Ron Ramsey on 2013 "Parking Lot" Bill status

[Guest zort]

what i have in my car is my business. im not saying i can walk around with a gun if the owner doesnt want me to. i should be allowed to defend myself to and from work.

[Paladin132]

And this we surrender our rights. Am I advocating breaking the law? Absolutely not. Am I advocating adjusting our mindset to push for what we believe? Bet your (insert whatever here). That we do not is how we loose because one fights for what they believe in, not what they would like to have.

I just do not see a public business's right trumping my individual right. It is a civil right as defined as being in the constitution. We should work toward recognizing that fact. Edited November 17, 2012 by Paladin132

[Oh Shoot]

[quote name='zort' timestamp='1353188345' post='847307']
what i have in my car is my business. im not saying i can walk around with a gun if the owner doesnt want me to. i should be allowed to defend myself to and from work.
[/quote]

Has always been the crux of the debate.

"Parking lot" bills only address keeping a firearm in [i]your own property[/i], while it temporarily occupies space on [i]another's property[/i]. And deals almost exclusively with public and/or business property.

Private property rights are not absolute, and certainly public/business property owners already cede many of the options available to the residential property owner, so the precedent there is well established. Which is why none of the statutes passed by other states in this matter have been overturned.

- OS

[strickj]

[quote name='Paladin132' timestamp='1353188394' post='847308']
And this we surrender our rights. Am I advocating breaking the law? Absolutely not. Am I advocating adjusting our mindset to push for what we believe? Bet your (insert whatever here). That we do not is how we loose because one fights for what they believe in, not what they would like to have.

I just do not see a public business's right trumping my individual right. It is a civil right as defined as being in the constitution. We should work toward recognizing that fact.
[/quote]
Read it again.
The Constitution does not grant you the "right" to carry a gun onto private property no more than it grants you the "right" to yell "fire" in a theater.
The Constitution keeps the government from infringing on your rights. Not business owners. Not homeowners. Only the government.

[Oh Shoot]

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353201630' post='847370']
Read it again.
The Constitution does not grant you the "right" to carry a gun onto private property no more than it grants you the "right" to yell "fire" in a theater.
The Constitution keeps the government from infringing on your rights. Not business owners. Not homeowners. Only the government.
[/quote]

It also does not preclude various levels of government to dictate certain limitations to homeowners and business owners either.

Besides the additional rights of the "protected classes", both residential and business properties are subject to plenty of legal do's and don'ts. And public/business properties are subject to the most.

- OS

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353201630' post='847370']
Read it again.

The Constitution does not grant you the "right" to carry a gun onto private property no more than it grants you the "right" to yell "fire" in a theater.

The Constitution keeps the government from infringing on your rights. Not business owners. Not homeowners. Only the government.[/quote]

To be accurate, the Constitution never mentions "guns" or "firearms" at all (which is a good thing).

Society has the long established right to regulate what can and cannot be done on property or even confiscate property - the only Constitutional argument against such regulations/taking is the takings clause of the 5[sup]th[/sup] amendment. On the issue of firearms in a parked vehicle, society, through the government has determined (in 19 states last time I counted) that states have the right to preclude property owners from restricting firearms in parked vehicles and these laws have survived court challenges.

The 10th Circuit specifically :"...[i][font="Calibri","sans-serif"]rejected the employers’ arguments that, as a “property owner,” they could regulate if firearms were stored in employee vehicles. The appeals court ruled, however, that the Oklahoma law could most accurately be “characterized as a restriction on plaintiff’s use of their property.” In short, the appeals court ruled that the employer’s property could be regulated in this manner and withstand constitutional “taking” arguments." [/font][/i]

While some throw up the "your second amendment right doesn't trump my private property rights" phrase, that statement is a red hearing because it diverts the argument from the real issue. Tthere is no "trumping” of rights" going on; more to the point, no one who has challenged these laws in court has been able to show any harm/infringement on their rights as property owners from a firearm in a parked vehicle. In other words, no violation of the protection of the 5[sup]th[/sup] amendment.

Without such demonstrable infringement, these “parking lot” laws do not violate the Constitution.

[GKar]

[quote name='OhShoot' timestamp='1353191834' post='847323']
Has always been the crux of the debate.

"Parking lot" bills only address keeping a firearm in [i]your own property[/i], while it temporarily occupies space on [i]another's property[/i]. And deals almost exclusively with public and/or business property.

Private property rights are not absolute, and certainly public/business property owners already cede many of the options available to the residential property owner, so the precedent there is well established. Which is why none of the statutes passed by other states in this matter have been overturned.

- OS
[/quote]

This.

[strickj]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353205538' post='847404']
While some throw up the "your second amendment right doesn't trump my private property rights" phrase, that statement is a red hearing because it diverts the argument from the real issue. Tthere is no "trumping” of rights" going on; more to the point, no one who has challenged these laws in court has been able to show any harm/infringement on their rights as property owners from a firearm in a parked vehicle. In other words, no violation of the protection of the 5[sup]th[/sup] amendment.

Without such demonstrable infringement, these “parking lot” laws do not violate the Constitution.
[/quote]


It's a property rights vs. no rights thing.

You do not have a right to be on private property. Doesn't matter one iota if it's my house or Walmart. Period. End of debate.
So why do you think that a gun somehow magically changes that? Because it's mentioned in a document that has no barring on citizens?

OS, never thought you would compare the "protected classes with carrying a gun.
Remember, you can leave your gun at home if you dislike an employer's rules. You can not take off your age. See difference?

[Oh Shoot]

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353209246' post='847426']
....You do not have a right to be on private property. Doesn't matter one iota if it's my house or Walmart. Period. End of debate.[/quote]

Obviously not. Many other states have passed it. TN probably will too, eventually, nothing makes this state any different than others in that regard.

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353209246' post='847426']OS, never thought you would compare the "protected classes with carrying a gun.
[/quote]

I didn't. If you're read the words that are there without warping them to argue your point of view, you'll see I mentioned the protected classes in passing as simply one set of limitations put on private property owners. Many more have nothing to do with protected classes at all. Point is that the legislated list of do's and don't for both residential and commercial property owners is quite long, and even the ownership itself can be legally wrested away.

Certainly, allowing folks to keep a legal possession in their vehicles is rather minor as far as any kind of legal precedent. It's a mostly emotional argument.

- OS Edited November 18, 2012 by OhShoot

[Guest HvyMtl]

His actions speak louder than his words. I will not believe he will support you as he is claiming. I see a politician with his mouth moving. A dangerous thing, indeed.

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353209246' post='847426']It's a property rights vs. no rights thing.[/quote]
Actually, it's about whether a specific governmental regulation, in this case, a regulation regarding firearms in vehicles while the vehicle is parked in a parking lot, violates the Constitution.


[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353209246' post='847426']You do not have a right to be on private property. Doesn't matter one iota if it's my house or Walmart. Period. End of debate.[/quote]Well I think that would be called trespassing and I'm not advocating trespassing so I don't know what debate that ends.


[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353209246' post='847426']So why do you think that a gun somehow magically changes that? Because it's mentioned in a document that has no barring on citizens?[/quote]Not exactly sure what you mean by that statement...I don't think a gun "magically changes" anything.

Whether or not Tennessee [u][i][b]should[/b][/i][/u] pass a "parking lot bill" is a debatable issue and one I'm willing to engage in, so, if you have some specific reasons why you think such a law shouldn't be passed then let's talk about them...I see no reason not to have such a law here but I'm not so closed-minded on the issue that I can't change my mind. However, just chanting "property rights"..."property rights" is not debating and it's not a reason to not have such laws; it's just chanting.

It's just changing because until you can show how these "parking lot" laws violate the Constitution your chanting is a non-starter because I don't think they do violate the Constitution and the courts don't think so either. If you [i][u][b]can[/b][/u][/i] show how these laws violate the Constitution then I'm sure there are some attorneys who have represented the likes of Whirlpool and ConocoPhillips in these cases who would love to hear from you.

Edited November 18, 2012 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='OhShoot' timestamp='1353210859' post='847436']...Certainly, allowing folks to keep a legal possession in their vehicles is rather minor as far as any kind of legal precedent. It's a mostly emotional argument.[/quote]
Yuup...hit the nail square on the head with that one.

[klamb5]

If they want to keep up the argument that its about property rights , they need to repeal a lot of laws restricting use's of one property across state city and county where you cant do this or that on your own property. Myself I think of my car/truck ect, is my rolling home till I step out or off it.

[klamb5]

MULTI POST computer operator issue Edited November 19, 2012 by klamb5

[Paladin132]

Ok, now I am on a computer and can maybe be a little more complete in my response!

Stickj - I am unsure about the property rights laws other than I do know that a business can be public or private. I also know that, as we are all aware I am sure, that there are massive distances between what the law says, how it is enforced, how it is interpreted, and common sense. There are also things that a publicly open business deals with as part of their being public.

Let me ask this to everyone though. Is not your car a little silly for an owner to attempt to regulate its make / model / color / contents while on their parking lot through the course of normal operations? How do you post a parking lot off limits? Also, as someone else has stated, why should a person have to leave their property (in this case a legally owned firearm) somewhere other than in their vehicle. To the comment about shouting fire in a crowded theater: that is because of the inherent danger of people then panicking and fleeing a darkened place. To carry that over to a loaded firearm that is being carried but not brandished I think is a problematic comparison. Change it to a firearm in hand and yup, I am right there with you. Someone walks into a theater where I am watching Skyfall (great movie btw) and they are going to cause me some concern and they now interrupt my movie experience as they will have my undivided attention.

I am afraid that we are going to continue to see an erosion of our rights due to a couple of things, which is why I posted in this thread. One is the apathy of gun owners. Hunters are a big one here because they are willing to buy into someone saying that they will not infringe on their hunting rights. I sometimes want to shout wake up to those folks, because the people who are saying that are fine with being protected by firearms but do not want you, the common folk, to own, possess, and carry them. Look at England where a couple are awaiting trial for defending themselves with a hunting shotgun from a man that had broken into their home at least once before. I point to Bloomberg and Feinstein. He is protected by a detachment of NYPD and she has a CCL.

Secondly we are divided as a group about what our beliefs are. We have trouble articulating ourselves sometimes when we make the arguments for our rights. I believe that we must argue that this is a civil right, ownership and carrying both. Now if a business owner asks me to leave based on it, sure I will cordially leave and probably make a call to the owner as I have in the past informing them that I was turned away from their business by a employee, sign, or what have you based on my exercising my rights. I have taken heat from that by gun owners, and folks that carry a weapon. If one does not exercise their rights they lose them. This is why I advocate going to a strict reading of the constitution as opposed to accepting things as they are. We have a lot of work to do. Edited November 18, 2012 by Paladin132

[Defender]

Are civil rights allowed to be violated on private property, as in the parking lots of the workplace? How about in restaurants? Is it permissible to discriminate against blacks in these places? Then why is it ok when its the 2nd Amendment that's being violated?

[JayC]

Robert,

I'm sorry but it is a progressive argument that somehow societies 'feelings/whims' trump a persons property rights. I'm not suggesting that progressives haven't been very successful in getting courts to violate those rights for the last few decades, but it doesn't change the fact that property rights are a natural right, the same as the right to own and carry a gun is a natural right, and the government has no legitimate reason to violate either of them.

I'm never going to post a business I own, when certain laws were changed a few years back, I got into a number of arguments with progressive leaning members of the family on why we should not post our family owned business... I even had to fire an employee who answered the phone and told a customer we would be posting. (BTW that is the only time I've lost an unemployment claim but that is an entirely different story)

But, I should have full control over my business, I should be able to ban carry over the entire property if I so (IMHO incorrectly) choose. Like with any other policy I make, employees who don't like it can find another job... Customers can do business elsewhere if they don't like the policies. Somebody else will come along and cater to those folks, and get their business and labor if they so choose.

I use to work for a corporation that prohibited carry for employees, and it was one of the reasons I choose to leave and start my own business. I make less money, but I don't have to disarm everyday to go to work... Nobody is forced to work somewhere they must disarm, they choose to... That is their choice.

Again, we should be focused on removing stupid laws, and laws that prohibit carry n government control lands and buildings... because none of us have a choice when it comes to those locations... Not try and tell some business person he must do something he fundamentally disagrees with.

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353176819' post='847249']
I understand you don't agree with me but why start slinging terms like "progressive"?

I believe your argument is flawed , in part, because you refuse to recognize the very clear distinction between private property and business property; a distinction the law and society has recognized for many, many decades and for very good reason...I'd hate to live in any society where a "property owner" could do anything he wanted with no regard to society or anyone else.

No single right is absolute be it the right to carry arms or to practice (or not practice) religion or engage in speech or the right to own real property and use in any way desired.

However, whether you agree with me and for that matter, whether I agree with you is immaterial because your argument has been tested in courts in states where similar "parking lot" legislation has been been put into place and the courts have rejected your arguments.

Sure, there are plenty of laws relating to firearms that stand improvement and I'm doubtful any real movement will be made on a parking lot bill for the next two years but if we can get a good parking lot bill passed into law in Tennessee I'm certainly for it.
[/quote]

[DaveTN]

[quote name='barewoolf' timestamp='1353250199' post='847588']
Are civil rights allowed to be violated on private property, as in the parking lots of the workplace? How about in restaurants? Is it permissible to discriminate against blacks in these places? Then why is it ok when its the 2nd Amendment that's being violated?
[/quote]
Because the interpreters of the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court of the United States, has ruled that while you have a right to own a gun, where and how you carry it will be controlled by the state you live in. In the state of Tennessee carrying a loaded gun is a crime. Approximately 5% of the state’s population has purchased the privilege to carry; but that is not a Constitutional Right. Last I checked being black was not a crime in any state and I fail to see how that keeps getting brought up in this discussion.

[Paladin132]

Dave I am going to have to remember the way you phrase it as purchasing the right to carry. I think it carries a good way of describing it. I do it, but I disagree with one thing, there is a right - says so in the owners manual for the United States. Right now most states do not recognize that right, but it is there. So in essence states, backed by SCOTUS, are in error according to the Constitution. My argument is a philosophical one, not one advocating not having a permit. I am simply advocating passing laws or repealing laws to get back to where the Constitution says we should be - and amend it if necessary. Obviously I would be against that.

I also of course am of the mind leave my car out of a businesses policies.

[Paladin132]

Dave I am going to have to remember the way you phrase it as purchasing the right to carry. I think it carries a good way of describing it. I do it, but I disagree with one thing, there is a right - says so in the owners manual for the United States. Right now most states do not recognize that right, but it is there. So in essence states, backed by SCOTUS, are in error according to the Constitution. My argument is a philosophical one, not one advocating not having a permit. I am simply advocating passing laws or repealing laws to get back to where the Constitution says we should be - and amend it if necessary. Obviously I would be against that.

I also of course am of the mind leave my car out of a businesses policies.

[DaveTN]

[quote name='Paladin132' timestamp='1353260415' post='847680']
Dave I am going to have to remember the way you phrase it as purchasing the right to carry. I think it carries a good way of describing it. I do it, but I disagree with one thing, there is a right - says so in the owners manual for the United States. Right now most states do not recognize that right, but it is there. So in essence states, backed by SCOTUS, are in error according to the Constitution. My argument is a philosophical one, not one advocating not having a permit. I am simply advocating passing laws or repealing laws to get back to where the Constitution says we should be - and amend it if necessary. Obviously I would be against that.

I also of course am of the mind leave my car out of a businesses policies.
[/quote]
The 2nd amendment does not allow you to strap on a gun and walk down the street; and it never will.

Until the Federal government takes over law enforcement for the States (God help us if that ever happens) they don’t have Jack to say about it. All the 2nd amendment does is keeps the Feds from disarming local Police and State Militias.

It’s called States Rights and it wrote a new chapter in the owner’s manual of the United States. The side that was on the right side of that issue may have lost the war, but anyone that knows anything about history knows we don’t want to go down that path again.

The SCOTUS split the 2nd amendment in half because they had no other choice. You have a right to own a gun, but the state will determine when and where you will carry it.

I said we purchase the [i][b]privilege[/b][/i] to carry. A [i][b]right[/b][/i] by its definition can’t be bought.

[Paladin132]

Actually it did allow you to do just that after a fashion. That's how folks carried when it was written, and probably they carried a long gun as pistols were not that common until well after even the west was "won." In some states that is still acceptable without a permit.

Another issue there that we have is that we have incorporated rights to apply to the states. They are natural rights that are yours by existing. Now I am of the opinion that the 2A is really about having a right to self defense, but what it says is that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That is pretty clear language which we as a nation have clouded pretty heavily with laws that, well infringe upon that right. There are huge amounts of federal legislation that apply to it outside of state laws and regulations. The Constitution is there to protect us from the federal, and through incorporation, the states.

Btw I could not agree more about the ACW being repeated.

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='JayC' timestamp='1353251602' post='847603']I'm sorry but it is a progressive argument that somehow societies 'feelings/whims' trump a persons property rights. I'm not suggesting that progressives haven't been very successful in getting courts to violate those rights for the last few decades, but it doesn't change the fact that property rights are a natural right, the same as the right to own and carry a gun is a natural right, and the government has no legitimate reason to violate either of them.

I'm never going to post a business I own, when certain laws were changed a few years back, I got into a number of arguments with progressive leaning members of the family on why we should not post our family owned business... I even had to fire an employee who answered the phone and told a customer we would be posting. (BTW that is the only time I've lost an unemployment claim but that is an entirely different story)

But, I should have full control over my business, I should be able to ban carry over the entire property if I so (IMHO incorrectly) choose. Like with any other policy I make, employees who don't like it can find another job... Customers can do business elsewhere if they don't like the policies. Somebody else will come along and cater to those folks, and get their business and labor if they so choose.

I use to work for a corporation that prohibited carry for employees, and it was one of the reasons I choose to leave and start my own business. I make less money, but I don't have to disarm everyday to go to work... Nobody is forced to work somewhere they must disarm, they choose to... That is their choice.

Again, we should be focused on removing stupid laws, and laws that prohibit carry n government control lands and buildings... because none of us have a choice when it comes to those locations... Not try and tell some business person he must do something he fundamentally disagrees with.[/quote]
[size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]This is not about feelings or whims; it’s about laws and the good of society at large.

Is it “[i]progressive[/i]” of me to want zoning laws in my city so that my next door neighbor can’t suddenly decide to convert his “private property” into a petting zoo or a garbage dump or a half-way house for child molesters?

Is it “[i]progressive[/i]” for me to believe that I should be able to control the contents of my vehicle provided the contents are legal to own/have in my vehicle?

Is it “[i]progressive[/i]” of me to believe that a restaurant shouldn’t be allowed to refuse to serve a black man or a Chinese woman because of their respective races or to think that a business shouldn't be able to require employees to work 16 or 20 hour days or even force eight year old children to do the same?

If the above examples are examples of “[i]progressiveism[/i]” then color me progressive but I suggest that there is nothing libertarian or conservative or patriotic OR Constitutional in allowing anyone/any business/any property owner to do whatever the hell he wants to do on or with his "property" with no regards to anyone else or regards to society at large.

Most of the laws we have regulating what property owners and businesses can and can’t do on their “property” or in running their business exist in response to the sometimes idiotic and sometimes even dangerous things that property owners/businesses have done that harmed others/society and while we probably have far too many laws and regulations, on the whole, I say such laws and regulations are a good thing, even “Constitutional”...even conservative.

The government certainly can have legitimate reasons for infringing on or even completely taking our rights away, including, among others, the right to keep and bear arms and the right to own property - our founders understood that which is why we have the 5[sup]th[/sup] Amendment.

If you believe the courts have blundered in upholding these laws then please explain how they have done so…show specifically how a legal, inert thing, whether it’s a firearm or a set of golf clubs locked inside of a vehicle while parked on a piece of ground provided for the purpose of parking vehicles is a violation of the takings clause.[/font][/size] Until you or someone can do that, I'll remain, "[i]progressive[/i]" and armed.


--------------------

I believe we are left with two issues...[list=1]
[*]Can the government install such a law without violating the Constitution's takings clause.

[*]Should the government install such a law.
[/list]
I believe the first issue has been addressed sufficiently well by the courts - I think the courts were right. Others can disagree but disagreement doesn't change anything unless others can show how the courts got it wrong.

The second issue is, I believe, the only issue that truly matters at this point.

The "it's my property and I should be able to do what I want" statement certainly sounds reasonable...it even sounds patriotic but when examined in detail it is, I believe, unconvincing. It's unconvincing because it really just states an opinion....it's unconvincing because it can (and in many cases was) used to justify any manner of abhorrent, disgusting and even dangerous practices and shows absolutely zero concern for anyone or anyone else s rights; including [u][i]their[/i][/u] property rights. Edited November 18, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Defender]

[quote name='DaveTN' timestamp='1353252054' post='847611']
Because the interpreters of the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court of the United States, has ruled that while you have a right to own a gun, where and how you carry it will be controlled by the state you live in. In the state of Tennessee carrying a loaded gun is a crime. Approximately 5% of the state’s population has purchased the privilege to carry; but that is not a Constitutional Right. Last I checked being black was not a crime in any state and I fail to see how that keeps getting brought up in this discussion.
[/quote]

If it were all about states rights, and not the Constitutional intent, then we wouldn't need ANY Amendments, or interpretations, that impose limitations on States rights, would we? Wasn't the 14th Amendment put in place because Southern states, after the 13th Amendment abolished slavery, enacted laws (perhaps similar to Tennessee's that make carrying a gun a crime) that were unjust? While I DO believe in property owners rights, I fail to see how the discrimination argument is not also very similar to carrying gun arguments here, and elsewhere. Just as others (RobertNashville) far more eloquently than I have already posted here, one can argue either way, but you cannot, or at least should not, be able to have it BOTH ways. Either it makes sense to leave it all up to the States, or as I believe, leave it up to the states, but WITH certain guidlines that prohibit limitations on basic rights.

[strickj]

[quote name='barewoolf' timestamp='1353250199' post='847588']
Are civil rights allowed to be violated on private property, as in the parking lots of the workplace? How about in restaurants? Is it permissible to discriminate against blacks in these places? Then why is it ok when its the 2nd Amendment that's being violated?
[/quote]
I am really, really getting tired of seeing these comments.

A person's skin color, sex or disability is in no way similar to an inanimate object and comparing them as such is offensive.

Gun - inanimate object\
Shoes - inanimate object
Hat - inanimate object
Ice cream - fun inanimate object

Skin color - not an inanimate object
Sex - not an inanimate object
Disability - not an inanimate object
Age - not an inanimate object

See the difference? Edited November 18, 2012 by strickj