Lack of support kills HB 2021, parking lot bill

[RobertNashville]

So it looks like we'll go another year either being disarmed five days a week or risking dismissal by breaking company policy.

What a nice choice - I'm so glad we've finally got a "real" Republican majority in both chambers now...it's mas SO much difference.

[Worriedman]

I would not turn the points up and pull the sod over the carcass just yet.

It is apparent to me that Rep. Eddie Bass is desirous of seeing this Bill come to a floor vote in it's original form, and Rep. Jim Gotto made a strong statement in favor of it, as well as intoning possibly the most on point comment on the fact that we have a "Right" to keep and bear arms" that I have ever heard a Representative utter in chambers of the Tennessee Legislature, ever. Vance Dennis is the causal agent of the "Hand that pulls the strings", Sam is 100% dead on in that assessment, and it is so apparent by the actions that were evident in the committee meeting yesterday. But, because one individual Representative is leaning on the sponsor, that does not mean the fat lady has sung yet. Evidently Dennis has obligations to "Business" interest that he is struggling at this point to satisfy, but there are many other members of the House that get to wade into the fray if the Bill gets to the floor, and do not forget the machinations that occur When you throw in the Senate.

The sausage mill that is the TN Legislative process has not stopped grinding on this one quite yet. I would surmise that should one be of a mind to see this issue to fruition, then a strong effort to convince our Senate of the merits of the case would be in order, as there is always the possibility that a conference committee, well constituted, might just place the meat back on the bones and put the original Bill back on the floor. Reasoned, impassioned contact with your Legislators of both Houses is in order I think, and, we have friends on the issue.

Personally, I intend to advocate for this, as I would rather go down swinging than pout and bemoan a fate that I might be able to sway.

[RobertNashville]

I would not turn the points up and pull the sod over the carcass just yet.

It is apparent to me that Rep. Eddie Bass is desirous of seeing this Bill come to a floor vote in it's original form, and Rep. Jim Gotto made a strong statement in favor of it, as well as intoning possibly the most on point comment on the fact that we have a "Right" to keep and bear arms" that I have ever heard a Representative utter in chambers of the Tennessee Legislature, ever. Vance Dennis is the causal agent of the "Hand that pulls the strings", Sam is 100% dead on in that assessment, and it is so apparent by the actions that were evident in the committee meeting yesterday. But, because one individual Representative is leaning on the sponsor, that does not mean the fat lady has sung yet. Evidently Dennis has obligations to "Business" interest that he is struggling at this point to satisfy, but there are many other members of the House that get to wade into the fray if the Bill gets to the floor, and do not forget the machinations that occur When you throw in the Senate.

The sausage mill that is the TN Legislative process has not stopped grinding on this one quite yet. I would surmise that should one be of a mind to see this issue to fruition, then a strong effort to convince our Senate of the merits of the case would be in order, as there is always the possibility that a conference committee, well constituted, might just place the meat back on the bones and put the original Bill back on the floor. Reasoned, impassioned contact with your Legislators of both Houses is in order I think, and, we have friends on the issue.

Personally, I intend to advocate for this, as I would rather go down swinging than pout and bemoan a fate that I might be able to sway.

Maybe the proverbial fat lady hasn't sung yet but I think she is doing her vocal exercises.

While I don't know for certain, I will paraphrase a quote I once heard attributed to Benjamin Franklin which is "I tend to be a pessimist; then, when the better things happens, I am pleasantly surprised"...whether Benjamin said it or not that tends to be how I approach many things in life; especially when it comes to politics.

I've written and called my Reps and Senator as well as Lt. Gov Ramsey and Speaker Harwell...only one took the time to even write back; the rest didn't even acknowledge my contact.

Edited April 13, 2011 by RobertNashville

[Sky King]

I've written and called my Reps and Senator as well as Lt. Gov Ramsey and Speaker Harwell...only one took the time to even write back; the rest didn't even acknowledge my contact.

Let me guess, it was Ron Ramsey, second would be your representative, but I will fall over dead if you say Speaker Harwell called.

There is one thing that is for sure. Regardless of what happens in committee meetings and behind closed doors, when it comes to the floor, votes are counted and recorded. If Mr. Bass introduces his amendment on the floor, the members will have to put their votes on record. That means we need to totally flood the offices of our representatives with calls and emails. The need to know we are watching.

I had a conversation with my representative, Antonio Parkinson this morning via phone. He was elected to fill the vacated seat of Ulyssys Jones when Rep Jones died. I have a local relationship with Mr. Parkinson in that we are both members of a local community group. I brought Mr. Parkinson up to speed on the situation and reminded him that I had spoken with him face-to-face at the polling place concerning pro Second Amendment issues. I then put it as blunt as I could. I was EXPECTING him to make good on his campaign statements that as a permit holder he too was supportive of gun rights and the associated rights to carry.

[Worriedman]

One of the problems we seem to have this session is the Teachers Union situation, it has kept the major attention spanned I believe.

But never forget, the Senate gets to deal with the Parking lot issue as well as the House, and if a Bill with the original verbiage hits the floor after the conference committee, then the Legislators have to vote en-mass, not just a few powerful committee members who want to have things heir own way.

[Sky King]

I would not turn the points up and pull the sod over the carcass just yet.

It is apparent to me that Rep. Eddie Bass is desirous of seeing this Bill come to a floor vote in it's original form, and Rep. Jim Gotto made a strong statement in favor of it, as well as intoning possibly the most on point comment on the fact that we have a "Right" to keep and bear arms" that I have ever heard a Representative utter in chambers of the Tennessee Legislature, ever. Vance Dennis is the causal agent of the "Hand that pulls the strings", Sam is 100% dead on in that assessment, and it is so apparent by the actions that were evident in the committee meeting yesterday. But, because one individual Representative is leaning on the sponsor, that does not mean the fat lady has sung yet. Evidently Dennis has obligations to "Business" interest that he is struggling at this point to satisfy, but there are many other members of the House that get to wade into the fray if the Bill gets to the floor, and do not forget the machinations that occur When you throw in the Senate.

The sausage mill that is the TN Legislative process has not stopped grinding on this one quite yet. I would surmise that should one be of a mind to see this issue to fruition, then a strong effort to convince our Senate of the merits of the case would be in order, as there is always the possibility that a conference committee, well constituted, might just place the meat back on the bones and put the original Bill back on the floor. Reasoned, impassioned contact with your Legislators of both Houses is in order I think, and, we have friends on the issue.

Personally, I intend to advocate for this, as I would rather go down swinging than pout and bemoan a fate that I might be able to sway.

As I drove home from Nashville, I had two questions come to mind. The first one was based on Rep Vance Dennis's comments about this being an opportunity for the business community to do the right thing. He also indicated that this kind of served as a "warning" because if they don't come around, the next step will be a bill with the mandate. Ok, how long do we give the business community. One year, two, three, five?

Next question is based on the way I read the amended bill, the lliability protections are predicated on a business changing it's policy and removing the posts prohibiting the storage of weapons. OK, what if they DON't change the policy? Since the liability protections are tied to a policy change, do the employers who DON'T change NOT protected from liability and subject to legal action if an incident ocurrs on their property.

[RobertNashville]

Let me guess, it was Ron Ramsey, second would be your representative, but I will fall over dead if you say Speaker Harwell called.

Good guess...it was, in fact, my representative (Rick Womick)!

I'm not the least bit surprised at nothing from Speaker Harwell...wasn't really expecting anything from Ron Ramsey but I know from speaking with him in times past that I don't think he would ever be a problem anyway. Senator Ketron was a bit of a disappointment, however as he/his office has always been very good in the past about responding to contact...it's usually almost immediate!

[rockman6]

Saw this recently but not sure what it means.

Legislative Leaders Commit to Business Friendly Compromise to Guns in Parking Lots

This week the House Judiciary Committee passed a proposal, HB 2021 by Rep. Josh Evans (R-Greenbrier) that as amended will allow for civil immunity for any employer who chooses to allow guns onto their parking lots. The bill will still allow for the property rights of business to maintain a posting but is designed to encourage businesses to allow workers to leave weapons in locked cars in company parking lots. The Business community appreciates the work of House and Senate members especially Rep. Josh Evans to ensure that the bill will not be compromised to take away private property rights. We encourage you to contact members and thank them for their support of private property rights.

Recently, our business members have brought to our attention publications by many research organizations including the Cato Institute noting the relationship between our Constitution and the protections this crucial document provides for property rights.

[Sky King]

Saw this recently but not sure what it means.

Legislative Leaders Commit to Business Friendly Compromise to Guns in Parking Lots

This week the House Judiciary Committee passed a proposal, HB 2021 by Rep. Josh Evans (R-Greenbrier) that as amended will allow for civil immunity for any employer who chooses to allow guns onto their parking lots. The bill will still allow for the property rights of business to maintain a posting but is designed to encourage businesses to allow workers to leave weapons in locked cars in company parking lots. The Business community appreciates the work of House and Senate members especially Rep. Josh Evans to ensure that the bill will not be compromised to take away private property rights. We encourage you to contact members and thank them for their support of private property rights.

Recently, our business members have brought to our attention publications by many research organizations including the Cato Institute noting the relationship between our Constitution and the protections this crucial document provides for property rights.

If I were a business in Tennessee, I would be happy too. They hand me liability protection and I don't have to do anything to do it. Anybody who thinks that the busniness community in Tennessee that have a firearm prohibition will change their policy based on this law, is living on a cloud. They are laughing and partying over this.

You said you are not sure exactly what this means. It means that the bill as initially introduced by Joshua Evans HAD a requirement that employers must allow employees to keep LEGALLY owned and possessed weapons in their PRIVATE vehicle while parked on their employers parking lot. It origionally had the liability protection also. However Rep Evans introduced an amendment (written by the way by Vance Dennis) which stripped all the mandates to the employers to allow employees keep their weapons in their cars but retained the liability protection should they CHOOSE on their own to allow the weapons. They can still choose to retain their prohibition and posting.

What does it mean? Our Republican party leaders listen more to the business lobby more than they do their constituants. It boils down to $$$$$

Edited April 15, 2011 by Sky King

[strickj]

What does it mean? Our Republican party leaders listen more to the business lobby more than they do their constituants. It boils down to $$$$$

What is this "business lobby"? Is it me, a single, home operated business? Is it Crimpsonaudio who owns his own business? Is it a "mom and pop" gas station, restaurant or hardware store? Or... ?

I would say that we are all constituents and that our reps are listening to the majority of us that do not want to loose our real rights to our property to someone who has no right to be on the property at all.

[Sky King]

What is this "business lobby"? Is it me, a single, home operated business? Is it Crimpsonaudio who owns his own business? Is it a "mom and pop" gas station, restaurant or hardware store? Or... ?

I would say that we are all constituents and that our reps are listening to the majority of us that do not want to loose our real rights to our property to someone who has no right to be on the property at all.

In all the times I have been to Nashville over the years for bills such as this, the ONLY small business as you describe that I ever saw represented was a local busniness owner from Memphis who is in favor of this bill. Yes, you are constituants but the business lobby that is always there, and the representatives always make referance to are NOT you. They are the FedEx's, General Tire, paid lobbiests from large business coalitions. There was a major railway represented.

I am not going to restart the debate over private property used for business and private property that is a persons residence. There are real differances in what the law ALREADY says about property open to public access for the purpose of doing business. And if your business is large enough to have ANY employees, even if it is one, I believe he should be able to keep his or her LEGAL weapon, stored, out of sight, locked in THEIR private property, their car. You are not harmed or in any danger by allowing this. If I were a small business with just a few employees, if I didn't trust them enough to allow them, having passed all the requirements to get the permit, to keep their weapon stored in their car while at work, I wouldn't have them working for me in the first place.

Edited April 15, 2011 by Sky King

[RobertNashville]

What is this "business lobby"? Is it me, a single, home operated business? Is it Crimpsonaudio who owns his own business? Is it a "mom and pop" gas station, restaurant or hardware store? Or... ?

I would say that we are all constituents and that our reps are listening to the majority of us that do not want to loose our real rights to our property to someone who has no right to be on the property at all.

What "majority of us" would that be, exactly???

I've no doubt that a "majority" of business that don't allow firearms on their property now don't want a "parking lot bill" to pass...but I have real doubts that anything close to a majority of the pro-firearms public in Tennessee are against such a bill. I've also no doubt that a FedEX or a UPS, etc who don't want such a bill passed have a hell of a lot more influence with the legislature than you or me or Crimpsonaudio or thousands like us.

For those who are adamant that a "business" should not be required to allow certain inanimate objects (i.e. a legally possessed firearms) be in privately owned vehicles while those vehicles are parked, at the business's invitation, in the business's parking lots; then how about we at least require that such businesses properly post their property...this cowardly "company policy" bulls**t is exactly that, cowardly bulls**t...if my firearm is not welcome then at least have the guts to say so in a public way. Hiding behind "company policy" reminds me of Randy Rayburn who, while anti-gun, didn't want to have to post his restaurants and publicly reveal his convictions.

[strickj]

In all the times I have been to Nashville over the years for bills such as this, the ONLY small business as you describe that I ever saw represented was a local busniness owner from Memphis who is in favor of this bill. Yes, you are constituants but the business lobby that is always there, and the representatives always make referance to are NOT you. They are the FedEx's, General Tire, paid lobbiests from large business coalitions. There was a major railway represented.

So, the only ones who matter are the ones with enough time (or money to send others) to Nashville?

I am not going to restart the debate over private property used for business and private property that is a persons residence. There are real differances in what the law ALREADY says about property open to public access for the purpose of doing business.

Private property is private property. In TN there is no other.

You may think that ADA or food safety laws, etc. mean that property owners do not have rights, but you are mistaken.

And if your business is large enough to have ANY employees, even if it is one, I believe he should be able to keep his or her LEGAL weapon, stored, out of sight, locked in THEIR private property, their car. You are not harmed or in any danger by allowing this. If I were a small business with just a few employees, if I didn't trust them enough to allow them, having passed all the requirements to get the permit, to keep their weapon stored in their car while at work, I wouldn't have them working for me in the first place.

It is not a matter of "trust". I do not care if people that I hire or work with have guns on them or in their cars. This bill does not affect me in the least. It is the simple fact that this bill, as presented, removes businesses\property owners RIGHTS to chose.

What "majority of us" would that be, exactly???

I've no doubt that a "majority" of business that don't allow firearms on their property now don't want a "parking lot bill" to pass...but I have real doubts that anything close to a majority of the pro-firearms public in Tennessee are against such a bill. I've also no doubt that a FedEX or a UPS, etc who don't want such a bill passed have a hell of a lot more influence with the legislature than you or me or Crimpsonaudio or thousands like us.

The "majority of us" would be the people of TN. The pro-gun bill community is just a small fraction of TN residents. Even the "guns in bars" bill had gun owners split down the middle.

I am as pro-gun and as pro-gun bill as they come... but some of us value others' rights, too, which is why I, along with many, many other pro-gun people, do not like this bill.

[USMCJG]

It is not a matter of "trust". I do not care if people that I hire or work with have guns on them or in their cars. This bill does not affect me in the least. It is the simple fact that this bill, as presented, removes businesses\property owners RIGHTS to chose.

That is what makes this complicated. We can all agree that property owners have property rights. This goes both ways. The business owners have rights to there property, but the employees also have rights to their property(their cars). I don't believe that there should be any need for this bill in the first place. The Constitution is absolutely clear that we have the right to KEEP and BEAR arms. No government or private industry was ever intended to have the ability to circumvent this right. This is a perfect world scenario of course, where we respect and adhere to the Constitution. We all know that isn't how it works.

[Guest GAD601]

This is an issue that I have to deal with on a regular basis. The Company I work at is in North Nashville and has the entire property posted for not only Firearms but all weapons in general. (I have caught grief for a tatical folder I had in my pocket) So I am left in a good old fasioned catch 22. Either leave my "weps" at home, or run the risk of being fired/prosecuted for having said "items" in my vehicle. The "Company" has several contridictions that leave me highly irritated. The lot is posted "No Wepons" but yet also posted that they are not responsible for any damage to my vehicle while on the property. Someone in an ealier post made the remark "you don't have to work there". To that let me say this- with the current job markiet being what it is most of us do not have the choice of where to work. Believe me this is a job I did not want, but having a wife and 2 children to support left me with few options. I recently got a second job managing a firearms shop and my supervisor is aware of this. I had a disccusion with him the other day about possibly being allowed to keep my firearm with me due the fact that as manager, having keys and codes, there is the risk of being attacked in order to gain access to my shop. He very quickly informed me that there would be no leway on this matter and that if caught with a weapon im my truck I would be fully procecuted. Another post mentioned that "Company" owners have a right to do as they wish on their property. It would seem in my case my employer has no concern for my well being.

[Guest monkeyhumper]

It would seem in my case my employer has no concern for my well being.

Ding ding ding!

Business and profits are more important to SOME. I'm afraid to say much more in these parts.

[Oh Shoot]

...He very quickly informed me that there would be no leway on this matter and that if caught with a weapon im my truck I would be fully procecuted....

Um, if you have a permit, "fully prosecuted" means $500 fine, unlikely you'd even be charged since you didn't have it on you and didn't carry inside the building, but I guess you could be the test case, and a pretty odd one at that.

For those with no permit, and gun is unloaded in car, there is no charge listed in TCA at all.

Maybe you actually mean "fired".

- OS

Edited April 16, 2011 by OhShoot

[Sky King]

So, the only ones who matter are the ones with enough time (or money to send others) to Nashville?

First I said I was not going to get into this debate. This has been beaten back and forth on this forum by others to unknown extent.

I NEVER said that about only those with money and time matter. I am only telling you what I have heard the representatives in Nashville say. They always refer to the UPS's, FedEx's and so on and talk about how many jobs they bring to the state and how much of a financial impact they have in the state. I never hear THEM talk about "Bob's Bakery". So you need to ask THEM who matters, not me

Private property is private property. In TN there is no other.

You may think that ADA or food safety laws, etc. mean that property owners do not have rights, but you are mistaken.

That may be the way it is in the TCA, (just like in the restaurant carry bill issue, there is no such thing as a "bar" in Tennessee either according to the TCA, but we all know there are "BARS") but I don't think anybody is going to come into your house and do a health inspection on your kitchen or require a vent with fire surpression over the stove. Your driveway, doors, and other facilities such as restrooms don't have to be handicap accessable. Do you have lighted "EXIT" signs at all your doors with battery backup and emergency lighting in case the power fails? There are a great many more examples but none of these make your BUSINESS property any less PRIVATE but when you open it up to public access for the purpose of doing business, you open it up to regulation that just DOES NOT applly to your place of residence.

It is not a matter of "trust". I do not care if people that I hire or work with have guns on them or in their cars. This bill does not affect me in the least. It is the simple fact that this bill, as presented, removes businesses\property owners RIGHTS to chose.

And as it is now, my employers rights extend beyond the bounds of his property lines. By telling me I can not have my weapon in my car in the parking lot, he has said I can not have it in my car the minute I leave my driveway when my car is NOT on hiis property. Unless you have figured out what to do with it when I get to his parking lot, I can't have it. So HIS reach extends beyond his property. And besides, just as you claim to be as pro-gun as anybody, I am a strong propertry rights advocate. This is a classic example of two rights hitting head on. You have to ask whose "right" trumps whose. Who is more harmed or has the greater potential for harm. If I keep my firearm locked, out of sight in my car, (by the way which is MY property), how has he been harmed. And with the liability protection in the bill he is protected in that respect as well. HOWEVER, by disarming me during my commute, I loose the ability to protect myself and stand to be at risk as others have described in great detail already.

The "majority of us" would be the people of TN. The pro-gun bill community is just a small fraction of TN residents. Even the "guns in bars" bill had gun owners split down the middle.

I am as pro-gun and as pro-gun bill as they come... but some of us value others' rights, too, which is why I, along with many, many other pro-gun people, do not like this bill.

And fortunately, those opposed to the RESTAURANT CARRY BILL, (that is what it was, I only heard opponents and the media characterize it as "guns in bars"). have not had their fears come to fruition. As most all the other bills that have expanded the privelages of permit holders, the ney sayers and chicken littles predicting that the sky will fall have been wrong.

As for valuing rights, I value the rights of others but as my mother used to say, "your rights end where my nose begins". And when in some cases where rights come in conflict, somebody is going to have a bit of their rights stepped on a bit. What you have to ask is to what degree are the rights going to be imposed upon and by imposing on them, who is going to be impacted the most and has the highest risk for harm.

Beyond this, we are just going to have to agree to disagree. All of these points, both from your side and mine have all been presented many times. Obviously neither side is willing to concede so I am not going to debate these issues any further. I goal here has always been to get support for the passage of this and similiar bills. If you don't agree, the best thing I can suggest is for you to contact your representatives in Nashville. You will not sway me, I will obviously not sway you, and I have no vote in The General Assembly.

[Guest manofsteel]

:mad:as for me i have contacted everyone i could to support this bill. the company i work for is posted. they go as far as having a no weapon policy with 0 tol.and do random searches. as far as "you don't have to work there" thats B.S. who in this economy can walk away from a job? with the wording being changed the bill is useless. there will be no company take down any sign or change their polices. now for property owners rights the next time a white Christan male with a NObama bumper sticker on his truck comes into your place of business tell him to leave just because you don't like his trucks sticker. see how far that gets you. to me there is no difference in you telling me i cant have my firearm in my car and telling me you don't want me to have a CD of Elvis in the car. if your posted you won't get any of my money anyway so you don't have to worry about whats sitting on your frickin parking lot. i think if you have employees and you refuse those employees from protecting them selfs to and from work then you should be held liable for their safety from the time they leave home to the time they return and what ever happens you should pay for it....

[strickj]

That is what makes this complicated. We can all agree that property owners have property rights. This goes both ways. The business owners have rights to there property, but the employees also have rights to their property(their cars). I don't believe that there should be any need for this bill in the first place. The Constitution is absolutely clear that we have the right to KEEP and BEAR arms. No government or private industry was ever intended to have the ability to circumvent this right. This is a perfect world scenario of course, where we respect and adhere to the Constitution. We all know that isn't how it works.

The 2nd does not apply to businesses, "private industries", or citizens.

And as it is now, my employers rights extend beyond the bounds of his property lines. By telling me I can not have my weapon in my car in the parking lot, he has said I can not have it in my car the minute I leave my driveway when my car is NOT on hiis property.

That is a condition of employment and it is you employer;s right to set those conditions and rules. Your employer can tell you not to have a Facebook account on your home PC if he want's to. If you don't like their condition(s) to your employment, then you are free to find another job.

And just for the record here, I do not like, and I will not let, anyone tell me what I can and can not keep in my car, either.

As for valuing rights, I value the rights of others but as my mother used to say, "your rights end where my nose begins". And when in some cases where rights come in conflict, somebody is going to have a bit of their rights stepped on a bit. What you have to ask is to what degree are the rights going to be imposed upon and by imposing on them, who is going to be impacted the most and has the highest risk for harm.

And this statement is the problem. You do not have a right to even be on your employer's property. Much less carry a gun onto it. This bill is advancing a right that you never had to begin with and removes a real right from your employer.

That is not right in any stretch of the imagination and I am glad that our reps are doing the right thing here, for once.

Edited April 16, 2011 by strickj

[Guest manofsteel]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, execpt when on the property of someone who does not like for you to have your arms...........sooooo... is this it what it really says?.....ummmmm:poop:

[G27]

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, execpt when on the property of someone who does not like for you to have your arms...........sooooo... is this it what it really says?.....ummmmm:poop:

The US Constitution applies only to the federal government, not private property owners.

I can kick you off my land because of your race, creed, religion or any reason I wish - there's no part of the US Constitution that applies to me as a property owner. Do you really think because of 1A you can stand on your employer's property and burn the flag or carry a sign with a denigrating message about said employer if they don't want you to?

[Guest GAD601]

Um, if you have a permit, "fully prosecuted" means $500 fine, unlikely you'd even be charged since you didn't have it on you and didn't carry inside the building, but I guess you could be the test case, and a pretty odd one at that.

For those with no permit, and gun is unloaded in car, there is no charge listed in TCA at all.

Maybe you actually mean "fired".

- OS

I'm aware of that one. Like I said they not only have the buildings posted but also the front gate as you enter is posted no wepons on property. Just quoting what he said. Upper management there seems to think that viloating the "No Carry" posting means felony charge permit or not. Like I said its a catch 22, Keep my HG in the truck (if caught lose primary job and means to support family) or leave it at home (possiblity of not being able to defend self then family does not have me there to suport them)

Also, to add more tension to this delema, a person was found murdered about 3 blocks away from my work in broad daylight about 6 months ago.

Edited April 16, 2011 by GAD601

[RobertNashville]

he "majority of us" would be the people of TN. The pro-gun bill community is just a small fraction of TN residents. Even the "guns in bars" bill had gun owners split down the middle.

I am as pro-gun and as pro-gun bill as they come... but some of us value others' rights, too, which is why I, along with many, many other pro-gun people, do not like this bill.

Unless you've either conducted your own unbiased scientific studies or can quote such studies that already exist, your "majority" and "many, many other pro-gun people who don't like this bill" is nothing more that a baseless assertion but I guess that's all that needed as a basis for an argument on an internet forum.

[RobertNashville]

The US Constitution applies only to the federal government, not private property owners.

By extension then, does that also mean that I don't have the "right to life" while on "private property"???

Just asking.

I can kick you off my land because of your race, creed, religion or any reason I wish - there's no part of the US Constitution that applies to me as a property owner. Do you really think because of 1A you can stand on your employer's property and burn the flag or carry a sign with a denigrating message about said employer if they don't want you to?

I suppose you can kick me off your land for any reason you chose...but why should you have the right to dictate what is inside of my private property? Why should an employer's "right" cross the door jam of my vehicle?

If an employer's "private property rights" are so inviolate; how about we at least have a little reciprocity???

I was taught that with "rights" comes responsibility but it seems to me that employers like the "rights' part of the equation but have very little enthusiasm for taking on any responsibility.

If my employer has the absolute right to control what I have inside of my vehicle then, along with that absolute right of control over my vehicle should they not also have to assume absolute responsibility for anything that happens to that vehicle while it's parked on their property?

Employers are quick to tell their employees that they can't have a firearm in their locked vehicle and claim it's their "private property rights" to do so but let someone plow into that vehicle at 30MPH while it's parked on "their" parking lot; causing tens of thousands of $$$ damage, and that employer will be VERY quick to proclaim that the vehicle is NOT THEIR PROPERTY and refuse any responsibility for repairs.

That seems a bit unfair to me.

Edited April 16, 2011 by RobertNashville