TN nullification of Obamacare and all federal gun laws

[RobertNashville]

Based on JayC's post I guess anyone in Tennessee who wants "constitutional carry" should just "man up" and move to a state where it's already a matter of law.  :shrug:

Edited January 21, 2014 by RobertNashville

[Guest 6.8 AR]

My rational argument about what JayC said only contends that the parking lot isn't what matters. It has been my stance that

the personal property, the gun and the car is just that, and should be left out of being restricted. There should never be a law

that allows a business owner or other entity to search a vehicle without a warrant, and that means there should/must be a

suspected criminal act attached to the warrant. If your personal property is allowed on an owner's parking lot, you should be

able to stow whatever you want in your vehicle, known as personal property.

 

JayC should have the right to restrict any other possession of a firearm on his property, otherwise.

 

It's difficult to balance one set of rights over another.

[Worriedman]

 

If you continue to pick making more money over the ability to protect yourself that is your fault and nobody elses...  and you're no better than the folks who bought more house than they could afford, then turned around and begged the government for a bailout.  *For the record you in the above paragraphs is not directed at anyone person just people in general*

I don't have a problem with my employer, there is no "policy" that hinders my ability to keep a legally owned object in my vehicle on their parking lot, but, for the tens of thousands of others who do not have the luxury of being able to say that, I fell the struggle to advance the most sensible approach for being sure that all legal Tennesseans can provide for their security on their traverse to and from their home to work with the best tools available, (that 21 other States have adopted) is the correct thing for me to do.

 

[JayC]

What about my constitutional rights?  You and I enter into an employment arrangement... you know the conditions of employment when you start, and you're free to quit and leave at anytime...  No business in this state is violating your constitutionally protected rights.

 

I don't have any policies in my business or any of the businesses I'm associated with that prohibit employees from carrying firearms let alone keeping one in their car...  I'm not concerned about people carrying firearms that are law abiding citizens.

 

But, I don't believe the government has the right to force me to allow an employee to violate my companies policies for any reason...  while this issue doesn't directly effect me, I oppose it on ethical and moral grounds.

 

I hate to be brutally honest here, but I'm for the individual and his constitutional rights, not your silly business rules that restrict those rights. :up:

What are you so worried about that you don't want individuals with a TN HCP to be able to carry on your property anyway? You're surrounded by us everywhere else you go where carry is not restricted. :shrug:

 

[JayC]

And to take away my rights in the process?  Removing the ability of the government to ban carry, is a good thing...  removing the ability of schools and park the same...  decriminalizing the carry of firearm past signs... sounds great...

 

If you want access to my property, it should be under the rules I as the property owner define for access to my property...  Forsure if you work for me, your ability to carry a firearm while employed by me, or on my property should be based on the conditions you agree to as a condition of employment.

 

If you don't like my conditions of employment, go to work somewhere else, or start a business and compete against me.

 

I don't have a problem with my employer, there is no "policy" that hinders my ability to keep a legally owned object in my vehicle on their parking lot, but, for the tens of thousands of others who do not have the luxury of being able to say that, I fell the struggle to advance the most sensible approach for being sure that all legal Tennesseans can provide for their security on their traverse to and from their home to work with the best tools available, (that 21 other States have adopted) is the correct thing for me to do.

 

 

[DaveTN]

I hate to be brutally honest here, but I'm for the individual and his constitutional rights, not your silly business rules that restrict those rights. :up:

Being brutally honest is okay; if it the truth. You keep talking about rights you don’t have. HCP is in no way shape or form a right. I have never seen anyone try to claim it is a right. So why would you think that the state can post a sign on the door of their buildings that doesn’t allow you to carry into their business; but you think it’s okay that they can dictate to a private business what they must allow on their private parking lot? It is beyond me how anyone can see even the smallest justification for it. The state sold you that permit and issued it saying you have met the minimum requirements to carry a gun in this state. However, they don’t think you are qualified to carry on their property. But then they turn around and want to legislate that although they don’t think you are qualified to carry on their property; they think you should be able to have a gun on a private owner’s parking lot.

It’s not okay!! It a blatant doubles standard, and a thug government, and has no business being law in a free state. And I refused to agree with it just because someone professes it to be progun.
 

What are you so worried about that you don't want individuals with a TN HCP to be able to carry on your property anyway? You're surrounded by us everywhere else you go where carry is not restricted. :shrug:

Because it’s not a RIGHT!! Some of us want to make it a right, but you want to keep posting about baby steps, and something to work towards. This may all be new to you and you are okay with a lifetime agenda. I’ll be 60 this year and have been fighting this all my life. I’m tired of waiting and there is no reason to wait. The time is now.

[DaveTN]

My rational argument about what JayC said only contends that the parking lot isn't what matters. It has been my stance that
the personal property, the gun and the car is just that, and should be left out of being restricted. There should never be a law
that allows a business owner or other entity to search a vehicle without a warrant, and that means there should/must be a
suspected criminal act attached to the warrant. If your personal property is allowed on an owner's parking lot, you should be
able to stow whatever you want in your vehicle, known as personal property.
 
JayC should have the right to restrict any other possession of a firearm on his property, otherwise.
 
It's difficult to balance one set of rights over another.

At what companies are these warrantless vehicles searches being done? Why do vehicle searches keep coming up in these discussions?

[DaveTN]

I don't have a problem with my employer, there is no "policy" that hinders my ability to keep a legally owned object in my vehicle on their parking lot, but, for the tens of thousands of others who do not have the luxury of being able to say that, I fell the struggle to advance the most sensible approach for being sure that all legal Tennesseans can provide for their security on their traverse to and from their home to work with the best tools available, (that 21 other States have adopted) is the correct thing for me to do.

I agree with you if all citizens of the state have a right to have the tools to make their travels safe. But because I paid for a privilege the state gets to tell the owner of my company he must allow me to have a gun in my car on his parking lot? Does that sound right to you when you read it out loud?

[gregintenn]

I hate to be brutally honest here, but I'm for the individual and his constitutional rights, not your silly business rules that restrict those rights. :up:

What are you so worried about that you don't want individuals with a TN HCP to be able to carry on your property anyway? You're surrounded by us everywhere else you go where carry is not restricted. :shrug:

So the individual who owns the property you are allowed to earn a living on doesn't have any rights? :ugh:

[RobertNashville]

I agree with you if all citizens of the state have a right to have the tools to make their travels safe. But because I paid for a privilege the state gets to tell the owner of my company he must allow me to have a gun in my car on his parking lot? Does that sound right to you when you read it out loud?

It sure does.

 

There is no reason nor any Constitutionally protected "right" that would or should allow a parking lot owner to dictate the legally owned and legally transported contents of an individual's property (his/her vehicle).

[JohnC]

It sure does.
 
There is no reason nor any Constitutionally protected "right" that would or should allow a parking lot owner to dictate the legally owned and legally transported contents of an individual's property (his/her vehicle).

Nailed it^

Why? Because if you restrict our rights to have our gun in our private property (our vehicle), you effectively extend your property rights to our front door, the road we travel, etc. To that I say screw you and your silly parking lot aka business rules.

And really, I don't know why you people feel so threatened by a TN HCP holder leaving his or her gun in their car in your precious parking lot. :shrug:

[Guest 6.8 AR]

At what companies are these warrantless vehicles searches being done? Why do vehicle searches keep coming up in these discussions?

Dave, I didn't say any were being done, and I don't know if there ever have been, just the threat of them being done is where

I got my information. That was also part of a topic around here, once before.

[JayC]

The issue isn't him being armed...  the issue is asking the government to force an employer to allow somebody on their property when they don't want to...

 

You can be against a law, because the law violates somebodies right, but for carry or constitutional carry...

 

Nailed it^

Why? Because if you restrict our rights to have our gun in our private property (our vehicle), you effectively extend your property rights to our front door, the road we travel, etc. To that I say screw you and your silly parking lot aka business rules.

And really, I don't know why you people feel so threatened by a TN HCP holder leaving his or her gun in their car in your precious parking lot. :shrug:

 

[JohnC]

The issue isn't him being armed...  the issue is asking the government to force an employer to allow somebody on their property when they don't want to...
 
You can be against a law, because the law violates somebodies right, but for carry or constitutional carry...

I don't see an issue at all with someone having their gun in their car in your parking lot. Because like I said, if you get to dictate what you want in their car (their private property), you effectively extend your rights to the front door of his or her home.

The happy medium is you allow them to keep their gun in their car (in their locked privately owned property) and they keep the gun out of your building. It's not on their person, so it should not bother you at all.

At least that's where we're at today and I'm glad we made that much progress. :up:

Another honest thought is this. I feel I should be able to be armed everywhere I go because being able to defend my life against the threat of deadly force is more important than your property rights. Cops do it every day and you can't say ####, so I'd like the same for citizens in the end. :)

[RobertNashville]

I don't see an issue at all with someone having their gun in their car in your parking lot. Because like I said, if you get to dictate what you want in their car (their private property), you effectively extend your rights to the front door of his or her home.

The happy medium is you allow them to keep their gun in their car (in their locked privately owned property) and they keep the gun out of your building. It's not on their person, so it should not bother you at all.

At least that's where we're at today and I'm glad we made that much progress. :up:

Another honest thought is this. I feel I should be able to be armed everywhere I go because being able to defend my life against the threat of deadly force is more important than your property rights. Cops do it every day and you can't say ####, so I'd like the same for citizens in the end. :)

This is "business" property we're discussing here. Until the business owner can articulate and support a valid business reason for attempting to control the contents of of a vehicle parked in a parking lot all the talk about "rights" is a distraction - A distraction to obscure the fact that these opponents have no valid business reasons for wanting to control the contents of a person's private vehicle.

[DaveTN]

This is "business" property we're discussing here. Until the business owner can articulate and support a valid business reason for attempting to control the contents of of a vehicle parked in a parking lot all the talk about "rights" is a distraction - A distraction to obscure the fact that these opponents have no valid business reasons for wanting to control the contents of a person's private vehicle.

Nonsense, what other freedoms as a property owner would you like to give up unless you can articulate or show a valid reason for to the government?
 

all the talk about "rights" is a distraction

You have got to be kidding. This is only about rights. If the state recognized the 2nd amendment as an individual right for every citizen; this would be much different. But they don’t; having a loaded gun in your car is a crime. But they want to force it on property owners that they must accept those that have bought the privilege from the state. That’s BS.

[JayC]

There is no happy medium...  it's my business, I set the rules if you don't like the rules go find another job somewhere else :)  Turning HCP holders into a protected class is a bad idea.  It's always a bad idea to create a protected class, period.  It also violates core conservative principles.

 

Police officers are subject to trespassing laws just like the rest of us...  unless there are exigent circumstances you can ask a police officer to leave your building or your property unless they have a warrant, and they are legally obligated to comply.

 

At the end of the day you're right to carry is protected from GOVERNMENT interference...  Businesses 'violate' your rights on a daily basis already...  go and try to exercise your free speech rights at work and see how that works out.  As for your rights trumping mine...  that sounds a lot like a progressive view on the world...  that somehow the government can violate my rights just to protect yours?  Everyday on this forum we call BS on progressives that push how their safety is more important than our gun rights...

 

I'll stand up for your right to carry anytime and anyplace, until you start talking about passing a law that violates another person's rights in the process.

 

We shouldn't violate a person's right if there is a less restrictive alternative already available...  And in this case both as a customer and as an employee there are less restrictive alternatives....

 

As a customer, if you see a business which is posted...  go do business with somewhere that isn't posted...  your rights are intact, their rights are intact and the free market works.

 

As an employee, if you don't like the conditions of employment...  go get a job where the conditions of employment are more to your liking.  Problem solved.

 

Since there is already a remedy to your problem of being disarmed at work, there is no need for a law to fix the problem.  And both your rights and the business owners rights are left alone.

 

But, you can't be bothered to do that...  you want big brother to come in and make the big bad boss guy do what you want?

 

I don't see an issue at all with someone having their gun in their car in your parking lot. Because like I said, if you get to dictate what you want in their car (their private property), you effectively extend your rights to the front door of his or her home.

The happy medium is you allow them to keep their gun in their car (in their locked privately owned property) and they keep the gun out of your building. It's not on their person, so it should not bother you at all.

At least that's where we're at today and I'm glad we made that much progress. :up:

Another honest thought is this. I feel I should be able to be armed everywhere I go because being able to defend my life against the threat of deadly force is more important than your property rights. Cops do it every day and you can't say ####, so I'd like the same for citizens in the end. :)

 

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You're absolutely right, JayC. We allowed one
bad law to pass back in 1934 and don't have the
gumption to do anything about it. All we do is
fight back incrementally by trying to undo using
the Swiss cheese approach to legislation. We've allowed too many bad laws to pass, meanwhile.

[RobertNashville]

...Trying to pass a law that creates a protected class of workers who happen to have an HCP should be a no go...

I always find it interesting when someone (you and at least one other springs to mind) seem so hostile to Tennessee's HCP system. For me, it always begs a few questions such as...

 

• Do you possess an HCP yourself?
• If you do possess an HCP why would you have one given that you seem hostile to the system?
• What do you propose we have instead of an HCP system if anything? If your answer is "constitutional carry" do you really want to reduce Tennessee residents from being able to carry in almost every state in the union to just two or three?

Personally, I think all this feigned indignation about HCPs and "protected classes" of firearm owners is just rhetoric without any real substance behind it.

Edited January 22, 2014 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

Dave, I didn't say any were being done, and I don't know if there ever have been, just the threat of them being done is where

I got my information. That was also part of a topic around here, once before.

According to some FedEx employees I've know FedEx searches on a regular basis and I know of several that have happened at other companies, including one I worked for...for the most part I doubt they happen often but the absolutely happen...I was even expected to submit to a pat-down once by a "security guard" who were looking for cell phones (when it was against "company policy" to have cell phones with cameras on them"!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Robert, I'd rather leave things like reciprocity up
to the states. That is well spelled out about the
9th and 10th amendments and protects from the
government restricting things that states should
be able to do. CC would work fine with the federal
government backing off trying to tell people what
they can and can't do if several federal laws were
undone. The states would be less compelled to
pass dumb laws along side.

I think there would be a lot of changes, and we wouldn't be having this discussion about one's
rights over another. JayC is only saying what Reagan did, years ago, about moving somewhere
else if one didn't like what they were faced with
where they are, and couldn't get laws changed
for less tyranny.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

According to some FedEx employees I've know FedEx searches on a regular basis and I know of several that have happened at other companies, including one I worked for...for the most part I doubt they happen often but the absolutely happen...I was even expected to submit to a pat-down once by a "security guard" who were looking for cell phones (when it was against "company policy" to have cell phones with cameras on them"!

CSX had a strong policy that wasn't intrusive at all. If there was an accident and you had your
phone on, you faced stiff fines, and possibly jail time
if someone was injured or died in the accident.
There were very limited conditions you could use
your phone while on duty, like an emergency, or
the radio quit working.

[RobertNashville]

Robert, I'd rather leave things like reciprocity up
to the states. That is well spelled out about the
9th and 10th amendments and protects from the
government restricting things that states should
be able to do. CC would work fine with the federal
government backing off trying to tell people what
they can and can't do if several federal laws were
undone. The states would be less compelled to
pass dumb laws along side.

I think there would be a lot of changes, and we wouldn't be having this discussion about one's
rights over another. JayC is only saying what Reagan did, years ago, about moving somewhere
else if one didn't like what they were faced with
where they are, and couldn't get laws changed
for less tyranny.

Not sure where you are going with that.

 

I'm not opposed to constitutional carry but it will only work to our benefit if the HCP process is left in place. Hoping that the federal government will back off and/or that states would eventually sanction CC for either their residents or non-residents/travelers is likely a false hope or at best would be decades in coming.

 

And no, equating what JayC is saying with Reagan said is just ridiculous.

Edited January 22, 2014 by RobertNashville

[Worriedman]

 

It's difficult to balance one set of rights over another.

6.8, I have to respectfully disagree. 

The Right to bear arms for self preservation supersedes all others in my estimation and as described in the Supreme Court ruling D.C. vs. Heller, (p. 62-63) there is never a need or authority of anyone to "balance" the right to self preservation: "we know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all”.  If you invite or allow a person onto your property, the denial of their ability to provide for the protection of that most important of things, life, without taking up the mantle (while seeking exclusion of responsibility) is unconscionable.

It is not given to the government or any person to allow, but as the court has noted the 2nd Amendment: “codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed ... this is not a right granted by the Constitution” (p. 19 Heller). It is innately, or maybe more properly unalienable (for those who understand the actual term) the possession of each of us, sans permission of any government or person.

Again, the Supreme Court in Heller states of the 2nd: “the core lawful purpose [is] self-defense” (p. 58), explaining the Founders “understood the right to enable individuals to defend themselves ... the 'right of self-preservation' as permitting a citizen to 'repe[l] force by force' when 'the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury' (p.21).

 

A more lengthy discussion can be found here http://www.policymic.com/articles/24557/9-things-you-didn-t-know-about-the-second-amendment.

Edited January 22, 2014 by Worriedman

[RobertNashville]

...If you invite or allow a person onto your property, the denial of their ability to provide for the protection of that most important of things, life, without taking up the mantle (while seeking exclusion of responsibility) is unconscionable.

While I agree with your entire post, I think perhaps the most salient and irrefutable thing you said and said so well is the above.

 

When a business invites someone (employee, customer, etc.) onto their property it is unconscionable that the business/property owner can simultaneously deny that invited person his right to arms to resist tyranny (the tyranny of any who might seek to do him harm) yet also refuse to take responsibility for providing that protection from tyranny.  If a business wants to forbid arms to those they invite onto their property they should at least be held 100% liable for protecting that invited person's life and should be required to expend whatever financial resources are necessary to do do or be denied the license to conduct their business and held civilly and criminally liable for their negligence.

 

The right to arms, wherever and whenever we go is the singular distinction between a Free Man and a slave.  Any law or any person who supports a law that infringes on the right to arms is no friend of liberty.

Edited January 22, 2014 by RobertNashville