Ron Ramsey on 2013 "Parking Lot" Bill status

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='DaveTN' timestamp='1353635363' post='849604']

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?
[/quote]It's really easy, isn't it,to make accusations about someone when you don't have to back up your innuendo....I've never been anything but supportive of "cops" in this and any other forum I'm a member of.

There is nothing thuggish about this bill nor the people, through their elected representatives should they push for it's adoption. Throughout all the bluster, chest pounding, insults and repeating of the "property rights" chant, no one has yet make a coherent explanation of how such a measure violates the Constitutional protections afforded to property nor has anyone offered a logical argument as to why the bill shouldn't be adopted.

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='JayC' timestamp='1353635994' post='849609']


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]
[/quote]I'm not asking for anyone to write a master's thesis on the inequities and shortcomings of the court system; I'm asking for someone to explain how this measure violates the Constitutional protections afforded property in the 5th amendment. I believe these laws do not violate the Constitution and the 10th Circuit doesn't either and I'll continue to believe that until someone can make a better argument than the attorneys who appeared in front of the 10th circuit.

Since I believe and the courts have agreed that these laws are constitutional, the only remaining issue is whether such a law should be adopted in Tennessee. I think such a measure is excellent public policy because it further encourages citizens to be armed. The Constitution, three decades of recent experience and common sense tells us that an armed citizenry is a good thing and a worthy goal to be pursued - anytime the citizens, through their government can remove a barrier to having that armed citizenry I believe it should do so.

If some want to call such government action "thuggish" or any other pejorative they wish, they can do so but insults do not an argument make.

Oh an by the way, I have no dog in this legislative fight - I'm not personally affected by this bill one way or the other. I'm in favor of seeing it become law because I believe it's excellent public policy. Edited November 23, 2012 by RobertNashville

[DaveTN]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353637519' post='849626']
nor has anyone offered a logical argument as to why the bill shouldn't be adopted.
[/quote]
Because if I’m a business owner I am going to be held liable for what goes on at my property; I have the ultimate right to make those decisions. I also have the responsibility to make my property as safe as I can for my employees. If I do not want you to bring a deadly weapon on my property, and I properly post my property; that is the way it is going to be. If you are a customer, don’t do business with me, if you are an employee, go find a job somewhere else.

Are you going to give business owners absolute immunity from a negligent shooting on their property? Of course you aren’t because the lawyers aren’t going to allow that.

Give the business owners absolute immunity from lawsuits, drop the HCP and recognize the right to bear arms as a Constitutional right for all citizens of the state and I will gladly step over to the other side. Until then it’s just a special interest group trying to use the government to push around business owners.

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='DaveTN' timestamp='1353638662' post='849638']

Because if I’m a business owner I am going to be held liable for what goes on at my property; I have the ultimate right to make those decisions. I also have the responsibility to make my property as safe as I can for my employees. If I do not want you to bring a deadly weapon on my property, and I properly post my property; that is the way it is going to be. If you are a customer, don’t do business with me, if you are an employee, go find a job somewhere else.

Are you going to give business owners absolute immunity from a negligent shooting on their property? Of course you aren’t because the lawyers aren’t going to allow that.

Give the business owners absolute immunity from lawsuits, drop the HCP and recognize the right to bear arms as a Constitutional right for all citizens of the state and I will gladly step over to the other side. Until then it’s just a special interest group trying to use the government to push around business owners.
[/quote]Sorry, I don't find "I'M THE OWNER" and "I'LL DECIDE WHAT'S BEST" to be a terribly convincing argument.

Do you think a "business" property is protected from liability now if there is a shooting (negliegent or otherwise) on the property; posted or not? If some employee or jsut some stranger off the streets walks in and starts shooting do you think that business won't be sued? I suspect you will...I suspect others have.

However, keeping in mind that we are discussing a bill that hasn't been presented yet, if it is in any way similar to prior bills businesses are protected from liability. For some reason, however, even if absolutely ironclad, I don't think being protected from liability is really going to change your mind about the bill. Edited November 23, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Worriedman]

[quote name='JayC' timestamp='1353636483' post='849615']

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.
[/quote]

It is not just owners being able to be armed, they can also designate others to be armed, if they are charged with security. That person need not have any training, just the designation of a responsible person by that business owner. As far as I am concerned that violates the Constitution. Your earlier comment "No business today (or private individual) is regulating firearms, or firearms ownership." is incorrect.

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='zort' timestamp='1353616613' post='849530']
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.
[/quote]No one has told you because no one can tell you how this law harms a business owner in any way...they can't tell you because it doesn't harm them.

People can argue about how this infringes on a property owner's rights in theory; but as a practical matter is has no effect on property owner's at all.

[JayC]

[quote name='Worriedman' timestamp='1353642095' post='849660']
It is not just owners being able to be armed, they can also designate others to be armed, if they are charged with security. That person need not have any training, just the designation of a responsible person by that business owner. As far as I am concerned that violates the Constitution. Your earlier comment "No business today (or private individual) is regulating firearms, or firearms ownership." is incorrect.
[/quote]

Hold on, first armed security guards are highly regulated by the state.... and the provision in the law you're described was repealed as part of the restaurant carry legislation. Which was a more strict version where booze was served by the drink than 39-17-1308. That's been gone for 3+ years, and all that stands now is 39-17-1308 defenses (plus a couple of defense for minor children armed in a business in another section of 39-17-13xx that I don't recall off the top of my head).

[u]The constitution does not regulate the behavior of private individuals, it regulates the behavior of the government. [/u]

So what a business owner does with limiting firearms carry is no more a violation of the constitution than when they limit your freedom of speech while on their property.

But, you don't like the defenses under 39-17-1308? Why should I as a business owner not be able to carry a gun at my business just as I can at my home without getting a permit from the state? Why should I not be allowed to give the same privilege to others who work for me if I so choose?

Is it because of the lack of "training"? We don't have firearms training in this state as part of the permit process... We have corporate welfare for shooting ranges and firearms instructors (as well as the NRA who certifies the vast majority of instructors)... Much less than 1% of the people who take the permit class fail it, that is not a training program, that is a warm fuzzy feeling and waste of people's time and money to get a privilege from the state and serve no real purpose in whether a person is able to defend themselves or not.

So tell me again, how I as a business owner is somehow regulating firearms and differently than you as a homeowner is?

[JayC]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353638369' post='849635']
Oh an by the way, I have no dog in this legislative fight - I'm not personally affected by this bill one way or the other. I'm in favor of seeing it become law because I believe it's excellent public policy.
[/quote]

Ok fair enough... Find me a single test case then... There has to be a single person on this forum who can't have a firearm stored in their vehicle at work, and they are forced to be unarmed.

You say show you the harm to the business... and I say that isn't the way our laws are supposed to work... We're supposed to allow people (even the people who run businesses) to be free unless their is a strict need of the community that can not be solved any other way.

So show me a single person that is being harmed by not having this law passed... Show me a single adult that is forced to disarm at a private business...

If there are such people, then this law might make sense... [b]but I contend you can't find a single case.[/b]

This is a law to make a special interest group (permit holders) to be able to avoid making hard choices about their safety and their income, and has nothing to do with freedom. Edited November 23, 2012 by JayC

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='JayC' timestamp='1353679229' post='849735']Ok fair enough... Find me a single test case then... There has to be a single person on this forum who can't have a firearm stored in their vehicle at work, and they are forced to be unarmed.

You say show you the harm to the business... and I say that isn't the way our laws are supposed to work... We're supposed to allow people (even the people who run businesses) to be free unless their is a strict need of the community that can not be solved any other way.

So show me a single person that is being harmed by not having this law passed... Show me a single adult that is forced to disarm at a private business...

If there are such people, then this law might make sense... [b]but I contend you can't find a single case.[/b]

This is a law to make a special interest group (permit holders) to be able to avoid making hard choices about their safety and their income, and has nothing to do with freedom.[/quote]

I can offer you a few thousand real cases; everyone who currently works for Nissan, FedEx, Bridgestone/FIrestone, Gibson and I'm sure many, many other businesses; I'm fairly certain there are people "on this forum" who work for one of those employers or another employer who either as a matter of "policy" or "posting" or both, reach out of their headquarters (often headquarters in states outside of Tennessee) and forbid their employees from having an unmolested firearm inside of their locked vehicle.

And have you not seen the signs at the entrances to the parking lots of entire malls and other stores that would make me criminal if the tires of my vehicle touched their property even though those very same malls and stores depend on my $$$ to survive? Do you not know those situations exist? Do you not think thousands and thousands (at least around 300-400 thousand in Tennessee) are affected?

If you want names, just read the Memphis paper since they publish the names of HCP holders.

You say that's not how laws are supposed to work...would you like to explain the Constitutional and legal theoretical basis for that assertion rather than just make the assertion? I suspect you make the assertion simply as a diversion because that's a lot easier than showing the harm to the business since there is no harm from these laws.

And what is all this railing about HCP holders being a "special interest group" or "special class"? And how does that apply to this bill in any case? Perhaps you haven't paid attention but these bills as originally written and intended were to cover EVERYONE so long as the person wasn't precluded from owning a firearm. I also want the law to cover ALL parking lots that are open to the public whether that "public" are employees, customers or just someone looking for a place to park. I've not doubt we won't get all that the first time around; it will likely apply on to HCP holders and/or only to certain parking lots because as is almost always the case in politics, you get what you can get and keep trying to move the ball down the field. If would be really nice if we could always make touchdown on the first play every time we are on offense but neither life, football nor politics works that way.

Now that we have that settled, I'm still waiting for someone to explain how these laws violate the property protections as provided for in the Constitution and two put together an substantive and convincing argument to show why such a law shouldn't be passed in Tennessee.

[Worriedman]

[quote name='JayC' timestamp='1353678802' post='849732']
So tell me again, how I as a business owner is somehow regulating firearms and differently than you as a homeowner is?
[/quote]

A business owner can stipulate any person he so choses to be responsible for security in said business, and can arm them. There is no requirement that they have any training, that they be licensed as a "Security Guard" prior to donning a weapon. If the owner choses to hire a "Security firm" then the rules do apply, but there is no State mandate requiring a business to do so. Edited November 23, 2012 by Worriedman

[JayC]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353681634' post='849749']
I can offer you a few thousand real cases; everyone who currently works for Nissan, FedEx, Bridgestone/FIrestone, Gibson and I'm sure many, many other businesses; I'm fairly certain there are people "on this forum" who work for one of those employers or another employer who either as a matter of "policy" or "posting" or both, reach out of their headquarters (often headquarters in states outside of Tennessee) and forbid their employees from having an unmolested firearm inside of their locked vehicle.
[/quote]

I'm not aware of a single person forced to work at any of the above businesses... They go to work at those businesses willingly day after day knowing that they are disarmed while at work.

They are choosing to place their job with this company over their own security... that is a choice they're free to make... not something they're forced to do.

[quote]
And have you not seen the signs at the entrances to the parking lots of entire malls and other stores that would make me criminal if the tires of my vehicle touched their property even though those very same malls and stores depend on my $$$ to survive? Do you not know those situations exist? Do you not think thousands and thousands (at least around 300-400 thousand in Tennessee) are affected?
[/quote]

I have, and you know what I don't shop at those malls anymore... and there isn't a single product they sell that I can't buy online or elsewhere that isn't posted (most often cheaper). I'm not forced to do business with them.

If they rely on your (and my) money to survive and we take that money away... then they will be replaced by businesses who don't post.

As for 39-17-1359 I've said all along if you can get a bill submitted that repeals that law in part or in whole I'd be there with bells on walking the halls of legislative plaza pushing to get that law passed.

If you want names, just read the Memphis paper since they publish the names of HCP holders.

You say that's not how laws are supposed to work...would you like to explain the Constitutional and legal theoretical basis for that assertion rather than just make the assertion? I suspect you make the assertion simply as a diversion because that's a lot easier than showing the harm to the business since there is no harm from these laws.

And again, until somebody can show me harm to a permit holder, where the holder is not willingly choosing to disarm then the law serves no real purpose other than to remove a right that business owners have today because the permit holder can't be bothered to make tough choices.

[RobertNashville]

Okay, now I see how this goes. You ask a question it gets answered and then you change the particulars of your question to make it appear that your question wasn't answered. That's very slick.



Still waiting for my questions to be answered…

And the silence continues.

Lots of protestations and diversions but no serious presentations of how these laws are either unconstitutional or a measurable infringement on the property rights of businesses. However I'm not surprised - neither these businesses nor their well paid attorneys have been able to do so either.

With that I'm done and unsubscribing from the thread. It hasn't been entirely a wast of time for me however as I'm more convinced than ever that this bill is needed and constitutional and I will be vigorously working to see it enacted.

Edited November 23, 2012 by RobertNashville

[Dolomite_supafly]

Passing this law is going to change what?

Employers will still be able to fire employees for any reason.

All it will do is clog our legal system with false claims of being fired for having a gun in their car at work.

Dolomite

[Worriedman]

[quote name='Dolomite_supafly' timestamp='1353698930' post='849831']
Passing this law is going to change what?

Employers will still be able to fire employees for any reason.

All it will do is clog our legal system with false claims of being fired for having a gun in their car at work.

Dolomite
[/quote]

We amended the House Bill to include language that required the prevailing party in such a suit to receive their legal expenses from the looser, to preclude that very thing.

[GKar]

[quote name='Dolomite_supafly' timestamp='1353698930' post='849831']
...Employers will still be able to fire employees for any reason...
Dolomite
[/quote]

In theory, true...but i practice, its not quite that simple. I've worked with HR departments several times on matters of the dispopsition of "less than ideal" employees, and quite frankly, IME its easier to scrape barnacles off the hull of a ship than to let employees go "for cause" unless they make some egregious violation (ie, deliberately hurt someone at the workplace, steal a significant amount of company money/property, commit a violent crime while in the workplace, etc), . Its far easier to simply relocate them within an organization to where they do the least damage, or wait until there's a downsizing and let them get caught in the outward flow. I've actually had the theoretical conversation about an employee possessing in their car in violation of a company policy (where property is NOT properly posted) with some HR folks, HR attorneys and security folks at several businesses. None could tell me why the policy is written as such, other than to say that it came down from corporate legal management. None could tell me that such violation was, in their opinion, a "firing" offense unless the company was already looking for a reason to get rid of someone...and even then it was not likely to be singled out as the reason for departure, but instead used to substantiate looking further for more tangible demonstrations of insubordination. So no, I don't think you'll see many counterclaims, just as you do not see many/any firings for violating said policy.

Disclaimer: this is based upon my experience in the NE corner of the state...all bets are off for points west, who largely consider themselves to be the real Tennessee anyway.

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name='GKar' timestamp='1353729138' post='849932']

In theory, true...but i practice, its not quite that simple. I've worked with HR departments several times on matters of the dispopsition of "less than ideal" employees, and quite frankly, IME its easier to scrape barnacles off the hull of a ship than to let employees go "for cause" unless they make some egregious violation (ie, deliberately hurt someone at the workplace, steal a significant amount of company money/property, commit a violent crime while in the workplace, etc), . Its far easier to simply relocate them within an organization to where they do the least damage, or wait until there's a downsizing and let them get caught in the outward flow. I've actually had the theoretical conversation about an employee possessing in their car in violation of a company policy (where property is NOT properly posted) with some HR folks, HR attorneys and security folks at several businesses. None could tell me why the policy is written as such, other than to say that it came down from corporate legal management. None could tell me that such violation was, in their opinion, a "firing" offense unless the company was already looking for a reason to get rid of someone...and even then it was not likely to be singled out as the reason for departure, but instead used to substantiate looking further for more tangible demonstrations of insubordination. So no, I don't think you'll see many counterclaims, just as you do not see many/any firings for violating said policy.

Disclaimer: this is based upon my experience in the NE corner of the state...all bets are off for points west, who largely consider themselves to be the real Tennessee anyway.[/quote]
Working in retail management, I have to say my experiences have been very similar. The larger the entity, the larger the HR/legal department, the harder it is to get fire people.

[Dolomite_supafly]

[quote name='Worriedman' timestamp='1353716544' post='849892']
We amended the House Bill to include language that required the prevailing party in such a suit to receive their legal expenses from the looser, to preclude that very thing.
[/quote]

But if the person loosing doesn't have the funds topay those expenses then what do they have to loose by filing a frivolous lawsuit. I have been a victim and never received any of the court ordered restitution because the person was "too poor" to pay. And when we finally did receive something as part of the restitution the other person petitioned the courts and the retitution was returned to them. I have yet to see one red cent of the court ordered restitution.

Dolomite

[QuietDan]

Ok, remind me . . . so, I have a Tennessee HCP, and I work for an employer that posts his lot "No firearms." I keep a firearm locked in a gun vault in the trunk of my car. I never say I have a firearm, I never say I don't have a firearm. And, said employer says he wants one of the company security guards to search my car. I tell him to pack sand, or get a freakin' warrant and get a city police officer to search it.

What happens next? Edited November 24, 2012 by QuietDan

[Chucktshoes]

He doesn't search, and you get fired.

[DaveTN]

[quote name='QuietDan' timestamp='1353778462' post='850075']
Ok, remind me . . . so, I have a Tennessee HCP, and I work for an employer that posts his lot "No firearms." I keep a firearm locked in a gun vault in the trunk of my car. I never say I have a firearm, I never say I don't have a firearm. And, said employer says he wants one of the company security guards to search my car. I tell him to pack sand, or get a freakin' warrant and get a city police officer to search it.

What happens next?
[/quote]
The Police can’t search your car unless your employer is making a criminal complaint against you, theft, etc.

If they are, the Police will either get a warrant or if they have probable cause they will search it.

The cops aren’t going to get involved in this. So what’s going to happen to you? You know your boss better than we do; what is going to happen?

[QuietDan]

[quote name='DaveTN' timestamp='1353780153' post='850093']
The Police can’t search your car unless your employer is making a criminal complaint against you, theft, etc.

If they are, the Police will either get a warrant or if they have probable cause they will search it.

The cops aren’t going to get involved in this. So what’s going to happen to you? You know your boss better than we do; what is going to happen?
[/quote]

This is, for me, a hypothetical situation. It's real enough, I guess, for some folks, but I think it would be rare.

I would think, the issue would come up very seldom, and that if it did, everyone would go to a neutral corner. Unless, the employer is a total douche, which I would not want to work for; or because or I'm a total douche employee - and it would be an excuse to fire me.

I'm thinking if we go to a "car searches cannot be a term of employment consent" it would be a useful law for Tennessee. And it wouldn't have to mention guns. For the big employers, like FedEx perhaps, that means that searches for shoplifting from the business take places with security at the company's door, not out in the parking lot. I'm thinking it's already like that for retailers with their customers. Edited November 24, 2012 by QuietDan

[DaveTN]

[quote name='QuietDan' timestamp='1353782397' post='850109']


This is, for me, a hypothetical situation. It's real enough, I guess, for some folks, but I think it would be rare.

I would think, the issue would come up very seldom, and that if it did, everyone would go to a neutral corner. Unless, the employer is a total douche, which I would not want to work for; or because or I'm a total douche employee - and it would be an excuse to fire me.

I'm thinking if we go to a "car searches cannot be a term of employment consent" it would be a useful law for Tennessee. And it wouldn't have to mention guns. For the big employers, like FedEx perhaps, that means that searches for shoplifting from the business take places with security at the company's door, not out in the parking lot. I'm thinking it's already like that for retailers with their customers.
[/quote]
Hopefully thieves will never be protected. If your employer suspects you of theft it is up to him about how it is handled. Most employers are going to handle that issue without the cops involved. Stealing from your employer is not shoplifting; it’s either theft, or in some cases burglary.

Big companies singling you out for a vehicle search is like a lawyer asking a question he doesn’t already know the answer to; it isn’t going to happen. However, random searches of vehicles as they pass through a secured area is common and can’t be interfered with. If you don’t want your vehicle searched don’t drive through those gates.

Most of the big companies I have been to have a notice at the gate that says something to the effect of “ALL VEHICLES SUBJECT TO SEARCH”. If you don’t agree with that; don’t drive through the gate.

In your case if your employer asks to search your car; ask him why. I think most employers will answer that; they will answer it if the Police are involved. You will know right then what they are looking for and whether or not you have a job.

If you are a thief or are violating company policies you don’t have the 4th amendment protections from your employer that you have from the government.

[JAB]

[quote name='Worriedman' timestamp='1353080595' post='846554']
He said that the fence issue was moot in his opinion as the TCA Code allowed a Citizen to enjoy the same protection with regard to using deadly force for personal protection in their vehicle as in their home..
[/quote]

And that is the angle that should be taken. Screw 'parking lot' bills - simply recognize the interior of a person's car as being like the interior of a person's home. Off limits to searches by anyone but police with a proper warrant. Declare any other 'right to search' employee agreements, etc. to be null and void. Recognize that it is none of anyone else's business - including employers - what people keep in the confines of their [b]own[/b], [b]private[/b] property. It really shouldn't make a bit of difference where that private property is located at the time - in a driveway, at Walmart or in an employer's parking lot. Edited November 26, 2012 by JAB

[wstrnrdr]

WOWWW! Race, national origion,asylums, lobotomies, mental capabilities, wheel chairs, security gaurds, and even a Congalese court.
Accusations,insults, and innuendo.
Seems even moderators are getting heated on this topic.
I thought the mods job was to moderate, keep threads decent and on track.
Someone was right, I need more popcorn and a bg gulp.
Seriously dissapointed in the tone and direction or the lack of direction on this thread.
Maybe at this point the thread should be closed and everyone wait and get the actual fact of
a proposed bill and see the actual content. Then maybe the real merits or lack of merits
might possibly be debated.
I see very little legit pros or cons being discussed.

[GKar]

[quote name='JAB' timestamp='1353960527' post='850909']
And that is the angle that should be taken. Screw 'parking lot' bills - simply recognize the interior of a person's car as being like the interior of a person's home. Off limits to searches by anyone but police with a proper warrant. Declare any other 'right to search' employee agreements, etc. to be null and void. Recognize that it is none of anyone else's business - including employers - what people keep in the confines of their [b]own[/b], [b]private[/b] property. It really shouldn't make a bit of difference where that private property is located at the time - in a driveway, at Walmart or in an employer's parking lot.
[/quote]

At one point last year, I see to recall Ramsey actually postulating something kinda close to this during a discussion we were having. Never heard anything else about it afterwards. To me, this approach strikes at what I perceive as a real central issue - how do you handle co-location of property of different ownership (ie, the personal property consisting of the interior contents of the vehicle I own when sitting on another's real property).