Parking Lot bill

[Worriedman]

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

No problem, it has been a good exercise for the coming contest with the Legislature. I have meetings set for next week with some folks who actually can help foster a change with regard to this specific issue. The give and take has been beneficial, as it made me pull out my old notes and study up.

[DRM]

Thanks. If you can take one thing away - the core of my position is try to consider if there is "another way to skin this cat" that might be more equitable for all parties

[RobertNashville]

Much has been made, in a somewhat derisive way, that this argument is “all about guns†and what “gun owners wantâ€â€¦well, if that is true, it’s true only because the argument has been framed that way primarily by employers! It’s these employers who have singled out “guns†in what I think most of us would say is an arbitrary and capricious way that has precipitated the problem. They haven't singled out "junk food" or "chain saws" or any other legally carried item/tool; just guns. If these same employers had banned employees from listening to “Rush†or “Air America†on their vehicle’s radio during a break/lunch hour while the vehicle was parked in their parking lot I suspect we would be having similar discussions about the right to listen to what we want to listen to in our private vehicles (although that discussion would likely be happening on some other forum than this one).

Let’s also be clear that in any “parking lot billâ€, we are not really talking about private homes/residences and private driveways; we are talking about, primarily, employers (but also businesses that sell to the public) and the parking lots that exist for employees/customers to use (and mostly use for the benefit of the business). As such, comparisons to “driveways†are somewhat misguided and not overly helpful.

Some suggest that there is no difference between the rights of a private person in his private home and the rights afforded a business operating in the public arena. I disagree with that position for reasons already stated earlier. That said, as I’ve thought through this issue I’ve come to the conclusion that, while similarities should not be discounted, the argument is somewhat irrelevant in any case. I think we all can acknowledge, and it’s been long established, that “government†has both a right and a duty to regulate and control what businesses can and can’t do and where they can and can’t do it for the overall benefit of society. They try, albeit often with limited success, to strike a balance between conflicting concerns/interests such as worker safety, environmental issues, efficiency, competitiveness, etc. So whether a “business/business owner†automatically has the same “rights†of any private individual is somewhat moot – the “state†regulates business to a great extent now and a “parking lot bill†would be no different - suggestions that the State of Tennessee doesn’t have a right, for example, to forbid employers from disallowing otherwise legally carried firearms on their property so long as the firearms remain in a locked vehicle is simply not viable. The state surely can do so…the only real question is whether the state should do so.

With the question of whether the state “shouldâ€, I think we must look at (at least) three conflicting (or at least potentially conflicting) interests and as with placing any restriction/regulation on a business or a person, the state has a responsibility to balance conflicting interests.

One interest is the right of a business to control what happens on their property; I suspect most of us agree that, in general, they do. Another interest is of the individual and the right of individual citizens to do a completely legal thing (and in this case, moreover, not just a “legal†thing but a right specifically recognized by the U.S. Constitution). The other interest is the interest of society at large and what is most beneficial to it.

I can understand and support that a business, in general, should be able to/has the right to control what happens on their property and while some here may disagree, I believe they clearly have the right to take the position of disallowing firearms inside their actual facility such as their office building, factory floor, etc (that said, I would add that such a position should not be simply “company policy†but that they must POST their property as such IAW Tennessee state law).

I also support that an individual has a right to control what happens on or in HIS property and this would include his private vehicle - in most respects, a private vehicle is viewed, by law, as an extension of that person’s home (I’m not trying to misuse the castle doctrine here…I do understand that there is a difference). As such, as long as what we are doing/have contained inside our private vehicles is otherwise legal, including legally carried firearms, the contents and/or our activities in our vehicles should not be subject to the control of others; at least not without sufficient reason.

Finally, while clearly not everyone in society agrees; those of us who own and/or carry weapons know that an armed society is good for society at large…our ability to defend ourselves and other innocents is a GOOD THING and restrictions on our ability to do that should be as few as possible.

I believe, as a matter of principle, that when rights or various interests “bump up†against each other, no one “right†or interest should automatically trump the rights/interests of the other and in absence of some demonstrated, viable business reason for doing so, I see no obvious justification for an employer/business to forbid the existence of legally carried firearms (or legally carried anything else) inside a person’s private vehicle just because it happens to be parked in a parking lot.

I take this position for several reason; one of the reasons is because, in my opinion, while an actual facility is somewhat akin to a private residence; I would suggest that a “parking lot is more akin to “public property†than to private property. I think we can acknowledge that the only reason for such parking lots to exist is for the benefit of the public and to invite the public to be there (the shopping public, the employed public, etc). Moving on, 2) people have a right to have/do/carry otherwise legal things inside their homes and inside their vehicles. 3) An armed society of law-abiding citizens is good, overall, for society. 4) Businesses existing/operating/selling is good for society and for that to happen, businesses need employees and they need customers. As such, placing unnecessary burdens on those customers/employees or restrictions on THEIR rights should be resisted as much as possible.

I may well change my mind on this if a business/business owner can offer up a truly good/viable/measurable business reason for not allowing legally carried firearms inside a locked, parked privately owned vehicle. However, I’ve yet to hear one and I suspect I never will.

Bottom line for me is that the "right" of a business or any other entity to control what happens on its property ENDS at the doorjam of my private property (whether that door jam is the front door of my house or the door of my vehicle)...and that this is so regardless of where my house or my vehicle is located at any given time (and if a business wants and needs customers/employees and provides a parking lot to further that end, it ought to be able to accept the concept that what is in a private vehicle, if otherwise legal, is not subject to their control). In other words, it is really no g** damn business of anybody else what is inside my vehicle provided what is inside there is legal…if I have or I’m suspected of having something in my vehicle that isn’t legal then the police should be summoned, the vehicle searched (if there is sufficient cause to do so) and then let the chips fall where they may.

[Guest Synghyn]

I have to say that overall, this has been a really good discussion, I enjoyed reading through it.

I guess my thoughts on this have already been touched on, but not articulated in a way that made the distinction clear to me. I agree for the most part with Robert and I think in reality we probably agree on this as well, it just wasn't explicit. But I don't see a whole lot of use in me going over all of that again, just the part I see as a distinction.

I agree the property owner has the right to control whats on his property, but at the same time the individual has a right to self protection. I guess I go the other way from DRM in that I think the individuals basic rights should trump a business owners rights to some degree. By keeping my firearm in my car I may be brushing off the property owners right to say what can be on his property, but in a passive way that only affects them if I do something illegal. But by stopping me from keeping the firearm in the car, the property owner curtails my rights both on and off their property. I understand DRM's point about them not denying that right. In theory you can park somewhere else or get a locker somewhere etc, but certainly the personal right is being trodden on and the onus is put to the individual to come up with a solution to regain their rights off the property. In other words, in my opinion, the individuals rights are being affected in a more direct and disruptive manner. The property owner simply has to let it be to allow the individuals right whereas the individual has to overcome it to allow the property owners right. I can see where inside the building all they are asking is for you to relinquish that right there, but in the parking lot they are asking you to relinquish that right both there and off the property.

I guess my question would be why does a property owners rights automatically trump an individuals rights? Simply because the individual chose to go/work there? Didn't the property owner also chose to allow other private individuals access to their property and how would that automatically put constraints on their personal rights?

And for the record, no if it doesn't affect me in any other way than it's presence then no I don't think I have the right to tell you what you can or cannot have in your car on my property. As long as it doesn't affect me, I don't frankly think it's any of my business. Having something illegal could easily affect me in a bigger way but that's really outside this discussion. Well, it probably doesn't help with the proper phrasing of language in a proposed law, but there's my 2 cents.

Jon

[OD#3]

As long as we continue to believe that every tragedy entitles us to sue someone in order to be made whole, and that employers are vicariously liable for every action of their employees, this will continue to be an issue. So how about just pushing for a law that makes property owners immune from such liabilities? There are numerous instances in which the legislature has acted to limit the liability of a person or organization, and we all know that most of these "no guns" rules are motivated by liability concerns. I'm much more comfortable with limiting the "right" to sue someone than I am in limiting other more fundamental rights like property 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.

That's the best, most succinct argument against the parking lot bill I've ever heard.

[RobertNashville]

As long as we continue to believe that every tragedy entitles us to sue someone in order to be made whole, and that employers are vicariously liable for every action of their employees, this will continue to be an issue. So how about just pushing for a law that makes property owners immune from such liabilities? There are numerous instances in which the legislature has acted to limit the liability of a person or organization, and we all know that most of these "no guns" rules are motivated by liability concerns. I'm much more comfortable with limiting the "right" to sue someone than I am in limiting other more fundamental rights like property rights.

While nothing has been specifically proposed in Tennessee yet, I am sure that liability protection for those who own the parking lots would be included in such a bill.

[Guest slothful1]

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.

I'm not seeing how this is any better, from your standpoint. How would such a law not take away an employer's rights by forcing him to continue employing someone that he no longer wants to have working for him? This would seem to impact the employer's property (the money & resources devoted to this employee) and his freedom of association. There are currently protected classes -- race, sex, religion, etc. -- which the employer cannot legally as criteria to dismiss someone (and which incidentally I *do* think unjustly take away the employer's rights)... but "refusing to consent to a search of one's car" is not one of them.

[Worriedman]

As long as we continue to believe that every tragedy entitles us to sue someone in order to be made whole, and that employers are vicariously liable for every action of their employees, this will continue to be an issue. So how about just pushing for a law that makes property owners immune from such liabilities? There are numerous instances in which the legislature has acted to limit the liability of a person or organization, and we all know that most of these "no guns" rules are motivated by liability concerns. I'm much more comfortable with limiting the "right" to sue someone than I am in limiting other more fundamental rights like property 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.

That's the best, most succinct argument against the parking lot bill I've ever heard.

I will ask the same question again, what Constitutional edict allows private property Rights to trump the Right to self protection?

Is there an Article that requires the individual to NOT attempt to preserve their life in case of an attack. Is there some preemption to not spill the criminal's blood on an employer's parking lot, but allows the victim's to flow?

If in fact the "liability" is the issue, what of the non permit holder that is parked in the same lot, and is attacked because an employer chooses not to supply any security for those who labor to provide for that owner's profit potential. Keep in mind, that we allow the property or business owner to not just deny the ability for the individual to provide for their own defense while in that parking lot via this line of reasoning, but for the full time and length of travel that it takes to get from the individual employee's home to work, and back again. That extends the employer's control far beyond the confines of their private property.

Government seems to be fairly restrictive in what they allow private property owners to do with their possessions, there is no carte blanche issued along with a deed. I don't see them championing unlimited Rights to the use of individual parcels of land or buildings. Can't park your car in your yard, don't mow the grass, they do it for you and fine you, leash laws are the norm, governments regulate your ability to do with your possessions all the time.

From the second any life form draws it's first breath it fights to live, self preservation is an innate desire of any living thing. Is there a more basic freedom, or instinct than that of the pursuit of continued life? Should any one be able to deny that to a person for any reason? Capital Projects of all kinds are halted because some assay of the flora and fauna turns up the fact that some bot nosed fruit fly inhabits a particular square yard of ground, keeping the largest Corporation from creating huge factories and thousands of jobs, denying the beneficial use of a piece of property that millions of dollars are paid for. Yet it seem reasonable to deny a human being, who simply ask to provide for their own preservation when their employer or Government can not, and will not assume the role, and by law has assigned the requirement of that preservation of life to the individual?

Show me an Article in the Constitutions of the Union or the State that expresses the priority of property over life, and I will cease my arguments.

Edited February 2, 2011 by Worriedman

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You couldn't have said it any better, Worriedman. There is nothing in the Constitution that

trumps self preservation. "Inalienable" is the word. Property rights are not inalienable, they

are defined by man. Self preservation also trumps any rights states may try to regulate.

[Worriedman]

There are currently protected classes -- race, sex, religion, etc. -- which the employer cannot legally (use) as criteria to dismiss someone (and which incidentally I *do* think unjustly take away the employer's rights)... but "refusing to consent to a search of one's car" is not one of them.

If in fact the 4th Amendment 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." is to be enjoyed by the individual Citizen, and as the State of Tennessee has extended it's "Castle Doctrine" to include a person's personal vehicle with the same protection as their house, sans evidence of intent to misuse any legal possession kept inside it re Andrews v. State "that in such use, he shall not use them for violation of the rights of others", what power does the employer have to search an individuals vehicle? Also, our Supreme court has said in the same ruling "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." speaking of Article 1 Section 26 of the Tennessee Constitution.

What next, the employer denies the ability of the individual to put a political bumper sticker on a personal vehicle in the parking lot? Should they not have the power to quash the 1st Amendment as well as denying a person's right to self protection? None of those "protected" classes you mentioned are explicitly mentioned in the Amendments, nor are they referenced in any of our founding documents or commentaries, yet a God given Right (self protection) which is spoken about by nearly all of our founders as universally accepted as necessary is relegated to the trash heap under the auspices of Property Rights?

[RobertNashville]

I suggest that we are dangerously close to the edge of error, when we equate the right of a person to defend his life with the right to go armed...the firearm is a tool, no more or less...being denied a particular tool to defend ourselves is not the same thing as being denied the right to defend ourselves. I'm not saying we should all go unarmed; just making what I believe to be a point of clarification.

I also think we should avoid the dangerous line of reasoning that the loss of freedoms that have already occurred (not allowed to park on our lawn, business owners being told no one is allowed to smoke, etc.) as justification to deny even more rights that are supposed to part of our property rights. We've (both business and non-business owners) have lost a lot of our property rights but if we truly believe in all the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and much of English Common Law that shaped those documents, I would think we should be hesitant to elevate our "favorite" right above any other. In fact, that we should be working to preserve what we have left and restore what we've lost.

With regards to you question; private property rights do not trump the right to self protection...as long as you didn't start or instigate the violence, you have an absolute right to defend yourself against violence no matter what piece of property you happen to be standing on at any given moment. However, no one right automatically trumps any other and if two rights are in conflict then society must decide on what is the most equitable for both...to do otherwise breads anarchy.

I think this is an area where both the rights of the property owner and the rights of the individual to go armed can be accommodated without undue burdens placed on either. That does not mean, however, that either side will get all that they want nor should they expect to do so.

Edited February 2, 2011 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

By the way...

...what power does the employer have to search an individuals vehicle?

Regardless of what an employee might have agreed to at the time he hired in, no employer can truly force an employee to allow a search of his vehicle...only a law enforcement officer and only then with cause and/or a warrant, can force a search. However, while the employee can refuse the employer's request, the employer can fire the employee..the power to "fire" gives them the only power they really have.

I suppose what I'm saying here is that "rights" are bumping up against "reality". Yes, we have a right to "free speech" (including bumper stickers)...yes, we have a right to defend ourselves and to "go armed"...and as long as you work for anyone else, your employer has the right to fire you at any time for any reason or for no reason (except of course for the protected issues of race, creed, sex, age, etc.).

[Worriedman]

However, no one right automatically trumps any other and if two rights are in conflict then society must decide on what is the most equitable for both...to do otherwise breads anarchy.

I think this is an area where both the rights of the property owner and the rights of the individual to go armed can be accommodated without undue burdens placed on either. That does not mean, however, that either side will get all that they want nor should they expect to do so.

There is no undue burden placed on the property owner by not breaching the 4Th Amendment sanctity of a person's "Castle" (personal vehicle). Tennessee has already decided that one's home and personal vehicle are coequal in their status of protection, why does an employer enjoy a precedent ( for any LE no probable cause, no warrant, no warrant, no search) for powers that the Governmental agency does not have? It is a ludicrous supposition that a contract for labor supersedes inalienable Rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Tench Coxe said " Their swords, and every other terrible instrument of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American. ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

I suggest that we are dangerously close to the edge of error, when we equate the right of a person to defend his life with the right to go armed...the firearm is a tool, no more or less...being denied a particular tool to defend ourselves is not the same thing as being denied the right to defend ourselves.

In the instance of attack upon my person, can we suppose that a weapon allowed for carry by the HCP holder is not acceptable? I personally do not want to be guilty of carrying a less than 4' pocket knife to a gun fight. Our LE Officers deem it necessary to go armed with firearms, why should I not be able to provide for my protection in the same manner? I have been vetted and judge worthy, I have paid my tax to the man. If the State allows me to have in on my person in a store, why not allow it in a locked, safely stored compartment in my vehicle while I am work, not in proximity to it until my trip away from the location. What we are dangerously close to is being DISARMED for no good reason. The edge we stand near to is one of acceptance of serfdom.

deny even more rights that are supposed to part of our property rights.

Where is it written that property rights (outside the owner's Castle, of course) contain the ability to deny any other's right to provide for self defense, if the otherwise legal instrument is not shown, brandished in some way, or as the Supreme Court has decried in Andrews v. State "he shall not use them for violation of the rights of others"? I have looked, I can not find it. Please quote it.

Edited February 2, 2011 by Worriedman

[Oh Shoot]

.... Tennessee has already decided that one's home and personal vehicle are coequal in their status of protection...

Sorry, but until you can have loaded firearm in car without permit, that statement simply does not ring true.

Hell, I can't have a truly loaded long gun in my car even with an HCP, but I can in my home.

- OS

Edited February 2, 2011 by OhShoot

[Worriedman]

By the way...

Regardless of what an employee might have agreed to at the time he hired in, no employer can truly force an employee to allow a search of his vehicle...only a law enforcement officer and only then with cause and/or a warrant, can force a search. However, while the employee can refuse the employer's request, the employer can fire the employee..the power to "fire" gives them the only power they really have.

I suppose what I'm saying here is that "rights" are bumping up against "reality". Yes, we have a right to "free speech" (including bumper stickers)...yes, we have a right to defend ourselves and to "go armed"...and as long as you work for anyone else, your employer has the right to fire you at any time for any reason or for no reason (except of course for the protected issues of race, creed, sex, age, etc.).

Having been involved in various levels of management for many years, and as such, been afforded a lot of education in Human Resources and Labor Law, I can tell you with clarity, that the "At Will" employment supposition that you can fire an employee "just because" will land you in a world of something that Farmer Brown hauls off. Wrongful discharge is a charge that every employee that knows beans about the law fears, and a good lawyer can gin up a good case for it's acceptance with startling regularity. If you intend to fire a person in Tennessee, you had best have your ducks in a row, because if you do not, you will be paying a lot of money for that same employee to do nothing, while being well paid, at your expense.

There is no good reason for us to even be having this discussion except for a desire for Power on the part of some, that is criminal at worst, and simply Unconstitutional at best. If you have data that shows that HCP holders keeping their legal weapons in their personal vehicles on business properties is conducive to increasing crime, please publish the same. Without that, the whole thing is Unconstitutional. There is plenty of data to mine, as many employers afford their help the basic Right of self determination with respect to keeping their legal arms on business properties, where is the proof that is dangerous to do so?

[Worriedman]

Originally Posted by Worriedman

.... Tennessee has already decided that one's home and personal vehicle are coequal in their status of protection...

Sorry, but until you can have loaded firearm in car without permit, that statement simply does not ring true.

Hell, I can't have a truly loaded long gun in my car even with an HCP, but I can in my home.

- OS

With respect to warrant-less search and seizure, my statement is correct.

With respect to being able to engage an assailant at your discretion in either one, my statement is correct. If an assailant defiles the sanctity of either, are you afforded the supposition of imminent bodily harm and given the right to protect yourself without having to ascertain intent on their part, are you required to retreat from danger in either one?

The carrying of long guns loaded is a topic of discussion for another time, now we are looking to allow the keeping of loaded handguns, as that is the prescribed tool of the HCP. Till we achieve that, there is no chance on anything else. Run several years of State wide unrestricted by private property "rules" handgun possession with no problems, we will be back at the well, we will have the data to address our Legislators at that point, right now we have zilch.

I personally will take that as a starting point, as it a dang site better than nothing.

First we need to convince ourselves that retaking this Right is the proper thing to do. Working the angle of the already prescribed by law "Castle Doctrine" and already approved to extend to our vehicles (in part) by the Legislature, it is the next logical step. If we could just marshal our forces and get on the same page, we can advance. We have the most Conservative Judicial Committee in the House in years, and if we approach them with the idea of amending a current law, instead of breaching a whole brave new world, there is opportunity I believe, to chip away at the lost abilities that we should by virtue of our birth enjoy.

Edited February 2, 2011 by Worriedman

[Oh Shoot]

With respect to warrant-less search and seizure, my statement is correct.

I know you aren't naive -- cars are routinely searched on the side of the road without warrants. I dare say one's odds of being charged with a weapons violation is much greater than those of having to defend yourself with that weapon. Of course that risk is not there in your home.

With respect to being able to engage an assailant at your discretion in either one, my statement is correct.

Yes, agree that it is an ironic truth under TN code that you could justifiably off an intruder to your vehicle, and not be charged with illegal possession, carrying while intoxicated, etc.

The carrying of long guns loaded is a topic of discussion for another time...

Yeah, threw that in as just another difference to show how self protection statutes are NOT equal for home and auto, however.

The overarching point is that one should not have to break the law 100% of the time in your auto, to be able to defend yourself in a possible once in a lifetime situation there. Since you can do the same at home without breaking the law at all, it's just not valid to say that TN gives same weight to both.

- OS

[Worriedman]

I know you aren't naive -- cars are routinely searched on the side of the road without warrants. I dare say one's odds of being charged with a weapons violation is much greater than those of having to defend yourself with that weapon. Of course that risk is not there in your home.

- OS

I have run these roads for 40 years, and have never had my vehicle searched, (while I had Tennessee tags on my vehicle, once when headed back from TX when I lived out there, coming home to deer hunt, the welcome committee in Memphis rummaged though my truck, I declared enough guns to defend the Alamo, I had nothing to hide so I let them look, they opened a couple of coolers and sent me on my way) and I drive a lot of miles, far more than the average person I would warrant. I have been stopped a lot for speeding too, (a hazard of the job), but I have never had the "look" I guess, of a criminal, and I salute the man with the switchblade so to speak. I comport myself in such a manner that evidently, LE has never felt it necessary to look in my vehicle. I have never even been asked if I minded a search, other than that one time.

If you are not carrying illegal items, a search would be no big deal, and if the "parking lot" issue is settled, then HCP holders would have nothing to fear in parking lots, as they do not now on the road, if they are obeying all applicable laws. Outside of an expensive, but well deserved speeding ticket.

I swear I think the THP, upon being handed the HCP card, (because you know they know when they approach) seem to relax a little, may just be my take, but I have been afforded the opportunity to observe more than most I think.

The average HCP holder is NOT a threat to anyone but the criminal element. In a parking lot environment, what reason would there ever be to search a vehicle if no suspicious activity was observed?

This is simply a basic right to that needs to be won back.

Edited February 2, 2011 by Worriedman

[strickj]

Uhh, Worriedman, you do realize that you are not protected by the 1st, 2nd, 4th, or any other constitutional right from an employer, right?

Your constitutional rights protect you fro the government.

[Oh Shoot]

...If you are not carrying illegal items, a search would be no big deal...

Sigh. Are you being obtuse or argumentative as an exercise in debate, or what?

A loaded pistol without HCP in your vehicle IS an "illegal item", but it's not so in your home.

Yet you still argue that "... Tennessee has already decided that one's home and personal vehicle are coequal in their status of protection...".

But I give, you have worn me down with your illogic.

- OS

[DaveTN]

In these discussions, some tend to lose sight of what “should be†and what “isâ€. I don’t live in a world where everything is perfect. I live in world where neither my state nor my federal government recognizes a constitutional right to carry a gun off my property.

If the state recognized our right to carry; I believe they should be able to push that right onto a business. But until that happens, I don’t see this going anywhere. Most of my friends and neighbors don’t have a right to carry a gun off their property let alone a right to carry it to work. You need an acknowledged right for them to get it off their property and to the parking lot before you can drive anything down the throat of the business owner. We don’t have that.

Before anyone starts… That doesn’t mean those who recognize that are giving up; we obey laws because we aren’t criminals.

[Worriedman]

Sigh. Are you being obtuse or argumentative as an exercise in debate, or what?

A loaded pistol without HCP in your vehicle IS an "illegal item", but it's not so in your home.

Yet you still argue that "... Tennessee has already decided that one's home and personal vehicle are coequal in their status of protection...".

But I give, you have worn me down with your illogic.

- OS

First off, I am not stupid enough to think that a person's home and his vehicle are coequal in ALL respects, but for busting down the front door of "illogical" restrictions on my ability to have my State sanctioned handgun in my vehicle for the ride across this long State, I think my arguments are sound. I, like everybody else who cares to obey the law, must play by the rules of the game established at the current time, however, that does not mean that I can not attempt to change them. How bright is an all or none approach?

Do I think we currently enjoy the benefits with regard to firearms rights intended by our Founders, much less what I personally believe they should be, no, absolutely not, but the various Governments, grasping for control and Power, have me outnumbered with lawyers and squad cars and radios, so being somewhat reasonable, I chose to use their supposed chains imposed by the Constitutions to slap away at the monuments they have built to restrict my rights, it beats sitting on the ground rending my clothes and heaping ashes on my head.

If you will admit that there are SOME similarities between the home and the personal vehicle due to the "Castle Doctrine" allowed, imposed, understood or remotely considered by our Legislature, that is the only chance we have this year to affect a change in what I consider to be an oppressive overreach by Government and Big Business to wrongfully control my life to it's detriment, for no good reason re this single issue.

There are over a million legal gun owners in the State of Tennessee, less than 10,000 who even give lip service to RTKBA State groups, and I would hazard a guess that there are less than 200 who really get after really trying to foster a change, other than on the keyboard.

OS, I know that you are correct about long guns in your home as opposed to in a private vehicle, but over the last 2 years we have made huge strides in changing the rules of that game, are we done, no, but we are moving forward. That is all I am striving for here, incremental steps to move to a larger goal, just as has happened in other States, if we who seek to modify what the Government writes down as law regarding firearms Rights together, we can accomplish much. If we bicker and play "what ought to be" we gain nothing.

Jackson TN was the first municipality of over 5000 in population to defeat the MTAS fostered "opt out" relative to parks, we manged to forestall that by offering what I consider logical, provable data in a polite, orderly fashion and we won the day, (In one of the most Liberal enclaves in the State).

Edited February 2, 2011 by Worriedman

[Worriedman]

Uhh, Worriedman, you do realize that you are not protected by the 1st, 2nd, 4th, or any other constitutional right from an employer, right?

Your constitutional rights protect you fro the government.

So am I to understand that I am only afforded the protections of the Constitutions at the hand of the Government, and that individuals are not constrained by their rules and laws?

[RobertNashville]

Having been involved in various levels of management for many years, and as such, been afforded a lot of education in Human Resources and Labor Law, I can tell you with clarity, that the "At Will" employment supposition that you can fire an employee "just because" will land you in a world of something that Farmer Brown hauls off. Wrongful discharge is a charge that every employee that knows beans about the law fears, and a good lawyer can gin up a good case for it's acceptance with startling regularity. If you intend to fire a person in Tennessee, you had best have your ducks in a row, because if you do not, you will be paying a lot of money for that same employee to do nothing, while being well paid, at your expense.

I would think that someone with so much experience would know that if an employee violates company policies; especially if he/she does so multiple times, the employer is not going to have a problem firing his ass....repeated violations of company policy, whether it be about firearms on the company's property or any other policy; are all the "ducks" an employer needs.

There is no good reason for us to even be having this discussion except for a desire for Power on the part of some, that is criminal at worst, and simply Unconstitutional at best. If you have data that shows that HCP holders keeping their legal weapons in their personal vehicles on business properties is conducive to increasing crime, please publish the same. Without that, the whole thing is Unconstitutional. There is plenty of data to mine, as many employers afford their help the basic Right of self determination with respect to keeping their legal arms on business properties, where is the proof that is dangerous to do so?

You are right, there is no good reason for us to be having this discussions since nothing in the above statement has anything at all to do with my simple and factually correct statement that a company has the power to fire an employee that violates company policy and since people generally need the jobs they have, that gives an employee all the "power" it needs to enforce its policies.

[RobertNashville]

So am I to understand that I am only afforded the protections of the Constitutions at the hand of the Government, and that individuals are not constrained by their rules and laws?

While I'm sure strickj is capable of defending his own statement, I believe what he was attempting to say that an employee, while they may retain their "rights"; such as to freedom of speech...that does not mean that they can say anything they want to anyone they want; especially while in the workplace, and not suffer the consequences (reductions of pay, demotion, fired, etc). You still have the "right" of free speech; but you may not have the job you had.