Tennessean LTE: "Gun bill interferes with property rights"

[Sky King]

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.tennessea...llenge-planners

Wow, quite a debate. Once could see how the outcome of that debate could have an impact on the Safe Commute bill. But even as it is accepted that free speech does not allow me to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, private property rights also have to have some limits. Nobody would want Prince Mongo, (if you don't live in or follow Memphis news and politics, you probably have no idea who Prince Mongo is, sorry), to open up a night club in a residential area just because he could because it is his private property and he can do as he chooses.

[Moped]

Some more fodder for argument. What about companies that don't own their buildings or land? Should they have the ability to restrict their employee's 2nd Amendment Rights? Most companies lease or rent their space for liability and insurance reasons. What if there are other tenets in the building the do not have such a policy and all employees share a common parking lot, is it fair that a company be able to still restrict a HCP holder the right to have his firearm in his car?

[DaveTN]

is it fair that a company be able to still restrict a HCP holder the right to have his firearm in his car?

I know I got some special privileges when I bought my privileges from the state. But did I get some rights also?

Is it fair to restrict an HCP holder? Yes. If it isn’t a right of a citizen to carry a gun back and forth to work, then no rights are involved.

[Dolomite_supafly]

Your employer can dictate what conditions must be meet in order for you to remain an employee. If that condition is no guns on his property then he can fire you. And even if this bill passes it will not change anything other than the employer will not give a reason for firing you because he isn't required to give you a reason.

And I still contend that a property owner has the right to ask anyone to leave for any reason at all. If that reason is that you have a gun in your car then so be it.

Dolomite

[K191145]

Years of arguments and debate on this issue and it's gotten nowhere. Yes, a private property owner can ban or deny anyone or anything from his/her property for whatever reason but my vehicle is my private property and no one, including any private or corperate security cop wannabe has no authority to search my vehicle, my property, my extention of my house. Only city, county, state, or federal law enforcment can search my property with a warrant issued by a judge if there's evidense of a crime. If a private business doesn't like my answer of, "it's none of your damn business" what's in my private vehicle then they can tell me to leave their property. If I don't place my handgun on the dashboard or somewhere for everyone to see then it doesn't exist. It's okay to lie to your employer, they lie to you and yes, that is an excuse so if they ask if you have a firearm in your vehicle just say no. If they ask to look in your vehicle just say your offended by them implying that your lying, even if you are and tell them hell no, you can't search my vehicle. If you don't brag to fellow employees about your nice handgun you have or leave it visable in your car most likely employers wont ask you what's in your vehicle. Don't ask, don't tell.

[Guest A10thunderbolt]

Years of arguments and debate on this issue and it's gotten nowhere. Yes, a private property owner can ban or deny anyone or anything from his/her property for whatever reason but my vehicle is my private property and no one, including any private or corperate security cop wannabe has no authority to search my vehicle, my property, my extention of my house. Only city, county, state, or federal law enforcment can search my property with a warrant issued by a judge if there's evidense of a crime. If a private business doesn't like my answer of, "it's none of your damn business" what's in my private vehicle then they can tell me to leave their property. If I don't place my handgun on the dashboard or somewhere for everyone to see then it doesn't exist. It's okay to lie to your employer, they lie to you and yes, that is an excuse so if they ask if you have a firearm in your vehicle just say no. If they ask to look in your vehicle just say your offended by them implying that your lying, even if you are and tell them hell no, you can't search my vehicle. If you don't brag to fellow employees about your nice handgun you have or leave it visable in your car most likely employers wont ask you what's in your vehicle. Don't ask, don't tell.

Perfect, Answer!

[K191145]

Perfect, Answer!

Thanks. I have a friend that works for Nissan and they never ask or search any vehicles, I bet that most do not. I have heard of a couple of guys fired from UPS because they were in the parking lot showing each other their hunting rifles, if they had waited till they got home no one would ever known they had them in their vehicles. I never had any issues with where I worked but if I did I would never let them search my vehicle, some may call it arrogance but my principals are worth more than a job. I have bent them by voting for someone I didn't like just to vote against a much worse person but some principals I wont budge on.

[Guest A10thunderbolt]

I think a lot of times Don't ask Don't tell works great.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'll take up my arguments of property rights with anyone on this board. This is not a "trumping"

of one's rights or another, or at least it wasn't intended to be. If you want to argue this notion

of property rights, define which is more relevant:personal, which has been defined as much

for this discussion as has been the other:real. Real property, whether in an ownership or leasehold

has a tangible value and a set of rights called a bundle of ownership". It can be held in a

bunch of different ways, by title or by lease, which is a contractual agreement between two or

more parties. Personal property is usually held and can be held by both of those means, for lack

of better wording. The difference is by how they are viewed by what personal property is. It can

be a car, boat, a piece of heavy equipment or other item, usually regulated by Uniform Commercial

Code, I think. Personal property doesn't have to be attached to real property to have value on it's

own, however, personal property can have limits placed on it and limits on it's availability, meaning

since it has been placed in the Castle Law, it can be defended under certain conditions. I'm not

saying they are equal, but I am saying they have some tangible consequence in this argument.

Now, the bone of contention I have in this position some of you have is the idea that this argument

has anything to do with some kind of "taking" someone might have, if you follow me. A "taking" would be

something from another, such as one of those "bundle of ownership" rights, a term used primarily in

real estate ownership. I just don't understand where there is any "taking" going on because of a gun

in a locked car that an individual is responsible for. Is a company responsible for that car? Is the

company accepting any liability for everything that might be locked in that car? I doubt it, but I may be

wrong.

Safe passage and property rights is the wrong argument. If you're smart enough to be able to wade

through all the other clap-traps already made into law and get out without some silly fine at the end

of the day, you've already gotten ahead of most of this country's population. If you're stupid enough

to go around bragging about some device, in this case a gun, and expect the PC police to welcome

you with open arms, you're not approaching this rationally. It is, or was to only be about safe passage,

to prevent some form of criminality or persecute someone only trying to assert his 2nd Amendment

right of self protection. The rest of this is fluff and you know it. Leave this notion of whose rights

are being trumped out of it.

Right to work states(ours) do make it easy for those stupid enough to go bragging around a PC owner

to lose his job. With rights come certain responsibilities, one of which is common sense.

I wouldn't wish to assert anything to an employer, except my desire to work. I don't wish to place any burden

on any employer and I don't think this bill does or did, if it still exists.

The only thing I see is that some of you around here have been bitten by the PC bug and don't realize it.

Because it is a gun makes it more of an issue than anything else? Horsehockey! Thinking like a bunch

of liberals.

There is nothing at all wrong with "don't ask, don't tell". That's part of the common sense.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think I have this right, at least from a layman's perspective.

Edited March 6, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[DaveTN]

I'll take up my arguments of property rights with anyone on this board. This is not a "trumping"

of one's rights or another, or at least it wasn't intended to be. If you want to argue this notion

of property rights, define which is more relevant:personal, which has been defined as much

for this discussion as has been the other:real. Real property, whether in an ownership or leasehold

has a tangible value and a set of rights called a bundle of ownership". It can be held in a

bunch of different ways, by title or by lease, which is a contractual agreement between two or

more parties. Personal property is usually held and can be held by both of those means, for lack

of better wording. The difference is by how they are viewed by what personal property is. It can

be a car, boat, a piece of heavy equipment or other item, usually regulated by Uniform Commercial

Code, I think. Personal property doesn't have to be attached to real property to have value on it's

own, however, personal property can have limits placed on it and limits on it's availability, meaning

since it has been placed in the Castle Law, it can be defended under certain conditions. I'm not

saying they are equal, but I am saying they have some tangible consequence in this argument.

Now, the bone of contention I have in this position some of you have is the idea that this argument

has anything to do with some kind of "taking" someone might have, if you follow me. A "taking" would be

something from another, such as one of those "bundle of ownership" rights, a term used primarily in

real estate ownership. I just don't understand where there is any "taking" going on because of a gun

in a locked car that an individual is responsible for. Is a company responsible for that car? Is the

company accepting any liability for everything that might be locked in that car? I doubt it, but I may be

wrong.

Safe passage and property rights is the wrong argument. If you're smart enough to be able to wade

through all the other clap-traps already made into law and get out without some silly fine at the end

of the day, you've already gotten ahead of most of this country's population. If you're stupid enough

to go around bragging about some device, in this case a gun, and expect the PC police to welcome

you with open arms, you're not approaching this rationally. It is, or was to only be about safe passage,

to prevent some form of criminality or persecute someone only trying to assert his 2nd Amendment

right of self protection. The rest of this is fluff and you know it. Leave this notion of whose rights

are being trumped out of it.

Right to work states(ours) do make it easy for those stupid enough to go bragging around a PC owner

to lose his job. With rights come certain responsibilities, one of which is common sense.

I wouldn't wish to assert anything to an employer, except my desire to work. I don't wish to place any burden

on any employer and I don't think this bill does or did, if it still exists.

The only thing I see is that some of you around here have been bitten by the PC bug and don't realize it.

Because it is a gun makes it more of an issue than anything else? Horsehockey! Thinking like a bunch

of liberals.

There is nothing at all wrong with "don't ask, don't tell". That's part of the common sense.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think I have this right, at least from a layman's perspective.

I would agree with you if the state recognized a right to carry. But they don’t; it’s a crime. It doesn’t bother you that the state wants to drive something down the throat of an employer that they won’t even allow for all citizens?

Being a Right to Work state has nothing to do with this; being an “Employment at Will†state does.

As far as the “Liberal†name calling to try to drive home your point…. Property owners control their property…period. That is a Conservative view. Allowing only those that have paid the state for the privilege while telling the rest of the citizens to go pound sand is a liberal view.

[Hozzie]

I agree that don't ask don't tell is the easiest solution, however, if you work for a large corporation, I am pretty sure there is something in the fine print of your employment agreement that says they do have the right to search your car and you probably signed off on it without realizing it. Worst case, you say no and they can either fire you or let it go. Push comes to shove, they will always get the last word.

And for the non-English majors, please understand the difference between IN and ON. I don't care if a gun is IN your car (or pants or whatever you want to call personal property), when it is ON my property, my rules win. If you do not like the rules when ON someones property, you have a choice to not go there or leave. If you don't agree with that, let me build a portable meth lab IN my car and park IN your garage ON your property. As it is IN my car, and that is MY personal property, it shouldn't be an issue. I am also sure your Insurance company would have no issues paying out when it blows up.

Edited March 7, 2012 by Hozzie

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yes, DaveTN, it bothers me and this bill is only a semi-satisfactory way to a work around

in lieu of current law. No, I wasn't name calling. If the shoe fits...

Property owners control their property, but that is neither conservative or liberal. Where is

someone telling another to pound sand?

It would most definitely be better if there were no laws restricting down the 2nd Amendment,

but that's the world we live in. I'll be glad to help you change it. If that were the case, we

wouldn't be having this discussion, or trying to resolve this issue, would we?

BTW, thinking like a liberal doesn't mean that person is a liberal, but it might mean that person

hadn't thought it through and considered the opportunities and consequenses. We are all

susceptible to that. Take it as you wish.

[K191145]

I agree that don't ask don't tell is the easiest solution, however, if you work for a large corporation, I am pretty sure there is something in the fine print of your employment agreement that says they do have the right to search your car and you probably signed off on it without realizing it. Worst case, you say no and they can either fire you or let it go. Push comes to shove, they will always get the last word. And for the non-English majors, please understand the difference between IN and ON. I don't care if a gun is IN your car (or pants or whatever you want to call personal property), when it is ON my property, my rules win. If you do not like the rules when ON someones property, you have a choice to not go there or leave. If you don't agree with that, let me build a portable meth lab IN my car and park IN your garage ON your property. As it is IN my car, and that is MY personal property, it shouldn't be an issue. I am also sure your Insurance company would have no issues paying out when it blows up.

They don't have a "right" to search your car but they have a right to fire you and tell you to leave if you refuse.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The problem with "Don't ask, don't tell" is that there is always a risk when there really

shouldn't be one. It's always going to be prudent(common sense) to not advertize your

wares either way a law could read.

A car is a tool to use to go to and from work. It is your personal property(or someone's).

It shouldn't be an issue. Comparing a meth lab to an otherwise lawful act is a bit over the top.

Kind of like saying the gun killed that person, when it was another person who pulled the

trigger.

Like Oh Shoot pointed out, other states have passed similar legislation with no apparent

problems. So, what about Tennessee is different?

[Worriedman]

All this would be open to question if the courts had not already tried the issue in two States, and ruled that the ability to keep a weapon in your personal vehicle is Constitutionally warranted, (both in Oklahoma and Florida). The facts are, that the Legislature is the arbiter regarding the issue, and we can measure whether the current makeup of that body is for your ability to provide for your self protection or not.

Questioning of the paid shills for "Big Business" in the Senate Judiciary on Tuesday proved that they care not for the safety of their employees on their travels to and from work, must keep that control of the space between their parking lots and the employee's front door...

When asked if the other 17 States where they had lost the ability to control the issue had caused ANY problems, the Fed Ex lobbyist admitted it had not!

Edited March 7, 2012 by Worriedman

[daddyo]

.

Edited March 7, 2012 by DaddyO

[DaveTN]

All this would be open to question if the courts had not already tried the issue in two States, and ruled that the ability to keep a weapon in your personal vehicle is Constitutionally warranted, (both in Oklahoma and Florida).

It would still be open to interpretation of the courts. Oklahoma is the 10th Federal District and Florida is the 11^th ; we are in the 6^th. So unless one of those has been to the SCOTUS; they don’t impact us.

[R_Bert]

An option being taken by some Texas employers (I am guessing FEDEX not included) -

http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/141389023.html