HB0355 (McDonald): Parking lot bill filed 2/7/11

[RobertNashville]

Because unless you believe you have a right; you can’t believe that the legislature has the power to drive the interests of a “Special Interest†group down the throats of business owners.

If the state recognizes carrying a gun as a right; they can force a business owner to allow it. When they do not view it as a right they have no authority to do so. Agreed??

I'm not even close to agreeing...except as specifically prohibited from doing so, a legislature can force a business owner or anybody else to do whatever it deems appropriate and a benefit to society. I would suggest most of the laws we live under and businesses operate under have little or nothing to do with "rights"; it's simply what society has demanded or the legislature thinks society has demanded.

Moreover, unless someone can prove me wrong, I simply do not accept that a "business" is entitled to ANY rights save those which the government allows it to have. A "business" is not a person....it's an artificial entity "created" by governments...and the governments that create businesses can tell those businesses exactly what they have to do and what they have to allow. Certainly, it's in everybody's (government, business, people's) best interest that businesses exist and be allowed to operate with at little restriction/interference as possible while balancing the needs of society. But, I reject this notion that government's "can't" impose its will on a business.

And no one is shoving anything down anybody's throat...passing the Dalia Bamm's health care behind closed doors with no one having read the bill before being required to vote and in spite of the fact that a majority of the country didn't want it...that's "shoving if down" some throats.

This bill is simply a proposal...I'm also sure that the reason it specifically applies to HCP holders is to make more palatable to enough of the legislature to get support. I'm sure everybody with an interest will have a chance to make their thoughts known...they might even read it and be able to understand it.

Edited February 12, 2011 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

Damn Robert… do you have multiple personalities? I can’t stay in the discussion if I have to keep looking for what you are posting.

Yes...I said that is the HCP process put in place by the State of Tennessee. Do you think that what I state is not what people think it does and/or what the legislature was told it would do? Nothing in that statement was to suggest that it was effective at it but I think that what I described IS the perception of it which WAS my point.

[strickj]

This thread has gotten way off track and I'm not even going to attempt to bring up points and reply to posts made forty posts ago since my last login

What I will ask is, Robert, how is a business an 'artificial entity'? Can you provide something that show's that business are not owned by people and are not private property/entity?

[DaveTN]

Are you for making it a requirement that every sale of a gun go through an FFL?

No. I don’t care if felons get guns. If they did their time they should be able to protect themselves like anyone else. If they intend to use a gun in criminal activities; background checks won’t stop them from getting guns.

Here’s my idea….

If you point a gun at someone during the commission of a violent crime; 5 years prison, even the Judge can’t change that. Crank off a round and its 10 years mandatory. Shoot someone and its life, no parole, and whether they die or not has no bearing.

[JayC]

Robert,

Words have meaning... Corporations are government created entities... But a person doing business is different either via a sole proprietorship or a partnership....

Both are doing "business" as you describe... but one clearly does have inalienable rights, while the other may or may not.

You posts constantly strike me as having a conservative progressive bent... personal property rights are an inalienable right, not something to be granted or taken away by the government. If the government can control what we do on our own property (without causing direct harm onto others) then we don't really own the property in the first place.

Society getting it's way is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner, inalienable rights means the wolves vote doesn't count, the sheep has the right to live period.

I'm not even close to agreeing...except as specifically prohibited from doing so, a legislature can force a business owner or anybody else to do whatever it deems appropriate and a benefit to society. I would suggest most of the laws we live under and businesses operate under have little or nothing to do with "rights"; it's simply what society has demanded or the legislature thinks society has demanded.

Moreover, unless someone can prove me wrong, I simply do not accept that a "business" is entitled to ANY rights save those which the government allows it to have. A "business" is not a person....it's an artificial entity "created" by governments...and the governments that create businesses can tell those businesses exactly what they have to do and what they have to allow. Certainly, it's in everybody's (government, business, people's) best interest that businesses exist and be allowed to operate with at little restriction/interference as possible while balancing the needs of society. But, I reject this notion that government's "can't" impose its will on a business.

And no one is shoving anything down anybody's throat...passing the Dalia Bamm's health care behind closed doors with no one having read the bill before being required to vote and in spite of the fact that a majority of the country didn't want it...that's "shoving if down" some throats.

This bill is simply a proposal...I'm also sure that the reason it specifically applies to HCP holders is to make more palatable to enough of the legislature to get support. I'm sure everybody with an interest will have a chance to make their thoughts known...they might even read it and be able to understand it.

[RobertNashville]

...What I will ask is, Robert, how is a business an 'artificial entity'? Can you provide something that show's that business are not owned by people and are not private property/entity?

Of course businesses are owned by "people" (or owned by other businesses that are owned by people or in somse cases, governments). However, the business entity (ownership aside) only exists at government discretion...it cannot exist...it cannot be brought into being without the permission of government (generally a state) and the business entity is artificial by any test it would be reasonable to use to identify it as such...it has no life...I suppose if you looked at it from a religions perspective one would say that it is not a being designed in the image of God...it has no "soul".

I would submit that your question itself proves the artificiality of a business and its lack of inalienable rights...no person, at least in the United States, can "own" another person...because a person DOES have inalienable rights that are not and can not be granted by any government. The fact that a business IS owned (by someone) proves that is it not a "person" and does not have the rights afforded to a person except for the rights that the government decides it can have.

Edited February 13, 2011 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

Robert,

Words have meaning... Corporations are government created entities... But a person doing business is different either via a sole proprietorship or a partnership....

Both are doing "business" as you describe... but one clearly does have inalienable rights, while the other may or may not.

You posts constantly strike me as having a conservative progressive bent... personal property rights are an inalienable right, not something to be granted or taken away by the government. If the government can control what we do on our own property (without causing direct harm onto others) then we don't really own the property in the first place.

Society getting it's way is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner, inalienable rights means the wolves vote doesn't count, the sheep has the right to live period.

I draw and I submit that society draws a distinction between private property used for private purposes and property owned/controlled by a business; especially that part of the property that is purposely open to the "public" such as a parking lot (whether that "public" is made up of employees or customers). Even with that distinction I'm drawing and even if, as I suggest, that a business did not automatically have the same rights as a "person"; I still struggle with the imposition of government on a property owner...I do believe that property rights are fundamental to a free society and must be protected.

However, the benefit to society must also be considered (and our system does allow for this concept)...in my opinion and it's only my opinion, the imposition on a business being required to allow legally carried firearms to remain inside employee/customer vehicles while parked in a parking lot is smaller than the potential benefit to those employees and society at large for them to be armed in commuting to/from (and wherever else thy may go either before they arrive or after they leave that parking lot).

[RobertNashville]

No. I don’t care if felons get guns. If they did their time they should be able to protect themselves like anyone else. If they intend to use a gun in criminal activities; background checks won’t stop them from getting guns.

Here’s my idea….

If you point a gun at someone during the commission of a violent crime; 5 years prison, even the Judge can’t change that. Crank off a round and its 10 years mandatory. Shoot someone and its life, no parole, and whether they die or not has no bearing.

This is something we can, at least mostly, agree on...I think, with certain exceptions perhaps, most felons should regain most and perhaps even all of the rights they "lost" once it's been deemed that they've paid their "debt" to society.

If we do believe in the concept that a criminal CAN repay his debt...the harm he once caused to society, then it only seems fair that they be fully returned to the status and rights of all other citizens.

[Fallguy]

Hope there hasn't been any useful information about the bill in the last 20-30 post...I've about quite reading the thread...

[strickj]

Of course businesses are owned by "people" (or owned by other businesses that are owned by people or in somse cases, governments). However, the business entity (ownership aside) only exists at government discretion...it cannot exist...it cannot be brought into being without the permission of government (generally a state) and the business entity is artificial by any test it would be reasonable to use to identify it as such...it has no life...I suppose if you looked at it from a religions perspective one would say that it is not a being designed in the image of God...it has no "soul".

I would submit that your question itself proves the artificiality of a business and its lack of inalienable rights...no person, at least in the United States, can "own" another person...because a person DOES have inalienable rights that are not and can not be granted by any government. The fact that a business IS owned (by someone) proves that is it not a "person" and does not have the rights afforded to a person except for the rights that the government decides it can have.

Trying to argue that a business, a business owner, or a "face less entity" has no rights to write rules for public usage simply because they are open to the public is just silly.

If what you are arguing was correct, then I would be able to take my McDonald's Big Mac to the movies and not get kicked out. A movie theaters' rules are always going to say "no outside food or drink allowed".

If what you are arguing was correct, then you would be able to post whatever you wanted to on TGO (a faceless entity).

If what you are arguing was correct, then you would be able to do whatever you wanted, where ever you wanted, as long as the place was 'open to the public'.

A business is private property and it is owned by a person. That person has the right to spell out the rules in order to make his property fully enjoyable to him. You are merely a guest. A guest that has every right to leave if you are unhappy with those rules.

It makes no difference if it is open to the public or not.

I draw and I submit that society draws a distinction between private property used for private purposes and property owned/controlled by a business; especially that part of the property that is purposely open to the "public" such as a parking lot (whether that "public" is made up of employees or customers).

There is private property and then there is public property. you can continue to argue this until you are blue in the face, but at the end of the day, there will still only be the two.

[Worriedman]

Hope there hasn't been any useful information about the bill in the last 20-30 post...I've about quite reading the thread...

There may be a couple of co-sponsors, who will add some changes to it's current form, removing the "employee" wording from the proposed bill so as to cover all parking lots, if what I have heard tonight is followed up on. (Spent the evening at an event that had several State Representatives in attendance). The final form has to be filed by Thursday, as that is the cut off for proposed Legislation for this session.

Upon further study, the Thursday cutoff is for introducing legislation only, there is no limit for amending timely introduced bills.

Edited February 13, 2011 by Worriedman

[Fallguy]

There may be a couple of co-sponsors, who will add some changes to it's current form, removing the "employee" wording from the proposed bill so as to cover all parking lots, if what I have heard tonight is followed up on. (Spent the evening at an event that had several State Representatives in attendance). The final form has to be filed by Thursday, as that is the cut off for proposed Legislation for this session.

Upon further study, the Thursday cutoff is for introducing legislation only, there is no limit for amending timely introduced bills.

Thanks

[RobertNashville]

Trying to argue that a business, a business owner, or a "face less entity" has no rights to write rules for public usage simply because they are open to the public is just silly.

What is truly silly is when people ascribe "humanity" and "human rights" to an artificial construct.

Further, you misstate my argument...I have NOT said that a business entity "has no rights"...what I have said is that a business, as a creation of government, has not rights except what that government allows it to have. Maybe you don't see the distinction but the distinction is there and it is significant when discussing what power a legislature has to place requirements on businesses and how/when/if they can use business-owned property.

If what you are arguing was correct, then I would be able to take my McDonald's Big Mac to the movies and not get kicked out. A movie theaters' rules are always going to say "no outside food or drink allowed".

If what you are arguing was correct, then you would be able to post whatever you wanted to on TGO (a faceless entity).

If what you are arguing was correct, then you would be able to do whatever you wanted, where ever you wanted, as long as the place was 'open to the public'.

So what? If the state legislature decides that people should be allowed to take outside food into a theater unrestricted or that anybody could say anything they wanted on TGO or do whatever on whatever "private property open to the public" they wanted to do then it has the power to do that...and I'm suggesting that one of the reasons it has that power is because a business is not a "person".

A business is private property and it is owned by a person. That person has the right to spell out the rules in order to make his property fully enjoyable to him. You are merely a guest. A guest that has every right to leave if you are unhappy with those rules. It makes no difference if it is open to the public or not.

In your opinion...and your opinion in my opinion is wrong.

A business can own property only because the state says it can.

A business can conduct their business in any way they want - only as long as they follow the rules established by the state...rules that state can change it wants to do so.

A business may be owned by an individual or may be owned by tens of thousands of individuals and/or investment houses and/or any number of people or other artificial entities.

And it most certainly does make a difference whether a business is "open to the public" or not...the rules chance in what a business can/can't do and how/when it can do it dependent on any number of things include whether it is open to the public and what its "business" happens to be. No only can and do the rules change for a business that is "open to the public", the rules also change for a person when they are in public.

There is private property and then there is public property. you can continue to argue this until you are blue in the face, but at the end of the day, there will still only be the two.

That's your opinion...it is not fact just because you say it is. There may or may not be only "private" or "public property" but you ignore how the rules can and do change depending on how that property is being used...who is using it...and for what purpose.

I realize you want to hang your hat on the fact that "people" own businesses but that argument is a non-starter...it's moot...because businesses, regardless of "ownership", can only exist because the government creates it and allows it to exist..without government permission and government creating the actual business entity, there could be no business for a "person/people" to own.

A business can only own property and can only use property because government allows it to do so. A business can only use that property it is allowed to own for the purposes that government allows and in the manner the government allows. You can say that "ain't so" or you can wish it "ain't so" until you are blue in the face but at the end of the day, that won't change anything.

If government does have the power I say it has then it most certainly has the power to require businesses to allow legally carried firearms to be allowed in a locked vehicle that is parked in its parking lot and frankly, I hope the government does make that demand.

[strickj]

Robert, buddy, business are private property. Private property is private property is private property. Private property is owned by a person with real rights. That person has the right to regulate and write the rules for his property. Not you.

Prove me wrong here.

Edit: please provide actual proof and not just the opinion that "a business is faceless".

Edit2:

what I have said is that a business, as a creation of government,

You know, I own a business. My business was not created by the government, nor did I have to get permission to create it. My business is not "faceless", either.

That said, I operate out of my home. Because my home is also my business, does that mean that I do not have the right to write the rules for my property?

Edited February 13, 2011 by strickj

[Oh Shoot]

Robert, buddy, business are private property. Private property is private property is private property. Private property is owned by a person with real rights. That person has the right to regulate and write the rules for his property. Not you.

Prove me wrong here.

Strick strick strick...

Just a quick off the top, the gov, whether local/state/federal determines:

- whether you can even HAVE your business where you want (type of business, zoning)

- who you must accomodate (or rather who you can not NOT accommodate)

- how you must accommodate them (parking, handicap access, sanitary facilities)

- safety regulations, whether you are a hardware store or restaurant or trucking company

- your tax rate, from property to income

....Because my home is also my business, does that mean that I do not have the right to write the rules for my property?

Depending on biz type, no.

See above -- you may not even be able to HAVE the business in your home, depending on biz type/zoning.

FFL, since we're discussing this on TGO, comes to mind.

Your income tax is different for biz, home office deduction has certain rules, no choice on your part, etc etc etc.

Even your liability for customer injury due to trip and fall is different for a customer that enters your home than for a friend, etc.

Just a quick few things YOU can't call the shots on.

- OS

[strickj]

yes, you have mentioned some regulations business must abide by. How does that keep them from being private entities and how does that keep them from writing the rules for usage?

Edited February 13, 2011 by strickj

[Oh Shoot]

yes, you have mentioned some regulations business must abide by. How does that keep them from being private entities and how does that keep them from writing the rules for usage?

I just gave you examples of "rules of usage" that certain private property owners have no control over.

You're just arguing for the sake of .. well, I don't know why.

How about:

No customer/employee may enter property with a spare tire in trunk.

None may enter property while clothed.

None may be red-headed (this is not even race, creed, sex, age, etc related)

How about, all HCP holders must have a loaded firearm in car?

How about, all non-HCP holders must have an unloaded firearm in car?

You can get silly with what "private property rules" would NOT be allowed by government if you like...

- OS

Edited February 13, 2011 by OhShoot

[strickj]

I just gave you examples of "rules of usage" that certain private property owners have no control over.

You're just arguing for the sake of .. well, I don't know why.

- OS

No, I'm not. That argument is just not valid. As I said earlier, we all have rules and regs that we must follow. Those rules and laws are determined by structure type and use.

Here on strick's land, the law says that I must have my ramp elevated to a certain % per every foot. The law says that there must be a hand rail on my front porch because it is above so many feet from the ground. The law say's that I can not have a meth lab in my kitchen.

Even though there are laws that say that I must abide by those standards does not mean that I can not make rules for visitors to follow.

Edited February 13, 2011 by strickj

[Oh Shoot]

...

Even though there are laws that say that I must abide by those does not mean that I can not make rules for visitors to follow.

You can make all the rules you want, except for the ones that the government has made for you, which you admit.

The government can make new rules. If those clash with your existing ones, guess whose rules win out?

- OS

[strickj]

No customer/employee may enter property with a spare tire in trunk.

None may enter property while clothed.

None may be red-headed (this is not even race, creed, sex, age, etc related)

How about, all HCP holders must have a loaded firearm in car?

How about, all non-HCP holders must have an unloaded firearm in car?

You can get silly with what "private property rules" would NOT be allowed by government if you like...

Makes about as much sense as the government making laws forbidding property owners from doing that, eh?

[Oh Shoot]

Makes about as much sense as the government making laws forbidding property owners from doing that, eh?

IF a significant number of businesses began banning a certain legally possessed customer/employee item from their properties, and certainly if it were one that was important for maintaining the well being/safety of those individuals, then yes, of course I would assume it be incumbent upon government to pass a law forbidding the owner to do just that -- whether that item was a spare tire, an oxygen cylinder, an overcoat, an umbrella, or a handgun.

- OS

[GKar]

Have you ever really grown to regret even bringing something up.......

[Oh Shoot]

Have you ever really grown to regret even bringing something up.......

What's better than a lively discussion that's actually stayed relatively on topic?

And without any real name calling or anything.

You wimp.

- OS

[GKar]

LOL. I think I'll just go back and watch the archived video of last summer's special session that dealt with this bill's precursor...it's shorter than this thread (at just under an hour)...

[strickj]

IF a significant number of businesses began banning a certain legally possessed customer/employee item from their properties, and certainly if it were one that was important for maintaining the well being/safety of those individuals, then yes, of course I would assume it be incumbent upon government to pass a law forbidding the owner to do just that -- whether that item was a spare tire, an oxygen cylinder, an overcoat, an umbrella, or a handgun.

- OS

Now, that's something you don't see everyday on a gun board. More government nanny control? Who'd thunk!

Thing is, the person such rules affects does not have any right to be on that property. None. Zero. Zilch.

If you are unhappy with the rules that may jeopardize your safety, then the answer is as simple of leaving the property. Removing a property owner's rights, while advancing perceived rights that you do not have, is never a good the answer.

Edited February 13, 2011 by strickj