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

[RobertNashville]

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.

I replied to your PM.

[DRM]

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.

Robert, it seems you've got a problem. Perhaps it's in your best interest to stop replying to my posts if you can't handle open discussion on a forum such as this. Best of luck...

[Oh Shoot]

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

Your deeply pondered content free viewpoint certainly enhances the discussion for those who can read what's being posted, thanks.

- OS

[RobertNashville]

Robert, it seems you've got a problem. Perhaps it's in your best interest to stop replying to my posts if you can't handle open discussion on a forum such as this. Best of luck...

I do have a problem with people who insult me and/or insult others and then deny what they said.

As to replying to your posts, well.....

Edited February 14, 2011 by RobertNashville

[Oh Shoot]

Gentlemen, gentlemen (using the term extremely loosely ), back to the issues before this gets shut down, k?

- OS

[Worriedman]

Thanks.

Edited February 14, 2011 by Worriedman

[Guest nicemac]

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.

You are right. They can tell me to remove my car from their lot with no reason given. I am OK with that.

If they provided me a company car, then I could understand how they might want to control what I keep in their car. I am OK with that.

But if they want to try to control what I keep inside my personal car (my private property), that is different.

So the question becomes: Is my car still my private property when it is parked in my employers lot?

The obvious answer is yes, it is still my private property. I have a right to store my private property (my gun) inside my private property (my car) sitting on a lot where I have been invited to park by my employer.

[JayC]

If it bothers you so, why not find a different job where you can carry? Why make money for a corporation you disagree with on such a fundamental level? And before you say such companies don't exists, they do, I've worked at them, and know people who continue to work at places that allow carry on their person let alone in their car outside.

You are right. They can tell me to remove my car from their lot with no reason given. I am OK with that.

If they provided me a company car, then I could understand how they might want to control what I keep in their car. I am OK with that.

But if they want to try to control what I keep inside my personal car (my private property), that is different.

So the question becomes: Is my car still my private property when it is parked in my employers lot?

The obvious answer is yes, it is still my private property. I have a right to store my private property (my gun) inside my private property (my car) sitting on a lot where I have been invited to park by my employer.

[Guest nicemac]

If it bothers you so, why not find a different job where you can carry? Why make money for a corporation you disagree with on such a fundamental level? And before you say such companies don't exists, they do, I've worked at them, and know people who continue to work at places that allow carry on their person let alone in their car outside.

Or I can just work to change the law so I can keep my otherwise great job.

EDIT: There is no perfect job. I am just trying to change the things that are changeable. This is a very changeable policy.

Edited February 14, 2011 by nicemac

[Oh Shoot]

....EDIT: There is no perfect job. I am just trying to change the things that are changeable. This is a very changeable policy.

Of course. Other states have done it.

And as far as the Private Property Uber Alles concept, I've not read about any constitutional challenges to those changes in law, either on state or federal level.

- OS

[strickj]

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

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

Yes, you are providing proof that land can be taken with due process when 'landlocked'. It does NOT prove that you have the right to be on someone's property.

You can even ask Punisher what happens when people tell him that they have a right to be at his hospital. He will tell you that people that say that will leave in pretty bracelets.

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.

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.

Are you serious? The Declaration of Independence doesn't matter? But, the constitution does? Do you know why the 2nd was written?

See Robert's posts for why it is.

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

Really? Again?

Well, how about this part:

The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.

[strickj]

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.

Sorry, incorrect. The legislative does not give people the unalienable right to enjoy their property. That is why it is called "unalienable rights", or "natural rights".

This is right on.

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.

No. That is not a privilege. You can not take someone's property without due process.

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.

No, that's not a right and that's not a privilege. A cop shooting you outside of self defense is a crime the same as with citizens.

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.

That one is correct.

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.

By that logic, your guns can be taken away from you simply because the only reason you can even own guns is because of a legislative act.

People seem to confuse "rights" with privileges granted by the legislature.

And some people seem to confuse "rights" with privileges granted by property owners.

Edited February 14, 2011 by strickj

[Guest friesepferd]

yea. private property arguments are tricky. on one hand, its a private property, on the other hand, it is (at least often) a public-type place.

there is a difference between a house and a place of business and what they can do and not do.

i can, for example, disallow anyone in my home for any reason. I business may not. Try being a clothing store that does not allow blacks, or try as an employer to fire someone because they are female.

It is a tricky line trying to decide what employers and places of business should be allowed to prohibit and what they shouldnt.

In any case, I certainly wont complain if this bill goes through. I think that it is reasonable to make employers allow employees to at least have any legal item they want in their locked car- at least in one parking lot.

for example, if one has parking lots outside of a gate and no firearms, alcohol, etc are allowed inside the gate.

[Worriedman]

Do you know why the 2nd was written?

Pretty sure I do, and it speaks to forcing the Government to not infringe the Right of the People to be well supplied with weapons and munitions to overthrow that same Government should it become necessary, and to practice with them to remain ready for the day the need might arise.

Or do you disagree with that as well?

[strickj]

yea. private property arguments are tricky. on one hand, its a private property, on the other hand, it is (at least often) a public-type place.

there is a difference between a house and a place of business and what they can do and not do.

i can, for example, disallow anyone in my home for any reason. I business may not. Try being a clothing store that does not allow blacks, or try as an employer to fire someone because they are female.

It is a tricky line trying to decide what employers and places of business should be allowed to prohibit and what they shouldnt.

In any case, I certainly wont complain if this bill goes through. I think that it is reasonable to make employers allow employees to at least have any legal item they want in their locked car- at least in one parking lot.

for example, if one has parking lots outside of a gate and no firearms, alcohol, etc are allowed inside the gate.

I suppose my last post addressing this was last somewhere way back, so, I'll bring it up again.

EEOC, or discriminatory laws, are federal laws to keep people from being discriminated against for who they are (race, sex,etc) and in some cases, for devices that they need (seeing eye dogs, chairs,etc).

You can not compare something that you want to carry to something that you are. You can not discriminate against someone when it's a conditional term of usage and X can be changed or removed.

You can see this fist hand at restaurants and places of employment with dress codes.

Even so, EEOC laws are not absolute rules for business to abide by. I, myself, even hire people based on those 'protections' regularly. Age, sex, weight, sexual attributes...

It is completely legal and ethical because those are conditions of them fulfilling their employment with me.

EEOC does not give someone the right to be hired, or to even be on someone's property.

[RobertNashville]

I suppose my last post addressing this was last somewhere way back, so, I'll bring it up again...

I think you are misconstruing the argument a bit.

I don't believe that folks are arguing that EEOC (or other such laws) laws are directly correlated and/or equal to to laws regarding carrying a weapon...I think the point being made is that governments (local, state and federal) can and do put rules and restrictions and demands on businesses and the property they operate on all the time and in many different ways. And...such government entities do so in spite of any (real or imagined) "private property rights".

You can proclaim all day long that businesses have "private property rights" but if governments can legally impose these laws/restrictions, etc. on businesses then it follows that those same government bodies can legally tell a business that it must allow employees to be able to keep their otherwise legally carried firearms in their vehicles even while the vehicle is parked in that business's parking lot.

If it is truly not legal (Constitutional) for governments to make such demands on business/business property then it begs the question of why businesses don't challenge these demands and win.

For several reasons, I believe that governments do have the power to put demands, rules, laws, restrictions, etc) on businesses...that such power is legal under our Constitution (federal and state). If that is true then the argument should be on whether or not the government "should" put this "parking lot" requirement on businesses...I think any argument about whether a government "can" is moot.

Edited February 14, 2011 by RobertNashville

[strickj]

Yes, Robert, business owners must follow laws and regs for their property. But, as I have stated many times now, so do you.

That in no way means that the government can keep you from your natural right to enjoy your property.

I'll say this one last time and then I'm out as I'm tired of saying the same thing over and over.

You do not have a right to be on someone's property. You do not have the right to work anywhere. You do not have the right to park your car in someone's driveway. You do not have the right to carry any item onto someone's property.

A property owner does have the right to tell you to leave. A property owner does have the right to write the rules of use for his property(commercial, residential or even intellectual property even). A business owner does have the right to fire you (or hire you) for anything they durn well please. That alone makes this entire bill a moot one anyway. Even if passed, your employer can fire you for anything else that they want to.

[RobertNashville]

Yes, Robert, business owners must follow laws and regs for their property. But, as I have stated many times now, so do you.

That in no way means that the government can keep you from your natural right to enjoy your property.

I'll say this one last time and then I'm out as I'm tired of saying the same thing over and over.

You do not have a right to be on someone's property. You do not have the right to work anywhere. You do not have the right to park your car in someone's driveway. You do not have the right to carry any item onto someone's property.

A property owner does have the right to tell you to leave. A property owner does have the right to write the rules of use for his property(commercial, residential or even intellectual property even). A business owner does have the right to fire you (or hire you) for anything they durn well please. That alone makes this entire bill a moot one anyway. Even if passed, your employer can fire you for anything else that they want to.

Frankly, I have a difficult time understanding how you can correctly acknowledge that government places rules and regulations on businesses and on business property while concurrently claim that businesses can "write the rules" for its property. I would submit; a business can only do all those things you mention and can only "write the rules" until the government tells the business that it can't do those things and the government hands down the rules.

I've never said that I have a right to be on a business's property and if you think that's what I've said then maybe I haven't explained myself well. What I've tried to get across is that if the state tells FedEx, for example, that, for the people it employs, it can not deny those employees from keeping their legally carried firearms in their vehicles while those vehicles are parked in FedEx's parking lot; then FedEx has only two or three choices...it could fire all its workers (not very practical), it can move its operations to another state (a long term solution at best and only so long as the state they move to doesn't enact similar legislation) or; it can comply

EDIT:

Well...I guess it could comply and sue the state to try and have the law ruled unconstitutional but that doesn't seem very practical either.

Edited February 15, 2011 by RobertNashville

[Worriedman]

A business owner does have the right to fire you (or hire you) for anything they durn well please. That alone makes this entire bill a moot one anyway. Even if passed, your employer can fire you for anything else that they want to.

Not everyone who is a worker in Tennessee is an at-will employee. If you have a contract in Tennessee, and if the terms of that contract set aside the at-will provision, that statement is not true. Most of the workers at my firm are at-will employees, I however have a contract that mitigates the at-will provisions. It is unlawful to terminate a worker because of their gender, age, race, national origin or religious affiliation, even in an at-will employment situation. You can not violate an employee's civil rights in termination. Collective bargaining agreements, (of which there are some in the State, teachers for one group, most Federal workers for another) also mitigate the at-will status.

Now, if the State Legislature removes the ability of business to post against HCP holders keeping their legal weapons in their personal vehicles in business parking lots, your belief will be the moot thing, as they have the power by law to do so, regardless of what you think.

[strickj]

Frankly, I have a difficult time understanding how you can correctly acknowledge that government places rules and regulations on businesses and on business property while concurrently claim that businesses can "write the rules" for its property. I would submit; a business can only do all those things you mention and can only "write the rules"

I have a hard time understanding how you claim that a property owner does not have that right. I have proven that they do. Several times in fact.

You can see this right in action by visiting a movie theater with outside food in your hand. Or by visiting Punisher's hospital while raising a ruckus.

And like I have stated, you have rules that you have to follow on your property, too. Does that mean that you can not write rules for your guest to follow while visiting?

until the government tells the business that it can't do those things and the government hands down the rules.

Sure, but that does not make it right. The government can make a law saying that movie theaters can not bar outside food and drink. Would that be right?

The government can make a law saying that you can not bar trespassers on your property. Would that be right?

There are lot's of business that ban employees from having cell phones anywhere on the property because of security reasons. Would it be right if the government made a law saying that an employer can not ban cell phones?

I've never said that I have a right to be on a business's property and if you think that's what I've said then maybe I haven't explained myself well. What I've tried to get across is that if the state tells FedEx, for example, that, for the people it employs, it can not deny those employees from keeping their legally carried firearms in their vehicles while those vehicles are parked in FedEx's parking lot; then FedEx has only two or three choices...it could fire all its workers (not very practical), it can move its operations to another state (a long term solution at best and only so long as the state they move to doesn't enact similar legislation) or; it can comply

If you do not have a right to be on a business' property then how do you have a right to have a gun on their property?

[strickj]

Not everyone who is a worker in Tennessee is an at-will employee. If you have a contract in Tennessee, and if the terms of that contract set aside the at-will provision, that statement is not true. Most of the workers at my firm are at-will employees, I however have a contract that mitigates the at-will provisions. It is unlawful to terminate a worker because of their gender, age, race, national origin or religious affiliation, even in an at-will employment situation. You can not violate an employee's civil rights in termination. Collective bargaining agreements, (of which there are some in the State, teachers for one group, most Federal workers for another) also mitigate the at-will status.

Not true. It happens every single day. You can see this first hand at Hooters, strip clubs, advertisements, magazines, and even tv and in movies. It is very legal and very ethical if such trait is dependent of the completion of the job. It may not happen often where you work, but it does in a lot of other fields.

[DRM]

But if they want to try to control what I keep inside my personal car (my private property), that is different.

They are controlling what is ON THEIR PROPERTY. Why on earth some of you want to keep overlooking that is beyond me.

So the question becomes: Is my car still my private property when it is parked in my employers lot?

Yet you want to claim their property is not their property, when your car is on it.

The obvious answer is yes, it is still my private property. I have a right to store my private property (my gun) inside my private property (my car) sitting on a lot where I have been invited to park by my employer.

Your invitation to park there was conditional, it is not open-ended. Here, let me show you:

I am giving you an invitation to come visit me, and park in my driveway.

Your invitation to come visit me is conditional, and is revoked should you plan to come to my property wearing a clown suit. I do not allow people wearing clown suits to come to my property.

[DRM]

Or I can just work to change the law so I can keep my otherwise great job.

EDIT: There is no perfect job. I am just trying to change the things that are changeable. This is a very changeable policy.

Which gets back to what I said: you want to take the easy and selfish way of taking away a property owner's rights so you can get your way.

I will say that again:

You want to take away someone else's rights so you can have your way.

[Punisher84]

Which gets back to what I said: you want to take the easy and selfish way of taking away a property owner's rights so you can get your way.

I will say that again:

You want to take away someone else's rights so you can have your way.

You have the comprehension of a 4 year old. And I'm being gracious.

[Guest mosinon]

This is why we can't have nice thins. Everyone is talking about the possibilities rather than the probabilities.

This happens a lot on gun oriented forums. Is it possible that three ninjas are going to repel down your chimney and for the sole purpose of assassinating you? Is is further possible that because you deep carry and have some home defense plan laid out that you'll be able to kill the three ninjas?

The answer to both questions are, I suppose, yes. But the scenario just isbn't all that probable.

Same thing with the parking lot bill. Is is possible that businesses can get around it? Certainly. Hell, that is why they call it job, you're doing something that you wouldn't do if they didn't pay you.

Is it likely that businesses will seek a way to get around the law? Probably not. If you're running a business you've got more important things to worry about.