Volkswagon and the Parking Lot Bill

[JayC]

The constitution restrains the government, not individuals, groups, associations or businesses.

 

You'll note you have a right to the freedom of speech, which restraints the government from using your protected speech against you, or punishing you for exercising your right to free speech.  But, that does not extend to private sector....

 

More importantly, there is a fundamental right, freedom of association which allows individuals to form groups or associations (ie business).  This right is violated when the government attempts to force somebody to belong to a group (or business) against the wishes of that group. IE the government can't force the NAACP to allow members of the KKK into their organization.

 

Also, we have the fundamental right to property, which is enshrined in the declaration of Independence (also in the constitution under the taking clause) , which is also a God given right as well...  Again this natural right is violated when the government forces you to do something with your property against your wishes.

 

So yeah IMHO me asking the legislature to pass a law banning company dress codes is on the same level as you asking them to ban anti-gun policies.  They're both silly and unconstitutional. That is not to say the government won't pass this law and some court may very well uphold it as constitutional, only that we should not be asking the legislature to pass it in the first place, it's a bad law that violates the rights of others to treat us as a special interest group.

 

There are LOTS of bad gun laws in this state that we should focus on, and the repeal or modification of which would not violate God given rights...  including removing governments from 39-17-1359 or removing 39-17-1359 altogether.  Removing exceptions to park carry, or removing laws covering the wearing of firearms in schools and universities.  Providing for true constitutional carry (whether limited to open or allowing CC).  All of these are laws when repealed would not take away rights from individuals, associations, and businesses... but would further constraint government, which is a good thing. 

 

Finally, we're all members of a loose group which supports freedom and God given rights, it's a fundamental violation of our core principals to fight for taking others rights away!  The same legislature (or the federal one) may one day pass laws to violate our rights to own/carry firearms...  and courts may very well uphold those bad/immoral/unconstitutional laws on us.

 

We must have core principals as supporters of the second amendment, and the key to those principals is to not infringe on others natural rights in the process of restoring our rights to keep and bear arms.  Supporting this law is incompatible with that core principal!

 

Nothing in the Constitution of the Union or the State guaranteeing you the right to not wear a tie. There is no specific Article which references a tie, but Article 1 Section 26 does specifically reference arms, and my Right to carry them for my defense. Our Constitution says that ONLY the legislature has the power to regulate where arms are worn, individuals do not have that power.

Edited January 24, 2013 by JayC

[AUG]

What kind of business do you own and what are your policies on firearms on the property?

[AUG]

Also I'm not so sure that you "as a business owner" "invite" me on your property.  I would imagine once you hang an open sign and unlock the door you are allowing public visitation to certain degree.  You have the right to cancel that at any time but it is hardly an "invitation only" type of affair.

 

I owned a small business that had quite a few unsavory customers that I could have lived without but I never frisked them before they came into my business/kingdom.

[JayC]

I'm involved in a number of family owned businesses here in Middle TN and in Southern IN, my wife and I happen to own 2, one a consulting company, and another an outsourced payroll company.  None of our businesses are posted, and unless required by contract or law we don't have an anti-firearms policy in our employee handbooks.  I eat my own dog food, I'm a pro-2nd amendment supporter, and have butted heads with some liberal leaning members of the family over firearm policies in the past  :)

 

But, we do have a dress code policy, and policies that restrict the employees speech...  In my personal opinion if I have somebody on staff that their carrying of a firearm concerned me, I'd just fire them outright, since if I can't trust them with a firearm why should I trust them with my business?

 

The open sign is an invitation, along with the rules posted on the door, no shirt, no shoes, no service.  While it is an invitation, it does come with clear restrictions.

 

I wouldn't want to frisk customers (or employees for that matter), but we have private businesses in TN which require employees to submit to random searches as a condition of employment, and I think that is something a business should be allowed to do, as long as the employee is free to decline and suffer the consequences.

 

You'll note I have no issue with complete repeal of 39-17-1359, which would turn make no firearm signs into the same thing as a no shirt, no shoes, no service sign...  I don't feel the repeal of that law would infringe on a property owners rights.

 

But, most of the companies that are fighting this law tooth and nail don't have open/welcome signs on the door, they don't have customers or members of the public coming into their businesses...  They largely only have employees Volkswagon, FedEx etc aren't open to the public.  They don't want a law (and I don't as well) which infringes on their employer/employee relationship.

 

And neither do I, if an employee carrying a firearm concerned me, even if they had a permit I'd want the freedom to fire that employee without violating state law.

 

Also I'm not so sure that you "as a business owner" "invite" me on your property.  I would imagine once you hang an open sign and unlock the door you are allowing public visitation to certain degree.  You have the right to cancel that at any time but it is hardly an "invitation only" type of affair.

 

I owned a small business that had quite a few unsavory customers that I could have lived without but I never frisked them before they came into my business/kingdom.

Edited January 24, 2013 by JayC

[leroy]

Jay:_______________

 

I've been readin this pretty close and ive lifted part of your post above:

 

....But, most of the companies that are fighting this law tooth and nail don't have open/welcome signs on the door, they don't have customers or members of the public coming into their businesses...  They largely only have employees Volkswagon, FedEx etc aren't open to the public.  They don't want a law (and I don't as well) which infringes on their employer/employee relationship.

 

And neither do I, if an employee carrying a firearm concerned me, even if they had a permit I'd want the freedom to fire that employee without violating state law. ....

 

I'll offer another perspective on this issue.  I worked for a company that demanded the ability to search my person and vehicle as a condition of employment.  This employer also had a "no firearms" policy.  These issues are issues of a contractural realtionship between you and your employer.   They are not "conflicting issues of property rights vs right to self defense".  No state law can negate the contractural relationship between you and your employee/employer, whatever the case may be.   It is a "contractural issue"; not a "property rights/second amendment issue". 

 

Employers will always be free (...hopefully...) to run their businesses as they see fit.  That includes the ability to hire and fire for cause.  Breaking of a condition of employment agreement is a "for cause" issue.   The way i see this "guns in the parking lot" thing is that there should be a balance between your employee's fourth amendment rights (...to be safe in you person [...from unreasonable search, that is...]..e. g. your personal property.... your car....) and the employers contractural rights.   

 

I think that you should (...and can, for that matter....) be able to, indeed, prohibit firearms inside the confines of the place of business if ya want to, and no laws will be broken.  I think that that right should begin inside the secured door of your place of business and end on the outer surface of the door or perimeter security checkpoint that you may set up inside the confines of the facility (...e.g.... inside the bounds of an "...in the building or facility..."  perimeter that you, the employer, define....).  It should not extend to the employee parking lot.  If you choose to "search for cause", i think that the firearm thing should be a moot point.  If contraband is found (...that is, stuff stolen from you, drugs, etc....) you should be free to fire that employee for cause. If you believe you have found criminal activity, call the police and have that employee remanded to "authorities" (...as the great Homer Stokes said in "Oh Brother"....). You should not be as an employer able to fire an employee for simply carrying his firearm to work and leavin it in his vehicle as an adjunct to his safety travelling to and from work. 

 

leroy

[Worriedman]

Jay:_______________

 

I've been readin this pretty close and ive lifted part of your post above:

 

 

I'll offer another perspective on this issue.  I worked for a company that demanded the ability to search my person and vehicle as a condition of employment.  This employer also had a "no firearms" policy.  These issues are issues of a contractural realtionship between you and your employer.   They are not "conflicting issues of property rights vs right to self defense".  No state law can negate the contractural relationship between you and your employee/employer, whatever the case may be.   It is a "contractural issue"; not a "property rights/second amendment issue". 

 

Employers will always be free (...hopefully...) to run their businesses as they see fit.  That includes the ability to hire and fire for cause.  Breaking of a condition of employment agreement is a "for cause" issue.   The way i see this "guns in the parking lot" thing is that there should be a balance between your employee's fourth amendment rights (...to be safe in you person [...from unreasonable search, that is...]..e. g. your personal property.... your car....) and the employers contractural rights.   

 

I think that you should (...and can, for that matter....) be able to, indeed, prohibit firearms inside the confines of the place of business if ya want to, and no laws will be broken.  I think that that right should begin inside the secured door of your place of business and end on the outer surface of the door or perimeter security checkpoint that you may set up inside the confines of the facility (...e.g.... inside the bounds of an "...in the building or facility..."  perimeter that you, the employer, define....).  It should not extend to the employee parking lot.  If you choose to "search for cause", i think that the firearm thing should be a moot point.  If contraband is found (...that is, stuff stolen from you, drugs, etc....) you should be free to fire that employee for cause. If you believe you have found criminal activity, call the police and have that employee remanded to "authorities" (...as the great Homer Stokes said in "Oh Brother"....). You should not be as an employer able to fire an employee for simply carrying his firearm to work and leavin it in his vehicle as an adjunct to his safety travelling to and from work. 

 

leroy

Concur. 

 

Nothing in the Employee Safe Commute bill allows any person to carry a firearm anywhere, it does however allow the Keeping of a legal firearm in an individual's personal property, it must be unhandled, not displayed, and out of sight.

 

This mantra that the Constitution only guarantees Rights not be infringed by Government is ludicrous.  A business property owner can not imprison an individual that crosses his property that is open for business, they can ask them to leave.  If that individual does not leave, a property owner can not, just because they are on said property, whip out the 9 and drop them, which, if unlimited ability to control the space existed would be in the purvey of the owner.

Edited January 24, 2013 by Worriedman

[JayC]

I'll make you a promise, show me a SINGLE person in TN that is unwillingly forced to go unarmed by a private business, and I'll support this law to remove that roadblock.  

 

The problem is you can't, no such person exists in this state, and since everybody behind kept from carrying on private land is doing so willingly, there is nothing to be fixed here.  Nobody is being forced to do anything against their will unlike the examples you used.

 

Nobody can imprison you against your will, nobody can just kill you without cause...  Duhh.

 

But, an employer can fire you for speaking your mind on your own time, they can fire you for failure to follow a dress code, and they can have you arrested for trespass if you refuse to leave their property.  

 

But, somebody shooting you for simple trespass isn't the same as you voluntarily entering into an agreement for employment that restricts your freedom of speech or your second amendment, you are ALWAYS free to decline said agreement and not take the job.

 

And we have case law in TN that backs this line of thought up...

 

Landlords in this state may prohibit you from having firearms in your home, even in your private car in the parking lot of your apartment building.  Yet somehow your employer can't prohibit you from keeping a firearm in your vehicle at work?

 

 

 

Concur. 

 

Nothing in the Employee Safe Commute bill allows any person to carry a firearm anywhere, it does however allow the Keeping of a legal firearm in an individual's personal property, it must be unhandled, not displayed, and out of sight.

 

This mantra that the Constitution only guarantees Rights not be infringed by Government is ludicrous.  A business property owner can not imprison an individual that crosses his property that is open for business, they can ask them to leave.  If that individual does not leave, a property owner can not, just because they are on said property, whip out the 9 and drop them, which, if unlimited ability to control the space existed would be in the purvey of the owner.

[leroy]

Jay:_____________

 

'll make you a promise, show me a SINGLE person in TN that is unwillingly forced to go unarmed by a private business, and I'll support this law to remove that roadblock.  

 

The problem is you can't, no such person exists in this state, and since everybody behind kept from carrying on private land is doing so willingly, there is nothing to be fixed here.  Nobody is being forced to do anything against their will unlike the examples you used.

 

This is a "play on words" man (...ya must be a lawyer or a philosophy professor...).  I will guarantee you that there are folks who are "grudgingly" either being forced to go unarmed (...due to the need to work...); or are, in fact, taking a risk by breaking a 'condition of employment" clandestinely in plenty of parking lots across this state (...think anywhere there is a large, remote parking lot for employees furnished by an employer...).  That's what this discussion is about.

 

You can make the arguement that you dont have to take the job and agree to the "conditions of employment"; but that smacks of the old time "company store" and "a hungry dog hunts the best" philosophy that the old timers had in the coal mines in the 1920's.  It leads to resentment and backlash.  It's basically a "winner take all" deal vs a "reasonable deal for all".  I've been done both ways in my relatively long span of 50 or so years of work and i like the "reasonable deal for all" option the best; and ive worked and managed work in some pretty tense situations.

 

RE:  Places where employees are "forced to go unarmed" in parking lots:

 

A real good example is the employee's parking lot at the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant and the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant.  I would be willing to bet that you can think of others.  They are anywhere that there is a plant, manufacturing facility, or depot (...think FEDEX and UPS here...) where there is a boundary fence and a designated employee parking area with a guard shack.  You can make the case that folks can park somewhere else and ride the bus to your place; but that's a red herring too.  At some point in the journey they are disarmed.

 

The point of all this aint to win an argument.  The point is to do the right thing for all involved.  Of course you can take up the position of "...like it or lump it..."; but that's a "...winner takes all proposition...".  If the political class takes that one up in this political climate; i predict they will be voted out.  The best they can hope to do is to "debate and study" the problem; delaying a decision as long as possible; but i predict this one aint goin away.  If i wuz a member of the political class, i would be real careful in the handling of this issue.  It's a hot button issue precisely because folks are concerned and edgy about their (...and their family's...) safety; and they well should be.  The "pandora's box" has already been opened on this one.  I predict it aint goin away.

 

I want to be real careful how i say this; but the "...position that the boss (...or corporation...) has the right to defend themselves; but that the employees dont...." smacks of the "political class" position that says that the "lesser children" are not smart enough or stable enough to handle and keep weapons in their own private property.  No american who believes in our system and the Constitution should believe such a thing; but that's the logical conclusion of the "...I can have it but you aint smart enough to have it arguement...".  It postulates that citizens (...or employees...) are a rabble to be controlled.  I dont think you intend for it to come across that way; but it does.  Anyway; it's food for thought.

 

I'll close this little epistle by way of sayin that there are plenty of cases of "settled law" (...think the landlord stuff here...) that have been reversed.  The "Jim Crow" and "Separate but Equal" thing comes to mind here. "Settled law" can (...and is...) reversed regularly.  

 

Dont believe that what "always has been" will "always be".

 

leroy

[Worriedman]

Landlords in this state may prohibit you from having firearms in your home, even in your private car in the parking lot of your apartment building.  Yet somehow your employer can't prohibit you from keeping a firearm in your vehicle at work?

 

If you think it is moral for a landlord, who reaps the benefit of lucre from a tenant that pays for the space they occupy, to deny that person their God given Right to keep arms for their defense, which NOBODY else can or will provide, there is nothing else that can be said.  That is, in my opinion, the most egregious of sins.

That deal cut between business and government is sadder than the one that deprives my daughter the ability to provide protection for my grandchildren because she is a teacher,  public school teacher at that, who works on public ground, but is deprived of her Cosntitutional  and God given Right to provide for her own protection by individuals who prefer control to allowing the single most basic and important unalienable truths, the one that says we each and every one of us deserve to protect our lives, in the best manner we can.

Edited January 25, 2013 by Worriedman

[Worriedman]

 

 

Landlords in this state may prohibit you from having firearms in your home, even in your private car in the parking lot of your apartment building.  Yet somehow your employer can't prohibit you from keeping a firearm in your vehicle at work?

Neither of these are reasonable, if one considers the hierarchy espoused in every description of Rights, that include Life, Liberty and Property.  Life always takes precedence.  There are no "bullet proof" guarantees to property in TN, not by our Constitution, its only mention in clauses describe how it can be taken by the government, or your neighbors, if they decide their need for your stuff is great enough.

 

[Worriedman]

I'll make you a promise, show me a SINGLE person in TN that is unwillingly forced to go unarmed by a private business, and I'll support this law to remove that roadblock.  

 

I work for a construction firm that trust and allows its employees to keep their legally owned weapons in their vehicles.  I am a Senior Project Manager, and as such I must travel to many different locations.  Having an early portion of that ill fated boondoggle that WAS Hemlock Semiconductor, I was forced to be unarmed for my traverse to and from Clarksville, as I was required to ferry materials and hardware for controls that were, by contract, not allowed to be offloaded to a common carrier, and not allowed to be unguarded from the time they entered my possession until I handed them over to the installer and received signatures for chain of possession documentation.

Their protocol was that no private vehicles could enter the work site, being relegated to a communal parking lot outside the fenced enclosure.  My firm allows me to keep my weapon in my vehicle, that private company denied me that ability.

 

I am sure you will now insist that I could quit my job, tossing out 20 years of employment history and the retirement built up with my company, giving my severely ill wife the good news that I By God stood on principal and pulled up my big boy pants and showed Hemlock they could not push me around, the fact that her life expectancy had been cut to about six weeks being of no consequence.

[DaveTN]

I’m certainly no foreign car fan, but I don’t see VW making any threats. They spent a billion dollars here; they aren’t going anywhere. They are against the bill and don’t want guns on the property, can someone link somewhere they have made threats to move or not add the capacity they built for?

[1pointofview]

How long of a stretch is it from controling private property by not allowing people keep a firearm in their car while in your parking lot, and then saying your neighbor can dictate how you can not own firearms because your property touches his?

If you tell me i can not leave my firearm in my property while on your property, why cant i raise a stink about homeowners? I mean we are dealing with emotion here arnt we? Some bed wetting business owner is scared of what a law abiding citizen "might do" with a legally owneds and maintained in their property but because your property touches their property all of a sudden his rights are more important.


Also, most places of business have shared property. You go an office complex and it is made up of building owned by 1 or more people who lease space to many. How can the accounting firm in one space deny you the right to carry protection in your property ?

Just as i have the right to speech, i understand i can not slander or yell fire. Same with the right to bare arms, i have the right to have the , just not use them in harmful ways. Leaving it in my property does not infringe on your rights. Your emotion is what denies me my rights. Same issue of you denying service because of race or creed, is that your right as a property owner?

[tnhawk]

I'd expect a german company to understand gun control.  It was very effective for some of their past leaders.

[Patton]

I’m certainly no foreign car fan, but I don’t see VW making any threats. They spent a billion dollars here; they aren’t going anywhere. They are against the bill and don’t want guns on the property, can someone link somewhere they have made threats to move or not add the capacity they built for?

I don't have the link but they have mentioned that they would consider not building the SUV here if...

[1pointofview]

I don't have the link but they have mentioned that they would consider not building the SUV here if...

Then can we consider payment on the tax incentives the state of tn gave them?

[JayC]

I'm not telling you to quit your job...  But, you're choosing to stay in a situation that compromises your safety (whether this is a serious or minor compromise is something only you can answer), and prioritize your employment and retirement...  

 

I think you should be free to do that, you need to do what is in your best interest, and sometimes that requires hard choices.  I'm not going to try and tell an adult what is in their best interests, only a fool would do that (ie the government).  I'm not insisting you (or anybody else) do anything, only that you recognize that you are making a choice for your own personal reasons to stay at your current employer and be unarmed, nobody is forcing you to do anything.

 

Just like you shouldn't be forcing an employer in this state to prioritize your ability to keep a firearm on their property over whatever they feel is more important.  Even if we both agree their belief, that somehow you being armed is a safety risk, is complete crap.

 

There are a couple of times a year that I'm forced to go unarmed in my job, I'm required to go into government buildings to file various forms (the Internet has made this a lot better), or to request public information.  I am truly forced to go unarmed on these occasions, because I'm required by law to file this paperwork (and in some cases can't electronically) but there is NO alternative.  I'm not sure I could find a line of business where these occasional face to face interactions with the government aren't required, so I'm forced to prioritize my livelihood over my security in those cases, but I do go out of my way to minimize the amount of time I'm unarmed.

 

And we SHOULD be passing laws that restrict the government (at all levels), because we have no alternative to the one government we're stuck with.

 

But, unlike the government, there are almost always other choices with private businesses...  don't like the food at McDonald's go to Taco Bell, don't like Walmart's policy on abortion, go to KMart...  don't like Randy Rayburn's anti-2nd stance, go eat at Jim n Nick's which isn't posted.

 

If you go into Randy's restaurant at this point and complain that it's posted, is Randy making you go unarmed or are you?  

 

As I've said, repeal 39-17-1359 altogether...  then carry concealed everywhere...  but don't pass a law that interferes with the employer/employee relationship.

 

I work for a construction firm that trust and allows its employees to keep their legally owned weapons in their vehicles.  I am a Senior Project Manager, and as such I must travel to many different locations.  Having an early portion of that ill fated boondoggle that WAS Hemlock Semiconductor, I was forced to be unarmed for my traverse to and from Clarksville, as I was required to ferry materials and hardware for controls that were, by contract, not allowed to be offloaded to a common carrier, and not allowed to be unguarded from the time they entered my possession until I handed them over to the installer and received signatures for chain of possession documentation.

Their protocol was that no private vehicles could enter the work site, being relegated to a communal parking lot outside the fenced enclosure.  My firm allows me to keep my weapon in my vehicle, that private company denied me that ability.

 

I am sure you will now insist that I could quit my job, tossing out 20 years of employment history and the retirement built up with my company, giving my severely ill wife the good news that I By God stood on principal and pulled up my big boy pants and showed Hemlock they could not push me around, the fact that her life expectancy had been cut to about six weeks being of no consequence.

 

 

[JayC]

Your freedom of speech is a limit on government NOT private entities.  You can be fired over protected speech, you can be denied service over protected speech, and you can be discriminated against over protected speech by private entities.

 

And yes certain parts of the Civil Rights Act is clearly unconstitutional, and while I don't in anyway shape or form condone race based discrimination, I think the market could and should resolve those issues, not a law which causes many more problems than it solves. 

 

Just as i have the right to speech, i understand i can not slander or yell fire. Same with the right to bare arms, i have the right to have the , just not use them in harmful ways. Leaving it in my property does not infringe on your rights. Your emotion is what denies me my rights. Same issue of you denying service because of race or creed, is that your right as a property owner?

 

 

[Worriedman]

Your freedom of speech is a limit on government NOT private entities. 

All depends on what the State has to say, Pruneyard was used to support the fact that private property owners can not deny a Constitutional Right to free speech on their property in California because the State CAN offer more freedoms than the Federal Government, and that was used to help decide that business private property owners could not disarm Citizens in Oklahoma.  You might want to read the case law on Ramsey Winch DP...http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-10th-circuit/1277065.html

[JayC]

Worried,

 

I'm not going to argue that a couple of guys in black robes will say this law if passed is perfectly legal.  Doesn't make it constitutional and not a violation of our God given rights.

 

Remember for years in this country, men in black robes said that 'separate but equal' and slavery was constitutional, the court has a horrible track record when it comes to upholding God given rights.

 

The fact is, this law might pass and it's unlikely to be overturned in the courts...  doesn't make it anymore right than when bad gun laws are upheld.

 

All depends on what the State has to say, Pruneyard was used to support the fact that private property owners can not deny a Constitutional Right to free speech on their property in California because the State CAN offer more freedoms than the Federal Government, and that was used to help decide that business private property owners could not disarm Citizens in Oklahoma.  You might want to read the case law on Ramsey Winch DP...http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-10th-circuit/1277065.html

 

 

[cardia10]

Then can we consider payment on the tax incentives the state of tn gave them?

 The state didn't give them tax incentives, these are built into the law and earned based on jobs and investment. The state did pay for a lot of other things though. They are now the gorilla in the room, and like it or not, they provide almost 4,000 direct and 5,000 indirect jobs now. They get attention.