Ron Ramsey on 2013 "Parking Lot" Bill status

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353441800' post='848837']...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?[/quote]
Well, if the asylums were government owned then what they did was wrong...if they were privately owned and on private property then it's okay because people have no rights on private property (since the Constitution doesn't apply).

It follows, then, that the ADA is horribly wrong because it's a [i][b]HUGE[/b][/i] infringement on private property and we all know, private property rights supersede all other.

Edited November 20, 2012 by RobertNashville

[strickj]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353442595' post='848845']
Well, if the asylums were government owned then what they did was wrong...if they were privately owned and on private property then it's okay because people have no rights on private property (since the Constitution doesn't apply).

It follows, then, that the ADA is horribly wrong because it's a [i][b]HUGE[/b][/i] infringement on private property and we all know, private property rights supersede all other.
[/quote]
People were committed to insane asylums by both the government and citizens. They were operated by bith government and private orgs.

We are talking about Nazi camp stuff here. Basic civil rights.

[img]http://www.brutalashell.com/images/dullyicepick450.jpg[/img]

[img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_-atekyrQisw/S8pxy0uYHWI/AAAAAAAAGvE/Q2goEn-d12M/s1600/Utica+Crib.jpg[/img]

I am going to tell you to step softly here. I can certainly appreciate sarcasm, even at my expense, but there's a fine line here and you are crossing it.
You are using sarcasm at my expense to equate the choice of carrying a gun on private property to the horrid practices of sticking citizens in insane asylums, being locked in cages, lobotomy, isolation and other civil right violations.

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353442332' post='848843']
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!!
[/quote]


You are known to participate in debates with members, withdrawing from them, while continually pushing the buttons of those that you told to leave you alone. When those members push back, you report their post and complain.

You and I have debated in this thread. Nothing personal to me and hopefully to you as well. But you have asked me to leave you alone now. And now you are coming back to mock me while adding nothing to discussion at all.

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353440730' post='848828']You do not have the right to be on private property nor do you have any rights while on that property.

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

In fairness and in case anyone hasn’t figured it out yet, my last couple of posts have been intentionally facetious to the point of ridiculousness and it was to make a point.

You have beaten me over the head about how the Constitution provides no protection to a person when that person is on private property.

I have found that carrying a stated position to the most extreme possible outcome is a valid way to examine the validity of the position and this “you don’t have any rights when you are on private property” position, carried to its extreme would mean that a property owner could do anything that property owner wanted to any person who happened to be standing on the private property owner’s property; if the person "has no rights" then the person "has no rights".

When looked at in that way, I think the problem with the position becomes clear. I know you aren't going to agree but maybe, someone else will at least think about it.

Obviously, at least I hope it’s obvious, I don’t believe that an employer can control the thoughts of an employee or not even allow that employee to take a breath just because that employee is on the employer’s property nor do I believe you think so. I also don't believe that asylums, private or public, were good things...my grandmother worked in one for many years and I'm VERY familiar with them.

My point is, that the position that “you have no rights on someone else’s private property” is simply not true. Edited November 20, 2012 by RobertNashville

[strickj]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353445069' post='848863']
In fairness and in case anyone hasn’t figured it out yet, my last couple of posts have been intentionally facetious to the point of ridiculousness and it was to make a point.

You have beaten me over the head about how the Constitution doesn’t apply to private property and as such, a person has “no rights” when that person is on someone else’s private property.

I have found that carrying a stated position to the most extreme possible outcome is a valid way to examine the validity of the position and this “you don’t have any rights when you are on private property” position, carried to its extreme would mean that a property owner could do anything that property owner wanted to any person who happened to be standing on the private property owner’s property (even if the property owner specifically invited that person to be there).

When looked at in that way, I think the problem with the position becomes clear. I know you aren't going to agree but maybe, someone else will at least think about it.

Obviously, at least I hope it’s obvious, I don’t believe that an employer can control the thoughts of an employee or not even allow that employee to take a breath just because that employee is on the employer’s property nor do I believe you think so. I also don't believe that asylums, private or public, were good things...my grandmother worked in one for many years and I'm VERY familiar with them.

My point is, that the position that “you have no rights on someone else’s private property” is simply not true.
[/quote]

And that is still true.

Choice/not a civil right violation - Working someplace willfully and having your right to self defense taken away. Willingly participating in untested and potentially deadly medical procedures and drugs (this is a profitable business). Willingly being locked in a cage and tortured (lots of fetish freaks do this everyday).

Not a choice/civil right violations - Being committed against your will to an insane asylum based on race, disability, etc. Unwillingly being subjected to snake doctory. Unwillingly being subjected to torture.

Again, it is a choice to work someplace and to carry a gun. That is not can not be compared to civil right laws and violations. Edited November 20, 2012 by strickj

[strickj]

And I thank you for saying your grandmother worked for an asylum. Seriously.
People are amazed when you show them that the stories horror movies are made of are truths that went on through the '70s.
No one knows a slave. Hardly no one knows someone that was in a Nazi camp anymore. I'd bet that almost everyone in this country knows someone that was either in an asylum or worked for one.

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353446593' post='848875']
And I thank you for saying your grandmother worked for an asylum. Seriously.
People are amazed when you show them that the stories horror movies are made of are truths that went on through the '70s.
No one knows a slave. Hardly no one knows someone that was in a Nazi camp anymore. I'd bet that almost everyone in this country knows someone that was either in an asylum or worked for one.[/quote]
Although far from the only time I was there, I watched President Kennedy's funeral procession in an open ward in the state (Ohio) run "Orient Mental Institution" because I was with my grandmother while she worked (since school was out because of the assassination and funeral and my mother and father both worked and were not off, I spent the day with my grandmother...those are two memories I will always carry with me.

[GKar]

Dontcha love the ugly interfaces where "what should/could be" meets "what is"...

[Worriedman]

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353446593' post='848875']
No one knows a slave.
[/quote]

Would that were a true statement.

In my tenure in Mexico (only a few years ago) I met many that would by all accounts be termed slaves, serfs to the land and Masters that held complete thrall over them and their generations. Because the average American does not know any slaves does not mean there are none left in the world.

Our State Constitution guarantees that each non criminal Citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for their defense, there are no restrictions as to location espoused by our founding documents. Our Supreme Court has ruled:

[size=4]"The right to keep arms, necessarily involves the right to purchase them, to keep them in a state of efficiency for use, and to purchase and provide ammunition suitable for such arms, and to keep them in repair. And clearly for this purpose, a man would have the right to carry them to and from his home, and no one could claim that the Legislature had the right to punish him for it, without violating this clause of the Constitution.[/size]

Bearing arms for the common defense may well be held to be a political right, or for the protection and maintenance of such rights, intended to be guaranteed; but the right to keep them, with all that is implied fairly as an incident to this right, is a private individual right, guaranteed to the citizen, not the soldier."

The "Government" in Tennessee is supposed to be the People, at least an extension of them. The Legislature (for good or ill) is charged in our Constitution with the power to "regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime". They have no power by the written word to control the keeping of them, that being an absolute Right guaranteed by Article 1 Section 26 of our Declaration of Rights. Shame on us that we have allowed Business interest to purchase our Legislature's duty and honor to keep our safety and pursuit of happiness at the forefront of their endeavor for silver, allowing it to stand.

Those who are not parents can not understand the trepidation one who is feels for the safety of their children, and those who do not have grand children more especially can not begin to understand true fear at the ways of the world. Seeing that none but ourselves may be held accountable for the security and safety of each of us, the Government abdicating, as they have and must, the provision of protection, along with the Business owner who proves to care none for the life and safety of the general public when they garner sustenance from the fruits of having it either work at their places of business or show up to purchase goods there, require the individual to be solely responsible.

It is the responsibility of those who are concerned to use their Constitutionally named responsibility under Article 1 Section 23 to "to instruct their representatives, and to apply to those invested with the powers of government for redress of grievances, or other proper purposes, by address or remonstrance."

I find it my duty to push for this law, having two daughters that drive the roads in the 9th most dangerous municipality in the US, (Jackson, TN) with my grand babies in their car seats. Both are precluded the ability to have their legally owned weapons on hand in case they get stranded by a flat or car trouble of any type, simply because their employers fear them being able to keep the best tool for their protection locked in their personal property during their work hours.

I refuse to give up this struggle.

[Defender]

I see that some on this thread seem to have the opinion that government control over rights is ok in some cases and not in others. Seems like we all want to have it both ways. It has also become obvious to me that no minds are being changed on this thread, only arguments become more heated and devolve into quasi or outright personal attacks, and/or mis-perceived personal insults. I might add that this is not good even when/if it comes from a moderator. Think I will devote my time to other, more productive threads now.

[S&WForty]

It all comes down to this: a gun free zone is a gun free zone, and we all know that a criminal or mentally unstable person isn't going to abide by the law.

I can understand anti-gun people calling for a gun-free zone, but gun proponents that are citing private property rights wanting gun free zones in their parking lots are borderline hypocrites. If guns on your property are bad, then why aren't they so bad everywhere else?

I could understand the stance if we were fighting for "Right to Carry Inside the Workplace," but we're just asking to be able to store a gun in a locked car.

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='Worriedman' timestamp='1353465820' post='849002']...I refuse to give up this struggle.[/quote]

Amen and amen.

There is not need to give up the struggle no should we.

Clearly, some in the greater firearms community are against this proposed bill...if those who are really care then they should make their objections and reasons for those objections known to their state legislators and then let the people's house decide the matter; one way or another.

I believe this law is needed and if it is passed, will be found to be Constitutional. At the very least, I hope that sometime soon the bill won't be stopped from a vote simply because of the political expediency and greed of one (thankfully former) state legislator.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

There are several states that have the law and it is not unconstitutional. This struggle of property over individual
rights is bogus, but it keeps coming up. As long as it is argued for nothing, it will only be a detractor to a right. No
one that I know of wants to trample on another's rights, but it is up to the individual to guarantee his/her own rights.
That includes self protection and could easily be on another's property. The property rules could easily be too
vague to allow from one to another and never give any satisfaction to anyone if property was the only factor.

It may never be solved and our right to self protection will fade and our guns will be taken. Is that what anyone wants?

Taking a way of self protection to an employer's property and storing it is reasonable. It doesn't infringe on anyone
else's right. There is a right to safe passage from one state to another with firearms. Where is the difference in storing
a firearm in a trunk while at work?

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='6.8 AR' timestamp='1353515536' post='849141']
There are several states that have the law and it is not unconstitutional. This struggle of property over individual
rights is bogus, but it keeps coming up. As long as it is argued for nothing, it will only be a detractor to a right. No
one that I know of wants to trample on another's rights, but it is up to the individual to guarantee his/her own rights.
That includes self protection and could easily be on another's property. The property rules could easily be too
vague to allow from one to another and never give any satisfaction to anyone if property was the only factor.

It may never be solved and our right to self protection will fade and our guns will be taken. Is that what anyone wants?

Taking a way of self protection to an employer's property and storing it is reasonable. It doesn't infringe on anyone
else's right. There is a right to safe passage from one state to another with firearms. Where is the difference in storing
a firearm in a trunk while at work?
[/quote]I'd be completely in favor of an employer or the places a person shops chose to deny their employees/customers the right to have a firearm in their vehicle [i][b]if[/b][/i] the State would just require that those stores and employers provide well-trained armed security during the employees/customers transportation to/from their locations and while the employee/customer was at their location - I think that would be a fair compromise!

If providing armed security is "too much" of an inconvenience then just have the state hold every employer and business 100% liable for the safety of their employees/customers both while they are on the employers/business's property and their commute to/from...an employee gets killed during a car-jacking on his way to work and his employer doesn't allow him to keep a firearm in his vehicle; it could be an automatic $10M payout to the dead employee's family.

I wonder what Nissan or FedEx would think about that proposition???

Edited November 21, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The problem when you compromise like that, Robert, is it just places a burden, or another restriction on an established
business that should have no reason to be guaranteeing your safety. Compromises usually end up in bad precedence
for future lawmaking.
That's what has gotten us in the mess we are in.

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='6.8 AR' timestamp='1353520612' post='849173']
The problem when you compromise like that, Robert, is it just places a burden, or another restriction on an established
business that should have no reason to be guaranteeing your safety. Compromises usually end up in bad precedence
for future lawmaking.
That's what has gotten us in the mess we are in.
[/quote]I was being a little jovial again....I don't really want or actually suggest such a compromise. On the other hand, I can't say I'd feel sorry for the businesses if, by denying me the opportunity to have the best tool available for my own defense, they had to step in and provide the protection for me.

I suppose one of the things that bother me most about the cries of FedEx, Nissan, Bridgestone and their ilk is that they want it both ways...they deny their employees/customers the best tool available for providing for their own protection, especially during their commute, while concurrently refusing to take any responsibility for the safety of their employees/customers. It seems to me to be a rather despicable position for them to take.

Edited November 21, 2012 by RobertNashville

[strickj]

[quote name='barewoolf' timestamp='1353510726' post='849105']
I see that some on this thread seem to have the opinion that government control over rights is ok in some cases and not in others. Seems like we all want to have it both ways. It has also become obvious to me that no minds are being changed on this thread, only arguments become more heated and devolve into quasi or outright personal attacks, and/or mis-perceived personal insults. I might add that this is not good even when/if it comes from a moderator. Think I will devote my time to other, more productive threads now.
[/quote]

First of all, if you have a problem with me or anything that I have said, then address me on the issue or report my post.

Secondly, I ponder on the mental capabilities of anyone who can not make the behemothic distinction between the government stopping forced admittals to asylums, lobotomy and torturous practices and choosing to carrying an inanimate object.

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353526282' post='849199']
First of all, if you have a problem with me or anything that I have said, then address me on the issue or report my post.

Secondly, I ponder on the mental capabilities of anyone who can not make the behemothic distinction between the government stopping forced admittals to asylums, lobotomy and torturous practices and choosing to carrying an inanimate object.
[/quote]
Do you really think that this post (above) and especially the "mental capabilities" comment was either needed, helpful or appropriate; especially for a moderator to make toward a member?

I don't think so given that barewoolf made absolutely ZERO reference to admittances, forced or otherwise to "asylums". Maybe I missed it but I don't see anything he said that would warrant or justify you lashing out at him as you just did. Edited November 21, 2012 by RobertNashville

[TGO David]

[img]http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2011/10/25/5ec55841-5637-4cf0-af41-b313d3dfe986.jpg[/img]

You know, there comes a point when I get tired of people tattling, especially when the tattlers have done the exact same things they're tattling about.

Sooner or later I'm going to have to start issuing people Whiffle Ball bats and have them slug it out in TGO's Thunderdome if they can't stay away from each other in the threads.

[strickj]

Here's the thing.

I have repeatedly said that it can be offensive to have [u]who and what you are[/u] compared to a personal choice. Not only in this discussion but in several others as well.
To be told that being disabled, to be black, to be mentally disabled, to be born in France, to be... whatever, is the same thing as putting on a pair of shoes, is offensive.
But what really get's under my skin is explaining why it can be offensive and politely asking that it not be done... and coming back to see the same people making the same offensive comments over and over. And not only that, but also making passive digs about it and me in the process.

I will stand by my comment above and will not alter it. If a person is unable to make the behemothic distinction between a person's race/disability/etc and a personal choice, they are either being impetuous or are just plainly stupid.

And if that statement offends you, well, cry me a fricken river. Edited November 21, 2012 by strickj

[robin48]

THUNDER DOME!!!!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

[Defender]

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353532190' post='849232']
Here's the thing.

I have repeatedly said that it can be offensive to have [u]who and what you are[/u] compared to a personal choice. Not only in this discussion but in several others as well.
To be told that being disabled, to be black, to be mentally disabled, to be born in France, to be... whatever, is the same thing as putting on a pair of shoes, is offensive.
But what really get's under my skin is explaining why it can be offensive and politely asking that it not be done... and coming back to see the same people making the same offensive comments over and over. And not only that, but also making passive digs about it and me in the process.

I will stand by my comment above and will not alter it. If a person is unable to make the behemothic distinction between a person's race/disability/etc and a personal choice, they are either being impetuous or are just plainly stupid.

And if that statement offends you, well, cry me a fricken river.
[/quote]


Apparently it sucks to be you. I won't ever engage you in a debate of any kind, trust me. You lack the capability to debate with someone that disagrees with you without you attacking that person on a wholly personal level. Also, since you continue to bring it up, I’m sorry you are in a wheelchair, for whatever reason, Im sorry, I REALLY, REALLY am. But you know what? I didn’t put you in it.
I believe MY arguments have merit, that’s why I present them in friendly debate. And even though I have changed my mind on this issue once already (to my current view), I find that name calling and belittling do not help change anyone’s view at all! It’s childish and usually used when one runs out of intelligent things to say. And, I am as entitled to MY view as you are to yours, and other than with the intent of changing minds within a spirited debate, I don’t really care anything about you. Like I said, Im through debating with you. I know your type HAS to absolutely have the last word, since in your mind that somehow makes you right, so go ahead, have it. But I'll say this, and I do realize that TGO David is watching all of this as evidenced by his comment above. Its HIS board and obviously his do do as he pleases. As good as this board is, and its the best I’ve seen, with the best moderators, overall. But, if a moderator can’t make a point in a debate without resorting to name calling and belittling his opponent in the debate, then I think he either has no business being a moderator, or at least no business engaging in that debate. As a matter of fact, I would have expected a moderator to be the one “moderating” someone who resorts to belittling and insulting comments, NOT being the one who uses them. Edited November 21, 2012 by barewoolf

[Guest zort]

after reading all this i fail to see how this law affects the employer at all. just give me a chance to defend myself on my commute to and from work. also it isnt easy for me to just find another job that allows me to carry a legal weapon in my car. i think its wrong for a employer to ask that of me and if employers would act right we wouldnt need any bill. i just dont see why this whole thing is even debatible, no one is being hurt.

[Dolomite_supafly]

I have purposely avoided this thread because every couple of months when the topic comes up it goes south.

Those who carry a firearm are not a protected class of citizens and should never be. They should have the same rights afforded to them as those who carry a cell phone or wear a hat because just like those who carry a cell phone or wear a hat, carrying a firearm is a choice. I don't hear backlash about all the places that limit cell phone use. Using a cell phone, just like carrying a gun, is just a choice. There is a HUGE difference between choosing to do something and being born or having an accident that forces you to become something you cannot change. There is a difference.

Let me start by saying the property owner should have the choice in what he does with his property, who is on it and how those on it act. No matter how much we want to force our own will upon others it should never be allowed to happen. This should apply to employers as well because they should be allowed to dictate who are employees and how those employees act.

Carrying a firearm on private property is not guaranteed by any ammendment of the Constitution. Just as no other ammendment of the Constitution is guaranteed on private property. This has ZERO to do with the Constitution because the Constitution does not apply to private entities, only to the government in order to prevent their abuses. The property owner can dictate what conditions must be meet in order to be on his property, be it no firearms or a full auto machine gun. You also have no right to be free of unreasonable search. Employees are drug tested, which is a search, as a condition of employment and whether or not you carry a firearm on the company property can be a condition of employment. When we start forcing one group of property owners to do something with their private property they don't want to it will not be long before that makes it over into our property rights.

I also believe this should be part of the law and I wrote everyone in Nashville about it. First and foremost hold those actually breaking the law responsible and if a jury finds that a firearm could have prevented the damages then the criminal is the first line of who is to pay restitution. If the criminal is unable to make restitution then the remainder will fall on the property owner who refused to allow you to protect yourself. But only on his property as he has no control on what goes on outside of his property.

I also would like to also see in the law that the employer cannot be sued for firing an employee for violating company policy regarding firearms. I think people are going to get fired if this law does pass and this will prevent all the costs and burdens on the court system. Employees have a choice, just like a company rule that says a tie must be worn or they must pass a drug test. You either choose to follow the company rules or be fired. If you do not agree with the rules set by the property owner or your employer then do not enter their property. If that means you have to find another job then so be it. Everyone here is very opinionated about this, well put your money where your mouth is and quit your job. Problem is people are not strong enough to do anything about it in real life. If enough of the employees walk out maybe the business owner will change his stance. I know I walked away from a job because of my convictions, several as a matter of fact, and it has always worked out better for me.

I wish we could all carry whenever and wherever we want but the fact of the matter is we can't and never will be able to do so.

Dolomite

[RobertNashville]

I am still waiting for someone to explain in detail how the 10th Circuit got it wrong In rejecting the claim that the parking lot laws violate the rights of the property owner.

Until Someone can do that the whole discussion about property rights is meaningless because the issue has already been decided.

Since we already know these laws are constitutional the only issue still on the table is whether or not we should have such a law in Tennessee. With all these dozens and dozens of pages in this and other threads I have yet to hear a convincing argument presented against the laws.

[DaveTN]

Tennessee isn’t in the 10th District, it in the 6th. If the law is passed and is challenged it will work its way to the 6th. We will be bound by what is decided there; unless the SCOTUS decides to hear it.

The Federal Districts Court have made mistakes before. All but two ruled that the 2nd amendment was not an individual right. The SCOTUS split the 2nd amendment in half and said they were wrong on half of it.

However, I don’t see how this law can pass in Tennessee. Our state legislators would truly have to be a bunch of hypocrites to force allowing gun possession on business owners when they have outlawed gun possession in public and in private vehicles by citizens.

Will I be shocked? No, I was shocked when many states passed the smoking legislation and caused some businesses to go out of business. So I won’t be shocked if the state delivers another blow to business.