Safe commute law

[sigmtnman]

Asked and answered in Ramsey Winch v. Henry when the courts found that temporally allowing a legal gun owner to keep their legal property (firearm) inside their private property (vehicle) did not constitute an illegal "taking" of any right or privilege.  Allowing another to keep a legal item inside a personal vehicle is not an infringement of any property right.

 

The way I understand it that is true as long as they are arguing it is due to OSHA.  Again, in TN the going armed is illegal.  The HCP is a defense.

[sigmtnman]

Tennessee (and many other states) did it with the smoking laws. Many businesses lost money and some went out of business because of it. No compensation; just a thug government exercising their control over private business owners.

 

This is the root of the problem for me.  No one minds using the thug government to tell others what rights they have as long as it is in agreement with their views.

[Oh Shoot]

I'll have to ponder this a bit, but off the cuff, we both know that carrying a firearm is illegal and that the HCP is a defense  against violation of the law.

 

Nonetheless, the new statute simply allows HCP holders to do it, and specifically negates the posting and school property statutes for said behavior.

 

My guess is we'll eventually see lawsuits from a student and/or employee of a school who is expelled/terminated for it, and perhaps from a private biz too, if the owner is stupid enough to admit that was the reason the employee was let go, and case law will determine that part, or lead to modification of the statute itself.

 

- OS

[Worriedman]

The way I understand it that is true as long as they are arguing it is due to OSHA.  Again, in TN the going armed is illegal.  The HCP is a defense.

 

Sorry but you understand it wrong.  The OSHA argument was one that the Appellate Court ruled against, the taking was another.

 

 

 

The district court rejected Plaintiffs’ argument that the Amendments are an
unconstitutional taking of private property and a violation of Plaintiffs’
due process right to exclude others from their property.

 

 

 

 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-ca10-07-05166/pdf/USCOURTS-ca10-07-05166-0.pdf

Edited May 12, 2013 by Worriedman

[Worriedman]

What about companies that have “No firearms” on the property at specific facilities because they have large tanks on the property that are explosive; like hexane tanks at soybean plants?
What rights are involved when it’s a “safe commute” vs. the safety of a community?

No establishment that allows parking by individual employees has "no firearms", they have no legal firearms, criminals pay no attention to signs or laws, never have, never will.

[sigmtnman]

 ...

 

If the employer does not want to offer parking for his employees' private vehicles, fine. Let him compete in the workforce only for workers who are willing to arrive by other means.

 

- OS

 

Why not use that same logic regarding a company who does not support your right to carry.

 

This is my point:  As individuals we have the ability to support businesses as consumers and as employees.  The appropriate way to voice dissatisfaction with a company and it's policies is through the marketplace.  If you don't like that they don't allow guns on their property go to another job, just as you suggest for not providing easy parking. 

 

Using the government to force your desires on others is not the way to do it.  That is a slippery slope that no one minds, until it goes against their own beliefs and desires.

[sigmtnman]

Sorry but you understand it wrong.  The OSHA argument was one that the Appellate Court ruled against, the taking was another.

 

 

 

 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-ca10-07-05166/pdf/USCOURTS-ca10-07-05166-0.pdf

 

You have no need to be sorry.  I see now that the OSHA part was but one facet of the argument.

 

Now, I'm no lawyer and didn't sleep at the holiday inn last night, but it reads to me like the plaintiff's chosen case law did not support their claim.  Therefore at this time, the court does not support their claim.

 

I'll end with this.  The Ninth Amendment is one of the most important ones and is frequently overlooked or forgotten.  A bunch of lawyers sitting on a bench speaking in foreign tongue, referencing obscure case law does not make it any more palatable.  At the end of they day, forcing a property owner to allow things onto his property he does not desire is not the way to go about this.  Folks should man up and put their rights ahead of the all mighty dollar.  One day you may just find yourself on the apposing view point of one of your rights and someone else will use the .gov as the tool to extract it from you.

[Worriedman]

 

I'll end with this.  The Ninth Amendment is one of the most important ones and is frequently overlooked or forgotten.

I agree wholeheartedly, that the 9th is extremely important in this conversation, however possibly from a different perspective than held by you:
 

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

Using that argument, your earlier supposition that due process (5th Amendment) "trumps" if you will, the Right to keep and bear arms is erroneous I think.  It, (the Right to keep and bear arms) IS an enumerated right, and the regulation of it is left to the States by the 2nd and the 10th Amendments, specifically spelled out as such.

From your insistance that the 5th Amendment is germane to this conversation, is allowing a 4th Amendment violation (Illegal search or seizure. How can keeping a legal item, vouchsafed by a purchased license from the State, background checked by the Federal, State and local governments be construed as a violation of the law).

Especially when the "intent" of the State legislature is to empower employees who are terminated for simply keeping their legal weapons in their personal, private property to file lawsuits against such egregious actions such as termination respondent to such an act, when the same legislature has worked so hard to reduce or eliminate "frivolous" lawsuits? (sarcasm off)

[sigmtnman]

I agree wholeheartedly, that the 9th is extremely important in this conversation, however possibly from a different perspective than held by you:
 

Using that argument, your earlier supposition that due process (5th Amendment) "trumps" if you will, the Right to keep and bear arms is erroneous I think.  It, (the Right to keep and bear arms) IS an enumerated right, and the regulation of it is left to the States by the 2nd and the 10th Amendments, specifically spelled out as such.

From your insistance that the 5th Amendment is germane to this conversation, is allowing a 4th Amendment violation (Illegal search or seizure. How can keeping a legal item, vouchsafed by a purchased license from the State, background checked by the Federal, State and local governments be construed as a violation of the law).

Especially when the "intent" of the State legislature is to empower employees who are terminated for simply keeping their legal weapons in their personal, private property to file lawsuits against such egregious actions such as termination respondent to such an act, when the same legislature has worked so hard to reduce or eliminate "frivolous" lawsuits? (sarcasm off)

 

No, I feel every right is equal and no right trumps another whether enumerated or not.  And of all people, in no circumstance do I believe anyone has the right to search another persons vehicle.

 

If you want to carry a gun in your car onto another persons property, go ahead.  By the same token if that person does not want you on their property, for whatever reason, they should be able to throw you off of it.

 

What I am saying is that my property rights trump your right when you are on my property.  The government should not be used as a tool to allow you to do what you want on my property.