Ron Ramsey on 2013 "Parking Lot" Bill status

[strickj]

[quote name='OhShoot' timestamp='1353290306' post='847914']
There's the basic fallacy you refuse to see.

There are already [i]many[/i] more regulations on business properties with employees and business properties open to the public than on residential or unimproved rural properties.

I won't even begin to iterate them again because you will continue to ignore that regulatory agencies and jurisprudence obviously do [i]not[/i] consider them the same, and keep parroting that mantra.

You and JayC need to be sure to collaborate on a strongly worded amicus brief if the thing is finally passed, assuming it ever is indeed challenged in court.

- OS
[/quote]

There is private property and public property. Pick one.
[size=2]Hint: Businesses are privately owned in case you didn't know.[/size]

Being open to the public doesn't change that.
a restaurant having to follow food safety rules doesn't change that.
A warehouse with OSHA regs doesn't change that.
Being zoned residential or commercial doesn't change that.

As a private property owner, you have the right to set the rules for admittance onto that property. Doesn't matter if the property is used for business, personal or residential.
The [u]only [/u]exception to that is anti-discriminatory laws when a business is open to the public.

[quote]There are already [i]many[/i] more regulations on business [/quote]
Show me one non-tax or wage related law that all businesses must follow.

[Oh Shoot]

[quote name='QuietDan' timestamp='1353295558' post='847971']
....I have opinions that I believe could convince, but I'm going to hold off until folks settle down a little bit.
[/quote]

You should have espoused them about a year and a half ago to forestall the last umpteen threads on the matter -- could have reached group consensus if not a complete state of satori.

- OS

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353296156' post='847981']
There is private property and public property. Pick one....Being open to the public doesn't change that.
[/quote]
Yes...private property IS private property; thanks for clearing that up.

However, according to society, many, many decades of history, and common sense; what the property is used for has a significant impact on whether and what regulations apply to it and are appropriate to apply to it. Edited November 19, 2012 by RobertNashville

[strickj]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353297312' post='847991']
Private property IS private property but according to society, many, many decades of history, and common sense; what the property is used for has a significant impact on what regulations apply to it.
[/quote]
Name one non-tax or wage related law that all businesses or "business property" owners must follow.

[Chucktshoes]

The ADA.

[strickj]

Try again.

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353298395' post='848005']Try again.

[/quote]
Why? Are some businesses exempt from ADA requirements?

[Worriedman]

NFPA regs.

[Oh Shoot]

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353297747' post='847996']
Name one non-tax or wage related law that all businesses or "business property" owners must follow.
[/quote]

Never said all businesses. Single Proprietorships not open to the public are pretty much same as any other non business property.

But for businesses with employees....

TN OSHA

TN Child Labor Act

TN Whistle Blower's Act

TN Non Smoker Protection Act

TN Illegal Alien Employment License Suspension

TN Fire Codes

.....to name a few obvious ones, and I didn't even mention any federal regs, and certainly not the ADA to which you take such vehement exception for comparison to the current issue.

- OS Edited November 19, 2012 by OhShoot

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353297747' post='847996']
Name one non-tax or wage related law that all businesses or "business property" owners must follow.
[/quote]There is no reason to name one or 100 or 0 because I don't believe there is an answer that you would not have some objection to. Moreover, your veiled assertion that there is a difference between a regulation that is based on "taxes" or "wages" as opposed to any other regulation is both flawed and immaterial because it entirely misses the point - society, through the government, both can and does regulate what a property owner can and cannot do on the property owner's property and whether a property is used for private purposes or business purpose has a direct impact on how/whether government regulates it.

If I bothered to look, which I'm not, I suspect there are more than a few examples that could answer your demand but I really don't care if there is now or has ever been a regulation applied to business property that wasn't either "tax" or "wage" related because whether or not that is the case has no bearing on whether or not society [u][i]can[/i][/u] regulate business property and it has no bearing on whether or not society [i][u]should[/u][/i] regulate business property.

19 stats have already decided they should regulate on this issue and the highest court that has heard the Constitutional arguments against these "parking lot" regulations has rejected the arguments and nothing is going to change the "can" or the "should" parts of the discussion no matter how much you chant "private property...private property". Edited November 19, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Oh Shoot]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353299917' post='848025']
Your veiled assertion that there is a difference between a regulation that is based on "taxes" or "wages" as opposed to any other regulation is both flawed and immaterial because it entirely misses the point....[/quote]

Yep. And even Strick's vehement refusal to equate ADA with handgun carry is specious. In the the same vein as your comment, it is simply one more set of regulations, showing just one more precedent for adherence to one more set of regulations. I've certainly never claimed that disability and handgun possession are on any kind of equal status, that is not a valid argument, or does it need to be.

And much of this is red herring territory anyway. The parking lot bill is not so much about anything the business owner must [i]do[/i], but simply about something he must [i]not[/i] do. Just like the hundreds of other things he must not do, whether it's to quarter top staff in your home, or commandeer your car. Or in this case, effectively prevent you from self defense while in your own property, something that TN law specifically allows, HCP or not, actually.

- OS Edited November 19, 2012 by OhShoot

[strickj]

[quote name='Chucktshoes' timestamp='1353299007' post='848011']
Why? Are some businesses exempt from ADA requirements?
[/quote]
Ever seen a line worker in a wheelchair or an armless warehouse picker?

And just to head ya off on other discriminatory laws... ever seen a male Hooters waitress or a fat stripper?
Ok, that last one might actually exist

For hiring, they dp not apply to businesses that have psychical, mental or appearance requirements. Maybe more.
For admittance onto business property, they only apply to businesses open to the public and structures built after 1992 (For ADA).
[quote name='Worriedman' timestamp='1353299072' post='848013']
NFPA regs.
[/quote]

I'll admit that I had to look that up.
First glance it doesn't appear to apply to everyone.

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353299917' post='848025']
Your veiled assertion that there is a difference between a regulation that is based on "taxes" or "wages" as opposed to any other regulation is both flawed and immaterial because it entirely misses the point.
[/quote] Most certainly does amke a difference.
You do not have to have a business, a business license, etc. for wage and tax laws to apply. They apply to everyone. That is why I excluded them.


[quote]19 stats have already decided they should regulate "guns in parking lots" and the highest court that has heard the Constitutional arguments that those states cannot so regulate has rejected the arguments so whether society can and whether society should so regulate is not going to change no matter how much you chant "private property...private property".[/quote]
So what?
How many states have some sort of gun ban or Brady law that has been upheld?



[quote name='OhShoot' timestamp='1353299862' post='848024']
Never said all businesses. Single Proprietorships not open to the public are pretty much same as any other non business property.

But for businesses with employees....

TN OSHA

TN Child Labor Act

TN Whistle Blower's Act

TN Non Smoker Protection Act

TN Illegal Alien Employment License Suspension

TN Fire Codes

- OS
[/quote]
This bill will target all businesses.Try to keep up.

Out of the ones you mentioned, only the illegal alien laws apply to all businesses. Course, it also applies to everyone doesn't it?

[quote].....to name a few obvious ones, and I didn't even mention any federal regs, and certainly not the ADA to which you take such vehement exception for comparison to the current issue.[/quote]
.See above. ADA/civil right laws do not apply to everyone.

Edited November 19, 2012 by strickj

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353300794' post='848032']...Most certainly does amke a difference.[/quote]
Yes, I guess it does make a difference...when you decide to ignore that entirety of what I said on the matter and only deal with one part of what I said.


[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353300794' post='848032']...[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353299917' post='848025']...19 stats have already decided they should regulate on this issue and the highest court that has heard the Constitutional arguments against these "parking lot" regulations has rejected the arguments and nothing is going to change the "can" or the "should" parts of the discussion no matter how much you chant "private property...private property".[/quote][/quote]
The "so what" is that despite all the time and electrons you've used up with your posts in this thread you still have not offered any argument to show that Tennessee doesn't have the right, under the 5th Amendment, to pass a "parking lot" bill nor have you offered any reasonable or logical arguments to show why Tennessee shouldn't do so.

That's the "so what". Edited November 19, 2012 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353300794' post='848032']...This bill will target all businesses.Try to keep up.[/quote]
Really...you know this for a fact?

I thought we were discussing the possibility of a bill...I didn't realize that a bill has already been written and passed and that you know the specific contents of it.

[strickj]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353301706' post='848037']
The "so what" is that despite all the time and electrons you've used up with your posts in this thread you still have not offered any argument to show that Tennessee doesn't have the right, under the 5th Amendment, to pass a "parking lot" bill nor have you offered any reasonable or logical arguments to show why Tennessee shouldn't do so.

That's the "so what".
[/quote]
[url="http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/55092-ron-ramsey-on-2013-parking-lot-bill-status/page__st__40#entry847778"]I answered you the last time you asked me that. [/url]You refuse to accept that property owners can dictate rules.
And I certainly can not help it that you feel your convenience is more important than property rights.

You still haven't answered my questions, BTW.

Do you value your property rights?

Do you want the government to make you do something with your property simply to satisfy a stranger's convenience and sense of entitlement?

Care if my bullhorn and I visit your home at 2am tonight? Your property rights mean nothing to me and I have a constitutional right to yell stuffs

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353302104' post='848039']
Really...you know this for a fact?

I thought we were discussing the possibility of a bill...I didn't realize that a bill has already been written and passed and that you know the specific contents of it.
[/quote]
Bill has been written and proposed for sever years now.
I assume it will be much the same as years past.

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353302821' post='848042'][url="http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/55092-ron-ramsey-on-2013-parking-lot-bill-status/page__st__40#entry847778"]I answered you the last time you asked me that.[/url][/quote]So...when I asked you to "[b][i]show how the 10th circuit was wrong in rejecting the Constitutional argument against these laws and to submit reasonable and logical arguments to show why such a law shouldn't be passed Tennessee[/i][/b]" your answer was "[color=#b22222][i]It's wrong because the law violates a person's rights while giving nonexistent rights to someone over convenience.[/i][/color]" I don't understand how that "answer" is supposed to answer either of the two-part question I asked.

What person's "rights" does such a law violate? If you mean a company's property rights, the courts have said otherwise...you certainly can believe the courts were wrong but belief doesn't show how the 10th Circuit was wrong which was the question posed and not answered.

"Nonexistent rights"? What are these "nonexistent rights" and in what way are they being "given" to someone?




[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353302821' post='848042']You refuse to accept that property owners can dictate rules. And I certainly can not help it that you feel your convenience is more important than property rights.[/quote]I absolutely agree that property owners can dictate any rules they want. But, you keep leaving out something important which is that property owners can dictate rules [i][b]until society, through government action and IAW the Constitution, says otherwise[/b][/i].


[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353302821' post='848042']You still haven't answered my questions, BTW.

My answers in [color=#0000ff][b]blue[/b][/color]...

Do you value your property rights? [i][b][color=#0000ff]Absolutely I do[/color][/b][/i]

Do you want the government to make you do something with your property simply to satisfy a stranger's convenience and sense of entitlement? [i][b][color=#0000ff]No, but I [u]DO[/u] want the government to regulate property when doing so is for the overall benefit of society; especially when the regulation has little to no actual impact on the property owner (such as these "parking lot" laws).[/color][/b][/i]

Care if my bullhorn and I visit your home at 2am tonight? Your property rights mean nothing to me and I have a constitutional right to yell stuffs [i][b][color=#0000ff]Yes, I care[/quote][/color][/b][/i]


[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353302821' post='848042']Bill has been written and proposed for sever years now. I assume it will be much the same as years past.
[/quote]So you made an assumption and then berated OhShoot for not "[i]keeping up[/i]" with you? That seems a bit inappropriate. Edited November 19, 2012 by RobertNashville

[GKar]

Perhaps the best ending to this lovely discourse was alluded to earlier: if a "parking lot" bill is introduced into the next legislative session, and it contains proposals that are objectionable to some, then those that are so adamantly convinced that such is a bad bill should expend the same amount of energy that's been exhausted within this and similar threads over the last year into efforts directed at the legislators...you know, those people that can actually DO (or not do) something about it. In the meantime, those who believe it is a step in the right direction can continue to do the same...and save a hell of a lot of bandwidth.

[Worriedman]

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353300794' post='848032']
This bill will target all businesses.Try to keep up.
[/quote]

The Bill does not apply to Farms, (which are some of the largest business in the country), nor business run out of private residencies.

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353300794' post='848032']
.
I'll admit that I had to look that up.
First glance it doesn't appear to apply to everyone.

[/quote]

NFPA regs apply to EVERYONE, business and individual private property owners alike. Limits to the amount of flammables and explosives that may be stored on premises, and how they must be contained apply to every single building in the US irrespective of ownership type Edited November 19, 2012 by Worriedman

[JayC]

[quote name='GKar' timestamp='1353306513' post='848049']
Perhaps the best ending to this lovely discourse was alluded to earlier: if a "parking lot" bill is introduced into the next legislative session, and it contains proposals that are objectionable to some, then those that are so adamantly convinced that such is a bad bill should expend the same amount of energy that's been exhausted within this and similar threads over the last year into efforts directed at the legislators...you know, those people that can actually DO (or not do) something about it. In the meantime, those who believe it is a step in the right direction can continue to do the same...and save a hell of a lot of bandwidth.
[/quote]

People here wonder why we can't get this bill passed.... The TFA and NRA went to town on legislators who don't want to see this bill passed... There are very [b]valid conservative[/b] reasons to not support this bill.

We as 2nd amendment advocates should be pushing the legislature to pass laws that recognize our God given rights for self defense, and a smaller government (at all levels government needs to get much smaller). Not pass legislation that makes the government bigger, and interferes with God given property rights.

[b]The 'problem' this bill attempts to solve doesn't exist[/b], nobody is being forced to work at, or do business with a posted company in this state. HCP permit holders willingly choose to enter into agreements with these businesses, and tomorrow could choose to not enter into those agreements with those businesses. Therefore the law in question is nothing but an expansion of government, and further restricts private property rights.

IMHO, people who support this bill have lost their way on the fundamentals of conservative principles, they want to government to give them a privilege over the rights of property owners to store a firearm in their vehicle, instead of making the hard choice to not do business with said companies. That violates everything I've been taught about conservative principles of less government, and allowing the market solve problems.

I'm not saying that the legislator won't pass this bill, I'm also not saying that a court would find it unconstitutional... The legislature passes all sorts of bad bills on a regular basis that violate natural rights of the citizens of our state... Courts often IMHO get it wrong and trash God given rights... I suspect in this case they would continue to do so... Doesn't mean because you can, you should...

I for one am not willing to toss aside my core principles of smaller, limited government... belief in true God given rights of men... because some refuse to make hard choices in their own daily lives.

I've lost a lot of respect for certain of members of this forum in this thread, who have repeatedly advocated smaller government, fewer firearm laws to get us closer to our God given rights, but are happy to throw those principles away to get the state to pass a law because it saves them from making some hard choices. Edited November 19, 2012 by JayC

[Defender]

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353268575' post='847733']
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?
[/quote]
Offensive? I dont think so, and besides...Im not talking about guns here, Im talking about behavior that is mandated, just the same as the laws that mandate behavior to people based on race. I simply do not understand how, if its all about property owners rights. why dont race issues have the same merit? I'll tell you why, its because its wrong, thats why, same as in this case. The big problem here is by banning on property period, the owners are effectively disarming a person, not just at work, but to and from as well. Edited November 19, 2012 by barewoolf

[Oh Shoot]

[quote name='JayC' timestamp='1353337356' post='848138']
....I've lost a lot of respect for certain of members of this forum in this thread, who have repeatedly advocated smaller government, fewer firearm laws to get us closer to our God given rights, but are happy to throw those principles away to get the state to pass a law because it saves them from making some hard choices.[/quote]

Agree that ideally, best legislation is to repeal ...

1. statute that going armed is a crime
2. statute which makes carrying past a sign a criminal charge

Second best to 1. is to extend exception for going armed to vehicle, for everyone, since it is already covered under "castle law" part of self defense statutes

....and let chips fall where they may regarding public facilities and their employees.

Since this is still a faraway pipe dream, most agree we must grab the fruit that can be picked at the time.

Btw, this law ain't gonna affect me one way or the other, I'm just for expanding gun rights any way possible, including yes, even adding a few more words to TCA, since it's more feasible to do that than take any away right now.

- OS

[GKar]

Back to the OP, and a question for WM: what parts of the bill as it actually appeared in the record in the 107th GA do you believe would not reappear in an "RR" version (playing off his comment RE "gun rights advocates will not get everything they want either")? Without reproducing the whole thing here, the following seem to be the salient points from the archived records for HB3560/SB3002...

1) a business entity, or owner, manager, or legal possessor of real property, or public or private
employer may not establish, maintain, or enforce a policy or rule that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting a person’s transportation or storage of a firearm or ammunition when the firearm or ammunition is kept from ordinary observation within teh persons attended privately-owned motor vehicle or is kept from ordinary observation and locked within the trunk, glove box, or interior of the person’s privately owned motor vehicle or a container securely affixed to such vehicle, and

2) the vehicle is operated or parked in a location where it is otherwise permitted to be, and

3) the person possess a valid handgun permit authorized by 39-17-1351.

Also, there were provisions regarding allowing civil action against a business, entity or owner by a person who is injured or incurs damages because of a violation of the above prohibition, recovery if an employee is discahrged for a violoation or a policy or rule that contrasts the above prohibition, and a relief form liability for business entity/owners if theft of a firemrm from a proper storage leads to damages, etc.

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='JayC' timestamp='1353337356' post='848138']People here wonder why we can't get this bill passed.... IMHO, people who support this bill have lost their way on the fundamentals of conservative principles
[/quote]

To be accurate, the TFA and NFA didn’t just go “to town” on legislators who don’t want to see this bill passed; they went “to town” on one particular (soon to be former) legislator who violated her oath of office by not following the rules of the legislature [u][i]and[/i][/u] violated her alleged conservative principles to kill a bill that had successfully passed every hurdle needed to get to the floor for a vote. Her actions in this matter were worthy of Jimmy Naife as there was no evidence that she opposed the bill on principles or because she thought it was a bad bill and even if she was opposed on principle; it is the floor of the people’s house where such opposition or support for the bill is [i]supposed[/i] to be shown. The evidence showed that this legislator acted for the sake of political expediency in that she didn’t want to have to record a vote on the bill and either anger the pro-firearms community and lose those votes [u][b]OR[/b][/u] anger the likes of FedEx and Nissan and Bridgestone and lose their campaign contributions. Since she couldn't have it both ways, she punted and her actions were the epitome of exactly the kind of legislator that no state legislature needs...she deserved to be removed and I’m very proud that I played a small part of making that happen through my membership in both the organizations you cite as well as some significant, for me, donations to the campaign of that legislator’s opponent.

I agree, 2[sup]nd[/sup] Amendment advocates [u][i]should[/i][/u] be pushing the legislature to pass laws the recognize our rights to keep and bear arms [b][i]including the passage of laws that push back against entities like businesses who overreach their authority by adopting policies that attempt to control what a citizen can have or not have in his/her privately owned vehicle[/i][/b]; especially when these entities do so without offering any rational or logical reasons for doing so (at least none they are willing to articulate in public).

That you have decided that the problem this bill addresses isn’t a problem or isn’t a problem that the legislature should address can be debated. However, to cavalierly say the people can chose to work or shop somewhere else both ignores some harsh realities about our economy right now and doesn't do much to bring people to agree with you...I could just as easily and correctly say that this wouldn't be a problem at all if businesses didn't overreach their authority by attempting to control the legal contents of a vehicle and that many, including me do believe it’s a problem and one that, because of the actions of some businesses, the legislature needs to address.

Your assertion that such a law would be an expansion of government is an exaggeration - a “parking lot” bill, if one is passed, will not necessitate the creation of or expansion of a state agency nor would such a law require an business to do anything at all except to not dictate to employees/customers what they can/can’t have inside of their vehicles. I will agree, on principle, that I would rather not have to add words to the Tennessee Code but I would also prefer the businesses don't arbitrarily and without rationality, attempt to dictate what I can and can't have inside of my vehicle just because that vehicle is parked in a parking lot where they have invited me, indeed, [u][i]NEED[/i][/u] me to be. Their actions, which I believe are arbitrary and capricious, have brought us to the point that society, through the state, feels it needs to react.

Our founders, in their wisdom, addressed property rights in the 5[sup]th[/sup] Amendment which specifically both protects property rights and allows for the manner that those property rights can be infringed, even up to and including confiscation…courts, based on the 5[sup]th[/sup] Amendment, have found such “parking lot” laws Constitutional…many businesses with some very high-priced attorneys have made their arguments against these parking lot laws and those arguments have been found wanting. Can and do courts make errors? Of course they do. Are some courts "liberal"; of course some are. However, I don't see any evidence to show that the makeup of the 10th Circuit is "liberal" and if they were, it would seem counter-intuitive for them to find in favor of a "guns in parking lots' bill. This was, after all, a unaminous decision; one I've read (at least most of) and I can see why they decided as they did. Further, no one here has offered any significant facts that would lead me to think the court is wrong.

If these laws truly are Constitutional, we are left then with the issue of whether such a law should or should not be passed in Tennessee. On that question, I’ve heard a lot of opinions and phrases such as “it’s wrong” or “it’s not a conservative position” and even my principles have been called into question. However, I'm more than content with where my principles lie and I believe such a law should be passed and will continue in that position unless or until someone can present a cohesive and rational argument against such a law in Tennessee.

[strickj]

[quote name='OhShoot' timestamp='1353342608' post='848183']
Agree that ideally, best legislation is to repeal ...

1. statute that going armed is a crime
2. statute which makes carrying past a sign a criminal charge

Second best to 1. is to extend exception for going armed to vehicle, for everyone, since it is already covered under "castle law" part of self defense statutes

....and let chips fall where they may regarding public facilities and their employees.

Since this is still a faraway pipe dream, most agree we must grab the fruit that can be picked at the time.

Btw, this law ain't gonna affect me one way or the other, I'm just for expanding gun rights any way possible, including yes, even adding a few more words to TCA, since it's more feasible to do that than take any away right now.

- OS
[/quote]
I think we could all agree to that.

And it's not that far of a pipe dream. As I recently stated in another thread, GA currently has both and TN often follows their lead on gun carry laws.
If the pushers of the controversial parking lot bill would focus their energy to accomplishing this, then I'd say we could more than likely get it passed this coming year.

[strickj]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353305897' post='848047']
So...when I asked you to "[b][i]show how the 10th circuit was wrong in rejecting the Constitutional argument against these laws and to submit reasonable and logical arguments to show why such a law shouldn't be passed Tennessee[/i][/b]" your answer was "[color=#b22222][i]It's wrong because the law violates a person's rights while giving nonexistent rights to someone over convenience.[/i][/color]" I don't understand how that "answer" is supposed to answer either of the two-part question I asked.

What person's "rights" does such a law violate? If you mean a company's property rights, the courts have said otherwise...you certainly can believe the courts were wrong but belief doesn't show how the 10th Circuit was wrong which was the question posed and not answered.

"Nonexistent rights"? What are these "nonexistent rights" and in what way are they being "given" to someone?
[/quote]
Sigh.
You do not have a right to carry a gun onto private property.
A property owner has the right to set his own rules.

This law removes the property owner's rights while giving a right to a gun carrier.

that is not right in any way,

Not good enough? How about a union comparison.
If an employee [b]wants [/b]to work somewhere and is not satisfied with company policies, that employee joins a union to bully the company to comply with the employee's wishes, convenience and sense of entitlement.

Here y'all are wanting the government to bully companies to comply with the employee's wishes, convenience and sense of entitlement.


[quote]I absolutely agree that property owners can dictate any rules they want. But, you keep leaving out something important which is that property owners can dictate rules [i][b]until society, through government action and IAW the Constitution, says otherwise[/b][/i][/quote]
.
Have never denied that there are rules, laws and regs. Have said that there are no blanket laws that all businesses must follow, as such is your and OS's assertion.
They all have lots and lots of laws and regs to follow... so what's one more to the mix.
Fact is, there are no additional laws that businesses have to follow.




[quote]So you made an assumption and then berated OhShoot for not "[i]keeping up[/i]" with you? That seems a bit inappropriate.[/quote]
Yes, I assumed based on the bills' history.
Looks like I was almost correct. The bill blankets all businesses with the exception of farms.



[quote]
My answers in [color=#0000ff][b]blue[/b][/color]...

Do you value your property rights? [i][b][color=#0000ff]Absolutely I do[/color][/b][/i]

Do you want the government to make you do something with your property simply to satisfy a stranger's convenience and sense of entitlement? [i][b][color=#0000ff]No, but I [u]DO[/u] want the government to regulate property when doing so is for the overall benefit of society; especially when the regulation has little to no actual impact on the property owner (such as these "parking lot" laws).[/color][/b][/i]

Care if my bullhorn and I visit your home at 2am tonight? Your property rights mean nothing to me and I have a constitutional right to yell stuffs [i][b][color=#0000ff]Yes, I care[/color][/b][/i][/quote]

So, basically, you care about your rights but not others'.

How would you feel if the government forced you, as a property owner, to cave to a stranger's wishes, convenience and sense of entitlement? A stranger that has no right to even be on your property is now dictating the rules that you have set for their admittance.