Parking Lot bill

[Worriedman]

This issue of "private property" rights is bothersome to me for a couple of different reasons, especially when it comes to the parking lot issue.

My employment is in the Construction field, I build larger than bread box structures such as factories and distribution centers. In every instance of a major Project, I deal with various governmental entities with respect to utilities and infrastructure enhancements for those industries. I can promise the State of Tennessee puts a lot of public money into every new employer that comes to the State, some of them huge sums. You and I gifted a certain industry with the land gratis, the civil work prior to beginning actual construction, and all the roads and bridges necessary to bring in raw materials and to ship finished products out, for a Project in North Central Tennessee that began just recently.

For the millions of dollars the State pumped in to this Project, (our tax dollars by the way) I find it difficult to call it "Private Property", not to mention the Federal Dollars given to them as it is a 'Green Power" endeavor. Yet they deny the right to employees to keep weapons in their personal vehicles for personal protection.

Every business reaps the benefits of public monies via the roads and streets that bring customers to them, the electrical power that is a public utility, the water, sanitary sewer and storm sewers that each of us finance to the benefit of the "private business" without which they could not exist or earn a profit.

Without publicly funded streets and roads, no business could function. I feel I have a vested interest in all these businesses, and I do not appreciate my largess being repaid by denying my Constitutional Right to provide for the only safety and security I might enjoy, as it is my job and no one else's to provide.

In Andrews v. State the Supreme Court of TN found:

"The right to keep arms, necessarily involves the right to purchase them, to keep them in a state of efficiency for use, and to purchase and provide ammunition suitable for such arms, and to keep them in repair. 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.

But farther than this, it must be held, that the right to keep arms involves, necessarily, the right to use such arms for all the ordinary purposes, and in all the ordinary modes usual in the country, and to which arms are adapted, limited by the duties of a good citizen in times of peace; that in such use, he shall not use them for violation of the rights of others, or the paramount rights of the community of which he makes a part."

[RobertNashville]

Putting aside whether states should be giving tax statements, provide utilities and infrastructure, etc. to attract business; the fact that they give them doesn't, in my opinion, make those businesses less than "private"...state and local governments do that because the community (meaning the taxpayer) will, in theory, get back more than was put in through eventual tax revenue, etc...the simple fact that the business can chose to go elsewhere or go out of business altogether is evidence that it is still a "private" enterprise.

In other words, just because the government does things to attract business or new facilities or expansions nor just because government entities require certain standards (ADA, etc) for them to be in business, it doesn't immediately follow that a government can demand anything it wants or negate all the rights of a business entity to maintain a level of privacy and self- determination.

[DaveTN]

Some companies will claim their firearms ban is for safety reasons. They may store flammable or dangerous materials. I would guess that is pretty much the end of any government intervention.

[Fallguy]

Some companies will claim their firearms ban is for safety reasons. They may store flammable or dangerous materials. I would guess that is pretty much the end of any government intervention.

The Disney World clause, huh?

Of course I don't think any company has those things in the parking lot...lol

One problem is this bill has to address employers as small as the "mom and pop" up to Fed Ex, etc... and even local, county and state governments.

[Worriedman]

One problem is this bill has to address employers as small as the "mom and pop" up to Fed Ex, etc... and even local, county and state governments.

Each and every one of these types and kinds of "business" has some component of their ability to function owed to public sector support, ranging in magnitude from minor for "Mom and Pop" venues to complete for governments. The fact that we are talking about parking lots points out the reliance by each business on the public finance and ownership of the streets, roads and drainage public works which bring the employees and customers to that parking lot, without which those businesses could not function.

The average Citizen helps to finance the infrastructure for every commercial venture, some more so than others, depending on the level of graft or largess, (which is the prerogative of the viewer to discern) of the Government officials in charge of reaching into our back pockets to take/give our money to entice new business for the "common good".

[Worriedman]

Some companies will claim their firearms ban is for safety reasons. They may store flammable or dangerous materials. I would guess that is pretty much the end of any government intervention.

I work with many government agencies with letters for names, OSHA, EPA, COE, DOJ etc., there is NO end to their intervention. As "Dead Fish" Emanuel said, either legislate or regulate.

[Worriedman]

Putting aside whether states should be giving tax statements, provide utilities and infrastructure, etc. to attract business; the fact that they give them doesn't, in my opinion, make those businesses less than "private"...state and local governments do that because the community (meaning the taxpayer) will, in theory, get back more than was put in through eventual tax revenue, etc...the simple fact that the business can chose to go elsewhere or go out of business altogether is evidence that it is still a "private" enterprise.

In other words, just because the government does things to attract business or new facilities or expansions nor just because government entities require certain standards (ADA, etc) for them to be in business, it doesn't immediately follow that a government can demand anything it wants or negate all the rights of a business entity to maintain a level of privacy and self- determination.

You evidently do not earn your daily bread from dealing with such issues. Failure of industry to provide viable payback of that public support is legendary. The billions invested in "Green power" initiatives is but one instance showing where good money has been thrown after bad.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/15/business/energy-environment/15solar.html

Aided by at least $43 million in assistance from the government of Massachusetts and an innovative solar energy technology, Evergreen Solar emerged in the last three years as the third-largest maker of solar panels in the United States.

But now the company is closing its main American factory, laying off the 800 workers by the end of March and shifting production to a joint venture with a Chinese company in central China. Evergreen cited the much higher government support available in China.

They going to pay our $43 million back?

[DRM]

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.

Let's say I am parked on your property, in the driveway of your home. Are you suggesting you do or do not have the right to control that a gun is on your property? And if you do have that right, what is your remedy? You cannot search that car - you can however ask that the car be removed, correct?

Now explain to me why ANY other property owner should not have the SAME EXACT right, and remedy?

[RobertNashville]

You evidently do not earn your daily bread from dealing with such issues. Failure of industry to provide viable payback of that public support is legendary. The billions invested in "Green power" initiatives is but one instance showing where good money has been thrown after bad.

Whether government entities SHOULD and/or whether the actions pays back for the communities involved has nothing to do with the discussion at hand and is an entirely different mater which was why I said "Putting aside whether states should..." and ..."will, in theory, get back more than was put in" apparently I wasn't clear.

[DRM]

Whether government entities SHOULD and/or whether the actions pays back for the communities involved has nothing to do with the discussion at hand and is an entirely different mater which was why I said "Putting aside whether states should..." and ..."will, in theory, get back more than was put in" apparently I wasn't clear.

Agreed - federal tax deductions for home interest, reduced federal VA loan interest rates, first time home buyer tax credits, etc...

If the standard is that government involvement monetarily in property ownership negates that property being "private" - wow, that's a BIG can of worms to open up, and really doesn't have much to do with the discussion at hand.

[RobertNashville]

Let's say I am parked on your property, in the driveway of your home. Are you suggesting you do or do not have the right to control that a gun is on your property? And if you do have that right, what is your remedy? You cannot search that car - you can however ask that the car be removed, correct?

Now explain to me why ANY other property owner should not have the SAME EXACT right, and remedy?

I suggest that there is a significant difference between a "parking lot" and a private driveway.

I am a big supporter of private property rights and while real-property (land, building, etc. are private property) I think it worth noting that "businesses" are artificially created entities...the "rights" that a business entity has and the fact that they exist at all is only because society allows them to exist. Businesses/stores/employers need customers/employees to make a profit and/or operate and they are given permission to exist and hold themselves open to society for that purpose. In my opinion, that is a significant difference compared to the private home of an individual.

Whenever you have the rights of one (such as an employee) bumping up against the rights of another (such as an employer), what is most fair is for some common ground to be found...given the benefits to society and to the business and the need of people to be employed, I believe a solution can be found that is not overly burdensome to business/employers that would prevent a business/employer from controlling what a customer/employee can have in their private vehicle while parked in a "parking lot"that exists so that customers/employees can be there and benefit the business!

Edited January 25, 2011 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

double post...deleted.

Edited January 25, 2011 by RobertNashville

[DRM]

I suggest that there is a significant difference between a "parking lot" and a private driveway.

Businesses are artificially created entities...they exist only because society allows them to exist. Businesses/stores/employers need customers/employees to make a profit and/or operate and they are given permission to exist and hold themselves open to society for that purpose. In my opinion, that is a significant difference compared to the private home of an individual.

Whenever you have the rights of one (such as an employee) bumping up against the rights of another (such as an employer), what is most fair is for some common ground to be found...given the benefits to society and to the business and the need of people to be employed, I believe a solution can be found that is not overly burdensome to business/employers that would prevent a business/employer from controlling what a customer/employee can have in their private vehicle.

Odd that you quoted my words, yet didn't answer the question?

What is your solution if I own property - personally - that I lease to someone else to run a business on. Are you saying I have to give up my right to control what comes on to MY property?

What about the person who runs a home-based business - do they have to give up their property rights so you can bring a gun into their driveway against their wishes, simply because they have a business there as well?

What I see here is "gun people" simply want THEIR desires to be met - period. And - as can be seen here - any number of rationalizations and distinctions are made from whole cloth to try to reach that end goal of meeting THEIR desired outcome. To be honest, I don't like how that approach generally tends to trample on the law, and a fair application of that law. What I also see is that this isn't a gun issue as much as it is a private property issue. And the issue can be solved without even bringing up guns, which - IMHO - makes it far more likely to get a favorable response form the general voting public.

Why should only HCP holders be able to keep a gun in their car? Do they have more of a right to do that - based on the TN Constitution - than the guy who wants to go squirrel hunting after work? And why even worry about it if you instead make it so that Employers can't search your private property (car) - solving both issues at once?

[DRM]

and the need of people to be employed,

I missed this in my earlier reply - but I have a biiiiiiiiig problem with this line of thinking. It smells an awful lot like you are suggesting that there is a "right to be employed" - and that smells an awful lot like a socialist concept I want no part of.

Nobody is forced to work anywhere in this state. We can all pack up and move and get a job somewhere else if we don't like the terms of employment. And as an employer myself - if I make changes that my employees don't like I have to constantly balance the very real possibility that unpopular policies could result in me losing employees.

[RobertNashville]

Odd that you quoted my words, yet didn't answer the question?

What is your solution if I own property - personally - that I lease to someone else to run a business on. Are you saying I have to give up my right to control what comes on to MY property?

To a large extent, you DO give up a lot of your right to control what "comes on to your property" by virtue of the lease; most of "your" rights are transferred to the lessee.

What about the person who runs a home-based business - do they have to give up their property rights so you can bring a gun into their driveway against their wishes, simply because they have a business there as well?

A business is a business...if they run a business from their home in which they need and expect people to come to their house and park in their driveway then yes, they are no longer simply a private person living in a private home. The comparison is rather odd anyway since in most communities, such activities (running a business that is open to the public) would be contrary to zoning laws.

What I see here is "gun people" simply want THEIR desires to be met - period. And - as can be seen here - any number of rationalizations and distinctions are made from whole cloth to try to reach that end goal of meeting THEIR desired outcome. To be honest, I don't like how that approach generally tends to trample on the law, and a fair application of that law. What I also see is that this isn't a gun issue as much as it is a private property issue. And the issue can be solved without even bringing up guns, which - IMHO - makes it far more likely to get a favorable response form the general voting public.

Why should only HCP holders be able to keep a gun in their car? Do they have more of a right to do that - based on the TN Constitution - than the guy who wants to go squirrel hunting after work? And why even worry about it if you instead make it so that Employers can't search your private property (car) - solving both issues at once?

You can see what you want and apparently you do.

I didn't mention "guns" at all in the post you quoted nor did I mention HCP holders.

I said that whatever a person can legally carry in their vehicles parked in a parking lot should be completely irrelevant and beyond the control of a business/employer so long as what is being carried/transported/left in the vehicle is otherwise legal...that would include loaded handguns and loaded but unchambered long guns for an HCP holders and properly (unloaded) firearms carried by anyone else or any other item...if it's not illegal to be there in the first place then it shouldn't be anybody's business that it is there.

[RobertNashville]

I missed this in my earlier reply - but I have a biiiiiiiiig problem with this line of thinking. It smells an awful lot like you are suggesting that there is a "right to be employed" - and that smells an awful lot like a socialist concept I want no part of.

Nobody is forced to work anywhere in this state. We can all pack up and move and get a job somewhere else if we don't like the terms of employment. And as an employer myself - if I make changes that my employees don't like I have to constantly balance the very real possibility that unpopular policies could result in me losing employees.

You would have less of a problem if you didn't twist words into something you can argue against...how does "the need of people to be employed" get translated to a "right to be employed" in your mind?

Is it a comprehension problem of do you just like to put words into people's mouths so you can argue?

People need to be employed...society needs people to be employed that is simply not the same as people having a "right" to be employed nor did I say otherwise.

Edited January 25, 2011 by RobertNashville

[DRM]

I said that whatever a person can legally carry in their vehicles parked in a parking lot should be completely irrelevant and beyond the control of a business/employer so long as what is being carried/transported/left in the vehicle is otherwise legal...that would include loaded handguns and loaded but unchambered long guns for an HCP holders and properly (unloaded) firearms carried by anyone else or any other item...if it's not illegal to be there in the first place then it shouldn't be anybody's business that it is there.

Sorry, I will not ever support a property owner being told he cannot ask you to remove yourself and your property (vehicle) from their property - which is what you are suggesting.

[DRM]

You would have less of a problem if you didn't twist words into something you can argue against...how does "the need of people to be employed" get translated to a "right to be employed" in your mind?

Is it a comprehension problem of do you just like to put words into people's mouths so you can argue?

Robert, I simply commented based on how I read what you typed (see my "it smells like" comment). If that is not how you meant it and I read it incorrectly feel free to clarify - but there is no need for you to cop an attitude.

[RobertNashville]

Robert, I simply commented based on how I read what you typed (see my "it smells like" comment). If that is not how you meant it and I read it incorrectly feel free to clarify - but there is no need for you to cop an attitude.

If I'm "coping an attitude" it's likely because the "right to employment" assertion was just the latest of other incidents of where you either ignored what I said or twisted the meaning of what I did say to be exactly the opposite of what I said.

It's very difficult to have a discussion with someone when things I clearly never said or implied are ascribed to me anyway in an apparent attempt to give you a point to argue.

[Worriedman]

Let's say I am parked on your property, in the driveway of your home. Are you suggesting you do or do not have the right to control that a gun is on your property? And if you do have that right, what is your remedy? You cannot search that car - you can however ask that the car be removed, correct?

Now explain to me why ANY other property owner should not have the SAME EXACT right, and remedy?

If you intend to honor the Tennessee Constitution, which says that the citizens have a right to own and transport their weapons, and be secure in their possessions, if they are behaving with those weapons in such a manner as to not alert you as to their existence, I fail to see where it would be a problem. Do you, as a matter of course, ask every visitor to your home if they have weapons in their vehicles? If you post your private property against carry, (which you have every right to do, however, if you do not, then there is no preclusion against carry by HCP holders on your property) then I suggest you make yourself a target, we all know how criminals love a "gun free" Zone!

[RobertNashville]

Sorry, I will not ever support a property owner being told he cannot ask you to remove yourself and your property (vehicle) from their property - which is what you are suggesting.

I'm suspecting that there is more to your opinion than your "property rights" stand...when you talk about us "gun people" I can't help but wonder if you are, perhaps, more worried about "guns" and "gun people" than you really are worried about "property rights".

A "business" is NOT the same as an individual..."property" used in the course of business is NOT the same as property used as a place of residence...a parking lot is NOT the same as a private driveway and trying to boil everything down to "property rights" flies in the face of logic.

Have a nice day.

[Worriedman]

What I see here is "gun people" simply want THEIR desires to be met - period. And - as can be seen here - any number of rationalizations and distinctions are made from whole cloth to try to reach that end goal of meeting THEIR desired outcome. To be honest, I don't like how that approach generally tends to trample on the law, and a fair application of that law. What I also see is that this isn't a gun issue as much as it is a private property issue. And the issue can be solved without even bringing up guns, which - IMHO - makes it far more likely to get a favorable response form the general voting public.

First, you have chosen a "gun site" to post on, it would appear that those who have interest in the topic might be the general participants, and in so far as one might suppose that the general focus would be for Constitutional issues relating to gun ownership and the freedom to enjoy those, I am surprised that you tend to act as if this is abhorrent to you.

What you "see here"as you put it, is in fact "gun people" wanting the Constitution to be applied as it was meant to be, not as some would wish it. Currently there are unconstitutional measures relating to carry on the books, that us "gun people" want to advocate for corrections to those, and discussing them on a "Tennessee Gun Owners" forum to forward that would be normal?

The outcome "desired" as you put it, is one of following the intent of the document that rules, in the manner proscribed, and not as some wishy-washy feel good, want to just get along appologist for the Kumbaya crowd wish it to be.

Simply read and follow the law.

[DRM]

If you intend to honor the Tennessee Constitution, which says that the citizens have a right to own and transport their weapons, and be secure in their possessions, if they are behaving with those weapons in such a manner as to not alert you as to their existence, I fail to see where it would be a problem.

That is what I have said all along - gun, just sitting there, out of sight - isn't bothering anyone. The difference comes in that you want to take away a property owner's right to ask you to remove said gun from your property, and I want to preserve that right.

Do you, as a matter of course, ask every visitor to your home if they have weapons in their vehicles?

Do I? No.

Do I want to retain the right to do so? Yes.

If you post your private property against carry, (which you have every right to do, however, if you do not, then there is no preclusion against carry by HCP holders on your property)

Actually, there is no *pre*clusion, but there IS a remedy - I could ask you to leave. Again, all I am suggesting is that ALL property owners should retain that right.

[DRM]

First, you have chosen a "gun site" to post on, it would appear that those who have interest in the topic might be the general participants, and in so far as one might suppose that the general focus would be for Constitutional issues relating to gun ownership and the freedom to enjoy those, I am surprised that you tend to act as if this is abhorrent to you.

What you "see here"as you put it, is in fact "gun people" wanting the Constitution to be applied as it was meant to be, not as some would wish it. Currently there are unconstitutional measures relating to carry on the books, that us "gun people" want to advocate for corrections to those, and discussing them on a "Tennessee Gun Owners" forum to forward that would be normal?

The outcome "desired" as you put it, is one of following the intent of the document that rules, in the manner proscribed, and not as some wishy-washy feel good, want to just get along appologist for the Kumbaya crowd wish it to be.

Simply read and follow the law.

Let me clarify "gun people" for you. I was not referring to gun owners - because that is the category I fall into right along with about 99% of the people reading this.

What I am talking about are people who want so bad to get what *they want*, they are willing to - IMHO - trample over other rights in the process. 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.

Do I want a clarification and simplification of the laws concerning guns in this state? Yes.

Am I willing to take away the rights of a property owner in the process? No.

Sorry if some of you don't see the property rights implications, but every way I look at this topic, that is what this comes down to: For you to get what you want here, you are advocating that you TAKE AWAY someone's right to say "no, I do not want a gun on my property".

Again - please keep in mind my view contains 2 parts: Property owners retain the right to seek the same remedy you do at your home (Ask the person to leave/remove the gun), they SHOULD NOT have the remedy of searching your private property (your car).

What I suggest is perfectly consistent.

What I see others suggesting is that somehow you think the employer should be able to say no guns in the building, but not in the parking lot. This is one of those rationalization arguments - and clearly is not supported in the TN Constitution. If - as Worriedman suggests - we were to go back to the original wording, then according to the Constitution you should be able to carry your gun right to your desk at work, correct?

I don't like that kind of rationalization tactic when anti-gun people use it against ME, and I sure won't be party to the same folly when trying to support my own positions.

And on a lighter note - I encourage all of my employees to carry on their person while at work - because i can't possibly cover all of the access points by myself

[RobertNashville]

...Again, all I am suggesting is that ALL property owners should retain that right.

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.

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.

When a business holds itself out to the public as a business and desirous of customers/employees to utilize that business, there are obligations that come along with it that do not apply to the private citizen on his private property which is as it should be...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.

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.

Edited January 25, 2011 by RobertNashville