TN nullification of Obamacare and all federal gun laws

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I was only talking in the case of one's use of rights over another, as in JayC's right to restrict something within his own business.

Otherwise, we are in complete agreement. What JayC is talking about is not necessarily a suspension of your or my rights, but

his right to his private property and control of it. The blur in my mind is the private property(my car) and my right to utilize it to

stow a weapon. This might never have come up if we hadn't gone down the rocky road of other laws that should never have

been allowed to flourish: Machine Gun Act of 1934, yada,yada,yada. Those laws stripped the 2nd Amendment into oblivion

and the use of the so-called Commerce Clause should never have been allowed to enter into the laws we have, also.

 

The role of Heller was to do what the federales were supposed to do. That is define and abate unjust laws that restrict rights.

I still think we wouldn't be having this discussion if all the irrational and unjust laws didn't exist. They are not in the spirit of a

constitutional republic. They only seek to undermine it.

 

To protect yourself supercedes any law and the 2nd Amendment only acknowledges it. When one is invited on to another's

property, and that person restricts a right in the process, he also takes on the responsibility to protect that person from any

right not allowed, far as I'm concerned, but I have to allow him that if I accept his terms. The private property(a car) is mine

and I should be able to have in it what I please. That's why I said it is difficult to balance one's rights over another.

 

The attempt to right an unjust law with another is only one way, and possibly the only way to correct some of the problems,

but the underlying law is the problem. Now, if only that could be accomplished, with all the disagreement ans semantics

being used in the argument. I know I'm speaking in ideal terms, but we tend to dig our own graves by allowing these politicians

to write crappy laws. Folks like Mae Beavers are doing good things to try to right wrongs. I won't criticize that.

Edited January 22, 2014 by 6.8 AR

[JayC]

I find the entire HCP system disgusting, immoral, and ineffective don't you?

 

Yes, I have an HCP and have had one for a long time...  I have one because it's the only way to legally be armed in my day to day life... and as a law abiding citizen, I generally jump through the unconstitutional hops presented to me because it's easier to do that than get arrested and fight the law in court.

 

I'd love constitutional carry...  I don't see any problem with it at all...  In the current political climate, I don't see why we would have to disband the HCP process if we passed constitutional carry... giving citizens an option, constitutional carry or get a permit if you feel you need one to travel outside the state.

 

I'm all for removing the governments ability to interfere in our daily lives...  prohibiting carry in a park or government building is bad and should be done away with...  Why can't we carry in the capital building?

 

The problem is I just don't worry about gun rights (although it's very high on my list), I worry about my other rights as well, including my property rights...  and even if I agree that people should be able to carry, I don't think the government has any business making a protected worker class and using that to force employers to violate their personal beliefs.  Somebody can hold a belief or a conviction and still believe the government has no business getting involved.

 

I've never done illegal drugs in my life...  if they were made completely legally tomorrow, I would still never use them... but I'm all for complete repeal of our drug laws..

 

I've never smoked a cigarette in my life, I personally find the habit disgusting, I always avoided businesses that allowed smoking... but I don't think it was right for the government to ban smoking in all restaurants.

 

I carry everywhere I go, with the exception of government locations, and I avoid those as much as possible :)  I think it's a good idea for people to be armed so they can protect themselves.  But, I don't think it's right for somebody to ask that a law be passed to limit employers right of contracts or property rights because they don't want to make hard choices in their own life.

 

I'm not even going to argue about the customer side of this because it's just so silly...  there are virtually no businesses in TN that have no local or internet competition.

 

As for the employee side, if you don't like the conditions of employment, find a new job...  if you can't find a job making as much as you do today, and you choose to stay at your current employer, then you've made the choice to place money over your safety and security...  That is a choice you've made as an adult, and I have no compassion whatsoever for your situation.

 

I've said it 100 times, show me a SINGLE person in TN who has an HCP and is forced to go underarmed (with the exception of interactions with the government)... and I'll support legislation to allow the government to use force to allow them to carry (and I for sure would support legislation to remove government buildings from the no carry list with very few exceptions).  The problem is nobody is being forced, they're free to find somewhere else to shop, or somewhere else to work.

 

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.

 

[Guest 6.8 AR]

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.

Don't know what you mean. I couldn't have made that any plainer.

 

There are two ways to fight unjust laws: undo them or saddle them with another set of laws. I'm not saying one is better than the other,

but sometimes laws can be so complicated to do that that they undermine what the original intent was in that original constitutional

amendment. We feel compelled to take a course with the ship, and I understand that completely, even though it may have unintended consequences not realized, that the ship can't carry the load, in the end. If laws are so sacrosanct that they are above having scrutiny at a later date, they become anchors around our necks. Any law that abridges a constitutional right should be reviewed every time a legislature convenes.

 

Fixing a law with another should only be viewed as temporary until the underlying problem can be addressed. Otherwise, I understand and agree with the "fix". Just get around to "fixing the real problem as soon as possible. If you want a taste of politicizing laws, just look at the NFA and how long the guys have to wait for their toys. That is completely unjust and has been going on for decades. I have no idea why people haven't just stood up and said "No!" to that set of laws, but they haven't. There is no

constitutional amendment that says otherwise, until a constitutional amendment makes it a part of the Constitution.

Edited January 22, 2014 by 6.8 AR

[Worriedman]

I've said it 100 times, show me a SINGLE person in TN who has an HCP and is forced to go underarmed (with the exception of interactions with the government)... and I'll support legislation to allow the government to use force to allow them to carry (and I for sure would support legislation to remove government buildings from the no carry list with very few exceptions).  The problem is nobody is being forced, they're free to find somewhere else to shop, or somewhere else to work.

Any contractor that bids and is successful on any Fed Ex, Bridgestone, Amazon etc. Project will by their fiat require their personnel to be unarmed (I assume that is what you meant when you typed underarmed, or maybe you intended to get into .22 v. .45 territory...). 

I personally was Sr. PM for the original Office Complex at Hemlock in Clarksville, and had to sign an agreement allowing search of my personal vehicle while parking on "their" lot, (even though we as taxpayers built it, and never received any benefit from those outlays).  No personal vehicles were allowed inside the fence of the Project, one had to be in a Company vehicle with nametags affixed, walk in or be carried by company supplied common carrier, yet you had to give up your protection against unreasonable search to work there. I was required to be unarmed for my traverse to and from Jackson-Clarksville.  My employer did not then, or now have a restriction on carry, but many of our customers do, most of them receiving huge sums of tax money to locate here in TN.

[JohnC]

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.

Number one, I don't work for you and I wouldn't. I'm in the process of trying to start up a business myself and if I am successful, I would allow guns in my employees locked vehicles in my parking lot. I would not want them to have to leave their CCW at home and possibly become a victim in their stops between work and home because of such an ignorant policy as you have. :up:

Yes there is a happy medium currently. We already have a parking lot bill and it allows us to store our weapons in our locked personal vehicles. We just need to fix it so that employers can't punish employees with legally owned and permitted CCW in their locked vehicles. :up:

You shouldn't have the authority to extend your property rights to folks front door, case closed.
If

[tnguy]

Also, the more we keep these politicians busy voting on our issues, the less they have time to spend on the left-wing's issues. :up:

 

 

This is an excellent point and something I think we need to internalize.

[tnguy]

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.

 

Could the same argument not be used if one were to walk to a posted establishment?

Edited January 22, 2014 by tnguy

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I don't think JayC has a problem with a gun in a car. His is the problem of a government with another law to bastardize into making him give up
more of his rights in spite of yours.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The gun community used to be a polite society.
When you force someone to do something against his beliefs, on his own property, you are no better than the worst liberal because you just
took something with no right to.

[JohnC]

I don't think JayC has a problem with a gun in a car. His is the problem of a government with another law to bastardize into making him give up
more of his rights in spite of yours.

What right is more valuable to you guys?

The second amendment and being able to defend your life, or his property rights via his parking lot rules that disarms law abiding citizens with HCP's?

[tnguy]

What right is more valuable to you guys?

The second amendment and being able to defend your life, or his property rights via his parking lot rules that disarms law abiding citizens with HCP's?

 

We have to pick and choose our rights now? That's how you lose them all.

 

And the 2nd is a restriction on the government, not private entities.

Edited January 22, 2014 by tnguy

[Guest 6.8 AR]

If you believe that rights come from your creator, rather than from man, you should understand how
rights stand their test of time. All the way from the Magna Carta, man has been struggling to make government understand this. some people still
accept authority only from government. We weren't the first to recognize this. We need to
keep on the right track and not let governments
stay in the way.

Governments will always automatically try to
usurp our freedom. You have to remain consistent
with the argument to win.

[RobertNashville]

I always find these discussions about "property rights" vs RTKABA a bit off point because such discussions are actually talking about not just different "rights" but different kinds of rights.

 

The right to arms is a natural (God-given) unalienable and individual right. It cannot be granted by government nor should it ever be infringed which is why, I submit, the founders (mostly Madison I believe) used those very words...free men have need of arms to fight tyranny from anyone or any institution that might seek to do them harm be that an individual or a government.

 

Despite much assertion to the contrary, I would submit that property rights are not and have never been absolute or fixed. Historically, property rights have always been in a state of flux in an attempt to strike a balance between the interests of the property holder and the community at large/society - they have changed over time and will probably continue to do so long after everyone here and many generations hence have assumed room temperature. I suspect that the founders knew this very well which is why we have the takings clause in the 5th amendment...they knew that government (which is a representation of society) would have need to "take" property for the good of society so they provided a mechanism whereby that could happen.

 

When we talk about property rights of property used for business purposes, the concept of property rights takes on an even broader interpretation of what those "rights" actually are and I would submit, are and should be far more subject to "change" than property used for private purposes. Not only have the concept of property rights been in flux in general, there is even more history of flux with regards to property used for business/where the public (be that customers or employees) are specifically invited to be.  Government has long exercised control over what the property owner of business property can and cannot do on that property on behalf of the good of the broader society.

 

To sum up, I find all the angst and argument about business property rights vs individual, God-given rights to be unnecessary and somewhat beside the point because if forced into a contest regarding which is more "important", the individual's unalienable rights should always prevail over a businesses' property rights. The only truly relevant factor in that comparison that could tip the scales in the businesses' favor is if the business can substantiate that they will incur real harm if forced to forgo its rights in favor of the individual (i.e. can they substantiate that their business will suffer financially if they "allow" arms on the property, etc.).  Short of that, the individual's rights should prevail.

 

I'm sure many won't agree with me but that's okay.

[tnguy]

Remember, it's not about your right to have a weapon in a vehicle on someone else's property, it's about the right of your employer to continue or discontinue his association with you.

Edited January 22, 2014 by tnguy

[JohnC]

I always find these discussions about "property rights" vs RTKABA a bit off point because such discussions are actually talking about not just different "rights" but different kinds of rights.
 
The right to arms is a natural (God-given) unalienable and individual right. It cannot be granted by government nor should it ever be infringed which is why, I submit, the founders (mostly Madison I believe) used those very words...free men have need of arms to fight tyranny from anyone or any institution that might seek to do them harm be that an individual or a government.
 
Despite much assertion to the contrary, I would submit that property rights are not and have never been absolute or fixed. Historically, property rights have always been in a state of flux in an attempt to strike a balance between the interests of the property holder and the community at large/society - they have changed over time and will probably continue to do so long after everyone here and many generations hence have assumed room temperature. I suspect that the founders knew this very well which is why we have the takings clause in the 5th amendment...they knew that government (which is a representation of society) would have need to "take" property for the good of society so they provided a mechanism whereby that could happen.
 
When we talk about property rights of property used for business purposes, the concept of property rights takes on an even broader interpretation of what those "rights" actually are and I would submit, are and should be far more subject to "change" than property used for private purposes. Not only have the concept of property rights been in flux in general, there is even more history of flux with regards to property used for business/where the public (be that customers or employees) are specifically invited to be.  Government has long exercised control over what the property owner of business property can and cannot do on that property on behalf of the good of the broader society.
 
To sum up, I find all the angst and argument about business property rights vs individual, God-given rights to be unnecessary and somewhat beside the point because if forced into a contest regarding which is more "important", the individual's unalienable rights should always prevail over a businesses' property rights. The only truly relevant factor in that comparison that could tip the scales in the businesses' favor is if the business can substantiate that they will incur real harm if forced to forgo its rights in favor of the individual (i.e. can they substantiate that their business will suffer financially if they "allow" arms on the property, etc.).  Short of that, the individual's rights should prevail.
 
I'm sure many won't agree with me but that's okay.

I agree with that. :up:

[Spiffy]

Sounds like a good thing to bring about Obama's version of the Civilian Army he wants. Use them to enforce federal law and throw people in "camps" like Sheriff Joe has just on army/air force bases.

[RobertNashville]

Remember, it's not about your right to have a weapon in a vehicle on someone else's property, it's about the right of your employer to continue or discontinue his association with you.

No it isn't nor is this just about employers/employees.

[JohnC]

Sounds like a good thing to bring about Obama's version of the Civilian Army he wants. Use them to enforce federal law and throw people in "camps" like Sheriff Joe has just on army/air force bases.

Well that's blown way out in to left field.

No one said that and no one wants that.

Where do you stand on the issues discussed herein?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Robert, a right is a right. Separate them all you want, but they all play with the same weight. If you don't have the same right

with property, that isn't a right any more than you defending yourself. Government gets in the way when you give them the

power to determine which rights you have. That's where you better be real careful because they want to determine any and

all of your rights.

 

You can and do give up rights to accept something when employed by another. It will happen every day. Things like workplace

safety cause all those pesky laws that prohibit you from smoking pot while on the job just to keep you from running a bulldozer

off into someone else's workplace and killing them then claiming you were not responsible for your actions. Need more examples?

 

You only have inalienable rights when you are responsible enough to accept the consequences of your actions, in God's eyes

and man's. If you don't have property rights, something which didn't come from God but is a construct of man, you don't have a

place to protect yourself. A civilized society honors another's property. Without property we are all subjects of government.

[RobertNashville]

Robert, a right is a right. Separate them all you want, but they all play with the same weight. If you don't have the same right

with property, that isn't a right any more than you defending yourself. Government gets in the way when you give them the

power to determine which rights you have. That's where you better be real careful because they want to determine any and

all of your rights.

 

You can and do give up rights to accept something when employed by another. It will happen every day. Things like workplace

safety cause all those pesky laws that prohibit you from smoking pot while on the job just to keep you from running a bulldozer

off into someone else's workplace and killing them then claiming you were not responsible for your actions. Need more examples?

 

You only have inalienable rights when you are responsible enough to accept the consequences of your actions, in God's eyes

and man's. If you don't have property rights, something which didn't come from God but is a construct of man, you don't have a

place to protect yourself. A civilized society honors another's property. Without property we are all subjects of government.

It's history and law that separates them and history shows that "property rights" and unalienable rights such as the right to bear arms or of free speech are not equal and never have been treated as equal; that is especially true of property used for business.

 

The only time it is reasonable for an person to give up a natural right (especially one actually protected by the constitution) as a condition of employment is if his exercising that right causes harm or would cause harm to the employer/business requiring it.

 

If you want to talk about being responsible enough to take responsibility for your actions and if you want to equate property rights and the RTKABA then any property owner that asserts its "property rights" as a basis for forbidding a person arms to provide for his own security and safety should then at least be responsible for their actions enough to be held 100% responsible (criminally and civilly) for that person's safety and security. However, these property owners want it both ways...they want to forbid citizens to be armed and they want no responsibility for the possible consequences. There is no logic that can support that hypocritical position.

Edited January 22, 2014 by RobertNashville

[JohnC]

It's history that separates them and history shows that "property rights" and unalienable rights such as the right to bear arms or of free speech are not equal and never have been nor treated as equal. People can be upset about that all they want but it won't change our history. Also through history, property used or business purposes has been treated differently than property used for private purposes - such different kinds of property are not equal in stature or in protection under the law.
 
The only time it is reasonable for an employee to give up a natural right (especially one actually protected by the constitution) as a condition of employment is if his exercising that right causes harm or would cause harm to the employer.
 
Further and again, we aren't just talking about employee/employer issues here.
 
And finally, if you want to talk about being responsible enough to take responsibility for your actions then any property owner that forbids a person arms to provide for his own security and safety should then be 100% responsible for that person's safety and security but these property owners want it both ways...they don't want citizens to be armed and they want no responsibility for the possible consequences.

I don't have to reply anymore. You keep nailing it! :up:

[DaveTN]

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.

I don’t know if you were talking about me or not but I have an HCP; we are both in Murfreesboro I would be happy to show it to you. I have no hostility towards the HCP system; quite the contrary I have stated many times we have reasonable carry laws here and I appreciate what our legislators do.

But carry is still not a right. I would like to see it acknowledged as a right; I think we are at that point. No one is suggesting that HCP’s be done away with (that I see). I doubt the state will pass up free money and those that want to be allowed to carry in other states would continue to pay for the privilege; I know I would.

One is a right that is not for sale, the other is a privilege that you buy from the state; one really has nothing to do with the other. Edited January 22, 2014 by DaveTN

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Robert, you aren't giving up the right to defend yourself if you aren't allowed to carry a gun on someone else's property. You are

only restricted from carrying the gun. There are other ways to defend yourself, so your inalienable rights aren't in jeopardy.

 

"It's history and law that separates them and history shows that "property rights" and unalienable rights such as the right to bear

arms or of free speech are not equal and never have been treated as equal; that is especially true of property used for business."

 

Speech is only free because we demand it. It isn't an inalienable right. Property rights, well you didn't take in what I said. It is man's

construct, along with speech. History will always be changing those, so they are not inalienable. Man gets in the way. I guess you

could say man has gotten in the way of defending himself by all the unjust laws that need to be undone.

 

"If you want to talk about being responsible enough to take responsibility for your actions and if you want to equate property rights and the RTKABA then any property owner that asserts its "property rights" as a basis for forbidding a person arms to provide for his own security and safety should then at least be responsible for their actions enough to be held 100% responsible (criminally and civilly) for that person's safety and security. However, these property owners want it both ways...they want to forbid citizens to be armed and they want no responsibility for the possible consequences. There is no logic that can support that hypocritical position."

 

Essentially, that's what I said earlier. So argue away.

[JohnC]

Robert, you aren't giving up the right to defend yourself if you aren't allowed to carry a gun on someone else's property. You are
only restricted from carrying the gun. There are other ways to defend yourself, so your inalienable rights aren't in jeopardy.

Are you serious with that statement?

There are many scenarios where not being armed could leave him a corpse for the LEO's to investigate. How many times have we seen video of armed criminals being successfully thwarted just by brandishing a firearm in self defense, or even shooting them in defense of life?

If he's met by an armed killer at gunpoint, do you really think he will be able to physically defend himself against a bullet?

If the company says he can't carry a weapon on their property, that probably will end his right to having any tools to defend himself with (club, bat, mace, etc).

This logic is starting to sound like the arguments the left-wing uses to defend disarming folks.

Don't worry, the LEO's are only 11-15 minutes away after you reach for your cellphone and dial 911.

And that's if you're still alive to make the call. :down: Edited January 23, 2014 by JohnC

[JohnC]

I don’t know if you were talking about me or not but I have an HCP; we are both in Murfreesboro I would be happy to show it to you. I have no hostility towards the HCP system; quite the contrary I have stated many times we have reasonable carry laws here and I appreciate what our legislators do.

But carry is still not a right. I would like to see it acknowledged as a right; I think we are at that point. No one is suggesting that HCP’s be done away with (that I see). I doubt the state will pass up free money and those that want to be allowed to carry in other states would continue to pay for the privilege; I know I would.

One is a right that is not for sale, the other is a privilege that you buy from the state; one really has nothing to do with the other.

I believe they have everything to do with each other, because without the second amendment, there would be no carry permits and no guns for civilians.

It's just over time, our 2A rights have been reduced, restricted, etc., and we're just now making baby steps to getting them back. The AWB expired and the last attempt to renew it failed, we now have a system that allows us to easily get a HCP to conceal carry a gun, and also at least to the point of a parking lot on private property, etc.

If you guys all worried about your property rights and imposing your rules on folks would stop arguing against it and funneling your business dollars in to stopping it, maybe we could make some real progress and have the ability to carry and defend our lives everywhere we go instead of having stupid gun free zones all over the place.

And it pisses me off I have to walk up, look for gun buster signs, etc., go back to my car and disarm. Because not only is it a hassle and almost a form of harassment by the liberal owned businesses, but it leaves me defenseless as well as the possibility of a criminal breaking in to my car and getting himself armed. I don't want to be arming criminals because businesses want me to disarm on their property.

Just think if any of the private businesses that are gun free zones where some of the recent mass killers and terrorists went on shooting rampages, had allowed law abiding permitted citizens to carry. Do you think it might have changed the body count?

Just think if one of you business owners and private property rights folks went to someone else's business where you have to disarm and you, your wife or kid(s) got shot and killed by a criminal. How would you feel about property rights, gun free zones, and the business that forced you to disarm then?