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

[Worriedman]

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.

Stores (businesses) invite people (Citizens, at least some of them, called customers) into their establishments. If the average Citizen has no "right" to be there why do they (the business) pay large sums of money to invite them in (advertising in print, on radio and TV)? and without those visitors, how would that business be able to operate, without customers there is no store.

Businesses (manufactures) invite people (Citizens, mandated legally here in TN, called employees) into their places of work to get from them their labor to help make a product to sell in stores. The business owners invite them to apply for the jobs advertised. Do they have the "right" to be there once employed?

Should then the owners be able to dictate the Citizens ability to enjoy a State mandated method of providing for their own protection (the only protection available is self employed) by utilizing the best tool (that is State sanctioned) as of this date to do so, if in fact , they have been invited to that location by the owners, for the trip to and from their homes?

Do you deny your friends or you family members their ability to provide for their own safety via carrying a handgun if they are legally allowed by the State for their traverse to and from your area of control when they come to visit at your home?

Edited February 14, 2011 by Worriedman

[RobertNashville]

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:

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?

To refuse to acknowledge the stark difference between private property used for private purposes and "private property" that is used for business and open to the public is obtuse. Whatever you think about a business being an artificial entity; the stark reality is that the laws of the land treat those two types of property very differently.

This started because you asked me how a business is an artificial entity...I answered you...you don't agree. That's fine; but your agreement or lack of agreement changes nothing...your continued proclamations that that businesses aren't artificial constructs are just that, proclamations.

You own a business...that's nice. But you have no RIGHT to have a business and a business has no right to exist apart from government permission/approval (which usually entails at least a business license issued by the city/county it operates in) and if you are incorporated (for profit, not for profit, charitable, LLC, S-Corp or any other form of corporation) then that corporation exists because the government created the entity. Whether you believe that tor not is irrelevant. And if you need proof of that GOOGLE is your friend.

EDIT: By the way, the "business is faceless" BS is your term...I never used it so why should it be incumbent on my to "prove" something I never said in the first place?

Edited February 14, 2011 by RobertNashville

[strickj]

You have absolutely no rights to be on someone else's property. None. I challenge you (again) to provide proof that you do have a right to others' property.

aI can invite you to come on my property all I want. That does not give you the right to stay. If I tell you to leave, you have to leave. If I tell you not to wear purple and pink polka-dotted socks, then you can not wear pink and purple polka-dotted socks.

If you go into a business and do not buy anything, then they can tell you to leave. Again, property owners can dictate the rules of use. it's as simple as that.

Do you deny your friends or you family members their ability to provide for their own safety via carrying a handgun if they are legally allowed by the State for their traverse to and from your area of control when they come to visit at your home?

Umm... no?

I have never said that. What I am saying is that I am not going to force someone else to do what I do. It is not any of my business to tell you how to run your home or your business. Stay out of mine, I'll stay out of yours...

That's all I'm saying.

[RobertNashville]

You have absolutely no rights to be on someone else's property. None. I challenge you (again) to provide proof that you do have a right to others' property.

aI can invite you to come on my property all I want. That does not give you the right to stay. If I tell you to leave, you have to leave. If I tell you not to wear purple and pink polka-dotted socks, then you can not wear pink and purple polka-dotted socks.

If you go into a business and do not buy anything, then they can tell you to leave. Again, property owners can dictate the rules of use. it's as simple as that.

Your rights to your private property used for private purposes are wholly different and more extensive than property used for business and especially so if the business is open to the public. More importantly, your private property rights for property used private are not what the parking lot bill is about.

A business can only "dictate the rules" until government dictates otherwise...a business's "authority" only goes as far as the government allows it to go.

Edited February 14, 2011 by RobertNashville

[strickj]

To refuse to acknowledge the stark difference between private property used for private purposes and "private property" that is used for business and open to the public is obtuse. Whatever you think about a business being an artificial entity; the stark reality is that the laws of the land treat those two types of property very differently.

This started because you asked me how a business is an artificial entity...I answered you...you don't agree. That's fine; but your agreement or lack of agreement changes nothing...your continued proclamations that that businesses aren't artificial constructs are just that, proclamations.

You own a business...that's nice. But you have no RIGHT to have a business and a business has no right to exist apart from government permission/approval (which usually entails at least a business license issued by the city/county it operates in) and if you are incorporated (for profit, not for profit, charitable, LLC, S-Corp or any other form of corporation) then that corporation exists because the government created the entity. Whether you believe that tor not is irrelevant. And if you need proof of that GOOGLE is your friend.

EDIT: By the way, the "business is faceless" BS is your term...I never used it so why should it be incumbent on my to "prove" something I never said in the first place?

Umm... again, someone please prove to me that a bushiness is not private property.

Someone, anyone, please prove to me that a business owner does not have the right to make rules to the usage to their property.

That is all you will need to do to shut me up.

[RobertNashville]

Umm... again, someone please prove to me that a bushiness is not private property.

Someone, anyone, please prove to me that a business owner does not have the right to make rules to the usage to their property.

That is all you will need to do to shut me up.

If you think government can't dictate the rules then maybe you should read the Tennessee Code, EEOC laws and any number of other local, state and federal laws regarding what a business owner can and cannot do.

Or...you could try hanging up a sign on the entrance to your store that says "NO WOMEN ALLOWED" then get back to us and let us know how that works out for you. ROTFLMAO

[strickj]

If you think government can't dictate the rules then maybe you should read the Tennessee Code, EEOC laws and any number of other local, state and federal laws regarding what a business owner can and cannot do.

Or...you could try hanging up a sign on the entrance to your store that says "NO WOMEN ALLOWED" then get back to us and let us know how that works out for you. ROTFLMAO

Yes, I admitted that we all have rules, laws, safety regs, codes,etc. to live by.

But no where in any of those does it say that a business can't make rules and terms of use for it's property.

Still waiting on proof that a business is not private property and it's owner is not allowed to write those rules.

If you need help, PM Punisher. He will tell you how many people he has sent away wearing pretty little bracelets that said the same thing that your are.

[DRM]

If you think government can't dictate the rules then maybe you should read the Tennessee Code, EEOC laws and any number of other local, state and federal laws regarding what a business owner can and cannot do.

Just because the government has, doesn't mean your or they *should*... or that it is fair, or just, or equitable. That is a cop-out to shift the discussion that direction, IMHO.

The government has -in the past - restricted gun rights far beyond what they *should*, based on the Constitution. For me to use that - like you are doing - as justification to get what I want, does not make my wants or the government's actions right, fair, or equitable.

[strickj]

Oh, and please do not turn this into another EEOC debate. That is like comparing and apple to a water buffalo. A gun is an object. A disability, sex, religion, etc. are things that can not be taken off or removed and are all therefore regulated with federal anti-discriminatory laws.

HB0355 is about forcing a property owner to allow an object onto his property. It would be like forcing a movie theater to allow a BigMac in.

Comparing the two is very offending.

[DRM]

The problems are many when it comes to people who like to draw distinctions between individually held property, and corporate held property.

My house and yard are in my name.

My friend's house and yard are deeded to a business, their family farm - that makes his home a "business".

Some people own "business" property in their own name, not in the name of a business (One of the doctors I used to work with owned a lot and building - in his name - that housed an AutoZone.

Run an eBay business out of your home? That's a BUSINESS address.

Are you a doctor, PA, NP, etc. that is credentialed with your home address as your "business" address? I see it all the time.

Point is - none of us have a clue who owns what when it comes to property. To even try to say the law should be different for individually held vs. corporately held property is not only silly IMHO, it is an exercise in futility.

[Worriedman]

Umm... again, someone please prove to me that a bushiness is not private property.

Someone, anyone, please prove to me that a business owner does not have the right to make rules to the usage to their property.

That is all you will need to do to shut me up.

A business owner has some ability, but is not in total control, as evidently you would wish.

A business owner can not deny to any group of people he wants, just because he wants to, access as customers if he offers goods for sale, that is preposterous, and you are smarter than to think they can.

A business owner can not deny employment by virtue of race, creed, color, gender and a whole host of things.

If I owned a business, I would want my good employees to be able to show up again tomorrow, I would not want it on my conscience that I was responsible for one of them not being able to provide for their own safety off my premises, just so I could feel in control of a parking lot. I personally would rather know I had done the right thing by them than to enjoy some strong arm level of control for whatever reason.

[strickj]

A business owner has some ability, but is not in total control, as evidently you would wish.

A business owner can not deny to any group of people he wants, just because he wants to, access as customers if he offers goods for sale, that is preposterous, and you are smarter than to think they can.

A business owner can not deny employment by virtue of race, creed, color, gender and a whole host of things.

If I owned a business, I would want my good employees to be able to show up again tomorrow, I would not want it on my conscience that I was responsible for one of them not being able to provide for their own safety off my premises, just so I could feel in control of a parking lot. I personally would rather know I had done the right thing by them than to enjoy some strong arm level of control for whatever reason.

I agree with the portion that I added the bold emphasis to.

For the other part, please see my other post. Please do not turn this into an EEOC debate. From someone who has been denied access and employment because of disability and has also been turned away for carrying a gun, I can tell you that those two things are not even close to being in the same category.

One is a simple object. The other a part of you. Something that you can not change. It is something that can not be removed, or covered up.

[Worriedman]

I agree with the portion that I added the bold emphasis to.

For the other part, please see my other post. Please do not turn this into an EEOC debate. From someone who has been denied access and employment because of disability and has also been turned away for carrying a gun, I can tell you that those two things are not even close to being in the same category.

One is a simple object. The other a part of you. Something that you can not change. It is something that can not be removed, or covered up.

I did see your other post and this is what you said:

Someone, anyone, please prove to me that a business owner does not have the right to make rules to the usage to their property.

That is all you will need to do to shut me up.

Put up your sign saying that you refuse to sell to, or hire someone who likes or wears "polka dots" as you referenced earlier, and I hope you have a second hand on your watch, so you can easily keep track of how much longer you will be in business.

You purport that owning a business is akin to some totalitarian dictaroship, when it is not, then you want to gloss over incidents where a business owner can not "write his own rules" just because they want to, just because you want it to be so.

Please do not turn this into an EEOC debate.

That is one of those things which disprove your basis. The EEOC in fact does limit a business owners ability to run a dictatorship.

It either does hinder your "Right" to write your own rules for a business or it does not, which is it?

[Oh Shoot]

....

For the other part, please see my other post. Please do not turn this into an EEOC debate. From someone who has been denied access and employment because of disability and has also been turned away for carrying a gun, I can tell you that those two things are not even close to being in the same category.

One is a simple object. The other a part of you. Something that you can not change. It is something that can not be removed, or covered up.

Nonetheless, handicapped persons did not receive the (at least supposed) right to equal consideration for employment, nor the very real standardized physical access accommodations until government decreed it so. It became a right via interpretation of the US Constitution and was enforced via new specific statutes and rules.

I ultimately see no real difference in the thinking of the states which have now prohibited employers from banning legally carried guns in their employees' vehicles. It has become a government ceded right in those states, just as helper dogs may not be barred either. I would hope that someday this same right will extend to all the states and to Federal employees also.

Though "legal/fair" or "right/need" are far from synonymous concepts, there is indeed a logical benefit for a society to attempt to reconcile them as closely as possible to be such.

And while I also agree that in general Who Governs Least Governs Best, and that the US has surely vastly overcompensated toward the PC/Nanny end of the continuum, I'd suggest how less "fair" your own lifestyle might well be if the gooberment hadn't somewhat "nannied" a few things to accommodate the legitimate best interests of a lawful minority, though to apply your reasoning on the issue under discussion similarly, it was not "legal" that is was done, and you had no "right" to ask for it.

- OS

[strickj]

Worriedman's:

That is one of those things which disprove your basis. The EEOC in fact does limit a business owners ability to run a dictatorship.

It either does hinder your "Right" to write your own rules for a business or it does not, which is it?

I never claimed that. I said an owner can dictate rules but we all have laws and regs. to abide by. Your home has rules, codes, and laws to abide by too.... does that mean that you can not make rules for visitors?

Put up your sign saying that you refuse to sell to, or hire someone who likes or wears "polka dots" as you referenced earlier, and I hope you have a second hand on your watch, so you can easily keep track of how much longer you will be in business.

Clothing is an item. Just like a gun. A business owner has every right regulate those items. Does your job have a dress code? Ever been to a nice restaurant with a dress code?

Ohshoot:

It became a right via interpretation of the US Constitution and was enforced via new specific statutes and rules.

Those laws do not give me a right to another's property. I still have to abide by their rules inorder to gain access to their property.

I ultimately see no real difference in the thinking of the states which have now prohibited employers from banning legally carried guns in their employees' vehicles. It has become a government ceded right in those states, just as helper dogs may not be barred either. I would hope that someday this same right will extend to all the states and to Federal employees also.

The reason anti-discriminatory laws are in place is to protect people from being denied X because of who they are. Not what items they carry.

Comparing the two is night and day. Maybe you all do not understand that, but as someone that has been denied X because of both a gun and a disability, I can tell you there is a huge difference. A really huge difference.

Again, one is an item. A tool. Something that can be easily removed.

The other is who a person is. Something that can not be changed or removed.

Remember, you can take your gun off to go to work. I can not take my chair off.

[Oh Shoot]

.....Remember, you can take your gun off to go to work. I can not take my chair off.

Of course, I absolutely, totally, understand that.

Nonetheless, the state has granted me the privilege of carrying a loaded handgun in my car.

It gave me that privilege because the state pays at least lip service to the fact that I should be able to protect myself.

I can even carry the gun in my car on school grounds, including PRIVATE schools.

Why should my employer be able to negate the privilege the state has granted? Not so much that I may care about having the gun in his parking lot, but he is de facto preventing me from defending myself in all the other places I must be in my car in order for my car to appear in his parking lot, whether that is gassing up, getting jacked at a stoplight, or broken down on the side of the road.

Hell, I'm not trying to carry my gun into his work environs, nor drive my car into them. It's a freaking parking lot. Letter of the law, spirit of the law. Some states get it, and I guess more will over time.

- OS

[tntnixon]

Remember, you can take your gun off to go to work. I can not take my chair off.

I haven't posted in a while, but this sentence piqued my interest.

For 20 million years of human existence, people with disabilities functioned without any mechanical means in going about their activities of daily living. Those mechanical means are "tools" or objects, under your own definition. You may breath in and out repetively and have your heart go pitter-pat without them, however your life may not be as pleasant. Your chair is not who you are, but merely how you go about your bussiness in the most comfortable manner you know.

Guns, likewise, are tools, as you described. Tools which our forefathers felt were so necessary for ones liberty and safety that the codified it in the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and tried to reinforce through the 14th Amendment to prevent newly freed slaves from being denied that same right. These men felt that being weaponless was very unpleasant and the consequences to our liberty where dire. Carrying a handgun is how I go about my business in the most comfortable way I know.

We can all argue about what the courts and the legislative processes have done to our Constitution and it's original intent (I disagree with most of the rulings made with regard of my right to keep and bear arms). But what we can't do is say that a right that is not explicit trumps rights that are.

The personal property rights which are being expoused exist even less than our right to keep and bear arms. Think about it, I even have to get permission to re-wire my home, build a fence, open a business and choose to discriminate against anyone I feel like for whatever reason I feel is necessary.

I do not have the right to deny access to my property to the mail carrier, meter reader, codes enforcement officer or even the guy who wants to repossess my car, all of which may against my will as an owner of my property. Do I believe that I should have those rights as a property owner? Absolutely!!! Do I have a legal basis or grounds to make such an assertion? Hell no!!!

[strickj]

Of course, I absolutely, totally, understand that.

Nonetheless, the state has granted me the privilege of carrying a loaded handgun in my car.

It gave me that privilege because the state pays at least lip service to the fact that I should be able to protect myself.

I can even carry the gun in my car on school grounds, including PRIVATE schools.

Why should my employer be able to negate the privilege the state has granted? Not so much that I may care about having the gun in his parking lot, but he is de facto preventing me from defending myself in all the other places I must be in my car in order for my car to appear in his parking lot, whether that is gassing up, getting jacked at a stoplight, or broken down on the side of the road.

Hell, I'm not trying to carry my gun into his work environs, nor drive my car into them. It's a freaking parking lot. Letter of the law, spirit of the law. Some states get it, and I guess more will over time.

- OS

Certainly. I do not agree with, nor wish to be disarmed because of an employer. That does not mean that I will force my wishes onto someone's property when I have no right to be there.

I haven't posted in a while, but this sentence piqued my interest.

For 20 million years of human existence, people with disabilities functioned without any mechanical means in going about their activities of daily living.

I'm sorry, but you obviously have no knowledge about medicine. Until recent decades, people with disabilities never survived past their injury.

If they did survive, they laid in a bed until they died.

And obviously, trying to convey the difference between gun rights and a disability is like trying to describe a barrel shroud to the CA senate.

Edited February 14, 2011 by strickj

[tntnixon]

I'm sorry, but you obviously have no knowledge about medicine. Until recent decades, people with disabilities never survived past their injury.

If they did survive, they laid in a bed until they died.

And obviously, trying to convey the difference between gun rights and a disability is like trying to describe a barrel shroud to the CA senate.

And yes I have probably more knowledge of medicine than you think, my friend. And I would never downgrade nor would I understate the plight of the disabled. What I was saying is that you can't make exceptions based on your personal situation, no matter what it is.

It is rather funny how we as humans try to find ways around the rules in order to satisfy our own unique lifestyle so as to feel as little pain as possible. We do it with religion, laws and even our Constitution.

For over 200 years our Constitution has faced constant assault pretty much since the day after it was ratified. Instead of taking the plain meaning, we have tried to find ways around it instead of just trudging straight through it.

My camparison was not between guns and disabilities, but between guns and the tools that those with disabilities use. One is Constitutionally protected and one is not. I have no Constitutional right to the medications that I take even though without them I will eventually die. Even the dialysis machine that I will end up on is not a Constitutional right. Keeping an bearing arms is, however, protected.

[Worriedman]

Clothing is an item. Just like a gun. A business owner has every right regulate those items. Does your job have a dress code? Ever been to a nice restaurant with a dress code?

Again you argue absolute "rights" of business owners when they do not exist.

Are the "dress codes" you speak of the purvey of the business owner alone? What of specified protective clothing, hard hats, safety glasses, harnesses and lanyards for work over 6' off the ground, steel toed boots, hearing protection, all manner of PPE's mandated not by the business owner, a heinous cost and burden assumed by some, and not wanted by many employees, yet required none the less. Businesses can mandate certain items, but they are not the end and be all. "No shirt, no shoes, no service" would be enforceable in most establishments, (I suspect that if you owned and ran an outdoor style snow cone stand on the beach, you would not be able to make even that stick, from a law or business sense stance) but if you put that "No Polka Dot" sign up, I bet you get some grief, ACLU would be on you like stink on stuff, just to stay in practice. Can you preclude crutches or wheelchairs if you have some phobia about them? It would be a business owner's prerogative according to your lights.

All this excreting and moaning about your belief's or mine, concerning what is correct about were a person should be able to carry or keep a handgun is moot anyway, as neither of us is a Legislator, and as such it is not up to us. The State Constitution leaves that discernment to the Legislature only, and that is an incontrovertible fact. They preempt all others via Article 1 Section 26, be they City or County Governments, or individual business owners with respect to where firearms can be carried, or if they can be. It is on their watch, not yours or mine.

Edited February 14, 2011 by Worriedman

[strickj]

And yes I have probably more knowledge of medicine than you think, my friend. And I would never downgrade nor would I understate the plight of the disabled. What I was saying is that you can't make exceptions based on your personal situation, no matter what it is.

It is rather funny how we as humans try to find ways around the rules in order to satisfy our own unique lifestyle so as to feel as little pain as possible. We do it with religion, laws and even our Constitution.

For over 200 years our Constitution has faced constant assault pretty much since the day after it was ratified. Instead of taking the plain meaning, we have tried to find ways around it instead of just trudging straight through it.

My camparison was not between guns and disabilities, but between guns and the tools that those with disabilities use. One is Constitutionally protected and one is not. I have no Constitutional right to the medications that I take even though without them I will eventually die. Even the dialysis machine that I will end up on is not a Constitutional right. Keeping an bearing arms is, however, protected.

Do you know what the constitution means?

It is a document that protects your rights from being taken away by the government. It in no way extends your gun ownership rights to carrying a gun on private property.

Oh, and I, in no way, make exceptions to rules. Anti-discriminatory laws do not express rights because of a disability, race, religion, etc, either.

[strickj]

Again you argue absolute "rights" of business owners when they do not exist.

AHHH! :Pulls hair out:

Again, just because we all have rules to follow, that does not mean that a property owner can not regulate rules for usage of his property. You have rules to follow for your home that are imposed by the government.... does that mean that you can not give me rules for when I visit? Unalienable rights are what we all have. As I have proved to all, that includes enjoying your property. If writing rules is what it takes for you to enjoy your property, then so be it. That is your right.

but if you put that "No Polka Dot" sign up, I bet you get some grief, ACLU would be on you like stink on stuff, just to stay in practice.

I take it that your job does not have a dress code (suit and tie, or even a company embroidered logo on a polo, maybe)? Never been to a fancy restaurant? Your kids do not go to school?

All this excreting and moaning about your belief's or mine, concerning what is correct about were a person should be able to carry or keep a handgun is moot anyway, as neither of us is a Legislator, and as such it is not up to us. The State Constitution leaves that discernment to the Legislature only, and that is an incontrovertible fact. They preempt all others via Article 1 Section 26, be they City or County Governments, or individual business owners with respect to where firearms can be carried, or if they can be. It is on their watch, not yours or mine.

True-dat. But, we do have the power to persuade our elected officials, and if they fail us, we can take their jobs away. Edited February 14, 2011 by strickj

[DRM]

Why should my employer be able to negate the privilege the state has granted? Not so much that I may care about having the gun in his parking lot, but he is de facto preventing me from defending myself in all the other places I must be in my car in order for my car to appear in his parking lot, whether that is gassing up, getting jacked at a stoplight, or broken down on the side of the road.

Hell, I'm not trying to carry my gun into his work environs, nor drive my car into them. It's a freaking parking lot. Letter of the law, spirit of the law. Some states get it, and I guess more will over time.

- OS

Why are you ok with him disarming you in the building, but not in the parking lot?

[Worriedman]

Do you know what the constitution means?

It is a document that protects your rights from being taken away by the government. It in no way extends your gun ownership rights to carrying a gun on private property.

Oh, and I, in no way, make exceptions to rules. Anti-discriminatory laws do not express rights because of a disability, race, religion, etc, either.

The Federal Constitution itself is a list of chains placed on the Government by the People, the word right is listed one time only, in Article 1 Section 8, and says you have a Right to the proceeds of your inventions or paintings, it is the only mention of the word in the entire document. Rights guaranteed, are listed in the Amendments. It was added because the Cosntitution in and of itself left a lot of important stuff out, mostly to the mind of George Mason, and his ideas versed in the Virginia Declaration of Rights. Jefferson and Madison at first blush thought it a waste. The Federal Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788, the First 10 Amendments were apporved by congress on September 25, 1789, then sent 12 out to the States for ratification. After approval by the last required State, Virginia on December 15, 1791, the first 10 became formally incorporated, known as the Bill of Rights.

[Guest manofsteel]

i dont feel its the parking lot or the building thats an issue. its the travel between home and work for me. 72miles one way. the state says i can protect my self my employer says they will keep me safe so no firearms. Then if something happens to me it should be on them. (my opinon). by the way my employer will fight this tooth and nail. they did the last time it was brought up. i hope it passes and anything i can do to help it i will.