Parking Lot bill

[RobertNashville]

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.

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with OhShoot's reasonable statement; vehicles are searched by the side of the road all the time; whether or not your vehicle has been or not doesn't in any way disprove his statement.

You also seem to refuse to understand that we haven't lost any "right" with regards to the search of our vehicles in a parking lot...no one but law enforcement has the power to compel a search of your vehicle; only law enforcement can do so and only then with cause and/or a warrant. The issue is that employers have the right to request a search of an employee's vehicle parked in a company parking lot (something the employee has likely already agreed to as a condition of employment). The employee ALWAYS has the right to refuse (sans the involvement of law enforcement) but his refusal can result in dismissal from his job.

THAT is the issue that mush be changed with regards to an employer/employee situation if HCP holders are going to be protected from being punished for having their otherwise legal firearm in their vehicles.

In addition, when it comes to all "parking lots", the current law would have to be changed so that while individual business can post their business proper (the inside of their store, factory, etc); they cannot, by law, "post" a parking lot. And by the way, I've never said that such a change would place an undue burden on anybody nor do I t think it would.

For the record, as you would already know if you had read my prior posts in this thread, I AGREE WITH YOU that any person otherwise legally carrying a firearm should be able to leave that firearm(s) in their locked vehicle and should be able to do so without fear of reprisal from anyone REGARDLESS OF WHERE THE VEHICLE IS PARKED. But, I do wish that you would get your argument straight or at least more precise as we do now and always have had the "right" to refuse a search of our vehicles (only law enforcement can compel). As such, that is not a "right" we need to win back because that right has not been lost.

Edited February 2, 2011 by RobertNashville

[Worriedman]

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with OhShoot's reasonable statement; vehicles are searched by the side of the road all the time; whether or not your vehicle has been or not doesn't in any way disprove his statement.

That the police search vehicles on the side of the road, all the time, has nothing to do with the parking lot discussion. The Police do not pull over Tennessee residents at will to search their vehicles, just to have something to do. They either have to present probable cause, or gain permission, and sans being caught in a criminal act, or by some information gained, they have to get a warrant. I agree if an individual breaks the law by not having perfected a permit to carry, and does so anyway, and a weapon is found in a private vehicle, a crime (under current law) has been committed. I do not intend to commit any crimes.

You also seem to refuse to understand that we haven't lost any "right" with regards to the search of our vehicles in a parking lot...no one but law enforcement has the power to compel a search of your vehicle; only law enforcement can do so and only then with cause and/or a warrant. The issue is that employers have the right to request a search of an employee's vehicle parked in a company parking lot (something the employee has likely already agreed to as a condition of employment). The employee ALWAYS has the right to refuse (sans the involvement of law enforcement) but his refusal can result in dismissal from his job.

That refusal will most likely mean termination, and for my personal situation, that is a death sentence for my wife. She is disabled, can not work, and her medical expenses are not small, if we could not afford the necessary treatments and medications, she will die. So, I am forced to give up my Right to provide the best method for self protection in my travels to make sure I do not lose my position.

THAT is the issue that mush be changed with regards to an employer/employee situation if HCP holders are going to be protected from being punished for having their otherwise legal firearm in their vehicles.

I agree.

In addition, when it comes to all "parking lots", the current law would have to be changed so that while individual business can post their business proper (the inside of their store, factory, etc); they cannot, by law, "post" a parking lot. And by the way, I've never said that such a change would place an undue burden on anybody nor do I t think it would.

Ditto, that is where I would like to see the law go, and I think there is Constitutional precedent for that to occur.

For the record, as you would already know if you had read my prior posts in this thread, I have read every word of every one of your post I AGREE WITH YOU that any person otherwise legally carrying a firearm should be able to leave that firearm(s) in their locked vehicle and should be able to do so without fear of reprisal from anyone REGARDLESS OF WHERE THE VEHICLE IS PARKED. I just wish you would get your argument straight, we do now and always have had the "right" to refuse a search of our vehicles (only law enforcement can compel)...as such, that is NOT a "right" we need to win back - we never lost it.

Maybe I have done a poor job of making my point, as I do not believe that an employer should be able to compel consent to search as a condition of continued employment , which is the only method of enforcing a parking lot posting.

Is that clearer?

[Worriedman]

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.

You did not mention "multiple violations of company policies, you did not mention ANY violation of company policies, you said, "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", that is what I was responding to.

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 (you did not reference for violations, see your quote from the prior post above) policy and since people generally need the jobs they have, that gives an employee all the "power" it needs to enforce its policies.

If you violate stated company policies you may be terminated, if you do so repeatedly you certainly will, that was not the gist of your previous comment.

[Worriedman]

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.

What you think he meant is immaterial. What he said was

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

as he is the one that said it, I would like to hear his full understanding and take.

I know no one has unlimited freedoms under the Constitution, but I do not believe that a business can simply disregard a Citizen's Rights, I think that went out the window with the end of slavery??

[Fallguy]

Ok...I really am still just watching because I can't turn away...but did catch one thing...

As far as the law on posting goes...and the few places that post their parking lots. They could still leave their signs up so as to prevent carry by anyone walking through etc....

All you have to do is add a line to 39-17-1359 that address firearms contained in private vehicles...something like was done about long guns in 39-17-1307

[RobertNashville]

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...

1. I never said it as an undue burden; in fact, I've said exactly the opposite in prior posts in this thread.

2. Yes, the sanctity of a person's vehicle is protected; with or without a "parking lot bill"

...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.

An employer does NOT. Your right to refuse a search (sans law enforcement) is and has been in effect. Anyone, including an employer, can ask you to allow a search...you can ALWAYS refuse. But, if you refuse, there may be consequences to doing so. Your "right" is fully intact, you just have to be willing to face the consequences of exercising your rights (as is always the case, regardless of what right one is exercising, isn't it?).

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." 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.

You seem to be still, and erroneously, equating a tool(s) that can be used for self-protection with self-protection itself; they are not and never will be the same thing. We ALWAYS have the right to self -protection regardless of where we are...what tools we may be allowed to have that can be used for that protection are a separate issue. I'm not saying that one is more or less important than the other; just not interchangeable.

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.

It isn't written anywhere I that I know of nor have I claimed that it is (and as far as I can recall, no one else has made that claim either) so I don't see the reason for your demand???

In any case, perhaps you can quote for me where, in any of our legal codes, it is written that ANY one right AUTOMATICALLY trumps any other right(s) of another - I can not find that statement either.

As I've said, perhaps not well, when one entity's right bumps up against another, it's isn't and shouldn't be a matter of one "trumping" the other, it's a matter of finding an equitable way to handle the situation which often comes down to what it best societal policy overall.

Edited February 2, 2011 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

If you violate stated company policies you may be terminated, if you do so repeatedly you certainly will, that was not the gist of your previous comment.

Sorry if I wasn't clear...I guess I thought that anyone intelligent enough to cite all those court cases and argue Constitutional rights would have figured that out.

One "violation" of company policy or three or four or more violations of company policy, my point was and is that if you violate company policies you can be fired with cause...while having cause may not prevent an eventual lawsuit from the person fired, it certainly does provide the employer with a very reasonable defense and most especially so in a right to work state.

Edited February 2, 2011 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

What you think he meant is immaterial. What he said was as he is the one that said it, I would like to hear his full understanding and take.

Since what I think is immaterial; why didn't you just ignore my post? :-\

I know no one has unlimited freedoms under the Constitution, but I do not believe that a business can simply disregard a Citizen's Rights, I think that went out the window with the end of slavery??

Citizen's rights aren't being disregarded - employers can ask...ANYONE can ask to search your vehicle (home, body, etc)...you ALWAYS have the right to refuse. That isn't anybody's "rights" being violated.

Edited February 2, 2011 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

Ok...I really am still just watching because I can't turn away...but did catch one thing...

As far as the law on posting goes...and the few places that post their parking lots. They could still leave their signs up so as to prevent carry by anyone walking through etc....

All you have to do is add a line to 39-17-1359 that address firearms contained in private vehicles...something like was done about long guns in 39-17-1307

Yes...hadn't though of it from that perspective.

My experience with this issue has been that many employers don't "post"; they just make "firearms" an issue of "company policy"...I would suspect that if the state simply changed the law to say that employers, for example, can't have a company policy against firearms but didn't say anything else, those employers might then go ahead an post which would turn what is currently an issue of violation of company policy into a criminal matter.

[strickj]

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?

Yes.

The 1st, 2nd, and 4th are protections from the government. Not from citizens. An employer telling you that you can not carry a gun, put a bumper sticker on your car, or whatever, is not violating your rights.

If you believe it is, I suggest you reread the constitution.

Your "right" to carry a gun ends where my inalienable right to enjoy my property begins.

[Worriedman]

Sorry if I wasn't clear...I guess I thought that anyone intelligent enough to cite all those court cases and argue Constitutional rights would have figured that out.

I cite court cases and study them, and the Constitution, because I am interested, and, have decided that I will make my own mind up about such things, as it has never seemed prudent to me, to take another's word on what a thing is or means.

One "violation" of company policy or three or four or more violations of company policy, my point was and is that if you violate company policies you can be fired with cause...while having cause may not prevent an eventual lawsuit from the person fired, it certainly does provide the employer with a very reasonable defense and most especially so in a right to work state.

What you thought, and what you posted are difficult to me to reconcile, as only you know what is in your mind, but what you posted was verbatim "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" that is vastly different from your later statements regarding company violations. What you actually say, or type matters. If I could read minds, I would not be working 60+ hours a week to earn my daily bread.

Case in point, I could, I suppose, take your above reference about my intelligence to be either a compliment or an insult, it could be construed both ways if I was bent on trying fathom what your intent was. How clairvoyance is connected to intelligence confuses me though, and I tend to take printed words at their literal meaning, in so far as my meager abilities allow.

[Worriedman]

Ok...I really am still just watching because I can't turn away...but did catch one thing...

As far as the law on posting goes...and the few places that post their parking lots. They could still leave their signs up so as to prevent carry by anyone walking through etc....

All you have to do is add a line to 39-17-1359 that address firearms contained in private vehicles...something like was done about long guns in 39-17-1307

Excellent point! We would gain towards a desired goal, the Speaker does not have to deal with a huge big 'ol new "gun bill", seems a workable solution to me.

[Worriedman]

Originally Posted by RobertNashville

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.

Since what I think is immaterial; why didn't you just ignore my post? :-\

Since you deemed it necessary to instruct me on the subject of his intent, I did not want to appear rude and not pay attention. But, there goes that lack of being able to read minds again.

What I was trying to suggest in my original reference to the 4th Amendment, was that as there has been some movement in the State of Tennessee to convey like status to the individual's home and car, (even OH Shoot admits that there is some modicum of likeness there) that it bore a venue of approach to the end I am looking for, and that the 4th Amendment offered support to the argument. I never said that the Government and employers were required to honor the Bill of Rights equally, but I am confused as to his thought process that there is no duty from an employer in that respect. It bears discussing. You will also notice I did not say he was wrong, or that he was acting illogical, I would simply like to discuss it further, with him.

Citizen's rights aren't being disregarded - employers can ask...ANYONE can ask to search your vehicle (home, body, etc)...you ALWAYS have the right to refuse. That isn't anybody's "rights" being violated.

If I have an agreement with an employer as a condition of my employment, then yes. This ANYONE you mention, can pound sand.

.

[DRM]

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?

If an employer wants to fire an employee - they can, at any time. They can do so giving no reason, or good reason, but not bad reason. Bad reason would be firing someone for a reason not allowed by law.

[RobertNashville]

Since you deemed it necessary to instruct me on the subject of his intent, I did not want to appear rude and not pay attention. But, there goes that lack of being able to read minds again..

I wasn't trying to "instruct"; simply offering a thought on the matter.

What I was trying to suggest in my original reference to the 4th Amendment, was that as there has been some movement in the State of Tennessee to convey like status to the individual's home and car, (even OH Shoot admits that there is some modicum of likeness there) that it bore a venue of approach to the end I am looking for, and that the 4th Amendment offered support to the argument. I never said that the Government and employers were required to honor the Bill of Rights equally, but I am confused as to his thought process that there is no duty from an employer in that respect. It bears discussing. You will also notice I did not say he was wrong, or that he was acting illogical, I would simply like to discuss it further, with him.

I find it odd that within the same sentence, you state that employers are not required to honor the "Bill of Rights" and then state that you are confused by strickj's thought process that there is no duty from an employer in that respect. If there is no requirement it would logical to think that there would also be no duty.

If I have an agreement with an employer as a condition of my employment, then yes. This ANYONE you mention, can pound sand.

You can tell anyone, including an employer, to go pound sand, just be prepared for the consequences that can follow, depending on who you are telling. Edited February 2, 2011 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

What you thought, and what you posted are difficult to me to reconcile, as only you know what is in your mind, but what you posted was verbatim "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" that is vastly different from your later statements regarding company violations. What you actually say, or type matters. If I could read minds, I would not be working 60+ hours a week to earn my daily bread.

My original statement was and is correct and I wasn't trying to imply otherwise. As I said...

"One "violation" of company policy or three or four or more violations of company policy, my point was and is that if you violate company policies you can be fired with cause..".

No employer must wait for multiple violations of company policy or any violation for that matter. As a matter of practicality, most employers will try to protect themselves from lawsuits, etc. by establishing a reason for a firing (and that the firing didn't violate EEOC rules).

Edited February 2, 2011 by RobertNashville

[Worriedman]

Originally Posted by Worriedman

...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?

The former is not something I have ever been called prior to today, I admit to being guilty of the later. But, you may be correct on both counts, as yours is not the only call on that in the last 24 hours.

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

My point was, if you had NO illegal items in your car, a search would be no big deal. I am after getting a legally owned handgun listed as permissible to have in my vehicle, anywhere, under the auspices of having a HCP. That I think is achievable.

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

I meant that only in respect to the defense of using deadly force. I was not specific, I apologize.

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

At least when you spank me, I deserve it.

- OS

I agree with you that Tennessee does not recognize the firearms freedoms that it should, and you have been correct in each of your statements. That we seem to want to approach the method of changing them, or at least the bites taken in consuming that change should not make us enemies.

Edited February 2, 2011 by Worriedman

[Worriedman]

I find it odd that within the same sentence, you state that employers are not required to honor the "Bill of Rights"and then state that you are confused by strickj's thought process that there is no duty from an employer in that respect. If there is no requirement it would logical to think that there would also be no duty.

Pretty simple from my view point. I personally believe that a business owner should not have the ability to search my vehicle, just because. (You may believe that to be perfectly acceptable, but that is why some people like GM, some like Toyotas) I perceive that as not honoring my 4th Amendment rights, I do not believe that practically, that is an acceptable thing. So, when strictj made his statement that private business owners do not have to honor the Constitution and Amendments, and implied only the Government is held accountable to those standards, I was genuinely interested in why he felt that way, I do not agree.

You can tell anyone, including an employer, to go pound sand, just be prepared for the consequences that can follow, depending on who you are telling.

I always try to be prepared, I am successful normally, other times not so much. But, I am grateful for your concern regarding my well being.

I am fully cognizant of the ramifications of the telling someone to go pound sand, but thank you for pointing that out, don't know what I would do without your gentle remonstrations. You will notice I am still gainfully employed however, so I think I get the drift on the employer thing. Your statement that ANYONE can ask was slightly ridiculous in this discussion however, and if you suggest that some Joe Blow that is not my employer or LE with probable cause has some power to demand a look at my junk, well, I have a slightly different opinion.

[Worriedman]

My original statement was and is correct and I wasn't trying to imply otherwise. As I said...

What you originally said was "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", that was an incorrect assessment of Tennessee's employment law, and has led many an employer to his accountants desk to order a very large check be prepared and mailed, or delivered to a lawyer, that his lawyer has been talking to. The norm is a settlement instead of a trial for being cocky and irresponsible in the process of firing someone rashly, that "for any reason, or no reason" is a dangerous precedent, and no labor attorney will suggest otherwise. You did back up when confronted with the facts of what you had said, and your last line " As a matter of practicality, most employers will try to protect themselves from lawsuits, etc. by establishing a reason for a firing (and that the firing didn't violate EEOC rules)" shows you have thought better of your original post.

my point was and is that if you violate company policies you can be fired with cause.."

That was absolutely not your FIRST point, it is a retrench, we have established what your first point was, and this new one shows you read something or talked to someone, or at least thought better of your first point that you made.

No employer must wait for multiple violations of company policy or any violation for that matter.[/Quote]Agreed, they do not HAVE to, but it sure makes the discussions that occur sometimes as a result of a discharge a lot easier to defend. There are a lot of hungry lawyers out there, and they will take a promising case on contingency, betting on the come so to speak, of the nuisance value alone. CEOs and Owners just hate the time it takes for interrogatories, discovery and depositions. Time is money.

One more thing, I have a small sign on my desk, given to me by someone who has been acquainted with me for a long time and knows me well. It is made out of high carbon steel and reads "nil carborundum illegitimi". I have been told it's constitution and message fit my passion for anything I pursue.