Ron Ramsey on 2013 "Parking Lot" Bill status

[JayC]

[quote name='DaveTN' timestamp='1353592809' post='849412']
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.
[/quote]

Dave,

You keep repeating this incorrect information. [b]SCOTUS has not ruled on the right to bear arms.[/b] The lawyer running the Heller and McDonald cases purposely did not include the right to bear arms in the complaint filed against DC and Chicago.

The Heller decision says that the right to bear is out of scope of the complaint and was not being ruled on, if anything it seems like they left the door open for a ruling on it down the road.

We're likely to get the chance to find out how SCOTUS will rule in Palmer vs Washington, DC which is slowly working it's way through the federal court system (recently Chief Justice Roberts stepped in the help speed the case along). That case is by the same lawyer who sucessful won the Heller and McDonald cases, and the complaint is about the right to bear arms in public spaces.

We all know your opinion that SCOTUS won't or can't force carry on states because of states rights, and you may very well be correct (I disagree) on that fact.

So please stop telling people that SCOTUS has ruled there is no right to bear arms, it just isn't true.

[RobertNashville]

Still waiting for someone to explain, using the Constitution, how the 10th District got it wrong.

I'm also waiting for someone to make a convincing argument for why this law should not be passed Tennessee without falling back on the court rejected property rights argument.

[JayC]

[quote name='zort' timestamp='1353586768' post='849386']
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.
[/quote]

Zort,

I don't want this to come across as a personal attack, so please don't take it that way... but your logic escapes me.

You have a lot of choices available to you to carry on your commute everyday, yet fail to make those choices. Lets just go over some of the choices you could make...

Find a different job, yeah it's hard, you might make less money, but this is a choice that you can make. You just continue to place your current job over your safety, which is your right as a free person... but don't complaint about a choice you're making.

Second, park on the street instead of your companies parking lot, while they can prohibit you having a firearm at work, they can't prohibit you from having a firearm in your car on a public street... Again, this may have added cost, or time to your morning commute but you have a choice in the matter.

Finally, if the parking lot isn't posted per 39-17-1359 you have the choice to just ignore your employers rule and leave your firearm in the vehicle, in a game of don't ask, don't tell. You do run the risk of someday being fired over it, but in the vast majority of jobs that is extremely unlikely unless you personally do something to out yourself.

Now your employer has made a choice, and it could be for a ton of different reasons, to make the carrying of firearms by employees against their rules... If they have no good reason, then do you really want to work for a company that would disregard your safety on a whim? If you continue to do so, is it really their fault, or yours?

But, because you refuse to prioritize your own safety and security, you want the government to come in and force your employer to change their rules just for you? How is that right?

Again, this isn't a personal attack, there are a lot of people out there that just don't want to make the hard choices in life, they want to government to give them stuff... Do you really want to be one of those people?

[Dolomite_supafly]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353595665' post='849431']
Still waiting for someone to explain, using the Constitution, how the 10th District got it wrong.

I'm also waiting for someone to make a convincing argument for why this law should not be passed Tennessee without falling back on the court rejected property rights argument.
[/quote]

Explain to me how this is a constitutional issue.

I will use that same argument to do what I want on your property against your will.

Dolomite.

[RobertNashville]

It is a constitutional issue because it is the constitution that provides for the protection of property.

Why do you need me to restate what the 10th circuit has already gone into great detail to explain? Have you read the decision?

My laymen's interpretation of both the appellate court's decision and the constitutional issue is that these parking lot laws do not violate the fifth amendment protections granted to private property. The Constitution specifically allows for up to and including the complete confiscation of property provided there is due process and/or compensation. I believe that the court found that the alleged infringement of property rights was so slight as to be inconsequential and therefore not a violation of the only constitutional protection of property rights. After looking at the issue for several years now I too have concluded that whatever infringement on a property owner by these laws is so slight as to be unquantifiable in any substantive way...much more a matter of theory than of substance. Edited November 22, 2012 by RobertNashville

[JayC]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353595665' post='849431']
Still waiting for someone to explain, using the Constitution, how the 10th District got it wrong.

I'm also waiting for someone to make a convincing argument for why this law should not be passed Tennessee without falling back on the court rejected property rights argument.
[/quote]

Robert,

I'll give it one final shot.

First, I'm not going to address the 10th District ruling, there are a lot of court ruling we all don't agree with and think they got it wrong, including many SCOTUS rulings. Courts are made up of men and women, and they make very bad choices, sometimes decades later society as a whole corrects those mistakes, and sometimes they don't.

Second, this entire problem is because of poor judgement on the part of HCP holders who want this law. There I said it, it's the 800 lbs gorilla in the room that none of us have been talking about. So I'm just going to call everybody out on it.

Lets walk through this logically... I'm going to focus primarily on employers because the argument for the business/customer relationship is even simpler and uses many of the same arguments.

So, you have an employer that through a mixture of 39-17-1359 signs or just a simple note in their employment handbook prohibits the possession of weapons/firearms in their buildings and property. These businesses basically fall into 2 different groups... The first group has a reasonably held belief that the rule/posting is needed for the safety of their employees and customers, while you and I might disagree with the logic of their belief, they really feel it is a necessary rule to protect their employees. The second group does it on a whim, they have no real reason to.

Now, if you work for a company that really believes firearms in your car are a real safety concern, and you as a logical HCP holder realize they are completely wrong... Do you want to continue to work for a company that has such flawed logic? If their logic is this flawed on the danger of firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens then what else are they getting wrong? If for some reason their logic isn't flawed, do we really want the government to come in and overrule them? Who knows what is in the best interest of their company better, the owner(s), or the government?

Now, lets say you work for the second kind of company who just bans firearms on a whim, do you really want to continue to work for a company that places their whims above your safety? Again, if they're willing to place their whims above you in this respect can you trust their judgement as to the running of the company?

At the end of the day, the HCP holders across this state are choosing to work for both types of companies. Nobody is forcing them to work for these companies, they can quit tomorrow and find employment elsewhere. Agreed?

This boils down to personal responsibility, something that we preach as a community on a daily basis... and the fact is a large chunk of the HCP community and to a lesser extent the members of this forum don't take that personal responsibility seriously enough. They now want the government to come in and pass a law that keeps them from having to make hard choices, by substituting the governments judgement (which is always flawed at the best of times) over that of the business owner who in theory is running a successful business.

HCP holders need to take personal responsibility for their own safety, not the government. If they work somewhere that prohibits possession of firearms in their personal vehicles, it's up to them to make the right judgement call on whether that situation imposes too much risk on their safety or not.

Even if all of that doesn't convince somebody to quit and find a better job where the owners aren't running around in fantasy land when it comes to firearms... The VAST majority of HCP holders have other choices available to them... They can park somewhere off property, they can refuse to follow stupid rules and suffer the fallout if they so desire (obviously following the law at all times).

Now I'm going to ask a pointed question, please don't take offense, but it must be asked.

It's clear you're in support of this law... Are you unable to properly prioritize your own safety in your day to day life? Are you working for an employer that either through flawed logic or on a whim is placing you at greater risk, and ignoring your valid safety concerns? Are you in a situation where you can park in a public street or parking lot?

[b]Explain to me in YOUR situation how you're unable to properly prioritize your own safety, and the ONLY remedy is for the government to come in and use force to protect you from your employers poor judgement.[/b]

We as free and responsible adults should be responsible for our own safety, and only when the we unable to protect ourselves ([u]note unable, not unwilling[/u]) should we use the force of government to mandate a solution on others. Edited November 22, 2012 by JayC

[Dolomite_supafly]

Why should I care when I do not fall under their jurisdiction?

Heck, I bet i could find some decision from a Congalese court that would have as much jurisdiction over me as the 10th.

Until it is a decision by a court over me it is not relevant.

Dolomite

[RobertNashville]

Okay, obviously I am still waiting!

Some of you are certainly going to a lot of trouble just to keep from answering the question.

Edited November 22, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Motasyco]

I'm running out of popcorn.

[Worriedman]

[size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]The individuals who wrote the Tennessee Constitution were concerned enough about the ability (Rights) of the People to be able to keep and bear their arms for their defense that they put specifically in the Declaration of Rights, that ability. In 1796 it was enumerated in Article 11 Section 26 " That the free men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." There is no limitation espoused as to where they may be carried. There are a listed group of situational issues that were important enough to be vouchsafed as necessary, important enough that the Constitution says it should never be held inviolate per Article 11 Section 16: "The declaration of rights hereto prefixed is declared to be a part of the Constitution of the state, and shall never be violated on any pretense whatever. And to guard against transgression of the high powers we have delegated, we declare that everything in the bill of rights contained, is excepted out of the general powers of the government, and shall forever remain inviolate."

No mention that "Private Property" rights shall be held above all other laws is anywhere written. In fact the only mention of them in our Constitution is to codify how they may be abridged by judgment of one's peers or the law of the land.

The TN Constitution specifically cites that the power to regulate arms outside of the stated Right to keep and bear them is to be held solely by the Legislature, not private Citizens.[/font][/size]

[JayC]

Worriedman,

This is flawed logic, show me where in the Federal or State constitutions that cites the power to regulate speech is available to private citizens.

I'll save you the trouble, there isn't... That is because the constitution (both state and federal) are limits placed on the government, not limits placed on individuals.

No business today (or private individual) is regulating firearms, or firearms ownership.

[u]When you have to start using this type of flawed logic to support a law, it's an indication that it is a bad law.[/u]

[quote name='Worriedman' timestamp='1353600466' post='849460']
[size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]The individuals who wrote the Tennessee Constitution were concerned enough about the ability (Rights) of the People to be able to keep and bear their arms for their defense that they put specifically in the Declaration of Rights, that ability. In 1796 it was enumerated in Article 11 Section 26 " That the free men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." There is no limitation espoused as to where they may be carried. There are a listed group of situational issues that were important enough to be vouchsafed as necessary, important enough that the Constitution says it should never be held inviolate per Article 11 Section 16: "The declaration of rights hereto prefixed is declared to be a part of the Constitution of the state, and shall never be violated on any pretense whatever. And to guard against transgression of the high powers we have delegated, we declare that everything in the bill of rights contained, is excepted out of the general powers of the government, and shall forever remain inviolate."

No mention that "Private Property" rights shall be held above all other laws is anywhere written. In fact the only mention of them in our Constitution is to codify how they may be abridged by judgment of one's peers or the law of the land.

The TN Constitution specifically cites that the power to regulate arms outside of the stated Right to keep and bear them is to be held solely by the Legislature, not private Citizens.[/font][/size]
[/quote]

[RobertNashville]

There is no flawed logic involved - the people, through the government has the right to regulate private property even up to and including confiscation per the Constitution. If you don't like that simple truth your problem is with the Constitution and the men who penned it; not with this law.

[JayC]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353601585' post='849469']
There is no flawed logic involved - the people, through the government has the right to regulate private property even up to and including confiscation per the Constitution. If you don't like that simple truth your problem is with the Constitution and the men who penned it; not with this law.
[/quote]

I've never said the law wouldn't be upheld by a court, only that it violates the God given rights of property owners, and isn't needed. Again I ask you the following:

[quote][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]It's clear you're in support of this law... Are you unable to properly prioritize your own safety in your day to day life? Are you working for an employer that either through flawed logic or on a whim is placing you at greater risk, and ignoring your valid safety concerns? Are you in a situation where you can park in a public street or parking lot? [/font][/color]

[b]Explain to me in YOUR situation how you're unable to properly prioritize your own safety, and the ONLY remedy is for the government to come in and use force to protect you from your employers poor judgement.[/b]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]We as free and responsible adults should be responsible for our own safety, and only when the we unable to protect ourselves ([/font][/color][u]note unable, not unwilling[/u][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]) should we use the force of government to mandate a solution on others.[/font][/color][/quote]

[Defender]

So, let me try again to understand the point of view of those who oppose this...are y'all saying, basically that the government can't or shouldn't control private property? Or is it rather that sometimes they can and sometimes they cant?

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='JayC' timestamp='1353602115' post='849472']

I've never said the law wouldn't be upheld by a court, only that it violates the God given rights of property owners, and isn't needed. Again I ask you the following: [/quote] Those God given rights are protected by only one thing which is the Constitution. A constitution written by God-fearing men And they saw fit to provide specific protection for property. Unlike some other rights the right to own and control property CAN be infringed because the Constitution specifically allows it to be.

If you don't like that your problem is with the Constitution not with me and not with Tennessee permit holders Edited November 22, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Chucktshoes]

I would posit that this whole argument is a moot point anyways as nobody is actually a property owner. Through the imposition of property taxes and the ability of the government to take that property for nonpayment of said taxes or nearly any other reason it wants, thanks to Kelo, so called property owners are really nothing more than tenant serfs.

[Guest zort]

no one is asking for nothing free....just freedom to have a legaly owned firearm in my vehicle. i just dont know how it affects anyone by doing so. ive read all of this and still no one can tell me how this law will hurt a business owner if a employee has anything kept in his vehicle that is legal.

[DaveTN]

[quote name='Worriedman' timestamp='1353600466' post='849460']
[The TN Constitution specifically cites that the power to regulate arms outside of the stated Right to keep and bear them is to be held solely by the Legislature, not private Citizens.[/font][/size]
[/quote]
Correct, and the legislature has outlawed the carrying of loaded firearms throughout the state for all citizens. For $115 plus the price of a class a very small (less than 5%) “Special group” has purchased a privilege that permits them a valid defense to this criminal charge.

It’s beyond me how anyone can even compare something that is not a right with the commonly accepted right to control your own property. As a gun owner I would like to turn my head while the state of Tennessee tramples all over the rights of a property owner if it allows me to carry a gun where ever I please; but as a Patriot I can’t.

The fact that a court in another state and a different Federal jurisdiction put their stamp of approval on it means absolutely nothing to me. Explain it? Why would I or anyone else try? I don’t even have to read the decision to know it’s wrong.

The smoking ban was wrong, all the stuff the feds passed after 9-11 in the name of National Security is wrong, the decision on Eminent Domain was wrong. But the courts will uphold them. That doesn’t mean that free thinking Patriots have to agree with them, only that we have to abide by them.

As I said before; this would be a different argument if this state recognized the right to bear arms; but they do not and until they do they hopefully will not be allowed to push this down the throat of business owners. Edited November 22, 2012 by DaveTN

[Defender]

[quote name='DaveTN' timestamp='1353619691' post='849548']
Correct, and the legislature has outlawed the carrying of loaded firearms throughout the state for all citizens. For $115 plus the price of a class a very small (less than 5%) “Special group” has purchased a privilege that permits them a valid defense to this criminal charge.

It’s beyond me how anyone can even compare something that is not a right with the commonly accepted right to control your own property. As a gun owner I would like to turn my head while the state of Tennessee tramples all over the rights of a property owner if it allows me to carry a gun where ever I please; but as a Patriot I can’t.

The fact that a court in another state and a different Federal jurisdiction put their stamp of approval on it means absolutely nothing to me. Explain it? Why would I or anyone else try? I don’t even have to read the decision to know it’s wrong.

The smoking ban was wrong, all the stuff the feds passed after 9-11 in the name of National Security is wrong, the decision on Eminent Domain was wrong. But the courts will uphold them. That doesn’t mean that free thinking Patriots have to agree with them, only that we have to abide by them.

As I said before; [b]this would be a different argument if this state recognized the right to bear arms[/b]; but they do not and until they do they hopefully will not be allowed to push this down the throat of business owners.
[/quote]

How would it be different?

[DaveTN]

[quote name='barewoolf' timestamp='1353620350' post='849550']
How would it be different?
[/quote]
You could make an argument if you lived in a state that recognizes a [i][b]RIGHT[/b][/i] to bear arms instead of buying the [i][b]PRIVLEDGE[/b][/i]. But it’s a crime in this state; so this issue is a non-starter; or it should be anyway.

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='DaveTN' timestamp='1353619691' post='849548']
Correct, and the legislature has outlawed the carrying of loaded firearms throughout the state for all citizens. For $115 plus the price of a class... [/quote]

And the state has the constitutional authority, both state and federal, to decide that people can carry and keep their firearms in their vehicles even when parked in a parking lot over the objections of the business property owner.

[Worriedman]

[quote name='JayC' timestamp='1353601286' post='849468']
No business today (or private individual) is regulating firearms, or firearms ownership.
[/quote]

That is an erroneous statement. Under the present TCA Code, sans a notice posting against it it is permissible for a permit holder to have their weapons in their vehicle. The owner or controller of a business can in fact decide and post against the ability to do so, not only that, they can legally arm those on their premises who otherwise could not legally be armed.

[DaveTN]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353629221' post='849568']
And the state has the constitutional authority, both state and federal, to decide that people can carry and keep their firearms in their vehicles even when parked in a parking lot over the objections of the business property owner.
[/quote]
Not once Robert, have I implied they can’t decide they have that authority. A thug government has the authority to do anything the people allow them to do. You are one of, if not the, most vocal about cops and how you perceive they abuse their authority. Passage of this bill would be an abuse of government power; am I to understand you are okay with it when it’s something you want?

[JayC]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353604339' post='849481']
Those God given rights are protected by only one thing which is the Constitution. A constitution written by God-fearing men And they saw fit to provide specific protection for property. Unlike some other rights the right to own and control property CAN be infringed because the Constitution specifically allows it to be.

If you don't like that your problem is with the Constitution not with me and not with Tennessee permit holders
[/quote]

This isn't the time or place for an argument about the pros and cons of our court systems, and the abuses of God given rights that it allows in the name of our Constitution... a little off subject for this discussion... but I'd be happy to have that discussion offline.

Again, my issue is with certain permit holder... people who aren't willing to take personal responsibility for their choices.

I've agreed repeatedly that the courts would most likely find this law to be constitutional, but just because we can pass a bad law and it won't be ruled unconstitutional doesn't mean we should.

Since this bill would remove a right/ability from current business owners I think we should be very careful and make sure all other options have been fully explored and I feel we haven't done that.

Again I ask you as a supporter of this bill to answer the following questions that you seem to ignore time and time again... prove to me that there is no other option in your case, that the ONLY recourse is to use the force of the government to remove a property owners current right to prohibit employees from having firearms stored in their vehicles on company property:

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(247, 247, 247)]It's clear you're in support of this law... Are you unable to properly prioritize your own safety in your day to day life? Are you working for an employer that either through flawed logic or on a whim is placing you at greater risk, and ignoring your valid safety concerns? Are you in a situation where you can park in a public street or parking lot? [/background][/size][/font][/color]

[b]Explain to me in YOUR situation how you're unable to properly prioritize your own safety, and the ONLY remedy is for the government to come in and use force to protect you from your employers poor judgement.[/b]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(247, 247, 247)]We as free and responsible adults should be responsible for our own safety, and only when the we unable to protect ourselves ([/background][/size][/font][/color][u]note unable, not unwilling[/u][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=3][background=rgb(247, 247, 247)]) should we use the force of government to mandate a solution on others.[/background][/size][/font][/color]

[JayC]

[quote name='Worriedman' timestamp='1353632704' post='849586']
That is an erroneous statement. Under the present TCA Code, sans a notice posting against it it is permissible for a permit holder to have their weapons in their vehicle. The owner or controller of a business can in fact decide and post against the ability to do so, not only that, they can legally arm those on their premises who otherwise could not legally be armed.
[/quote]

I'm all for repealing 39-17-1359, I'll go out and walk the halls at legislative plaza with you 2 days a week if that is the bill we're pushing.

But, as for owners being able to be armed on their property... why on earth would we not be for that? How is their business any less important to them than their home? So you're now against the ability for a business owner or law abiding adult from being able to arm themselves in their place of business without paying a fee to TDOS for the privilege? That sure sounds very anti-2nd amendment to me, I can't believe you meant to say that.

But, business owners have enjoyed also complete control for setting conditions of entry to their property for since the founding of this state. I don't think the solution to this issue is to remove that right, since in virtually every case permit holders have other market based solutions available to them and they refuse explore those other options.

I also think we could just amend 39-17-1359 to only include buildings, not parking lots, and I'd be all for that too.