TFA Constitutional Carry Push (Updated with Scans)

[Oh Shoot]

I'm leery of anything with that guy's name on it.

 

Oh, c'mon, he's our Loveable Loon. Still gets my vote, so far.

 

- OS

[Garufa]

Oh, c'mon, he's our Loveable Loon. Still gets my vote, so far.

 

- OS

 

He's an idiot.  When it's time to vote and his name happens to be on my ballot then that's one I just leave blank.

[Oh Shoot]

He's an idiot.  When it's time to vote and his name happens to be on my ballot then that's one I just leave blank.

 

His default always seems to lean toward individual freedom, though, except maybe for illegal aliens and abortive mothers. Oh yeah, and don't say gay. ;)

 

He is the Senate sponsor of the bill to preempt local park carry jurisdiction, btw.

 

- OS

Edited January 17, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Guest theconstitutionrocks]

I think that if they allow unlicensed carry across the United States at the federal level I would agree with that what I worry about is if Tennessee wants to remove the license carry requirement and other states keep it the problem is whether or not they will allow reciprocity with Tennessee. In that case may be the right thing to do is allow handgun carry permit holders to actually have a permit if they wanted not mandated but if they want it so they have some kind of proof or clearance to carry if they go to other states

[DaveTN]

I think that if they allow unlicensed carry across the United States at the federal level I would agree with that what I worry about is if Tennessee wants to remove the license carry requirement and other states keep it the problem is whether or not they will allow reciprocity with Tennessee. In that case may be the right thing to do is allow handgun carry permit holders to actually have a permit if they wanted not mandated but if they want it so they have some kind of proof or clearance to carry if they go to other states

I think most people that have an HCP would keep it, and I doubt the state would pass up that money. I don’t expect to see in my lifetime the Feds telling a state what they can or can’t do with carry laws so an HCP would still be needed to travel.

[tnguy]

Follow the left's example: Ask for a mile and settle on an inch. Rinse, repeat. I think we should be pushing for mandatory issue and carry of RPGs and haggle from there.

Edited January 17, 2014 by tnguy

[1gewehr]

TFA is the most pro-freedom group in the state.

 

The whole Fedex argument about private property rights is illogical.  It's your car on their parking lot.  Just because you bring your car into their lot doesn't mean that they have the right to dictate what you have IN your car.  Your car is your property.  The interior of your car does not become Fedex property when it is parked in their parking lot.  By Fedexs reasoning, they can ban you from having a bible in your car.  They could also prohibit any Ford car or truck, or decide that any shade of brown vehicle is forbidden on their lot.  You see how stupid that sounds when you apply it to things besides guns?

 

There is a reason that unlicensed carry is called 'Constitutional Carry'.  It's because there is nothing in the Constitution that says that government can require a license for someone to exercise a right. 

[JayC]

So I can't tell my 18 year old son who lives with me what can or can't be in his car?  Of course I can it's my property.  If he doesn't like it, he can find someplace else to live.

 

His rights protect him from the government, not from me...  if he wants access to my property he must agree to the rules I link to that access.

 

John Harris, keeps complaining about setting up 'special classes' of citizens when it comes to gun rights...  yet he's happy to setup special classes of citizens when it comes to property rights...  All the money they spent on the parking lot bill would have been much better spent removing 39-17-1359 (or at least the criminal penalty)...  Or removing government property from 39-17-1359.

 

If you don't like the rules imposed by yours employer, you can always go get another job...  If you don't like that a business has their building/parking lot posted, you can always do business with somebody else....  The only cases where you have no choice in the matter are government buildings/property...

 

I'm a business owner and while I'm very pro-gun... I do have a rule that employees aren't allowed to have tobacco products on the property...  by using your logic if an employees goes to their car and starts smoking they can't be terminated because I have no right to dictate their legal behavior in their car?

 

TFA is the most pro-freedom group in the state.

 

The whole Fedex argument about private property rights is illogical.  It's your car on their parking lot.  Just because you bring your car into their lot doesn't mean that they have the right to dictate what you have IN your car.  Your car is your property.  The interior of your car does not become Fedex property when it is parked in their parking lot.  By Fedexs reasoning, they can ban you from having a bible in your car.  They could also prohibit any Ford car or truck, or decide that any shade of brown vehicle is forbidden on their lot.  You see how stupid that sounds when you apply it to things besides guns?

 

There is a reason that unlicensed carry is called 'Constitutional Carry'.  It's because there is nothing in the Constitution that says that government can require a license for someone to exercise a right. 

 

[Guest PapaB]

So I can't tell my 18 year old son who lives with me what can or can't be in his car?  Of course I can it's my property.  If he doesn't like it, he can find someplace else to live.

 

His rights protect him from the government, not from me...  if he wants access to my property he must agree to the rules I link to that access.

 

John Harris, keeps complaining about setting up 'special classes' of citizens when it comes to gun rights...  yet he's happy to setup special classes of citizens when it comes to property rights...  All the money they spent on the parking lot bill would have been much better spent removing 39-17-1359 (or at least the criminal penalty)...  Or removing government property from 39-17-1359.

 

If you don't like the rules imposed by yours employer, you can always go get another job...  If you don't like that a business has their building/parking lot posted, you can always do business with somebody else....  The only cases where you have no choice in the matter are government buildings/property...

 

I'm a business owner and while I'm very pro-gun... I do have a rule that employees aren't allowed to have tobacco products on the property...  by using your logic if an employees goes to their car and starts smoking they can't be terminated because I have no right to dictate their legal behavior in their car?

 

Just because you truly believe it doesn't make it so. Many of your son's rights, and everyones, protect them from the government, businesses and individuals. If you don't think so, try hitting one of your employees. You seem to think that being a business owner turns you into the god of your realm but the government disagrees. The number of laws everyone has to follow are excessive but they still must be followed.

Don't forget that banning an employee from having something in their car doesn't just affect them while on your property, it affects them while traveling too. That sounds a lot like bloomberg to me.

[DaveTN]

Just because you truly believe it doesn't make it so. Many of your son's rights, and everyones, protect them from the government, businesses and individuals. If you don't think so, try hitting one of your employees. You seem to think that being a business owner turns you into the god of your realm but the government disagrees. The number of laws everyone has to follow are excessive but they still must be followed.
Don't forget that banning an employee from having something in their car doesn't just affect them while on your property, it affects them while traveling too.

You are comparing apples and oranges. Hitting an employee is a criminal act, how does that pertain to what we are discussing? Company’s ban stuff coming through their gates all the time. Firearms, cameras, recording devices, portable electronics, lighters or portable spark producing devices, some even ban tobacco products anywhere on their property. They can ban whatever they want for whatever reason they want or no reason at all.

The only way a state can force a private property owner to allow you to carry anything on private property would be if it is something that is a recognized right. The state of Tennessee does not recognize carrying as a right, quite the opposite; it is a criminal act. We buy a privilege from the state, the “training requirements” are a joke. Even the state doesn’t want guns on their property with or without an HCP, but they want to tell private business they have to allow it? That’s a thug government and I won’t support it.
 

That sounds a lot like bloomberg to me.

Yes it does. This sounds like one of Bloomberg’s “government can do whatever they want tactics”. But we don’t have to go all the way to NY to find out of control politicians. We have them right here if they think they can drive this down the throat of private business.

If the state wants get heavy handed with private business they will need to recognize the right to keep and bear arms for all citizens. It’s really very simple.

NOTE: I absolutely believe we have a right to keep and bear arms and don’t mean to sound otherwise. (Although I don’t acknowledge that it comes only from the 2nd amendment) But that is not the case in this state and until we have that right our legislators have overstepped their authority. That’s why this legislation is a joke. They can’t enforce this ridiculous legislation.
We need carry to be a right. Edited January 19, 2014 by DaveTN

[RobertNashville]

So I can't tell my 18 year old son who lives with me what can or can't be in his car?  Of course I can it's my property.  If he doesn't like it, he can find someplace else to live.
 
His rights protect him from the government, not from me...  if he wants access to my property he must agree to the rules I link to that access.
 
John Harris, keeps complaining about setting up 'special classes' of citizens when it comes to gun rights...  yet he's happy to setup special classes of citizens when it comes to property rights...  All the money they spent on the parking lot bill would have been much better spent removing 39-17-1359 (or at least the criminal penalty)...  Or removing government property from 39-17-1359.
 
If you don't like the rules imposed by yours employer, you can always go get another job...  If you don't like that a business has their building/parking lot posted, you can always do business with somebody else....  The only cases where you have no choice in the matter are government buildings/property...
 
I'm a business owner and while I'm very pro-gun... I do have a rule that employees aren't allowed to have tobacco products on the property...  by using your logic if an employees goes to their car and starts smoking they can't be terminated because I have no right to dictate their legal behavior in their car?

Property rights are no more or less important than any other. However, in the case of parking lots we are talking about property use for business/public purposes. An entities only real protection with regards to "property" is the fifth amendment and the courts have already ruled that these parking lot laws which operate in many states (over 20 I believe) do not violate the Constitution because they do not violate the takings clause. Stipulating that a property owner cannot dictate what can and cannot be within another person's vehicle is not a taking of "property".

For those who have a problem with a government's ability to "take "property or to place requirements on property used for business or public purposes their real quarrel is not with the Tennessee Firearms Association; it is with United States Constitution.

[DaveTN]

For those who have a problem with a government's ability to "take "property or to place requirements on property used for business or public purposes their real quarrel is not with the Tennessee Firearms Association; it is with United States Constitution.

My quarrel is with neither; it’s with the state. If you have a right to keep and bear arms under the 2nd amendment the state would have to recognize that; they don’t.
As I posted above there are places than ban you having a laundry list of items in your car when you go onto their property, not just guns. You saying they can’t do that?

[DaveTN]

I worked an off duty job for a company that had three separate facilities. At all three facilities you had to pass a guard shack and were subject to search to enter the property. At two of the facilities you could take firearms on and off the property in your vehicle, at the third you could not. The reason was that they had very large tanks of flammable liquid on the property. Obviously the company wasn’t anti-gun, any of you think the state should have been able to force them to allow guns on that third property when it was clearly a safety issue?

What if the state recognizes the 2nd amendment and we get Constitutional carry? Would businesses like that have to allow guns in cars if they believe it is a safety issue?

[Reservoir Dog]

NICS is unavailable more often than TICS. 

 

Part of a TICS check is to run the info through NICS, so if NICS goes down.......then TICS is down.   A lot of the times that TICS is not working is because of problems on the NICS end.

[RobertNashville]

My quarrel is with neither; it’s with the state. If you have a right to keep and bear arms under the 2nd amendment the state would have to recognize that; they don’t.
As I posted above there are places than ban you having a laundry list of items in your car when you go onto their property, not just guns. You saying they can’t do that?

The state's current position on the 2A is immaterial insofar as parking lot laws are concerned. Regardless of Tennessee's stance on the right to keep and bear arms, parking lot laws will continue to be necessary to keep parking lot owners from attempting to dictate the legally owned, legally carried contents of a vehicle and the state, IAW the U.S. Constitution and over 200 years of precedent, has the Constitutional power to pass and enforce such laws as these parking lot laws.

Edited January 20, 2014 by RobertNashville

[DaveTN]

The stat's current position on the 2A is immaterial insofar as parking lot laws are concerned. Regardless of Tennessee's stance on the right to keep and bear arms, parking lot laws will continue to be necessary to keep parking lot owners from attempting to dictate the legally owned, legally carried contents of a vehicle and the state, IAW the U.S. Constitution and over 200 years of precedent, has the Constitutional power to pass and enforce such laws as these parking lot laws.

They can pass all the laws they want. But as you can see they can’t enforce them. You can’t be criminally charged for carrying past a sign on a parking lot; but you can be fired.

What about my post #38? Are you and the state going to decide what’s safe for a business?

[RobertNashville]

They can pass all the laws they want. But as you can see they can’t enforce them. You can’t be criminally charged for carrying past a sign on a parking lot; but you can be fired.What about my post #38? Are you and the state going to decide what’s safe for a business?

They can enforce any law they want to enforce just like any other law passed by the legislature.

 

If you simply mean that an employer can still "fire" you; yes they can but despite the fact that this is an employment at will state; firing someone can be a problem which is why employers often offer severance packages in return for not bringing suit.

 

That said, while the state may not be able to close every single hole in the law that might let a determined employer circumvent the law claiming they can't enforce it seems like a very poor excuse - the same thing could be said about almost any law ever passed by a legislature. The only way the rule of law can ever work is if the majority of the people (in this case, employers) decide to obey them.

Edited January 19, 2014 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

?..any of you think the state should have been able to force them to allow guns on that third property when it was clearly a safety issue?What if the state recognizes the 2nd amendment and we get Constitutional carry? Would businesses like that have to allow guns in cars if they believe it is a safety issue?

My short answer is "yes" because believing or asserting a safety issue shouldn't be enough by itself.

My longer answer is that it should depend on whether or not a demonstrable safety concern exists. If it does then an exception should be made and I see no reason why the law can't allow for that. As a practical matter I am not sure it would be possible in most circumstances for business to show that having firearm in a vehicle is inherently more dangerous than the danger represented by that vehicle without a firearm inside - the question would be, is a firearm sitting inside a vehicle parked in the parking lot inherently more "dangerous" than perhaps hundreds of vehicles sitting in that same parking lot with tanks filled with gasoline but not containing a firearm? If a vehicle in a parking lot that contains a firearm is that inherently dangerous then what about all the hundreds or perhaps thousands of vehicles passing by on the street adjacent to that parking facility that also have tanks filled with gasoline and contain firearms...wouldn't they present a similar danger?

As I said, if there is a demonstrable safety concern then I can understand and would support the business being able to prevent firearms in their parking lot but I suspect such real concerns would be few and sound much like the arguments presented by the likes of Bridgestone, FedEx, etc who claimed such problems/dangers exist but had nothing to show to substantiate their claims...in fact, most of these companies have facilities in states where these laws have existed for years and without those companies experiencing a problem.

Edited January 19, 2014 by RobertNashville

[Guest PapaB]

You are comparing apples and oranges. Hitting an employee is a criminal act, how does that pertain to what we are discussing? Company’s ban stuff coming through their gates all the time. Firearms, cameras, recording devices, portable electronics, lighters or portable spark producing devices, some even ban tobacco products anywhere on their property. They can ban whatever they want for whatever reason they want or no reason at all.

The only way a state can force a private property owner to allow you to carry anything on private property would be if it is something that is a recognized right. The state of Tennessee does not recognize carrying as a right, quite the opposite; it is a criminal act. We buy a privilege from the state, the “training requirements” are a joke. Even the state doesn’t want guns on their property with or without an HCP, but they want to tell private business they have to allow it? That’s a thug government and I won’t support it.
 
Yes it does. This sounds like one of Bloomberg’s “government can do whatever they want tactics”. But we don’t have to go all the way to NY to find out of control politicians. We have them right here if they think they can drive this down the throat of private business.

If the state wants get heavy handed with private business they will need to recognize the right to keep and bear arms for all citizens. It’s really very simple.

NOTE: I absolutely believe we have a right to keep and bear arms and don’t mean to sound otherwise. (Although I don’t acknowledge that it comes only from the 2nd amendment) But that is not the case in this state and until we have that right our legislators have overstepped their authority. That’s why this legislation is a joke. They can’t enforce this ridiculous legislation.
We need carry to be a right.

 

Not apples and oranges, you can't hit them because doing so would violate their rights and your right to swing your arm ends at their nose. That's what you fail to comprehend, your right to do some things ends before it interferes with the rights of others. I'm sure you acknowlege that statement but acknowlegment is not comprehension. Although you have the right to say you can't park on my property, that doesn't give you the right to control what's inside a persons vehicle whether it's parked on your land or not. And let me clarify that I'm speaking only of property used for business purposes.

 

My reference to bloomberg was not to the former mayor, it was to bloomberg the businessman control freak.

 

"I absolutely believe we have a right to keep and bear arms and don’t mean to sound otherwise." This is what I meant when I said "Just because you truly believe it doesn't make it so." You honestly believe we have a right to keep and bear arms - as long as you can void that right while someone is on your business property, or traveling to and from it. That is, after all, the true effect of allowing business owners to decide what an individual can contain within their vehicle.