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

[DRM]

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.

Interesting, never looked at it from that angle.

[DaveTN]

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?

I guess it could be; it’s done in schools all the time.

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.

Unless an employer wants to qualify for government contracts; he can hire whoever he likes.

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?

I shouldn’t even address this its ridiculous. But if she allows him, yes it’s okay. If he forces or coerces here; it’s a crime and he is subject to arrest.

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?

Again….. keeping someone against their will is a criminal offense.

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.

Every argument you make is tied to that HCP. Do you think that because you can afford to get an HCP you are more deserving of some special treatment or “Rights†(as you call them) than a poor person that can’t afford one?

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.

No it won’t. As long as the state doesn’t acknowledge a Constitutional right to bear arms it will be the action of a bunch of thugs just like the smoking legislation was.

Cigarettes can be banned on an employer’s property and so can guns. Even if this legislation passes, I think it will be doomed as soon as an employer challenges it as a safety issue.

But…. I was wrong on the smoking issue and I could be wrong on this.

I have a question…

The land Nissan is on in Smyrna has some kind of special foreign status. There are signs all along the fence but I don’t remember exactly what they say. I wonder if they will be exempt from any state law on this issue?

[Worriedman]

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?

If a business owner has invited me onto his property to provide him with my specific skill set and labor, then I think we should be able to discuss my natural right to provide for my own defense on my travels to and from that place of business where I am adding value to his endeavor to realize a profit. More than likely, an employee did not beat down the door and demand a position, but rather was answering a call to apply for one that was advertised.

I do however, see a difference in a "home" property and a business property, the home being mostly a private place, the business being more public, I liken the goods in a "store" and the benefits of a "job" as a kind of bait to draw people in.

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

You have me there, I think they ere in that decision. If I am not causing a problem by misuse of a weapon in my possession, I see noting in the Common law that would preclude the beneficial use to myself or to a property owner.

For those who are welcome on my property, home or business, I have no heartburn with them being in possession of their legally prescribed by law weapons. For those who are not welcome, I do not want them or their weapons on my place, be it home or business.

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?

I do, as I am not one of those 95% for which it is a crime, I follow and obey the Law. They set the rules and I follow them, the Legislature being the sole arbiter of those conditions, prescribed by the Tennessee Constitution.

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.

Agreed.

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.

We must be eternally vigilant and involved as much as possible to try and counteract the breech of our natural rights by those who own the ability to take them from us, i.e. the Legislature and the Courts.

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.

I do not so much disagree with some of your statements, in fact, I have to admit that I have learned some things from you. My perception of what the 2nd Amendment protects and defends is due in large part to your arguments over the last few months. I have come to agree with your understanding that is does not in fact, have any direct bearing to personal protection usage of firearms, outside of the fact that the Feds may not infringe on my ability to OWN firearms and keep them on my property. The Federal government has no say in where I am allowed to carry, or even IF I am allowed to carry in my home State, that is the prerogative of the Tennessee Legislature only.

In studying the law relative to property rights, I have come to the understanding that the Constitutions of the Union and the State simply put forth that they are ruled by Common Law, as set forth in English Common Law, and for Tennessee, what was accepted in North Carolina Common Law at the time of Tennessee's founding, and that any and all of those accepted, understood natural laws can be adjusted by our Legislature and Courts.

I especially agree with your last sentence, the owners should have immunity if they are in no other way responsible for an action involving a firearm on their property except proximity of it's occurrence, but you are right again, that lawyers, which wield an undue amount of influence over our Legislature due in large part to the the amount of money they pour into campaigns, will fight to keep the "deep pockets" available for their picking. I do however think, that if an owner of a business property decides to deny the natural ability of the individual to provide for their own defense, then they owe a duty to provide for that individual's security while on their property, more especially if they are aware that location is prone to acts of violence by being aware of it's history, and that is gaining acceptance in our courts.

It comes down to who can exercise the most influence on the Legislature, or the Courts.

[Fallguy]

Ok...Sorry...I skipped the last debate. Just wanted to add that I don't equate being able to leave a firearm in a locked vehicle in the parking the lot (what this bill does) with actually carrying it on my person in the workplace (not what this bill does).

[Worriedman]

Originally Posted by Worriedman

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?

Posted by DaveTN

I guess it could be; it’s done in schools all the time.

There goes that denying natural rights thing again.

Originally Posted by DaveTN

Unless an employer wants to qualify for government contracts; he can hire whoever he likes.

In my turned over leaf of trying not to be argumentative for the very sake of arguing... I must, however, say this is not a true statement. I have a rack of books on my wall, and a ton of paper from attorneys and years of Human Resource training that say different. If you advertise for individual employees, you may not discriminate re sex, race, national origin, age, physical ability, having children, religion, ad infinitum. If seeking sub contractors, status of collective bargaining agreements, regional affiliations, political predispositions are all issues that MAY not be considered.

I have a large button that I wear by order of my firm and their labor attorneys that says "I Don't Care" for all interviews. Hiring and firing takes more time than demolition and building any more, IF you want to stay in business.

Originally Posted by Worriedman

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?

Originally Posted by DaveTN

I shouldn’t even address this its ridiculous. But if she allows him, yes it’s okay. If he forces or coerces here; it’s a crime and he is subject to arrest.

I agree that it is ridiculous, and was postulated to be so, but was simply included to exemplify that being a property owner does not give a property owner carte blanche for any action he may desire to enforce on that said property or business. Individuals have natural rights that no one can abridge, crimes are normally tied to denying or acting against a natural right in some way, by an individual, business or Government.

Originally Posted by DaveTN

I have a question…

The land Nissan is on in Smyrna has some kind of special foreign status. There are signs all along the fence but I don’t remember exactly what they say. I wonder if they will be exempt from any state law on this issue?

I am ignorant of that situation, but deals are made all the time....

[RobertNashville]

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:

Oh really??? So you didn't say...

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"...

You didn't use the word "all" but you most certainly didn't offer any qualifier to indicate that you ment anything other than "all". So if not "all"; which ones, exactly? Would that be everyone but you (because you are passing yourself off as some champion for "all gun owners")???

Perhaps you should either be more precise in the future or if you are going to make bull statements at least own up to them.

As was pointed out earlier, a lot (in fact I'd suggest the majority) of "gun owners" don't lift a finger to secure or improve the gun related laws we live under...if they aren't willing to do any of the heavy lifting I see no reason why they should get to enjoy "equal treatment".

Edited February 12, 2011 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

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.

You've said this before and what is absurd is that you apparently don't understand that an employer already doesn't have the "ability" (meaning they have no authority) to search an employee's car. An employer can ask...an employee can say yes or no.

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.

That is precisely one of the primary provisions of the bill you've been railing against and said you won't support...have you now changed your mind or are you just forgetting what side of the issue you are on?

[DaveTN]

He didn’t say “allâ€.

I have an HCP; but I am under no illusions that it gives me any Constitutional Rights that people without one don't have. We do not have a right to carry… the SCOTUS has put their stamp of approval on that and the State of Tennessee has decided they don’t want to acknowledge that right either.

You and I are without a doubt in-line on what the laws should be. However you don’t seem to want to acknowledge the difference between what they should be and what they are. I am absolutely sure I do not have a Constitutional right to bear arms.

As I have said in Illinois about trying to get carry approved… “If you turn this into a 2nd amendment issue or a rights issue; you have lost before you get started.†I will say the same thing about this. HCP is not a right; it is a privilege that you and I are lucky enough to be able to buy from the state. Some people are not as lucky as we are.

[RobertNashville]

...Unless an employer wants to qualify for government contracts; he can hire whoever he likes.

Actually, many federal laws regarding hiring/firing apply to all businesses (at least once they reach a predetermined size) and do so whether the employer ever has a government contract. That isn't to say there aren't more requirements if a business does have government contracts!

Every argument you make is tied to that HCP. Do you think that because you can afford to get an HCP you are more deserving of some special treatment or “Rights†(as you call them) than a poor person that can’t afford one?

I hope we aren't going to move to class warfare here...the HCP process isn't inexpensive but you certainly don't have to be rich to go through the process. I would say that if you can afford to own a handgun you ought to be able to afford to go through the HCP process.

In any case, it's not about "special rights"...the HCP systems is simply the process the State of Tennessee has put in place to (hopefully) weed out those who perhaps should not carry a gun on their person in public (or perhaps even legally own one). As was also, and I think quite correctly pointed out earlier, it's usually the efforts of folks like HCP holders that have expanded and continue to work to expand our carry options so why shouldn't those who have worked hard to get here enjoy some options that those who haven't gone through the process don't get?

Of course, some folks seem to think that makes us selfish.

The land Nissan is on in Smyrna has some kind of special foreign status. There are signs all along the fence but I don’t remember exactly what they say. I wonder if they will be exempt from any state law on this issue?

Parts of Nissan's property is designated as a foreign trade zone. However, only certain areas are in that trade zone (and I don't believe the parking lots are, one reason is that they are open to the public) - even if the the lots are part of the trade zone, the specifics deal with removing property without paying proper duty/taxes, etc...unless there is some obscure federal law regarding firearms in a foreign trade zone then I don't believe there would be a conflict.

[DRM]

As was pointed out earlier, a lot (in fact I'd suggest the majority) of "gun owners" don't lift a finger to secure or improve the gun related laws we live under...if they aren't willing to do any of the heavy lifting I see no reason why they should get to enjoy "equal treatment".

And that, boys and girls, proves my point about "selfish".

[DaveTN]

I hope we aren't going to move to class warfare here...the HCP process isn't inexpensive but you certainly don't have to be rich to go through the process. I would say that if you can afford to own a handgun you ought to be able to afford to go through the HCP process.

In any case, it's not about "special rights"...the HCP systems is simply the process the State of Tennessee has put in place to (hopefully) weed out those who perhaps should not carry a gun on their person in public (or perhaps even legally own one). As was also, and I think quite correctly pointed out earlier, it's usually the efforts of folks like HCP holders that have expanded and continue to work to expand our carry options so why shouldn't those who have worked hard to get here enjoy some options that those who haven't gone through the process don't get?

Of course, some folks seem to think that makes us selfish.

It’s not class warfare; it’s reality. You have any idea how many women I have seen that were running from an abusive husband or boyfriend that they thought would kill them. $200 for them is a lot of money; for most it is prohibitive. I was in a state that didn’t have carry permits and didn’t allow anyone but cops to carry. I could only put the abusers in jail. I tried to make it clear to them that I could not protect them even if they had an order of protection. All I could do is arrest the dirtbag again the next time. Women have to either make sure the abuser can’t find them or they have to stand and fight. Law Enforcement can’t guarantee them protection and their state legislators shouldn’t take their ability to protect themselves away. No one should have top die because they can’t afford an HCP.

It’s absolutely about “special rights†(only they are “special privilegesâ€; no rights are involved). Making sure that criminals don’t get guns is laughable. Convicted felons can openly buy guns anytime they want in Tennessee.

As I said I have an HCP and it is certainly better than the alternative. But then I don’t get confused and refer to it as a right.

[Worriedman]

He didn’t say “allâ€.

I have an HCP; but I am under no illusions that it gives me any Constitutional Rights that people without one don't have. We do not have a right to carry… the SCOTUS has put their stamp of approval on that and the State of Tennessee has decided they don’t want to acknowledge that right either.

Just because the State of Tennessee does not recognize it, (that we have a Right to keep and bear arms) in no way minimizes the fact that we do, I suspect that is more out of ignorance than intent. I get your point, but allowing the defense against the intent to go armed is in fact giving those with a HCP the legal ability to carry, and as the Legislature has the power by the Constitution to either allow or restrict that, however correct it is or not by our reckoning, (and I would warrant that 99% of our Legislators do not understand the difference) we can carry our handguns legally if we jump through the hoops prescribed. I would bet the average Representative or Senator would, if questioned, answer in the affirmative if asked if the Citizens of this State have such a Right.

Given the direction the makeup of the Legislature is headed apparently (more conservative) there is a chance that we could educate a sufficient number to the facts of the "intent to go armed" nature of the T.C.A. and get that changed to a more Constitutionally correct statute. The current law is a holdover from Reconstruction, and is due to be changed. Every advance in "privilege" to the ability to carry more places increases our ability to provide data that supports our arguments for the realignment of the law that we really want.

I would also warrant that a sufficient number of TN Citizens have a doubt about the advisability of allowing unrestricted carry Rights to make kicking down the door on that issue difficult to achieve. If we can get the "parking lot" exemption being sought by the current offered legislation, and that does not result in shoot outs at quitting time, it may just move our agenda forward.

[RobertNashville]

And that, boys and girls, proves my point about "selfish".

Oh really? It's selfish to expect to receive compensation or a benefit for effort expended? I suppose you think it's selfish for expecting an employer to pay me for the work I do as well?

Have you not heard of the phrase "those who will not work shall not eat".

If me expectations of receiving benefits for the activity I'm involved in are selfish then what is the correct term for expecting benefits for doing nothing to secure them?

[DaveTN]

Oh really? It's selfish to expect to receive compensation or a benefit for effort expended? I suppose you think it's selfish for expecting an employer to pay me for the work I do as well?

Have you not heard of the phrase "those who will not work shall not eat".

If me expectations of receiving benefits for the activity I'm involved in are selfish then what is the correct term for expecting benefits for doing nothing to secure them?

Nothing is wrong with you thinking you are privileged, one of the chosen, or living at the foot of the cross. But if the average citizen doesn’t enjoy it….it isn’t a right.

Now… What have you done for me lately?

[Worriedman]

Convicted felons can openly buy guns anytime they want in Tennessee.

Please expound on that, are you saying convicted felons can legally buy guns openly in Tennessee?

[RobertNashville]

It’s not class warfare; it’s reality. You have any idea how many women I have seen that were running from an abusive husband or boyfriend that they thought would kill them. $200 for them is a lot of money; for most it is prohibitive. I was in a state that didn’t have carry permits and didn’t allow anyone but cops to carry. I could only put the abusers in jail. I tried to make it clear to them that I could not protect them even if they had an order of protection. All I could do is arrest the dirtbag again the next time. Women have to either make sure the abuser can’t find them or they have to stand and fight. Law Enforcement can’t guarantee them protection and their state legislators shouldn’t take their ability to protect themselves away. No one should have top die because they can’t afford an HCP.

It’s absolutely about “special rights†(only they are “special privilegesâ€; no rights are involved). Making sure that criminals don’t get guns is laughable. Convicted felons can openly buy guns anytime they want in Tennessee.

As I said I have an HCP and it is certainly better than the alternative. But then I don’t get confused and refer to it as a right.

I'm wondering if you are confusing my posts with someone else? I've not used the word "right" in this discussion; at least not in the way you are suggesting.

As to criminals buying guns "openly"...I'm not sure what you are referring to here...I suspect a lot of weapons in the hands of criminals are at least as likely stolen as bought anywhere and if they are buying them, openly or otherwise, they are doing so illegally (and if people are knowingly selling guns to those who can't legally own them then they are no less criminals than the criminals doing the buying). All of which is besides the point since "criminals" don't usually apply for HCP nor do they generally try to buy guns legally and have to go through a background check. However, our legislature and the public at large probably feel a lot better about people who carry since thy know that THOSE people have gone though a background check. As such, it's served its purpose.

In any case, I wasn't debating the effectiveness of the HCP system...it exists because without it no citizen could carry...it exists because to have gotten the legislature to to allow citizens to carry without such a process would have been impossible. How effective it is in living up to its sales pitch is far less important the the simple fact that it exists.

I'm sorry it's "expeisive" for some people or even out of the financial reach for some people...I wish it were less expensive but even if it cost half what it does now, that would probably be too expensive for some. Life is almost never fair...most people can't afford an Infiniti or a Cadillac...some can't afford a car at all...that's the way life is sometimes. I feel sorry for women who are running from abusive husbands but I'm not responsible for their situation and I fail to see what any of that has to do with a parking lot bill anyway.

We've got the HCP process...period. It's highly unlikely that any expansion of our carry options are going to come without first getting it for HCP holders because that concept is going to be a hell of a lot easier to "sell" to those legislators who might unsure how to vote than it would ever be to get an "all or nothing" bill passed as some suggest.

Edited February 12, 2011 by RobertNashville

[DaveTN]

Please expound on that, are you saying convicted felons can legally buy guns openly in Tennessee?

Of course not. My point is that there is no background check on a private sale.

[RobertNashville]

Nothing is wrong with you thinking you are privileged, one of the chosen, or living at the foot of the cross. But if the average citizen doesn’t enjoy it….it isn’t a right.

Now… What have you done for me lately?

Please tell me precisely WHERE I've call any of this a RIGHT? Either you are purposely putting words in my mouth to bolster your argument or you are VERY confused.

And by the way; receiving a benefit/compensation for expended effort is not "special"; it's just appropriate and to a large extent, what the very concept of a free market system is based on. If you truly don't believe that then I would assume that whoever you work for, you do so for free out of the kindness of your heart, correct?

Edited February 12, 2011 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

Of course not. My point is that there is no background check on a private sale.

So are you suggesting that there should be and/or are you opposed to the private sale/transfer of firearms between individuals?

Edited February 12, 2011 by RobertNashville

[DaveTN]

So are you suggesting that there should be and/or are you opposed to the private sale/transfer of firearms between individuals?

I’m saying that thinking the HCP program in any way, shape, or form keeps criminals from getting guns is ridiculous.

[DaveTN]

Please tell me precisely WHERE I've call any of this a RIGHT?

Either someone else is here posting under my screename or you are VERY confused.

And by the way receiving a benefit/compensation for expended effort is not "special"; it's just appropriate and to a large extent, what the very concept of a capitalistic/free market system is based on. If not, then I would suppose you work for free???

Because unless you believe you have a right; you can’t believe that the legislature has the power to drive the interests of a “Special Interest†group down the throats of business owners.

If the state recognizes carrying a gun as a right; they can force a business owner to allow it. When they do not view it as a right they have no authority to do so. Agreed??

[RobertNashville]

I’m saying that thinking the HCP program in any way, shape, or form keeps criminals from getting guns is ridiculous.

Humm....maybe my posts are really unclear as you keep ascribing to me words I've never said and positions I've never taken. I've never claimed that the HCP process was effective at keeping criminals from getting guns. Not only have I not and do I not claim it's effective at doing so, that's not even the purpose of the HCP process.

[DaveTN]

Humm....maybe my posts are really unclear as you keep ascribing to me words I've never said and positions I've never taken. I've never claimed that the HCP process was effective at keeping criminals from getting guns. Not only have I not and do I not claim it's effective at doing so, that's not even the purpose of the HCP process.

Damn Robert… do you have multiple personalities? I can’t stay in the discussion if I have to keep looking for what you are posting.

...the HCP systems is simply the process the State of Tennessee has put in place to (hopefully) weed out those who perhaps should not carry a gun on their person in public (or perhaps even legally own one).

[Worriedman]

I’m saying that thinking the HCP program in any way, shape, or form keeps criminals from getting guns is ridiculous.

Who on this board made that assertion? I know Robert did not, and anyone who did is a few brick shy of a full load. No law, or anything else is going to prevent that. He said the HCP program sectioned out who should be able to enjoy that privilege, but did not take a stance that it kept guns out of the hands of criminals.

Any felons get guns in IL? Can you do a personal transfer in Chicago of a handgun without a background check? Has that ever stopped a criminal from getting a gun?

Edited February 12, 2011 by Worriedman

[Worriedman]

Of course not. My point is that there is no background check on a private sale.

Are you for making it a requirement that every sale of a gun go through an FFL?