Lack of support kills HB 2021, parking lot bill

[GKar]

+1. The only thing proven is that it is virtually impossible to keep a thread on track about the bill itself, even when there are already an ample number of other threads already littered with the same opinionss from largely the same group of folks.

[Worriedman]

Sky King, I could honestly care less what "credibility" I have with you. All of my posts are to simply point out that no one has rights on private property. I have proved that.

Question for you stickj, if a Police Officer arrest someone on another's private property, (Shopping Mall, 7-11, factory parking lot, your driveway, take your pick) do they read him his "Rights", or is the arrested party divested of all rights due to location on "private Property"? Is due process precluded because of location on another's property?

[strickj]

You have proved nothing. You have not shown any statutes or ordinances to substanciate the multitude of claims you have made concerning laws, ordinances and tax issues that apply to business. Everything you have stated has been your opinion.

The "taking of rights" to satisfy others is not without presidence.

I started this thread to discuss the imediate progress of HB2021 and the issues causing it's hinderance. But I am dismayed at a moderator of this forum allowing threads being hijacked for the personal debate of two.

I am here for the furtherance of our rights to keep and bear arms and my natural inalienable right to life. I really don't care what you think, NO MAN has the right to deny my right to protect my right to life, I really don't care whose property I may be on at the time.

I will not respond to you any further. Go hijack some other thread.

I've proved plenty. You've chosen not to accept it as fact. There is NO law that says that an employer can or can not take your rights.

There is the simple FACT that you want to come on my property or work for me then you will follow the rules. If the rules are not to fight back durring a robbery, and you agree to the term, then you just gave up your "natural right" in exchange for admittance\employment.

This very thing happens with millions of employers in this country. Why you and a few others fail to grasp that is beyond me

PROVE ME WRONG here! Show me one thing that proves that you have rights on someone else's private property. One thing.

On the Mod thing.... I am a member of this site first. And all posts in this thread are on topic (the "issues causing it's hinderance"). If you are unable to handle a differencing of thought on an internet board then you need to either grow a thicker skin or get off of the internet.

If you don't like me or my posts then you have two options. Report the posts or put me on your ignore list. The choice is yours... but don't tell me to bug off when my posts are on topic...

[strickj]

Question for you stickj, if a Police Officer arrest someone on another's private property, (Shopping Mall, 7-11, factory parking lot, your driveway, take your pick) do they read him his "Rights", or is the arrested party divested of all rights due to location on "private Property"? Is due process precluded because of location on another's property?

I am neither a cop nor a lawyer but I will answer it the best I can.

1) A cop is a government agent. You have rights from government actions. You do not have rights from civilians.

2) As far as my knowledge goes, cops do not read Miranda rights per every arrest. They only read Miranda rights when an investigation is conducted after an arrest when such can be used as testimony in court.

[Worriedman]

I am neither a cop nor a lawyer but I will answer it the best I can.

1) A cop is a government agent. You have rights from government actions. You do not have rights from civilians.

2) As far as my knowledge goes, cops do not read Miranda rights per every arrest. They only read Miranda rights when an investigation is conducted after an arrest when such can be used as testimony in court.

But you DO have rights while on private property then? Or, could a private citizen treat you any way they want to if they find you on their property? Due process is only owed by governmental agencies and not by private citizens? If a person who does not have permission to do so pulls up in a driveway and plays his music loud, does the property owner have the largess to handle that situation any way they want to?

[Sky King]

But you DO have rights while on private property then? Or, could a private citizen treat you any way they want to if they find you on their property? Due process is only owed by governmental agencies and not by private citizens? If a person who does not have permission to do so pulls up in a driveway and plays his music loud, does the property owner have the largess to handle that situation any way they want to?

One thing I have learned, the older I get, the smarter my Dad gets. When I was young, dumb and full of it, I was the smartest person on earth. But as I got older, I realized, that my Dad was not so dumb after all. Experience is an unmerciful teacher. One day some of the folks on this forum will realize that. I have had to eat a lot of crow in my years and it doesn't really taste all that good, but what can I say. When you look at folks who are way older than you, they just appear out of touch. I know because I looked at older people that way. But looking back, I can only wish I had listened. I could have avoided a lot of rocks in the road if I had just listened. But NO, I had to learn the hard way. I have children and grandchildren. Both of my children now admit that I wasn't so dumb after all, and neither was my dad.

My Mother used to say "Your rights end where my nose begins". I believe that. So you can take your property rights and shove them where the sun doesn't shine. When it comes to my inalienable right to protect my right to life, your property rights can just go to he##.

And if you don't think property rights can be overridden, just look at the issues involving immenent domain, where the government can take your property whether you want to sell it or not. Yes, they have to pay you for it, but you don't have the ability to say no. They will "buy" it from you whether you want to sell it or not.

Edited April 24, 2011 by Sky King

[strickj]

But you DO have rights while on private property then? Or, could a private citizen treat you any way they want to if they find you on their property? Due process is only owed by governmental agencies and not by private citizens? If a person who does not have permission to do so pulls up in a driveway and plays his music loud, does the property owner have the largess to handle that situation any way they want to?

1) No. Just because you do not have any rights while on someone's private property, that does not give the property owner any extra rights to harm you.

2) Yes, due process only applies to the government. The only amendment that does not apply only to the government is the 13th (slavery) which also extends to citizens. And even the 13th does not offer protection when you agree to give it up (ie; if you wanna live under my roof then you will do all of the chores and XYZ~essentially the definition of slavery). I'm not making any of this up. I promise.

3) No, you can not do whatever you want to someone playing music loudly on your property. See "1" above. You can ask them to leave or call the cops to arrest them for trespass. If you harm them, then that would be battery.

That's the problem with this bill, as written. It removes the right to remove someone over that person's 2nd. The equivalent would be a law that makes it illegal to remove someone over ther 1st - like plaiyng music loudly in your driveway, or yelling "FIRE" in a theater. You do not have a 1st right on private property no more then a 2nd.

One thing I have learned, the older I get, the smarter my Dad gets. When I was young, dumb and full of it, I was the smartest person on earth. But as I got older, I realized, that my Dad was not so dumb after all. Experience is an unmerciful teacher. One day some of the folks on this forum will realize that. I have had to eat a lot of crow in my years and it doesn't really taste all that good, but what can I say. When you look at folks who are way older than you, they just appear out of touch. I know because I looked at older people that way. But looking back, I can only wish I had listened. I could have avoided a lot of rocks in the road if I had just listened. But NO, I had to learn the hard way. I have children and grandchildren. Both of my children now admit that I wasn't so dumb after all, and neither was my dad.

My Mother used to say "Your rights end where my nose begins". I believe that. So you can take your property rights and shove them where the sun doesn't shine. When it comes to my inalienable right to protect my right to life, your property rights can just go to he##.

And if you don't think property rights can be overridden, just look at the issues involving immenent domain, where the government can take your property whether you want to sell it or not. Yes, they have to pay you for it, but you don't have the ability to say no. They will "buy" it from you whether you want to sell it or not.

Ah... so we're back to age now. Great. No need to attack the topic with facts and proof.... just say the other guy is "young and dumb and full of it", since he's younger.

Here's an analogy for ya:

You are smarter then I because you are older.

Ted Kennedy was smarter then you because he was older.

And your mother is\was right. Your "rights" end where my property (my nose) begins. You should have learned to listen to her... she was older then you

Oh, and Eminent domain (as it's correctly spelled by us young and dumb kind) is Constitutional.

See the last part of the 5th amendment.

(of coarse, I expect you to just dispel that as not proof as with everything else)

Edited April 24, 2011 by strickj

[Worriedman]

3) No, you can not do whatever you want to someone playing music loudly on your property. See "1" above. You can ask them to leave or call the cops to arrest them for trespass. If you harm them, then that would be battery.

That's the problem with this bill, as written. It removes the right to remove someone over that person's 2nd. The equivalent would be a law that makes it illegal to remove someone over ther 1st - like plaiyng music loudly in your driveway, or yelling "FIRE" in a theater. You do not have a 1st right on private property no more then a 2nd.

Under what auspices do you consider the private property owner to be constrained in his actions in this situation?

And, the 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with the "Parking Lot Bill" as the 2nd deals with putting chains on the Federal Government with respect to interfering (operative word is infringed) with the Right of the People to keep and bear arms for use in taking on an out of hand Federal Government, according to George Washington:

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

This proclamation was offered by President John F. Kennedy on the 2nd Amendment:

“By calling attention to ‘a well regulated militia’, the ’security’ of the nation, and the right of each citizen ‘to keep and bear arms’, our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason, I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.”(emphasis mine)

The 2nd Amendment, when upheld, DOES offer the Citizens of this Republic benefits, according to John Adams:

“Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense.”

But, make no mistake, the 2nd Amendment was not placed in the Bill of Rights for supporting an individual Citizen's Right to provide for their own defense, that was understood as a "Natural Right".

As there is no mention of a power given the Federal Government by the States to regulate the wearing of arms, it is left then (per the 10th Amendment) to the various States, and is specifically enumerated in our State Constitution in Article 1, Section 26. As this is the sole mention of a Right to Arms in our Declaration of Rights, and per Article 11, Section 16:

"The declaration of rights hereto prefixed is declared to be a part of the Constitution of this State, and shall never be violated on any pretence whatever. And to guard against transgression of the high powers we have delegated, we declare that everything in the bill of rights contained, is excepted out of the General powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate."

The State Legislature has been charged to decide what restrictions are to be laid on the Citizens of Tennessee with respect to when and where arms may be carried, and then only "with a view to prevent crime".

Edited April 24, 2011 by Worriedman

[Oh Shoot]

....Oh, and Eminent domain (as it's correctly spelled by us young and dumb kind) ...

(of coarse, I expect you to just dispel that...

Oopsie. Homophone hypocrisy.

- OS

[USMCJG]

Oopsie. Homophone hypocrisy.

- OS

[strickj]

Under what auspices do you consider the private property owner to be constrained in his actions in this situation?

I don't know if it's the beer or the heat... but what do you mean? Why can't a property owner harm a trespasser? Is the what you're asking?

The answer is because it would be battery to do so. You do not get any extra rights as a property owner to do what ever you want.

And I'm not sure where you're going with the 2nd applying to citizens quotes.

I just did a quick search.... and these are not the posts I was was looking for specifically, but they're close enough...

First, don't confuse a Constitutional right with private employer issues. Constitutional rights apply to government actions, not private party actions. If your employer is not a government entity, the 2nd Amendment doesn't come into play.

Second, just because the gun is contained within your personal property does not mean it is not on the employer's property. If you carry the gun in your pocket, it's contained in your property as well, but I don't think you would argue that the enployer doesn't have the right to prohibit that.

Most of the prior comments are correct. The employer could not forcibly search your car without the potential for a lawsuit (although they would argue that you consented to any search because you parked there after being notified that vehicles are subject to search). It is up to you whether you risk you job over it. Will they actually search? You would know better than any of us.

Abominable, the "rumor" gets started in every law school Constitutional Law class in the country (including mine). The only Constitutional Amendment that prohibits purely private action is the 13th Amendment. You can review the first sentence of Section 21.1 of the treatise linked below. You can also review the case citations at the law review article (footnote #3) in the second link below:

Individual Rights Protection Under the Constitution - - The Path of Constitutional Law - Cargo del Autor: Professors of Law - Autor: Charles D. Kelso; R. Randall Kelso - January 01, 2007 - Número de Orden: 02 - 453379 - vLex

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

For a quick and dirty summary of the Constitutional analysis issues, the following link is also excellent:

Protection of Individual Liberties: State Action Required : SparkCharts

Second, I do practice employment law. A few of my clients have to conduct searches from time to time. The employers are NOT limited by Constitutional issues. They could be subject to assault or trespass actions for some searches, but the Constitution does not prohibit any searches by a private employer. An employer (absent a contract) can fire you for any reason that is not prohibited by law (e.g., discrimination).

Sorry for the delay. Long day at work.

Bathroom video -- the most significant case that I know of is Cramer v. Consolidated Freightways. While that was a "privacy" case, it was under a California state privacy statute (i.e., not a U.S. Constitutional privacy issue). There also were some California constitutional issues, but those are different than U.S. Constitutional issues.

Runyon v.McCray -- the plaintiffs sued for discrimination (under a federal nondiscrimination statute) and defendants argued that the federal statute (i.e., "state action") did not apply to them because of their freedom of association. While a Constitutional issue arose in a private party case, the issue was whether the Constitution prevented the application of the federal statute.

Generally, when you see a Constitutional issue raised in cases between private parties, it is the law (not the parties' actions) under which the lawsuit is filed that is challenged on Constitutional grounds. It is the application of the law ("state action") that is subject to a Constitutional challenge.

In relation to the original question in this thread, the employee would not have a Constitutional basis on which to challenge the employer's action. The employee might have a tort action (e.g., assault, invasion of privacy, etc.), but not a Constitutional action.

Midtennchip is a lawyer. He has studied law. I'll take his word over where the Constitution applies over some old quotes from a dead guy.

[strickj]

Oopsie. Homophone hypocrisy.

- OS

I speldt the big fanzy word wright and thats all that counts

[GKar]

On the Mod thing.... I am a member of this site first. And all posts in this thread are on topic (the "issues causing it's hinderance").

Two thoughts:

First, I'm not sure about all of the discourse on this thread being "on-topic" in the the strictest sense, in that, AFAIK, the reasons for Evans' amendment, as well as the reasons for Bass' action/inaction et al are nowhere stated...by any of the players. So, the dialogue RE opinions on rights, etc, while perhaps entertaining to some, educational to a few, and persuasive to...well...fewer yet...is pretty much speculation nonetheless. Maybe its on-topic, maybe not...but I'm not gonna be so presumptious as to say I know what Sky King meant or did not desire as a course for the thread.

Second...purely an observation from experiences as a moderator on other sites. Anyone who takes on a moderating/administration function on a forum such as this cannot simply "speak now as a non-moderator" when that red tag "Super Moderator" (or any other identifiying moniker that a poster is somehow involved in moderating or administering a site) is clearly displayed. Others, rightly or wrongly, will often continue to ascribe those attributes they associate with the moderator/administrative status to their processing of the opinions from that account (sometimes conciously, but most of the time unconciously). Its not necessarily right or wrong, it just is. And that's not to say that doing so as a moderator/administrator is right or wrong..but just to say all those holding such functions need to remember that, as hard as they may try to distance themselves from that position (and all the perceptions that come with the responsibility) in certain situations, they cannot effectively do so in the minds of many/most of the participants. I've been in forums that assign moderating responsibilities onto the participants existing accounts, and I've been on ones where all moderator/administrative accounts were seperate from the personal ones...both have their plusses and minuses.

[Sky King]

Two thoughts:

First, I'm not sure about all of the discourse on this thread being "on-topic" in the the strictest sense, in that, AFAIK, the reasons for Evans' amendment, as well as the reasons for Bass' action/inaction et al are nowhere stated...by any of the players. So, the dialogue RE opinions on rights, etc, while perhaps entertaining to some, educational to a few, and persuasive to...well...fewer yet...is pretty much speculation nonetheless. Maybe its on-topic, maybe not...but I'm not gonna be so presumptious as to say I know what Sky King meant or did not desire as a course for the thread.

.

To say EXACTLY where I thought this thread would go, I can not say for certain. I know I was very dissapointed in the course this bill was taking and how the sponsors were taking it. I was more concerned with the "why" and trying to motivate those in favor of it to take action to contact their respective representatives. I could certainly expect the expression of opinions, even strong opionions and feelings.

I would rather the direction of this thread to remain generally within the scope of monitoring and status of the bill and what was happening in the legislative process of the bill so as to keep those interested informed. Information is vital if you are going to contact your representatives to express your positon on the bill, whether for it or against it.

I have to admit, I too was sucked into the side debates but quicklly grew tired of it. I am a member of several other forums of various interests. I feel one responsibility, among others, of a moderator (I am not a moderator) is to keep a thread on track. Keep the trolls at bay.

It didn't take long for me to want to say to strickj and robert, "OK, I GET IT, TAKE IT OUTSIDE". After a few exchanges, it wasn't hard to know where they stand. They have their right to their respective positon and I don't mind saying that I agree with Robert, but enough is enough.

I have no doubt that strickj will have some snide response to this, maybe even about my spelling. But in the end, even incorrectly spelled, he knew what I meant and that is all that matters.

The House bill HB2021 will be on the house floor this Wednesday. The Senate companion bill has not yet been heard in committe.

[Guest mds3d]

Just a thought. Lets take a look at the questions this bill causes us to ask and realize they are different from each other.

First, Do places that invite the public on their property have exactly the same rights as individual property owners?

Second, Do places that are restricted access have different rights?

Third, Who's "private property" is an item inside the interior of a car located on? The owner of the car or the owner of the land under the car? This question is the most essential because it is the question that a true "parking lot" bill answers. I believe there is currently NO answer in TN as defined by state law.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

On another note... As someone who is protected by the ADA as well and someone who's family runs a retail business. Belonging to a protected class MAY NOT be THE reason for termination or denial of employment. IF some status otherwise protected (gender) is a condition of employment, it must be essiential to the job, and it must be apparent at the invitation to apply for such a job. As for disability, an employer CANNOT ask if you have a disability. They can ask if you are able to perform the requirements of the position without any extra assistance.

I would also state that being an Employer and hiring someone to re-do your roof (or whatever) is NOT the same thing.

[strickj]

Yes, you guys are completely right. As a moderator, I should not have an opinion. I should not be involved with controversial topics. And above all, I should be held to a higher standard then everyone else.

If I have wronged anyone here, then PM me for an apology. If I have personally attacked anyone here, then PM me for an apology. If you have nothing left in your bag to offer the debate and want to call me out for being a moderator, then PM me for a link to another forum where you can bitch about TGO moderators all day long.

[Daniel]

Yes, you guys are completely right. As a moderator, I should not have an opinion. I should not be involved with controversial topics. And above all, I should be held to a higher standard then everyone else.

If I have wronged anyone here, then PM me for an apology. If I have personally attacked anyone here, then PM me for an apology. If you have nothing left in your bag to offer the debate and want to call me out for being a moderator, then PM me for a link to another forum where you can bitch about TGO moderators all day long.

HA! I had forgotten about them.

[GKar]

Yes, you guys are completely right. As a moderator, I should not have an opinion. I should not be involved with controversial topics. And above all, I should be held to a higher standard then everyone else.

Placing the hyperbole aside, a careful read of my post would suggest to most that I'm not stating that a moderator/administrator should not have an opinion; indeed, if that were the case, you'd never have anyone volunteer for that role, cause they'd not care enough to do so. What I was trying to point out, perhaps less than successfully, was that a moderator cannot fully and reasonably expect folks to ignore their status as such just because they say so. I was also trying to illustrate that the perception is an artifact of the account used and/or its presentation, and that, being the presentation used here is common to many forums, it is widespread.

As for adding to the topic of the thread: HB 2021 is still scheduled to come to the House floor tomorrow. In a statement actually primarily dealing with another topic, both Haslam and Ramsey have indicated that this legislation is the one "gun" legisaltion that they would like to see pass in this session.

[RobertNashville]

Just a thought. Lets take a look at the questions this bill causes us to ask and realize they are different from each other...

Third, Who's "private property" is an item inside the interior of a car located on? The owner of the car or the owner of the land under the car? This question is the most essential because it is the question that a true "parking lot" bill answers. I believe there is currently NO answer in TN as defined by state law.

That to me is the primary question here...not "2nd Amendment rights" or "self defense rights" but rather, an issue of private property.

Based on my reading, I believe it correct to say that some states specifically and fully extend the concept of "private property" to such things as the interior of vehicles regardless of where they are parked and that no one, including an employer, can compel a search of such "private property"; it can only be searched under the same conditions that a person's home can be searched (meaning only by law enforcement and only with justification [i.e. a legitimate belief that there is something "illegal" inside]).

I agree with you, there is no law in Tennessee that answers the question and perhaps, that is the discussion that the legislature should be having - part of the problem with all the "parking lot" bills proposed to date is that they only approach it as a "firearms" issue and I don't believe it either needs to be or even should be.

[Worriedman]

Midtennchip is a lawyer. He has studied law. I'll take his word over where the Constitution applies over some old quotes from a dead guy.

Those dead guys wagered their very lives and fortunes so that we can argue the merits and intents of the plan they left for us. Midtennchip gets to argue his stances because they gifted us a Republic, replete with rules vested in the Constitution. They had concern for others outside of themselves, I am sure you meant no disrespect to those who offered to give all for you, but it could be so construed by the tone of your comment.

I have the utmost respect for the legal profession, nothing can be substituted for a good lawyer when one is needed. But, a law degree is not a prerequisite to read and comprehend the Constitutions. They are not the IRS Code, written to preclude understanding by the average intellect.

The point of those "dead guys" quotes was to assert the fact that your statement:

It removes the right to remove someone over that person's 2nd.

was in error, the 2nd has nothing to do with the "Parking Lot" Bill. The 2nd Amendment only limits the Federal Government's ability to infringe on the Citizen's right to keep and bear arms. The various States are charged with deciding if and were it's citizens can wear arms, not the Federal Government.

Also, I do not get your antipathy to age and the wisdom it brings. Any deer hunter will tell you that he can fill a pickup bed with 1 1/2 year old bucks, but he might spend a life time hunting and never lay eyes on a 5 1/2 year old. Luck gets the few through the fist season or two, developed caution and experience gets them to a ripe old age.

Nature gives to each living creature a desire to live, it is inherent from the first breath a being takes.The average human is vested with a desire to live at all cost, until they become liable for other lives, normally those of their children, at which point they are willing to give their own to protect those they feel responsible for. It is hard to describe the change in the inner being, that demands less concern for self, and gives precedence to concern for others. The birth of one's first grand child elevates that thought process to a level that cannot be described, it must be experienced to be understood. Once the "old" man starts to hear the footsteps of his death, fatalism replaces the "live forever" attitude of youth, and he begins to lay by in store for those he leaves behind.

I advocate for a return to what was intended by those who gave their homes and blood to start this Nation for the same reasons, to make sure when I am no longer here to take a direct hand in the protection of my offspring, that my efforts while I was were the best I could give.

I am going to give my newest grand daughter a kiss, then I intend to scheme some more on how to get the parking lot bill passed. It is a habit of the old, to sleep less and to think and write letters, conversing with others to bring about a better life for their progeny. You have suggested that as a "selfish" thing, I see it quite the contrary.

[strickj]

On another note... As someone who is protected by the ADA as well and someone who's family runs a retail business. Belonging to a protected class MAY NOT be THE reason for termination or denial of employment. IF some status otherwise protected (gender) is a condition of employment, it must be essiential to the job, and it must be apparent at the invitation to apply for such a job. As for disability, an employer CANNOT ask if you have a disability. They can ask if you are able to perform the requirements of the position without any extra assistance.

You are completely 100% right on that. On written law, anyway.

Real world application and case law differs. Here is one example of an ADA protected person being denied employment: Company didn’t hire deaf man because of safety: Was it discrimination? | SafetyNewsAlert.com | Occupational safety and health news for workplace safety professionals.

[strickj]

Worriedman, I never suggested that age doesn't bring experience and wisdom.

But yall are simply using the age difference here to dismiss me as "young and dumb".

I could use the same argument here and call yall old and senile. But I am not going to do that because I know that we are all full grown adults here.

Going back to my analogy of Ted Kennedy being older then you two. Does that make everything he said and stood for right? I mean, if all we're going off of age alone here...

Placing the hyperbole aside, a careful read of my post would suggest to most that I'm not stating that a moderator/administrator should not have an opinion; indeed, if that were the case, you'd never have anyone volunteer for that role, cause they'd not care enough to do so. What I was trying to point out, perhaps less than successfully, was that a moderator cannot fully and reasonably expect folks to ignore their status as such just because they say so. I was also trying to illustrate that the perception is an artifact of the account used and/or its presentation, and that, being the presentation used here is common to many forums, it is widespread.

It's not hyperbole. I should be able to express my thoughts or I shouldn't.

Some here have expressed that I should not be allowed to express my thoughts in this thread.

I have waited to see if I get any PMs from people I've attacked or wronged, which would be a very valid reason for me to go away. But I haven't received any complaints. No one has reported any posts of mine (and some have been reported) that break forum rules. (the closest post that I can find that breaks forum rules is the "young, dumb, and full of ****" comment. But, I didn't take that personally, even though it's directed towards me.)

Therefore, I've come to the conclusion that this is just another "but he's a moderator and should not be allowed to disagree with me" card.

[Worriedman]

Worriedman, I never suggested that age doesn't bring experience and wisdom.

But yall are simply using the age difference here to dismiss me as "young and dumb".

Going back to my analogy of Ted Kennedy being older then you two. Does that make everything he said and stood for right? I mean, if all we're going off of age alone here...

I have not once insinuated that you are dumb for any reason. I disagree mightily with your perspective, and would like to change your mind, as we need "all hands on deck" to get this vital (in my mind anyway) issue assuaged. If you would argue for it as vehemently as as you have against it, you would be a formidable ally.

Comparing me in any way to that pussbucket in any form other than being member of the same species is insulting, but I knew you were simply trying to make a point, so I did not take it personally. At no point did I intimate that age ONLY should be a consideration of wisdom, but my nearly double your years has afforded me lots more ability to make mistakes by the sheer virtue of opportunity, and you know what they say, the burnt hand teaches best.

[Sky King]

I never meant that as a moderator, one should refrain from expressing one's opinion or positon. My issue was that the two involved, strickj and Robert just kept going and going and going, like the Energizer Bunny. Moderator or not, all I wanted to say, as I said before, enough is enough. Nobody reading this thread can honestly say they don't get your positions.

I will NEVER say a person should not be able to express their beliefs. But come on, can you HONESTLY say you two didn't take this a bit far?

The topic is the lack of support for HB 2021. And after this past two weeks of being in Nashville, I TRUELY come to the conclusion, (as I have already stated), a lot of those legislators are just hiding behind the "property rights" thing. They really don't give a crap about property rights. They are more afraid of loosing the finacial support of the business lobby than they are about loosing my vote in the next election or whether or not I get killed by some thug looking to score his next rock of crack on the side of the road on my way home from work.

[DaveTN]

Third, Who's "private property" is an item inside the interior of a car located on? The owner of the car or the owner of the land under the car? This question is the most essential because it is the question that a true "parking lot" bill answers. I believe there is currently NO answer in TN as defined by state law.

Maybe not specifically defined (I haven't looked) but we know this...

When a loaded gun is in your car on your property; its legal because it's on your property. When you cross your property line you become a criminal unless you have an HCP. Common sense tells me that answers the in/on your property question.