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

[JAB]

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?

My private property remains my private property no matter where the vehicle is parked. My car does not become the property of my employer simply because it is parked in the employer's parking lot. I do not use my vehicle for work and the items I choose to keep contained within my vehicle have nothing to do with my job. If I am parked in an employer's parking lot then only such items as are on the exterior of the vehicle are 'interfaced', for lack of a better word, with the employer's property. Any items within the confines of my vehicle, however, are enclosed within my private property. If something is inside my car, it is outside the employer's domain as it is enclosed within my private property. Period. If I remove something (a firearm, for instance) from my vehicle while on the employer's property then it becomes the employer's business. As long as it remains within the confines of my vehicle, however, it is none of the employer's business and the employer should have no right to interfere with my private property nor should employment be conditional on granting the employer permission to do something (search my vehicle) that has nothing to do with my job.

Unlike the building in which an employer's business is housed, most parking lots (those that aren't gated, fenced, etc.) are defined simply by where the pavement ends. A vehicle interior, however, is (like a building) a space that is generally more clearly, physically defined and enclosed.

Edited March 21, 2011 by JAB

[Guest nicemac]

My private property remains my private property no matter where the vehicle is parked. My car does not become the property of my employer simply because it is parked in the employer's parking lot. I do not use my vehicle for work and the items I choose to keep contained within my vehicle have nothing to do with my job. If I am parked in an employer's parking lot then only such items as are on the exterior of the vehicle are 'interfaced', for lack of a better word, with the employer's property. Any items within the confines of my vehicle, however, are enclosed within my private property. If something is inside my car, it is outside the employer's domain as it is enclosed within my private property. Period. If I remove something (a firearm, for instance) from my vehicle while on the employer's property then it becomes the employer's business. As long as it remains within the confines of my vehicle, however, it is none of the employer's business and the employer should have no right to interfere with my private property nor should employment be conditional on granting the employer permission to do something (search my vehicle) that has nothing to do with my job.

Unlike the building in which an employer's business is housed, most parking lots (those that aren't gated, fenced, etc.) are defined simply by where the pavement ends. A vehicle interior, however, is (like a building) a space that is generally more clearly, physically defined and enclosed.

^^^^ This.

[Oh Shoot]

My private property remains my private property no matter where the vehicle is parked. My car does not become the property of my employer simply because it is parked in the employer's parking lot.....

That's always a persuasive argument, and surely the one seen as valid by the states that have passed "parking lot possession" statutes. Haven't read about any constitutional challenges after the fact on any of them either.

- OS

[Guest nicemac]

Does anyone know what the actual status of this bill is at this point?

(March 22)

Does it look like it is going to pass?

[RobertNashville]

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?

Absolutely; an employer/business has every right to control whether a vehicle is parked in his parking lot but if that employer doesn't want vehicles on his property then he shouldn't allow VEHICLES on his property (i.e. not have parking lots). However, dictating what can be inside of a vehicle is moving beyond the employer's rights and infringing on the property rights of the vehicle owner.

It's no one's business...no one's concern, what is inside of a person's vehicle or a person's house or a person's shed in his back yard for that matter - the only reasonable exception to that is if what is inside is illegal/criminal at which point it becomes the "business" of law enforcement - even then, a LEO would need cause and/or a search warrant to force a search.

I'd possibly go alone with the "employer's rights" argument if there were a know, demonstrable, negative impact on a business because of a vehicle's contents...something that truly infringes on the operation of the business...were that the case, I think the argument would need to change; but I've never heard anyone argue that otherwise legal items simply "being inside" of a vehicle parked in an employer's parking lot impacts the business in any way.

[RobertNashville]

Does anyone know what the actual status of this bill is at this point?

(March 22)

Does it look like it is going to pass?

Frankly, I won't be surprised if nothing "gun" related passes this year although last I heard the "parking lot" bill was at least still alive and had a chance...the TFA website might have something more about it.

[DRM]

Absolutely; an employer/business has every right to control whether a vehicle is parked in his parking lot but if that employer doesn't want vehicles on his property then he shouldn't allow VEHICLES on his property (i.e. not have parking lots).

The "vehicle" is not the issue, the gun is. The employer doesn't care about the vehicle - he may however want the gun removed from HIS property. If your gun is in your car on HIS property, you can either remove the gun, or remove the car that the gun is in... Either way - the gun is off of his property.

Saying the employer has to ban all vehicles simple because he wants YOUR GUN off his property is absurd.

However, dictating what can be inside of a vehicle is moving beyond the employer's rights and infringing on the property rights of the vehicle owner.

It's no one's business...no one's concern,

Wrong - it is the property owner's concern what is on his property.

what is inside of a person's vehicle or a person's house or a person's shed in his back yard for that matter

Again, your argument is flawed. A person's house or shed is in THEIR back yard, not sitting on their employer's or some other business property (parking lot). If your house was sitting in someone else's parking lot - then yes, it IS their concern, Just as if my car was parked on YOUR property.

the only reasonable exception to that is if what is inside is illegal/criminal at which point it becomes the "business" of law enforcement - even then, a LEO would need cause and/or a search warrant to force a search

The issue of searching a vehicle is a separate issue entirely.

I'd possibly go alone with the "employer's rights" argument if there were a know, demonstrable, negative impact on a business because of a vehicle's contents...something that truly infringes on the operation of the business...were that the case, I think the argument would need to change; but I've never heard anyone argue that otherwise legal items simply "being inside" of a vehicle parked in an employer's parking lot impacts the business in any way.

So they only get to retain their property rights if they can prove to you why they want those rights? No thanks, I have no interest in that kind of Totalitarian thinking.

You do not have to "prove" why you don't want my gun on your property - you can simply tell me to remove it. All property owners should have exactly the same rights.

[DRM]

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.

As long as the property owner retains the right to ask you to remove your car for ANY reason or NO reason - then I could support something along those lines... and I agree - take "guns" out of the equation and bring the focus on defining property rights.

[RobertNashville]

...

What's absurd are your arguments.

No employer...in fact no ONE has a right to know or control what's in my vehicle...period.

[Guest nicemac]

I emailed Rep. McDonald. Here is his reply:

Dear Kevin,

I hope the committee approves HB 0355. I am waiting on support from

legislators who may be co-sponsors. Also, I haven't yet received

support from the NRA and the Tennessee Firearms Association. I welcome

co-sponsors and support.

Sincerely,

Mike McDonald

State Representative

[Guest nicemac]

I emailed Rep. McDonald. Here is his reply:

Dear Kevin,

I hope the committee approves HB 0355. I am waiting on support from

legislators who may be co-sponsors. Also, I haven't yet received

support from the NRA and the Tennessee Firearms Association. I welcome

co-sponsors and support.

Sincerely,

Mike McDonald

State Representative

If you would like to see this bill pass, write your representative. If you are a member of the TFA or NRA, let them hear from you on this as well.

[RobertNashville]

NRA is unlikely to support it because they've got their own garbage bill on the table that isn't going to see the light of day.

[DRM]

What's absurd are your arguments.

There's a shocker - Robert can't debate specifics so he jumps straight to blanket dismissal.

Listen, you can disagree with me all you want... that's fine. But if you honestly can't comprehend the concept that you are advocating taking away property rights... And that some of us hold property rights in high regard - then you've got bigger issues that none of us can help you with.

No employer...in fact no ONE has a right to know or control what's in my vehicle...period.

You claim that, yet you think you should get to control what is ON someone's land? Are you seeing the double standard you have prepared for yourself yet?

[RobertNashville]

...

I comprehend quite well (of course you often seem to accuse anyone who doesn't agree with you as having a comprehension problem). ROTFLMAO

[DRM]

I comprehend quite well (of course you often seem to accuse anyone who doesn't agree with you as having a comprehension problem). ROTFLMAO

Dismissal, then mockery.

Again, let me know when you can present an adult response.

[RobertNashville]

Dismissal, then mockery.

Dismissal, yes.

Mockery? No; an observation based on past experience with you in other threads

Again, let me know when you can present an adult response.

Edited March 22, 2011 by RobertNashville

[GKar]

Folks, take it outside, or out back, or out into the street. Its old...and everybody here is already abundantly clear on the stance from both sides. You have not yet succeeded in changing one another's minds while traipsing across multiple threads...why not just start your own dedicated thread and slug it out there? That way, those who find it entertaining or educational have a one-stop shop where they can go to find all the arguments...and those who desire otherwise will know exactly the thread to avoid.

Thanks to those who have contributed info RE the progress/lack thereof for the bill, including the recent contact with the sponsor!

[DaveTN]

Absolutely; an employer/business has every right to control whether a vehicle is parked in his parking lot but if that employer doesn't want vehicles on his property then he shouldn't allow VEHICLES on his property (i.e. not have parking lots). However, dictating what can be inside of a vehicle is moving beyond the employer's rights and infringing on the property rights of the vehicle owner.

It's no one's business...no one's concern, what is inside of a person's vehicle or a person's house or a person's shed in his back yard for that matter - the only reasonable exception to that is if what is inside is illegal/criminal at which point it becomes the "business" of law enforcement - even then, a LEO would need cause and/or a search warrant to force a search.

I'd possibly go alone with the "employer's rights" argument if there were a know, demonstrable, negative impact on a business because of a vehicle's contents...something that truly infringes on the operation of the business...were that the case, I think the argument would need to change; but I've never heard anyone argue that otherwise legal items simply "being inside" of a vehicle parked in an employer's parking lot impacts the business in any way.

Here’s the scenario…

I tell you that I own manufacturing operation. As part of my operation I use highly flammable liquids that are stored in storage tanks on my property. Your vehicle is not a threat to these tanks while it is in the parking lot. However…. These tanks would be vulnerable to gun shots. If one of these tanks were to be comprimised by a gun shot it could expolde and kill everyone at my facility and probably people at other businesses within in the area.

I explain to you that I have banned firearms because they are a threat to the safety of everyone in the area. I further explain that I am not willing to put my employee’s lives at risk because you seem to think that because you bought a privilege from the state, I should somehow see it as a right.

Does this make sense to you?

[Oh Shoot]

... If one of these tanks were to be comprimised by a gun shot it could expolde and kill everyone at my facility and probably people at other businesses within in the area...

Could always have special (and factually valid) exemptions to statute I guess. As I understand it, Disney has that in FL, because of "explosives" being on site, however bogus that actually is.

- OS

[RobertNashville]

Here’s the scenario…

I tell you that I own manufacturing operation. As part of my operation I use highly flammable liquids that are stored in storage tanks on my property. Your vehicle is not a threat to these tanks while it is in the parking lot. However…. These tanks would be vulnerable to gun shots. If one of these tanks were to be comprimised by a gun shot it could expolde and kill everyone at my facility and probably people at other businesses within in the area.

I explain to you that I have banned firearms because they are a threat to the safety of everyone in the area. I further explain that I am not willing to put my employee’s lives at risk because you seem to think that because you bought a privilege from the state, I should somehow see it as a right.

Does this make sense to you?

You quoted my post but did you read it? I said...

...I'd possibly go alone with the "employer's rights" argument if there were a know, demonstrable, negative impact on a business because of a vehicle's contents...something that truly infringes on the operation of the business...

I'd say that possibly killing everyone at the facility would probably fall into that "demonstrable negative impact" I was talking about.

What "privilege" have I bought?

The only right I've talked about is my "right" to control what is in my private property (in this case, my vehicle) - that as long as what I have is not otherwise illegal that it's no one's business what is or isn't in my vehicle - if there is valid suspicion that I do have something illegal then it's a matter for the police to address.

I do wonder just how "dangerous" a firearm truly is to your storage tanks while it's sitting inside of a vehicle; probably in a storage compartment and perhaps even unloaded...I mean, firearms don't generally load themselves and pull their own trigger.

And, if a negligent discharge in your parking could really kill everyone; what are you going to do about all those cars that drive by that business every day, many of which likely has a firearm inside - it seems like they would present even more of a danger than an firearm that's just sitting in an empty vehicle.

[Guest nicemac]

Folks, take it outside, or out back, or out into the street. Its old...and everybody here is already abundantly clear on the stance from both sides. You have not yet succeeded in changing one another's minds while traipsing across multiple threads...why not just start your own dedicated thread and slug it out there? That way, those who find it entertaining or educational have a one-stop shop where they can go to find all the arguments...and those who desire otherwise will know exactly the thread to avoid.

Thanks to those who have contributed info RE the progress/lack thereof for the bill, including the recent contact with the sponsor!

If a LOT of people contact their representative, this might have a chance of getting passed.

[DRM]

If a LOT of people contact their representative, this might have a chance of getting passed.

I've contacted mine, and expressed how bad of an idea this legislation is, as written - while suggesting other approaches that do not take away property rights.

[DRM]

Folks, take it outside, or out back, or out into the street. Its old...and everybody here is already abundantly clear on the stance from both sides. You have not yet succeeded in changing one another's minds while traipsing across multiple threads...why not just start your own dedicated thread and slug it out there?

I really could care less about changing Robert's mind - it's clear he lacks the ability to discuss like an adult.

I do however hold firm to the position that legislation such as this is a theft of property rights, even though the supporters of it do their best to ignore that fact while they try to get *their* way (everyone-else--be-damned). So if just one other person sees this for the theft that it is, I'm happy someone else "gets it"

[RobertNashville]

I really could care less about changing Robert's mind - it's clear he lacks the ability to discuss like an adult.

I do however hold firm to the position that legislation such as this is a theft of property rights, even though the supporters of it do their best to ignore that fact while they try to get *their* way (everyone-else--be-damned). So if just one other person sees this for the theft that it is, I'm happy someone else "gets it"

What a you are. ROTFLMAO

You need to look in the mirror if you want to see someone with the inability to discuss something like an adult.

[Guest friesepferd]

can you two pleast stop dancing around and accusing each other of acting like children? Your discussion had started off fine, and has now just turned into annoying finger pointing. You have different views on property rights. You have both expressed them. Thats great. Now please for the sake of us all, stop.