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

[Oh Shoot]

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

The parking lot bill is what's up for grabs.

There's no "carry anywhere, no matter what, no permit needed" bill.

Grab the fruit you can reach.

Btw, this doesn't affect me personally, I'm retired.

Though it's important to me to be able to protect myself, my main reason for wanting expansion of all gun rights is not really a personal one.

- OS

[Worriedman]

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.

You have not proved anything, you have made an unsubstantiated statement with no back up at all. Show your documentation please. Prove to me by listing the Article and Section which states that property rights supersedes all others.

Never been to a fancy restaurant?

I have, on three continents actually, not sure that has anything to do with it, but the answer is yes. You see one around here with a sign on the front door that says Mennonites must eat in the back? But By God, according to your way of thinking a proprieter should be able to write that rule, if the power to control via ownership of a mortgage is a real thing. Give that a shot and let me know how it works out. And, if I show up in the parking lot of one that requires a suit and tie, I could have driven there with them off, and put them on just before I step over the threshold, all legal like!

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.

Sorry, but you just don't get that any owner does not have full discretion to require whatever might suit his pleasure, and that is the point I have been trying to get you to see. There is no ABSOLUTE Right via ownership to set up a dictatorship within the confines of a property line, keeping all other powers at bay like some kind of force field.

Edited February 14, 2011 by Worriedman

[RobertNashville]

This is directed to all and no one in particular.

I've enjoyed our little debate...I don't think anyone's mind has been changed here but that's okay. What I've tried to convey is this (whether anyone agrees with me or not that's fine too). ...

I do not, for reasons already stated, believe that a business has the same rights as a person for the simple reason that a business isn't a person. However, regardless of whether a "business" has or doesn't have the same "rights" (and I'm speaking here mostly in terms of property rights) as an individual, I think what most people can recognize is that when property used and/or owned by a business is used for business purposes (as opposed to private uses such as a residence, etc.); it is looked upon differently by both society in general and government in particular. To me; that simple truth seems inescapable.

Whether anybody likes it or not, government (and I'm using "government" in the generic sense) imposes many, many, many rules and regulations on what that business can and can't do and how it can do it. Many of the rules that businesses must comply with didn't exist a few decades ago but they exist today because "society" has determined that they need to exist.

I see a "parking lot/firearms requirement" imposed on business as no different, in concept, than a requirement that a business must pay time and a half for overtime or that it cannot allow smoking on its property (if it's a restaurant) or that is must have "X" number of toilets based on the capacity of the building, etc.

Therefore, if government decides that it is in the best interest of society that those who can legally carry a loaded firearm in their vehicle should not be restricted from doing so by an employer (so long as the firearm remains in the vehicle) then I've no doubt that the sate not only can establish that requirement but that, for the overall benefit of society, it should do so.

Would such a requirement be an "infringement" on the "property rights" of a business? In my opinion, no (because for reasons already stated, I do not believe that a business has "rights' save for those granted by the government). But even if businesses have "rights" and even if it is an infringement, it seems an inconsequential one to me and one that is significantly outweighed by the benefit to society when good, law-abiding citizens arm themselves and are afforded the opportunity to carry as much and as often and in as many places as possible.

Now...I'm done...hopefully with the start of a new week we can get back to discussing something useful like open vs concealed carry.

Edited February 14, 2011 by RobertNashville

[strickj]

You have not proved anything, you have made an unsubstantiated statement with no back up at all. Show your documentation please. Prove to me by listing the Article and Section which states that property rights supersedes all others.

Squash snot! Unalienable Rights ...for one source. I posted that when you asked for it the first time. Want more, see here.

As for property rights being more important then an individual's rights, well, that is a given and all being that you do not have the right to be on anyone's property. That by default means that their rights supersedes yours. The old saying "your rights end begin where mine begin" applies here.

Not to even mention that your HCP does not give you the absolute right to carry on private property. None. That's how business can post et'al.

So, you have no right to be on another's property and you have no right to carry on another's property.

That's 2-0 if you're counting.

If you wanna count your unalienable right to personal security, that would be 2-1... but you don't need a gun for personal protection, remember, so it's not included in the score since this bill is about carrying a gun.

I have, on three continents actually, not sure that has anything to do with it, but the answer is yes. You see one around here with a sign on the front door that says Mennonites must eat in the back? But By God, according to your way of thinking a proprieter should be able to write that rule, if the power to control via ownership of a mortgage is a real thing. Give that a shot and let me know how it works out. And, if I show up in the parking lot of one that requires a suit and tie, I could have driven there with them off, and put them on just before I step over the threshold, all legal like!

The reason I asked was to show you that businesses can impose dress codes. You dress wrong, then you can be fired. Nothing you can do about that, either. Same applies to dining at a restaurant with a dress code for customers.

Not that EEOC is an absolute rule for businesses, but no part of that will even cover non-assistant items such as clothes (or guns, for that matter).

Sorry, but you just don't get that any owner does not have full discretion to require whatever might suit his pleasure, and that is the point I have been trying to get you to see. There is no ABSOLUTE Right via ownership to set up a dictatorship within the confines of a property line, keeping all other powers at bay like some kind of force field.

When have I said that? I have not said once that a business owner can do whatever he want's. I have said repeatedly that a property owner has every right to write the rules for use of his property. I have also said repeatedly that we all have rules imposed on us by the government to abide by. Even you and I have rules imposed on us to follow in our own homes. Does that mean that we do not have the right to enjoy our property? Heck no it doesn't.

So, please prove that a property owner has no right to make rules for use of his property by visitors. I have proved to you twice now that everyone has the unalienable right to the full enjoyment of his property. That includes making rules for their guest to follow while there.

In ending, you need to prove that a property owner does not have the unalienable right to enjoyment of property. I've already proved my side of this one, twice. It's your turn to prove yours.

And for the big one, you will need to prove that you have a right to another person's property. Any ole' right at all will do.

Edited February 14, 2011 by strickj

[tntnixon]

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.

Now we're making progress because you are exactly right. The Constitution is about the limitations placed on the government, not about limitations placed on individuals. Limitations placed on individuals are statutory and therefore not "rights".

You can ask someone to leave your property at any time, however unless you decide to physically remove them or kill them, you have really no ability to enforce that request except by having a government entity remove them for you for having violated you percieved "property rights" violation. The "rights" you have against tresspass and the limits placed upon you to enforce it are merely the result of legislative fiat and therefore are not "rights" at all.

Likewise a legislative process that gave you those "rights" and limitations may also give you more rights, take away rights, take away limitations or even impose more limitations upon you at their mere whim. Our property rights are merely protecting us from government interference, not interference from each other.

[Guest ArmyVeteran37214]

I can't even begin to read what's being posted, . I've got a headache just reading the first 10 posts!

[Worriedman]

In ending, you need to prove that a property owner does not have the unalienable right to enjoyment of property. I've already proved my side of this one, twice. It's your turn to prove yours.

And for the big one, you will need to prove that you have a right to another person's property. Any ole' right at all will do.

I have done so already, but will re-post it.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 54-14-102(a) allows a landlocked property owner to TAKE your property , (although requiring recompense decided upon by a jury of peers) not just to trespass upon, but to own. If having personal property stripped away from ownership is allowing "enjoyment", well we have different opinions of what the word means.

The court case:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

June 14, 2001 Session

DANIEL B. BARGE III v. EARL H. SADLER, ET AL.

Appeal from the Court of Appeals, Middle Section

Chancery Court for Humphreys County

No. 24-175 Allen W. Wallace, Chancellor

http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/opinions/tsc/PDF/021/BargeD.pdf

allows not only an individual who does not own the property to be on it, but to take it completely away from the owner.

The Declaration of Independence that you continue to trot out as "proof" to your stance on property rights is a statement of platitudes, it is NOT part of the Constitution and it's Amendments. It was penned at a time when part of it's intent was to protect the owning of another person for goodness sake.

The sum and total of words in the document you purport as your "proof" related to "Unalienalbe Rights" is this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

I see nothing else that points to property "Rights" being the pinnacle of reasons to wage war,which is what the Declaration was about, a statement for justification to revolt.

The Constitutions, the one for the Union, and the one for our State, codify explicitly limitations on the powers of the Governments, and the extent of the Rights of the People. If a discussion is raised as to their applicability, we have the courts and a process to amend those documents. In both, the statement is made that a Citizen shall not be deprived of their personal property, except by due process of law. Eminent Domain gives the Government the ability to take your property if they can convince a court that is in the best interest of the community, they will have to pay a fair market value, but take it they can. Does loosing title and control of a piece of land that you previously owned fit your "unalienable right to enjoyment of property."?

Edited February 14, 2011 by Worriedman

[Guest nicemac]

RE:"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 Big Mac in."

The way I read it, it is more like forcing a movie theater to allow a Big Mac to be stored in your locked car, out of sight, while you are in the movie. You can't eat it in the theater, but they shouldn't be able to tell you that you can't keep it in your car in their parking lot.

It is legal for me to have groceries in my car. There is nothing illegal about it. It is against company policy for me to take my groceries (food) into a movie theater. Fine, I 'll agreed to that. Should then the theater have the right to tell me that I can't park my car in their lot to attend their movie if I have groceries (legal goods) stored out of sight in the trunk? What about toiletries? What about seeds? Where would it end? Should they be able to search my car to verify there is no "contraband" stored out of sight before they admit me into the movie?

What I have in my car is my business. Nobody, without a legal search warrant, should be able to search my car. Therefore, whatever I have inside should be protected, just like objects I store in my home. Whether it is locked up on a public street or in the mall parking lot or my employers lot should make no difference.

[tntnixon]

I have done so already, but will re-post it.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 54-14-102(a) allows a landlocked property owner to TAKE your property , (although requiring recompense decided upon by a jury of peers) not just to trespass upon, but to own. If having personal property stripped away from ownership is allowing "enjoyment", well we have different opinions of what the word means.

The court case:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

June 14, 2001 Session

DANIEL B. BARGE III v. EARL H. SADLER, ET AL.

Appeal from the Court of Appeals, Middle Section

Chancery Court for Humphreys County

No. 24-175 Allen W. Wallace, Chancellor

http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/opinions/tsc/PDF/021/BargeD.pdf

allows not only an individual who does not own the property to be on it, but to take it completely away from the owner.

The Declaration of Independence that you continue to trot out as "proof" to your stance on property rights is a statement of platitudes, it is NOT part of the Constitution and it's Amendments. It was penned at a time when part of it's intent was to protect the owning of another person for goodness sake.

The sum and total of words in the document you purport as your "proof" related to "Unalienalbe Rights" is this:

I see nothing else that points to property "Rights" being the pinnacle of reasons to wage war,which is what the Declaration was about, a statement for justification to revolt.

The Constitutions, the one for the Union, and the one for our State, codify explicitly limitations on the powers of the Governments, and the extent of the Rights of the People. If a discussion is raised as to their applicability, we have the courts and a process to amend those documents. In both, the statement is made that a Citizen shall not be deprived of their personal property, except by due process of law. Eminent Domain gives the Government the ability to take your property if they can convince a court that is in the best interest of the community, they will have to pay a fair market value, but take it they can. Does loosing title and control of a piece of land that you previously owned fit your "unalienable right to enjoyment of property."?

This is right on.

People seem to confuse "rights" with privileges granted by the legislature. We have the "right" to keep the government from taking our property without due process. It is a privilege that keep non-government entities from taking our property. It is a right that LEO's can not shoot you for suspicion of committing a crime, but it is a privilege that the government prevents others from shooting you. We have the Right to keep the government from gagging us when we speak, but it is only a privilege that others may not gag us.

Every perceived right from interference by others, unfortunately, is merely privilege and may be taken away at any time without any recourse. Therefore, the privilege that business owners enjoy over their parking lots may legally be taken away because it was only granted to them through a similar legislative act.

[Fallguy]

...for me at least.

Unsubscribing and not checking back.

Enjoy the endless sprial of debate.....

[DRM]

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.

Your employer is NOT disarming you for 72 miles, each way. Your employer is simply exercising the same rights you exercise at your own property.

It is YOUR decision to work there. It is YOUR decision to park in their property. It is YOUR decision to comply with state law in regards to your HCP.

Your employer is not stopping you from carrying on your commute to and from work - YOU are choosing not to take the steps necessary to do so.

[RobertNashville]

...The Declaration of Independence that you continue to trot out as "proof" to your stance on property rights is a statement of platitudes, it is NOT part of the Constitution and it's Amendments. It was penned at a time when part of it's intent was to protect the owning of another person for goodness sake.

Far be it from me to supportstrickj's position but, just as a point of clarification, while it's quite true that it is not part of the constitution, I believe you'll find that the Declaration of Independence is U.S. law and is codified in the U.S. Code along with all the other original documents that create the country including the Constitution.

[RobertNashville]

Your employer is NOT disarming you for 72 miles, each way. Your employer is simply exercising the same rights you exercise at your own property.

Somewhat right but mostly wrong and most certainly missing the point.

First, the employer is not just exercising his ability to control the employer's property; that employer is, at least indirectly, extending his control to the employee's property by declaring what that employee can and cannot have inside his privately owned vehicle.

It is true that an employer is not directly disarming a person on his commute (and anywhere that person might go after leaving home/before returning home), but that employer's decision has exactly that effect and that effect, I would submit, it precisely why this bill has been proposed.

[Guest nicemac]

…at least indirectly, extending his control to the employee's property by declaring what that employee can and cannot have inside his privately owned vehicle.

Perfectly stated.

THAT is my beef with the current law.

[DRM]

Somewhat right but mostly wrong and most certainly missing the point.

What I said is 100% correct and factual.

First, the employer is not just exercising his ability to control the employer's property;[ that employer is, at least indirectly, extending his control to the employee's property by declaring what that employee can and cannot have inside his privately owned vehicle.

No, you seem to be confused about where that car is located. You can bring a locked box on my property - and I can and should be able to tell you to remove that box from my property, period.

You do NOT have a right to park your car on someone else's property. What you want to do is take away property rights and say they cannot ask you to remove your car from their property.

It is true that an employer is not directly disarming a person on his commute (and anywhere that person might go after leaving home/before returning home), but that employer's decision has exactly that effect

Again, you are wrong.

There are HUNDREDS of options to arm yourself for your commute to and from work:

-Park somewhere else

-Go work somewhere else

-Move to an apartment across the street

-Go work somewhere else

-Rent a storage locker nearby to keep your weapon

-Go work somewhere else

And on, and on, and on. The point remains: your employer has done NOTHING to disarm you anywhere but their own property. What YOU choose to do outside of their property has to do with YOUR decisions and what steps YOU are willing to do to arm yourself.

For you to want to strip their property rights because you are too lazy to take the steps necessary to arm yourself is, well... back to that selfish thing I brought up earlier.

[RobertNashville]

...Again, you are wrong.

No...I'm not wrong at all...you just don't like what I said.

Perhaps you are the one confused at least it would seem that you are if you can't tell the difference between something being "wrong" and someone holding a different position than you hold.

You are also apparently a bit forgetful since you earlier called HCP holders selfish than said you didn't and now you are back to calling others selfish again and even lazy.

Is your argument so weak that you can't make your argument without insulting people or is insulting people just something you regularly do?

Edited February 14, 2011 by RobertNashville

[Guest nicemac]

…You can bring a locked box on my property - and I can and should be able to tell you to remove that box from my property, period.

I agree, you can tell me to remove the box completely, and my employer can tell me I can't park on their lot at all. However, I do not believe they should tell me I can't park there depending on the contents of my trunk/ glove box, etc… If they are OK in principle to my car being on their lot, what is inside the car (especially out of sight) is none of their business.

[Worriedman]

Far be it from me to supportstrickj's position but, just as a point of clarification, while it's quite true that it is not part of the constitution, I believe you'll find that the Declaration of Independence is U.S. law and is codified in the U.S. Code along with all the other original documents that create the country including the Constitution.

PM sent, this discussion does not belong on the thread.

[RobertNashville]

I agree, you can tell me to remove the box completely, and my employer can tell me I can't park on their lot at all. However, I do not believe they should tell me I can't park there depending on the contents of my trunk/ glove box, etc… If they are OK in principle to my car being on their lot, what is inside the car (especially out of sight) is none of their business.

Well said, but I would expect that such logic is going to be lost on some here.

The good news is that this bill (or at least something like it) has a legitimate chance of passage and becoming law despite the pontifications about businesses' "property rights" even to the extent of trying to control the contents of the privately owned vehicles of their employees parked in their parking lots...employees, I might add, who have been requested to work there.

[RobertNashville]

PM sent, this discussion does not belong on the thread.

No PM needed. I would also point out that you were the one who brought it up!

Edited February 14, 2011 by RobertNashville

[Worriedman]

No PM needed. I would also point out that you were the one who brought it up!

I am simply asking for your assistance in becoming informed, as I can find no date or copy of an action that codifies the Declaration of Independence as law, I am seeking to learn, but felt it was not germane to the discussion on HB 0355.

Thought it best to take that discussion offline. If you are not willing to help educate me, then so be it.

[DRM]

Perhaps you are the one confused at least it would seem that you are if you can't tell the difference between something being "wrong" and someone holding a different position than you hold.

It's not an opinion - it's simple facts. Employers are not disarming you for your commute, YOU decide to disarm for your commute, based on you refusing to use various options at your disposal to arm yourself during your commute (or to just work elsewhere).

You are also apparently a bit forgetful since you earlier called HCP holders selfish than said you didn't and now you are back to calling others selfish again and even lazy.

Robert, it's not my problem if you still can't understand what I actually said.

[DRM]

I agree, you can tell me to remove the box completely, and my employer can tell me I can't park on their lot at all. However, I do not believe they should tell me I can't park there depending on the contents of my trunk/ glove box, etc… If they are OK in principle to my car being on their lot, what is inside the car (especially out of sight) is none of their business.

Sorry, but that makes no sense. By definition - it IS their business, both in the fact that it is - quite literally - their business, and also the fact that since it is their property, it is their concern/business what happens on their property.

They should have the right to ask you to remove your car from their property for WHATEVER reason they want, period. It is THEIR property - not yours to dictate how and why you get to use their property.

[tntnixon]

I am simply asking for your assistance in becoming informed, as I can find no date or copy of an action that codifies the Declaration of Independence as law, I am seeking to learn, but felt it was not germane to the discussion on HB 0355.

Thought it best to take that discussion offline. If you are not willing to help educate me, then so be it.

This is one time when I'm glad I didn't post what I thought I knew, because I would have been wrong. I was certain that The Declaration of Independence was not part of the US Code, however it is. It is at the very first part under "The Organic Laws of The United States". It was passed under the first Congress and signed by the President, therefore it is law. However, because it is not part of the Constitution, any discrepancy with any later passed laws would be trumped by the most recent law.

[RobertNashville]

It's not an opinion - it's simple facts. Employers are not disarming you for your commute, YOU decide to disarm for your commute, based on you refusing to use various options at your disposal to arm yourself during your commute (or to just work elsewhere).

Robert, it's not my problem if you still can't understand what I actually said.

I am not confused...your opinion is not "fact" no matter how often or how loudly you say otherwise.

Further, I know an insult when I read one and the examples of your insults in this thread are a few of many spread over several of the threads you've participated in lately. Any of us, if we aren't careful, can slip into the pool of denigrating comments toward those we disagree with...you, however, seem to jump into that pool purposely, often and quite willfully.