Ron Ramsey on 2013 "Parking Lot" Bill status

[strickj]

[quote name='Worriedman' timestamp='1353327679' post='848081']
The Bill does not apply to Farms, (which are some of the largest business in the country), nor business run out of private residencies.



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
[/quote]
thanks. Why are farms excluded?

NFPA Kinda goes hand and hand with wage and tax laws then, since everyone has to comply, not just businesses.


Would still like for someone to post a law that blankets all businesses like this bill will.

[quote name='barewoolf' timestamp='1353338777' post='848147']
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.
[/quote]

Yes, it is offensive.
In case you didn't know, I use a wheelchair to get around with. You are comparing[u] what I am [/u]with an inanimate object.
I can not change that about me no more than a black woman can change her race and sex. That is why these are protected by laws and your [u]inanimate object and [b]choice [/b]to carry that inanimate object [/u]is not.

And no one has removed your inalienable right to defend yourself. A gun is only a tool used for that.
Chuck E. Cheese does not remover your ability to walk by requiring you to remove your shoes to enter their ball pit. Same thing here.

Please do not compare what I am with an iinanimate object. Thanks. Edited November 19, 2012 by strickj

[GKar]

Just for s***s and giggles, here's a paraphrased (because I dont have access to the original at this moment) explanation of the views one legislator expressed to me...
--------------
I see it as a property rights conflict where we are struggling with the real-world dynamic tension that results from the interface of competing interests both grounded in the exercise of "rights": the real property owners' argument RE their ability to set rules for what is allowable on/in their 'physical space' versus the competintg interest (in this case) of the ability of a person to possess an otherwise legally possessed item within their vehicle (their "personal property") that otherwise has permission to occupy said real property save the matter at hand. Do real property rights necessarily trump personal property rights in an instance where those may find themselves in conflict? In my opinion, we (the legislature) have already set a precedent there of saying 'no', in that we have extended the legally defensible use of deadly force to personal property (a privately owned vehicle vehicle) without regard to the location of that personal property/vehicle. In an ideal world, we would not have such conflicts; due to many factors we are not afforded that luxury. As such, I believe it then the proper objective of the legislature to make every attempt to resolve such conflicts, and I am not opposed to our extending that strictly-defined "personal property bubble" to include the otherwise legal possession of a firearm in a privately-owned vehicle.
----------------
I know there are several folks here who hope this person is not their legislator...

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353352255' post='848274']…Sigh…[/quote]
“Sigh” is right. I can’t help but sigh when you ascribe positions to me I don’t hold and put words in my mouth that I’ve never uttered or make your arguments against legislation based on unsupported emotion and platitudes.

I’ve never said I have a right to carry a gun onto private property; if you think I believe I do have that right you are wrong…if you think I’ve ever said I have that right you are equally wrong.

I understand that it's your opinion that a parking lot law infringes (removes) a property owner’s right. However, the court's opinion is that the infringement, if it exists at all, is so slight that it does NOT violate the protection of property rights as granted in the 5[sup]th[/sup] Amendment to the Constitution. I don't think that the wording of the 5th Amendment is accidental meaning that if the Founders thought that property could/should never be subject to regulations or wanted to provide stronger protections than they did they could have done so; but they didn’t do so. You can dislike the level of property rights protection the Constitution provides and you can dislike/disagree with the court’s decision until hell freezes over…you can claim it’s “not right in any way” but saying it’s “not right” is an assertion without substance.

While you apparently think otherwise, I care about all rights, not [u][i]JUST [/i][/u]the rights of a property owner; even if I'm the property owner. Not only do I care but I also understand that society, through the government, has the Constitutional power and I would submit, even the responsibility to regulate property; most especially property used for business purpose. My personal “feelings” about that or whether I “like” the regulations are immaterial. I'm not in favor of regulation for the sake of regulation but I am in favor of appropriate and needed regulation.

You can state your opinion about “property rights” all you want but per the Constitution, I would suggest that property rights are not preeminent to all others; especially property used for business purposes and most especially property where the public is invited to be.

Based on the 5th Amendment, the courts and decades of history, its' my opinion that the actions of property owners CAN be regulated and it's also my opinion, based on several factors, that in the case of the "parking lot" bill, it's appropriate for the sate to do so.

Since I see no hope that you and I will ever agree on this issue; I'm done...you can keep arguing if you want but it won't be with me. Edited November 19, 2012 by RobertNashville

[strickj]

[quote]“Sigh” is right. I can’t help but sigh when you ascribe positions to me I don’t hold and put words in my mouth that I’ve never uttered or make your arguments against legislation based on unsupported emotion and platitudes.

I’ve never said I have a right to carry a gun onto private property; if you think I believe I do have that right you are wrong…if you think I’ve ever said I have that right you are equally wrong.[/quote]
Seriously?

You are supporting and defending a bill that does just that. To give you a special right to carry a gun onto private property. A right that you do not have but so desire.

I am not putting words in your mouth. You are doing that yourself.

And now, I will ask you agin to answer my last question. After that, I will leave you alone.

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.

Edited November 19, 2012 by strickj

[GKar]

How does "no right to even be on your property" equate to the actual language of the bill?

[Worriedman]

[quote name='GKar' timestamp='1353345123' post='848210']
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...
[/quote]

The Campfield Amendment (which you do not list) that included Hunting License holders will be deleted. The Fed Ex "Fence" amendment never made it onto the bill last year, but do not expect it to be raised again. Otherwise I think it will remain substantially similar to last years House version, no business owner's liability for weapons used if they were legally stored and stolen, or misused by rightful owners, probably will not see language holding property owners liable if they deny the Permit Holder the ability to keep the weapon in their vehicle, as I do not believe the ability to do that will survive, except for Federally mandated off limit locations such as power plants and nuclear reactors. Schools will be an issue, not sure how that will be managed.

Have not seen the whereas and wherefors yet.

[GKar]

Yeah, I dumped the Campfield amendment from my brain...wish those on the hill had done likewise. Seems there were attempts to attach a "hopstials" exclusion, as well as one other...but those weren't posted to the website until after the close of the GA (strangely).

There is some interesting language RE schools in the original bill summation, IIRC. Made reference to other legislation that governed schools: a couple of TCA references and a Federal statute, perhaps?

So you believe the punitive language for employers that violate the requirements will be stricken? If so, does that leave the bill with any teeth?

[Worriedman]

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353352369' post='848275']
thanks. Why are farms excluded?

[color=#ff0000]Lots of farms are single family, so they included the exemption of non-business private dwellings to take that out of contention. [/color]

NFPA Kinda goes hand and hand with wage and tax laws then, since everyone has to comply, not just businesses.

[color=#ff0000]You asked for a law that was non tax or wage related that is one group that is binding on every business, every single business has to comply, you can not change your rules to suit you.[/color]

Would still like for someone to post a law that blankets all businesses like this bill will.

[color=#ff0000]This Bill will not blanket all business, that has been established.[/color]

[/quote]

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353357165' post='848330']Seriously?....[/quote]
Yes, seriously

It isn't all about "firearms" for me and never has been...it appears that is is all about firearms vs property rights for you and that's fine but it's not about that for me and won't be no matter how much you claim it is.

With regards to your question; I already answered it when I said...

"[i]I care about all rights, not [u][i]JUST [/i][/u]the rights of a property owner; [b]even if I'm the property owner[/b]. Not only do I care but I also understand that society, through the government, has the Constitutional power and I would submit, even the responsibility to regulate property; most especially property used for business purpose. [b]My personal “feelings” about that or whether I “like” the regulations are immaterial[/b]. I'm not in favor of regulation for the sake of regulation but I am in favor of appropriate and needed regulation.[/i]

You are fee to not like my answer but that is still my answer.

[Worriedman]

[quote name='GKar' timestamp='1353359600' post='848354']

So you believe the punitive language for employers that violate the requirements will be stricken? If so, does that leave the bill with any teeth?
[/quote]

I think the path to implementation will be one bill, (not two like last time), with the language sufficient to not require the punitive second bill.

[strickj]

[quote name='Worriedman' timestamp='1353359737' post='848356']
[/quote]

Thanks.

Not changing my rules.... but maybe I should have asked it differently.
I am looking for laws that blanket businesses explicitly while not applying to everyone.
Assault and battering laws apply to all businesses, too but that law is not exactly relevant to the discussion as assault and battering laws applies to everyone. Ya can't beat your employees no more than you can beat your wife.

This bill, with the exception of farms and residential businesses, will blanket all businesses. No other law does that.

[strickj]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353359900' post='848357']
Yes, seriously

It isn't all about "firearms" for me and never has been...it appears that is is all about firearms vs property rights for you and that's fine but it's not about that for me and won't be no matter how much you claim it is.
[/quote]
Umm.... this bill is about carrying guns onto private property.
What else could it be about to you?



[quote]
With regards to your question; I already answered it when I said...

"[i]I care about all rights, not [u][i]JUST [/i][/u]the rights of a property owner; [b]even if I'm the property owner[/b]. Not only do I care but I also understand that society, through the government, has the Constitutional power and I would submit, even the responsibility to regulate property; most especially property used for business purpose. [b]My personal “feelings” about that or whether I “like” the regulations are immaterial[/b]. I'm not in favor of regulation for the sake of regulation but I am in favor of appropriate and needed regulation.[/i]

You are fee to not like my answer but that is still my answer.
[/quote]
No, I asked you a differently similar question. Honestly, I am trying to get you to dig your own hypocrisy hole.

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.

Obviously, you would not agree with the circumstance posed if it were your personal property rights at stake. No one would.
Yet, you're completely fine with imposing the same restrictions on someone else. Edited November 19, 2012 by strickj

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353361424' post='848384']...[/quote]

Is there something unclear when I said "[i][b]I'm done...you can keep arguing if you want but it won't be with me.[/b][/i]"???

Apparently there is. Unfortunateky,I don't know what I can say to make it any more understandable. Edited November 19, 2012 by RobertNashville

[strickj]

Worriedman, read my post and OS's quote [url="http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/55092-ron-ramsey-on-2013-parking-lot-bill-status/page__st__80#entry848271"]here[/url].

Why not work on getting the sign and car laws changed instead of pushing for a parking lot bill?
Specifically the criminal charge of carrying past a sign.

By doing that, it will make this whole issue one between an employee and employer instead of a property owner/rights issue.
Will virtually accomplish the same thing without removing one's rights.

These two things should not be very difficult to get passed.


I am asking you this because of your involvement and closeness to this bill. Not trying to further the debate here with this question.

[Worriedman]

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353362419' post='848397']
Why not work on getting the sign and car laws changed instead of pushing for a parking lot bill?
Specifically the criminal charge of carrying past a sign.
[/quote]

Simply put, Fed Ex, UT Board of Regents and the TN Chamber make this impossible to do. Simplest thing would be to get the Legislature to repeal 39-17-1307, (which is unconstitutional on its face), at which time the Legislature would be required to prove empirically that allowing non felonious Citizens to have possession of their weapons would in fact increase crime, (which they can not do) but Big Business will not allow it. Edited November 19, 2012 by Worriedman

[GKar]

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353361424' post='848384']
A stranger that has no right to even be on your property is now dictating the rules that you have set for their admittance.
[/quote]

Again - how does "no right to even be on your property" equate to the actual language found in HB3560?

[strickj]

[quote name='Worriedman' timestamp='1353363226' post='848407']
Simply put, Fed Ex, UT Board of Regents and the TN Chamber make this impossible to do. Simplest thing would be to get the Legislature to repeal 39-17-1307, (which is unconstitutional on its face), at which time the Legislature would be required to prove empirically that allowing non felonious Citizens to have possession of their weapons would in fact increase crime, (which they can not do) but Big Business will not allow it.
[/quote]

Restaurant carry was the same way. Lots of open resistance.
One year after GA passed it, TN did. same with park carry.

Seems like the smarter move would be to push for removing the criminal aspect of signs than pushing for this bill.
Seems most gun owners are supportive and willing to follow every other state on this issue.
Gun owners are obviously split on parking lot bill.

If you're gonna play poker, might as well play with a loaded deck...
[quote name='GKar' timestamp='1353375669' post='848536']
Again - how does "no right to even be on your property" equate to the actual language found in HB3560?
[/quote]

You have no right to your employer's property. The bill will give you the right to carry a gun onto your employer's property.
thence... Edited November 20, 2012 by strickj

[GKar]

Slight, but I think important, correction: the bill as proposed would allow storage of personal property within a vehicle (also personal property) that is "operated or parked in a location WHERE IT IS OTHERWISE PERMITTED TO BE." Seems that language clearly contemplates the owner/entity/possessor has otherwise allowed vehicles access to the location...which may mitigate the "no rights to the property" idea. If, however, you are saying that the employee has no rights WHILE ON an employer's property...

[Defender]

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353352369' post='848275']
thanks. Why are farms excluded?

NFPA Kinda goes hand and hand with wage and tax laws then, since everyone has to comply, not just businesses.


Would still like for someone to post a law that blankets all businesses like this bill will.



Yes, it is offensive.
In case you didn't know, I use a wheelchair to get around with. You are comparing[u] what I am [/u]with an inanimate object.
I can not change that about me no more than a black woman can change her race and sex. That is why these are protected by laws and your [u]inanimate object and [b]choice [/b]to carry that inanimate object [/u]is not.

And no one has removed your inalienable right to defend yourself. A gun is only a tool used for that.
Chuck E. Cheese does not remover your ability to walk by requiring you to remove your shoes to enter their ball pit. Same thing here.

Please do not compare what I am with an iinanimate object. Thanks.
[/quote]

Your constant claims thats it's offensive offend me, lol. (kidding) I made absolutely NO reference to your physical attributes or limitations. I mean no disrespect to you or anyone else, here or anywhere else, but my argument makes as much sense to me(and at least a few others) as yours does to you. Accept that an keep your emotions out of it. They have no place in a rational discussion. AND, my right to bear arms HAS been infringed, and it was the government that enabled that. Since your brought up the wheelchair, let me ask you another question. Your wheelchair is a tool is it not? A tool that enables you do do something that you may not ordinarily be able to do, or do well, correct? Remember a while back, when wheelchair users were even more severely limited in what they could do in public buildings and spaces? Now a few years ago, the ADA act was passed that really changed that. Was THAT wrong? I think it would be by using YOUR logic. After all, the wheelchair is simply an inanimate object, right?

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='GKar' timestamp='1353421638' post='848717']...If, however, you are saying that the employee has no rights WHILE ON an employer's property...[/quote]

Don't you know?

Didn't anybody tell you?

Isn't it obvious?

You have [i][b]NO[/b][/i] rights when you are standing on "private property"...you don't even have the right to be there (even if you were invited to be there) and in fact, you don't even have the right to think or draw breath unless the property owner says it's okay.

Property rights supersede all others.

Now, that language isn't in the Constitution but I guess that doesn't matter.

[strickj]

[quote name='GKar' timestamp='1353421638' post='848717']
Slight, but I think important, correction: the bill as proposed would allow storage of personal property within a vehicle (also personal property) that is "operated or parked in a location WHERE IT IS OTHERWISE PERMITTED TO BE." Seems that language clearly contemplates the owner/entity/possessor has otherwise allowed vehicles access to the location...which may mitigate the "no rights to the property" idea. If, however, you are saying that the employee has no rights WHILE ON an employer's property...
[/quote]
[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353429323' post='848761']
Don't you know?

Didn't anybody tell you?

Isn't it obvious?

You have [i][b]NO[/b][/i] rights when you are standing on "private property"...you don't even have the right to be there (even if you were invited to be there) and in fact, you don't even have the right to think or draw breath unless the property owner says it's okay.

Property rights supersede all others.

Now, that language isn't in the Constitution but I guess that doesn't matter.


[/quote]

You do not have the right to be on private property nor do you have any rights while on that property.
If you have ever worked retail then you have had your basic right to defend yourself removed. "Do not resist. Give them what they want." is going to be the policy of most establishments. If you do fight back, you will be fired.

remember, the Constitution only guarantees that your rights will not be taken by the government.

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353440730' post='848828']...[/quote]

Isn't that what I just said...

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353429323' post='848761'][b]You have [color=#ff0000][u][i]NO[/i][/u][/color] rights when you are standing on "private property"...you don't even have the right to be there (even if you were invited to be there) and in fact, you don't even have the right to think or draw breath unless the property owner says it's okay.

Property rights supersede [color=#ff0000][i]all others[/i][/color].

Now, that language isn't in the Constitution but I guess that doesn't matter.[/b][/quote]


Even when I agree with you, you still want to disagree...sigh.

Edited November 20, 2012 by RobertNashville

[strickj]

[quote name='barewoolf' timestamp='1353424179' post='848731']
Your constant claims thats it's offensive offend me, lol. (kidding) I made absolutely NO reference to your physical attributes or limitations. I mean no disrespect to you or anyone else, here or anywhere else, but my argument makes as much sense to me(and at least a few others) as yours does to you. Accept that an keep your emotions out of it. They have no place in a rational discussion. AND, my right to bear arms HAS been infringed, and it was the government that enabled that. Since your brought up the wheelchair, let me ask you another question. Your wheelchair is a tool is it not? A tool that enables you do do something that you may not ordinarily be able to do, or do well, correct? Remember a while back, when wheelchair users were even more severely limited in what they could do in public buildings and spaces?
[/quote]

Well, yes. A wheelchair is an inanimate object and a tool. But, it is not something I can change nor is it a choice.
No more than it's a choice for you to be a white man or a brown woman with down syndrome.

Carrying a gun is a choice. No different than wearing a hat or a pair of sunglasses.


[quote] Now a few years ago, the ADA act was passed that really changed that. Was THAT wrong? I think it would be by using YOUR logic. After all, the wheelchair is simply an inanimate object, right?[/quote]
Since the beginning of this country, people with disabilities of all sorts were crammed into insane asylums. They were not even granted the most basic of rights.
ADA was the direct result of the stopping of this practice. Was that wrong?

[strickj]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353441110' post='848830']
Isn't that what I just said...




Even when I agree with you, you still want to disagree...sigh.
[/quote]
I'm sorry. Have you changed your stance on this issue?

Do not placate me.
Your post is nothing more than a sarcastic attempt to mock my stance.

[RobertNashville]

Yes; I've changed my stance and I've seen the light!!!

[i][b]The Constitution does not apply to private property [/b][/i]and property property rights supersede all others including that pesky "life and liberty" [b]B[/b]ovine [b]S[/b]catoloty!! Edited November 20, 2012 by RobertNashville