TN nullification of Obamacare and all federal gun laws

[RobertNashville]

I would love to hear more about that.  What exactly is the history of Tennessee gun laws?

just glance about six posts above  ^^^

[Oh Shoot]

I would love to hear more about that.  What exactly is the history of Tennessee gun laws?

 

Referring to Worriedman's post above, #94.

 

- OS

[DaveTN]

DaveTn, whom I was replying to, has been complaining in this and other threads about the fact that we don't have constitutional carry in Tennessee and that we have to pay for the little plastic card, etc...all I was pointing out, it what I intended to be just rather "side comments" to the whole issue and certainly not intending them to become a big deal, was that we did once have what is now called "constitutional carry" and that the only real reason we don't have it now is because of the racist laws, still in effect today, that were put in place to keep blacks from being able to legally carry arms...I'm suggesting that had it not been for them all this consternation about not having constitutional carry would likely be moot.

The state controls the gun laws because we had a civil war and they have controlled them since. If you want to blame it on racism; knock yourself out.

I thinking anyone following this discussion can see that I’m not complaining about Tennessee not having Constitutional Carry; I’m just stating it as fact and saying that the time to fix that is now.

Who would have ever thought you would see me absolutely opposed to the act of a thug government and Robert supporting it?

Scorn, contempt, scoff, jeer, mock… really? Robert, I don’t think anyone here needs you to try to explain what I’m saying as its clear that you are much more interested in attacking me than discussing the issues. So can we knock off the childish nonsense?

[DaveTN]

It's not that I am against a parking lot bill, because I think if we have to make a law to do that, we have gone awry somewhere else.
But I see the need in the parking lot bill because there is so much confusion with the other laws we have clouding the matter.

That’s what I’m saying. I’m not against the parking lot issue if its a right, but don’t try to claim a right you don’t have to justify it.
If the state wants to tell a private property owner it’s allowed; it must be allowed for all citizens and it must be a right. Is that too much to ask?

[Garufa]

just glance about six posts above  ^^^

 

 

Referring to Worriedman's post above, #94.

 

- OS

 

Thanks.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

There may not be a "question" as far a you are concerned but my study of history surrounding property rights/law shows the that property rights and rights such as free speech or the right to arms have never been treated as equal and that business property has been subject to government regulations for almost as long as the country has been a country.  You can claim it shouldn't be that way if you wish but wishes won't change history.

 

And more important for today, the courts have already decided that these laws do not violate the 5th...businesses have brought suit and made those arguments and those arguments failed in the courts because the businesses that brought suite could not show how their property has been taken or their use of the property infringed.

 

Other than in their own minds, the state declaring that business property cannot forbid legally armed citizens from being armed does not violate the businesses rights and until a federal appeals court has an dissenting opinion or SCOTUS says otherwise and then the mantra of "property rights" is moot.

 

I'm not saying that "property rights" are not important because they ARE important. But I am saying that rights of property owners to own and use their property for private purposes are and should be and always have been afforded more protection than property used for business purposes - society (in the form of government) has the power, the legal authority and the obligation to regulate such property with the best interests of society in mind. To that end, if an armed citizenry is important to and in the best interests of society and the individual (and I believe it is) then government has an obligation to require business and public property to allow legally armed citizens on/in their property especially when such a requirement has little or not demonstrable impact/infringement on the rights of the property owner.  If any business can show me actual, quantifiable harm from being required to allow its employees/customers to be armed then I would come down squarely on the side of the business property owner but so far, not a single business has been able to do that.

So you are saying the courts have upheld the rights of an armed citizen to enter a business, uninvited, without the owner's consent? Okay.

Can an owner tell a person to leave his premises? Can an owner refuse to sell ?

 

If so, maybe that is the case, somewhere. And you are okay with that?

 

To Hell with a civil society then! You just allowed one person to infringe with one right on another. Talk about being about as much

of a liberal as can be.

 

Let's just go and stomp all over some other right, like the right to quiet enjoyment. That's one of those bundle of ownership rights just

about all property owners obtain when they buy property. If that right exists for a business, then it must for any private property.

Interesting.

[RobertNashville]

This is what I'm saying....

 

 

I'm not saying that "property rights" are not important because they ARE important. But I am saying that rights of property owners to own and use their property for private purposes are and should be and always have been afforded more protection than property used for business purposes - society (in the form of government) has the power, the legal authority and the obligation to regulate such property with the best interests of society in mind. To that end, if an armed citizenry is important to and in the best interests of society and the individual (and I believe it is) then government has an obligation to require business and public property to allow legally armed citizens on/in their property especially when such a requirement has little or not demonstrable impact/infringement on the rights of the property owner.  If any business can show me actual, quantifiable harm from being required to allow its employees/customers to be armed then I would come down squarely on the side of the business property owner but so far, not a single business has been able to do that.

 

 

If my meaning is still unclear then I suppose it will just have to remain unclear.  :shrug:

 

[DMark]

Way back on page 1 of this thread (post # 12) I wondered what Mae was up to.  

 

Looks like Clark Boyd might be the reason. 

 

http://www.lebanondemocrat.com/article/wilson-county-elections/324351

[Guest 6.8 AR]

This is what I'm saying....

 

 

 

 

If my meaning is still unclear then I suppose it will just have to remain unclear.  :shrug:

No, your meaning is very clear. You expect the government to grant you access in any business with your handgun, whether or not

you're welcome. But you don't mind that the federal buildings are exempt from this.

 

I think I'll stop there because this really has nothing to do with a parking lot bill.

[RobertNashville]

No, your meaning is very clear. You expect the government to grant you access in any business with your handgun, whether or not

you're welcome. But you don't mind that the federal buildings are exempt from this.

 

I think I'll stop there because this really has nothing to do with a parking lot bill.

Apparently my meaning isn't clear. My meaning especially isn't clear if you think I "don't mind" that federal buildings or any other are exempt and I've absolutely no idea where you came up with that interpretation. :shrug:

 

I don't believe that any place (building/parking lots/structure/park/school grounds, etc.*) that exists for public use and/or where the public (including employees) are invited to be should be able to forbid that public/employees from being armed.

 

When did this thread become about or limited to the "parking lot bill"? I guess I missed that because that has not been what I've been talking about other than tangentially.

 

 

* Unless that facility/building, etc. can cite a valid, demonstrable and significant safety/operational concern to the presence of a firearm.

Edited January 24, 2014 by RobertNashville

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Ever heard of conditions of employment? The rest is just plain old property rights, which you think the government should have a say

how the owner determines that, concerning guns. Otherwise, nevermind.

 

More cake, please.

 

Yes, we were talking parking lot bill, concerning this little bit.

[RobertNashville]

Ever heard of conditions of employment? The rest is just plain old property rights, which you think the government should have a say
how the owner determines that, concerning guns.

 
I really don't understand your posts to me in this thread or why you keep going over and over the same thing.
 
 

I'll say it again; I don't believe that any place (building/parking lots/structure/park/school grounds, etc.*) that exists for public use and/or where the public (including employees) are invited to be should be able to forbid that public/employees from being armed and that includes "conditions of employment".




* Unless that facility/building, etc. can cite a valid, demonstrable and significant safety/operational concern to the presence of a firearm.

 
Is what I'm saying above really that unclear?  :shrug:
 
Doesn't matter anyway I suppose...I'm done.
 

Edited January 24, 2014 by RobertNashville