HB118/SB142: Current "parking lot" legislation

[Worriedman]

Oklahoma and Florida are "at will" employment States as well, and the "Parking Lot' bill survived judicial review all the way to the Federal Appellate court level in both. In fact these are the only two States that have challenged the implementation of such legislation, and in both cases, (Florida's major claimant was Disney, that is no light-weight foe) the Right of the Citizen to keep their weapons in their personal vehicle was found to be of more import than the ability of an employer to forbid it.

 

Though I knew it already, I had forgotten that there are instances whereby "At Will" employment rules (outside those protected "classes" of race, sex, religious,  family medical etc.) preclude the ability to fire, e.g. asking an employee to commit an illegal act and their refusal, is NOT a permissible reason to terminate, there are others, but my head hurts at the moment...

[Sky King]

So I ask again: How do you craft a law-in a right to work state-that prevents an employer from firing you because you have a gun in your car?

 

You can't have it both ways-dicate why an employer can't fire you and be a right to work state. Everybody with a  gun in their car would become effectively off limits in regards to firing. 

You simply say, as almost 19 other states have, several of which too are "right to work" states that for what ever reason you terminate a person, it CAN NOT be for keeping a legally possessed firearm, locked, out of sight in your privately owned vehicle.  You should not be fired for ANYTHING that you are legal to possess that remains in your private vehicle.

 

You argue that this carves out a special group of people, but if you look all through Tennessee statutes you will find exceptions made for "special" groups for a variety of reasons. 

 

Also, may I clarify one point here also.  Yes, Tennessee is a right to work state BUT that is not what gives them the ability to terminate you for no reason.  A right to work situation is a protection for the EMPLOYEE.  It makes it illegal for a collective bargaining group, if they represent employees at a given place of business, to mandate your join the "union" in order to work.  Such states which do not have this protection are called "closed shop states".  Kentucky is such a state.  In Kentucky, if a collective bargaining agent has a presence at a place of business or other employment they can have a provision in their contract with the business, requiring all new hires to join the group and pay dues usually after a specified probation period or loose their job.

 

The provision that allows an employment relationship to be terminated by EITHER party for no reason is "employment at will".  Tennessee is an employment at will state.

[Oh Shoot]

....(Florida's major claimant was Disney, that is no light-weight foe) the Right of the Citizen to keep their weapons in their personal vehicle was found to be of more import than the ability of an employer to forbid it.

Yet Disney got an exception to the bill, the "explosives" clause. I thought that was in it at time of original enactment, and Disney was the reason it was in there?

 

- OS
 

[Worriedman]

Yet Disney got an exception to the bill, the "explosives" clause. I thought that was in it at time of original enactment, and Disney was the reason it was in there?

 

- OS
 

Seems enough dollars can purchase an exception to nearly everything.  The exemption was their back-up position, as killing it outright was their first option.

[RobertNashville]

So I ask again: How do you craft a law-in a right to work state-that prevents an employer from firing you because you have a gun in your car?

 

You can't have it both ways-dicate why an employer can't fire you and be a right to work state. Everybody with a  gun in their car would become effectively off limits in regards to firing. 

No, they would not be "off limits".

 

Nothing in this law or the proposals would prevent an employer from firing an employee if they had a legitimate cause to do so nor would it prevent an employer from discharging an employee just because they want to discharge him and that is as it should be.  But you CAN significantly limit the ability of an employer to discharge an employee simply because they legally own/carry a firearm.

 

If the state makes it illegal for an employer to ask if an employee (or prospective employee) owns a firearm or has an HCP, and...

 

If the state makes it illegal for an employer to ask or try to compel (under threat of dismissal) to search a person's vehicle, and...

 

If the state seals the HCP records (as they should be regardless of "parking lot" legislation), then...

 

It's going to be tougher for an employer to know if that employee has/carries a firearm...they can assume anything they want and they can still discharge an employee "just because" but there is a significant difference to an employee between discharged for cause (such as violation of a company policy) and simply discharging them just "because" the employee want's to.

[RobertNashville]

Employers can and do fire people all day long for legally protected actions that are Constitutionally protected...

Yes they do but if a particular action is deemed to be not in the best interest of the public/society then the State of Tennessee has the power, even the responsibility to say to that employer "YOU CAN"T DO THAT" in our state anymore. The power of the State has already been supported in court on many different occasions and on many different issues including this particular issue.

[JayC]

No they don't, that is a progressive fallacy.  And just because you can get 9 old men in black robes to say it's constitutional doesn't mean it is, or that it's moral.  These same 'judges' in the past have said that it was all right to place American citizens in a concentration camp.  Today we realize was both morally and constitutionally wrong.

 

Employers aren't forcing anybody to work for them, you're free to except their terms of employment or look else where for employment.  Because of this, there is no harm on society, just a simple contract between two free adults.

 

All of this is for not, the 'parking lots' bill has failed...  The TFA and the NRA spent all of this capitol on trying to get it passed, and all they managed to do was basically remove 39-17-1359 from public parking lots.  It's a complete failure, we attempted to make permit holders into a special protected class and it back fired big time...  When we should have been focusing on passing laws that limit the scope of government, not try and limit the freedom of property owners.

 

It's time to let this line of legislation die, and focus on legislation that restricts the government, not other law abiding citizens.

 

Yes they do but if a particular action is deemed to be not in the best interest of the public/society then the State of Tennessee has the power, even the responsibility to say to that employer "YOU CAN"T DO THAT" in our state anymore. The power of the State has already been supported in court on many different occasions and on many different issues including this particular issue.

 

[RobertNashville]

No they don't, that is a progressive fallacy.  And just because you can get 9 old men in black robes to say it's constitutional doesn't mean it is, or that it's moral.  These same 'judges' in the past have said that it was all right to place American citizens in a concentration camp.  Today we realize was both morally and constitutionally wrong.
 
Employers aren't forcing anybody to work for them, you're free to except their terms of employment or look else where for employment.  Because of this, there is no harm on society, just a simple contract between two free adults.
 
All of this is for not, the 'parking lots' bill has failed...  The TFA and the NRA spent all of this capitol on trying to get it passed, and all they managed to do was basically remove 39-17-1359 from public parking lots.  It's a complete failure, we attempted to make permit holders into a special protected class and it back fired big time...  When we should have been focusing on passing laws that limit the scope of government, not try and limit the freedom of property owners.
 
It's time to let this line of legislation die, and focus on legislation that restricts the government, not other law abiding citizens.

You stated that "employers can and do fire people all day long for legally protected actions that are Constitutionally protected" with which I agree when I stated that "yes they do but if a particular action is deemed to be not in the best interest of the public/society then the State of Tennessee has the power, even the responsibility to say to that employer "YOU CAN"T DO THAT" in our state anymore.
 
I see no "fallacy" in my statement.  The State/state has the Constitutional power to apply regulations to how businesses operate in this State and/or over their actions in regards to hiring/firing employees. If you maintain that the State/state does not have that power then perhaps you should elaborate on exactly what in the Constitution would support your position. As I read the Constitution the only language in it that actually restricts the government's power over property is the taking's clause of the Fifth Amendment and then only to the extent that the property owner must be compensated, not that the government can't infringe or even completely take property.

 

I understand and agree that government should be as small and as unobtrusive as possible. On the other hand, I am also aware of what can happen when government isn't as involved as it should be such as the industrial age where both adults and children were forced to work in situations that were not very far above slave labor camps; where they were almost literally worked to death in highly hazardous conditions for tiny wages.  I would hope that such situations are not the sort of laissez-faire/anything goes relationship between the government and business that you want.

 

As a matter of general principal I agree that the government should involve itself in business or private issues as little as possible but that does not mean it cannot or should not involve itself when the need arises...our country has a long history of treating/regulating property used for business very differently and more extensively than property used for private purposes; a history of involvement I suggest is both proper and necessary for society.
 
You can disparage the courts if you wish but disparaging comments is the usual tactic of the left and not an effective argument - if you actually believe the courts that have upheld these "parking lot" laws are in error in their application of the Constitution then, rather than just dismissing "...old men in black robes", perhaps you could give your analysis and show us the errors in their decisions...a good start would be explaining exactly how these laws in any way rises to the level of infringement on the so-called "property rights" of businesses that the infringement triggers the application of the Fifth Amendment...I'd bet that there are a lot of businesses out there who would like to hear that explanation since those businesses haven't been able to come up decent explanation on their own of how these laws actually infringe on their property rights.
 
No one has said this legislation is anywhere near perfect but a "waste of capital"...not hardly...besides, as with ALL legislation, the best way to get it improved is to stay in contact with the legislators as I've been doing (with some positive results). Even if we only get legislation that removes the ability of a business to "post" a parking lot against firearms it will be a big step in the right direction and I'm happy to support it.
 
As to the "special class"; "we" didn't try anything.
 
Maybe you feel that if we can't get it "all the first time" you shouldn't try at all but the sponsors of the bill singled out HCP holders for what should be an obvious reason, that being that HCP holders have had extensive background checks, training and a solid record of responsibility since the HCP process was initiated...those simple facts automatically remove a lot of potential opposition to a firearms related bill. Further, just because you START with HCP holders does not mean you STOP there...I fully expect such legislation to some day be expanded to cover anyone who can legally own a firearm just as I fully expect that at some future time, Tennessee will allow Constitutional carry.

 

Your suggestion that this legislation has failed is, at a minimum, premature. Further, this is NOT time to let this legislation die; it IS time to push harder for this legislation and for legislation that removes as many restrictions on our 2A rights as possible. If we all gave up and let legislation die just because we don't get what we want the first time we would all still be begging for legislation that allows us a process for legal carry (i.e. the HCP system) instead of at least having a uniform, "shall issue" process for carry since 1996.

Edited February 17, 2013 by RobertNashville

[JayC]

You seem to forget about Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 - the Contracts Clause

 

Also that pesky freedom of association.

 

The industrial age corrected itself here and around the world despite government involvement not because of it.  But, yes I don't have a problem with child labor or 'sweatshops' per say, because where they exists it's still a better situation than the alternative.  I'd much rather see a 12 year old working away in a factory 6 days a week, than starving to death, or turning to 'worse' methods such as prostitution to feed themselves and their family. 

 

We don't have a long history in this state of regulating property, all of that has come about over the course of the last 50 to 60 years, all of it from the progressive wings of the political process.  We largely didn't have zoning laws in TN until the 1950's or 1960's, and in many of the rural counties not until 10-15 years ago.  

 

So where has this super hero government saved society from business exactly?  It's a fallacy.

 

Don't get me wrong, there is reasonable regulation of businesses that needs to take place.  Businesses which the government turns into de facto monopolies and duopolies should be heavily regulated - electric, gas, sewer, water, telephone, etc.  These businesses are given special access to the market place and therefore aren't really free market industries.  The vast majority of government regulation of business in this state is the government trying to protect establishment businesses from completion.  That by far is where the vast majority of of the laws and regulations passed by our legislature come from.  Why exactly do we need licensing for somebody to cut my hair?  How does that benefit society at large?  It doesn't.

 

I know what my God given rights are, I'm a reasonably intelligent, educated adult.  I don't need 9 old people in black robes interpreting a 17 page document for me.  Most often times interpreting away my rights by giving more power to "society" aka government.  My rights don't come from the government or society, they come from my creator, and unless I'm tried and convicted by a jury of my peers society has no right to violate those rights because it's in societies best interest.

 

As for the fallacy of this law, it is a bad law, period.  It's never going to be a good law, no matter how much make-up you slap on this pig.  I'm all for pressing our legislators to remove more and more of the crappy firearm laws we currently have on the books, and there are a lot of them we should have been pushing for that won't get passed this year or next because we're wasting so much energy trying to take rights away from business owners and give them to permit holders.

 

Lets make a list of laws that don't take away any rights that would have done more good than what is currently being passed as a parking lot carry bill.

 

1. Changing 39-17-1308 from a defense to exception under the law - This little single word change would create legal possession of firearms for every law abiding citizen in this state, it would remove the assumption of unlawful activity.

 

2. Remove pre-1986 exceptions to the state preemption law - This would give us 1 set of laws in this state concerning firearms, no more wondering if Knox County passed some law 100 years ago that nobody has heard of that somehow makes walking down the street illegal.  Currently there are 100 cities and towns that APPEAR to have an unenforced law on the books prohibiting HCP permit holders from carrying firearms in some way shape or form.

 

3. Removing local opt-out for parks carry - Need I say more

 

4. Close down TICS - Both unconstitutional and would save gun buyers lots of money in the process.

 

5. Removal of government entities from 39-17-1359 - there by opening up all government buildings to legal carry.

 

6. Completely repealing 39-17-1359 - Even better would give us even more than the current parking lot bill without revoking any businesses property rights.

 

7 Adding personal vehicles to 39-17-1308 - Giving all law abiding citizens the right to carry load firearms in the cars.

 

Many if not all of these could have been passed with the same or less political capitol spent on the current parking lot bill.  With the exception to modifying 39-17-1359 most of these wouldn't get serious push back from the business community.  All would have had a greater impact on gun owners in this state.

 

I'm all for pushing hard for more legislation to remove the idiotic firearm laws we have in this state, but only if those laws don't violate some other persons freedoms in the process.  It's when we turn our backs on freedom that we loose our way and get the results we see in this current legislation.  When we focus on restricting government, or freeing people without removing the rights of others that we win our biggest battles.

 

I'm all for forcing the legislature to make changes, real changes, removing the criminal penalty from 39-17-1359 would have been about the same lift as the current 'parking lot' bill, and would have been a much bigger win.

 

You stated that "employers can and do fire people all day long for legally protected actions that are Constitutionally protected" with which I agree when I stated that "yes they do but if a particular action is deemed to be not in the best interest of the public/society then the State of Tennessee has the power, even the responsibility to say to that employer "YOU CAN"T DO THAT" in our state anymore.
 
I see no "fallacy" in my statement.  The State/state has the Constitutional power to apply regulations to how businesses operate in this State and/or over their actions in regards to hiring/firing employees. If you maintain that the State/state does not have that power then perhaps you should elaborate on exactly what in the Constitution would support your position. As I read the Constitution the only language in it that actually restricts the government's power over property is the taking's clause of the Fifth Amendment and then only to the extent that the property owner must be compensated, not that the government can't infringe or even completely take property.

 

I understand and agree that government should be as small and as unobtrusive as possible. On the other hand, I am also aware of what can happen when government isn't as involved as it should be such as the industrial age where both adults and children were forced to work in situations that were not very far above slave labor camps; where they were almost literally worked to death in highly hazardous conditions for tiny wages.  I would hope that such situations are not the sort of laissez-faire/anything goes relationship between the government and business that you want.

 

As a matter of general principal I agree that the government should involve itself in business or private issues as little as possible but that does not mean it cannot or should not involve itself when the need arises...our country has a long history of treating/regulating property used for business very differently and more extensively than property used for private purposes; a history of involvement I suggest is both proper and necessary for society.
 
You can disparage the courts if you wish but disparaging comments is the usual tactic of the left and not an effective argument - if you actually believe the courts that have upheld these "parking lot" laws are in error in their application of the Constitution then, rather than just dismissing "...old men in black robes", perhaps you could give your analysis and show us the errors in their decisions...a good start would be explaining exactly how these laws in any way rises to the level of infringement on the so-called "property rights" of businesses that the infringement triggers the application of the Fifth Amendment...I'd bet that there are a lot of businesses out there who would like to hear that explanation since those businesses haven't been able to come up decent explanation on their own of how these laws actually infringe on their property rights.
 
No one has said this legislation is anywhere near perfect but a "waste of capital"...not hardly...besides, as with ALL legislation, the best way to get it improved is to stay in contact with the legislators as I've been doing (with some positive results). Even if we only get legislation that removes the ability of a business to "post" a parking lot against firearms it will be a big step in the right direction and I'm happy to support it.
 
As to the "special class"; "we" didn't try anything.
 
Maybe you feel that if we can't get it "all the first time" you shouldn't try at all but the sponsors of the bill singled out HCP holders for what should be an obvious reason, that being that HCP holders have had extensive background checks, training and a solid record of responsibility since the HCP process was initiated...those simple facts automatically remove a lot of potential opposition to a firearms related bill. Further, just because you START with HCP holders does not mean you STOP there...I fully expect such legislation to some day be expanded to cover anyone who can legally own a firearm just as I fully expect that at some future time, Tennessee will allow Constitutional carry.

 

Your suggestion that this legislation has failed is, at a minimum, premature. Further, this is NOT time to let this legislation die; it IS time to push harder for this legislation and for legislation that removes as many restrictions on our 2A rights as possible. If we all gave up and let legislation die just because we don't get what we want the first time we would all still be begging for legislation that allows us a process for legal carry (i.e. the HCP system) instead of at least having a uniform, "shall issue" process for carry since 1996.

Edited February 17, 2013 by JayC

[RobertNashville]

You seem to forget about Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 - the Contracts Clause

Also that pesky freedom of association.

I didn't forget anything; they simply have nothing to do with the issue...they don’t in any way restrict the State/state from enacting regulations of business property or with employer/employee relations.

 

We aren’t dealing with contracts or freedom of association her nor have attorneys for businesses who have fought this issue in court gone that direction (probably because they already figured out that it’s a worthless argument).

The argument they have raised was with regards to the property rights of the business; an argument rejected because the attorneys for the businesses have been unable to substantiate any example of how these parking lot laws violate the property rights of these businesses in any tangible or meaningful way. I suspect that’s why you too have not offered any examples about how they are in error. ;)

 

 

The industrial age corrected itself here and around the world despite government involvement not because of it. But, yes I don't have a problem with child labor or 'sweatshops' per say, because where they exists it's still a better situation than the alternative. I'd much rather see a 12 year old working away in a factory 6 days a week, than starving to death, or turning to 'worse' methods such as prostitution to feed themselves and their family.

If you believe the industrial age “corrected itself” please feel free to cite your sources for that information; I'm sure they would be interesting reading! The world has a LONG, LONG history of what happens when businesses have zero regulation on them and are allowed to so anything they want in pursuit of profit.  The "profit motive" behind the free-enterprise system is not unlike the properties of fire; fire is a wonderful thing under the proper circumstances but a horrible thing when out of control.

You also have a very interesting view of things given your line of reasoning that a 12 (or a 6 or an 8 why not) year old working away in a factory 6 (or 7 why not) days a week is preferable to “starving to death or turning to ‘worse’...there are probably many things "better" than "starving to death"; but I'm not so sure that "better" is a reason to embrace those alternatives.

 

 

 

We don't have a long history in this state of regulating property, all of that has come about over the course of the last 50 to 60 years, all of it from the progressive wings of the political process. We largely didn't have zoning laws in TN until the 1950's or 1960's, and in many of the rural counties not until 10-15 years ago.

Where exactly did you come up with your numbers as I’d love to see some citations for them! I remember business history courses referencing regulations at least as far back as the early 1800s in this country.

 

Moving on, I’m REALLY glad we have zoning laws here…maybe you don’t care but I suspect most people like knowing that when they plunk down a quarter million $ for a home the guy living next door can’t suddenly wake up one morning and decide to turn his property into a junk yard or a convenience store.

 

 

 

I know what my God given rights are, I'm a reasonably intelligent, educated adult. I don't need 9 old people in black robes interpreting a 17 page document for me. Most often times interpreting away my rights by giving more power to "society" aka government. My rights don't come from the government or society, they come from my creator, and unless I'm tried and convicted by a jury of my peers society has no right to violate those rights because it's in societies best interest.

Really? Society has no right to violate those rights? Do you think “society” exists in some sort of vacuum?  “Society” is US and even the most “libertarian” of our founders recognized that we need some government for the benefit of “society”.

As for your continued swipes at the “old men in black robes” I'm not defending every court decision ever made but I AM still waiting for you to explain how these courts and these judges are in error in their application of the Constitution in their decisions upholding these parking lot laws???

Edited February 17, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Sky King]

  Why exactly do we need licensing for somebody to cut my hair?

 

Well, a good many licensing requirements are to make sure an individual knows what they are doing.  I am a FAA licensed aircraft mechanic.  To get that license, I had to pass an FAA approved training curriculum, (which by-the-way was WAY longer than most people would think, several years)  Present proof of the successful completion of that training.  Pass 5 written exams and two practical exams demonstrating my ability and skill to an FAA examiner.  This assures the flying public that the person who works on the aircraft they are flying on at least knew a bit about what they were doing.  The same with barbers.  Personally I would like to think the barber knows how to cut my hair without cutting my ear off.  A licesening requirement can achieve a lot of this in most cases.

 

 

3. Removing local opt-out for parks carry - Need I say more

 

4. Close down TICS - Both unconstitutional and would save gun buyers lots of money in the process.

 

5. Removal of government entities from 39-17-1359 - there by opening up all government buildings to legal carry.

 

6. Completely repealing 39-17-1359 - Even better would give us even more than the current parking lot bill without revoking any businesses property rights.

 

7 Adding personal vehicles to 39-17-1308 - Giving all law abiding citizens the right to carry load firearms in the cars.

 

I don't really disagree a lot with most of what you said in regards to the above.  After all, if given close examination by those old men in black robes, most could not pass the muster of the Tennessee Constitution which says:

 

“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.”

 

 

This little "fly in the ointment" about "a view to prevent crime" could make most of our firearms laws unconstitutional.  A State Supreme Court Ruling, Andrews vs State of Tennessee actually stated that these laws, unless they can provide substanciation of how they "prevent crime" are unconstitutional.  A little fact that many of  the members of The General Assembly either are ignorant of or just choose to over look. 

 

So for now, untill we can get them to realize this and repeal all these laws, all we can hope for right now is to chip away at the unconstitutional restrictions one at a time as we are trying to do with this parking lot bill.

Edited February 17, 2013 by Sky King

[JayC]

Employer/Employee is an implied contract, you work for me for X an hour (week, year) under the following conditions.

 

Freedom of association is a fundamental right, and one that should guide court cases...  I have a right to associate and disassociate as I as a free person see fit.  I pick my friends, my wife, and people I do business with in my daily life, any interference from the government is a violation of that right.  Some will choose to promote associations that others find question or even immoral, and you're free to disassociate yourself from those persons.

 

As for child labor, the more and more skilled labor required the fewer and fewer children are put to work.  As wages increased education of children is seen as a greater investment than having them work inside or outside the home to help support the family.  You can also see today in countries that are poor, and suddenly start to crack down on child labor you see a steep uptick in less savory methods of making money.  Vietnam is a perfect example of this where because of anti-child labor laws passed over the last 10 years poor families are selling their daughters into the sex slave trade because they're not longer able to afford them.

 

As people make more money from more skilled labor, the instances of child labor go away...  So the government didn't do away with child labor, the economy did...  

 

Ok, I'll cite my examples of how we largely didn't have zoning laws unto fairly recently...  1916 is the first example of zoning laws, which happened in NYC because of the Equitable Building, and the Dept of Commerce released the first setup of nation wide zoning regulations involving sky scrappers in 1924.  We still have counties in TN that have little or no zoning, and Davidson County didn't have a zoning board until after world war 2 (although my understanding is that the city of Nashville did).

 

Ever been to Houston?  I'm pretty sure there are some expensive homes down there.  No zoning in Houston at all.  So it can and does work...  If you're a developer you can still place covenants on the deed so you can build a community of similar homes, but you can't control what others do with property you don't own.

 

I think that 'society' aka big government likes to get up in everybody's business, even if they morally or constitutionally have no right to... and they often do so in the name of society.  Which is a progressive line of thinking...  Our founding fathers viewed any form of government at it's best as a necessary evil, they set out a number of restrictions to place limits on that government, because they feared exactly what we have today.  Government is there to prevent others from harming you (and punish those that do), either by 'stealing your wallet or breaking your leg'.  Anytime government exceeds this simple rule it is no longer a necessary evil, it's just plain evil.

 

As for men in black robes, I didn't sign up for them lording over me anymore than any other man...  I'm able to read and understand the constitution and the founding documents of this country, and when a 10 year old can understand what the 2nd amendment means and a bunch of judges can't, then it's just more tyranny.  These judges get it wrong all the time, often very wrong...

 

So let me ask you this...  every judge that allowed somebody to be charged under the DC handgun ban...  they were right all those times?  If tomorrow SCOTUS ruled they got Heller wrong, then suddenly we loose the God given right to self defense and access to the tools to provide for that defense?  Every case a judge allowed to go forward under the DC handgun ban (Chicago and other cities too) were all wrong, Heller didn't change the fact those rulings were all wrong, only recognized a God given right, and if they changed their mind tomorrow, it doesn't matter that God given right still exists, no government can take a right away, only infringe upon it.

 

'Libertarian' really should be the progressive wing of logic, a bigger question is how am I bound by choices and decisions people made long ago by people I never even met?  How is it that others can bind me to slavery of taxes and laws that I had no say in?  How is it a generation of people who have been dead for nearly 100 years can restrict my God given freedoms today and I have no say in the matter?  Are any of these questions really all that radical, or have most of us been good little statists being spoon fed at the trough of big government's 'for the good of society' lie?

 

Liberty means the freedom to do what I want to do without restrict up to the point that I cause you direct harm.  You choosing to work for somebody who requires that you be unarmed 24/7 is your choice and it causes you no direct harm, and therefore is none of the government (or societies) business.

 

I didn't forget anything - they have nothing to do with the issue...they don’t in any way restrict the State/state from enacting regulations of business property on with employer/employee relations.

 

We aren’t dealing with contracts or freedom of association her nor have attorneys for businesses who have fought this issue in court gone that direction (probably because they already figured out that it’s a worthless argument). The argument they have raised was with regards to the property rights of the business; an argument rejected because the attorneys for the businesses have been unable to substantiate how these parking lot laws violate the property rights of these businesses. I suspect that’s why you too have not offered any examples about how they are in error.

 

 

If you believe the industrial age “corrected itself” please feel free to cite your sources for that information; I'm sure they would be interesting reading.

You certainly have a very interesting view of things given your line of reasoning that a 12 (or a 6 or an 8 why not) year old working away in a factory 6 (or 7 why not) days a week is preferable to “starving to death or turning to ‘worse’...there are probably many things "better" than "starving to death"; but I'm not so sure that "better" is a reason to embrace those alternatives.

 

 

 

Where exactly did you come up with your numbers; I’d love to see some citations for them! We’ve had such regulations as a country at least as far back as the early 1800s and if you don't believe me feel free to actually look up the facts.

 

Moving on, I’m REALLY glad we have zoning laws here…maybe you don’t care but I suspect most people like knowing that when they plunk down a quarter million $ for a home the guy living next door can’t suddenly wake up one morning and decide to turn his property into a junk yard or a convenience store.

 

 

 

Really? Society has no right to violate those rights? Do you think “society” exists in some sort of vacuum?

 

“Society” is US and even the most “libertarian” of our founders recognized that we need some government for the benefit of “society”.

As for your continued swipes at the “old men in black robes”; I’m still waiting for you to explain exactly how the courts that have upheld these "parking lot" laws are in error in their application of the Constitution???

Edited February 17, 2013 by JayC

[JayC]

So, you're saying I'm unable to figure out if a person is experienced enough to cut my hair without a license from the government?  That I can't ask my friends and family for a good place to get my hair cut?  That word wouldn't get out if a business hired barbers that cut off ears?  Just how much training does a barber need to have to be certain they can safely not cut my ear off?

 

I can tell you in TN, 1500 HOURS!  Do you really think somebody needs 1500 hours of training to cut my hair?  Should I not be able to choose a self taught barber with less formal training but an apprenticeship from a highly qualified barber?   Well the state of TN says you can't, they must go to an approved barber training school and don't even get me started on all the stupid requirements to run such a school.

 

Now, why is it we need all these regulations, who is really helped by all of these regulations?  Because to me it sure doesn't look like the citizens of TN.

 

As far as FAA requirements, we can discuss at length how that system makes us safer some other day, my vote it does very little to nothing.

 

And we're in complete agreement that our legislators and judges continue to ignore the obvious.

 

  Why exactly do we need licensing for somebody to cut my hair?

 

Well, a good many licensing requirements are to make sure an individual knows what they are doing.  I am a FAA licensed aircraft mechanic.  To get that license, I had to pass an FAA approved training curriculum, (which by-the-way was WAY longer than most people would think, several years)  Present proof of the successful completion of that training.  Pass 5 written exams and two practical exams demonstrating my ability and skill to an FAA examiner.  This assures the flying public that the person who works on the aircraft they are flying on at least knew a bit about what they were doing.  The same with barbers.  Personally I would like to think the barber knows how to cut my hair without cutting my ear off.  A licesening requirement can achieve a lot of this in most cases.

 

[RobertNashville]

Employer/Employee is an implied contract, you work for me for X an hour (week, year) under the following conditions.

Freedom of association is a fundamental right, and one that should guide court cases...

 

While you can keep beating that drum, I don't see how that has anything to do with these “parking lot” bills and, as I mentioned before, the attorneys for the businesses who have challenged these laws have never raised those as part of their arguments to support their opposition to these laws. That indicates to me that they don't think they apply either!

 

 

 

As for child labor, the more and more skilled labor required the fewer and fewer children are put to work. As wages increased education of children is seen as a greater investment than having them work inside or outside the home to help support the family...So the government didn't do away with child labor, the economy did.

 

That’s a nice theory with common sense and very believable. However, that is not what erased child labor in this country. Moreover, while there are some businesses out there who would do the right thing without any regulations; businesses have shown a considerable lack of caring for employee welfare unless they were "encouraged" to do so...THAT is the primary reason we have the regulations we have; not because businesses were doing the right thing on their own but because they weren't.

 

 

 

Ok, I'll cite my examples of how we largely didn't have zoning laws unto fairly recently... 1916 is the first example of zoning laws, which happened in NYC because of the Equitable Building, and the Dept of Commerce released the first setup of nation wide zoning regulations involving sky scrappers in 1924. We still have counties in TN that have little or no zoning, and Davidson County didn't have a zoning board until after world war 2 (although my understanding is that the city of Nashville did).

 

Why are you zeroing in on "zoning" laws?  As I said before “our country has a long history of treating/regulating property used for business very differently and more extensively than property used for private purposes.” Please note that I didn’t say anything about or limit my comment to "zoning"...I’m talking about government regulating business and property used for business and that history goes back to the early years of our existence as a country.

 

I understand that you don't agree but I believe and history shows that government has the legitimate, Constitutional power to regulate businesses and what businesses can and cannot do including how businesses use their business property...you can believe otherwise if you wish but I believe you would be incorrect.

 

 

 

Ever been to Houston? I'm pretty sure there are some expensive homes down there. No zoning in Houston at all. So it can and does work... If you're a developer you can still place covenants on the deed so you can build a community of similar homes, but you can't control what others do with property you don't own.

 

Yes, I have been to Houston. As to their lack of zoning laws the suburbs tend to have strict housing laws and community associations that exert many more restrictions on property than most zoning laws ever do. Further, to quote a Houston resident...

 

“It's disingenuous to say that Houston has no zoning without mentioning that it does have strict, minimum parking regulations, strict minimum lot size regulations, and wide streets and long blocks. Though it might not have traditional single-use Euclidean zoning regulations, it does have a lot of strictures that limit density and discourage walkability and feasibility of mass transit.”

 

And a former resident had this to say...

 

”I used to live in Houston. Interestingly enough, since pretty much any residential area in Houston is covered by CC&Rs due to no zoning, I actually have more property rights where I live now with zoning than I did in Houston. Libertarians would have you believe that things like zoning result in fewer freedoms, but in reality that isn't the case.”

 

All in all I think the "Houston" example is a non-starter. More to the point, an absence of zoning laws in a particular area or city doesn't support the idea that government cannot regulate or even complete take property. In my opinion and my understanding of the Constitution, the government clearly can do both.

 

 

 

I think that 'society' aka big government likes to get up in everybody's business, even if they morally or constitutionally have no right to...

 

As for black men in robes, I didn't sign up for them lording over me anymore than any other man...I'm able to read and understand the constitution and the founding documents of this country…

 

While I agree that regulation should be no more than is necessary, the government has both the moral and the Constitutional right to regulate business and property. I understand that you don’t agree but I think I have both a couple hundred years of history and court decisions on my side so I’m not going to change my mind on that anytime soon.

 

As to the men in black robes,  I am not going to be drawn into an argument about alleged errors the court and/or SCOTUS has made in unrelated issues. First because we all know they have made some whoppers and secondly, because those bad decisions have nothing to do with THIS issue on on this issue I believe the courts got it right.

Edited February 18, 2013 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

So, you're saying I'm unable to figure out if a person is experienced enough to cut my hair without a license from the government?...

Interesting how you focus on the "haircut" issue and mostly ignore FAA requirements...people may say they'll "just die" if they get a bad haircut but I don't know of anyone who actually has. :)

 

On the other hand, people have actually died when aircraft that has not been properly maintained or was maintained by someone who didn't know what he was doing resulted in a critical malfunction while airborne.  If you really think people who are working on aircraft systems don't need to have minimum standards of competency then all I can say is "good luck with that idea".  :shake:

[Sky King]

Interesting how you focus on the "haircut" issue and mostly ignore FAA requirements...people may say they'll "just die" if they get a bad haircut but I don't know of anyone who actually has. :)

 

On the other hand, people have actually died when aircraft that has not been properly maintained or was maintained by someone who didn't know what he was doing resulted in a critical malfunction while airborne.  If you really think people who are working on aircraft systems don't need to have minimum standards of competency then all I can say is "good luck with that idea".  :shake:

Ask the families of the 273 people who died May 25, 1979 when an American Airlines DC-10 crashed after take-off from Chicago when the number one, (left hand) engine came off the wing due to a failure of the mount bolts that were weakened when the engine was changed using a procedure not approved by McDonald Douglass some time before the crash.  Eventually the stresses on the engine pylon mounts which are normal and easily handled, caused the weakend mounts to break.

 

As for the haircut thing, getting my ear cut off was an exageration, but making sure barbers maintain sanitary conditions is something I certainly would like to see them do.  And 1500 hours is nothing.  A little over 6 months.  The MINIMUM you will spend for an Airframe and Powerplant is 18 months.  6 hours a day, 5 days a week, 48 weeks out of the year.  And you don't just walk into an FAA office, throw down some cash and walk out with an A&P license.  

 

While we digress, licensing, while in many cases may just be a revenue stream for some jurisdictions, and in some cases has no real teeth to ensure compliance with laws and regulations, it does in many cases.  But let me ask you, if the brakes failed on your car because some unlicensed, (no licensing requirements for auto mechanics) inexperienced "mechanic" did the job wrong, and you blew through a stop because of it, you MIGHT be able to sue him and or his employer if you can prove it.  BUT, I personally know aircraft mechanics who had their licenses suspended for 6 month, (meaning during that time they could NOT work on aircraft), were INDIVIDUALLY fined $15,000.00 EACH for installing the wrong part on a B727 which by-the-way, never caused any mechanical problem, no crash, nobody killed or hurt.  The error was discovered in a routine paperwork audit.

 

As for the mechanic in the Chicago crash that the improper procedure was eventually traced to, when he found out that it was his mistake that caused all those people to die, he killed himself. 

 

It all is for accountability.    

[RobertNashville]

Darn, Sky King...knowing what he had to go through and the risks he takes I'm going to have to start showing my little brother a bit more respect!  :)

He was a jet engine mechanic on the C130s in the Marine Corps then when he got out, he went to school to get certified on the entire air frame (if I'm saying that correctly). He now works for TWA.

[macville]

Maybe we should rename the bill safe student commute bill. Yes, I know it's not what people really wanted BUT for students 21 and older with carry permits, it's a huge step forward as it now would allow them to have a loaded firearm in their car.

[QuietDan]

Ok, the bill is "half a loaf." Take what we've (nearly) got.

 

We wanted more. We didn't get more.

 

There is another legislative season coming.

 

Go for the other half a loaf.

 

Step and repeat towards Constitutional Carry.

 

Bring a few friends along. Friends who vote. Friends who donate, or don't donate, to political figures.

 

Of course the game is rigged, but if you don't bet, you can't win. (Heinlein)

[GKar]

House bill 118 passed floor vote as 72-22. Perhaps the only note of interest was the sponsor's statement that he would not consider any amendments that had not already been properly vetted by the committee process...a statement later echoed by McCormick. What he failed to menton was that the committee process steam-rolled the bills before anyone had a chance (or the will) to offer any such amenmdents. It seems the current R leadership learned at least one lesson from Mr Naifeh, and proudly carry on his traditions even today.

McCormick assurances of promises he'd received from business and his assertion that he would propose legislative "fixes" should anyone be fired by their employer for possession in violation of a policy was both laughable and nauseating...as pretty much the entire GA has become of late.

[Guest 270win]

I can't believe they were so stupid to require someone to have the firearm in his own vehicle and not any vehicle.  So if i do not own my spouse's car but drive the car, I will still have to unload and put in the trunk when i have a conference at Univ of Memphis just like before instead of loaded in the glovebox?

 

The legislature should have just removed the local parks option, the 500 fine signs, and the schools OR provided exemptions for those with permits if they were going to protect the property owners from lawsuit like with the parking lot bill.

[GKar]

One of the amendments that were steam-rolled on the floor would have allowed possession in "any motor vehicle, as defined in § 55-1-103, legally owned or possessed and driven by the permit holder" (Pody, amendment 6).  Another phrased it as "“any motor vehicle, as defined in § 55-1-103, that the permit holder legally owns or possesses or in which the permit holder is an invited passenger”, with the added qualifier that "“Motor vehicle” does not include a motor vehicle provided to an employee by a public or private employer provided the business entity, public or private employer, or the owner, manager, or legal possessor of the property has a written “No Weapons” policy in place." (Windle, amendment 3).  Neither lasted much longer than the tie it took the clerk to introduce them.

[chipperi]

Where can I find the text of the final bill as sent to the governor? Also when will it become law?

[GKar]

http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/default.aspx?BillNumber=HB0118&GA=108

 

Go to that site - most everything you could want to know.  You can see the original bill if you click on the large "HB 0118".  The only amendment attached to the final version is Amendment 1 in the list under the tab "Amendments on the bill".

 

The bill states it will be effective July 1, 2013.

[QuietDan]

So, it's all over but the shouting? The Governor's gonna sign it, huh?