Lack of support kills HB 2021, parking lot bill

[Sky King]

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.

I too have never said that such a law wouldn't infringe on rights. But I still believe that it represents a need to balance rights. Since Tennessee implemented the permit process, our society has had to slowly come to terms with law abiding citizens carrying concealed weapons. At first, legally you couldn't even gas up your car at a Mapco or go to Kroger because you were on a property that sold beer. As time has marched on, HCP holders have proven their trustworthiness and privileges have been expanded. At most every step, opponents have argued stongly often with dire predictions of blood flowing as a result of shootouts everywhere. They have been proven wrong. Even with the restaurant bill, having now comming close to a year, we havn't had the drunken shootouts that were predicted.

It has been said that many of the restaurants that quickly posted have actually started to take down their signs because once again HCP holders have proven themselves.

So where am I going with this? With each one of these examples, to get past the false fears, these things had to be "forced" upon society. Think of it in a way like a kid not wanting to take the medicine that will make him better, but once taken, he feels better.

Yes, a business owner will have one of his rights stepped on but in all fairness, it is one "stepping on" that won't really hurt him or cost him anything. It is a balancing of rights. For those without permits, nothing changes.

[RobertNashville]

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 have no knowledge of your or cmimpsonaudio's "business" so I've no idea what rules and regulations apply or don't apply to you but I wasn't referring to any particular business. I'm also not talking about tainted chicken or singling out any specific set of rules/regulations for that matter - I'm referring to "businesses" and "rules and regulations" placed on businesses in general. I understand that not all laws and regulations apply to all businesses.

My point is and where I draw the similarity is that all the laws and regulations that place requirements on a business constitute a burden on that businesses but society has decided that the need for those rules and regulations...the "benefit" to society; is more important than the burden placed on the businesses the rules apply to. I see these "parking lot bills" as being no different in that regard than any of these other laws and regulations that already exist.

Just as with all these other laws, if society, as expressed by the legislature, feels that the benefit to society of a "parking lot bill" outweighs whatever burden such a law would place on an employer, then there is certainly precedence for putting that law into place, even if it mildly violates those businesses' "private property rights".

[bubbadavis]

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.

The biggest difference is that without the posting, a HCP holder (employee or not) is not breaking any law. An employee may be terminated but they can't be arrested and charged for carrying against company policy in a non-posted business.

The real kicker is that even a company posts, they can allow their employees to carry - HCP or not. The business owner has the right to allow employees to carry on the business property.

[strickj]

I too have never said that such a law wouldn't infringe on rights. But I still believe that it represents a need to balance rights. Since Tennessee implemented the permit process, our society has had to slowly come to terms with law abiding citizens carrying concealed weapons. At first, legally you couldn't even gas up your car at a Mapco or go to Kroger because you were on a property that sold beer. As time has marched on, HCP holders have proven their trustworthiness and privileges have been expanded. At most every step, opponents have argued stongly often with dire predictions of blood flowing as a result of shootouts everywhere. They have been proven wrong. Even with the restaurant bill, having now comming close to a year, we havn't had the drunken shootouts that were predicted.

It has been said that many of the restaurants that quickly posted have actually started to take down their signs because once again HCP holders have proven themselves.

So where am I going with this? With each one of these examples, to get past the false fears, these things had to be "forced" upon society. Think of it in a way like a kid not wanting to take the medicine that will make him better, but once taken, he feels better.

Yes, a business owner will have one of his rights stepped on but in all fairness, it is one "stepping on" that won't really hurt him or cost him anything. It is a balancing of rights. For those without permits, nothing changes.

I hate to say it, but that's kinda selfish, doncha' think? Basically what you're saying is "the hell with you and your rights as long as I get to do what I want".

Since you're fine with that, please PM me your address so I can drive up, park in your driveway, and blast my speakers. Even if you do mind me doing that, I do not care since my speakers are in my car and my 1st amendment rights trump your property rights. Eye for an eye, et alii.

I do appreciate you explaining to everyone why all of the laws you just mentioned were not liked by the public when presented. But no one here is afraid that there will be blood flowing in the streets with this bill. And those laws never trampled on anyones' rights with their creation. This bill does. It tramples on the rights of every single business owner in this state. All because you want a right to carry on someone's private property.

Robert, I'm not going back into that debate with you. Reread the other thread for my rebuttal to your last post. Both your last post and my rebuttals are located there for all to see.

I didn't even want to get involved in this thread to begin with. I just couldn't take the "big evil corporate business is running this bill in the ground" comments any longer.

Edit; I find it kinda ironic that everyone here as been witnessed to complaining about anti-gun fools taking away our rights. Their motivation behind banning guns is "for the greater good". They say "the hell with your gun rights, this is for the greater good", et alii.

Now, here are the same pro-gun proponents that are fed-up with their rights being taken away... wanting to take rights away from others all in the name of "the greater good". Surely I'm not the only one seeing this here...

Edited April 17, 2011 by strickj

[USMCJG]

I hate to say it, but that's kinda selfish, doncha' think? Basically what you're saying is "the hell with you and your rights as long as I get to do what I want".

Since you're fine with that, please PM me your address so I can drive up, park in your driveway, and blast my speakers. Even if you do mind me doing that, I do not care since my speakers are in my car and my 1st amendment rights trump your property rights. Eye for an eye, et alii.

This is a poor analogy since the speakers inside the car are not the problem, the sound outside the car is the problem. In a way you're kind of making the case for SkyKing's argument.

I do appreciate you explaining to everyone why all of the laws you just mentioned were not liked by the public when presented. But no one here is afraid that there will be blood flowing in the streets with this bill. And those laws never trampled on anyones' rights with their creation. This bill does. It tramples on the rights of every single business owner in this state. All because you want a right to carry on someone's private property.

Robert, I'm not going back into that debate with you. Reread the other thread for my rebuttal to your last post. Both your last post and my rebuttals are located there for all to see.

I didn't even want to get involved in this thread to begin with. I just couldn't take the "big evil corporate business is running this bill in the ground" comments any longer.

Edit; I find it kinda ironic that everyone here as been witnessed to complaining about anti-gun fools taking away our rights. Their motivation behind banning guns is "for the greater good". They say "the hell with your gun rights, this is for the greater good", et alii.

Now, here are the same pro-gun proponents that are fed-up with their rights being taken away... wanting to take rights away from others all in the name of "the greater good". Surely I'm not the only one seeing this here...

I can see both sides of this issue. The fact is that someone is losing their rights, whether it be the business or the employees. The reason I take the side of the employees on this one is because the business owner's ban extends beyond the business owner's private property. The problem in my mind is not that you may not be allowed to keep a firearm in your own personal vehicle while on company property, it's that you are also prevented from keeping your firearm in your own personal vehicle outside of company property. So essentially the employee is not only giving up the right to keep their own private property in their own private property while at work, they are also required to give up their most effective means to defend themselves when off company property on the way to and from work. In my opinion, the final score is 2-1 for the employees. It's obvious that the employees have far more to lose in this situation than the business owners. In fact, the business owners are actually gaining a little added measure of security as well. Edited April 17, 2011 by USMCJG

[RobertNashville]

...Edit; I find it kinda ironic that everyone here as been witnessed to complaining about anti-gun fools taking away our rights. Their motivation behind banning guns is "for the greater good". They say "the hell with your gun rights, this is for the greater good", et alii.

Now, here are the same pro-gun proponents that are fed-up with their rights being taken away... wanting to take rights away from others all in the name of "the greater good". Surely I'm not the only one seeing this here...

I think your comparison is flawed...flawed because of a disparity in impact between the two and flawed because of the disparity of underlying facts and evidence; the "validity" of the argument.

IMPACT on RIGHTS:

You've already said that "Honestly, I see plenty of good in it as well and I don't see any burdens to businesses in that aspect either...." You seem to agree that in the case of a firearm left in a locked vehicle, any loss of a business' "property rights" is minimal at most. However, the impact to a HCP holder when the "anti-gun folks" restrict our right to go armed, the impact on us is much larger; it can even have devastating impact on us should one of those restrictions place us in an environment where we are in a gunfight without a gun.

VALIDITY of the ARGUMENT:

The fact that both "sides" may use the "for the greater good" argument doesn't mean that the argument isn't valid.

As I said above, the restriction of no firearms in our vehicle, even because of one parking lot we might have to park in, can have devastating impact on us should such a restriction place us in an environment where we are in a gunfight without a gun. Our need to be armed is valid because we can show it's valid in any number of ways, even as simply as looking in today's newspaper...we have facts and history on our side...we can show that an armed public is a good thing...that it decreases crime...that it truly is for the "greater good".

On the other hand, the "anti-gun" folks base their arguments on emotion and rhetoric and very little if any facts. Their arguments have been such things as "wild west shootouts" and "drunken gunfights" and the like...they have little and in most cases NO facts to back up their claims and their arguments are baseless...they are invalid. They may claim it's for the "greater good" but the claim is meaningless because it's simple not true (I'm not casting doubts on their sincerity...they may well think...they may well believe their "greater good" claim is true).

You may see a "similarity" in the arguments of the two groups but the similarity not material; no more material that noting that a Ferrari F1 and a Ford Pinto are both "cars".

Edited April 17, 2011 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

...Robert, I'm not going back into that debate with you. Reread the other thread for my rebuttal to your last post. Both your last post and my rebuttals are located there for all to see.

Also for all to see is the similarity between businesses having rules and laws imposed on them (be they zoning, OSHA, ADA, or any other) and a "parking lot bill" being imposed on them..claiming their is no similarity as you did is a claim that just doesn't seem to have any substance.

Edited April 17, 2011 by RobertNashville

[Worriedman]

Edit; I find it kinda ironic that everyone here as been witnessed to complaining about anti-gun fools taking away our rights. Their motivation behind banning guns is "for the greater good". They say "the hell with your gun rights, this is for the greater good", et alii.

Now, here are the same pro-gun proponents that are fed-up with their rights being taken away... wanting to take rights away from others all in the name of "the greater good". Surely I'm not the only one seeing this here...

What I find ironic is the perception that private property rights are couched in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutions as inviolate, while an individual's Right to provide for their own defense with a legal weapon under the rules of the State of Tennessee is not. Under the 10th Amendment, a power that is not expressly given to the Federal Government by the States is left to the States, or the People. As Tennessee has in fact listed the power to control and regulate the wearing of arms as a Power of the State, as well as the dispensation and protection of property rights specifically as both being within it's purview, then a discussion of those Powers is in order I would think.

The motivation on the part of those who would keep the "status quo" with regard to the laws respecting arms carry within a private vehicle on a business owner's parking lot is the desire for control, has nothing to do with the "greater good". Empirical data showing possession of weapons by the Handgun Carry Permit Holders as a detriment to business owners interest would be welcome and useful in the discussion. Were the issue at hand not specifically addressed as a Right of the People "for the common defense" it would be a different thing, but it IS addressed as an important issue, one deserving it's own article in the State Constitution in the minds and under the hands of our State Governmental Framers.

It would seem that as the Framers put down on paper, in order of importance I would imagine, the responsibilities of, and constraints on State Government, then a view of the order of their listing would be reasonable.

Article 1, Section 1 of our Constitution states: "That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; for the advancement of those ends they have at all times, an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper."

Evidently, the Framers placed "peace, safety" at the head of the list of things that were of concern when organizing the "Rights" to be protected, because without those, all others are useless. "Happiness" (which I would anticipate to include private property rights in our State Constitution) comes in after the establishment of the of the other two. The "unalienable rights" so often referenced as the phrase and location paramount in describing private property rights, list them in the order of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", the order of which I can not imagine the Founders to have put down randomly.

The first (and only) mention of "property" private or otherwise in our State Constitution (other than a directive against unreasonable search and seizure of it in Article 1, Section 7) is in Article 1, Section 21: "That no man’s particular services shall be demanded, or property taken, or applied to public use, without the consent of his representatives, (emphasis mine) or without just compensation being made therefore."

There again is the statement that Power is given to the Legislature, to order and control the individual's Rights for the common good, this time in relationship to private property.

With respect to the Right to provide for one's own defense by the use of arms, it is listed in Article 1, Section 26: "That the citizens of this state have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime." This is the latest version, amended in 1870, at which time the Legislature took upon itself the ability to regulate the wearing of arms. Prior to this juncture in history, there was no such Power enshrined, as the original version (1796) Article 11, Section 26, named under the Declaration or Rights read: "That the free men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence."

Why this change came about is open to interpretation, some say it was an institution of "Jim Crow" laws to deny African Americans the ability to bear weapons, another school of thought is that the Legislature of the day intended to limit the KKK from operating with impunity. Regardless of the true motive, the result is the Legislature now holds Power to regulate the wearing of arms in Tennessee, where they did not before this portion of the Section was added. However, the onus is placed on the Legislature to constrain themselves in such executions, "with a view to prevent crime". Without such a proven link, any restraint on the carrying of weapons is unconstitutional. The Legislature is the sole entity that is empowered to decide when and where the Citizens of this State may avail themselves of the ability to provide such tools as the State may adjudicate as legal for the fulfillment of the intent of Article 1, Section 26, subject only to scrutiny of their enactment of "Public Chapters" by the courts.

It has been decided by our Courts (both State and Federal) time and again, that Government, and by virtue of extension of it's responsibilities, Law Enforcement, at any level, is NOT responsible for the safety and protection from criminal activity of it's Citizens.

If Natural Law is to be the only criteria used, and the Constitution is to be tossed aside, then the unalienable Right to protect Life supersedes all other Rights, for without Life there can be no expectation of enjoyment of any other. Prudence would dictate that the continuing downward spiral of our economy, and the resulting upward increase in crime would be a cause of concern to the general public. Pressures on Government by virtue of decreases in revenue to the said Governments would surely indicate a lesser supply of services, e.g. Police presence for one. Trips to and from places of employment will become less and less safe, as we can afford to incarcerate fewer criminals, and put fewer Officers on patrol.

To paraphrase Jeff Snyder, this whole discussion could be considered less about private property rights, and more about "victim disarmament", as that is the true end result achieved by entities that seek to limit the ability of the individual Citizen to make use of the legally specified remedy (procurement of a Handgun Cary Permit) and the best tools (lawfully owned firearms) to provide for their own safety and security.

Edited April 17, 2011 by Worriedman

[strickj]

I think your comparison is flawed...flawed because of a disparity in impact between the two and flawed because of the disparity of underlying facts and evidence; the "validity" of the argument.

IMPACT on RIGHTS:

You've already said that "Honestly, I see plenty of good in it as well and I don't see any burdens to businesses in that aspect either...." You seem to agree that in the case of a firearm left in a locked vehicle, any loss of a business' "property rights" is minimal at most.\

No. I never implied that, Robert. This bill removes a real right of a property owner. Yes, it would be nice for employees to be able to carry... but I am not going to remove someone's rights in order for me to do something that I want to do. That is wrong.

As for the rest of your post, reread the other thread. I am not going to debate your same flawed arguments here that business do not have rights simply because they have rules to follow.

However, if you do come up with some proof other then "business have rules therefore they have no rights", then post back here and I will be happy to pick this back up.

What I find ironic is the perception that private property rights are couched in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutions as inviolate, while an individual's Right to provide for their own defense with a legal weapon under the rules of the State of Tennessee is not. [snip]

Are you a lawyer or a paralegal? I know that you have mentioned working in a law firm...

I find in strange that you, a law firm employee, thinks that you have constitutional rights away from the government. Was the constitution not part of your education?

As for this thread; I am done with it. You guy's have fun trying to get this bill supported. For me, I am just thankful that Nashville is doing the right thing here, for once.

[Worriedman]

Are you a lawyer or a paralegal? I know that you have mentioned working in a law firm...

I find in strange that you, a law firm employee, thinks that you have constitutional rights away from the government. Was the constitution not part of your education?

Not hardly, I am a concrete finisher by trade, and now a Sr. Project Manager for a Design/Build Firm that constructs larger than breadbox things such as Steel Mills and Distribution Centers. I wade through more Government Regulations than most lawyers on any given Project, dealing with OSHA, EPA, etc., and various State, County and City entities. Have done so in four different nations and on two continents. As our firm works Merit Shop, i get the pleasure of dealing with those Projects that fall in areas of high collective bargaining activity, probably the most contentious of all aspects, and were the mere slip of a tongue can cost millions, and result in jail time.

I am fully cognizant that money talks and BS walks, and Nashville operates just as Washington, Paris and Mexico City does, the loudest squeak with the largest bank account, or the propensity to provide the most votes next round, will get their way.

I also know that Nashville, (the Legislature) can decide what business can keep as conditions of employment, and if they decide the HCP holder should be allowed to keep their weapons in their personal vehicle, that is the way the law will read.

[RobertNashville]

No. I never implied that, Robert. This bill removes a real right of a property owner. Yes, it would be nice for employees to be able to carry... but I am not going to remove someone's rights in order for me to do something that I want to do. That is wrong.

As for the rest of your post, reread the other thread. I am not going to debate your same flawed arguments here that business do not have rights simply because they have rules to follow. However, if you do come up with some proof other then "business have rules therefore they have no rights", then post back here and I will be happy to pick this back up.

What a absurd statement - I never said or implied that "because businesses have rules they have no rights" - I haven't said that in this thread or in any other thread and if you think I have then you need to re-read my posts because I neither said or implied anything of the kind.

The similarity between the existence of rules already placed on businesses (and there are many including Federal State and local) and this proposed rule placed on businesses is obvious except to those who refuse to see it and it has nothing to do with the concept of whether or not businesses have rights or don't have rights. What it does have to do with is that these existing rules show that society CAN and HAS placed rules and regulations on businesses and I would argue that there are times when such rules and regulations need to be placed on businesses even if they violate a businesses' "property rights".

It it seems that you believe a business owner's right's, especially his "property rights" should never be violated or infringed...if so, if a businesses' "rights" are to be held so high...so inviolate...then I would assume that you believe that none of the laws, rules and regulations already placed on businesses should exist, correct? If so and given your unceasing vocal opposition to this proposed rule, I can't help but wonder if you were this vocal in your opposition to the plethora of other rules already placed on businesses that impact their "rights"?

Were you out protesting at the State House when they decreed that a restaurant could not allow even if the restaurant wanted to do so; even if they knew that most of their customers wanted to be able to smoke there? That measure certainly infringed the "right" of the restaurant owner to control what happened on his own property and may well have had a negative financial impact as well.

How about the recent change in Tennessee law regarding carry in places that served alcohol; did you protest that as well? If you are going to be consistent in your position about "protecting businesses' private property rights" then you should have been as vocally opposed to that change in the rules as you are to this one because that change "infringed" on some businesses' property rights as well. Places like Randy Rayburn's restaurants had to go out and buy signage if they wanted to disallow HCP holders from carrying in his restaurant. That certainly placed a new burden on such businesses.

Many if not most of the rules and regulations placed on businesses not only infringe on businesses' "rights" but have a financial impact as well yet this is a proposed rule that by your own admission places no burden on businesses and I can't think of a single financial impact on them either, at least no negative impact. Yet, somehow, this rule is apparently "going to far" for some folks to handle. I don't get the logic...maybe someone can explain it to me???

These proposed "parking lot bills" place no burden on businesses at all while concurrently do a lot of good for society. Whatever "rights" businesses have, those "rights" can and have been restrained/impacted...sometimes they NEED to be impacted.

In my opinion, this is one of those times they need to be impacted.

Edited April 18, 2011 by RobertNashville

[strickj]

Worriedman; thanks for the clarification. I guess I just remember you saying that you worked at a "firm" and I implied law firm.

And I agree with you on the "money talks" when it comes to bills. But this bill has more then big money against it.

Robert; again, yes, businesses have rules to operate under. But guess what, so do you and I in our very own homes. Rules and laws that violate our property rights. That does not make it OK for a law saying that you or I have to let anyone onto our private property. Nor does it make it OK for businesses to loose that right simply because they have other laws to follow. Your argument on this is just absurd.

Further, and this is the absolute last time I'm going to say this considering we debated this to ridiculous amounts in the other thread... there is no one single blanket law that all businesses must abide by. None. Not even "civil rights" laws. This bill is a blanket that all businesses must follow and it infringes on businesses rights. For those two reasons alone, this bill will never go anywhere.

"Not putting a burden" on the businesses is irrelevant. What is relevant is the rights of the property owner and employers' right to fire who they want.

What a absurd statement - I never said or implied that "because businesses have rules they have no rights"

Ok then... but you are saying that their rights don't matter. I find to be a ridiculous statement coming from someone that doesn't want his 2nd amendment rights taken away. You are fine with others rights being taken away as long as your rights remain intact. That's just a selfish way to see things. Plain, pure and simple. Edited April 18, 2011 by strickj

[RobertNashville]

Robert; again, yes, businesses have rules to operate under. But guess what, so do you and I in our very own homes. Rules and laws that violate our property rights. That does not make it OK for a law saying that you or I have to let anyone onto our private property. Nor does it make it OK for businesses to loose that right simply because they have other laws to follow. Your argument on this is just absurd.

If I were actually making that argument it would be absurd. But, I’m not making that argument nor do these proposed parking lot bills say that you have to “let anyone onto your property”.

Further, and this is the absolute last time I'm going to say this considering we debated this to ridiculous amounts in the other thread... there is no one single blanket law that all businesses must abide by. None. Not even "civil rights" laws.

That’s great that you aren’t going to say it again. Of course, I can’t figure out why you’ve felt the need to say it in the first place since I’ve never once said anywhere that there is “one single blanket law that all businesses must abide by”. I guess it’s possible someone else here said that but I haven’t.

This bill is a blanket that all businesses must follow and it infringes on businesses rights. For those two reasons alone, this bill will never go anywhere.

This bill may not go anywhere this year but if so, I suspect it will have absolutely nothing to do with either the broadness of its application or that it (extremely mildly) infringes on businesses’ “rights”. Also, it doesn’t impact “all businesses”; it would only impact businesses that have policies and/or postings against firearms in parking lots and that provide parking lots for employees - we both know that not “all businesses” provide parking lots for employees nor do “all businesses” that do provide parking lots have policies and/or postings against firearms in their parking lots.

"Not putting a burden" on the businesses is irrelevant. What is relevant is the rights of the property owner and employers' right to fire who they want.

Wow...how terrible...if we remove "firearms" from the list of reasons to fire someone it only leaves them with about 10,000,000 others reasons...that is a horrible imposition.

Of course the burden matters. This is not the first time that the rights of one “group” have come into conflict with the rights of another group and when that happens; someone’s rights will be infringed upon…who's rights will be infringed upon and how much the infringement will be…how much or little of a “burden” is created is most certainly relevant to how such a conflict should be resolved.

In this case, there is no burden on the business “group” and much benefit to thousands of people and society at large. The claim that a “parking lot bill” is a violation of the businesses’ property rights rings hollow because at most, the “violation” is philosophical but the reality is that the burden has no measurable impact.

Ok then... but you are saying that their rights don't matter.

No…I’m not saying that nor have I ever said it nor do I think it.

I find to be a ridiculous statement coming from someone that doesn't want his 2nd amendment rights taken away. You are fine with others rights being taken away as long as your rights remain intact. That's just a selfish way to see things. Plain, pure and simple.

I don't believe I've mentioned the “2nd amendment” or implied that those rights were being taken away; I'm not even sure the 2nd amendment is what's applicable here.

In this situation, the rights of two different groups are in conflict. When that happens, I believe that society has an obligation to find a solution to the conflict in a way that is the most beneficial to both groups and to society at large (and while we can argue about how well they've done it, society certainly has a track record of doing so).

Your position seems to be that no solutions is needed and/or that the only solution is one in which one group’s rights should be allowed to trample on the other group’s rights (in this case, the "property rights" of businesses)…to me, that position is the one that is actually “selfish”; especially when there is a viable solution available that only mildly impacts the rights of both groups.

Edited April 18, 2011 by RobertNashville

[strickj]

Woriedman, I almost forgot. While glancing over the section of my post you quoted above I noticed that I may have unintentionally called you uneducated. If it came across that way, I apologize. Seems that my 'keep it short, sweet and to the point'ism doesn't always translate what I actually want to say very well sometimes.

Couple that with these all-nighters (see my weird post times) and long days and well...

[Worriedman]

Woriedman, I almost forgot. While glancing over the section of my post you quoted above I noticed that I may have unintentionally called you uneducated. If it came across that way, I apologize. Seems that my 'keep it short, sweet and to the point'ism doesn't always translate what I actually want to say very well sometimes.

Couple that with these all-nighters (see my weird post times) and long days and well...

I did not take umbrage at your statement, I have been called worse by others for less. I have a couple of different degrees, as I seek to always advance in knowledge, neither which are of a direct benefit for the work I do now. Though I hold that education of any kind is a good thing.

I simply am trying to gain for my children and grandchildren, all the advantage to provide for their safety when I am no long a resident of this vale of tears. I know what should be, and that no entity is going to provide for their safety, that they are on their own against the ravages of criminals who would seek to make their job of preying on the unprotected easier. If a business can find it in their best interest to make a criminals life easier, and they can sleep with that, so be it. The fact that I can not fail to fight against that is simply a fact. If you do not have children, you can not understand, if you do not have grandchildren, you can not understand that desire squared.

I am several years you senior, and have more years of life experiences. Personal observations of the reality of life give me a different perspective evidently. I have always tried to offer what I see as the reality of life in my arguments, but I will continue to make them, as I have my own wealth and store of knowledge from having been here nearly 60 years, and I know what is.

I try to use reason in my advocacy for what I think is correct, and hold no ill feelings against you for your perception, though I will continue to seek to gain proponents for my way of thinking.

You continue to say that the wish to have the ability to carry a weapon is a "selfish" desire, I do not disagree. But when I consider my daughter driving home from work, knowing that she has to pick her child up from day care on the way home, then the thought of her having to change a flat tire on the side of the road, being unable to keep her legal weapon at hand because some some corporation has decried it better than adhearing to the original intent of the Constitution, which said that we each should be able to bear arms for our defense, then I am guilty of that, unashamedly.

You owe me no apologies, we simply differ in our take on the issue.

Edited April 19, 2011 by Worriedman

[macville]

Okay, wondering about this. There are tons of laws that make an employer provide for a safe work environment. Helmets, earplugs, being around chemicals, etc. If an employer removes your right to protect yourself with a firearm, should they not provide protection that is equal in the amount of force that can be delivered in self defense?

[RobertNashville]

Okay, wondering about this. There are tons of laws that make an employer provide for a safe work environment. Helmets, earplugs, being around chemicals, etc. If an employer removes your right to protect yourself with a firearm, should they not provide protection that is equal in the amount of force that can be delivered in self defense?

Well; I'm not trying to put words into anyone's mouth here but I would suggest that those who oppose these parking lot bills want to keep the discussion centered on "property rights". Taking such things as a person's right of self defense or what impact their policies might have on a person being able to defend themselves effectively is probably they see as a side issue (assuming they are willing ti acknowledge it as an issue at all).

I think they would say, somewhat correctly, that your right of self-defense is not dependent only on having or not having a firearm (ignoring the simple truth that a firearm is often the single best tool a person can have for self-defense and that for some, such as the elderly or infirm, it might well be the only viable means of providing for our own self-defense).

To put it another way, I would say that businesses are willing to fight for their "private property rights" but are a bit reluctant to take on responsibilities for the impact their policies can have - policies that that they claim their "property rights" allow them to have.

Part of what i find odd in this whole discussion is that, apparently, it's okay for society to tell restaurants what kind of oil they are allowed to use in their fryers (assuming fryers are allowed) and we can tell businesses hat they can't discriminate based on certain attributes of their customers but telling a business that their private property rights stops at the door jam of a person's vehicle...that they can't control what items are in a person's vehicle while that vehicle is parked on the businesses' parking lot is going to far.

Edited April 19, 2011 by RobertNashville

[GKar]

Pardon the interruption, but there is perhaps some interesting information regarding the actual bill. It appears that Eddie Bass has filed an amendment (HA 0239, aka amendment 2, located at http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Amend/HA0239.pdf) that again completely rewrites the bill, completely undoing what Evans did with the first amendment. Should this second amendment (ah, how appropriate that sounds...) be successful in rewriting the bill, it would allow ANY PERONS WHO CAN LEGALLY POSSESS A FIREARM IN PUBLIC to transport, store or possess such firearm in the parking area of a public or private employer's propert (except thwere prohibitd by state or federal law or regulation)y. It retains the liablity relief from the former versions for any such employer.

It would seem his intent is to offer up this amendment when the bill goes to the House floor. It also appears that this language may indeed address some shortcomings pointed out in the original text of the bill.

[Sky King]

Pardon the interruption, but there is perhaps some interesting information regarding the actual bill. It appears that Eddie Bass has filed an amendment (HA 0239, aka amendment 2, located at http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Amend/HA0239.pdf) that again completely rewrites the bill, completely undoing what Evans did with the first amendment. Should this second amendment (ah, how appropriate that sounds...) be successful in rewriting the bill, it would allow ANY PERONS WHO CAN LEGALLY POSSESS A FIREARM IN PUBLIC to transport, store or possess such firearm in the parking area of a public or private employer's propert (except thwere prohibitd by state or federal law or regulation)y. It retains the liablity relief from the former versions for any such employer.

It would seem his intent is to offer up this amendment when the bill goes to the House floor. It also appears that this language may indeed address some shortcomings pointed out in the original text of the bill.

I have not read Eddie Bass's amendment. It really doesn't matter. I spoke with Josh Evans at the Nashville TFA meeting. He said that he will kill the bill if the Bass amendment passes. Since it is his bill, he can kill it at any time and he said that with that amendment, he will withdraw the bill and send it back to the calendar and rules committee.

I understand his reasoning but I don't agree with it. He has committed to those supporting the bill as amended to not change it back and he is trying to keep his word. I feel that if it is amended by the House members on the floor, they have taken it out of his hands and his commitment has been honored. But that is the way it is.

We still have HB 0355 if we can get it moving fast enough. Time is running out for this year. While I understand what Josh Evans is trying to do, I just can't support HB2021 as it is now. Some see my position as a "all or nothing" approach and that is ok with me. Josh Evans has tried for several years to get a bill like this through. The proplem is support from his collegues is non-existant. While they SAY they are concerned with the property rights issue, IMHO, FedEx, General Tire, UPS and so on are just pumping too much money into their campaigns. The need to be reminded WHO it was that cast the votes that put them in there.

I have come to believe that Josh Evans is sincerely trying but the rest of the Republican members need to remember just WHO they are supposed to be representing. They need to be reminded in no uncertain terms. I am so leaning towards the TEA Party. We need to send a message loud and clear that RINOs just don't cut it.

[strickj]

Worriedman, if we're going to go by age here as the ultimate in supreme "experience" and superiority... then can we collectivity agree with everything Ted Kennedy said as being the greatest thing ever? He was 21 years your senior... almost as much of an age difference as you and I...

If I were actually making that argument it would be absurd. But, I’m not making that argument nor do these proposed parking lot bills say that you have to “let anyone onto your propertyâ€.

You're right. This bill only keeps employer's from firing people. That's totally different then them being forced to allow people onto their property.

That’s great that you aren’t going to say it again. Of course, I can’t figure out why you’ve felt the need to say it in the first place since I’ve never once said anywhere that there is “one single blanket law that all businesses must abide byâ€. I guess it’s possible someone else here said that but I haven’t.

No, you keep saying that since "all businesses have laws to follow...". No business has any additional laws to follow then you or I. There are laws and codes in place for people serving food, or for structures that have more then xxx people inside, etc.

Also, it doesn’t impact “all businessesâ€; it would only impact businesses that have policies and/or postings against firearms in parking lots and that provide parking lots for employees - we both know that not “all businesses†provide parking lots for employees nor do “all businesses†that do provide parking lots have policies and/or postings against firearms in their parking lots.

No. In impacts every single business. Doesn't matter if they have a policy against firearms or not.

Wow...how terrible...if we remove "firearms" from the list of reasons to fire someone it only leaves them with about 10,000,000 others reasons...that is a horrible imposition.

I said that in the other thread. I stated that this was only a "feel good" bill since anyone can be fired for anything, still.

Of course the burden matters. This is not the first time that the rights of one “group†have come into conflict with the rights of another group and when that happens; someone’s rights will be infringed upon…who's rights will be infringed upon and how much the infringement will be…how much or little of a “burden†is created is most certainly relevant to how such a conflict should be resolved.

In this case, there is no burden on the business “group†and much benefit to thousands of people and society at large. The claim that a “parking lot bill†is a violation of the businesses’ property rights rings hollow because at most, the “violation†is philosophical but the reality is that the burden has no measurable impact.

That's the problem. No one's rights are colliding here. No one has the right to carry onto someone else's private property. NO ONE.

As far as the burden goes, that's not for you to decide.

I am deathly afraid of spiders. If you park in my drive way with an aquarium full of spiders, then I'm gonna make you leave. That is my right to make you leave. Those caged spiders will not place any burden on me at all. But that still does not change the fact that I do not want any spiders on my property.

No…I’m not saying that nor have I ever said it nor do I think it.

BS. That's exactly what you're saying. you're saying that a right that you do not have is more important then a right someone else does have.

I don't believe I've mentioned the “2nd amendment†or implied that those rights were being taken away; I'm not even sure the 2nd amendment is what's applicable here.

Not in this thread, no. I'm sure I could look through your posts and find complaints of your 2nd being taken away. I'm saying that it's ironic that you would complain about your rights being taken away but you want to take away other rights' without a second thought.

In this situation, the rights of two different groups are in conflict. When that happens, I believe that society has an obligation to find a solution to the conflict in a way that is the most beneficial to both groups and to society at large (and while we can argue about how well they've done it, society certainly has a track record of doing so).

Your position seems to be that no solutions is needed and/or that the only solution is one in which one group’s rights should be allowed to trample on the other group’s rights (in this case, the "property rights" of businesses)…to me, that position is the one that is actually “selfishâ€; especially when there is a viable solution available that only mildly impacts the rights of both groups.

Again, no one's rights are coming in conflict here, therefore no solution needs to be agreed upon. The only selfishness here are the ones who want to take away others' rights.

I think they would say, somewhat correctly, that your right of self-defense is not dependent only on having or not having a firearm (ignoring the simple truth that a firearm is often the single best tool a person can have for self-defense and that for some, such as the elderly or infirm, it might well be the only viable means of providing for our own self-defense).

Yes, a firearm is only one tool in the toolbox of self defense...

Well; I'm not trying to put words into anyone's mouth here but I would suggest that those who oppose these parking lot bills want to keep the discussion centered on "property rights".

Property rights is only half of it. It's also an employers' right to make employment conditional.

If you've ever worked retail, then you know that an employer can even take away your right to self defense all together (ie' "do not fight back against robbery, etc").

[Worriedman]

Worriedman, if we're going to go by age here as the ultimate in supreme "experience" and superiority... then can we collectivity agree with everything Ted Kennedy said as being the greatest thing ever? He was 21 years your senior... almost as much of an age difference as you and I...

Not necessarily "ultimate" but grey hair counts at a negotiating table, so I think it does merit some consideration.

Property rights is only half of it. It's also an employers' right to make employment conditional.

If you've ever worked retail, then you know that an employer can even take away your right to self defense all together (ie' "do not fight back against robbery, etc").

They can in fact determine "do not fight back against robbery" in their establishment, should they also be able to control how you react off their property, on your travel to and from their place of commerce?

[RobertNashville]

You're right. This bill only keeps employer's from firing people. That's totally different then them being forced to allow people onto their property.

No, it doesn’t keep them from firing people; it does keep them from dictating that a certain legally possessed item can or cannot be in a private vehicle.

No, you keep saying that since "all businesses have laws to follow...". No business has any additional laws to follow then you or I. There are laws and codes in place for people serving food, or for structures that have more then xxx people inside, etc.

Do you really purport that there a no laws that apply only to businesses and do not apply to individuals??? I don't believe it would be all that difficult to come up with numerous examples of laws that apply to businesses that do not apply to individuals.

No. In impacts every single business. Doesn't matter if they have a policy against firearms or not.

Sorry but that's just absurd…if a business has no policy and/or no posting against firearms then they are already in compliance with the proposed law and the law has ZERO impact on them. I believe you even said in an earlier post that that this parking lot bill would have no impact on your business.

That's the problem. No one's rights are colliding here. No one has the right to carry onto someone else's private property. NO ONE.

What no one should have is the ability to dictate what is held inside my private property provided what is held there isn't illegal. If there is something illegal (stolen property, drugs, etc) that's a matter that law enforcement should be called to address.

Ignoring that rights are in conflict makes it easy to cling to the businesses' “private property rights†argument - after all, it make sense to think that if the businesses' rights are the only "rights" involved than they should obviously prevail. However, they aren't the only party with "rights" here...businesses’ “private property rights†are in direct conflict with the individual’s private property rights to control legally possessed items kept inside his private vehicle. There is ZERO reason why anyone should be able to dictate what is inside my vehicle if so long as what is inside is legally possessed and remain inside my vehicle.

As far as the burden goes, that's not for you to decide.

I didn't say it was but it is for me to decide what I think about the matter - it’s my opinion; an opinion you, in fact, agreed with a few posts back.

I think it worth noting, as Josh Edwards did last night, that many of the businesses who are most vocally opposed to this TN bill are and have been operating in states where such "parking lot bills" have been the law for some time now...to me, that makes the protestations of these businesses ring more than a bit hollow.

BS. That's exactly what you're saying. you're saying that a right that you do not have is more important then a right someone else does have.

What right don't I have? Are you saying that only businesses have property rights and individuals do not?

I would suggest that if private property rights exist then I do have a right to control what I keep in my private property. You've said (I'm paraphrasing here, not quoting) that businesses have a right to control what they keep (or allow to be on) their private property…those rights are in conflict with my private property rights. I’ve never said one is “more important†than the other; I've said they are in conflict. When rights are in conflict then it makes sense to seek a reasonable accommodation that doesn't overly burden either side nor allow one side's "rights" to run roughshod over the other side's rights.

Not in this thread, no. I'm sure I could look through your posts and find complaints of your 2nd being taken away. I'm saying that it's ironic that you would complain about your rights being taken away but you want to take away other rights' without a second thought.

I do not believe I’ve said, in this or any other thread, that this is a “Second Amendment†issue vs Property Rights issue - you can believe otherwise but unless you can supply an example to support your belief, it's just an unsupported assertion.

More importantly, while not being unarmed is a concern of mine, I don't think this is or need to be a "Second Amendment" issue...I don't believe an employer should be able to tell me what I can or can't have in my vehicle any more than they have a right to dictate what music I'm allowed to listen to while I'm in my vehicle.

gain, no one's rights are coming in conflict here, therefore no solution needs to be agreed upon. The only selfishness here are the ones who want to take away others' rights.

Yes, two groups rights are in conflict here and if my position that a businesses' right to control "their" private property stops at the door jam of my private property then color me selfish if you wish but it seems to me that the truly selfish position here is the one that says my rights don't matter.

Yes, a firearm is only one tool in the toolbox of self defense...

And for some, it’s the ONLY effective tool they can have.

Property rights is only half of it. It's also an employers' right to make employment conditional.

If you've ever worked retail, then you know that an employer can even take away your right to self defense all together (ie' "do not fight back against robbery, etc").

So an employer can make ANY condition they want…no restrictions at all of any kind...no exceptions whatsoever including the condition that I must forfeit my life…I suppose they also get to set the condition of where my soul spends eternity as well.

[strickj]

They can in fact determine "do not fight back against robbery" in their establishment, should they also be able to control how you react off their property, on your travel to and from their place of commerce?

Conditional terms of employment. Yes, that would be their right.

On the age\gray hair thing, I am not some 18 YO with a wet tummy here. If you wanna refute my argument simply because I am younger then you then I will start quoting Ted Kennedy's anti-gun BS since he was older then you.

You don't know what experience I have or do not have.

Do you really purport that there a no laws that apply only to businesses and do not apply to individuals??? I don't believe it would be all that difficult to come up with numerous examples of laws that apply to businesses that do not apply to individuals.

To my knowledge, no, there are no "business laws" that businesses must abide by just to be in business.

Sorry but that's just absurd…if a business has no policy and/or no posting against firearms then they are already in compliance with the proposed law and the law has ZERO impact on them. I believe you even said in an earlier post that that this parking lot bill would have no impact on your business.

No, I said it would not affect me because I could care less what guns are in my driveway. But it still removes my choice to decide for myself, thus it impacts me.

This bill as that same impact on every single business.

What no one should have is the ability to dictate what is held inside my private property provided what is held there isn't illegal. If there is something illegal (stolen property, drugs, etc) that's a matter that law enforcement should be called to address.

Again, Robert, there are two rights in play here. An employer's right to hire\fire based on conditional terms of employment and their property rights. It's their right as the property owner to refuse admittance onto their property because you carry a gun. It's their right as an employer to impose conditions per your employment. As said, they can tell you not to have a Twitter or Facebook page if they want. That is their right to extend beyond their property.

Ignoring that rights are in conflict makes it easy to cling to the businesses' “private property rights” argument - after all, it make sense to think that if the businesses' rights are the only "rights" involved than they should obviously prevail. However, they aren't the only party with "rights" here...businesses’ “private property rights” are in direct conflict with the individual’s private property rights to control legally possessed items kept inside his private vehicle. There is ZERO reason why anyone should be able to dictate what is inside my vehicle if so long as what is inside is legally possessed and remain inside my vehicle.

The business' rights are the only rights here. Show me what rights you have in the matter. Show me where you have a right to carry onto private property. Show me where you have a right to not be fired based on a contractual agreement to your employment.

What right don't I have? Are you saying that only businesses have property rights and individuals do not?

See directly above on what rights you do not have.

I would suggest that if private property rights exist then I do have a right to control what I keep in my private property. You've said (I'm paraphrasing here, not quoting) that businesses have a right to control what they keep (or allow to be on) their private property…those rights are in conflict with my private property rights. I’ve never said one is “more important” than the other; I've said they are in conflict. When rights are in conflict then it makes sense to seek a reasonable accommodation that doesn't overly burden either side nor allow one side's "rights" to run roughshod over the other side's rights.

Yes, you have private property rights, which include your car, but that does not give you the right to park your private property(or the property inside your private property) on someone else's private property.

And the second part that you seem to not be accepting here is that an employer can dictate what you do off of their property\off the clock as a term of employment.

Thus the reasons no ones' rights are coming in conflict here. You have absolutely no rights in the mix. None. Zip. Zero.

I do not believe I’ve said, in this or any other thread, that this is a “Second Amendment” issue vs Property Rights issue - you can believe otherwise but unless you can supply an example to support your belief, it's just an unsupported assertion.

More importantly, while not being unarmed is a concern of mine, I don't think this is or need to be a "Second Amendment" issue...I don't believe an employer should be able to tell me what I can or can't have in my vehicle any more than they have a right to dictate what music I'm allowed to listen to while I'm in my vehicle.

Did you feel that whoosh over your head? You're completely missing what I'm saying here. This thread and this bill aside, do you want someone taking away any of your rights? That's a rhetorical question as the answer is going to be a given - yes.

Why would you want to take away others' rights when you do not want your personal rights taken away?

So an employer can make ANY condition they want…no restrictions at all of any kind...no exceptions whatsoever including the condition that I must forfeit my life…I suppose they also get to set the condition of where my soul spends eternity as well.

Umm... I guess you've never worked retail?

Circle K and Kangaroo (and most other businesses) will tell employees not to resist robberies; ie, removing their right to self defense.

Secret Service agents are told to give their life to save the POTUS...

So, the answer would be a big yes.

To sum this up, show me proof, actual hard proof, that you have these "rights" that are outlined in red above. Until then, I will no reply as I am simply arguing with someone with absolutely no back to support the front.

Edited April 21, 2011 by strickj

[RobertNashville]

...

Ah...so I have rights but I don't have rights...thanks for clearing that up.

Obviously you also think that my employer can tell my soul where it can spend eternity too...I'll have to ask our CEO what he's decided for me next chance I get since I like to avoid uncertainty.

[G27]

The recurring argument here seems to revolve around one's rights vs another's, while ignoring the fact that you have the CHOICE to work where you do. Sure, I know that leaving a company after XX years with X children to support etc., etc., is a nearly impossible thing to contemplate, but what what you're suggesting is that one person give up their rights for what boils down to your convenience.

FWIW.

Y'all have fun.