Lack of support kills HB 2021, parking lot bill

[strickj]

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.

No, I've not conducted a scientific study on the matter. This is what we call "a given".

There are 6.3 million people in the state on TN. Only 300k have a HCP, (which this bill is written for). How many of those 300k carry daily? How many of those 300k have employers that have posted parking lots? How many of that 300k are actually 100% pro-gun(remember how the "bar bill" split people, even on this very forum)? How many of those 300k follow or stay in contact with their legislators... or ever care about new gun carry laws? Hell, how many of those 300k even give a **** about any new laws at all?

You do the math, Robert.

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???

This is not only about private property rights. This is two fold. One is indeed about private property. The other is about that whole no right to work thing. I covered that in the other thread. Your employer can impose rules for you to follow on the condition of your employment.

Business owners get their right to keep unwanted items and persons away from their property from their private property rights. They can tell anyone to bug off.

They get their right to tell you no XYZ, or do not do ABC, etc (even in your own home) because this is not a right to work state. They can fire you if you break their rules.

[Sky King]

They can tell anyone to bug off.

They get their right to tell you no XYZ, or do not do ABC, etc (even in your own home) because this is not a right to work state. They can fire you if you break their rules.

No, you are not right on this. Tennessee IS a right to work state. The "Right to Work" does not refer to the employer, it relates to the employee. A right to work is in referance to an employee being able to work without being required to join or belong to a union, fraternal labor organization or other collective bargaining organization. In contrast, Kentucky is a "closed shop state", meaning that a union can have in their contract that new employees MUST join the representing union to retain their employement at the company. Thus, you do NOT have a right to work. Tennessee law protects the employee by saying a union can not require your membership to work at a company where a union has a presence, thus you have a "right to work".

The situation YOU are referring to is called "employement at will" Meaning that an employer or employee can terminate the employement relationship "at will" with no cause. The employer does not have to have or state a reason to terminate your employement.

[G27]

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

If you cannot see the difference between these two, then I suppose there's zero point in discussing it further.

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?

Because you are parking your property on their property. Park off their property and you can keep what you want in your vehicle.

The extension of your personal property logic means that you can carry anything you want on your person (your clothes and your body are your 'personal property') and your employer could do nothing about it. So, according to your argument, you should be allowed to walk around with a gun (or porn, or anything else that is legal but not desired by your employer) in the open, in your hand, as your hand is your property.

You really think that makes sense?

[leroy]

All:_______________

Sky King is right on this:

...No, you are not right on this. Tennessee IS a right to work state. The "Right to Work" does not refer to the employer, it relates to the employee..

...A "right to work" (...state....) is in referance to an employee being able to work without being required to join or belong to a union, fraternal labor organization or other collective bargaining organization.....

This is the correct definition of a "right to work state"; simply said, union membership is optional.

leroy

[G27]

The situation YOU are referring to is called "employement at will" Meaning that an employer or employee can terminate the employement relationship "at will" with no cause. The employer does not have to have or state a reason to terminate your employement.

And for the record, TN is an EAW state.

[leroy]

...And for the record, TN is an EAW state....

Good point. The construction industry uses this provision all the time. When the job is complete, you either go to the next one (...if there is one in your territory...) or go home. There should be no expectation (..by and employee...) of a "right to continued employment" if there is nothing to do.

Keep up the good work.

leroy

[Sky King]

And for the record, TN is an EAW state.

You are correct. In fact, I have heard it said in other discussions that it could be in the employers interest to NOT stated a reason to dismiss an employee. Just simply state that their employement is being terminated, end of story. If a reason WERE to be stated, I heard it argued that the terminated employee COULD in a wrongful termination suit force the employer to show proof to substianciate the termination on the grounds given. Not being a lawyer, I don't know if this is true but it sounds reasonable.

[RobertNashville]

If you cannot see the difference between these two, then I suppose there's zero point in discussing it further.

Well, I was just carrying your statement to what seems like a logical extension.

Frankly, I believe your statement is, at best, inaccurate…were it accurate then an employer would have the right to search a privately vehicle without permission of the owner; I suspect we both know that they don’t’ have that right. They must ask for permission and the person who owns the vehicle decides to give or not give permission. Of course, there can be repercussions (required to leave the premises; termination of employment, etc.) but to say that the U.S. Constitution only applies to government is simply not true.

The extension of your personal property logic means that you can carry anything you want on your person (your clothes and your body are your 'personal property') and your employer could do nothing about it. So' date=' according to your argument, you should be allowed to walk around with a gun (or porn, or anything else that is legal but not desired by your employer) in the open, in your hand, as your hand is your property.[/size']

You really think that makes sense?

No I don't think it makes sense but I'm not and no one is suggesting that people should be allowed to "carry anything" on our person and walking onto a factory floor or inside an office building.

I think most people know that an inanimate object that is perfectly legal to possess and have in a vehicle is not going to have any impact on anyone…there simply is no burden placed on a business simply because someone has something in their vehicle that the business doesn't want there. I haven't heard (read) anyone here here and none of these bills are proposing that businesses should be forced to allow these objects to be brought into their buildings/office spaces, etc.

All this chest-thumping about private property rights seems like dramatic posturing to me and makes about as much sense as the Brady Bunch wanting to ban “assault clips” as a response to the Tucson shooting.

Edited April 16, 2011 by RobertNashville

[G27]

to say that the U.S. Constitution only applies to government is simply not true.

You are completely wrong here, Robert.

There are laws that are based on / mirror the US Constitution's constraints that apply to people, businesses, etc - but the US Constitution applies only to the government.

I think most people know that an inanimate object that is perfectly legal to possess and have in a vehicle is not going to have any impact on anyone…

Agree completely - we don't ban anything in our places of business and I've always encouraged my employees to arm themselves at al times. But I suspect I'm in a small percentage of business owners who want to support 2A in my place of business.

All this chest-thumping about private property rights seems like dramatic posturing to me and makes about as much sense as the Brady Bunch wanting to ban “assault clips” as a response to the Tucson shooting.

Really, you have to stoop to insults (phrase them how you wish, the point stands)?

I like that fact that we've stayed above that sort of tripe in this thread.

Have fun, I'm done.

Edited April 16, 2011 by crimsonaudio

[leroy]

Robert:________________

RE: This:

....(An) employer would have the right to search a privately vehicle without permission of the owner; I suspect we both know that they don’t’ have that right. They must ask for permission and the person who owns the vehicle decides to give or not give permission.

This is not necessarily correct. I worked (...as well as many others...) for many years for a company (...many big companies do this...) that retained the right to search your private property (....Car, tool box, lunch bucket, car, etc. ...) as a condition of employment. This company (....as well as many others...) routinely do this. The fact is that employment is a contract; and you need to understand that a contract works two ways. You may, in fact, give up a bunch or rights that you have sitting on your property to go to work. It has always been that way.

You give some of those "rights" when you agree to go to work for someone who sees fit to implement them. If you "decline" to give permission to an authorized agent of the company to do one of the things that are a "condition of employement", you can (...and will...) be fired for cause without recourse. I've seen it happen because of contraband (...read that stolen hand tools, drugs and alcohol; even prescription drugs without a prescription --- that could be your wife's or husband's allergy prescription allergy medicine!!...), items "stolen" from the company (...right down to "worthless" items like flagging...), and what is being discussed here (...firearms...). The company can mandate a group of "prohibited items". That's what it means. If you get caught with them you are out.

A company may also implement other "conditions of employment". They can be random drug testing, satisfactory passage of physical endurance testing, etc. All as "conditions of employment".

Dont believe for a minute that your Fourth Amendment rights are intact inside another entity's (...read that company, corporation, governmental agency, etc.--anybody that "employs" ...) property if you are employed by them and they have items that are a "condition of employment" that you, as an employee, have agreed to up front as a "condition of employment". You give those "rights" up if you choose to go to work for that company, corporation, etc. who lists them as a "condition of employment". They will always tell you up front what those "conditions" are, and will ask you to sign a document that indicates that you "understand and agree to" those conditions. The bottom line is, again, that working for a wage is a contract. The employer can stipulate what those conditons are.

If you choose to work for that company, you choose to abide by his rules. This has nothing to do about "constitutional rights" (...you retain them as a private citizen on your own time...), and everything to do about "contracts". The employer offers employment under certain stated conditions. You as an employee agree to work under those conditions. Again: "Contract" equals employer's offer (...under certain conditions....) and the individual employee's agreement to work under those stated conditons.

I aint tryin to pick an argument with anyone concerning this "rights" issue. I'm simply sayin that you, in fact, do not retain many of your "Constitutional Rights" in the workplace. That argument has been settled in the courts for a long time. The rule that applies here is the "contractural agreement" rule.

Hope this gives a better perspective about what is going on here.

leroy

Edited April 16, 2011 by leroy
formatting, punctuation...

[RobertNashville]

Robert:________________

RE: This:

This is not necessarily correct. I worked (...as well as many others...) for many years for a company (...many big companies do this...) that retained the right to search your private property (....Car, tool box, lunch bucket, car, etc. ...) as a condition of employment. This company (....as well as many others...) routinely do this. The fact is that employment is a contract; and you need to understand that a contract works two ways. You may, in fact, give up a bunch or rights that you have sitting on your property to go to work. It has always been that way.

You give some of those "rights" when you agree to go to work for someone who sees fit to implement them. If you "decline" to give permission to an authorized agent of the company to do one of the things that are a "condition of employement", you can (...and will...) be fired for cause without recourse. I've seen it happen because of contraband (...read that stolen hand tools, drugs and alcohol; even prescription drugs without a prescription --- that could be your wife's or husband's allergy prescription allergy medicine!!...), items "stolen" from the company (...right down to "worthless" items like flagging...), and what is being discussed here (...firearms...). The company can mandate a group of "prohibited items". That's what it means. If you get caught with them you are out.

A company may also implement other "conditions of employment". They can be random drug testing, satisfactory passage of physical endurance testing, etc. All as "conditions of employment".

Dont believe for a minute that your Fourth Amendment rights are intact inside another entity's (...read that company, corporation, governmental agency, etc.--anybody that "employs" ...) property if you are employed by them and they have items that are a "condition of employment" that you, as an employee, have agreed to up front as a "condition of employment". You give those "rights" up if you choose to go to work for that company, corporation, etc. who lists them as a "condition of employment". They will always tell you up front what those "conditions" are, and will ask you to sign a document that indicates that you "understand and agree to" those conditions. The bottom line is, again, that working for a wage is a contract. The employer can stipulate what those conditons are.

If you choose to work for that company, you choose to abide by his rules. This has nothing to do about "constitutional rights" (...you retain them as a private citizen on your own time...), and everything to do about "contracts". The employer offers employment under certain stated conditions. You as an employee agree to work under those conditions. Again: "Contract" equals employer's offer (...under certain conditions....) and the individual employee's agreement to work under those stated conditons.

I aint tryin to pick an argument with anyone concerning this "rights" issue. I'm simply sayin that you, in fact, do not retain many of your "Constitutional Rights" in the workplace. That argument has been settled in the courts for a long time. The rule that applies here is the "contractural agreement" rule.

Hope this gives a better perspective about what is going on here.

leroy

As I said above, there may be; perhaps almost certainly will be repercussions to not consenting to a search but an employee always retains the right to refuse; were that not so, an employer would not need to ask you to "agree" as a "condition of employment" in the first place. Regardless of what an employee may or may not have agreed to when they took the job or anytime after taking the job, that employee can always change their mind...a contract voluntarily entered into can be voluntarily withdrawn from by either party; such agreements don't simply go on to infinity.

Changing their mind...denying the search of the vehicle may mean termination; it might even guarantee termination, but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to deny permission to search.

Only law enforcement and only with probable cause (or a search warrant) can compel a search of a vehicle.

[RobertNashville]

You are completely wrong here, Robert.

There are laws that are based on / mirror the US Constitution's constraints that apply to people, businesses, etc - but the US Constitution applies only to the government.

If I'm mistaken please tell me but to the best of my knowledge, no one but law enforcement has the power to compel a search of my vehicle and only then with proper cause to do so. Is that not because or our Constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure? If there is some other law that applies here, please let me know or if you think an employer does have the right to search my vehicle without consent, feel free to elaborate.

Really, you have to stoop to insults (phrase them how you wish, the point stands)?

I like that fact that we've stayed above that sort of tripe in this thread.

Have fun, I'm done.

I wasn't trying to insult; sorry if you took it that way...I just find it odd that this issue raises such a fuss from pro-gun folks.

[G27]

If I'm mistaken please tell me but to the best of my knowledge, no one but law enforcement has the power to compel a search of my vehicle and only then with proper cause to do so. Is that not because or our Constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure? If there is some other law that applies here, please let me know or if you think an employer does have the right to search my vehicle without consent, feel free to elaborate.

As Leroy mentioned earlier - the property owner has the right to do so under many employment contracts. But even if they didn't, if they searched it illegally, they would be charged with something like 'breaking and entering', not as a violation of your civil (constitutional) rights.

I just find it odd that this issue raises such a fuss from pro-gun folks.

Just because I'm pro-gun doesn't mean the other parts of the BoR are trumped by that. I happen to see both sides of this situation, unlike some here who only seem to recognize their own rights.

[macville]

Here's the things that come to mind. Before, I was very much against forcing places open to the public doing things. But someone on here pointed out that the government forces us business owners to do all sorts of crap - handicap access, certain working conditions, etc. How is it any different to forcing businesses to let HCP'ers keep their firearm in their cars? Now, I don't totally agree with the idea under principle, but since we are getting pushed around, what's one more thing in the long run? Forced is forced, if it's one thing or twenty things.

I understand not allowing firearms inside buildings, but I see no problems with allowing firearms in people's private cars. Of course, if people actually respected other people's right to self defense, they shouldn't have any issues with people storing firearms.

What I wonder about most companies that prohibit firearms in cars on company property is what is the reason behind it? Is it because they are anti-gun, or is it (much more likely) because some lawyer at some point said they could get sued if they allowed their employees to keep their firearms on their property? I am guessing that most companies wouldn't even think about it being an issue except for some freakin lawyer had to open their mouth. The whole thing is, in this day and age you are going to get sued one way or another. Even if you ban firearms, you could get sued for not having security that searches everyone, or even if you have security, it's not effective enough. In reality, it's a no win situation for businesses period.

Maybe I am just thinking that business owners need to focus more on making sure their butts aren't on the line legally any which way and less on removing people's ability to protect themselves. Let's focus more on single people's actions, rather than punish everyone.

[Guest manofsteel]

the 2nd amendment gives us the right to bear arms. where or what adornment gives property owners the right to over ride the 2a? i would really like to read this.

[GKar]

Geez, its de ja vue all over again...and again...and again.

Would it perhaps be easier for one of the mods to go through any of the other sixty-five identical threads on this topic, assign a unique number to each clearly defined position, and then post that list in a sticky? Folks could save most everyone else a lot of time (both typing and reading) by then just posting the number of their particular ideology, making for a quicker, non-denigrating "dialogue"...

3

No, 4

7

18, I say

Ad infinitum...

[strickj]

Thanks for the clarification Sky King. I knew TN was a EAW state but took the terms as being interchangeable.

Here's the things that come to mind. Before, I was very much against forcing places open to the public doing things. But someone on here pointed out that the government forces us business owners to do all sorts of crap - handicap access, certain working conditions, etc. How is it any different to forcing businesses to let HCP'ers keep their firearm in their cars? Now, I don't totally agree with the idea under principle, but since we are getting pushed around, what's one more thing in the long run? Forced is forced, if it's one thing or twenty things.

So, since we citizens are restricted access to NFA items... it would be ok for us to be restricted access to all guns? I mean, following logic and all, it's only one more little restriction...

And please research ADA, OSHA, DoH-food safety, etc before you compare this bill with those.

the 2nd amendment gives us the right to bear arms. where or what adornment gives property owners the right to over ride the 2a? i would really like to read this.

Since this keeps getting brought back up, I will address it one more time.

The Constitution is a document that protects the rights within from being taken away by the government. It does not protect your rights from being taken by anyone else.

We are in the information age for goodness sake. Please Google "Constitutional rights". Read. Learn. Read again. Come back to post findings here for all to read.

[leroy]

....As I said above, there may be; perhaps almost certainly will be repercussions to not consenting to a search but an employee always retains the right to refuse; were that not so, an employer would not need to ask you to "agree" as a "condition of employment" in the first place. Regardless of what an employee may or may not have agreed to when they took the job or anytime after taking the job, that employee can always change their mind...a contract voluntarily entered into can be voluntarily withdrawn from by either party; such agreements don't simply go on to infinity.

Changing their mind...denying the search of the vehicle may mean termination; it might even guarantee termination, but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to deny permission to search. ...

Only law enforcement and only with probable cause (or a search warrant) can compel a search of a vehicle....

Agreed. You can change your mind; breaking the contract. You will be fired for it.

RE: "Compelling a search". They dont need to. They just fire you. If they think you stole something, they will call law enforcement (...or, in some cases, call their own...) and "compel the search". The end result then has another result (...if you are guilty...). You get fired and you get charged with theft of property from the company.

leroy

[RobertNashville]

As Leroy mentioned earlier - the property owner has the right to do so under many employment contracts. But even if they didn't, if they searched it illegally, they would be charged with something like 'breaking and entering', not as a violation of your civil (constitutional) rights.

Maybe we are only discussing semantics here but please bear with me.

As I understand contract law; the employer does not have a "right" to do anything with regards to my private property or my person...the only thing they have is my permission (in this case, to search my vehicle or my briefcase etc) which I have voluntarily given to them as a condition of employment. What I'm saying is, permission is not the same thing as a right...to me, saying they have a right to do something implies that no permission from me is necessary. Just because I've previously and voluntarily given my permission for a search of my vehicle, I can, just as voluntarily, rescind such permission can I not?

Unlike a law enforcement officer who can search my vehicle without my consent (assuming of course they have just cause); the one and only thing my employer has the power to do if I don't let them search my vehicle is to fire me.

Again, maybe this is just semantics but I see a significant difference between an employer having a "right" to do something vs an employer having and needing my permission to do something.

[RobertNashville]

While we are on this subject...

As of last summer, the state of Tennessee has told businesses (including those that serve alcohol) that they either...

1) must allow HCP holders to carry in their establishments, OR

2) they must properly post their places of business.

Why does this requirement not apply to ALL businesses equally?

By that I mean, why is an "employer" allowed to restrict firearm carry (even to the point of the firearm being left in a locked vehicle) simply with "company policy" rather than being required to post all their property like any bar, restaurant or store has to do?

This difference seems like a glaring inconsistency to me.

[RobertNashville]

...And please research ADA, OSHA, DoH-food safety, etc before you compare this bill with those.

I think a case could be made that such laws (above) and these proposed "parking lot" bills have significant similarities.

Don't such laws as "food safety", OSHA, ADA, etc. exist because society (the government) has decided, rightly or wrongly, that these laws and the requirements/restrictions they place on businesses are important enough to the "public good" or "public welfare" that the burden they place on businesses need to be subservient to that public good? If so, then could not the "public good" argument apply equally well to these "parking lot" bills?

I certainly think that it's not only in my own best interests but that it's in the best interests of society in general that good, decent, law-abiding people like me...like you...like many others, be able to carry a firearm away from our homes.

If it is in the best interest of the public at large then why should society not place this additional requirement on businesses just as they have with "food safety, OSHO, and the rest? Perhaps such a restriction is a violation of a businesses' "private property rights" but is leaving a firearm in a parked and locked vehicle really so much of a burden for a business?

I think the "good" to be gained from a parking lot bill far outweighs any burden that such a law would place on a business; in fact, I don't see how there is any real burden on the business at all...but that's just my opinion.

[leroy]

Robert:__________

RE:

...Again, maybe this is just semantics but I see a significant difference between an employer having a "right" to do something vs an employer having and needing my permission to do something. ...

This is semantics. It is a "distinction without a difference".

Think of it this way: .... You gave permission as a part of the employment contract. The contract was (...and is...) in force under the agreed to contract "terms" until either the employer or employee does something to break the contract (...or moves to re-negotiate the "terms" of the contract...). Being subject to "conditions of employment" are one of the legitimate terms of the contract. That says, in effect, that permission has already been given for that particular "condition of employment". If you decide to fight one of these "conditions of employment"; you violate one of the terms of the contract. When you choose unilaterally to "recend" or renegotiate this particular provison; you have, in effect, broken the terms of that contract, and the employer has the option of terminating you for cause. When you use your definition of right (...above...); in this situation it is a term of the contract.

I agree fully employer cant "coerce" or "compel" a search, he can fire you for cause for "breach of contract".

leroy

[Worriedman]

While we are on this subject...

As of last summer, the state of Tennessee has told businesses (including those that serve alcohol) that they either...

1) must allow HCP holders to carry in their establishments, OR

2) they must properly post their places of business.

Why does this requirement not apply to ALL businesses equally?

By that I mean, why is an "employer" allowed to restrict firearm carry (even to the point of the firearm being left in a locked vehicle) simply with "company policy" rather than being required to post all their property like any bar, restaurant or store has to do?

This difference seems like a glaring inconsistency to me.

The State of Tennessee allows any business to preclude you from carrying, permit or not, whether the venue is posted or not, at any time for any reason. If they are not posted, and they ascertain that you are armed, they can still ask you to leave and if you do not, you are guilty of criminal trespass.

The whole argument comes down to money, you have to follow it to understand the debate.

Firearms carry in Tennessee is under the auspices of the Legislature. Article 1 Section 26 bears this out. We can flap our gums all day about our opinion regarding if we should be able to keep our otherwise legally permitted weapons in our private vehicles, all to no avail, as the only opinion that matters is that of the Legislature. The side that purchases the larger number of Legislators will prevail. Tennessee has already decreed under their Powers that it is illegal to walk around armed, after the changing of the Constitution in 1870. The State took that right away from the People, and issued to themselves the ability to decide that issue, even though it had been a Right since the founding of our State until that time. Added to the usurpation by the General Assembly, was a codicil to make it seemingly more palatable, they intoned that any restriction of the ability to bear arms must be in concert with a view to prevent crime, but that has no real bearing on the subject.

Arguments can be made for both sides of the issue regarding Private Property Rights vs. Right to Carry, with some compelling source material for both sides of the debate. At the time of the penning of the Constitution, had the question been asked relative to whether some employee who lived off site of a business SHOULD be allowed to bear his arms back and forth, you would have been laughed at for even posing such a ludicrous query, as the protection from wild animals and contentious native inhabitants proved personal armament necessary to survive. Male children were given their own weapons at the age of 12 as a general rule, a rite of passage so to speak, and additional guns were considered extra security for frontier families. They were looked at as tools to be used to provide for defense and survival. There was little to no constabulary to call upon, and then only in larger cities, certainly they could not be counted upon to be in attendance of the outlying regions should a crime be committed, survival was up to the individual then, just as it truly is now, and, you can bet that the weapons were privately owned and so wielded.

Private Property was defended at all cost, if livestock was stolen, the perpetrators were hung. If a criminal was caught carrying off your goods, he was most likely shot, to the general acclaim of your neighbors. There was no such thing as Political correctness or rehabilitation. Our lives are not the same today. Some businesses recognize the need to allow their most valuable asset, (their employees) to take advantage of the State rules in place to provide for their own defense on their traverse to and from their homes to their work, while others seek to control the space between the place of labor and that of the abode of their employes without concern for the ability of their employes to avail themselves of the benefit to provide for their safety by paying the tax to obtain their permits. The law abiding will continue to observe the legality, the criminally inclined will not.

This issue will go to the highest bidder, there are SOME Legislators that will vote on principal alone, but as in most instances, the side that buys them most votes will win.

[RobertNashville]

The State of Tennessee allows any business to preclude you from carrying, permit or not, whether the venue is posted or not, at any time for any reason. If they are not posted, and they ascertain that you are armed, they can still ask you to leave and if you do not, you are guilty of criminal trespass.

The whole argument comes down to money, you have to follow it to understand the debate.

Firearms carry in Tennessee is under the auspices of the Legislature. Article 1 Section 26 bears this out. We can flap our gums all day about our opinion regarding if we should be able to keep our otherwise legally permitted weapons in our private vehicles, all to no avail, as the only opinion that matters is that of the Legislature. The side that purchases the larger number of Legislators will prevail. Tennessee has already decreed under their Powers that it is illegal to walk around armed, after the changing of the Constitution in 1870. The State took that right away from the People, and issued to themselves the ability to decide that issue, even though it had been a Right since the founding of our State until that time. Added to the usurpation by the General Assembly, was a codicil to make it seemingly more palatable, they intoned that any restriction of the ability to bear arms must be in concert with a view to prevent crime, but that has no real bearing on the subject.

Arguments can be made for both sides of the issue regarding Private Property Rights vs. Right to Carry, with some compelling source material for both sides of the debate. At the time of the penning of the Constitution, had the question been asked relative to whether some employee who lived off site of a business SHOULD be allowed to bear his arms back and forth, you would have been laughed at for even posing such a ludicrous query, as the protection from wild animals and contentious native inhabitants proved personal armament necessary to survive. Male children were given their own weapons at the age of 12 as a general rule, a rite of passage so to speak, and additional guns were considered extra security for frontier families. They were looked at as tools to be used to provide for defense and survival. There was little to no constabulary to call upon, and then only in larger cities, certainly they could not be counted upon to be in attendance of the outlying regions should a crime be committed, survival was up to the individual then, just as it truly is now, and, you can bet that the weapons were privately owned and so wielded.

Private Property was defended at all cost, if livestock was stolen, the perpetrators were hung. If a criminal was caught carrying off your goods, he was most likely shot, to the general acclaim of your neighbors. There was no such thing as Political correctness or rehabilitation. Our lives are not the same today. Some businesses recognize the need to allow their most valuable asset, (their employees) to take advantage of the State rules in place to provide for their own defense on their traverse to and from their homes to their work, while others seek to control the space between the place of labor and that of the abode of their employes without concern for the ability of their employes to avail themselves of the benefit to provide for their safety by paying the tax to obtain their permits. The law abiding will continue to observe the legality, the criminally inclined will not.

This issue will go to the highest bidder, there are SOME Legislators that will vote on principal alone, but as in most instances, the side that buys them most votes will win.

I think I knew all that and while I haven't checked any facts/figures, I agree with your post but that doesn't really answer my question (or perhaps I posed it poorly).

For the most part, I am allowed to carry anywhere that isn't posted (with specific exceptions of course). Yes, I do agree that posted or not, the property owner can still ask the armed citizen to leave and if he doesn't, he can then be arrested/charged with trespass.

However, when it comes to "employers" and "employees" this seems a much more nebulous situation...they have a "policy" but don't post...they enforce and they enforce this policy with threat of termination. That seems at least inconsistent with what most businesses are required to do under sate law.

I suppose it's six one half-a-dozen of another but most businesses (restaurants, bars, etc) have to post to enforce their "policy"; it just seems reasonable to me that an employer should be required to post well.

Anyway...thanks for your post.

Edited April 17, 2011 by RobertNashville

[strickj]

I think a case could be made that such laws (above) and these proposed "parking lot" bills have significant similarities.

Don't such laws as "food safety", OSHA, ADA, etc. exist because society (the government) has decided, rightly or wrongly, that these laws and the requirements/restrictions they place on businesses are important enough to the "public good" or "public welfare" that the burden they place on businesses need to be subservient to that public good? If so, then could not the "public good" argument apply equally well to these "parking lot" bills?

I certainly think that it's not only in my own best interests but that it's in the best interests of society in general that good, decent, law-abiding people like me...like you...like many others, be able to carry a firearm away from our homes.

If it is in the best interest of the public at large then why should society not place this additional requirement on businesses just as they have with "food safety, OSHO, and the rest? Perhaps such a restriction is a violation of a businesses' "private property rights" but is leaving a firearm in a parked and locked vehicle really so much of a burden for a business?

There is no similarity there, Robert. I don't have to abide by the above laws, at all. I doubt that cmimpsonaudio does either. That is because they are not absolute requirements for businesses to operate under.

Your sole choice to carry a gun can not be compared to people getting sick from eating tainted chicken or anti-discriminatory laws.

I think the "good" to be gained from a parking lot bill far outweighs any burden that such a law would place on a business; in fact, I don't see how there is any real burden on the business at all...but that's just my opinion.

Honestly, I see plenty of good in it as well and I don't see any burdens to businesses in that aspect either. But that doesn't change the fact that this bill will remove rights from business owners.