Tennessean LTE: "Gun bill interferes with property rights"

[daddyo]

President of the TN Chamber of Commerce gives us her .02:

http://www.tennessea...ext|FRONTPAGE|s

One of the comments raises a good point about how government steps all over private property rights in regards to the handicapped, racial quotas, etc. Yet somehow a law that allows employees to keep their firearms locked in their vehicles is telling businesses what to do? Can you say "double standard"? ROFL

[Dolomite_supafly]

I agree private property owners should be allowed to dictate who can and cannot come on their property to work. If they are a privately owned they can mandate whatever they want as a condition of employment. They can mandate that their employees were pink shirts while at work or not bring firearms on their property. For the record I do not agree with federally mandated hiring practices. An employer should be allowed to choose who is the best for their company.

Just like an employee doesn't have the right to say whatever they want at work under the first ammendment the employee should not be allowed to bring a gun to work against the employer's wishes and claim it is his second ammendment right.

If an employer doesn't want guns on his property I think it is his right and if an empoyee doesn't like it they can quit. Now on the flip side if the employer doesn't allow a person to have the ability to protect themselves they should be responsible for any and all damages that could have been prevented through the use of a firearm. I feel this should also be applied to restaurants or any retail establishment that is posted and prevents people from protecting themselves.

For me the common ground should be either allow guns and not be accountable for damages or forbid guns and assume responsibility for all damages. I think when businesses see that not allowing people to carry could cost them substantially they would change their tune.

Private property owner rights trump individual rights. Free speech is not guaranteed on private property as is the right to bear arms. Just because someone has the right to free speech doesn't mean I have to allow them to say whatever they want on my property.

And yes I carry a gun everywhere I go and if I owned a business I would allow my employees to carry.

Dolomite

[daddyo]

I agree that private property rights are sacred, but an American citizen's right to self-defense is also sacred.

I have heard several arguments for and against this bill, and I see the reasoning on both sides. I just have a problem with someone like the COC president conjuring up the same old, tired, strawman scenarios that we had to endure during the so-called "guns in bars" debate.

[E4 No More]

I agree private property owners should be allowed to dictate who can and cannot come on their property to work. If they are a privately owned they can mandate whatever they want as a condition of employment. They can mandate that their employees were pink shirts while at work or not bring firearms on their property. For the record I do not agree with federally mandated hiring practices. An employer should be allowed to choose who is the best for their company.

Just like an employee doesn't have the right to say whatever they want at work under the first ammendment the employee should not be allowed to bring a gun to work against the employer's wishes and claim it is his second ammendment right.

If an employer doesn't want guns on his property I think it is his right and if an empoyee doesn't like it they can quit. Now on the flip side if the employer doesn't allow a person to have the ability to protect themselves they should be responsible for any and all damages that could have been prevented through the use of a firearm. I feel this should also be applied to restaurants or any retail establishment that is posted and prevents people from protecting themselves.

For me the common ground should be either allow guns and not be accountable for damages or forbid guns and assume responsibility for all damages. I think when businesses see that not allowing people to carry could cost them substantially they would change their tune.

Private property owner rights trump individual rights. Free speech is not guaranteed on private property as is the right to bear arms. Just because someone has the right to free speech doesn't mean I have to allow them to say whatever they want on my property.

And yes I carry a gun everywhere I go and if I owned a business I would allow my employees to carry.

Dolomite

Not that this hasn't been argued ad nauseum on this forum, but where does it say that in the constitution?

The Declaration of Independence doesn't say anything about property when they talk about the unalienable rights. In fact it says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Gee, Life is listed first indicating highest priority, because without life nothing else matters. Then there's the sticky little "We The People of The United States," that says nothing about businesses.

[mikegideon]

We;re talking about keeping the guns on OUR property, the vehicle. The legitimate push-back from business would be increased insurance rates.

[Dolomite_supafly]

Not that this hasn't been argued ad nauseum on this forum, but where does it say that in the constitution?

The Declaration of Independence doesn't say anything about property when they talk about the unalienable rights. In fact it says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Gee, Life is listed first indicating highest priority, because without life nothing else matters. Then there's the sticky little "We The People of The United States," that says nothing about businesses.

You have no rights afforded by the BIll of Rights on my property. The Bill of Rights addresses goverment abuses, not abuses by private parties against other private parties. It is laws of the land that addresses those abuses.

The Declaration of Independence affords you no rights on my property either. Your right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" doesn't mean you can trample those same rights of another in your pursuit. Me being a property owner is not stopping you from your pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness but you entering my property without my permission is stopping me from my pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness. And when this happens it is the laws of the land that deals with it.

You cannot come onto my property and say what you want. My right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness on my property trumps your 1st ammendment right to free speech or any other rights you may think you have on my property. You have ZERO rights afforded by the Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence or the Constitution on my property. Now there are laws that dictate what I can and cannot do to you while on my property.

You must have my permission to do anything on my property and I can set conditions while you are on my property otherwise I have a right to make you leave. Just because you have a right to free speech doesn't mean you have a right to excercise that right on my property, because you don't. The second ammendment is the same, I can mandate you not enter with a firearm if I choose to. This is the same as any of the others in the Bill of Rights because they are there to address the abuses of the government, not individuals.

If we want to say that a right to the pursuit of happiness trumps property owners rights then I need to go find a big mansion to move into because I would probably be happier there. Or perhaps I need to go take other's property because I will be happier with it. And I guess my happiness is paramount to any rights a property owner has.

I just think that as an individual you cannot tell another individual how they should use their private property. I am a very staunch supporter of everything gun related but I also value my right to use my property how I see fit. It is nothing more than others telling you how best to use your own property and that worked out really well for those who have suffered the imminant domain laws.

Dolomite

[Oh Shoot]

...

I just think that as an individual you cannot tell another individual how they should use their private property.

The line grays considerably though, when you consider that your vehicle is also YOUR personal property, and not that of the owner of the parking lot on which it sits. Especially when there's no reasonable alternative to where you must park to work there.

Should a property owner reasonably expect to curtail other of one's rights, say free speech among the passengers of a vehicle while it is on his property? Can he prevent you from praying or reading the Bible or Koran in it? Can he take possession of your vehicle because he doesn't like it?

- OS

[Dolomite_supafly]

I believe that if a property owner doesn't like an activity, regardless of what that activity is, they should be allowed to ask the offender to leave the property.

Dolomite

[Guest A10thunderbolt]

Don't work there.

[QuietDan]

So, who are some of the member organizations of the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce and Industry so gun-owners can reconsider their business relationships with them? I'm not sure I want to do business with organizations that consider me a hazard and an inconvenience.

[mikegideon]

Don't work there.

That depends on the job. I would have to move to a major city to replace mine, and there aren't many of them.

[E4 No More]

You have no rights afforded by the BIll of Rights on my property. The Bill of Rights addresses goverment abuses, not abuses by private parties against other private parties. It is laws of the land that addresses those abuses.

The Declaration of Independence affords you no rights on my property either. Your right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" doesn't mean you can trample those same rights of another in your pursuit. Me being a property owner is not stopping you from your pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness but you entering my property without my permission is stopping me from my pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness. And when this happens it is the laws of the land that deals with it.

You cannot come onto my property and say what you want. My right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness on my property trumps your 1st ammendment right to free speech or any other rights you may think you have on my property. You have ZERO rights afforded by the Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence or the Constitution on my property. Now there are laws that dictate what I can and cannot do to you while on my property.

You must have my permission to do anything on my property and I can set conditions while you are on my property otherwise I have a right to make you leave. Just because you have a right to free speech doesn't mean you have a right to excercise that right on my property, because you don't. The second ammendment is the same, I can mandate you not enter with a firearm if I choose to. This is the same as any of the others in the Bill of Rights because they are there to address the abuses of the government, not individuals.

If we want to say that a right to the pursuit of happiness trumps property owners rights then I need to go find a big mansion to move into because I would probably be happier there. Or perhaps I need to go take other's property because I will be happier with it. And I guess my happiness is paramount to any rights a property owner has.

I just think that as an individual you cannot tell another individual how they should use their private property. I am a very staunch supporter of everything gun related but I also value my right to use my property how I see fit. It is nothing more than others telling you how best to use your own property and that worked out really well for those who have suffered the imminant domain laws.

Dolomite

I disagree, obviously, because your rights cannot infringe upon another's. Like yelling fire in a crouded theater. When you open up your property to the public to do business you forfeit SOME rights, and the government sure does exercise control there by telling you what codes and laws to follow be it safety, convenience or discrimination. Now if you would agree to assume ALL liability for those you employ or invite onto your property to do business then you would have a point IMHO, but that's not reality.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Putting a gun in the trunk, safely locked, doesn't appear to me to be a situation where

the employer should have any say, since it is personal property and is stowed in the

owner's personal property, which is not a condition of employment, and if the employer

provides a parking space to park for the daily commute to and from work, what difference

should it make? What dog does that company have in the fight, to begin with?

This shouldn't be an issue.

Edited February 29, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I believe that if a property owner doesn't like an activity, regardless of what that activity is, they should be allowed to ask the offender to leave the property.

Dolomite

What activity is taking place? Law abiding citizens want to be able to protect themselves,

while as a matter of natural progression, includes traveling to and from work. I don't see an

activity while at work. Might as well say I can't drive onto the parking lot, either. Where is

the infringement on the employer? This is all about political correctedness concerning

guns. In other words, crap.

[Smith]

This technically is not a 2A versus property rights. It is property right vs. property right. Ironically one persons rights to property can not trump anothers, yet that is exactly what we have allowed to happen. It would be like someone claiming my marriage is temporarily void while I'm at someone else's house. Don't think that's going to happen.

[E4 No More]

This technically is not a 2A versus property rights. It is property right vs. property right. Ironically one persons rights to property can not trump anothers, yet that is exactly what we have allowed to happen. It would be like someone claiming my marriage is temporarily void while I'm at someone else's house. Don't think that's going to happen.

Ding, ding, ding!!! We have a winner!

[strickj]

President of the TN Chamber of Commerce gives us her .02:

http://www.tennessea...ext|FRONTPAGE|s

One of the comments raises a good point about how government steps all over private property rights in regards to the handicapped, racial quotas, etc. Yet somehow a law that allows employees to keep their firearms locked in their vehicles is telling businesses what to do? Can you say "double standard"? ROFL

As someone who is a gun owner and gun carrier and also has a disability, I can tell you NO, it is not a double standard.

Carrying a weapon is a choice. No different the the color of shirt you decided to put on this morning.

Being denied access because of a disability, race, sex or creed is not the same thing.

Information>ignorance

[Dolomite_supafly]

I think everyone is confusing my stance in allowing people to make choices on how to manage their own property as an anti gun stance, but I am far from anti gun. I believe that people should have the right to carry their firearms and protect themselves where ever they are as long as it is within the law. I have wrote letters to representatives asking for language be put into the recent pro gun legislation holding those who ban guns on their property be responsible for all damages.

But I also believe that a property owner or business has a right to fire employees if they are doing something the employer does not like whether it be bringing a gun on the property or showing up late for work. The employee has a choice to either comply with the rules or policies of the employer or leave and find work elsewhere. If jobs weren't so hard to find right now people would be leaving those employers they don't like, I know I have walked away from an employer or two because their rules didn't agree with mine. Employees do it every day with drug testing, financial backgrounds as well as criminal backgrounds. The employees concent to this as a condition of their employment.

An employer can make a rule that no red trucks are allowed to be parked in the parking lot. Yes it is stupid and most won't agree with it but it is not against the law. But as the property owner it is his choice whether a red truck will be parked on his property or not.

I am just saying that an employer can set whatever condition of employment they choose providing it is within the law. As it stands right now he doesn't have to allow a person to bring a firearm onto his property. It is the employees responsiblity to do what the boss asks in order to remain employed.

As far as screaming fire in a crowded theater there are laws governing that.

And as I said before this has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights, Free Speech or the 2nd ammendment. It has to do with an employer's decision to not allow people to bring something he doesn't agree with onto his property. And really it doesn't matter what the item is, if the employer doesn't want it on his property it is his choice. It is not a matter of guns, it could be any object that the employer doesn't want on his property.

Dolomite

[Guest A10thunderbolt]

This technically is not a 2A versus property rights. It is property right vs. property right. Ironically one persons rights to property can not trump anothers, yet that is exactly what we have allowed to happen. It would be like someone claiming my marriage is temporarily void while I'm at someone else's house. Don't think that's going to happen.

Totally different, you can deny someone the right to access your property, therefore the business owner can deny you access if you have personal property offensive to them, he can tell you he doesn't like your car and not to park it there and still it would be his right. Every person in the united states should have the right to be King Of their kingdom.

[DaveTN]

As soon as the state of Tennessee recognizes the 2^nd amendment right to bear arms; I will support legislation that allows the state to force an employer to allow an employee to have a gun in their car at work.

But to suggest that the state can strong arm business owners into allowing us (HCP holders) to have a gun in our car when it’s a crime for the other 95% of the citizens is Ludicrous.

You have a right to bear arms or you don’t; Tennessee says you don’t. And if poor people don’t have that right neither do those of us that are lucky enough to be able pay for the privilege.

Business owners have rights and responsibilities; we have a privilege that we bought. Rights trumps privilege every time. These bills will go nowhere.

Edited March 1, 2012 by DaveTN

[Oh Shoot]

...

But to suggest that the state can strong arm business owners into allowing us (HCP holders) to have a gun in our car when it’s a crime for the other 95% of the citizens is Ludicrous.

Though I understand what you're driving at, it is of course legal for anyone not ineligible to own a firearm to have them in their cars in TN. "Loaded" is the only distinction tween the 95% and the 5%.

- OS

[Worriedman]

As someone who is a gun owner and gun carrier and also has a disability, I can tell you NO, it is not a double standard.

Carrying a weapon is a choice. No different the the color of shirt you decided to put on this morning.

Being denied access because of a disability, race, sex or creed is not the same thing.

Information>ignorance

Sorry I do not agree, carrying a gun or any arm for that matter is truly a God given Natural Right, North Carolina accepted British Common Law as part of their Constitution, as did Tennessee when we formed our State, and the old Common Law expressly gives the People the right to be armed on their travels. Virginia even REQUIRED travelers to be well armed on their transits.

In 1623, Virginia forbade its colonists to travel unless they were "well armed"; in 1631 it required colonists to engage in target practice on Sunday and to "bring their peeces to church." In 1658 it required every householder to have a functioning firearm within his house and in 1673 its laws provided that a citizen who claimed he was too poor to purchase a firearm would have one purchased for him by the government, which would then require him to pay a reasonable price when able to do so. In Massachusetts, the first session of the legislature ordered that not only freemen, but also indentured servants own firearms and in 1644 it imposed a stern 6 shilling fine upon any citizen who was not armed.- U.S., Congress, Senate, "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms," Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, p. 3.

It has always been our right to use weapons for our personal protection in America, we have simply allowed ourselves to forget that.

Edited March 1, 2012 by Worriedman

[QuietDan]

So, if it treads on a property owners right to have a gun on his property, even if it's in a car, then instead of a parking lot provision in the bill, make it illegal for an employer to search an employees car under any circumstance and call it done. Let the employers have the bill calling for no guns on their property, yet deny them the right to search an employee's car, which is the employee's property. We used to call that a Mexican Standoff till everyone got politically correct.

[strickj]

Sorry I do not agree, carrying a gun or any arm for that matter is truly a God given Natural Right, North Carolina accepted British Common Law as part of their Constitution, as did Tennessee when we formed our State, and the old Common Law expressly gives the People the right to be armed on their travels. Virginia even REQUIRED travelers to be well armed on their transits.

It has always been our right to use weapons for our personal protection in America, we have simply allowed ourselves to forget that.

I don't care what you think. It is not the same thing. And I'm about to reach my breaking point with people comparing me and my disability with an inanimate object that you choose to carry with you.

Is this really that hard to understand? would you like me to post a simpler pictorial showing the difference?

British Common Law as part of their Constitution,

You can quote the Constitution or any old forgotten about law that you want. The simple, and yet somehow very hard to understand, fact is, you do not now, nor have you ever, had the right to carry a gun onto private property. The Constitution only applies to the government.

_________________________________

I swear, I feel like publishing a pop-up picture book that explains this and sending a copy to some of the people on this board...

[Smith]

Totally different, you can deny someone the right to access your property, therefore the business owner can deny you access if you have personal property offensive to them, he can tell you he doesn't like your car and not to park it there and still it would be his right. Every person in the united states should have the right to be King Of their kingdom.

Then why does he also get to be the "king of my kingdom" (vehicle)? You can't argue property rights one way. My wife doesn't become his just becasue we are at his house.