Do you feel that business should have the right to Opt-Out?

[greenego]

These "laws" are just as unconstitutional as trying to force businesses to allow carry on their private property. We shouldn't use force to mess with private contracts between people, and the peoples right to freedom of association.

I know that won't be a popular thought process, but it's government meddling in private business that has caused a great deal of societies issues over the last 50-60 years.

* Fore the record, just because I don't think any level of Government has the right to dictate how or why you discriminate doesn't mean I condone the discrimination, only your right to be closed minded

JayC I agree with you. Laws should not be passed favoring one group over another. Just like laws should be passed that make me strap myself in a car. However, until over turned, they are the laws.

[G27]

Personally, I believe businesses should be able to tell any and everyone exactly who they wish to serve, based on anything they choose, be it race, HCP, etc.

[JayC]

JayC I agree with you. Laws should not be passed favoring one group over another. Just like laws should be passed that make me strap myself in a car. However, until over turned, they are the laws.

I disagree, people just need to say no to bad laws in mass all at once. We have a nanny state run a muck... the sooner people just say no to bad laws the better off we will all be. Even more so victim-less crimes such as seat belt laws. Now personal I wear my seat belt because I feel I'm less likely to be seriously injured if I'm involved in a car wreck... but I think just like sky diving, adults should be allowed to evaluate risk and make up their own minds.

[RobertNashville]

If you don't see how the 3rd and 4th relate to rights of your property and your ownership of that property, then I can't help ya. Perhaps "property" is too narrow. How about "that which belongs to you". In any case, I was simply making the statement to those who say property owners have no rights, when in fact they do under those amendments. I was not relating it directly to the current argument of prohibiting carry on private property.

I don't think that anyone has said that property owners have no rights. I would suggest that the discussion turns on whether such rights are impacted at all based on "who" owns the property and what the property is used for. (i.e., does a corporation that owns/controls a piece of property used for commercial/business purposes have the same "property rights" as an individual person who owns property which is his/her personal residence?

Whether someone sees or doesn't see a distinction will almost certainly color their position of the topic of this thread.

Edited July 26, 2011 by RobertNashville

[bigwakes]

Just like forbidding smoking in businesses, the free market can decide. If it's a huge deal don't shop, eat, or bank with that business. The business should be able to decide what they want in there establishment. I personally hate the slow drive by the front door to see if I need to disarm, but it is the businesses decision.

[TGO David]

Wow... just wow... I can't believe people miss the entire point of liberty, freedom and property rights we fought for and the Constitution that protects those rights.

First, WyattErp, you've got it 180 degrees backwards, the places that should never be posted are Government locations, since the Constitution (both the state and federal) protect our right to keep and bear arms... It's those government office buildings, that I'm forced to go into the pay taxes and conduct other business that I can not opt out of... that I should not be disarmed.

Second, private businesses are owned by private people (at least for right now, the way things are going that might not be the case in 10 years) those people have property rights protected by the same Constitution that protects our right to keep and bear arms. You have no right to dictate to them how to operate their private property anymore than they should dictate to you how you run your home.

Unlike with the government you always have a choice when it comes to a private business, you can ALWAYS get service from somewhere else. And it's never been easier to vote with your feet! That is how the free market works, and it works pretty well. If your local business wants to post, let them... you can buy products from another company, you can encourage others to buy products from another company, and you can picket and protest their actions if you want. But, we don't have the right to force them to allow you in their business for any reason what so ever...

We don't need more government rules on private businesses we need fewer... we probably do need a lot more rules limiting the power of local and state government entities, including removing their ability to prohibit law abiding citizens from carrying firearms on public land and in public buildings.

I agree completely.

[macville]

Okay, answer this one people. As far as I can find, the handgun posting law in TN is the ONLY law that allows a business owner to post a sign that if someone walks by, commits a crime. So those of you who are in favor of being allowed to post, what is your reason for allowing only handgun carry to be illegal just by posting a sign? Because any other sign you post in TN holds no weight of the law, only that if you are asked to leave and don't, you are trespassing. I can understand being allowed to post a sign, but why should that hold any weight of the law when nothing else in TN does?

[Fallguy]

Okay, answer this one people. As far as I can find, the handgun posting law in TN is the ONLY law that allows a business owner to post a sign that if someone walks by, commits a crime. So those of you who are in favor of being allowed to post, what is your reason for allowing only handgun carry to be illegal just by posting a sign? Because any other sign you post in TN holds no weight of the law, only that if you are asked to leave and don't, you are trespassing. I can understand being allowed to post a sign, but why should that hold any weight of the law when nothing else in TN does?

My guess is because Handgun Carry in general is illegal in TN already. Only those of us that have bought a permit can legally carry one in public. All the sign does is basically say our permits are no good inside their store.

Other signs a business may post prohibiting certain things probably aren't things that are already illegal per state law and only are allowed by those that have permit.

[Glock30]

Yes; they are "legal entities"; granted the right to exist by the state but they certainly don't have "full rights" to anything. They are allowed to own property...they can do with that property what the state allows and they can't so what the state says they can't.

TCA 48-13-102:

Unless its charter provides otherwise, every corporation has perpetual duration and succession in its corporate name and has the same powers as an individual to do all things necessary or convenient to carry out its business and affairs, including, without limitation, power to:

(4) Purchase, receive, lease, or otherwise acquire, and own, hold, improve, use, and otherwise deal with, real or personal property, or any legal or equitable interest in property, wherever located;

Tennessee state law is very clear - there is no distinction between an individual owner and a corporate owner. Ownership is ownership. Further, I believe this part of the law makes it clear that a business has complete and full rights under the law. The corporation acts through its directors, officers, or other authorized agent.

A business has an ABSOLUTE right to restrict what comes through its doors.

Edited July 26, 2011 by Glock30

[macville]

My guess is because Handgun Carry in general is illegal in TN already. Only those of us that have bought a permit can legally carry one in public. All the sign does is basically say our permits are no good inside their store.

Other signs a business may post prohibiting certain things probably aren't things that are already illegal per state law and only are allowed by those that have permit.

But how does that change anything? By having a permit I am legally allowed to carry a handgun, so that puts me on the same level as anything else that is legal already. Legal is legal, period.

Does anyone here think that a handgun posting SHOULD hold legally under the law? Or should it be like any other "no" sign you are able to post?

[macville]

I guess my argument is, if handgun postings are legally binding, why shouldn't no shoes/shirt/etc not be also if property rights are to be upheld?

[Oh Shoot]

Well, one bottom line is, except for some states that have separate penalty for carrying in alcohol serving establishments, TN seems alone in specific immediate criminalization for the act of carrying past a sign in general businesses.

And I know of no constitutional challenges from all the other states that have ever been mounted over this part of private property rights that so many here rant about.

Also, of course, quite a few states have now enacted the right to have gun in vehicle on private property, again with no constitutional outcry.

- OS

[RobertNashville]

TCA 48-13-102:

Tennessee state law is very clear - there is no distinction between an individual owner and a corporate owner. Ownership is ownership. Further, I believe this part of the law makes it clear that a business has complete and full rights under the law. The corporation acts through its directors, officers, or other authorized agent.

A business has an ABSOLUTE right to restrict what comes through its doors.

You are making my point for me.

"Tennessee state law is very clear..."; per your own quite of Tennessee law; the rights that the business has is simply a function of the state granting those rights; as such, the state can take them away or alter those rights any time it sees fit.

Unlike a "business", a human being's right exist because he/she is a human being; not because the state says they have them.

Edited July 26, 2011 by RobertNashville

[BigPoppa]

I haven't read all these replies, and I'm too tired to do so right now.

But, my opinion is that yes, absolutely, property owners should be able to exercise their rights to post no guns on their property. We all scream for our 2nd Amendment rights to be preserved, but many of us are willing to crap on the rights of property owners.

It boils down to this: If I own and operate BigPoppa's Farm Supply, Auto Parts, and Dry Goods Emporium, I should have the right to post my property no guns allowed. You, the consumer, then have the right to spend your money elsewhere.

Seems to me that's The American Way.

[Pain103]

I'm all for any business allowing legal packing citizens in but I'm also for them having the option to allow or not allow it. Nobody forces you to go into a private business/establishment that posts no carry. You voluntarily put yourself in that location. You don't like their rules or how they operate then don't go in.

[Jonnin]

I guess my argument is, if handgun postings are legally binding, why shouldn't no shoes/shirt/etc not be also if property rights are to be upheld?

I agree with you and said the same thing earlier.

[Fallguy]

But how does that change anything? By having a permit I am legally allowed to carry a handgun, so that puts me on the same level as anything else that is legal already. Legal is legal, period.

Does anyone here think that a handgun posting SHOULD hold legally under the law? Or should it be like any other "no" sign you are able to post?

Because having a HCP doesn't make it legal to carry it handgun, it is simply a defense to the application of 39-17-1307. TN has decided that even though they will provide that defense to others, they will not force property owners to allow it.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that I figure that is why 39-17-1359 postings carry they weight of law. In other states where carry (OC or OC and CC) is legal without a permit, then in most of those states "No Guns" signs aren't anything more than like "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" signs.