Tennessean LTE: "Gun bill interferes with property rights"

[Dolomite_supafly]

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.

But he can tell your wife to leave his property. Also, last time I checked a person isn't property.

Dolomite

[Guest A10thunderbolt]

If you are able to move your kingdom onto my kingdom I should have the right to tell you to leave, your the one who encroached not me! Bottom line this can only be the land of the free if everyone has the right to personal property that they can do what they want on. I personally think there should be no law, just let employers decide whether they will allow guns on the property. I have only worked at a few places and one didn't allow it, I chose to work there anyway. You either have freedom or you don't. Don't remove my freedom so you can tread on me.

[DaveTN]

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.

There is no “Mexican standoffâ€, and you don’t have to let them search your car now. The only way they would need to search your car would be if they called you in and ask if you had a gun in your car and you either lied or refused to answer. If they want to get rid of you they don’t need to find a gun; they just let you go; they don’t have to give a reason. If they want to keep you, they tell you to leave the gun at home and don’t bring it back on their property or you will be fired; it’s then up to you.

Is this even an issue? I’m sure there are cases of employers searching vehicles in suspected theft cases; are there any cases of an employer searching a vehicle for a gun. I would bet that the only cases of someone being fired for having a gun (if there are any), are cases where they had the gun out and someone saw it or they told someone at work they have a gun in their car.

These bills are because some people that work for big companies like Nissan and FedEx that don’t like their “No guns in the workplace policiesâ€. But unless you are in a union or have an employment contract you have no protection even with this legislation.

Pass legislation that makes Tennessee the 5^th state to recognize the right of the people to bear arms. It still won’t keep an employer from having a no guns policy, but it will give someone a chance in court. Right now carrying a gun in this state is a crime and I believe even if this “parking lot†legislation is passed it will be defeated in court the first time it is tested.

[Smith]

But he can tell your wife to leave his property. Also, last time I checked a person isn't property.

Dolomite

You guys are missing the forrest for the trees. We are talking about property RIGHTS. The owner isn't asking you to leave and no one is arguing his ability to do so this is an At Will Work state. We are talking about when the employer ask/invites/accomodates your presence vluntarily can he then arbitrarily violate other rights with search , seizure, or legal jeopardy YOUR property once there.

If you are able to move your kingdom onto my kingdom I should have the right to tell you to leave, your the one who encroached not me! Bottom line this can only be the land of the free if everyone has the right to personal property that they can do what they want on. I personally think there should be no law, just let employers decide whether they will allow guns on the property. I have only worked at a few places and one didn't allow it, I chose to work there anyway. You either have freedom or you don't. Don't remove my freedom so you can tread on me.

Again, we are not talking about tresspassers - refer to above. Why are you agruing against your own statement? You can't agrgue for ones absolute property rights while denying anothers.

Is your vehicle your property or not? If it is then you have to apply property rights accordingly.

[E4 No More]

There is no “Mexican standoffâ€, and you don’t have to let them search your car now. The only way they would need to search your car would be if they called you in and ask if you had a gun in your car and you either lied or refused to answer. If they want to get rid of you they don’t need to find a gun; they just let you go; they don’t have to give a reason. If they want to keep you, they tell you to leave the gun at home and don’t bring it back on their property or you will be fired; it’s then up to you.

Is this even an issue? I’m sure there are cases of employers searching vehicles in suspected theft cases; are there any cases of an employer searching a vehicle for a gun. I would bet that the only cases of someone being fired for having a gun (if there are any), are cases where they had the gun out and someone saw it or they told someone at work they have a gun in their car.

These bills are because some people that work for big companies like Nissan and FedEx that don’t like their “No guns in the workplace policiesâ€. But unless you are in a union or have an employment contract you have no protection even with this legislation.

Pass legislation that makes Tennessee the 5^th state to recognize the right of the people to bear arms. It still won’t keep an employer from having a no guns policy, but it will give someone a chance in court. Right now carrying a gun in this state is a crime and I believe even if this “parking lot†legislation is passed it will be defeated in court the first time it is tested.

There are cases where employees were fired after the fact because it was clear a gun was in the car. In one case that I remember there was a car broken into on company property. The company obtained a copy of the police report that listed a handgun as stolen from the car. They fired the employee. In another case a person went to a range from work. The company fired that person because it was clear they had a weapon on their property. There are also cases of employers conducting random searches of employees and their vehicles while on company property.

[Guest A10thunderbolt]

Again, I will not encroach on someones property if they don't want guns on it. It is THEIR PROPERTY! I HAVE THE ABILITY TO NOT STEP ON THEIR FREEDOM TO TURN ME AWAY. GO WORK SOME WERE ELSE!!!!

[E4 No More]

Again, I will not encroach on someones property if they don't want guns on it. It is THEIR PROPERTY! I HAVE THE ABILITY TO NOT STEP ON THEIR FREEDOM TO TURN ME AWAY. GO WORK SOME WERE ELSE!!!!

So, you won't buy gas at a station that has its building posted? Do you check with every property owner to see if they have a problem with your gun? What if your employer was the only one employing your position and you knew you couldn't get a job anywhere else, would you still quit?

[Guest A10thunderbolt]

So, in the United States of America, your saying someone else should be able to do whatever they choose on your property as long as the Gov says its OK? Even if it is what you don't want? I think you are trying to bend the rules because you don't like what someone else is saying. Liberals have the right to do as they wish, We would like to have the right to do as we wish, but we can't expect to get equal rights if we don't respect theirs. It will just be Tit for Tat,with the law's. I would love to just see a lot of laws Abolished, and everyone be free to carry, but I still don't think you should be able to encroach on someone else's property they paid for, THEY PAID FOR IT.

[E4 No More]

So, in the United States of America, your saying someone else should be able to do whatever they choose on your property as long as the Gov says its OK? Even if it is what you don't want? I think you are trying to bend the rules because you don't like what someone else is saying. Liberals have the right to do as they wish, We would like to have the right to do as we wish, but we can't expect to get equal rights if we don't respect theirs. It will just be Tit for Tat,with the law's. I would love to just see a lot of laws Abolished, and everyone be free to carry, but I still don't think you should be able to encroach on someone else's property they paid for, THEY PAID FOR IT.

So not answering eh?

[Guest A10thunderbolt]

No I wouldn't quit unless I had an immediate threat I was worried about. Not saying we are not in danger all the time, just saying if it bothered me I would find some were else to work. If your this passionate about guns why would you want to support a company against them anyway?

[Guest A10thunderbolt]

This is kind of fun, just so you know. I love debating, probably not good at it but I still like doing it.

[Worriedman]

The facts related to governance of the People's Right to carry weapons in Tennessee are thus, under our State Constitution, the legislature has the power by law to regulate the wearing of arms, that power "must be guided by, and restrained to this end, and bear some well defined relation to the prevention of crime, or else it is unauthorized by this clause of the Constitution." (Article 1 Section 26) Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 181 (1871).†For good or ill, right or wrong, it is the procedure in place, codified in the State Constitution.

And yes Dave, you are correct in your assertion that any carrying of arms is a violation of the current law, and that the statutory law in TN does not recognize a "Right" to wear arms, but one step at the time. The majority of Legislators do not understand that, they think the permit process changed that, but then, that same majority of Legislators are not experts in the Law and simply believe that criminal connotations to the act of going armed have been removed by an individual perfecting a permit under the current structure set up for that purpose. One could, if so inclined, take their grievance regarding this situation relative to the current enforcement of statutory law to the courts for validation of their own opinion, (seems that I remember reading that you Dave, have attempted that tack with less than stellar results) but it is the option for an individual to challenge the status quo. We are guaranteed the ability to petition our legislature for the redress of what we consider to be "bad" laws, and that is another path as well.

Private property ownership does not give unbridled largess to do with, or act in any manner desired by the owner toward another human being while on their property, or to use said property in what might be beneficial to the owner without restraint. Put a pig farm in the middle of a subdivision and see how that works out for you. Manufacturing methamphetamine for resale as a recreational drug would most likely be a lucrative endeavor, but is precluded by law for the private property owner in Tennessee. One may not kill another, invited to their property, because they do not like the appearance of that individual, simply because they own the property. Statutory law, codified in our TCA, is supposed to be guided via an oath taken by the legislators to defend and support the Constitutions, and as such, puts the Constitutions as the basis for that codification. So the insistence by some that individual Citizens enjoy no protection of their Constitutional Rights while on private property is ludicrous.

[Guest A10thunderbolt]

Are we talking about what laws are currently in place or what the law should be. I have no doubt that most have objection to the current laws regarding the rights to carry, what bothers me is the insistence, that more laws will make things right. I would love it if you could sling on a holster and gun, walk down the street and not be arrested(without a HCP), however if your neighbor is someone who is sold on the notion of no guns equals peace on earth, then on his property he should have the right to refuse anyone carrying.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Isn't one allowed to protect himself while in his vehicle? Isn't his vehicle part of

his property protected by the Castle law? If his weapon leaves his vehicle I agree,

the employer has a right to act, but not until his weapon is out of his car.

Current law is inconsistent.

And I do think this is a conflict between the right to protect yourself, primarily traveling

to and from work. What about the similarity in the "safe passage" federal law going

between states? This law isn't about handling a weapon while on other's property,

only safe passage. I'm only concerned about safe passage. I could care less how

much an employer says they would be responsible for my safety while at work. It

really doesn't involve work. My car was hit while parked in the company parking lot,

a while back, and the company has cameras all over. They wouldn't even let me look

at the recording. If they wouldn't do that, then they have no business telling me what I

can have inside it. Got nothing to do with being on the job or company's rights.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Are we talking about what laws are currently in place or what the law should be. I have no doubt that most have objection to the current laws regarding the rights to carry, what bothers me is the insistence, that more laws will make things right. I would love it if you could sling on a holster and gun, walk down the street and not be arrested(without a HCP), however if your neighbor is someone who is sold on the notion of no guns equals peace on earth, then on his property he should have the right to refuse anyone carrying.

Apples and oranges

[QuietDan]

Castle Doctrine in Texas applies to your home, your vehicle, and any place you have a right to be. It's working out well for Texas, and Texans are as rabid about property rights as anyone. I'm thinking our legislators would do well to steal legislative language from Texas, and they'd be welcome to it.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

So, in the United States of America, your saying someone else should be able to do whatever they choose on your property as long as the Gov says its OK? Even if it is what you don't want? I think you are trying to bend the rules because you don't like what someone else is saying. Liberals have the right to do as they wish, We would like to have the right to do as we wish, but we can't expect to get equal rights if we don't respect theirs. It will just be Tit for Tat,with the law's. I would love to just see a lot of laws Abolished, and everyone be free to carry, but I still don't think you should be able to encroach on someone else's property they paid for, THEY PAID FOR IT.

Yes they did pay for it. This isn't about doing as you wish. It's about disarming yourself while

traveling to and from work, only. Safe passage. If this isn't an infringement, then what is? I

don't see any desire to bend rules. This shouldn't have to be made into a law to protect your

rights. If the 2nd was fully respected and protected as an inalienable right and all those dumb

laws were nullified, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Agreed.

An employer can restrict all he wants while on the job, but shouldn't be restricting your right

to self protection while traveling to and from work. There's no logic with current laws and the

2nd amendment.

As for the liberal comment, no need to get that crap involved in this. The same would apply if

you're at someone's home. If they know you were carrying and asked/told you to leave, fine,

but not if you stowed your weapon in your vehicle before entering their property. The line is

drawn where your car is parked, currently, and should be drawn whether your car is yours or

theirs. But, I have this thing about what's mine and what's theirs.

Huge difference, don't you think?

[Worriedman]

More food for thought, according to Article 1 Section 8 of the TN Constitution:

"Deprivation of life, liberty or property under law; due process

That no man shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed or deprived of his life, liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land."

(There again is that pesky numerical or spatial arrangement of hierarchy seen so often in the posting by our Framers, "life" first, "property" last.)

Evidently, due process trumps personal property "Rights", and the judgment of ones peers, or the law of the land can offset any perceived special consideration of a property owner, be they private or business entities.

Then there is this consideration, outside of any property owner that has made that final payment to the mortgage holder, who really "owns" the property? Fail to make your payments and see how much longer you remain in control of the property.

Even once it is paid off, your peers have obligated you to pay tax on that property, (by virtue of their election by your peers and support of, whatever tax authority has control of your specific area) if you fail to render unto Caesar the required dole, you lose ownership and control, the law of the land will take it for sale to satisfy the tax obligation.

There is no absolute authority to what may occur there by virtue of "Ownership" of a physical piece of land because a piece of paper says an individual has title to that property. There are restraints to use and obligations imposed for the "private" property owner to keep that mantle.

[Guest A10thunderbolt]

Since when does a company not own its land, if its paying for it?

[Worriedman]

Since when does a company not own its land, if its paying for it?

Who owns title to the land while the mortgage is held by another? Do you have title to that land as long as the mortgage is unsatisfied?

Buy a car, do you get title till it is paid off? Fail to make a payment and see who the law allows to take possession.

"Buy" a home, the mortgage holder will require an inspection, if the inspector notes a lack of smoke detectors, you will be required to install them prior to getting the loan. Who has control?

Edited March 1, 2012 by Worriedman

[E4 No More]

No I wouldn't quit unless I had an immediate threat I was worried about. Not saying we are not in danger all the time, just saying if it bothered me I would find some were else to work. If your this passionate about guns why would you want to support a company against them anyway?

Because I doubt the company is against guns per se; they are against the liability. I believe the company should either be 100% liable for what happens to their employees and customers, or they are not liable and the onus is on the employee/customer for their safety.

[E4 No More]

Since when does a company not own its land, if its paying for it?

Most don't own their land; they lease it.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'd use the word "own" more loosely than that. When a company leases or owns the land

lease and ownership are defined in any restrictive covenants attached to the land. The

term becomes more blurred as you try to define the word "ownership". There are enough

similarities in the two to consider it "control", just for a fixed term in the case of a leasehold.

This doesn't matter about safe passage anyway. There should be no question of the ownership

concerning that.

[Guest A10thunderbolt]

I just know, if I have a company I am going to decide what the rules are, its not a democracy. Freedom allows everyone to run their own lives, you have the freedom to work for someone else. Why don't you appreciate that. If it were your business and someone else wanted to do something you felt was morally wrong on your property, I think you would be singing a different tune.(Yes,I feel its stupid to think Guns are wrong but some do)

[Guest 6.8 AR]

All these distractors are being used to blur what the bill is and is not, and shouldn't be being

considered. It is an infringement if it causes you to not be able to defend yourself to and from

work. This is becoming a property rights issue because it's being allowed to be, which it's not.

Politics is about using any tool available to get what the detractors want, including emotions to

circumvent reason and logic. An infringement.