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

[DRM]

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

Feel free to explain why what I said is incorrect. The rest - I'm not interested.

[RobertNashville]

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.

Proven? You've made that claim but claiming isn't proof...claiming is just claiming.

A business is free to do what it wants to do only until the government says "no"...then it's the government's way or the business isn't in business.

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?

And as I have stated, private property used for private purposes is treated differently by society and by government.

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?

Whether those things are "right" or "wrong" is a different discussion...if the government actually said that theaters must allow in "outside food" then the theater would have to allow outside food; that is no different in concept or application than government banning smoking in most restaurants.

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?

I didn't say I had a "right" to be on an employer's property nor did I say I had a "right" to have a gun on their property...what I've said and what I'm saying is that if the State of Tennessee believes it is in the best interest of the public, then is has both the power and the authority to mandate that employers allow its employees to have firearms in their private vehicles while those vehicles are parked in parking lots provided for employees to park in.

Edited February 15, 2011 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

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.

There you go again...calling people selfish...but I suppose you'll deny this occurrence just like you have the others. ROTFLMAO

[RobertNashville]

...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.

Maybe most businesses have more important things to worry about but I'm not sure that's true of DRM...he seems to be very worried about this issue.

[strickj]

Robert:

You've proven nothing...claiming isn't proof...claiming is just claiming.

Camel snuff!

Unalienable right to enjoy your property. Remember that?

Whether those things are "right" or "wrong" is a different discussion...if the government actually said that theaters must allow in "outside food" then the theater would have to allow outside food; that is no different in concept or application than government banning smoking in most restaurants.

No it isn't a different discussion. It is the same thing we're discussing here but with a different item. Just answer the question.

And as I have stated, private property used for private purposes is treated differently by society and by government.

Just answer the question.

I didn't say I had a "right" to be on an employer's property nor did I say I had a "right" to have a gun on their property...what I've said and what I'm saying is that if the State of Tennessee believes it is in the best interest of the public, then is has both the power and the authority to mandate that employers allow its employees to have firearms in their private vehicles while those vehicles are parked in parking lots provided for employees to park in.

So, you do not have a right to have a gun on someone's property... but you want that right?

[strickj]

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.

Do you own a business? If so, then you do not have the right to write rules like that.

[RobertNashville]

Robert: Camel snuff!

Unalienable right to enjoy your property. Remember that?

I remember you've said that but I don't agree that business have such rights (for reasons explained in prior posts). Moreover, I'm suggesting that the fact that thousands if not tens of thousands of pages of government rules, regulations, mandates that control what businesses can and cannot do and how they can do it (including rules that affect a business's use of its property) is rather stark evidence that such inalienable rights don't exist for businesses; at least not in a practical way.

You've acknowledged that such government rules and regulations exist...you also claim that businesses can "write their own rules"...the acknowledgment and the subsequent claim simply can't both be true. Whatever "rule writing" a business can do STOPS at whatever point the government says it stops.

No it isn't a different discussion. It is the same thing we're discussing here but with a different item. Just answer the question.

Yes it is a different discussion. Discussions about "should"/"shouldn't" or "right"/"wrong" is entirely different than "can" or "can't".

I'm discussing "can" or "can't"; the fact that you want to discuss "right" or "wrong" doesn't make the two discussions identical.

Just answer the question.

I did answer the question but I'll expand it for you...the answer is that government and society treats private property used for private purposes differently than it treats property used for business (and especially so if it's open to the public at large). So yes, that means that I, on my private property used for private purposes can write rules for guests on my private property but no, businesses/business property can only write "rules" until those rules conflict with what the government mandates beyond which point the business's rules are moot.

So, you do not have a right to have a gun on someone's property... but you want that right?

I'm not asking for a "right"...I'm not saying it is a "right"...I simply say that the State of Tennessee has the power and authority to mandate that businesses allow firearms in their employees private vehicles even while those vehicles are parked in the company's parking lots.

Do yo deny that the state has that power?

Yes..I do want the state to do so because I want to see our (including my) carry opportunities expanded but I haven't said nor have I claimed it's a right.

I never claimed that I had a "right" to carry inside a bar/restaurant where alcohol was served but I did want the state to make that possible for HCP holders just as I want to see carry opportunities expanded/restrictions on carry reduced.

Edited February 15, 2011 by RobertNashville

[Worriedman]

Originally Posted by DRM

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.

In response you said:

Do you own a business? If so, then you do not have the right to write rules like that.

Earlier in the thread you said:

Your "right" to carry a gun does not trump a property owners rights to tell you "no guns", "no worshiping", or "no red and purple polka-dotted socks"

DRM can not limit clown suits at his business, but strickj can limit red and purple polka-dotted socks?

[DRM]

Do you own a business? If so, then you do not have the right to write rules like that.

It was simply an example that an invitation to come on someone's property is not necessarily without any restrictions at all.

[GKar]

I mean no offense to any of the participants, but as the OP, I'd like to request a moderator to kindly close this thread. A lot has been said (some repeatedly), and many good points have been made - illustrating the fact that this can be a relatively complex issue. But it seems that most of the arguments have been made, and folks clearly have their respective beliefs and have stated them well. Let's leave this one as it is before it succumbs to less noble efforts borne of frustration and confidence in one's own position.

[Guest friesepferd]

I would rather see this thread left open, but say that there has been enough discussion as to whether or not this is a good bill.

Lets instead keep it open and request that people only post with updates reguarding the actual bill.

[RobertNashville]

I was hoping that the parking lot bill would be discussed at last night's TFA meeting (it was a great meeting) but it was only mentioned in passing except that it is being carried through the senate to acquire a sponsor in the senate and that, with the current legislative makeup, it does have a decent chance of passage.

That said, whether this thread is closed or not; it won't stop folks from updating the bill's progress (or lack of progress) as it moves along.

That aside, I though OP's could close their own threads - maybe that's only possible in the WTB/WTS sections?

[Worriedman]

Sen. Tim Barnes (Clarksville area) has offered a companion Bill in that Chamber, SB1053.

It has made it to the show, now we will see what happens.

[Guest Humby45]

]I wish this would also include university parking lots[/color]. This is a great step though. I heard something mentioned about campus carry on the radio earlier but didn't catch much of it.

This would be great. I hate going unarmed to and from class at night.

[Guest tnxdshooter]

One this doesnt really apply to me now cuz I work from home. Two I hope it passes. Three I just took my armed security officer test last week and passed and am awaiting processing from the state. At which time this bill would be a moot point because I would then be able to carry at work LOL.

[Guest pfries]

After much enjoyable and some informative reading I still have a "question" about this.

The company I work for is not posted, it is in the hand book that weapons are not allowed on company property, and they also state that they may search my person and vehicle. I pass through metal detectors every day.

Question at what point did my personal vehicle become company property?

They do not have me drive it in any regular course of business; they do not put gas in it or pay the maintenance on it.

Nowhere in the hand book did I sign off on giving them possession of my personal property while at work.

Though this Bill may be poorly worded I feel it is needed to preserve the sanctity of our rights and privileges that have been discussed in this post, albeit a small step, it is a step in the right direction. I feel it will help bring to light the rights and privileges that have been stifled through legislation. No war was won with a single battle so each victory must not be taken lightly no matter how trifle it may seem.

[DaveTN]

After much enjoyable and some informative reading I still have a "question" about this.

The company I work for is not posted, it is in the hand book that weapons are not allowed on company property, and they also state that they may search my person and vehicle. I pass through metal detectors every day.

Question at what point did my personal vehicle become company property?

They do not have me drive it in any regular course of business; they do not put gas in it or pay the maintenance on it.

Nowhere in the hand book did I sign off on giving them possession of my personal property while at work.

Though this Bill may be poorly worded I feel it is needed to preserve the sanctity of our rights and privileges that have been discussed in this post, albeit a small step, it is a step in the right direction. I feel it will help bring to light the rights and privileges that have been stifled through legislation. No war was won with a single battle so each victory must not be taken lightly no matter how trifle it may seem.

Since they have a “company handbook†it sounds like it is a condition on employment. Any private business owner can make “All Vehicles Subject To Search†a condition of entry or employment. There are many valid reasons for that other than searching for guns.

Your vehicle didn’t become company property and your rights aren’t being violated. If you don’t agree with the policies your company put in place you are not required to enter their property.

I know that this doesn’t sit well with some; but the alternative is worse.

[Guest pfries]

Since they have a “company handbook†it sounds like it is a condition on employment. Any private business owner can make “All Vehicles Subject To Search†a condition of entry or employment. There are many valid reasons for that other than searching for guns.

Your vehicle didn’t become company property and your rights aren’t being violated. If you don’t agree with the policies your company put in place you are not required to enter their property.

I know that this doesn’t sit well with some; but the alternative is worse.

Very well put and I agree the alternatives could be worse.

That being said I have no Issue with allowing them to search my person or my vehicle as I do not have anything to hide. These are in place to protect company property. However if “My†carry weapon, target pistol, or hunting rifle is found during a search of “My†car and no laws have been broken then I do feel that those items were found on “My†property.

Why should the property rights of a “company or a corporation†trump mine?

You could even argue this from a transportation stand point.

You are allowed to transport a fire arm to and from a place where you can legally have it. Federal statutes cover this as well as state. You are transporting it from Home to the range or from home to home. These statutes do state that you cannot per say stop to go to the amusement park; however you can stop to eat, use the rest room, get fuel or find lodging for the night. So they imply (dangerous word) that you can do what is necessary in you course of travel. You have to go to work; therefore it is necessary in your daily travels, which may include a trip to Wal-Mart or the range, living 15+ miles out of town no reasonable person (especially with today’s gas prices) is going to put an additional 30+ miles and hour + time into going home first to get there carry weapon or range guns when you can legally transport them.

[DaveTN]

Why should the property rights of a “company or a corporation†trump mine?

Let’s talk about that first. What rights are being trumped? Keep in mind for the state to force them on private business owners they would need to be rights recognized by the state for all citizens.

These are in place to protect company property.

The company has a responsibility to do what they see fit. What if they manufacture or as a by-product produce something that is explosive or flammable and they ban firearms on the property because a round going off could set off a large explosion?

What if you are showing Bubba your new handgun in the parking lot and crank off a round that goes through an office window and kills an employee. Is the state going to protect the company from the civil suit the employees spouse is going to file?

You could even argue this from a transportation stand point.

You are allowed to transport a fire arm to and from a place where you can legally have it. Federal statutes cover this as well as state. You are transporting it from Home to the range or from home to home. These statutes do state that you cannot per say stop to go to the amusement park; however you can stop to eat, use the rest room, get fuel or find lodging for the night. So they imply (dangerous word) that you can do what is necessary in you course of travel.

It would be a short argument.

The “Safe Passage Provision†specifically states that weapons must be unloaded, cased, and the ammunition separate from the weapon. It provides passage through an area where guns are banned by local law. I certainly wouldn’t say that it implies “do what is necessaryâ€, because it certainly doesn’t allow you to have a functioning weapon immediately accessible to you.

You have to go to work; therefore it is necessary in your daily travels, which may include a trip to Wal-Mart or the range, living 15+ miles out of town no reasonable person (especially with today’s gas prices) is going to put an additional 30+ miles and hour + time into going home first to get there carry weapon or range guns when you can legally transport them.

The state doesn’t care. If they did it wouldn’t be a crime for 90% of the states residents to carry a loaded handgun.

I support Tennessee being the next state to recognize not only the right to keep arms, but the right to bear arms. However, until that happens it would be ridiculous to think that the state could force private business owners to allow guns anywhere. And if legislation was enacted I doubt it would hold up under the immediate court challenges it would face.

[Oh Shoot]

You are allowed to transport a fire arm to and from a place where you can legally have it. Federal statutes cover this as well as state. You are transporting it from Home to the range or from home to home. These statutes do state that you cannot per say stop to go to the amusement park; however you can stop to eat, use the rest room, get fuel or find lodging for the night. ...

No they don't. Where did you get that? The Federal "safe passage" statute is quite succinct:

----------------------

Gun Control Act of 1968, Sec. 926A, Interstate transportation of firearms:

Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle:Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver's compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.

--------------------------

- OS

[rockman6]

Most companies note that if you bring your personal property on site (vehicle, lunch box, breifcase, etc), they have the right to inspect it. So, totally avoid the issue, you would need to park off company property which in most cases would be impractical. That said, most companies are ver cautious about inspecting personal property without cause.

[JAB]

Post deleted after reviewing OP's request that posts relate only to progress of the specific bill at hand.

Edited March 15, 2011 by JAB

[GKar]

Post at will, JAB; this thread has gone a whole lot farther than the bill, so why not...

[JAB]

Post at will, JAB; this thread has gone a whole lot farther than the bill, so why not...

Well, then, I do believe I will. Thankee, sir.

Basically, I was just going to say that I still believe that there is a much simpler way to handle this without having to bring 'guns' specifically into the mix. I also happen to believe that the 'way' of which I speak goes further to support individual rights as a whole, not just specific to those who would like to have a firearm in their vehicle on company property.

What I mean by 'simpler way' would be a bill recognizing that, plainly and simply, my vehicle is my property and what legally possessed items I choose to keep within the confines of my vehicle - as long as those items stay within the confines of my vehicle - are my business no matter where the vehicle happens to be parked at the time. Such a bill would expressly forbid anyone who is not a LEO (including employers) from searching another person's vehicle for any reason.

If the employer feels there is valid justification for searching an employees vehicle then the employer should have to call LE and explain specifically why they believe the vehicle should be searched. In other words, the employer would have to say, "We suspect he has been stealing widgets and taking them to his car on his lunch break," and provide the LE with an example of said widgets so he will know what to look for. The responding LEO should be required to have a warrant and the LEO should be forbidden from revealing any contents of the vehicle to the employer that have no connection to the employer (in other words, the cops would not be allowed to reveal information to employers regarding an employee's firearms, religious tracts, what is on the employee's iPod or the stack of Playboy magazines they found in the trunk.) Taking such a stance would change the legislation from being a 'gun bill' to being a 'bill to ensure individual personal property rights."

I know that such legislation would probably not apply to prison guards, some Oak Ridge employees, etc. (which really is too bad because I don't think that those folks should have to give up individual freedom/property rights, either.) Outside of those somewhat narrow boundaries, however, legal recognition of the fact that my vehicle is individual property and that employers have no right to violate individual property boundaries - nor to make employment conditional upon being granted permission to do so by the employee - would illeviate the problem while avoiding the amount of extreme polarization that a bill that is gun specific will likely bring.

Edited March 17, 2011 by JAB

[DaveTN]

So what you are saying is that what’s in your private property is your business. However if your employer tries to control what’s on his private property you want the government to step in and put him in his place and side with you?