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

[RobertNashville]

I see no mention or intention of this later transitioning to adding rights for ALL legal gun owners. What this bill says to me is selfish HCP holders just wanting to get *their* way, "who cares about anyone else".

I have no problem standing firm in my position that does not further drive a wedge between legal gun owning citizens and the special HCP holder "club", even if that means I - as an HCP holder - don't get special perks.

First of all, just where the hell do you get off calling all HCP holders selfish? Do you have some clairvoyant powers that you haven't told us about? Do you have some insider knowledge about the author of this bill that supports your ridiculous insult or are you just talking out of your back side?

I'm sorry that you seem to have such a lack of understating of the political process. I wonder if, when you play poker, you keep your cards face up on the table so your opponents know what's in your hand (because that is effectively what you are suggesting this bill and bills like it ought to do)???

Let me offer some some common sense.

Although it apparently disgusts you; we have an HCP process which now has substantial history behind it to show that those who carry are responsible, law-abiding citizens. Even those who don't especially like guns (or even hate them) have a difficult hurdle to climb over in arguing with the facts that we haven't had the "old-west" style shootouts in the streets that many of them predicted...nor can they argue with the fact that those who have gone through the HCP process have had some (albeit not great) training and gone through background checks. By limiting the bill's reach to only HCP holders it automatically and I would suggest significantly weakens the arguments of those who always oppose an expansion of our carry options - thus making this bill a lot more palatable and much more likely to get support and pass.

Starting out with some broad, comprehensive bill that would allow anyone who might want to pick up a gun (assuming they can legally possess one) would mean that instead of climbing a steep hill to get this through we would be climbing Mt. Everest.

If you are going to wait for the perfect bill (on any issue) before you will give your support to it then I guess you'll be waiting for a long, long, long time...which probably also means that you don't vote very often either since you are likely holding out for the "perfect" candidate. Moreover, had we had a lot of people with that attitude in Tennessee in the mid-90's most law-abiding Tennesseans would still not be able to carry their weapons outside of their home - the bill that made that possible wasn't a perfect bill either but we got it passed and we've improved our carry rights since.

The fight doesn't begin or end with any one bill...it's a process...it will always be a process...as long as good people keep pushing for our firearms rights we'll keep getting improvements even if it takes a long time; the fact that you don't see the "mention or intention" in this bill that you want notwithstanding.

Edited February 11, 2011 by RobertNashville

[Guest Guy N. Cognito]

Is that coming from the author of the bill, or just your speculation?

Is that your strategy to convince the average gun owner they need to support this - that they "may" get this ability one day too?

If we presumably can't get all gun owners this right *now*, do you have reason to believe that you can get all gun owners this right next year? Or perhaps in 3 years? What is the game plan for moving forward with that (Assuming that is the eventual goal)?

And in 3 years, when HCP holders have the right and nobody else does, are you satisfied knowing you got what *you* wanted, tough-luck for all of the other legal gun owners? I'm just not satisfied with that position, personally.

You have to take what you can get. You have a chance of getting this bill passed for hcp holders, but it's my opinion that getting a bill passed for everyone to carry a gun in their just won't get passed any time soon. There are way too many people that would oppose that type of bill, including some gun owners.

Of course, if the propose bill is passed, all a law abiding gun owner that wants to leave a gun in their car would have to do is get a permit. I dont think you'd be leaving out as many gun owners as you'd think.

"All or nothing" sounds great and dramatic on paper, but the real world usually demands compromise.

[RobertNashville]

Oh get out of here with that ****. I don't see "the average gun owner" beating down doors for this type of legislation. This has always been a permit holder and normal carrier issue. Most gun owners don't give a **** and that's why the laws are the way they are. Its a "special group" that wants this passed and it's those people who will get it passed, not the lazy average gun owner with a hunting rifle and Granddad's .38.

Amen

I think DRM just want's to argue...you don't have to read very many of his post in the the recent thread where the subject of employees keeping their firearms in their locked vehicles in company parking lots came up before you realize that he doesn't really want a business' employees or customers to be able to keep a firearm in their vehicle while parked in a parking lot...this sudden and overwhelming concern for the "average"/non-HCP holder firearm owner rings VERY hollow. I think this prior post (below) makes his real position pretty clear...

...Sorry, but I refuse to use that logic when it comes to taking away rights and freedoms.

Just because a person chooses to run a business on their property is NOT a defacto reason to strip away that property owner's property rights, especially not based on the fact that the government has already taken away other rights.

Property rights should be retained - period.

If I don't want you carrying a gun on my property - business or personal - that should be my right as a property owner.

I have discussed this here before, and there ARE solutions that preserve property rights and carry rights. For example - an employer should have the right to restrict guns from his property, however the property owner should ONLY have the recourse of asking someone to remove a gun from their property. An employer should not have the right to search or inspect a vehicle of an employee for guns - because that too would be infringing on property rights. Just as people carry - on their person - guns into places where they are legally not allowed, you would still have employees keep guns in their vehicle if they deem the need worthy of the risk (being asked to leave, or losing their job), and still retain everyone's rights.

Gun rights are here to PROTECT property rights, not trample on them. I will not ever be party to taking away property rights in that manner.

It seems clear from the above that DRM feels that property rights trump all others...that while he feels employees can leave firearms in their vehicles, he thinks they should or at least can be fired for doing so.

Given the above, I doubt that there can be a parking lot bill that Mr. DRM would support; especially if it only applies to us selfish HCP holders! ROTFLMAO

Edited February 11, 2011 by RobertNashville

[Punisher84]

Amen

I think DRM just want's to argue...you don't have to read very many of his post in the the recent thread where the subject of employees keeping their firearms in their locked vehicles in company parking lots came up before you realize that he doesn't really want a business' employees or customers to be able to keep a firearm in their vehicle while parked in a parking lot...this sudden and overwhelming for the average/non-HCP holder firearm owner rings VERY hollow.

Nothing I've seen him post in the last week even makes sense. He's been here since 2008, but all of the sudden he just starts up with all this random crap.

[Worriedman]

Oh get out of here with that ****. I don't see "the average gun owner" beating down doors for this type of legislation. This has always been a permit holder and normal carrier issue. Most gun owners don't give a **** and that's why the laws are the way they are. Its a "special group" that wants this passed and it's those people who will get it passed, not the lazy average gun owner with a hunting rifle and Granddad's .38.

Well said.

The current law allowing a defense against going armed is the HCP program, it is legal, while it may in fact not be Constitutional, it is what we have to deal with. If one wishes to change that stance in the State of Tennessee, a much large percentage of dollars will have to be spent to elect Legislators who believe in that principal.

What is being attempted at this juncture it to work with the Legislators we have, and to convince them that those who are seriously desirous of providing for their own defense by enjoying the benefit of participating in the current program as allowed, (remembering that the State Legislators have the Power to restrict the wearing or bearing of arms outside the individual's property) is a worthy endeavor. All or none is a stance that will gain nothing.

I for one, am content to gain incrementally on reducing the current restrictions, proving as a group that the public trust regarding the HCP holders to be measured first is valid, as they have proven to be the most concerned.

We build credence that way.

Edited February 11, 2011 by Worriedman

[Fallguy]

I think the reason that most firearms legislation mentions HCP holders is because for the most part, we/they are the only ones that can generally, legally carry/have a loaded firearm away from their house in the first place.

I could be wrong, but I figure the main reason for this bill is to address those that have said they don't want to be disarmed between work and home because they couldn't have have their handgun at work. I am also assuming they meant loaded. I haven't really heard hunters complain about not being able to have their unloaded rifle in their vehicle because they were going hunting after/before work. However if that is a concern of enough of them, they should try to get a bill, or amended this one. But in the meantime there is no reason not to support this bill.

Edited February 11, 2011 by Fallguy

[Guest nicemac]

I think the reason that most firearms legislation mentions HCP holders is because for the most part, we/they are the only ones that can generally, legally carry/have a loaded firearm away from their house in the first place.

I could be wrong, but I figure the main reason for this bill is to address those that have said they don't want to be disarmed between work and home because they couldn't have have their handgun at work. I am also assuming they meant loaded. I haven't really heard hunters complain about not being able to have their unloaded rifle in their vehicle because they were going hunting after/before work. However if that is a concern of enough of them, they should try to get a bill, or amended this one. But in the meantime there is no reason not to support this bill.

Ditto.

Edited February 11, 2011 by nicemac
Fix word in quoted post

[JAB]

Well, this won't get my support.

As we covered in other threads, I am opposed to removing a property owner's right to ask someone to leave their property if they do not want guns on their property.

More than that - I think the limitation to only HCP holders is what stinks in this bill - and it stinks of choosing favorites so that a select few can get what they want, everyone-else-be-damned.

In short - *if* this was a bill to allow ALL legal gun owners the ability to have a gun in their car, I'd probably hold my nose and support it in some way. But as it stands, it's nothing more than a special interest bill (HCP holders) and although I am an HCP holder, I'm not that selfish.

All, or none - that's my stand.

I do not intend to join the ranks of TGO members with whom you seem to have an ongoing argument. That said, I have to point out a flaw in your argument.

You say that you are an HCP holder but that you do not agree with bills that give special consideration only to HCP holders. However, you do realize, I am sure, that in Tennessee the ability to legally carry a loaded firearm 'in public' as it were is, by the very nature of the HCP system, a special privilege granted only to HCP holders. The fact that you have your HCP says to me that, while you might not think the law/system to be optimal, you agree with and support that law at least enough to participate by getting an HCP and, presumably, carrying a firearm even though other law-abiding gun owners who do not have a valid HCP can not enjoy that option- or at least not legally.

That said, while I would not oppose this bill, I must admit that I am not all that fired up about it, either. As it stands, it would not help those of us who are HCP holders and who work for schools - even private colleges (as in my case) one iota (I still don't buy the idea that parking my car in the lot during my shift at work equates to the vehicle being 'operated by' me and certainly wouldn't want to try and make that argument to get my ass out of legal trouble.) Neither would it help HCP holders who work in other, "Yeah, you went through the process, paid your money and were checked by all the proper authorities but the dumbass state government still doesn't trust you to have a pistol in your glove compartment while you are at work" locations.

Yes, my employers have rules against employees having firearms in their vehicles but that really doesn't matter either way as long as there is a state law prohibiting me from doing so - despite the fact that I HAVE gone through the necessary steps to obtain an HCP. Truthfully, the state's asinine stance on the subject concerns me a heck of a lot more than an employer's rule that isn't all that actively enforced, anyway (I've worked here for over five years and have yet to hear of a single vehicle being searched or even of such a request/demand having been made.) The decision to ignore an employer rule that probably is never going to matter, anyhow, is one thing (although I am not saying that I would, necessarily). The decision to violate state law is quite another. Therefore, I would much rather see a true 'castle doctrine' type bill that would protect a person's rights in their vehicle the same as in their home and removing the ridiculous 'unless your vehicle is parked here or here or over there' stupidity that exists in the current law.

Edited February 11, 2011 by JAB

[strickj]

It seems clear from the above that DRM feels that property rights trump all others...

Actually, a property owner's real rights do supersede an individual's perceived rights.

That is because a property owner has the real right to the full use and enjoyment to their property. An individual choosing to visit has no such rights to another person's property.

It would be no different then me pulling my truck in your driveway at 3am and yelling out of my window as loud as I can.

I certainly have the 1st amendment right to say what I want.... but I have absolutely no rights to yell in your driveway nor do I have the right to park my truck there.

As far as this bill goes, I'm not sure how I feel about it. I am all for any advancements in gun carry, but at the same time, I do not want to force someone to allow me to carry on their property. On top of that, it really is nothing more then a 'feel good bill'. TN being a work-at-will state, you can still be fired for whatever, for the most part.

[Worriedman]

Actually, a property owner's real rights do supersede an individual's perceived rights.

That is because a property owner has the real right to the full use and enjoyment to their property.

I can find no mention of "Private Property Rights" mentioned in our State Constitution, except for these:

Article 1 Section 21. "That no man’s particular services shall be demanded, or property taken, or applied to public use, without the consent of his representatives, or without just compensation being made therefore."

Article 1 Section 25. "That no citizen of this state, except such as are employed in the army of the United States, or militia in actual service, shall be subjected to punishment under the martial or military law. That martial law, in the sense of the unrestricted power of military officers, or others, to dispose of the persons,

liberties or property of the citizen, is inconsistent with the principles of free government, and is not confided to any department of the government of

this state."

Article 2 Section 28. "In accordance with the following provisions, all property real,

personal or mixed shall be subject to taxation..." the rest deals with percentages and type of properties that may and may not be taxed.

I believe all other provisions of accepted Tennessee Law which pertain to "Private Property Rights" are contained and covered by "Common Law", or am I mistaken about that?

The Legislature, or Courts of Tennessee can abrogate Common Law by statute or ruling respectively. According to Daniel Lewis, in his treatise on "Tennessee Common Law", The Common Law in Tennessee,

"The common law of a country will, therefore, never be entirely stationary, but will be modified, and extended by analogy, construction and custom, so as to embrace new relations, springing up from time to time, from an amelioration or change of society...

It is universally conceded that the fundamental principles of the common law are unchangeable, yet the courts recognize the necessity of flexibility in the application of old rules to new cases, so as to enable them to adapt these rules to the every varying conditions and emergencies of human society. The common law is not like the statute law, fixed and immutable by positive enactment, except where a principle has been adjudged as the rule of action. Where the reason for the rule fails, the rule should not apply....

§ 6. Effect of Adoption. -- The common law governs in a state unless changed by statute. The General Assembly is not prohibited from changing or abolishing the common law in force at the adoption of the state constitution, in the absence of restriction in that state or federal constitution; the phrase "law of the land" as used in the state constitution merely refers to the common and statute law then existing, but does not prohibit the change of the common law."

Case in point, the "Landlocked Property" instance, from Tennessee Supreme Court case, June 14, 2001 Session, DANIEL B. BARGE III v. EARL H. SADLER, ET AL. "The Tennessee legislature was not only concerned with providing vitally important outlets for landlocked property owners, it was also concerned with rights of citizens to enjoy their property without infringement by neighbors.", http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/opinions/tsc/PDF/021/BargeD.pdf, this sets aside an absolute "Property Right" of one party versus the other, and extends the benefit of any one set of "owners" regardless of the proximity of property, and mandates an ability of one to condemn property of one, although requiring just compensation for the loss, to realize an easement for the beneficial use of one, over the ownership of the other.

As the Legislature has deemed a private vehicle similar for one or more reasons in it's description of the "Castle Doctrine" and has extended the ability to defend oneself in a personally owned vehicle (weapon type consideration IS different, I agree, but for the sake of the benefit sought, a handgun is much preferable to nothing, and if the law was passed to allow handguns only, I for one would be satisfied) the same as in a personally owned dwelling, I see the ability to keep a legally owned and permitted weapon to facilitate that ability, IF the Legislature deigns to abrogate that section of Common Law, entirely legal and permissible under our State Constitution.

To make it legal for an individual Citizen to be able to keep a weapon, (decided upon by the Legislature, which by Law has the power to restrict the wearing [keeping] of arms, or not) in their personal vehicle in any parking lot, by it's charter in the Constitution, the Legislature has only to pass the law to do so, it would not require a Constitutional Amendment.

One man's opinion, I welcome critique.

[RobertNashville]

Actually, a property owner's real rights do supersede an individual's perceived rights.

That is because a property owner has the real right to the full use and enjoyment to their property. An individual choosing to visit has no such rights to another person's property.

It would be no different then me pulling my truck in your driveway at 3am and yelling out of my window as loud as I can. I certainly have the 1st amendment right to say what I want.... but I have absolutely no rights to yell in your driveway nor do I have the right to park my truck there.

As far as this bill goes, I'm not sure how I feel about it. I am all for any advancements in gun carry, but at the same time, I do not want to force someone to allow me to carry on their property. On top of that, it really is nothing more then a 'feel good bill'. TN being a work-at-will state, you can still be fired for whatever, for the most part.

I see a significant difference between private property used by an individual and for private purposes (my driveway and your truck at 3AM) and property that is being used for/open to the public (whether that "public" is made up of employees or of customers of the business). I see an even larger distinction if the property owner isn't a person at all but an artificial entity such as a corporation - such an entity doesn't even have a right to exist at all except at the pleasure of the state and no other "rights" except those afforded it by the state. I would also say that existing law and the way business is regulated would tend to support that distinction as there are many federal, state, and local laws that has either direct or indirect control over what a business can and can't do as well as how it can do it.

In the case of a "parking lot bill", I would offer that the benefit to society and people in general to be able to provide for their own protection is sufficient for the state to say that a parking lot can't be placed "off limits" and most especially so by mere "policy" rather than by actually posting. Keep in mind that a company's "policy" against firearms even in their parking lots effectively disarms a person not just for the time their vehicle is parked but for their entire commute to and from and anywhere else the person might need to go in between...in other words, an employer's "no firearms policy" extends far beyond the confines of their parking lot.

I am a strong supporter of property rights but in my opinion, a "parking lot" bill isn't an undue burden on an employer/business...it simply isn't a significant infringement on a business's property rights...no one is saying they must allow firearms within their facility proper and a legally carried firearm sitting in a person's private vehicle isn't a threat to anyone or any one's property rights especially since the firearm would be sitting inside my private property (although if my firearm started yelling as loud as it could at 3AM then that might be a different matter).

Edited February 12, 2011 by RobertNashville

[strickj]

[snip for ease of quoting]

See 'unalienable rights'

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.

[snip for ease of quoting]

In TN, you have public property (parks, roadways) and private property (homes, businesses). I understand that a home 'is not the same'... but, it is still private property. Even if owned by a corporation.

I do not want the government to tell a business owner that he, by law, has to let me carry a gun on his property.

Oh, I agree that having a gun in the car is not going to harm anyone. Also agree that having to disarm sucks.... but, carrying a gun is my choice the same as it's a property owner's choice to tell me 'no'. When it come's to who's choice (or "right") is more important, the property owner comes out on top. That is because it's his property, and you or myself, have no rights to be there.

Edited February 12, 2011 by strickj

[Worriedman]

See 'unalienable rights'

So, in understanding the Constitution and the Amendments, which are the codification of limits of power of the Government, and an expression of the explicit Rights guaranteed to each individual, you suggest that this is the definition of "unalienable rights":

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.

Even though the above quote that you posted speaks of the right of personal security before the right of enjoying property, in it's chronology of importance, (as does the Declaration of Independence itself, where it list them in this order, "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness", without life, you have no need of a guarantee of liberty) you would deny the individual right to avail oneself of the implicit ability to provide for personal security on the traverse to and from one's home, as specified in case law, (which may set aside Common Law, or do you deny that) if the TN Legislature or Courts set forth a statute that allowed it?

There is no absolute "Right" to enjoy property, the City, County State or Federal Government can take it for their use, as long as they justly compensate you for it. A neighbor can take it, again, they are required to compensate you for it, but the veil of absolute "Right" to property has been pierced, other individuals or governments may take your property, or your "right" to enjoy it for a variety of reasons.

I think that since no other entity, be that governmental or individual, is charged with providing that "right of personal security" that you so correctly pointed out, except for myself, I should be afforded the opportunity to provide it for myself. If the State Legislature decides to alter Common Law, deeming the need of the individual to be armed to provide for their own defense and security to be more important than the absolute "Right" to "enjoy property" as another may seem fit, it has standing in our Law. I purport that I am "landlocked" in a parking lot, and need an easement to the nearest "public road" to enjoy my right to personal security. If the State Legislature decides to abrogate the employer's ability to set standards denying the employee's ability to keep a certain weapon in their personal vehicle, (condition of employment) that is a legal, and in no way, unconstitutional situation.

[strickj]

Worriedman, you are confusing self defense and personal security with gun carrying. Carrying a gun is not self defense or personal security in and of itself. A gun is merely a tool in which to assist in the action.

You are forgetting that you have absolutely no rights to another's property. None. Zero. Zilch. If you do not like the rules in which have been burdened upon you, then leave the property.

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".

I challenge you to show where your"2nd amendment right applies to non-government entities.

[RobertNashville]

...In TN, you have public property (parks, roadways) and private property (homes, businesses). I understand that a home 'is not the same'... but, it is still private property. Even if owned by a corporation.

I do not want the government to tell a business owner that he, by law, has to let me carry a gun on his property.

Oh, I agree that having a gun in the car is not going to harm anyone. Also agree that having to disarm sucks.... but, carrying a gun is my choice the same as it's a property owner's choice to tell me 'no'. When it come's to who's choice (or "right") is more important, the property owner comes out on top. That is because it's his property, and you or myself, have no rights to be there.

I think our primary difference is that I simply do not (and I do not believe society or the government) believe that an artificial entity has the same rights to "property" as a person...one is a creation of government and one is not..."rights" enjoyed by an artificial entity such as a corporation are only available because the government grants them.

If that is a true statement then it follows that a government can take such rights away or modify them. I would think that if such were not the case, virtually any law affecting a corporation/business "property" in any way would never pass constitutional scrutiny.

I suppose I also have a bit more empathy for the private property rights of a business if so many businesses actually posted their property rather than simply make it a matter of "policy"...not posting seems almost cowardly to me. If keeping firearms off their property, including inside my locked private vehicle were really that important to them then they ought to be willing to post their property as we would expect any other business to do.

[Punisher84]

Worriedman, you are confusing self defense and personal security with gun carrying. Carrying a gun is not self defense or personal security in and of itself. A gun is merely a tool in which to assist in the action.

You are forgetting that you have absolutely no rights to another's property. None. Zero. Zilch. If you do not like the rules in which have been burdened upon you, then leave the property.

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".

I challenge you to show where your"2nd amendment right applies to non-government entities.

I agree to some extent, but here is where you have to view it reasonably.

My home is not open to the public unless I specifically make it so. Nor is my property. I control what goes on here. Don't like it? Leave or wear the metal bracelets.

Now, for example, I work at a hospital. I have heard more than a few times from people who have ended up enjoying a stay in the Shelby County jail that "This is a public place." Well no, not true. It's a private place, open to the public, but we still control what goes on here and what you can do inside. Don't like the rules? Leave or wear the metal bracelets.

Pretty simple for those two, but, here's why I draw the distinction. My personal vehicle is my property. I bought it, I control it, I lock it, I'm responsible for it. Even though I park it on a company's property, what is inside it is still mine and my responsibility. If I have a pound of weed in the trunk is the CEO going down with me? Me thinks not.

In a nutshell I think that physically carrying a gun on your BODY into a home or business that does not want it is a no go. I don't believe one right is more important, I believe they tie. Rock Vs. Rock, if you will. On the flip side of that, I believe your personal vehicle is a buffer. Call it a "gray area". I know it's not the best argument in the world, but it's my opinion on it.

[Worriedman]

.

I challenge you to show where your"2nd amendment right applies to non-government entities.

Do you think any individual has the power to infringe on my "Right" to keep and bear arms?

Now, as far as making my bearing arms or not on their premises as a condition of emplyoment, that is up to the State, and not the individual.

srtickj, I think you are confusing my approach, in no way am I insinuating "2nd Amendment" anything. I am speaking of a "natural right" to provide for my personal safety, and to enjoy the ability to be armed on my trip to and from home to work, as described in case law of the Supreme Court of TN, in Andrews v. State, it pointedly says in those findings, that if my use of a firearm does not cause harm to another, then I am entitled to carry it on that trip. Then too, there is that sticky Article 1 Section 26 thing.

Can an individual deprive another of Life or Liberty without restraint? If the Government may not, can your neighbor do so with impunity?

The 2nd Amendment deals with keeping sufficient arms to forestall and defeat a rouge government. Natural law demands that we use all instruments at our disposal to preserve our lives.

From time immemorial, mankind has striven to construct and perfect weapons for it's protection, from sticks sharpened in a fire to ward off the beast of the night, and those that competed with us for food, to the firearms we build and use today. The reason we prevail is our opposable thumbs and intellect to let us make weapons to kill or drive off our enemies. If my carrying of a firearm does not cause crime, the State, (which is the only entity which may restrict that Right) by Constitutional edict has said that I should be able to do so, for the common defense, individual personal safety fits right in there. If the State Legislature decides that it is a good idea to allow handguns locked in personal vehicles in parking lots, that in no way violates the Constitution of the Union or the State. In fact, I have proven that the Legislature and the Courts of Tennessee have the power to abrogate (change) any portion of Common Law as necessity may require.

Has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, and everything to do with natural common law, and sense.

Governments make laws with great frequency to regulate activities on personal property, you do not have the right to produce noxious smoke to the detriment of your neighbors, you can not raise cattle in an urban setting, municipalities regulate a multitude of activities which might be construed as "natural rights" all the time, they deny the individual "enjoyment" of private property to the benefit of the surrounding persons with regularity. Noise, light emission, grass height ordinances are a standard thing of life.

Businesses and corporations are not Citizens, they do not have individual Rights, why should their prerogative outweigh an individual's? I agree it should inside any building owned by anybody, I do not see it that way in my personal property, e.g. my vehicle parked outside the confines of that building.

Is ours a dangerous society? Would a HCP holder, who has perfected that permit through background check and State required class, and is adjudicated by law as allowed to carry his or her prescribed weapon into stores, restaurants, churches, parks and along our streets and highways, be likely to pose a problem by leaving it locked in a personal vehicle in a parking lot? We all know that criminals are not going to pay any attention to any sign, so simply restrain the legal and ethical individual to enjoy security by virtue of adhering to the old adage, "God created man, Samuel Colt made them equal". Are we as a society so stiff necked and narrow sighted as to cause a legal gun owner to be denied their ability to provide for the ONLY protection that can be offered Constitutionally, on a piece of parking area, outside the confines of any building?

Edited February 12, 2011 by Worriedman

[strickj]

Worriedman, you do not have any rights on another's private property. Whether real or perceived. unalienable rights to protecting yourself can not be taken from you, but like stated, a gun is merely a tool. It's an item. An object. That's all. It is not anything else. A gun can be taken away from you. If you get arrested and hauled off to jail, you will have your gun taken away from you, but you will still have the unalienable right to defend yourself from Big Bubba when he make's his move on you. Even though your right to carry a gun was taken, your right to defend yourself remained.

If you choose to use that tool for your protection and your boss say's 'not here', then you can choose to find another job, or to not carry. It's your choice. You do not have any rights to that job, nor the right to use or enjoy the owners' property.

Simple as that. It does not matter who the owner of the private property is. It does not matter if there is a sign and a parking lot in the front of the property, or a mailbox and a lawn in front of the property (house). The property is still owned by a person, and that person has the right to regulate the rules as he see's fit.

Governments make laws with great frequency to regulate activities on personal property, you do not have the right to produce noxious smoke to the detriment of your neighbors, you can not raise cattle in an urban setting, municipalities regulate a multitude of activities which might be construed as "natural rights" all the time, they deny the individual "enjoyment" of private property to the benefit of the surrounding persons with regularity. Noise, light emission, grass height ordinances are a standard thing of life.

Why are you trying to debate the right to enjoy your property? Yes, the government can regulate dangerous things/activities on private property. That does not mean that you do not have the right to enjoy your property.

We live in a free society... but we will always have laws, regulations, etc. to abide by. Does that mean that we are not still a free society?

Pretty simple for those two, but, here's why I draw the distinction. My personal vehicle is my property. I bought it, I control it, I lock it, I'm responsible for it. Even though I park it on a company's property, what is inside it is still mine and my responsibility. If I have a pound of weed in the trunk is the CEO going down with me? Me thinks not.

I agree with that. My car is my car is my car is my car. I'm not going to let anyone tell me what I can or can not keep in it (legal of coarse). But, being this is an at-will work state, your boss can tell you that you cant keep catchup (or katsoup) packets in your dashpocket if he want's to. Not much you can do about it shy of making this a right-to-work state. It's just one of those things in life where when you willing choose to do something (ie,work) you also agree to do things that you do not want to, or find another job.

Edited February 12, 2011 by strickj

[Punisher84]

I agree with that. My car is my car is my car is my car. I'm not going to let anyone tell me what I can or can not keep in it (legal of coarse). But, being this is an at-will work state, your boss can tell you that you cant keep catchup (or katsoup) packets in your dashpocket if he want's to. Not much you can do about it shy of making this a right-to-work state. It's just one of those things in life where when you willing choose to do something (ie,work) you also agree to do things that you do not want to, or find another job.

Agreed. Like someone else said before, if they find out and want to fire you because you're carrying, even within the law, they'll find a way.

[DRM]

When you want to move mountains - you generally don't get it done by telling the bulk of your workforce "no, really - help us get this done for our little group to reap the benefits, and we promise we'll come back to get the rest of you!"

And the property owners should be able to ask you to remove your car from their property - just like you can ask me to remove my car from your driveway.

[DRM]

Has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, and everything to do with natural common law, and sense.

There is nothing natural about forcing a property owner to let you on their property against their will.

Governments make laws with great frequency to regulate activities on personal property,

Just because governments do it, or laws are made about it. doesn't make it right, or "natural".

[DRM]

First of all, just where the hell do you get off calling all HCP holders selfish?

I did not call "all HCP holders selfish". I am an HCP holder, and I favor laws that are EQUAL for ALL gun owners - that is not a selfish position. By definition, HCP holders seeking to get special privileges for only HCP holders are being selfish:

concerned chiefly or only with yourself and your advantage to the exclusion of others

define: selfish - Google Search

[DRM]

Agreed. Like someone else said before, if they find out and want to fire you because you're carrying, even within the law, they'll find a way.

The solution - as I see it - is twofold:

1. Remove an employer's ability to search your private property (your car) - only giving them the same right every other property owner has: ask you to remove that car from their property. Letting employers search employee's car is ABSURD.

2. Remove an employer's ability to fire you for having a gun in your car. Sure, they can fire you for no or valid reasons in an at-will state, but the employee now has legal grounds to bring a wrongful termination suit if you were fired due to the gun, because that would no longer be a legal reason to fire.

[DaveTN]

Do you think any individual has the power to infringe on my "Right" to keep and bear arms?

Absolutely.

If I tell you I don’t want you carrying on my property; that’s how it is. Who will you call to complain?

The state doesn’t recognize a right to carry, what makes you think I would have to?

Let me ask you this… It is a crime for 95% of the citizens of the state of Tennessee to carry a loaded gun in their car. Do you think that your HCP somehow gives you a special Constitutional right they do not have?

If it’s not a Constitutional right, but a natural right the property owner can make the argument that he is protecting his life and the lives of his family by not allowing guns on his property. Once a Tennessee court acknowledges a “Natural Right†we are on the way to making Tennessee the third state where “Bear Arms†means something.

However…. Tennessee (and many other states) has proven in the past that they are more than willing to trample all over the rights of business owners. They did it with the smoking ban so they may do it with this.

I take the same stand on this I took on the posting issue. Unless someone can show that an owner was somehow involved in a shooting other than it simply being on their property; they have absolute immunity. And I don’t see lawyers allowing the “deep pockets†a way out of this.

[Worriedman]

Worriedman, you do not have any rights on another's private property. Whether real or perceived. unalienable rights to protecting yourself can not be taken from you, but like stated, a gun is merely a tool. It's an item. An object. That's all. It is not anything else. A gun can be taken away from you. If you get arrested and hauled off to jail, you will have your gun taken away from you, but you will still have the unalienable right to defend yourself from Big Bubba when he make's his move on you. Even though your right to carry a gun was taken, your right to defend yourself remained.

Of course the unalienable right to self protection can be taken from you. If an employer has a "no fighting" clause in the "conditions of employment" agreement, and Big Bubba has a bad day with his gang buddies, and decides to beat Little Suszie to death as a vent to his frustration, bare handed, would that "condition of employment" outweigh Suzies's right to try and save her life if say she were versed in Karate? If she fought back against the aggressor with her bare hands, would that be grounds for dismissal? Reminds me of the Radical Islamist flogging the rape victim.

By your stated reasoning, any property owner can set forth any condition relative to their property, or the jobs offered. Can an employer who advertises a position chose who he wants to fill said position at will? Or are there rules prescribed, by law, that remove the absolute "right" to enjoy their property with respect to who may and may not apply for that position? Does equal opportunity stop at the gate of an employer's parking lot? Can the property owner (employer) take from the employee any personal item without due process? According to your perception, no individual has any "Rights" while within the confines of another's property, when there is ample proof that any individual Citizen retains their innate natural rights, regardless of what specific block of terra firma they might be presently standing on.

If a proprietor of a coffee shop hires your daughter to work the counter, does it give him the ability to demand that she allow him to have sex with her while on his property? Would she be within her "rights" to refuse his advances, can he legally fire her is she refuses?

If you were well heeled enough to own all the land and cattle in Texas, you are denied the ability to "own" another person there by the 14th Amendment, or do you portend that simply because of proximity on personal property you would have the ability to keep a slave?

The "if you get arrested and hauled off to jail" statement is inapplicable to this discussion, as we are talking about leaving a handgun locked up in a personal vehicle, which if not handled or brandished, and the individual has the HCP, would not rise to an arrestable offense.

If our Legislature decides to institute a statute that allows HCP holders to keep their lawfully prescribed weapons in their private vehicles, that will be a legal, Constitutionally based decision under the powers granted by the consent of the governed, and as currently prescribed by that document. No common law can be set above that basic premise.