Ron Ramsey on 2013 "Parking Lot" Bill status

[strickj]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353215011' post='847468']
Actually, it's about whether a specific governmental regulation, in this case, a regulation regarding firearms in vehicles while the vehicle is parked in a parking lot, violates the Constitution.
[/quote]
The government is not regulating it. Your employer is.
Your employer is not violating the Constitution.

[quote]Well I think that would be called trespassing and I'm not advocating trespassing so I don't know what debate that ends.


Not exactly sure what you mean by that statement...I don't think a gun "magically changes" anything. [/quote]
Seems simple enough. If you have no right to be on private property then how can you have a right to carry a gun on private property?


[quote]Whether or not Tennessee [u][i][b]should[/b][/i][/u] pass a "parking lot bill" is a debatable issue and one I'm willing to engage in, so, if you have some specific reasons why you think such a law shouldn't be passed then let's talk about them...I see no reason not to have such a law here but I'm not so closed-minded on the issue that I can't change my mind. However, just chanting "property rights"..."property rights" is not debating and it's not a reason to not have such laws; it's just chanting.

It's just changing because until you can show how these "parking lot" laws violate the Constitution your chanting is a non-starter because I don't think they do violate the Constitution and the courts don't think so either. If you [i][u][b]can[/b][/u][/i] show how these laws violate the Constitution then I'm sure there are some attorneys who have represented the likes of Whirlpool and ConocoPhillips in these cases who would love to hear from you. [/quote]

No, it's not just chanting. Property rights are the issue here.

And the law does not have to violate the Constitution for it to be wrong. Smoking bans are wrong. Soda bans are wrong.

[Oh Shoot]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353262486' post='847693']
....Can the government install such a law without violating the Constitution's takings clause.[/quote]

In previous and lengthy discussions here, have seen many arbitrary examples to show the extent of how a biz could dictate all sorts of stuff in regard to your vehicle on its property, like only allowing blue cars, or Chevys, or making a Bible or Communist Manifesto contained within a fireable offense, etc. All to make the point that the owner has such power to do so and you agree to his terms by choosing to work there.

However, if any future challenges are met with the 5th amendment ruling argument in Oklahoma, which AFAIK is the highest level to which one has been taken, then none of the above type examples would be allowed either, as all of them would indeed be determined to "deprive" one of his "property" as a condition of employment. Though contract law is quite strong, a binding contract can't contain unlawful conditions.

- OS

[strickj]

[quote name='OhShoot' timestamp='1353210859' post='847436']
Obviously not. Many other states have passed it. TN probably will too, eventually, nothing makes this state any different than others in that regard.



I didn't. If you're read the words that are there without warping them to argue your point of view, you'll see I mentioned the protected classes in passing as simply one set of limitations put on private property owners. Many more have nothing to do with protected classes at all. Point is that the legislated list of do's and don't for both residential and commercial property owners is quite long, and even the ownership itself can be legally wrested away.

Certainly, allowing folks to keep a legal possession in their vehicles is rather minor as far as any kind of legal precedent. It's a mostly emotional argument.

- OS
[/quote]


"But MOM, all the other kids are doing it!"

I do agree with you about the emotional element. I do not like the government removing my rights and dictating my private property and practices. Y'all are fine with that, apparently.

[RobertNashville]

Wow...lots of the same sentiments against theses "parking lot" laws without any substance offered to support the sentiments.

I'm still waiting for someone to submit reasonable data/examples to show how the 10th circuit was wrong in rejecting the Constitutional argument against these laws.

[i][b]and...[/b][/i]

I'm still waiting for someone to submit reasonable and rational and logical arguments to show why such a law shouldn't be passed Tennessee except for the empty "it's my property" mantra.

Bueller....Bueller....??? Edited November 18, 2012 by RobertNashville

[strickj]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353269541' post='847741']
Wow...lots of the same sentiments against theses "parking lot" laws without any substance offered to support the sentiments.

I'm still waiting for someone to submit reasonable data/examples to show how the 10th circuit was wrong in rejecting the Constitutional argument against these laws.

[i][b]and...[/b][/i]

I'm still waiting for someone to submit reasonable and rational and logical arguments to show why such a law shouldn't be passed Tennessee except for the empty "it's my property" mantra.

Bueller....Bueller....???
[/quote]
Do you value your property rights?

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

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

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353272288' post='847758']...[/quote]
Still waiting for you to show how the 10th circuit was wrong in rejecting the Constitutional argument against these laws and/or to submit reasonable and logical arguments to show why such a law shouldn't be passed Tennessee.

Of course, there is no reason to respond to either part of the above unless you want to have an actual discussion - if all you want to do is chant the mantra of property rights then you can continue to do so but the "it's my property" mantra isn't going to sway me any more than it did the 10th Circuit or sway the legislatures in 19 states where these laws already exist. Edited November 18, 2012 by RobertNashville

[strickj]

It's wrong because the law violates a person's rights while giving nonexistent rights to someone over convenience.


Now, answer my questions.

Do you value your property rights?
Do you want the government to make you do something with your property simply to satisfy a stranger's convenience and sense of entitlement?
Care if my bullhorn and I visit your home at 2am tonight? Your property rights mean nothing to me and I have a constitutional right to yell stuffs.


Keep calling property rights an empty mantra. When the government infringes on yours, I will laugh at you.

[Oh Shoot]

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353274218' post='847778']
....
Care if my bullhorn and I visit your home at 2am tonight? Your property rights mean nothing to me and I have a constitutional right to yell stuffs.
[/quote]

Totally specious argument for many reasons, and you know it.

- this issue has nothing to do with private residential property
- there are public nuisance and disturbing the peace statutes to cover the above latest particular non-sequitur
- there are many examples of what you cannot do on your own property, depending on where it is, and many more than that on what you cannot do on business/public property, many of them quite more restrictive than what's allowed in an employee's or customer's vehicle.

You seem to have come to see yourself as some sort of philosophical Spartacus regarding this issue but I think Quixotic is more accurate. Starting to worry about ya.

- OS

[jtmaze]

[quote name='JayC' timestamp='1353122031' post='847006']
Robert,

I'm about as ProGun as it comes... And the parking lot bill is a BAD bill, and I can't support it.

The argument you make is that of a progressive who believe they know what is best for me and my property. The person who knows best what to do with their business is the owner of that business, period. His business isn't there for the 'best interest' of society at large, it is there solely for what is the best interest of the OWNER of said business.

There are much simpler methods to deal with anti-gun businesses which choose to post... don't do business with them... just like you won't go do business with a restaurant that said 'whites only', you shouldn't do business with a business that posts. I know, it's a tough economy, you can't go spend an extra $1 on a hamburger, or find a job with a pro-gun company... well that is your problem, not the problem of the property owner.

We should be focusing our efforts on the one part of society where we have no choice, [b]government buildings and land[/b], unlike private businesses we're forced by law to interact with these groups, there are no other choices available, we end up paying taxes and can't use parks, and government buildings because the government can use 1359 to ban otherwise lawful carry. That should be our real target...

Ask yourself why is the capitol building still posted? All it takes is 2 signatures to remove the postings... The missing signature Beth Harwell.

As for your argument that people need a 'good enough for you' reason to want to ban firearms, I disagree, private property even if it's a business should not have to explain to you, me, or anybody else why they want to ban firearms, only that they choose to... and You, I, and anybody else can avoid that business and vote with our pocket books.

We have so many really bad firearm laws on the books, which seem to be a lot less likely to run rough shot over other peoples constitutionally protected rights... We should be focusing on those laws first, and let this bad law die.
[/quote]

There is no question about property rights in this bill. The bill has nothing to do with property rights except for the fact that it re-enforces the castle doctrine that has been upheld to show that a persons vehicle is the same as there home and this bill only re-enforces that I have the right to keep any legally pocessed items that I want no matter what your employer thinks about them. My vehilce, My property, My employer has no business wondering what I have in My Property. What would you say if your employer was going to fire you because you have a refrigorater in your home. Would that be legal? My car is just like my home in Tennessee law and this bill just re-enforces that. It has nothing to do with property rights.

[JayC]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353262486' post='847693']
[size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]This is not about feelings or whims; it’s about laws and the good of society at large.

Is it “[i]progressive[/i]” of me to want zoning laws in my city so that my next door neighbor can’t suddenly decide to convert his “private property” into a petting zoo or a garbage dump or a half-way house for child molesters?
[/quote][/font][/size]

Yes, I'd say this is a very progressive stance, we don't need zoning laws, and a perfect example of a large city without zoning laws is Houston, they seem to be making it work wit no problems. If my choice are having the zoning system we have today, or having a system for no zoning laws, I'd surely pick no zoning laws.

[size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][quote]
Is it “[i]progressive[/i]” for me to believe that I should be able to control the contents of my vehicle provided the contents are legal to own/have in my vehicle?
[/quote][/font][/size]

I think it's perfectly fine for you to control the contents of your vehicle, I'd be perfectly fine with extended loaded carry without a permit to a persons private vehicle (I'm also all for constitutional carry). Your vehicle is your property and you should have control of it while in the public sphere. I think your property rights end when you enter somebody's property, and you're a guest on their property visiting under the conditions they place on you. This is not a violation of your rights, because 1. it's not the government imposing these conditions on you, and 2. you do so freely and willingly.

[size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][quote]
Is it “[i]progressive[/i]” of me to believe that a restaurant shouldn’t be allowed to refuse to serve a black man or a Chinese woman because of their respective races or to think that a business shouldn't be able to require employees to work 16 or 20 hour days or even force eight year old children to do the same?
[/quote][/font][/size]

This is clearly a very progressive view point, and clearly both a violation of a persons natural rights and a violation under the Constitutions freedom of association principle. Now don't get me wrong, racism is BAD... but between 2 private people, the market place can work that out without interference from the government. I would personally refuse to eat in a restaurant that only offered service to a single race, but I feel that closed minded individuals should have the freedom to ruin their business if they so choose. As for child labor laws, I think we could largely live without those today, and I've person spent a great number of days in my life working 16 hours a day, both for myself and somebody else, and I'm not harmed in the least.

[size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][quote]
If the above examples are examples of “[i]progressiveism[/i]” then color me progressive but I suggest that there is nothing libertarian or conservative or patriotic OR Constitutional in allowing anyone/any business/any property owner to do whatever the hell he wants to do on or with his "property" with no regards to anyone else or regards to society at large.[/font][/size]
[/quote]

While there maybe some limits that need to be placed on property owners, those pose a direct physical risk to those around them, we're not talking about those limits here. We're talking about somebody being denied the ability to carry a firearm onto private property willingly. If you don't like the conditions under which you're granted access to private property, do business somewhere else, or get a job with another company. You are not forced to leave you firearm anywhere, you choose to do so as a condition of access.

[size=4][font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][quote]
If you believe the courts have blundered in upholding these laws then please explain how they have done so…show specifically how a legal, inert thing, whether it’s a firearm or a set of golf clubs locked inside of a vehicle while parked on a piece of ground provided for the purpose of parking vehicles is a violation of the takings clause.[/font][/size] Until you or someone can do that, I'll remain, "[i]progressive[/i]" and armed.
[/quote]

I'll turn this around because first and foremost, the property is MINE, not yours, not the governments, but MINE. Show me how you're harmed by my not allowing you to do business with me, or work for me? If you know the conditions of the contract upfront, then you can always choose to not agree to the terms and go elsewhere. And obviously if there is a solution available that solves the problem without infringing on my property rights, then conservatives should always opt for that market based solution over more government regulations.

[quote]
I believe we are left with two issues...[list=1]
[*]Can the government install such a law without violating the Constitution's takings clause.

[*]Should the government install such a law.
[/list]
I believe the first issue has been addressed sufficiently well by the courts - I think the courts were right. Others can disagree but disagreement doesn't change anything unless others can show how the courts got it wrong.

The second issue is, I believe, the only issue that truly matters at this point.

The "it's my property and I should be able to do what I want" statement certainly sounds reasonable...it even sounds patriotic but when examined in detail it is, I believe, unconvincing. It's unconvincing because it really just states an opinion....it's unconvincing because it can (and in many cases was) used to justify any manner of abhorrent, disgusting and even dangerous practices and shows absolutely zero concern for anyone or anyone else s rights; including [u][i]their[/i][/u] property rights.
[/quote]

I think you're right, current progressive courts would uphold such a law, doesn't mean it's truly constitutional or doesn't violate a persons natural rights, but those are the times we live in.

As for your second point, your argument is because in the past some small number of business owners did dangerous thing that all business owners should have their natural property rights violated for ever? Here we're not even talking about dangerous activity, disgusting activity, we're talking about a business setting conditions for employment and people willingly agreeing to those conditions.

Again, explain to be exactly why we need the government to solve this problem? Is there not another valid way to solve this problem without passing this law and violating property owners rights?

Let me answer the second question first... We could much more easily change 1359 to limit it to buildings only, this change would have a far great positive impact than the parking lot bill, as it would prohibit governments for using 1359 to keep their parking lots posted, ground etc. And doesn't impact a business owners property rights... They could still ask you to leave and charge you with trespassing (frankly I'd have no problem with completely removing 1359 altogether, because that doesn't impact a property owners rights.

This law won't solve anything for employees... Employers who don't want firearms on their property will just go one step further in filtering out employees. Some will make it an out and out violation of company policy to even have an HCP, making the holding of the permit a fire-able offense, instead of the possession of a firearm. Or they will be much more sneaky about it, current background checks that a vast majority of employers already do, tell you if somebody has a permit. They'll just instruct the HR department to exclude anybody with a permit from the hiring process.

At the end of the day, all of this can be avoid... Just don't do business with a business that doesn't allow you to carry let alone leave a firearm in your vehicle. Problem solved with no law being passed. And the conservative thing to do is not pass a law when there is already a market force in place to deal with the problem.

[JayC]

[quote name='jtmaze' timestamp='1353279605' post='847812']
There is no question about property rights in this bill. The bill has nothing to do with property rights except for the fact that it re-enforces the castle doctrine that has been upheld to show that a persons vehicle is the same as there home and this bill only re-enforces that I have the right to keep any legally pocessed items that I want no matter what your employer thinks about them. My vehilce, My property, My employer has no business wondering what I have in My Property. What would you say if your employer was going to fire you because you have a refrigorater in your home. Would that be legal? My car is just like my home in Tennessee law and this bill just re-enforces that. It has nothing to do with property rights.
[/quote]

Again, I've shown time and time again, it is a question about property rights. But, lets look at the nonsense you're bringing up.

I think you have a great misunderstanding of the employer, employee relationship. Lets talk about some of the legal stuff I can control with my employees... I can say you can only park a Ford on my parking lot as a condition of employment. I can say can can't have pierced ears, or hard that is too long as a condition of employment. I can even tell you exactly what color pants and shirts you'll wear everyday, the color and style of your belt.

These are all legal things an employer can do today. And should be able to continue to do.

Nobody is suggesting we shouldn't extend castle doctrine full into vehicles, I'm ALL for that... I'm even all for removing the governments ability to interfere... But, the government shouldn't get involved in a private contract between me and you over the conditions of your employment. You want to park in my lot, then you follow the rules I set forth, don't like it, find another place to work, nobody is forcing you to agree to my terms and conditions.

And your car is not your home under TN law, or you'd be allowed to have a loaded firearm in it without a permit.

Here is what is going to happen if they pass this law, employers who don't want employees carrying loaded firearms in their vehicles will just make it a condition of employment to not have a valid HCP. Since who has an HCP is a matter of public record, they'll just go through yearly and terminate anybody who does.

So, I'm going to assume you work somewhere that doesn't allow you to have a firearm on your person or in your vehicle? Why don't you park your car on the street instead of your employers parking lot? Why not find a job somewhere else that doesn't have such silly rules? Both of these solutions would solve your problem without removing the ability of an employer to set conditions of employment.

[Worriedman]

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353272288' post='847758']
Do you want the government to make you do something with your property simply to satisfy a stranger's convenience and sense of entitlement?
[/quote]

Here is what our Constitution has to say about the matter.

Article 1 § 8. Deprivation of life, liberty or property under law; due process

"That no man shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed or deprived of his life, liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land."

Due process allows your peers to decide what is going to be allowed with respect to the subject at hand. I do not see anything that say whatever any single property owner may decide is to rule. That pesky "judgment of his peers" interferes with the absolute enjoyment of whatever one may decide to do on, or with their property, but nevertheless, there it is. That can be the County Commission, a City Government, (or agencies of either) that stand for our peers in legislating or mandating rules and regulations, some good, some not so, but effective none the less. I do not read anything in there that precludes "private property" business or personal from inclusion.

Then one has to consider the last part of the Article, where deprivation of ones property may be achieved through the "law of the land." Stepping back to Article 1 § 26. Weapons; right to bear arms

"That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime."

Therein lies the rub with respect to the issue at hand, the Tennessee Constitution [b]specifically[/b] references how issues related to arms are to be considered. To DaveTN's point, I agree with him that the current TCA code is in fact against the intent and letter of the Constitution, as our ability to bear arms should not be "sold" and it is in fact guaranteed though currently denied except at cost of a permit. (Though I much prefer the system we have to say that of Illinois, where there is no chance to carry) I am all for working to achieve "Constitutional Carry", and believe it is the right (correct) thing to do.

Having spent the majority of this summer embroiled with a private property issue involving my 85 year old Father, I have come to the firm conclusion that there are no "private property" Rights in Tennessee. The convicted, and still on probation meth dealer that lives next door to my aged parents strung a barbed wire fence across a major portion of their front yard, taking in the drive way that goes along their dividing line that feed the barn that has been part of my Father's property for over 100 years since the original deed was drawn up. The Sheriff came out and said that even though he knew where the property line lay, he could not make this piece of filth remove the fence until such time as my parents hired a surveyor and filed suit to have the fence removed, as it fell under "adverse possession" standards. We filed the suit, hired a registered surveyor to run the meets and bounds of the deeds, all in all out over $3,000.00 so far in cost. The original incident took place in June of this year and we still have not come to closure. The Sheriff did finally make the interlopers take the first fence down after the points were established, but he next day the guy puts a new one up over 4 feet across the property line, and it took another month to get that one moved. There was a restraining order issued by the Chancery Court Judge against the people next door, saying they were to not harass my parents or to interfere with their enjoyment of their property. The clown would park his truck pointed at my parents bedroom and keep the bright lights turned on, and hit his alarm on the vehicle. We gave video of the acts to the Sheriff, but he said that he or one of his officers would have to witness it. TDEC is doing a Project to remedy a gas tank lead from the neighbors property which used to be a store of sorts (these people purchased from the original owner). It infiltrated my parent's well requiring a tank yank and drilling numerous wells that pump through a huge set of filters. The neighbors threatened the TDEC employees to the point they will not service the filters without a Sheriff's Deputy on site while they are there. (TDEC can make the Department protect them, my parents do not share that weight)

A person's property is not his castle it seems. Edited November 19, 2012 by Worriedman

[DaveTN]

I worked off duty security for a company that had very large tanks of flammable liquids the grounds. They had several plants, but the one that had those tanks did not allow firearms on the property or in vehicles in the parking lots of that one plant.

For you guys that think you have a right to have a gun in a parking lot, how are you going to respond to the companies that claim a very real safety risk of having guns in the vicinity of hazardous/flammable/explosive materials? Are you and your state legislators in better position to determine those risks than the experts that use the products or processes?

[Worriedman]

[quote name='DaveTN' timestamp='1353284209' post='847852']
I worked off duty security for a company that had very large tanks of flammable liquids the grounds. They had several plants, but the one that had those tanks did not allow firearms on the property or in vehicles in the parking lots of that one plant.

For you guys that think you have a right to have a gun in a parking lot, how are you going to respond to the companies that claim a very real safety risk of having guns in the vicinity of hazardous/flammable/explosive materials? Are you and your state legislators in better position to determine those risks than the experts that use the products or processes?
[/quote]

So that weapon in the car out in the parking lot is going set the flammables off without any person pulling the trigger? Denying the legitimate, licensed permit holder the ability to keep a weapon locked up in the parking lot is going to make it more dangerous than the thug that does not abide by the law and has one in their vehicle now? Edited November 19, 2012 by Worriedman

[RobertNashville]

[size=4][font=tahoma,geneva,sans-serif]Sorry, I see nothing in your post JayC to convince me I'm wrong.[/font][/size]

[size=4][font=tahoma,geneva,sans-serif]You are being disingenuous saying Houston has no zoning because it does have strict regulations addressing such things as minimum parking regulations, minimum lot size regulations, street width/block regulations. While not a completely accurate comparison, saying Houston has no zoning laws is akin to the “rose by any other name” concept. I don’t know how many different states and cities or countries you’ve live in but given the number I’ve experienced, I’ll take good zoning laws any day over allowing people to do whatever they happen to feel like doing with no consideration for the effect of their actions on their neighbor’s properties.[/font][/size]

As to the rest of my progressiveness, the laws and regulations we have on private property and businesses and business property have, for the most part, arisen precisely because businesses didn't do the right thing...left solely to their own standards individuals did things that harmed their neighbors and businesses did harmful, horrible and even dangerous things to the people who worked for them including the very young. To say that we could do without such regulations today is a pipe dream; people simply haven't changed. If people always did the right thing and treated others fairly we could do away with all laws; I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.

Putting aside that the law has long treated what is true private property differently than property used for business purposes; I'm not saying and don't believe I ever have said that I have a "right" to carry a weapon onto someone's property.

What I am saying is that government has the Constitutional power to regulate whether a business can forbid weapons in an individual's vehicle and that these laws do not violate the property rights of a business (as protected in the 5th Amendment)...I'll continue to say so until someone can convince me that the state doesn't have the Constitutional power to do so - just claiming that "liberal courts" will find such laws Constitutional is just avoiding the question. I've read their decision and I think the 10th Circuit got it right and that their reasoning is absolutely sound (and I think it worth noting that it was a unanimous decision)...there is no way to know but I think I'd think there were right even if I disagreed with their decision; I just don't happen to disagree. However, if you believe the 10th circuit was wrong then point out, in their decision how they were wrong.

I've also said and do say that the state should pass legislation on this issue...they should because I believe it's in the overall best interest of society and because many employers and businesses have refused to act on their own...I'll continue to think the state should so regulate until someone can provide compelling reasons why the state should not; simply wanting the regulation is not compelling, at least not to me.

Your raising the possibility of businesses finding ways around the law, if it's passed, is interesting...do you have any actual examples of where businesses have found such ways in any of the 19 states that already have such laws? I haven't heard of any but maybe you have.

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='Worriedman' timestamp='1353284834' post='847857']
So that weapon in the car out in the parking lot is going set the flammables off without any person pulling the trigger?[/quote]

I'm sure that an unmolested firearm is also far more dangerous than the 15 or 20 gallons of flammable liquid know as "gasoline" most vehicles carry. I also wonder, how much more dangerous is an unmolested firearm sitting in a parked, unoccupied vehicle sitting in a parking lot than is a firearm inside an occupied vehicle being driven down the highway just a few feet outside the fence of that parking lot???

While I'm not suggesting that the decision about the appropriateness of a "parking lot" law should be based on risks; if we were going to do so I would think the far greater risk is the gasoline most vehicles carry or the firearm in the occupied vehicle driving down the road who could pull the trigger.

Edited November 19, 2012 by RobertNashville

[strickj]

[quote name='OhShoot' timestamp='1353276886' post='847795']
Totally specious argument for many reasons, and you know it.

- this issue has nothing to do with private residential property
- there are public nuisance and disturbing the peace statutes to cover the above latest particular non-sequitur
- there are many examples of what you cannot do on your own property, depending on where it is, and many more than that on what you cannot do on business/public property, many of them quite more restrictive than what's allowed in an employee's or customer's vehicle.

You seem to have come to see yourself as some sort of philosophical Spartacus regarding this issue but I think Quixotic is more accurate. Starting to worry about ya.

- OS
[/quote]
Private property is private property.
There are no sound ordinances in many counties.

The comparison stands.

But, to satisfy you, I would not be allowed to do the same at a business without being kicked out, either.

[QuietDan]

I've been away from this soap opera for a week or so.

Did I miss anything? No? Didn't think so.

Anyone convince anyone about anything? No? Didn't think so.

[JayC]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353285391' post='847861']
I've also said and do say that the state should pass legislation on this issue...they should because I believe it's in the overall best interest of society and because many employers and businesses have refused to act on their own...I'll continue to think the state should so regulate until someone can provide compelling reasons why the state should not; simply wanting the regulation is not compelling, at least not to me.
[/quote]

If we're going to cite the TN Constitution, then this proposed law would seem to be unconstitutional on it's face, since the legislature can only regulate the wearing of firearms in an attempt to avoid criminal behavior. An untouched firearm located in your vehicle is not worn, and as such would not fall under the single exception to the right to keep and bear arms in the TN constitution for the legislature to regulate.

I don't think employers and business have failed to act, they have posted signage or posted warnings to their employees to not have firearms on their property, that is the very definition of acting. They have made a choice to prohibit that activity on their property.

And again, you keep pushing a progressive agenda, that the state should act unless the business can provide a compelling reason as to why the state should not? That is the very opposite of conservative principles.

You have o refuted my point that all HCP holders already have another option available to them, don't do business with employers and businesses which post their property... How does this method fail? Who is forced to work anywhere in this state? Who is forced to do business with posted properties?

You're the person wanting more regulation, not those of us who are in opposition of this proposed bill, again why not just repeal 1359 to only include buildings (or even better yet repeal it completely)? I'd be happy to support that bill, as it doesn't interfere with private property rights.

How is it in the best interest of society to force business owners to allow carry on their property, just because HCP holders continue to willingly accept conditions of employment? Keep in mind I'm very pro-carry, I'm 100% behind repeal virtually all of our gun laws in TN.. I'm just also very pro-natural rights, and private property rights, the last thing that conservative small government pro-2nd amendment advocates should be doing is attempt to encourage an out of control legislature and court system to impose on others rights just to get us some special 'privileges'.

We must fight to repeal stupid gun laws in TN, there are 100's of lines that can and should be removed, adding more regulation on business people who want a smaller government isn't the best way to build that coalition.

As to your question about other states and using HCP for hiring, I have no clue, but nothing in the proposed law would stop it... and you're kidding yourself if you don't think that information isn't available and being used by employers today. When somebody performs a background check, it's included in that background check today, and I'm 100% positive that hiring managers are taking that into consideration, some likely see it as a positive, and some likely see it as a negative, but it's happening, and will happen more if this legislation becomes law.

[Worriedman]

[quote name='QuietDan' timestamp='1353288392' post='847886']
I've been away from this soap opera for a week or so.

Did I miss anything? No? Didn't think so.

Anyone convince anyone about anything? No? Didn't think so.
[/quote]

Actually the OP was just two days ago, and it referenced the fact that we MIGHT have convinced Lt. Gov. Ramsey to back the ability of a permit holder to have his weapon stored in their vehicle while at work on the majority of parking lots, like 19 other States have done...

DaveTN convinced me we have no firearms Rights in Tennessee, Life and Law Enforcement of Weakly County, TN (Sheriff's Department and DA) convinced me we have no Private Property Rights.

[Oh Shoot]

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353287980' post='847880']
Private property is private property.[/quote]

There's the basic fallacy you refuse to see.

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

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

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

- OS

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='JayC' timestamp='1353290173' post='847910']If we're going to cite the TN Constitution, then this proposed law would seem to be unconstitutional on it's face, since the legislature can only regulate the wearing of firearms in an attempt to avoid criminal behavior. An untouched firearm located in your vehicle is not worn, and as such would not fall under the single exception to the right to keep and bear arms in the TN constitution for the legislature to regulate.[/quote]
For the sake of clarification, I haven’t cited the Tennessee Constitution; when I’ve used the word Constitution I’m referring to the U.S. Constitution because that’s the one the 10[sup]th[/sup] Circuit cited.

In any case, I think your reasoning misses the mark since what is actually being “regulated” is not “firearms” nor the wearing of them; the issue is whether a business should be allowed to control the legally owned/possessed contents inside of a private vehicle while parked in a parking lot that they own/control. Granted, the object under discussion is a firearm but the exact same issues (the issues being can the government act without violating the Constitution as it pertains to property and if it can, should it do so) would exist if we were talking about a set of golf clubs or a copy of a book or any other inanimate object.


[quote name='JayC' timestamp='1353290173' post='847910']I don't think employers and business have failed to act, they have posted signage or posted warnings to their employees to not have firearms on their property, that is the very definition of acting. They have made a choice to prohibit that activity on their property.[/quote]
Your assertion about “posting” is a bit flawed in that many businesses, including one I once worked for, don’t “post” anything at all, they simply make it a matter of “policy”. Anyway…I don’t think I said whether or not employers have acted, but I agree, they have…the problem is they’ve acted in a way that I believe is contrary to the public good which is why this state or any other state has seen a possible need to react.


[quote name='JayC' timestamp='1353290173' post='847910']And again, you keep pushing a progressive agenda, that the state should act unless the business can provide a compelling reason as to why the state should not? That is the very opposite of conservative principles.[/quote]
What I’m “pushing” is an understandable and reasonable response to what I and others believe is an unreasonable act of many businesses in trying to control the legally possessed contents of a private vehicle. Moreover, it's a response specifically provided for in, what you must think to be, a very “progressive” Constitution.

You can call it any name you want but it was our Founders who wrote the Constitution that addressed “property rights” in the 5[sup]th[/sup] Amendment and I think they knew one or two things about conservative principles and about "property rights"...if you don’t like how they addressed the issue of property rights your argument should be with the Founders, not with me. Further, what I’ve asked for is for opponents of this type of measure (be that you or strickj or a business such as Bridgestone or FedEx, etc.) to present a compelling and reasonable argument against the measure other than just chanting “property rights”…”property rights”. Apparently; that’s too much to ask for given that even in last year's hearings, no one managed to present such an argument.


[quote name='JayC' timestamp='1353290173' post='847910']You have refuted my point that all HCP holders already have another option available to them, don't do business with employers and businesses which post their property...How does this method fail? Who is forced to work anywhere in this state? Who is forced to do business with posted properties?[/quote]
I think it would be more accurate to say I’ve ignored your point, not refuted it. In any case, while the “free market” is a wonderful thing; it doesn’t always get the job done; especially when you have businesses acting stupidly and to the detriment of society…also, people don’t always have a lot of options about where to work, especially when an employer suddenly and with neither warning nor giving a reason, changes its policy after an employee has worked there for many years.


[quote name='JayC' timestamp='1353290173' post='847910']You're the person wanting more regulation, not those of us who are in opposition of this proposed bill, again why not just repeal 1359 to only include buildings (or even better yet repeal it completely)? I'd be happy to support that bill, as it doesn't interfere with private property rights.[/quote]
I only want more regulation in response to the unreasonable actions of some businesses. Repealing 1359 would be meaningless since, as I said, many employers don’t bother to “post”; they just make it a matter of policy. As to this bill interfering with your property rights, you may think it does but the 10[sup]th[/sup] Circuit says it doesn’t and so far, no one has made a case for why the 10th Circuit is wrong.


[quote name='JayC' timestamp='1353290173' post='847910']How is it in the best interest of society to force business owners to allow carry on their property, just because HCP holders continue to willingly accept conditions of employment? Keep in mind I'm very pro-carry, I'm 100% behind repeal virtually all of our gun laws in TN.. I'm just also very pro-natural rights, and private property rights, the last thing that conservative small government pro-2nd amendment advocates should be doing is attempt to encourage an out of control legislature and court system to impose on others rights just to get us some special 'privileges'.[/quote]
I say it’s in the best interest of society because as a matter of history and as a matter of principle supported by about 30 years of modern experiential data, we know that it is in the best interest of society that we have an armed citizenry and as a small-government, pro-2[sup]nd[/sup] Amendment advocate, I will support actions and laws that make it easier for us to have an armed citizenry and/or to fight against the actions of businesses or government entities that make obtaining that goal more difficult to realize.


[quote name='JayC' timestamp='1353290173' post='847910']We must fight to repeal stupid gun laws in TN, there are 100's of lines that can and should be removed, adding more regulation on business people who want a smaller government isn't the best way to build that coalition.[/quote]
Yes we should…we should also fight against the actions of businesses who arbitrarily and without logical reasons, restrict the legal acts of their employees/customers such as attempting to control the legally owned and transported contents of the employee’s/customer’s private vehicles.


[quote name='JayC' timestamp='1353290173' post='847910']As to your question about other states and using HCP for hiring, I have no clue [/quote]
Then why bring it up? These “parking lot” laws have been in effect for many years in some states…if what you asserted was really a problem I would think it would be known and not something that had to be guessed at. Edited November 19, 2012 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

[quote name='strickj' timestamp='1353287980' post='847880']Private property is private property.[/quote]

You can call it "private property" all you want but society has decided that how a property is used has a bearing on what can and should be regulated with regards to that property.

You may not like it...you can ignore it all you wish...you can disagree with it all you wish but the reality is that society, through the government, treats property used for business purposes differently than property used for private purposes and has done so, as best I can tell for at least 130 years and perhaps longer.

[Oh Shoot]

[quote name='RobertNashville' timestamp='1353292933' post='847938']
You can call it "private property" all you want but society has decided that how a property is used has a bearing on what can and should be regulated with regards to that property.

You may not like it...you can ignore it all you wish...you can disagree with it all you wish but the reality is that society, through the government, treats property used for business purposes differently than property used for private purposes and has done so, as best I can tell for at least 130 years and perhaps longer.
[/quote]

Two of us saying almost exact same thing won't change their minds.

It's worse than "2A will not be infringed!", or even "Citizen's arrest, citizen's arrest!"

- OS

[QuietDan]

[quote name='Worriedman' timestamp='1353290218' post='847913']
Actually the OP was just two days ago, and it referenced the fact that we MIGHT have convinced Lt. Gov. Ramsey to back the ability of a permit holder to have his weapon stored in their vehicle while at work on the majority of parking lots, like 19 other States have done...

DaveTN convinced me we have no firearms Rights in Tennessee, Life and Law Enforcement of Weakly County, TN (Sheriff's Department and DA) convinced me we have no Private Property Rights.
[/quote]

I'm sure you know that my tongue is in my cheek, and I imagine that yours is in yours.

The really long and passionate posts are sooooooo long that they become painful to read, and in my opinion don't convince those with an opposite opinion.

I have opinions that I believe could convince, but I'm going to hold off until folks settle down a little bit.