Tennessean LTE: "Gun bill interferes with property rights"

[sigmtnman]

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?

The Constitution defines how the .gov is to operate.  Please point out, where in the text that it grants citizen's rights.  It does not do that because your rights were endowed to you by your Creator and are God given rights.The 14th amendment made every citizen a slave to the Federal Government and unable to question the .govs debt, yet responsible for it. It also elevated State created corporations to the level of Citizen. Please read it closely.

Edited March 1, 2012 by sigmtnman

[DaveTN]

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.

Emotions? Circumventing reason and logic? You mean like calling a gun a weapon and comparing it to a hammer in your trunk? These bills aren’t about weapons, they are about guns.

Of course it’s an infringement that you can’t carry a gun to work in your car. But it’s an infringement by the state for all Tennesseans, not just those that can afford a carry permit.

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.

You live in the state of Tennessee where it is a crime to carry a gun; you don’t have a right to carry a gun; you bought a privilege. What about the people that can’t afford to pay for the privilege?

When an employer makes the argument that they don’t feel simply having a permit shows any level of training, Is the state going to have someone that will step up and make the argument that HCP holders are properly trained and they are safe? I’d fall out of my chair laughing.

I ask my friends in Illinois to try not to let the words “2^nd Amendment†or “Constitution†pass their lips when we are having discussions with legislators trying to get carry laws. Acknowledging a right to carry is not what they are after and if you turn it into a 2^nd amendment argument; you have lost before you even get started. That fight has been fought and lost.

Same thing here; our state does not recognize our right to carry. And to try to drive it down the throat of businessmen to allow something to those that have paid the state their “Carry Tax†is just an act of a thug government.

[DaveTN]

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.

Yes I tried to go the civil disobedience route and thought it would help change the law. I was young and dumb. The put me in handcuffs and took me to jail.

It cost me thousands and I changed nothing. The good thing was I tried it in Illinois where I could only be charged with a misdemeanor. Had I tried it here I could be charged with a felony on the whim of a DA.

I want it all….. I want Tennessee to be the 5^th state to recognize my right to keep and bear arms. If they can’t do that; they can’t force it down the throat on a private business owner.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yes, DaveTN, I think you could compare it to any other weapon, since there are knife laws

that prohibit carry in some areas and not in others. But you are right that this is a gun bill

and as such, it is one that is defining a proper usage in the system we currently have.

You have argued in previous discussions that we don't have any rights afforded us from Heller

and the other case, yet you say this is about a "shoving down the owner's throat" of another bill.

All I am referring to is the safe passage to and from work. Nothing else concerning on the job

or handling a gun while on the job. Tell me where that is an infringement on the employer and

I'll buy you a beer sometime.

I would love to see every damned gun law stripped by nullification all the way back to the original

2nd Amendment. All these laws have done is muddy the water and incriminate more people to

further regulate our utopian society lovers into submission. Reminds me of the old TV show "The

Prisoner" more and more every day, but what we have in this bill is a potential to allow safe passage

in a hodge podge of stupid laws. The parking lot bill would have been useful only in that it would

keep the incriminating at a lower level. I don't think it has anything to do with the employer's property

rights being infringed.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

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.

Well, I guess you weren't describing me then. I don't know of your disability and it isn't relevant

to this discussion, anyway. I don't consider this an "extra right. I just want to be left alone by the government

or employer when I'm not interfering with the government's or the employer's activities. I see this law as

a method to prevent an abuse of an extension of my private property. That's all.

BTW, comparing a law like this to a law like Equal Rights Act and the like are apples and oranges to

me. I wouldn't have used that.

I don't want anything "special" or more than anyone else. I would rather any bill be considered on it's

constitutionality before it gets considered further. I don't like the idea of passing any more laws than are

necessary to begin with. I do think this is necessary since we have so many anti-gun people in society

that we do nowadays have to assert when something is and is not appropriate behaviour while carrying

a "gun".

I take exception where people say the Constitution applies only to the government. It applies to restrict

the government from actions against the people. It also applies to people as it asserts inalienable rights

that can't be taken away. Yes, that's the same thing, but if the Bill of rights weren't in there there wouldn't

be any argument about state's rights would there? Since the government is made up of the people, by

the people and for the people we have a responsibility to assert our rights to the government, which is

what the 2nd amendment is there for, anyway. Something to do with tyranny, I think..

I never thought you were a cry baby. I thought you were a good photographer, though.

Edited March 2, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[Worriedman]

The Constitution defines how the .gov is to operate. Please point out, where in the text that it grants citizen's rights.

You are correct in that the Union Constitution does not, (the State Constitution is a different matter, it actually has a Declaration of Rights) it simply is a list of "chains" or restraints if you will, placed on the Federal Government by the States, or rather, by those Founders who wished to retain sovereignty over the Federal Government by the States. (So sad that their intent did not survive, but then they could not have envisioned carrier politicians).

The Amendments (Bill of Rights) list what were considered to be the most important, they do not grant them, as those who put them down on paper to entice the remaining States to ratify the whole of the Constitution realized that they were already ours. I personally consider the 10th to be as important as any, and the 9th the most misunderstood and least adhered to: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." That simple statement verifies that there are natural rights that not even the Government can abridge. It may by force refuse to allow them to be enjoyed, (just as ruthless men can) but, they can not be "denied" by the Government as they were never the Government's to allow or disallow in the first place.

Every statutory law has its basis in the Constitution, or the Amendments, of the Union or the State, they are the metrics that the courts use to measure their applicability against. (However well or poorly that is accomplished)

Edited March 2, 2012 by Worriedman

[Dolomite_supafly]

I believe most laws are based on religion more so than the Constitution, Declaration of Independence or Bill of Rights.

And it is the prevailing religion in a society that most of the laws are based upon. Look at the laws of countries that believe in other religions to see there are stark differences between their laws and ours.

Dolomite

[wjh2657]

Unfortunately we again have a strong misunderstanding of the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution only restricts the Federal government and its lawmaking abilities. Incorporation simply means that State governments must also observe certain aspects of the bill of rights when they make laws. Not all of the Amendments have been actually incorporated.

Tennessee, thankfully, has already incorporated most of the Amendments into its Constitution and TCA (laws) but that is a state thing. Marriage is not a good analogy as that is a state mandated (laws) factor and not a Federal ( Constitution) matter (contrary to certain candidates' statements). Quoting the Supreme Court of the U.S. is totally counter-productive as decisions can be found supporting both sides of any argument.

The Right of Property has been consistently held up by court actions and the laws of the land since the Magna Charta and in fact was the main concern of the founding fathers. (Read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist) Individual rights of ordinary citizens was actually of very little concern to the Aristocratic founding fathers.) Progressive and Liberal revisionist history as taught to us in schools has totally warped the original intent and philosophy of the founding fathers. Americans need to read the original works of the founders to get a grasp on the DOI and COTUS.

An individual's rights have never and never will trump property rights in America and the Constitution of the United States and the body of law will always support property.

I am sorry if that offends most people on this forum, but it is what is. It is who we are and what we do.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

No one is trying to take anything away from a property owner. Are the property owner's

also the owner of my car? This is an area of concern that the property owner can assert

what I have secured in my trunk? Whether I do or don't should be of no concern to the property

owner unless I took something out of my car and carried it on the job, which the property owner

certainly has every right to restrict.

How about a lttle common sense?

What some of you are saying is that while I travel to work I don't the right to protect myself if I

park in the company parking lot, if the company has a policy of no guns on the property. Okay.

razorback said he would do it letting no one know, until they found out. I understand that, but

it still gives him the possibility of becoming a criminal while only trying to protecting himself

while on the way to and from work, not on the job. This bill would have only given safe passage

while traveling to and from work and allowing the right to secure a gun in one's own private

property, the car. I see that as a blur between one's right and another: a conflict, one which

is resolved only by the passing of such a law.

And the argument of going to one's property with something offensive, in this case a gun on

your person, of course the homeowner should always be able to tell you to leave. But this ain't that!

Why is there a safe passage from one state to another, regardless of the gun laws of a particular

state while passing through. I'd say for the same damned reason.

If a gun remains in my locked car away from me while at work, what difference does it make to the

property owner, especially if he had no idea or reason to believe there is one, in the first place?

Property rights, Equal rights, extra rights, inalienable rights. Got any more to add to muddy this down

further?

I don't think this bill has anything to do with an individual right trumping a property right. I also think

property rights are an extension of an individual's right to own property, either by King George granting

you the right or the Constitution granting the right of an individual to own said property. That rapidly

becomes a chicken/egg argument.

Property rights were absolute according to the type of estate held by the owner until, like sig said,

that amendment was passed. It got muddied up quite a lot then.

The Magna Carta was the first assertion of an individual to have any rights at all, if I recall right.

What's offensive, wjh? I like your posts. We're just making this what I believe it isn't.

[Oh Shoot]

...An individual's rights have never and never will trump property rights in America and the Constitution of the United States and the body of law will always support property....

Amazing to me then that they have been "trumped", in the states which have passed parking lot carry laws. And that none have been overturned through the court system as unconstitutional on state or federal level.

- OS

[daddyo]

It is a false claim that keeping a weapon locked in your car while on a employer's property if there is a policy prohibiting it is a crime. You can be escorted from the property, but you are not guilty of any crime.

Edited March 2, 2012 by DaddyO

[Guest A10thunderbolt]

I can't believe, you are willing to to pass a law that gives the Gov more power. You are essentially saying its ok for the Gov to force you to accept what ever they decide onto private property, you can say all you want, but this is how they always get their foot in the door to pass Anti-gun laws or other liberal crap. What if they decide having guns on work place property is to dangerous, you might get mad go out side and start shooting people, So they make all work place parking lots Illegal carry locations. Since allowing the Gov to force employers to allow Storage, they must also have the right to swing the law the other direction. Five years in prison penalty maybe? Right now as it stands, there are no mandatory searches and if they require you to consent to work there I say quit.

Heck, if liberals can take "The right to bear arms" and say that it was only meant for local Gov, since the People are the Gov, and outlaw civilian carry I think they can easily twist this law the other way.

[Worriedman]

It is absurd to suppose that your "ownership" of property gives you "Rights" to do with it as you please. Regrade your yard and concentrate the runoff onto a neighbors property and it causes damage from the change, TDEC (your peers and the law of the land all rolled into one) will be along shortly to fine you and make you take corrective measures. Build an old style water collection system, (cistern) and run afoul of the Federal and State Government, the rain falling on the earth, your particular piece of it, is not yours to control. Desire to put up a structure on said property, and your peers have decided you must seek approval, permits and allow strangers on you property to inspect every aspect of what you do on your "own" land. Erect a shed closer to your property line than the setback distance in your particular area, again, a distance decided on by your peers, not you, and you will tear it down. Spray grass or weed killer on 'your" yard and catch a rain and let it wash on to adjoining property, your decision to control the flora environment on that particular piece of ground can cost you big, if it kills a swath of planting on a downstream location.

Own a piece of property along a river in the South, one say that has been in your family since the State was founded, let TVA eyeball it and decide they need to put in a hydroelectric system to generate electricity for you peers in the area, or to ship the power generated to needy cities a 100 miles away. Does anyone here suppose the graves of your ancestors beneath the 300 year old Oak Tree out back of your ancestral home will suffice as important enough, or your "Right" to your property be strong enough to keep the power of imminent domain from sweeping away your title to said property?

Build a store and post that no women, blacks, or Muslims are allowed to shop there. It is your property, and surly, you should be able to control what comes onto that piece of ground...

[Guest A10thunderbolt]

It is absurd to suppose that your "ownership" of property gives you "Rights" to do with it as you please. Regrade your yard and concentrate the runoff onto a neighbors property and it causes damage from the change, TDEC (your peers and the law of the land all rolled into one) will be along shortly to fine you and make you take corrective measures. Build an old style water collection system, (cistern) and run afoul of the Federal and State Government, the rain falling on the earth, your particular piece of it, is not yours to control. Desire to put up a structure on said property, and your peers have decided you must seek approval, permits and allow strangers on you property to inspect every aspect of what you do on your "own" land. Erect a shed closer to your property line than the setback distance in your particular area, again, a distance decided on by your peers, not you, and you will tear it down. Spray grass or weed killer on 'your" yard and catch a rain and let it wash on to adjoining property, your decision to control the flora environment on that particular piece of ground can cost you big, if it kills a swath of planting on a downstream location.

Own a piece of property along a river in the South, one say that has been in your family since the State was founded, let TVA eyeball it and decide they need to put in a hydroelectric system to generate electricity for you peers in the area, or to ship the power generated to needy cities a 100 miles away. Does anyone here suppose the graves of your ancestors beneath the 300 year old Oak Tree out back of your ancestral home will suffice as important enough, or your "Right" to your property be strong enough to keep the power of imminent domain from sweeping away your title to said property?

Build a store and post that no women, blacks, or Muslims are allowed to shop there. It is your property, and surly, you should be able to control what comes onto that piece of ground...

Only a few thing you mentioned, actually harm another citizen or their property. The rest is showing how the Gov has to much power and needs to be cut back several notches.

[Worriedman]

Now to this point, from 1796 to 1870, the Constitution of Tennessee gave an unequivocal Right to every non-criminal to keep and bear arms for the common defense, (and common defense includes personal defense in any discussion of rational people) it was the carpetbagging Republican Party that re-wrote the Article to give power to the legislature to restrict the wearing of arms, and instituted the "intent to go armed" clause of the TCA, primarily to forbid the freed slaves from being able to carry arms, so the restriction put the ability to bear arms firmly ensconced into the ruling elite's purvey.

[sigmtnman]

Hmm. What happened shortly before 1870? I know there was something important.

[Guest 270win]

I think the idea behind this bill is good but it does not fix employer and employee relations. TN is basically a right to work state. If an employer does not like your behavior on or off the clock he can figure out a way to fire you. Yes, he won't say "The guy is a democrat or a republican, I don't like his party so I fired him". The employer can say your work stunk or just that he doesn't need you anymore. If this law passes, if you get found that you keep a gun in your car and boss doesn't like it, he won't fire you for the gun. Boss will just come up with another reason or no reason.

The legislature should have used the time on bills that reduce/eliminate criminal penalties for those with handgun carry permits and other good people that may not have permits. I would like to see folks who don't have a permit to at least be able to keep a loaded firearm in their cars. I think it could have been done with the current make up of the legislature. As I said before, eliminate 500 fines for signs, fix the local park sign fine problem, and the schools. If you could just eliminate the sign fines, think you could carry legally at the statehouse, state govt buildings, courthouses (not rooms when court in session), any place that presently has these signs. Yes they may ask you to leave but that isn't risking a fine. All this is legal when you carry in Alabama with a license you basically bought with no training at the county sheriff, why not Tennessee?

[Worriedman]

Sorry razorback2003, but the current make up of the legislature is not conducive to the passage of any reasonable firearms laws, or more truly the repeal of those that should not be there. Leadership likes their money from Fed Ex too much to be concerned with right and wrong.

[QuietDan]

How much money from FedEx, and to whom? I'd be interested in those numbers. I'd be interested in splashing those facts around.

[Worriedman]

How much money from FedEx, and to whom? I'd be interested in those numbers. I'd be interested in splashing those facts around.

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2012/feb/12/companies-pacs-send-29-million-to-lawmakers/?local

[R_Bert]

How much money from FedEx, and to whom? I'd be interested in those numbers. I'd be interested in splashing those facts around.

Here is how to assess your legislators viewpoints on issues (including firearms) by their voting record. Very handy to look at likely votes of committee members as well up to 2010 - http://tennesseevotes.org/

This site also shows info on their donors - http://ballotpedia.o...p/Randy_McNally

[R_Bert]

http://www.timesfree...awmakers/?local

I forwarded this one to my local legislators for their reading pleasure.

[E4 No More]

Ad Naseum

[R_Bert]

Ad Naseum

?

[Worriedman]

For those who truly have an issue with who controls Property Rights in TN, this might be of more import than a discussion of the "Parking Lot" issue:

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20120305/NEWS01/303050018/Property-activists-challenge-planners