Tennessean LTE: "Gun bill interferes with property rights"

[sigmtnman]

It would seem that bringing your property within the confines of another persons property makes you a guest. By bringing anything undesirable to the property owner, who's property you have encroached upon, you are subject to being removed via trespassing no?

My pants are my property, so should I be allowed to carry a gun in my pocket into said workplace?

If the rules of the other parties private property are disagreeable to you, then go elsewhere for employment, services, housing, etc.

on a side note: The county owns your land. Try not paying property taxes and see what happens.

Edited March 1, 2012 by sigmtnman

[Guest A10thunderbolt]

I just want to be free from the Gov. Then I will work on convincing others that fearing guns in the work place is stupid. You have a choice Work there or don't.

I feel like I am repeating Myself.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

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?

Didn't see that. A disability shouldn't restrict your rights, except maybe if you're a criminal or

mentally incapable somehow or another, and that should have it's limitations, also. Life is made up

of choices, isn't it.

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.

The Constitution and all those pesky laws written and forgotten need to be remembered. They are what

founded this country and make it workable. They also are restrictions on what the government can do.

In other words, strickj, most laws on the book are unconstitutional. do you forget that, also?

_________________________________

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...

Send me that!

Edited March 1, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It would seem that bringing your property within the confines of another persons property makes you a guest. By bringing anything undesirable to the property owner, who's property you have encroached upon, you are subject to being removed via trespassing no?

My pants are my property, so should I be allowed to carry a gun in my pocket into said workplace?

If the rules of the other parties private property are disagreeable to you, then go elsewhere for employment, services, housing, etc.

on a side note: The county owns your land. Try not paying property taxes and see what happens.

Then I guess the employer should provide transportation to and from the workplace, since my car

became objectionable, regardless of what is inside it? What if my car had $10,000 in the trunk?

Can he deal with this, also? What difference does it make if it is money, a gun, a samurai sword

or a change of clothes?

We've gotten way too weak in this country and seem to forget where lines are drawn, or should

be drawn. It's a whole different matter while working on a job and protecting yourself to and from

the job.

No argument about the taxes, which is crap, also.

[sigmtnman]

If you invited a guest to your house, would you ask them to leave if they had something objectionable to you?

Using the trunk argument, how is your clothing any different? You own your clothes.

Edited March 1, 2012 by sigmtnman

[Worriedman]

I just want to be free from the Gov. Then I will work on convincing others that fearing guns in the work place is stupid. You have a choice Work there or don't.

I feel like I am repeating Myself.

Wish in one hand...

You are not free of the Government simply because you own property of have a business.

[Worriedman]

If you invited a guest to your house, would you ask them to leave if they had something objectionable to you?

Using the trunk argument, how is your clothing any different? You own your clothes.

How would one know that they had something objectionable if it were left locked in their vehicle and not brought out, shown or handled?

[sigmtnman]

Well, my x-ray machine of course. TSA has one, why not me?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The problem with this is that a screwdriver could be deemed a weapon if it is in your trunk, somewhere

down the road. If the device, in this case is a weapon, and it is locked in your trunk, you aren't there

using it while working on the job. An object is an object, even though when placed in the hands it can

be used one of many ways. It can't be used if properly stowed, like anything else. I almost always carry

a hammer and several screwdrivers which could be used as weapon.

This is pure and simple political correctness and other applied stupidity only geared to inflame the

public into thinking something is dangerous when it is not. How can I use the weapon if my hands are

not on it? It is merely a toll, like anything else in my trunk, secured and out of anyone else's ability while

I am at work.

What I do on the way to work and from work is none of any employer's business and what I do to secure

my safety is separate from from my duty at work while I am away from work. Infringement.

Has nothing to do with property rights of an employer, unless an employee is a criminal. I really do

respect the employer's right to care for his property, since I am part of that company as an employee.

But, my right to protect myself to and from the workplace is separate from employment unless they wish to

provide some sort of security while I am traveling to and from work. This is somewhat different from

carrying while at work. And the two can't be compared by the bill in question.

This issue is only concerning safe passage to and from work without undue burden by a company that

wants to be politically correct or is more worried about liability when such liability doesn't exist.

Laws are usually allowed to pass to incriminate another group or class of people. This one only allows

for safe passage, without the threat of seizure. I don't see any infringement of an employer's rights to

embrace in commerce if this law is passed. It doesn't reduce his ability to perform any activity. It only

confirms a small portion of the ability to protect yourself to and from work. I think it is only consistent

with the 2nd Amendment's intent, nothing more. If your car is allowed on the property, what's in it is also

part of that property.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

What determines "reasonable" when approached by a police officer? Does he need something

like that pesky "probable cause" or a warrant? Why should it be different for a business?

This is what I am not following in this discussion.

[sigmtnman]

We can't have our cake and eat it too.

There is nothing forcing anyone to go onto someone else's property. The Constitution says the .gov can not subvert your God given rights, it does not apply to individuals.

[strickj]

Send me that!

Some are wanting to compare race, creed, sex and disabilities with something they want to stick in their pocket.

They are wanting extra "rights" for an object they carry and referencing the equal rights movements (yes, there was a movement, a major one actually, for equal rights for those with disabilities from mid-late '70s thu '92).

This is what's getting under my skin and is becoming offensive.

And no, I'm not an uber sensitive cry baby, either. I'm just reaching my point after explaining this to the same people over and over again.

It is not anyone's choice to be black. It is not anyone's choice to be disabled. It is not anyone's choice to be a woman (well, I guess it is sometimes )

It is a choice to put a gun in your pocket. No different then carrying pocket change or a comb.

When you [reads; anyone here comparing the two] get's discriminated against based on something they are and can not change, then we'll talk.

Far as your second paragraph;

No, I don't forget that. But I also understand that the Constitution only applies to the government. Not private property owners.

Referencing and quoting the Constitution over private property rights such as this is like referencing the Bible for fixing a broken stereo.

[daddyo]

strickj, where are you getting the notion that the Constitution doesn't apply to property owners? Are property owners not American citizens?

[sigmtnman]

The Constitution defines and restricts the government. So, no, it does not apply to citizens.

Edited March 1, 2012 by sigmtnman

[daddyo]

The Constitution defines and restricts the government. So, no, it does not apply to citizens.

Then to whom are Constitutional rights granted?

[strickj]

strickj, where are you getting the notion that the Constitution doesn't apply to property owners? Are property owners not American citizens?

Where are you getting the notion that it does apply to citizens?

The Constitution only covers what the gub can and can not do. It does not offer you a lick of protection or rights from citizens.

If it did, do you think that movie theaters would be able to limit a person's right to free speech whilst a movie plays?

Heck, far as that goes, do you think that moderators and message board owners would be able to remove a person's right to free speech on a message board?

If you truly believe that the Constitution applies to citizens, then please PM me your home address so I can exercise my right to free speech. I will be there promptly at 3am with a bull horn and blast whatever crosses my tongue.

Edited March 1, 2012 by strickj

[sigmtnman]

Then to whom are Constitutional rights granted?

The government. The Constitution works much like a trust.

[daddyo]

"The right of the people shall not be infringed", not the right of the government, unless you are interpreting it to mean that the people are the government.

Edited March 1, 2012 by DaddyO

[Guest A10thunderbolt]

Then to whom are Constitutional rights granted?

IMO It is to protect the people from the Gov, not from other citizens. It was put in place to restrict the size of the government.

[sigmtnman]

"The right of the people shall not be infringed", not the right of the government, unless you are interpreting it to mean that the people are the government.

Correct. And that statement is directed towards the .gov.

[daddyo]

So, the Constitution sets limits on government, and not the rights of citizens.

Edited March 1, 2012 by DaddyO

[Guest A10thunderbolt]

This is BS, if you own property you should have the right to refuse anyone you want for anything. People might not like you or your decision but that's how freedom works, Accountability for your choices.

[Guest 270win]

This bill does not help or hurt me. I carry my gun pretty much everywhere it is not a crime. Those places are few and far between. I do not care about a company's policy and it does not keep me from carrying. I guess if a customer notices my gun (kind of hard by concealing) he could ask me to leave. Oh well.

I wish the legislature had concentrated on removing the 500 dollar fine for all these stupid signs, especially in downtown Nashville and some in downtown Memphis. Let that be a civil matter between the property owners and folks carrying guns, not a criminal fine matter with the state.

Another hope of mine was seeing the handgun carry permits allow folks to carry guns on school property. It was once allowed with the 'special deputy' commissions, why not the present permit system that replaced the 'special deputy' commissions? Just like the local parks, again that should be taken care of for people with permits.

If your employer does not like a certain behavior you are doing, whether protected by this potential law or not, he can figure out a way to fire you.

[sigmtnman]

This bill does not help or hurt me. I carry my gun pretty much everywhere it is not a crime. Those places are few and far between. I do not care about a company's policy and it does not keep me from carrying. I guess if a customer notices my gun (kind of hard by concealing) he could ask me to leave. Oh well.

I wish the legislature had concentrated on removing the 500 dollar fine for all these stupid signs, especially in downtown Nashville and some in downtown Memphis. Let that be a civil matter between the property owners and folks carrying guns, not a criminal fine matter with the state.

Another hope of mine was seeing the handgun carry permits allow folks to carry guns on school property. It was once allowed with the 'special deputy' commissions, why not the present permit system that replaced the 'special deputy' commissions? Just like the local parks, again that should be taken care of for people with permits.

If your employer does not like a certain behavior you are doing, whether protected by this potential law or not, he can figure out a way to fire you.

Well put.

[Worriedman]

The Constitution defines and restricts the government. So, no, it does not apply to citizens.

So do we throw out the 5th and 14th Amendments, and equal protection under the law? Why have due process at all, if the Citizens are not to enjoy protection from any other entity but Government. So slavery is OK as long as it is just a Private Citizen holding the chains and not some Government entity?