretty much wrote yourself out of the discussion as far as I am concerned.

[Worriedman]

You also refuse to address the distinctions you draw - Constitutionally - between a parking lot and a building, and how you think a business should be able to ask you to leave the building if they wish, but somehow should not be able to ask you to leave the parking lot.

Two questions for you.

1. If you wake and find an individual in your home, are you legally allowed to use deadly force to remove them as a threat, without determining if they are armed and pose a possibility of danger to you or your family?

2. If you hear a person outside your home, are you legally allowed to use deadly force to remove them as a threat, without determining if they are armed and pose a possibility of danger to you or your family?

My contention is that there is a HUGE difference between the inside of a building and the outside. I will go further, and intimate that the inside of your personal vehicle is vastly different than outside the same.

Edited January 26, 2011 by Worriedman

[Fallguy]

Worriedman touched on it....

When the deadly force laws were tweaked a while back (I don't like to use the misleading term "Castle Doctrine") the presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm was extended to your occupied vehicle, just like your home. However you can not have a loaded firearm (without a HCP) in your car like you can in your house. I don't know if the legislators simply failed to address it, looked at and decided not to change it or put off something the knew they may have to deal with later.

How this ties in with a parking lot bill I'm not 100% sure...probably a bit different for everyone...but I do find it a bit interesting....

[DRM]

Two questions for you.

1. If you wake and find an individual in your home, are you legally allowed to use deadly force to remove them as a threat, without determining if they are armed and pose a possibility of danger to you or your family?

2. If you hear a person outside your home, are you legally allowed to use deadly force to remove them as a threat, without determining if they are armed and pose a possibility of danger to you or your family?

My contention is that there is a HUGE difference between the inside of a building and the outside. I will go further, and intimate that the inside of your personal vehicle is vastly different than outside the same.

Sorry man, I just can't see how that is an apples to apples comparison to what we are talking about.

I can walk around naked in my house without being arrested, stepping out into the yard will likely get a different result - Same thing you asked but I really don't see what that "difference" has to do with what we are talking about

I believe it was you who - rightly so - suggested the focus should be on the state Constitution. In light of that:

1. Do you agree that DRM has the right to ask you to leave his property, if DRM does not want you to bring a gun on his property?

2. Of so, what Constitutional distinction do you find for taking away DRM's right to ask you to leave his property - simply because the deed to said property is registered to DRM, LLC, of which DRM is 100% owner?

3. If you maintain that DRM can ask you to leave his home or his yard if you have a gun and he would like it removed, What Constitutional basis do you have for drawing a distinction in a business setting - where you agree DRM, LLC should be able to ask you to leave the building (home), yet not be able to ask you to leave the parking lot (yard)?

And let's be clear - so far EVERYONE in this thread wants the same end goal. I am just saying there MUST be a better way to achieve that goal without taking away someone else's rights.

My proposed solution isn't perfect, and admittedly does create a "don't ask don't tell" type of gray area... but I still think it's a better solution that taking away rights.

Just keep in mind - gun rights are a means to an end... that end being preserving all the other rights. So in my view - when gun rights butt heads with the rights they are there to preserve, common sense says the gun rights may need to step aside from time to time.

I am afraid these "parking lot bills" will end up like the "smoke free" laws that were passed.

Do I despise smoking? Yes.

Do I enjoy smoke free eating? Yes.

Would I vote to repeal those laws? IMMEDIATELY.

Why? Because I do not want the government creating more laws that TAKE AWAY FREEDOMS. Period. If you guys disagree with my approach - fine. But I hope you can appreciate where I am coming from

[DRM]

Worriedman touched on it....

When the deadly force laws were tweaked a while back (I don't like to use the misleading term "Castle Doctrine") the presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm was extended to your occupied vehicle, just like your home. However you can not have a loaded firearm (without a HCP) in your car like you can in your house. I don't know if the legislators simply failed to address it, looked at and decided not to change it or put off something the knew they may have to deal with later.

How this ties in with a parking lot bill I'm not 100% sure...probably a bit different for everyone...but I do find it a bit interesting....

I think it ties in that TN's laws SUCK in how convoluted and silly they are!

Then again - I abhor the entire HCP process (holding my nose as I went through it myself - uggggh), and personally think it runs afoul of both the US and TN Constitutions... but I digress

[china coaster]

I am a strong believer in property rights. It is what seperates us and our econmy from all others in the world. Having said that a fire arm secured in a vehicle is not going to harm a business owner's profit position. If that is a concern then simply give a property owner immunity from litigation in maters of fire arms in vehicles along with a parcking lot gun bill. I support the position that the property owner's right to control their property does not trump my right to protect myself, and I'm willing to live with the consequences. If a person is serious about self protection then carry and be damned. I have never had a job I couldn't afford to loose, and was able to retire when I was 50. No one owes any one a job and loosing one isn't the worse thing that can happen.

[Worriedman]

I believe it was you who - rightly so - suggested the focus should be on the state Constitution. In light of that:

1. Do you agree that DRM has the right to ask you to leave his property, if DRM does not want you to bring a gun on his property?

I think DRM has the right to ask any one to leave his property, for any reason. If however DRM desires or needs my expertise and agrees to employ me, then I think DRM should be able to require I enter DRM's building sans weapons, it that be DRM's choice. Inside that work space, if something of a violent nature befalls me, I can sue DRM for damages. However in my personal vehicle parked on the lot outside the workspace, I think the TN Constitution says I have the right to avail myself of the God given right to self protection for my traverse to and from DRM's property.

Currently the Legislature agrees that any business owner should be able to trump my right to provide for my self protection, but that is going to come up again, and if we, the "gun guys" can convince them that it is Constitutionally directed to allow the legal HCP holder to enjoy that lack of restriction, that will be all that is necessary, as our Constitution is set up to allow the Legislature to be the single arbiter of that situation.

How does DRM know I have a weapon, if it is locked in my car, to ask me to leave in the first place? If I back out of your drive way, (assuming we are at DRM's home and not DRM LLC), and park in the street, (assuming again, that there is not a civil statute against leaving the vehicle there), would you feel misused, knowing a firearm was only say 3 feet away from DRM' property?

If at DRM LLC, I rent a parking space from the property owner across the street, and leave my weapon in my personal vehicle there, would DRM LLC, suspecting that I did so in an effort to keep a weapon in my vehicle, (now 24 feet away from DRM LLC jurisdiction) be justified in terminating my employment?

2. Of so, what Constitutional distinction do you find for taking away DRM's right to ask you to leave his property - simply because the deed to said property is registered to DRM, LLC, of which DRM is 100% owner?

That every legally entitled Citizen has the right to carry State allowed instruments of self protection, (knowing that no other entity is responsible for that act, but each individual, a fact you keep disregarding). That you don't like the HCP rule in TN is tough, and your not liking it is moot, it is Constitutionally mandated at the present time, just as I don't like the ability of a business owner to divest me of my instruments of self protection, but as that is Constitutionally mandated for the time being, I have to abide by it. If I and others who share my view can convince the Legislature to change that, it will then become the law, that is the crux of the whole conversation.

My proposed solution isn't perfect, and admittedly does create a "don't ask don't tell" type of gray area... but I still think it's a better solution that taking away rights.

I am not sure what your "solution" is. Are you advocating knowingly violating the law?

It is already established in Tennessee, that your private vehicle is an extension of your "castle" (sorry for the inference Fallguy). I personally believe that is going to be the tipping point of the law, and, I believe that HCP holders will be able to keep their legally carried weapons in their vehicles in the near future.

We all know with certainty that a criminal intent on committing an illegal act will not be dissuaded by posting, signs or laws. We also know that no Law Enforcement entity is responsible for our security and safety, that they are charged only with the investigation of crime, and that Article 1 Section 26 puts the onus on the individual to provide the same. the supreme Court of TN has said we have the Right to carry our weapons that are approved for our own defense, from the Andrews v. State findings:

And clearly for this purpose, a man would have the right to carry them to and from his home, and no one could claim that the Legislature had the right to punish him for it, without violating this clause of the Constitution.

[vontar]

Personally I would have liked to have seen a parking lot bill before the carry in bars. Perhaps because it would benefit me more. Were I work, I can not leave my pistol in my car at work or have it on me at work. Not a major deal for me as I have a short drive, but I know some people that drive about an hour to get to work and it affects them driving 2 hours day with out their gun because they can not have it with them traveling to and from work because they can't leave it in their car.

(work has a standing policy of possible searching cars/trucks on company property although we have never known of them doing it.)

[Worriedman]

DRM wrote:

I can walk around naked in my house without being arrested, stepping out into the yard will likely get a different result - Same thing you asked but I really don't see what that "difference" has to do with what we are talking about

In your home or vehicle, you do not have to attempt to discern whether an intruder is intending to do you harm to avail yourself of the use of deadly force by Tennessee Law.

You do not have the same ability or "defense" if you will, outside your home, in your yard or on your driveway.

If you wake up in the middle of the night (or at any time) and notice an intruder in your home, you can fire on that person instantly, you are not required under the law to retreat, nor do you have to wait till they commit an overt act of aggression to employ deadly force. Neither do you have to make a determination of intent if a person lays hands on you in your vehicle, both scenarios valid under current law. If that person is armed or not, you still have the weight of the law on your side for using deadly force, i.e. employing a weapon. You are armed with the presumption of intent to do you harm within the confines of your home or your private vehicle.

On the other hand, if you are confronted with the appearance of an intruder OUTSIDE your home or vehicle, even if they are on your personal private property, you are not provided the same largess, and if you utilize deadly force, and the suspect is proved to be unarmed or is moving away from you, you are not afforded the same protections, "defense", as you are in your home or vehicle.

That is the difference.

[DRM]

I think DRM has the right to ask any one to leave his property, for any reason.

Agreed.

If however DRM desires or needs my expertise and agrees to employ me, then I think DRM should be able to require I enter DRM's building sans weapons, it that be DRM's choice. Inside that work space, if something of a violent nature befalls me, I can sue DRM for damages.

Agreed on these counts as well - however these have nothing to do with a parking lot bill, correct? These issues can be settled with laws without even the mention of guns, correct?

However in my personal vehicle parked on the lot outside the workspace, I think the TN Constitution says I have the right to avail myself of the God given right to self protection for my traverse to and from DRM's property.

Agreed that the Constitution gives you the right to protect yourself. Where you glazed over the specifics is when you just came up against your previous statement that DRM has the right to ask you to leave.

How you handle your security is not DRM's concern, is it? He is not stopping you from protecting yourself - you have any number of remedies at your disposal:

-Find employment elsewhere

-Find elsewhere to park

-Rent a security locker to store your weapon off site

Are these convenient, expedient, or cost efficient? Not really - but that really isn't DRM's problem - remember, you decided it was up to YOU to secure your safety - to which you have decide what you are willing to do.

Currently the Legislature agrees that any business owner should be able to trump my right to provide for my self protection, but that is going to come up again, and if we, the "gun guys" can convince them that it is Constitutionally directed to allow the legal HCP holder to enjoy that lack of restriction, that will be all that is necessary, as our Constitution is set up to allow the Legislature to be the single arbiter of that situation.

Two more problems here.

You again draw the distinction between HCP holders and everyone else. Why? I see no Constitutional basis for this, do you? Why are you in favor of restricting the rights of everyone else?

The whole "legislature is the arbiter" seems like a cop out way of saying "whatever - this is how I can get what I want". That might not be your intent - but that is how it sounds. Again - why would you be happy about securing these things only for HCP holders?

How does DRM know I have a weapon, if it is locked in my car, to ask me to leave in the first place? If I back out of your drive way, (assuming we are at DRM's home and not DRM LLC),

Obviously - I would not know. On a personal note - if I ask you to remove your *presumed* gun from my property - the onus is now on you to comply, or refuse to leave, or deny you have a gun.

Since I can't search you - unless I have seen the gun and know you to be lying I have to decide if I want you to leave anyway, or press the issue legally (trespassing).

DRM, LLC should have the same remedy. Assuming I am your employer, I can ask you to leave (post the parking lot), and that puts the onus on you to comply, refuse to leave, or deny you have a gun.

Since I can't search your car (remember - the other half of my proposal would be removing that from an employer's ability) - I have to decide if I want to run the legal risk of firing you for bad cause for claiming you have a gun but having not actually seen it. You have to weigh the risk of losing your job if you reveal to me you actually do have a weapon.

Parking lot owner retains their rights.

Employees get a BIG right back from the employer that currently have had taken from them

One of the major legal *excuses* used to put no-gun policies in place has been removed (Employers have posted the lot but aren't allowed to search - not much else they can do)

Gun owners can choose to enter the gray area that has been created, but that's each person's decision to make based on their own circumstances.

and park in the street, (assuming again, that there is not a civil statute against leaving the vehicle there), would you feel misused, knowing a firearm was only say 3 feet away from DRM' property?

How DRM "feels" is not really relevant. DRM can't say squat about it

If at DRM LLC, I rent a parking space from the property owner across the street, and leave my weapon in my personal vehicle there, would DRM LLC, suspecting that I did so in an effort to keep a weapon in my vehicle, (now 24 feet away from DRM LLC jurisdiction) be justified in terminating my employment?

Seriously - is my position not clear enough so far? Of course not. Then again - it's none of my business what you and DRM, LLC agreed to in your employement contract. Why would you agree to terms such as that?

just as I don't like the ability of a business owner to divest me of my instruments of self protection

And I say again - you know this to be an incorrect statement. Nobody is forcibly divesting you of anything, you are VOLUNTARILY divesting YOURSELF of your weapon.

I am not sure what your "solution" is. Are you advocating knowingly violating the law?

What law would that be? If an employer's only remedy is request you to leave, I'd guess the only law being broken would be pertaining to trespassing, at most.

If there are other laws - perhaps they need to be addressed as well.

It is already established in Tennessee, that your private vehicle is an extension of your "castle" (sorry for the inference Fallguy). I personally believe that is going to be the tipping point of the law, and, I believe that HCP holders will be able to keep their legally carried weapons in their vehicles in the near future.

Again, why only HCP holders?

BTW< why didn't you answer all 3 questions?

[DRM]

In your home or vehicle, you do not have to attempt to discern whether an intruder is intending to do you harm to avail yourself of the use of deadly force by Tennessee Law.

You do not have the same ability or "defense" if you will, outside your home, in your yard or on your driveway.

If you wake up in the middle of the night (or at any time) and notice an intruder in your home, you can fire on that person instantly, you are not required under the law to retreat, nor do you have to wait till they commit an overt act of aggression to employ deadly force. Neither do you have to make a determination of intent if a person lays hands on you in your vehicle, both scenarios valid under current law. If that person is armed or not, you still have the weight of the law on your side for using deadly force, i.e. employing a weapon. You are armed with the presumption of intent to do you harm within the confines of your home or your private vehicle.

On the other hand, if you are confronted with the appearance of an intruder OUTSIDE your home or vehicle, even if they are on your personal private property, you are not provided the same largess, and if you utilize deadly force, and the suspect is proved to be unarmed or is moving away from you, you are not afforded the same protections, "defense", as you are in your home or vehicle.

That is the difference.

Sorry man, you are trying to compare the passive concept of a parking lot bill to the burden of proof required to take a life... It's just not the same, even though "guns" might be involved in both.

[Worriedman]

Sorry man, you are trying to compare the passive concept of a parking lot bill to the burden of proof required to take a life... It's just not the same, even though "guns" might be involved in both.

No, you posed the difference in inside and outside the house. There is no requirement for "burden of proof" inside the home or personal vehicle. The burden is on the perp to stay out of those places. Plus I did not say anything about taking a life, I said use deadly force, which does not always equate with loss of life. The purpose of a defensive weapon is to make the individual stop the course of action they have chosen, whether they live or die is immaterial, as long as they are incapacitated to the extent that they can no longer pursue the course of action that precipitated the response.

[DRM]

No, you posed the difference in inside and outside the house.

in relation to remedies for someone carrying a gun in your house vs. in your yard, not in regards to using deadly force on an intruder. They simply aren't comparable.

[Worriedman]

DRM wrote:

Again, why only HCP holders?

It is the best chance to advance the issue. The fact that the Legislature recognizes that the HCP holders as a group, having been vetted via an FBI background check, and trained in the knowledge of the law regarding the use and prescriptions enumerated by the TCA against the incorrect use of their weapons, makes it more likely they will approve a change to allow this group to enjoy their basic, Constitutional Right to keep a weapon in their vehicles.

Prior to the institution of the HCP program, we were divested of the legal ability to carry handguns at all, (except for those who could co-opt a County Sheriff to issue a Special Permit). Do I agree with the premise, no, but I obey the law as I can. So now I advocate for moving more to what I think are the Constitutional guarantees that I think are necessary to allow me to protect my life.

DRM wrote:

BTW< why didn't you answer all 3 questions?

I have answered this in previous post, but once again, I believe that as businesses are seeking a profit, and are basically open to the public, drawing in the public, depending on the public, as customers and laborers, then that business involves the Rights of many, not just one, and as the Constitution says that the individual has the Right to carry their weapons, and places the burden of their safety and security squarely on the shoulders of that individual, the Rights of the individual to provide for that in their traverse to and from their homes as stated in Andrews v. State should be protected.

[Worriedman]

in relation to remedies for someone carrying a gun in your house vs. in your yard, not in regards to using deadly force on an intruder. They simply aren't comparable.

No, you started this one by stating the difference inside and out with relation to dancing naked, and the difference in how the law would look at that. They also look at the use of deadly force differently per location.

My belief is that there is a difference, that the yard of the home is governed by different rules than the inside is, i.e. the Castle Doctrine. The State has extended the same personal protection to a personal vehicle. I say let the same difference apply to the work place, Government properties, stores, and schools. There is no empirical data to suggest that HCP holders pose a risk of committing crime just because they have their weapons locked in their small little pieces of their Castle in a parking lot, which is required by the Constitution to restrict the individual from "keeping" their weapons in their private vehicles, as was stated by the Supreme Court in the same case, Andrews v. State:

50 Tenn. at 158-61, 3 Heisk. at 185-88.

But the power is given to regulate, with a view to prevent crime. The enactment of the Legislature on this subject, must be guided by, and restrained to this end, and bear some well defined relation to the prevention of crime, or else it is unauthorized by this clause of the Constitution.

On this you and I disagree. I say that someone should be required to prove a material risk on the part of HCP holders by proximity to their legally approved weapons to retain the restriction.

[Worriedman]

DRM, I would like to see your Constitution cites that reference private property ownership as a trump on the individual right to keep, bear or carry arms.

[DaveTN]

DRM, I would like to see your Constitution cites that reference private property ownership as a trump on the individual right to keep, bear or carry arms.

You don’t have an individual right to keep and bear arms. Per the state of Tennessee and the United States Supreme Court that right stops at your property line. So how does the Constitution have anything to do with this parking lot issue?

[Worriedman]

You don’t have an individual right to keep and bear arms. Per the state of Tennessee and the United States Supreme Court that right stops at your property line. So how does the Constitution have anything to do with this parking lot issue?

That the Governments of the union and the State of TN have manipulated by regulation the Constitutions of both, with respect to the stated Right to keep and bear arms, that does not mean that that Right does not exist, it simply means that some accept the yoke of tyranny imposed upon them, while others continue to advocate for the Right as intended.

Because you accept the premise of a Police State that offers no surety of protection or safety willingly, does not mean the rest of us have to.

Edited January 26, 2011 by Worriedman

[Worriedman]

We are promised "Life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness" by those same governments. Any thug with a stick can deprive any one of us of those commodities, and who do the survivors petition for redress in the case of loss of them?

We are instructed by those same courts you reference that the government has no responsibility for offering the protection of them. So if it is the individual's responsibility to provide the most rudimentary protection of those possessions, the basic tenants of God given Rights to continue life in a hostile environment, I for one will read the Constitutions and Declarations and Bills of Rights as I see fit, and if a small group of men who desire control over all that they survey does not suit me, and if my understanding of the written documents varies from their twisted take on the matter, it is my prerogative.

I am sure the British Empire had a different view of these issues than did the "Rebels" which were the Founders of our Nation. Which view won out in the end of the contest.

To give up debate and advocacy of what I think is the correct interpretation of these maters and subscribe to the perception that you hold would be cowardice in the face of duty that I owe to my children and grand children, to leave them a future that holds some semblance of Liberty.

Samuel Adams spoke of this mindset:

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!â€

[tnhawk]

As on several occassions "security" people were involved in stealing or breaking into the vehicles they were being paid to protect, I don't like the idea that they can search (shop) the contents of my property.

[DRM]

Hey Woriedman - not trying to brush you off but I realized last night I kind of "took over" the thread. I don't want to derail it any more than I already have, so I'll probably just let what I said lie for the most part. Hope you don't mind