Tndeer Logo

Page all of 9 12345>Last »
Topic Options
#3136070 - 01/23/13 01:39 PM Question? Guns at work.
strutandrut
Non-Typical


Registered: 07/03/06
Posts: 29006
Loc: signal mountain

Offline
I didn't want to hijack another thread so I thought I'd ask in a new one. Anyone who knows me knows I'm very Pro 2nd amendment, and I carry.

On the subject of guns at work and in parking lots...

If a business owner does not want guns on his property, does he have the right to refuse to allow it. Since it is his personal property, does he have the right to set the rules on his property?

Opinions?
_________________________
Any day above ground is a good day.

Why do I carry a gun? Because cops weigh too much to carry and are difficult to conceal.

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Top
#3136086 - 01/23/13 01:45 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: strutandrut]
Chaneylake
Brownsville Mafia
16 Point


Registered: 12/18/07
Posts: 16576
Loc: on the wings of a snow white d...

Offline
 Originally Posted By: strutandrut
I didn't want to hijack another thread so I thought I'd ask in a new one. Anyone who knows me knows I'm very Pro 2nd amendment, and I carry.

On the subject of guns at work and in parking lots...

If a business owner does not want guns on his property, does he have the right to refuse to allow it. Since it is his personal property, does he have the right to set the rules on his property?

Opinions?



imo yes, also in the work place the higher up can tap your work phone, so I was told by a boss of mine one time, I quit immediately
_________________________
"Don't piss down my back and tell me its rain", Fletcher, Outlaw Josey Wales

Living somewhere between this world and the other, Legends of the Fall

Top
#3136089 - 01/23/13 01:47 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: Chaneylake]
Mossy Oak
8 Point


Registered: 01/03/05
Posts: 2427
Loc: Montgomery Co.

Offline
Absolutely
_________________________
Mossy Oak ProStaff

Team Release and Catch Bowfishing

http://www.dirtnapgear.com/


Top
#3136093 - 01/23/13 01:48 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: Mossy Oak]
Nyper
16 Point


Registered: 11/29/00
Posts: 11144
Loc: Lebanon

Offline
Different states have different laws. I'm not familiar with TN laws since just moving back here, but some states have laws that work for the armed citizen - allowing them to keep the gun in the vehicle if it is locked and out of plain site.
Top
#3136104 - 01/23/13 01:52 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: Mossy Oak]
waynesworld
8 Point


Registered: 05/13/12
Posts: 1471
Loc: Mboro, Tennessee

Offline
As it should be the owner should have the right but if he takes your right to protect yourself he should be held liable for your protection. If I do not want shoes worn in my house it is my house but if you cut your foot on a nail it is my fault you could not ware shoes.
Top
#3136108 - 01/23/13 01:54 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: Nyper]
Unicam Administrator
Grumpaw
16 Point


Registered: 12/13/00
Posts: 19369
Loc: Dallas, GA. & Cookeville, TN

Offline
In GA, nope, signs carry no force. The law is the law and the cost of operating said business in the state is following the laws of that state. If you are asked to leave a business for any reason, including a weapon you must immediately or face a trespass charge. Our laws say ONLY the legislature can pass weapons laws and no other entity in that state can add or delete them and NO side steps from that pre-emption. I do like GA sometimes. TN lets to many cities and towns get away from the states pre-emption laws. Employees of said businesses are different story, employer says no guns, its no guns.

Edited by Unicam (01/23/13 01:55 PM)
_________________________
"Gun Free Zones are for VICTIMS!"

John 15:13

Top
#3136117 - 01/23/13 01:59 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: Unicam]
Unicam Administrator
Grumpaw
16 Point


Registered: 12/13/00
Posts: 19369
Loc: Dallas, GA. & Cookeville, TN

Offline
Actually until last year I believe the law in TN was that a no weapons sign had to have a very specific verbage on it to be legal and could not be a "No Guns" or the circle with the line through the gun. Believe it changed last year though and now all signs are considered legal in TN.. No matter, if asked to leave for any reason, you must or face a trespass charge....
_________________________
"Gun Free Zones are for VICTIMS!"

John 15:13

Top
#3136121 - 01/23/13 02:00 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: Unicam]
Unicam Administrator
Grumpaw
16 Point


Registered: 12/13/00
Posts: 19369
Loc: Dallas, GA. & Cookeville, TN

Offline
ooopps now I read the at work part..yep here in GA that is enforced, right to work and all that, no guns on private property if the owner of said business says so for employees....
_________________________
"Gun Free Zones are for VICTIMS!"

John 15:13

Top
#3136123 - 01/23/13 02:03 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: Unicam]
scn
14 Point


Registered: 02/05/03
Posts: 9920
Loc: Brentwood, TN US

Offline
Guns in parking lots was a contentious issue in the legislature last year, and supposedly cost one representative her seat. I will be surprised if it doesn't come back up again this year.

From what I've read, until the legislature changes the law employers do have the right to ban guns on their property including those of carry permit holders.
_________________________
Life is too short to fish with a dead cricket.

Top
#3136131 - 01/23/13 02:10 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: Unicam]
Redfred16
8 Point


Registered: 01/22/12
Posts: 1410
Loc: Hartland, WI

Offline
From what I was told when I first moved down here, in TN employers can make rules that do not allow employees to keep firearms in thier cars. There is a proposed law to change this, VW says they may not expand in TN if it is passed. Just a note to you VW owners.

2 Years ago when Wisconsin finally passed the CC law, they put specific provisions in it for employers and employees and they have alot of common sense to them. An employer cannot stop an employee from storing thier legally owned firearms in thier car in the legal way, unloaded, in a locked case, ect. The reasoning behind this was two fold, first people are not under an employers control while moving to and from work. Secondly the car is the private property of the employee.
_________________________
Packer Fan back in Packer Country

"Recon Ready"
Airborne and Air Assault Blood Wings Worn Here

Top
#3136137 - 01/23/13 02:14 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: scn]
Unicam Administrator
Grumpaw
16 Point


Registered: 12/13/00
Posts: 19369
Loc: Dallas, GA. & Cookeville, TN

Offline
 Originally Posted By: scn
Guns in parking lots was a contentious issue in the legislature last year, and supposedly cost one representative her seat. I will be surprised if it doesn't come back up again this year.

From what I've read, until the legislature changes the law employers do have the right to ban guns on their property including those of carry permit holders.


Good post sir!
_________________________
"Gun Free Zones are for VICTIMS!"

John 15:13

Top
#3136139 - 01/23/13 02:20 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: strutandrut]
Vermin93
12 Point


Registered: 12/11/10
Posts: 5739
Loc: Dallas, TX & Signal Mtn, TN

Offline
They passed legislation for this down here in Texas in 2011. Some of you may be interested in what is and isn't legally allowed:

Texas Guns at Work Law

It would be good to see Tennessee join this list of States...

"Texas joins a number of other states that have enacted these so-called “parking lot” laws in the past several years, including Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Utah. "
_________________________
“The more I read and the more I listen, the more apparent it is that our society suffers from an alarming degree of public ignorance” - Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor

Top
#3136140 - 01/23/13 02:22 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: Vermin93]
Unicam Administrator
Grumpaw
16 Point


Registered: 12/13/00
Posts: 19369
Loc: Dallas, GA. & Cookeville, TN

Offline
Ours was passed in SB-308 or SB-89, cant remember which...I guess I need to ead up on my state a little more. Federal property is a little different for me though.
_________________________
"Gun Free Zones are for VICTIMS!"

John 15:13

Top
#3136146 - 01/23/13 02:28 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: scn]
Kimber45 Moderator
Peace Maker
16 Point


Registered: 07/10/08
Posts: 18005
Loc: Close to Jackson, TN

Offline
 Originally Posted By: scn
Guns in parking lots was a contentious issue in the legislature last year, and supposedly cost one representative her seat. I will be surprised if it doesn't come back up again this year.

From what I've read, until the legislature changes the law employers do have the right to ban guns on their property including those of carry permit holders.


I believe you're right however, in order for them to have a right to search your vehicle you'd either have to:
* Agree by signing some agreement prior to or during employment
or
* Have been talking about what you have in your vehicle (at which point they could only ask you to leave if you refused)

Right?
_________________________
Patriotism is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime.

Top
#3136156 - 01/23/13 02:35 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: Kimber45]
Unicam Administrator
Grumpaw
16 Point


Registered: 12/13/00
Posts: 19369
Loc: Dallas, GA. & Cookeville, TN

Offline
 Originally Posted By: Kimber45
 Originally Posted By: scn
Guns in parking lots was a contentious issue in the legislature last year, and supposedly cost one representative her seat. I will be surprised if it doesn't come back up again this year.

From what I've read, until the legislature changes the law employers do have the right to ban guns on their property including those of carry permit holders.


I believe you're right however, in order for them to have a right to search your vehicle you'd either have to:
* Agree by signing some agreement prior to or during employment
or
* Have been talking about what you have in your vehicle (at which point they could only ask you to leave if you refused)

Right?



I know of a lady down here who was fired for not letting them search her vehicle, this was in 10 or 11 before the law changed.
_________________________
"Gun Free Zones are for VICTIMS!"

John 15:13

Top
#3136166 - 01/23/13 02:42 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: Kimber45]
scn
14 Point


Registered: 02/05/03
Posts: 9920
Loc: Brentwood, TN US

Offline
 Originally Posted By: Kimber45
 Originally Posted By: scn
Guns in parking lots was a contentious issue in the legislature last year, and supposedly cost one representative her seat. I will be surprised if it doesn't come back up again this year.

From what I've read, until the legislature changes the law employers do have the right to ban guns on their property including those of carry permit holders.


I believe you're right however, in order for them to have a right to search your vehicle you'd either have to:
* Agree by signing some agreement prior to or during employment
or
* Have been talking about what you have in your vehicle (at which point they could only ask you to leave if you refused)

Right?



I have no idea on what an employer can and cannot do. My training is on the LE end for searches.
_________________________
Life is too short to fish with a dead cricket.

Top
#3136169 - 01/23/13 02:47 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: Unicam]
waynesworld
8 Point


Registered: 05/13/12
Posts: 1471
Loc: Mboro, Tennessee

Offline
In TN you can be fired for any thing except for the protected reasons. Race and what not. But if you are fired you have a right for unemployment unless they prove you were fired for just cause. Most places a work would have trouble forcing you to allow them to search your vehicle and if you have your gun locked in a box in the trunk it would even be more difficult for them to make you open the locked box. But could you still be fired? Of course. There are some places that they may have ability to search, like working at the federal reserve, Nissan plant, correction facility.
Top
#3136174 - 01/23/13 02:54 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: waynesworld]
89cherokeelimited
6 Point


Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 822
Loc: TN, Sumner, Hendersonville

Offline
 Originally Posted By: waynesworld
In TN you can be fired for any thing except for the protected reasons. Race and what not. But if you are fired you have a right for unemployment unless they prove you were fired for just cause. Most places a work would have trouble forcing you to allow them to search your vehicle and if you have your gun locked in a box in the trunk it would even be more difficult for them to make you open the locked box. But could you still be fired? Of course. There are some places that they may have ability to search, like working at the federal reserve, Nissan plant, correction facility.


That's my issue.
My work doesn't own our buildings or the parking lot but we work on federal and local government contracts.
_________________________
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.
Albert Einstein

Top
#3136224 - 01/23/13 03:39 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: 89cherokeelimited]
GRAMPS
14 Point


Registered: 09/12/03
Posts: 8600
Loc: Mount Carmel, TN

Offline
The last two jobs that I worked at made you sign an agreement that your car could be searched any time it was on company property. Had to sign this agreement on your first day of work. Both places also included knives along with guns.

I am seeing no guns, knives, or other weapons signs at more and more business's in Kingsport. Last two doctors offices I went to had new signs telling that no guns or knives were allowed in the building.
_________________________
The older we get....the better we was.

Top
#3136237 - 01/23/13 03:50 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: strutandrut]
TAFKAP
14 Point


Registered: 11/06/09
Posts: 9541
Loc: Memphis

Offline
 Originally Posted By: strutandrut
I didn't want to hijack another thread so I thought I'd ask in a new one. Anyone who knows me knows I'm very Pro 2nd amendment, and I carry.

On the subject of guns at work and in parking lots...

If a business owner does not want guns on his property, does he have the right to refuse to allow it. Since it is his personal property, does he have the right to set the rules on his property?

Opinions?



Anything contained within the confines of a space supported by (4) tires I own is considered MY property under MY control. Pi$$ on anyone that says otherwise.
_________________________
Everything important in life was learned from Mary Jo Kopechne.

Top
#3136240 - 01/23/13 03:51 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: Unicam]
TAFKAP
14 Point


Registered: 11/06/09
Posts: 9541
Loc: Memphis

Offline
 Originally Posted By: Unicam
Actually until last year I believe the law in TN was that a no weapons sign had to have a very specific verbage on it to be legal and could not be a "No Guns" or the circle with the line through the gun. Believe it changed last year though and now all signs are considered legal in TN.. No matter, if asked to leave for any reason, you must or face a trespass charge....


Otherway around...."Gunbuster" sign used to not be legally binding. Law has since been modified to essentially give legal weight to any signage that even remotely conveys the no-guns intent.
_________________________
Everything important in life was learned from Mary Jo Kopechne.

Top
#3136243 - 01/23/13 03:52 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: TAFKAP]
Buzzard
8 Point


Registered: 02/21/08
Posts: 1303
Loc: Rocky Top

Offline
(TCA 39-17-1359) Tennessee Prohibition Of Carry Notice. This is the law that allows your employer to prohibit you from carrying on property.

This is also the basis for the "Parking Lot Bill" that is being considered at the current time. It would prohibit your employer from keeping a HCP holder from keeping his or her handgun locked in their car while on property.

Another reason to contact your Representative and ask them to support it.
_________________________
"It's the spending stupid"

"Life is Hard, It's harder if you're stupid"
John Wayne

Top
#3136259 - 01/23/13 04:06 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: TAFKAP]
Sako
10 Point


Registered: 01/19/05
Posts: 3330
Loc: Knoxville

Offline
 Originally Posted By: TAFKAP
 Originally Posted By: Unicam
Actually until last year I believe the law in TN was that a no weapons sign had to have a very specific verbage on it to be legal and could not be a "No Guns" or the circle with the line through the gun. Believe it changed last year though and now all signs are considered legal in TN.. No matter, if asked to leave for any reason, you must or face a trespass charge....


Otherway around...."Gunbuster" sign used to not be legally binding. Law has since been modified to essentially give legal weight to any signage that even remotely conveys the no-guns intent.


wehn was this passed... and can you point to the legislation? It was my understanding the sign had to be very specific about it.... (exact verbiage from the state).... when did this change?
_________________________
If Thompson Center is America's Master Gunmaker... We are in alot of trouble

Top
#3136260 - 01/23/13 04:08 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: Buzzard]
TAFKAP
14 Point


Registered: 11/06/09
Posts: 9541
Loc: Memphis

Offline
 Originally Posted By: Buzzard
(TCA 39-17-1359) Tennessee Prohibition Of Carry Notice. This is the law that allows your employer to prohibit you from carrying on property.

This is also the basis for the "Parking Lot Bill" that is being considered at the current time. It would prohibit your employer from keeping a HCP holder from keeping his or her handgun locked in their car while on property.

Another reason to contact your Representative and ask them to support it.



Sorry....Fred Smith told the Reps to jump, and on the way up, they asked "HOW HIGH???"

It doesn't stand much of a chance again, so long as the super buisiness elites of the state have their way. Don't forget, Hizzoner Haslam is one of them. Even if it does pass, it won't escape committee, where I recall, Mr. "Put the Boot To 'Em" Ron Ramsey killed it last year.
_________________________
Everything important in life was learned from Mary Jo Kopechne.

Top
#3136271 - 01/23/13 04:14 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: Buzzard]
dr
10 Point


Registered: 02/24/03
Posts: 4277
Loc: USA

Offline
My employer does not allow firearms on their property, and I honor their rules. It's not worth risking my job. They have been known to patrol the parking lot with dogs, trained to sniff out guns, and contraband. An employee was fired several years ago for having a firearm in his vehicle. He got caught by telling someone on the web, via his company pc that he had one in his car.
_________________________
"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him --- better take a closer look at the American Indian." Henry Ford

Top
#3136282 - 01/23/13 04:25 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: dr]
TAFKAP
14 Point


Registered: 11/06/09
Posts: 9541
Loc: Memphis

Offline
How can a dog sniff out a gun in a car???
_________________________
Everything important in life was learned from Mary Jo Kopechne.

Top
#3136328 - 01/23/13 05:01 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: Vermin93]
FLTENNHUNTER1
16 Point


Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 16211
Loc: Tampa FL

Offline
 Originally Posted By: Vermin93
They passed legislation for this down here in Texas in 2011. Some of you may be interested in what is and isn't legally allowed:

Texas Guns at Work Law

It would be good to see Tennessee join this list of States...

"Texas joins a number of other states that have enacted these so-called “parking lot” laws in the past several years, including Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Utah. "


This is how it is in Florida; my vehicle is my personal property, considered my "Castle" and therefore I can store weapons in my vehicle, as it should be.
_________________________
The Second Amendment - George Washington didn't use free speech to defeat the British, he shot them.
"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace." - Thomas Paine





Top
#3136502 - 01/23/13 07:16 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: Redfred16]
Bone Collector
14 Point


Registered: 09/09/09
Posts: 8966
Loc: Murfreesboro, TN

Offline
So i am wondering if that applies to your car. The way i understood it in the carry class and I may have misunderstood, was your car was your private property and since ou would leave the work premisses you could not be forced to not be able to protect yourself when you left. therefore No guns on premisses for employees meant in the building, so just leave it in your car.

It makes no sense that you would have to forfiet your right to carry to and from work, because your employer said no guns. If I am wrong in my above post I would say just leave it in your car and don't say anything to anyone.
_________________________
Semper Fidelis!

“There are hunters and there are victims. By your discipline, cunning, obedience and alertness, you will decide if you are a hunter or a victim.”
General James Mattis

Top
#3136509 - 01/23/13 07:22 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: TAFKAP]
dr
10 Point


Registered: 02/24/03
Posts: 4277
Loc: USA

Offline
 Originally Posted By: TAFKAP
How can a dog sniff out a gun in a car???

Dogs can be trained to alert to drugs, gunpowder in ammo, and explosives. Most guns are loaded!!!
A guy got searched, because a dog alerted to his truck. The dog was able to detect an empty prescription med bottle in the glove box, and the windows were closed.
_________________________
"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him --- better take a closer look at the American Indian." Henry Ford

Top
#3136561 - 01/23/13 08:09 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: dr]
gasman
8 Point


Registered: 07/21/11
Posts: 1427
Loc: South of the Hatchie

Offline
Glad my employer encourages us to carry. He says just dont let the customer see it.
_________________________
Every time I fall, I get back up again; Cinch my saddle up, find me another wind.

Hunt Hard. Pray Harder.

Top
#3136586 - 01/23/13 08:35 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: waynesworld]
-DRM-
6 Point


Registered: 08/21/12
Posts: 768
Loc: Spring Hill, TN

Offline
 Originally Posted By: waynesworld
As it should be the owner should have the right but if he takes your right to protect yourself he should be held liable for your protection.


Liable for your protection? That is silly. How about you just leave if you don't like the rules set by the property owner?

I love my guns, and I love my right to carry. But y right to carry is NOT more important than a property owner's right to not want me to carry on his or her property. Period.

I want that same respect on MY property, I will give it on HIS property.
_________________________
~DRM~

Top
#3136591 - 01/23/13 08:40 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: Bone Collector]
-DRM-
6 Point


Registered: 08/21/12
Posts: 768
Loc: Spring Hill, TN

Offline
 Originally Posted By: Bone Collector
It makes no sense that you would have to forfiet your right to carry to and from work, because your employer said no guns.


This is a straw man argument.

Your employer is not "taking away your right to protect yourself". You have DOZENS of other options... here are just a few:

-Go work somewhere else.
-Bring your gun anyway.
-Park off of their property.
-Rent a storage locker off the property near your work to keep your gun.
-Find a friend's house close to work where you can keep your gun.

I really don't care if these options are unpopular, expensive, or otherwise an inconvenience... they ARE options, and refusing to use one of them is NOT excuse for TAKING AWAY someone else's property rights.
_________________________
~DRM~

Top
#3136789 - 01/24/13 05:00 AM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: -DRM-]
MUP
Non-Typical


Registered: 08/01/07
Posts: 44784
Loc: Just North of Chatt-town

Offline
I'm very fortunate that, although our rules and regs state no firearms on premises, it also states "unless approved by management". I have my paperwork from the man. ;\)
_________________________
MUP

Amateurs: Built the Ark

Professionals: Built the Titanic

Top
#3136792 - 01/24/13 05:06 AM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: MUP]
stik
"Popcorn"
18 Point


Registered: 03/12/99
Posts: 21014
Loc: lenoir city,tn

Offline
officially, it is prohibited but is not enforced. i have even worked on my guns in the plant with the company president's blessing.
_________________________
experienced hunters know its not just a bushy white tail, its a big middle finger.

nothing makes a fish bigger than almost being caught


Top
#3137666 - 01/24/13 03:04 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: -DRM-]
FLTENNHUNTER1
16 Point


Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 16211
Loc: Tampa FL

Offline
 Originally Posted By: -DRM-
 Originally Posted By: waynesworld
As it should be the owner should have the right but if he takes your right to protect yourself he should be held liable for your protection.


Liable for your protection? That is silly. How about you just leave if you don't like the rules set by the property owner?

I love my guns, and I love my right to carry. But y right to carry is NOT more important than a property owner's right to not want me to carry on his or her property. Period.

I want that same respect on MY property, I will give it on HIS property.


I understand and respect your opinion. But when a property owner denies you your right to self defense, and someone comes in and attacks you and you could not defend yourself because of the property owners decision, the property owner is liable.

For example, if you have parking lot lights on your property, and one of them is burned out, and a women is raped because of the light being burned out, the property owner is liable.
_________________________
The Second Amendment - George Washington didn't use free speech to defeat the British, he shot them.
"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace." - Thomas Paine





Top
#3140701 - 01/26/13 08:27 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: FLTENNHUNTER1]
-DRM-
6 Point


Registered: 08/21/12
Posts: 768
Loc: Spring Hill, TN

Offline
 Originally Posted By: FLTENNHUNTER1
I understand and respect your opinion. But when a property owner denies you your right to self defense, and someone comes in and attacks you and you could not defend yourself because of the property owners decision, the property owner is liable.


Again, this is a straw man argument.

The property owner did not deny you anything - YOU made the decision to STAY on that property unarmed. That is YOUR choice.

If you want to use that argument for GOVERNMENT owned property, I will agree with your position. But as long as YOU are the one deciding to remain on someone's property after they inform you of their firearm policy, YOU are responsible for YOUR decision to stay there.


 Quote:
For example, if you have parking lot lights on your property, and one of them is burned out, and a women is raped because of the light being burned out, the property owner is liable.



I'd like to see you cite some case law for this, thanks.
_________________________
~DRM~

Top
#3140780 - 01/26/13 09:25 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: TAFKAP]
worriedman
6 Point


Registered: 10/12/06
Posts: 978
Loc: Bells

Offline
 Originally Posted By: TAFKAP


Sorry....Fred Smith told the Reps to jump, and on the way up, they asked "HOW HIGH???"

It doesn't stand much of a chance again, so long as the super buisiness elites of the state have their way. Don't forget, Hizzoner Haslam is one of them. Even if it does pass, it won't escape committee, where I recall, Mr. "Put the Boot To 'Em" Ron Ramsey killed it last year.


No, actually it passed the Judiciary committee in the Senate, and Employee and Consumer Affairs in the House, it was killed outright by Ramsey by not allowing it to come up for consideration on the floor, and Beth Harwell in the House. That action cost Debra Maggart her seat, she was the House Republican caucus chair, and Harwell had her do the dirty work to kill the bill, and at the same time her career.


Edited by worriedman (01/26/13 09:48 PM)
_________________________
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." Samuel Adams

Life Member NRA, TFA, Tennesseans for Liberty

Top
#3140811 - 01/26/13 09:45 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: worriedman]
worriedman
6 Point


Registered: 10/12/06
Posts: 978
Loc: Bells

Offline
18 States have made the decision that an individual Citizen should have the ability, (and in Tennessee non felons that have not been adjudicated mentally incompetent have the Right) to provide for their own defense. It has been carried all the way to the Federal Appellate level twice, once in Oklahoma and once in Florida, and both times the right to arms for self defense was upheld, and, both rulings found that allowing the Citizen to enjoy that natural Right did not constitute a taking of any private property Right, as Life comes before property.

The Employee Safe Commute Act did not reference "wearing" arms, simply the keeping of them in private property already deemed legal by the Castle Doctrine.

Case law upholds this, no governmental agency has ANY obligation to provide security, safety or defense for any individual Citizen, Article 1 Section 26 of our State Constitution lays that charge on the individual Citizen. Law Enforcement is only charged with investigating crime after it has occurred.

Big Business has simply purchased more Tennessee Legislators than necessary to deny the People their Constitutional Rights, proven by this:

“The Tennessee Supreme Court has recognized that the General Assembly has the authority, under this section of the Constitution, (Article 1 Section 26) to enact legislation to regulate the wearing and carrying of arms in public. Any such enactment, however, “must be guided by, and restrained to this end, and bear some well defined relation to the prevention of crime, or else it is unauthorized by this clause of the Constitution.” Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 181 (1871).

The right to keep arms, necessarily involves the right to purchase them, to keep them in a state of efficiency for use, and to purchase and provide ammunition suitable for such arms, and to keep them in repair. And clearly for this purpose, a man would have the right to carry them to and from his home, and no one could claim that the Legislature had the right to punish him for it, without violating this clause of the Constitution.

Bearing arms for the common defense may well be held to be a political right, or for the protection and maintenance of such rights, intended to be guaranteed; but the right to keep them, with all that is implied fairly as an incident to this right, is a private individual right, guaranteed to the citizen, not the soldier."
_________________________
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." Samuel Adams

Life Member NRA, TFA, Tennesseans for Liberty

Top
#3140865 - 01/26/13 10:36 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: -DRM-]
FLTENNHUNTER1
16 Point


Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 16211
Loc: Tampa FL

Offline
 Originally Posted By: -DRM-
 Originally Posted By: FLTENNHUNTER1
I understand and respect your opinion. But when a property owner denies you your right to self defense, and someone comes in and attacks you and you could not defend yourself because of the property owners decision, the property owner is liable.


Again, this is a straw man argument.

The property owner did not deny you anything - YOU made the decision to STAY on that property unarmed. That is YOUR choice.

If you want to use that argument for GOVERNMENT owned property, I will agree with your position. But as long as YOU are the one deciding to remain on someone's property after they inform you of their firearm policy, YOU are responsible for YOUR decision to stay there.


 Quote:
For example, if you have parking lot lights on your property, and one of them is burned out, and a women is raped because of the light being burned out, the property owner is liable.



I'd like to see you cite some case law for this, thanks.


http://www.kramerdunleavy.com/PracticeAreas/Sexual-Assault-Rape.asp

Legal Support for New York Rape Victims

Sexual assault and rape victims may never fully recover emotionally from all they have endured as a result of an attack. Even when the attacker is caught and put behind bars, victims may not feel whole. While civil legal action cannot take away the wrongdoings and suffering caused, it provides an avenue for sexual assault victims to pursue peace of mind and justice while also preserving the safety of other women from suffering the same injustice.

At Kramer & Dunleavy, LLP we dedicate our legal practice to preserving the health and safety of women in the Manhattan area. We are focused on empowering women to move forward with dignity despite the physical and emotional injuries they have endured.

If you have been attacked in a parking lot, hotel, apartment building, shopping mall, or other establishment, you may be entitled to compensation for your physical and emotional injuries. Property owners have a responsibility to keep their properties safe for people entitled to be there. This includes providing proper lighting, security, and other measures to deter crime. Property owners can be held financially responsible in a premises liability lawsuit.

As women's health and women's safety we are experienced handling claims involving varying levels of negligence that led to our clients getting sexually assaulted or raped:

Negligent entrance security: Failure to install or replace proper locks at the entrances to apartment buildings, failure to screen employees entering a building, or other negligent security at building entrances provides opportunity for intruders to gain entrance into a building where residents presumed they were safe.
Poor lighting: Failure to replace dim or burnt out light fixtures in stairwells or other discreet locations, failure to provide high intensity lighting in a parking lot or parking garage, or failure to identify areas of risk and install proper lighting can result in victims getting attacked or abused in dark areas.
Negligent security: Failure to monitor cameras or perform routine security patrols, failure to ensure security cameras are functioning properly, and failure to provide adequate training of security officers can result in the threat of attackers taking advantage of innocent people. Further, failure to provide working intercoms or emergency phones reduces the likelihood that victims report an incident or get away.
_________________________
The Second Amendment - George Washington didn't use free speech to defeat the British, he shot them.
"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace." - Thomas Paine





Top
#3141023 - 01/27/13 07:55 AM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: Redfred16]
MidTN
6 Point


Registered: 01/07/08
Posts: 948
Loc: Franklin, TN

Offline
I'm Pro 2nd amendment as well, but I also believe a property owner has the right to set the boundaries of what they will allow on their property. It's a tough call and I see both sides of the issues.
_________________________
"If something's difficult to learn son, then it's really not worth doing."

Homer Simpson

Top
#3141149 - 01/27/13 10:03 AM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: Redfred16]
arctic_cat
8 Point


Registered: 11/18/08
Posts: 2392
Loc: Lenoir City,Tn

Offline
Yup, and I work on a D.O.E site in Oak Ridge, you better not even joke about having one in your car or its going to get searched

Edited by arctic_cat (01/27/13 10:04 AM)
_________________________
GO BLUE

WHEN YOU LOSE SOMEONE YOU LOVE, YOU GAIN AN ANGEL YOU KNOW

MEMORIES, IT'S THE ONLY THING THAT CAN NEVER BE TAKEN AWAY.

Top
#3141266 - 01/27/13 12:46 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: MidTN]
worriedman
6 Point


Registered: 10/12/06
Posts: 978
Loc: Bells

Offline
 Originally Posted By: MidTN
I'm Pro 2nd amendment as well, but I also believe a property owner has the right to set the boundaries of what they will allow on their property. It's a tough call and I see both sides of the issues.


The Employee Safe Commute bill did not allow any one to wear or carry a firearm anywhere, it simply stated that a Handgun Carry Permit holder would be allowed to keep their legally owned firearm stored, unhandled and out of sight withing the confines of their private vehicle. It removed personal private property (homes) and all farms from the locations covered in the bill.

I would like someone to show me where the Constitution sets property Rights above those of Life. In every mention of these is always Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (which is property), in that order.

There are three mentions of property in the Declaration of Rights in our State Constitution:

Article 1 § 8. Deprivation of life, liberty or property under law; due process

That no man shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed or deprived of his life, liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land.

Article 1 § 21. Taking of property; eminent domain

That no man's particular services shall be demanded, or property taken, or applied to public use, without the consent of his representatives, or without just compensation being made therefor.

Article 1 § 34. Property rights

The General Assembly shall make no law recognizing the right of property in man.

In none of these is the Right to own property made inviolate, in fact in Sections 8 and 21, both describe how it may be taken from the individual by the State or one's neighbors including lands, goods or even a person's life if his "peers" decide it is the thing to do.

We are guaranteed however that only the LEGISLATURE has the power to regulate the wearing of arms, no private entity may do so, and in the case of this bill, it was not even wearing of arms that were under consideration, only the keeping of them and even the State does not have the power to control that if we hold to our Constitution.

Article 1 § 26. Weapons; right to bear arms

That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.
_________________________
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." Samuel Adams

Life Member NRA, TFA, Tennesseans for Liberty

Top
#3141270 - 01/27/13 12:51 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: FLTENNHUNTER1]
-DRM-
6 Point


Registered: 08/21/12
Posts: 768
Loc: Spring Hill, TN

Offline


That's not case law, that's ambulance chaser website text.
_________________________
~DRM~

Top
#3141289 - 01/27/13 01:20 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: worriedman]
-DRM-
6 Point


Registered: 08/21/12
Posts: 768
Loc: Spring Hill, TN

Offline
 Originally Posted By: worriedman
The Employee Safe Commute bill did not allow any one to wear or carry a firearm anywhere, it simply stated that a Handgun Carry Permit holder would be allowed to keep their legally owned firearm stored, unhandled and out of sight withing the confines of their private vehicle. It removed personal private property (homes) and all farms from the locations covered in the bill.


Why is the private owner of a home or farm deserving or more rights than the private owner of a piece of property used for other business?

 Quote:
I would like someone to show me where the Constitution sets property Rights above those of Life.


How many times do I have to explain this straw man argument for what it is?


The facts are clear: people who support this are TAKING AWAY ANOTHER MAN's PROPERTY RIGHTS by FORCE of the Government.

Personally, I refuse to be party of TAKING another man's rights to do with his own property as he sees fit, just so I can get my way on HIS property.

IMHO, There are other ways to address this which does not result in taking another man's rights away. I would suggest something more along the lines of "don't ask don't tell", where laws can protect property owners from lawsuits - which addresses the corporate position - and also allow for property owners to have the same remedy as a home owner: to only be able to ask you to leave the property, and not be allowed to fire you over it, if it were your employer. That is IMHO reasonable legislation that I could possibly get behind.

But please, stop using the straw man argument about the property owner "taking away" your right to protect yourself - it is simply not accurate and cheapens the entire debate.



Edited by -DRM- (01/27/13 01:21 PM)
_________________________
~DRM~

Top
#3141340 - 01/27/13 02:23 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: -DRM-]
Bowdacious
Skillet
16 Point


Registered: 09/01/00
Posts: 16161
Loc: over here

Offline
I do think I should be allowed to carry mine to and from work. It would be in a locked vehicle the same as it is when I go to the courthouse to get tags or pay property tax and when I go to the post office. The most likely time I would need it, I am without it. That being said, I must go unarmed or risk losing my job. Possible vehicle search is in the handbook and I can't afford to lose my job. I will just hope nothing ever happens. It's their property and I agreed to the rules as part of my employment.
_________________________
Disagreeing with me doesn't make me any less right

There is a difference between being proud and being conceited

Beware the skillet ---O

Top
#3141374 - 01/27/13 03:06 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: -DRM-]
worriedman
6 Point


Registered: 10/12/06
Posts: 978
Loc: Bells

Offline
 Originally Posted By: -DRM-


Why is the private owner of a home or farm deserving or more rights than the private owner of a piece of property used for other business?

 Quote:
I would like someone to show me where the Constitution sets property Rights above those of Life.


How many times do I have to explain this straw man argument for what it is?


The facts are clear: people who support this are TAKING AWAY ANOTHER MAN's PROPERTY RIGHTS by FORCE of the Government.




Because you say it is a "strawman" argument does not make it so. Two separate Federal Appellate Courts (Oklahoma and Florida) have heard YOUR argument, and found it lacking. The parties have refused to appeal it to the Supreme Court, (and it should be noted that Disney Corp. and Connoco Phillips are two of the plaintiffs) for the simple fact that the Supreme Court would not hear it, and if it did it would finish the argument once and for all. The two Courts found that the mere "keeping" of a legal implement did not rise to the level of "taking" anything. Read the judgments.

Our own Democrat appointed Attorney General gave the opinion last year that the bill as amended was CONSTITUTIONAL, or did you blindly miss that reading as well? Are you as a business owner willing to take on responsibility for providing safety and security for the Citizen on their commute to and from their homes? Constitutions of both the Union and the State say each has a right to life, our State Constitutions says I have a Right to carry a firearm to protect it.

The bill as written last year gave absolute immunity to a property owner for the results of the use, either legal or otherwise of a firearm on their property. No need for some stupid don't ask, don't tell, all that is required is to adhere to the Constitution and read the bill before sending forth a lot of chin music when you do not understand the issues.



Edited by worriedman (01/27/13 03:15 PM)
_________________________
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." Samuel Adams

Life Member NRA, TFA, Tennesseans for Liberty

Top
#3141385 - 01/27/13 03:14 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: -DRM-]
FLTENNHUNTER1
16 Point


Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 16211
Loc: Tampa FL

Offline
 Originally Posted By: -DRM-


That's not case law, that's ambulance chaser website text.


I am sure it exists, I don't have the time or desire to find it. Somewhere, someone has been sued because of a wet floor, iced parking lot, a secured door that wasn't secured properly, blocked fire exit, whatever.
_________________________
The Second Amendment - George Washington didn't use free speech to defeat the British, he shot them.
"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace." - Thomas Paine





Top
#3141470 - 01/27/13 04:42 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: worriedman]
-DRM-
6 Point


Registered: 08/21/12
Posts: 768
Loc: Spring Hill, TN

Offline
 Originally Posted By: worriedman
Because you say it is a "strawman" argument does not make it so.


It is a straw man argument because that is what it is. You can twist it any way you want, but here are the facts:

When YOU choose to stay on someone else's property once they inform you they do not allow guns there - YOU are responsible for YOUR decision to stay and consequently YOUR own safety is - and always has been - in YOUR hands.

To try and shift the blame or responsibility to someone else is an exercise in dishonesty, and I challenge you to find the flaw in what I just said.

Listen, I understand what you *want*. I want it too. I guess the difference is I am not willing to TAKE AWAY ANOTHER MAN'S FREEDOM just to get what *I* want, on *their* property.
_________________________
~DRM~

Top
#3141476 - 01/27/13 04:52 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: -DRM-]
-DRM-
6 Point


Registered: 08/21/12
Posts: 768
Loc: Spring Hill, TN

Offline
BTW, not intending to offend anyone, I just put the bar pretty high when someone comes along and wants to use the government to take another man's freedoms... even if I do like the end result of that theft of freedom (i.e. me getting to carry my gun wherever I want).

As far as I see it, the two main issues are:

1. People who are worried about losing their job
2. Businesses that are worried about being sued

I think there are ways to address both of these, without taking away another man's property rights.
_________________________
~DRM~

Top
#3141589 - 01/27/13 06:45 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: worriedman]
TAFKAP
14 Point


Registered: 11/06/09
Posts: 9541
Loc: Memphis

Offline
 Originally Posted By: worriedman
 Originally Posted By: TAFKAP


Sorry....Fred Smith told the Reps to jump, and on the way up, they asked "HOW HIGH???"

It doesn't stand much of a chance again, so long as the super buisiness elites of the state have their way. Don't forget, Hizzoner Haslam is one of them. Even if it does pass, it won't escape committee, where I recall, Mr. "Put the Boot To 'Em" Ron Ramsey killed it last year.



No, actually it passed the Judiciary committee in the Senate, and Employee and Consumer Affairs in the House, it was killed outright by Ramsey by not allowing it to come up for consideration on the floor, and Beth Harwell in the House. That action cost Debra Maggart her seat, she was the House Republican caucus chair, and Harwell had her do the dirty work to kill the bill, and at the same time her career.



Gotcha....I thought Mr. Conservative "Put the Boots to 'Em" Ramsey had something to do with it. I just couldn't remember the exact context.
_________________________
Everything important in life was learned from Mary Jo Kopechne.

Top
#3141595 - 01/27/13 06:49 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: arctic_cat]
TAFKAP
14 Point


Registered: 11/06/09
Posts: 9541
Loc: Memphis

Offline
 Originally Posted By: arctic_cat
Yup, and I work on a D.O.E site in Oak Ridge, you better not even joke about having one in your car or its going to get searched


Contingent to your access to ANY nuke site in the US, you sign something waiving your right to search on any nuke facility. I believe it is also codified in law preventing firearms within the confines of ANY "protected area" of a nuke facility.
_________________________
Everything important in life was learned from Mary Jo Kopechne.

Top
#3141656 - 01/27/13 07:32 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: -DRM-]
worriedman
6 Point


Registered: 10/12/06
Posts: 978
Loc: Bells

Offline
 Originally Posted By: -DRM-


To try and shift the blame or responsibility to someone else is an exercise in dishonesty, and I challenge you to find the flaw in what I just said.


Have already answered that, you either believe in our Constitution or you do not. Private individuals do not have the power to decide where non-felons can carry weapons in Tennessee, much less simply keep them, it is up to the legislature to make the determination of where they may be carried. You keep dancing around the fact that nobody can be sued if the bill is passed, step up to the plate and admit that.
_________________________
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." Samuel Adams

Life Member NRA, TFA, Tennesseans for Liberty

Top
#3141813 - 01/27/13 09:22 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: worriedman]
worriedman
6 Point


Registered: 10/12/06
Posts: 978
Loc: Bells

Offline
Does the assemblage think that a business owner should be able to deny an employee the ability to keep a set of golf clubs in their trunk, a baseball bat, a hunting knife, or a Bible? Should a store owner be able to preclude you from keeping a Republican or Democrat position paper in your vehicle while shopping in the mall. Basically if we are to understand and side with DRM, then any business owner could demand to violate your Federal 4th and State 7th Amendment Rights against unreasonable search and seizure at their whim. If that be the case why not allow them to simply pull out a 9mm and shoot the next individual they did not agree with, or simply because they did not like the way that person combed their hair? Is it not their land?

My point is, that any item that is LEGAL for you to possess in the middle of the street should be LEGAL for you to keep in the trunk or glove box of your car, where ever you have a right to be, if you are not involved in criminal activity.

Our whole Republic is based on Constitutional principals, the straw man argument is that the Constitution ONLY restrains the government. That is ludicrous, every Public Chapter (law) in Tennessee is based upon, and measured against the Constitution, each find their basis in, and is required to be measured against it to stay in place, hence the need and reasons for Courts, to apply those Public Chapters.

To surmise that ownership of property gives one the ultimate control of everyone who steps upon it is ridiculous. Our peers demand we give up our property every time we purchase anything and pay a tax. We receive summonses from our peers to take our property when we pay tax on it (property) as well. The codes that require setbacks from communal property lines are a control by our peers through government, yet we understand the need for certain encroachments on the absolute control over a specific piece of ground by an individual who may have paid a price for title to that particular spot of ground. If a lead smelter was proffered as your next door neighbor, I am sure you would be glad of codes which preclude the ability to build one just anywhere, yet there are some who wave the banner of absolute freedom to control what happens on "their" property. We have government to keep that crap from happening.

There is no Constitutional guarantee that you can do whatever you want with your personal property, there is one for the Citizen to keep and bear arms for their common defense, our Supreme Court has written that it is an individual Right. there is no limit as to where in either the Union 2nd Amendment nor the State Article 1 Section 26, the restrictions are given to the legislature to apply, and not a business owner.
_________________________
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." Samuel Adams

Life Member NRA, TFA, Tennesseans for Liberty

Top
#3141923 - 01/27/13 11:11 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: TAFKAP]
FLTENNHUNTER1
16 Point


Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 16211
Loc: Tampa FL

Offline
Well stated worriedman.
_________________________
The Second Amendment - George Washington didn't use free speech to defeat the British, he shot them.
"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace." - Thomas Paine





Top
#3142139 - 01/28/13 08:48 AM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: worriedman]
MUP
Non-Typical


Registered: 08/01/07
Posts: 44784
Loc: Just North of Chatt-town

Offline
 Originally Posted By: worriedman
 Originally Posted By: -DRM-


To try and shift the blame or responsibility to someone else is an exercise in dishonesty, and I challenge you to find the flaw in what I just said.


Have already answered that, you either believe in our Constitution or you do not. Private individuals do not have the power to decide where non-felons can carry weapons in Tennessee, much less simply keep them, it is up to the legislature to make the determination of where they may be carried. You keep dancing around the fact that nobody can be sued if the bill is passed, step up to the plate and admit that.



This is it, in a nutshell.
_________________________
MUP

Amateurs: Built the Ark

Professionals: Built the Titanic

Top
#3142159 - 01/28/13 09:02 AM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: worriedman]
-DRM-
6 Point


Registered: 08/21/12
Posts: 768
Loc: Spring Hill, TN

Offline
 Originally Posted By: worriedman
Have already answered that, you either believe in our Constitution or you do not. Private individuals do not have the power to decide where non-felons can carry weapons in Tennessee, much less simply keep them, it is up to the legislature to make the determination of where they may be carried.


Private citizens can't ask someone to leave their own property if they have a gun? I think you're a bit confused.

I am 100% in line with the Constitution, thanks. I'm just not in line with using the government to take someone else's rights away just because I want something.


 Quote:
You keep dancing around the fact that nobody can be sued if the bill is passed, step up to the plate and admit that.


What exactly am I dancing around? I really am not worried about lawsuits, I am worried about people using the government to take away property rights BY FORCE.
_________________________
~DRM~

Top
#3142175 - 01/28/13 09:15 AM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: worriedman]
-DRM-
6 Point


Registered: 08/21/12
Posts: 768
Loc: Spring Hill, TN

Offline
 Originally Posted By: worriedman
Does the assemblage think that a business owner should be able to deny an employee the ability to keep a set of golf clubs in their trunk, a baseball bat, a hunting knife, or a Bible?


Actually, I think a property owner should be able to ask a person to leave their property for any reason, period. And I challenge you to find issue with that position in regards to the Constitution.

 Quote:
Basically if we are to understand and side with DRM, then any business owner could demand to violate your Federal 4th and State 7th Amendment Rights against unreasonable search and seizure at their whim.


No, you are a bit confused. The 4th ans 7th Amendments are a contract between YOU and your GOVERNMENT, not YOU and I. This is Constitutional Basics 101, friend... You need to re-think your position.

Regardless, I never said anything about search or seizure, did I? Yet another flawed argument.

What I did say is that a property owner (individual or business) should have the same property rights - and that is to ask anyone to leave their property.

Look at it this way.

I come over to your house for dinner. You ask me if I have a gun in my car, I refuse to answer. You do not wants guns on your property, and you ask me to leave.

Should the government be able to take away your right to ask me to leave?

If not, then why do you want to take another man's right to that same thing, just because his property houses a "business"?

My position is 100% consistent.



 Quote:
If that be the case why not allow them to simply pull out a 9mm and shoot the next individual they did not agree with, or simply because they did not like the way that person combed their hair? Is it not their land?


This is you being absurd. Let's try to stick to reasonable discussion, shall we?

 Quote:
My point is, that any item that is LEGAL for you to possess in the middle of the street should be LEGAL for you to keep in the trunk or glove box of your car, where ever you have a right to be, if you are not involved in criminal activity.


That all depends on whose PROPERTY your car happens to be parked, now doesn't it? I already addressed this above.

 Quote:
the straw man argument is that the Constitution ONLY restrains the government. That is ludicrous,


First, you don't seem to understand what a straw man argument is, because you surely did not apply it correctly here.
Second, the First Ten Amendments are most assuredly enumerated restrains on GOVERNMENT. This is fact.

 Quote:
To surmise that ownership of property gives one the ultimate control of everyone who steps upon it is ridiculous.


It is? Based on what criteria? I challenge you to find any of the Founding Fathers who disagree with my position.


 Quote:
There is no Constitutional guarantee that you can do whatever you want with your personal property, there is one for the Citizen to keep and bear arms for their common defense,


Nothing I have stated contradicts or goes against the 2nd Amendment.

But for you to assert than you have RIGHT to carry a gun on someone's property regardless of their will is incorrect, and to assume that the founding fathers would support this notion is absurd.

As a matter of fact, the raised quite a stink about the FORCED housing of soldiers and their arms.
_________________________
~DRM~

Top
#3142263 - 01/28/13 10:19 AM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: -DRM-]
worriedman
6 Point


Registered: 10/12/06
Posts: 978
Loc: Bells

Offline
 Originally Posted By: -DRM-


Actually, I think a property owner should be able to ask a person to leave their property for any reason, period. And I challenge you to find issue with that position in regards to the Constitution.



Pruneyard, (though I am sure just because the Courts decided that a person's free speech Rights which are guaranteed to a greater extent by California law than in the 1st Union Amendment, you will discount it), in which case the students seeking signatures on their petitions on another's "property" were allowed to continue.

It is obvious that facts and case law are of no value in a discussion with you.

 Originally Posted By: -DRM-


Nothing I have stated contradicts or goes against the 2nd Amendment.



Actually, none of the issues related to this discussion have anything to do with the 2nd Amendment, as it simply states that the Federal government has no say regarding the issue at hand, as their ONLY charge related to firearms is to "not" infringe the ability of legally allowed citizens to keep and bear them.

Rather, it is an issue for the State to decide. Article 1 Section 26 of our State Declaration of Rights:

“That the citizens of this state have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.”

is the only clause that has any bearing on this discussion, as it is THE operative clause with merit about the issue.

You have failed to show where the Constitution of either the Union or the State give unequivocal control of every aspect of life simply by merit of ownership, where I have shown numerous instances where your neighbors, or any facet of government may modify an owner's ability to use said property as one might wish, to the extent of taking it at their discretion.

If your ability to exert control over private property is so expansive, I guess you think you can take any game animal that crosses your property as you deem reasonable, or does the jury of your peers that gives the various regulatory authorities control give you as much heartburn as allowing a fellow citizen to use the best tools available to provide for the defense of their God given life?
_________________________
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." Samuel Adams

Life Member NRA, TFA, Tennesseans for Liberty

Top
#3142600 - 01/28/13 02:54 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: worriedman]
-DRM-
6 Point


Registered: 08/21/12
Posts: 768
Loc: Spring Hill, TN

Offline
 Originally Posted By: worriedman

Pruneyard, (though I am sure just because the Courts decided that a person's free speech Rights which are guaranteed to a greater extent by California law than in the 1st Union Amendment, you will discount it), in which case the students seeking signatures on their petitions on another's "property" were allowed to continue.


What does this have to do with my opinion? Notice I didn't say that is the way it is currently interpreted, merely my opinion on property rights.

 Quote:
It is obvious that facts and case law are of no value in a discussion with you.


What are you talking about now?


 Quote:
You have failed to show where the Constitution of either the Union or the State give unequivocal control of every aspect of life simply by merit of ownership,


Again what are you talking about "every aspect of life"? Do you talk in circles like this in person, or just the internet?

Try to focus on the subject at hand: guns and property rights.

 Quote:
allowing a fellow citizen to use the best tools available to provide for the defense of their God given life?


I am going to ignore the rest of your rambling wordy response and try to keep this focused:

The point I made was that the argument used ("the business/property owner is taking away someone's right to protect themselves") is flawed, and incorrect.

Nobody is forcing you to remain on someone else's property after they inform you guns are not allowed.

Do you understand this or not, so we can move on to other issues?


Edited by -DRM- (01/28/13 02:54 PM)
_________________________
~DRM~

Top
#3142634 - 01/28/13 03:21 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: -DRM-]
Redfred16
8 Point


Registered: 01/22/12
Posts: 1410
Loc: Hartland, WI

Offline
I guess it comes down to how the law is determined to be worded.

Is the gun "in" your private property by being in your car.

Or is the gun "on" the business owners property since the car is parked there.

I hate that arguement that someone can just quit thier job if they don't like a business owners personal polices.

I've kind of read this thread, but let me ask -DRM- this, is it okay for a business owner to tell his employees they are not allowed to have political bumper stickers? Those stickers would be on his property? If so what makes the 1st Amendment more important the the 2nd Amendment? If not, then what you are saying is that the Consitution only applies when on public property?

I like the way Wisconsin created thier CC law. I've already said how it goes. If a business owner puts the sign out for no weapons allowed, they are liable for any violent crimes committed on thier property, since have taken away the individuals right to protect themselves. On that same note, only the gun owner is liable for injuries with thier gun on a property that allows CC.

Then again Wisconsins law decided the the car was more private property than the parking lot of the business owner, so it's all moot there.
_________________________
Packer Fan back in Packer Country

"Recon Ready"
Airborne and Air Assault Blood Wings Worn Here

Top
#3142653 - 01/28/13 03:37 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: Redfred16]
-DRM-
6 Point


Registered: 08/21/12
Posts: 768
Loc: Spring Hill, TN

Offline
 Originally Posted By: Redfred16

Is the gun "in" your private property by being in your car.

Or is the gun "on" the business owners property since the car is parked there.


I'd say "both". The problem I have is trying to argue that you have a "right" to bring your property (gun) on someone else's property (land), against the will of the land owner.

 Quote:
I hate that arguement that someone can just quit thier job if they don't like a business owners personal polices.


Hating it doesn't remove it as an accurate remedy. That is what is so good about freedom.

 Quote:
I've kind of read this thread, but let me ask -DRM- this, is it okay for a business owner to tell his employees they are not allowed to have political bumper stickers? Those stickers would be on his property?


I hate to split hairs - but the employer is not telling his employees what they can and cannot have on their car. He is telling his employees what he does and does not allow on his property. The business owner's rights to control his property end at his property, where they should end.

And yes, in my libertarian-leaning view of the world, a property owner should have that right: to ask that anyone who does not comply with what he wants on his property should have the remedy available of asking that person to leave his property.

Just like you have the same remedy at your own home.



 Quote:
If so what makes the 1st Amendment more important the the 2nd Amendment?


I would afford the property owner the same rights (and remedy) in either case.


 Quote:
If not, then what you are saying is that the Constitution only applies when on public property?


No, what I am saying is the Second Amendment is a contract between the GOVERNMENT and the CITIZEN, and since the "public land" is owned by the CITIZENS, the government has no basis in restricting "the free exercise thereof" for us to carry on the land WE all own.

 Quote:
since have taken away the individuals right to protect themselves.


Annnnnd again: unless the property owner is FORCING the person to remain there unarmed - this is simply not factually correct.
_________________________
~DRM~

Top
#3142695 - 01/28/13 04:02 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: -DRM-]
Redfred16
8 Point


Registered: 01/22/12
Posts: 1410
Loc: Hartland, WI

Offline
See I disagree that the final step in private property is the land, the actual car is the final stage of private property and since a employer has no rights on your property, they can't say what can or cannot be in or on your property.

I guess this is a chicken or the egg scenerio.
_________________________
Packer Fan back in Packer Country

"Recon Ready"
Airborne and Air Assault Blood Wings Worn Here

Top
#3142696 - 01/28/13 04:03 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: -DRM-]
worriedman
6 Point


Registered: 10/12/06
Posts: 978
Loc: Bells

Offline
 Originally Posted By: -DRM-


What does this have to do with my opinion? Notice I didn't say that is the way it is currently interpreted, merely my opinion on property rights.


I agree with you, it is only your opinion. That you continue to write it as if it were fact is irritating to say the least, but the repetition does not make it so.

Quote a single part of the Constitutions, either of the Union or State that say that Property Rights outweigh all other enumerated Rights, and please try to stay focused on the issue of guns and property rights. Even though you seem not to be able to understand what Article 1 Section 26 says, it is specific that the only entity that has a say in where you can carry firearms is the legislature, and even they may not preclude a legal Citizen from keeping them.

What we have now is a situation where business owners have purchased enough legislators to violate their oath, and you cannot show me where the constitutions says otherwise. If you can, please do so.
_________________________
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." Samuel Adams

Life Member NRA, TFA, Tennesseans for Liberty

Top
#3142699 - 01/28/13 04:08 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: Redfred16]
worriedman
6 Point


Registered: 10/12/06
Posts: 978
Loc: Bells

Offline
 Originally Posted By: Redfred16
See I disagree that the final step in private property is the land, the actual car is the final stage of private property and since a employer has no rights on your property, they can't say what can or cannot be in or on your property.

I guess this is a chicken or the egg scenerio.


Actually TCA Code 39-11-611 spells it out:

39-11-611. Self-defense.

(a) As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires:

(1) "Business" means a commercial enterprise or establishment owned by a person as all or part of the person's livelihood or is under the owner's control or who is an employee or agent of the owner with responsibility for protecting persons and property and shall include the interior and exterior premises of the business;

(2) "Curtilage" means the area surrounding a dwelling that is necessary, convenient and habitually used for family purposes and for those activities associated with the sanctity of a person's home;

(3) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, that has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed for or capable of use by people;

(4) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides, either temporarily or permanently, or is visiting as an invited guest, or any dwelling, building or other appurtenance within the curtilage of the residence; and

(5) "Vehicle" means any motorized vehicle that is self-propelled and designed for use on public highways to transport people or property.

(b) (1) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.

(2) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, if:

(A) The person has a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury;

(B) The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury is real, or honestly believed to be real at the time; and

(C) The belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds.

(c) Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within a residence, business, dwelling or vehicle is presumed to have held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury to self, family, a member of the household or a person visiting as an invited guest, when that force is used against another person, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, business, dwelling or vehicle, and the person using defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

(d) The presumption established in subsection (c) shall not apply, if:

(1) The person against whom the force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, business, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder; provided, that the person is not prohibited from entering the dwelling, business, residence, or occupied vehicle by an order of protection, injunction for protection from domestic abuse, or a court order of no contact against that person;

(2) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to remove a person or persons who is a child or grandchild of, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;

(3) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, the person using force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, business, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(4) The person against whom force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in § 39-11-106, who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, business, residence, or vehicle in the performance of the officer's official duties, and the officer identified the officer in accordance with any applicable law, or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(e) The threat or use of force against another is not justified:

(1) If the person using force consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other individual;

(2) If the person using force provoked the other individual's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:

(A) The person using force abandons the encounter or clearly communicates to the other the intent to do so; and

(B) The other person nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the person; or

(3) To resist a halt at a roadblock, arrest, search, or stop and frisk that the person using force knows is being made by a law enforcement officer, unless:

(A) The law enforcement officer uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest, search, stop and frisk, or halt; and

(B) The person using force reasonably believes that the force is immediately necessary to protect against the law enforcement officer's use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.


Says your vehicle is your castle, just like your home.
_________________________
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." Samuel Adams

Life Member NRA, TFA, Tennesseans for Liberty

Top
#3142705 - 01/28/13 04:17 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: worriedman]
worriedman
6 Point


Registered: 10/12/06
Posts: 978
Loc: Bells

Offline
And here is one more Article that some have never seen, many have forgotten if they have, and some simply want to disregard:

Article 11 § 16. Bill of rights declared inviolate

"The declaration of rights hereto prefixed is declared to be a part of the Constitution of this State, and shall never be violated on any pretence whatever. And to guard against transgression of the high powers we have delegated, we declare that everything in the bill of rights contained, is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate."



Edited by worriedman (01/28/13 04:18 PM)
_________________________
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." Samuel Adams

Life Member NRA, TFA, Tennesseans for Liberty

Top
#3142716 - 01/28/13 04:28 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: worriedman]
ferg
Cancer Free
16 Point


Registered: 07/29/04
Posts: 15814
Loc: At the TNDeer shirt factory %^...

Offline
 Originally Posted By: worriedman
And here is one more Article that some have never seen, many have forgotten if they have, and some simply want to disregard:

Article 11 § 16. Bill of rights declared inviolate

"The declaration of rights hereto prefixed is declared to be a part of the Constitution of this State, and shall never be violated on any pretence whatever. And to guard against transgression of the high powers we have delegated, we declare that everything in the bill of rights contained, is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate."



I have often wondered about this - and why it's so blatantly ignored....... \:\(
_________________________
What's your PSA #? Don't know? You should, do it.

USCG(Ret)
Semper Par !




Top
#3142771 - 01/28/13 05:05 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: ferg]
Bowdacious
Skillet
16 Point


Registered: 09/01/00
Posts: 16161
Loc: over here

Offline
Okay. I cannot have a weapon at work. In the parking lot or anywhere else. It's in the handbook. I am restricted to what I can wear at work, too. It's in the handbook. I smoke but we are going tobacco free anywhere on the property. Using tobacco of any kind will get you fired. E-cigarettes and non tobacco dip or snuff will get you fired. I don't like that one either. I need my job so I follow the rules. Do I like it? No. IS it up to them to decide what goes on on their property? Yes. I wish the parking lot bill had passed but I don't see it happening so I will continue to go unarmed. \:\(
_________________________
Disagreeing with me doesn't make me any less right

There is a difference between being proud and being conceited

Beware the skillet ---O

Top
#3142819 - 01/28/13 05:42 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: Redfred16]
-DRM-
6 Point


Registered: 08/21/12
Posts: 768
Loc: Spring Hill, TN

Offline
 Originally Posted By: Redfred16
See I disagree that the final step in private property is the land, the actual car is the final stage of private property and since a employer has no rights on your property, they can't say what can or cannot be in or on your property.

I guess this is a chicken or the egg scenerio.


Then I can come park my car in your front yard and you can't stop me?

See the inconsistency in your position?
_________________________
~DRM~

Top
#3142831 - 01/28/13 05:52 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: worriedman]
-DRM-
6 Point


Registered: 08/21/12
Posts: 768
Loc: Spring Hill, TN

Offline
 Originally Posted By: worriedman
Quote a single part of the Constitutions, either of the Union or State that say that Property Rights outweigh all other enumerated Rights, and please try to stay focused on the issue of guns and property rights.


I didn't claim any such thing, so why you keep trying to put words in my mouth is beyond me.

 Quote:
Even though you seem not to be able to understand what Article 1 Section 26 says, it is specific that the only entity that has a say in where you can carry firearms is the legislature, and even they may not preclude a legal Citizen from keeping them.


I'll ask you yet another question, even though you seem to be unable to answer so far:

Do you understand your position is using the government to take away someone's property rights by force? Yes, or no?
_________________________
~DRM~

Top
#3143362 - 01/29/13 05:55 AM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: worriedman]
MUP
Non-Typical


Registered: 08/01/07
Posts: 44784
Loc: Just North of Chatt-town

Offline
/Quote/ Actually TCA Code 39-11-611 spells it out:

39-11-611. Self-defense.

(a) As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires:

(1) "Business" means a commercial enterprise or establishment owned by a person as all or part of the person's livelihood or is under the owner's control or who is an employee or agent of the owner with responsibility for protecting persons and property and shall include the interior and exterior premises of the business;

/end quote//

Did not know this.
_________________________
MUP

Amateurs: Built the Ark

Professionals: Built the Titanic

Top
#3143388 - 01/29/13 06:44 AM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: MUP]
worriedman
6 Point


Registered: 10/12/06
Posts: 978
Loc: Bells

Offline
 Originally Posted By: MUP
/Quote/ Actually TCA Code 39-11-611 spells it out:

39-11-611. Self-defense.

(a) As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires:

(1) "Business" means a commercial enterprise or establishment owned by a person as all or part of the person's livelihood or is under the owner's control or who is an employee or agent of the owner with responsibility for protecting persons and property and shall include the interior and exterior premises of the business;

/end quote//

Did not know this.


Yeah, a "business" can arm anyone they designate as "responsible" for security, no need for a permit to carry for them to do so, pick your poison if you are a "business" owner. Some "citizens" are more equal than others.
_________________________
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." Samuel Adams

Life Member NRA, TFA, Tennesseans for Liberty

Top
#3144007 - 01/29/13 02:22 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: worriedman]
BigAl
16 Point


Registered: 07/31/01
Posts: 19090
Loc: Fayette County, TN US

Offline
I was under the impression the parking lot bill did not pass because it included schools in the provision and some of the reps didn't agree with that part of the provision. I was thinking they were going to remove the school portion, which would give the bill a better chance of passage. Of course, this was before the Sandy Hook slayings, so it could change either way now, depending on the stance you take on the subject.

IMO, prohibiting me from keeping a gun in my car basically extends that to the point where I leave the house for work. Since a car is considered my property, I believe an employer should be allowed to ban that right as long as its locked away and I have a legal right to have the firearm.
_________________________
Walls: Leading the way outdoors.

Top
#3144019 - 01/29/13 02:29 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: BigAl]
89cherokeelimited
6 Point


Registered: 08/13/11
Posts: 822
Loc: TN, Sumner, Hendersonville

Offline
Even with my works rules i've decided my gun will stay in my glove compartment. It stays locked and in a secure parking garage.
_________________________
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.
Albert Einstein

Top
#3145285 - 01/30/13 09:00 AM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: 89cherokeelimited]
-DRM-
6 Point


Registered: 08/21/12
Posts: 768
Loc: Spring Hill, TN

Offline
Here is a good start:

House Bill 108, sponsored by state Representative Sheila Butt (R-64), provides that a public or private employer cannot require an applicant for employment or an employee to disclose information about the ownership or storage of a firearm in the applicant or employee's vehicle.
_________________________
~DRM~

Top
#3145307 - 01/30/13 09:11 AM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: -DRM-]
Redfred16
8 Point


Registered: 01/22/12
Posts: 1410
Loc: Hartland, WI

Offline
 Originally Posted By: -DRM-
 Originally Posted By: Redfred16
See I disagree that the final step in private property is the land, the actual car is the final stage of private property and since a employer has no rights on your property, they can't say what can or cannot be in or on your property.

I guess this is a chicken or the egg scenerio.


Then I can come park my car in your front yard and you can't stop me?

See the inconsistency in your position?


Not really since my lawn isn't a parking lot. But if I were to invite you onto my property and tell you to park there, whatever you have in that car(that's legal to own) is your business not mine. It becomes my business when it comes out and I have to determine if it's a threat or not.
_________________________
Packer Fan back in Packer Country

"Recon Ready"
Airborne and Air Assault Blood Wings Worn Here

Top
#3152439 - 02/05/13 07:39 AM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: Redfred16]
-DRM-
6 Point


Registered: 08/21/12
Posts: 768
Loc: Spring Hill, TN

Offline
So if this is really about freedom - why do the parking lot bills only allow Permit holders to leave a gun in their car? If this is only for permit holders - then this isn't about rights, it is about permit holders wanting to get THEIR way, everyone else is left out.

Yet another reason I won't support this nonsense.
_________________________
~DRM~

Top
#3152441 - 02/05/13 07:40 AM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: Redfred16]
-DRM-
6 Point


Registered: 08/21/12
Posts: 768
Loc: Spring Hill, TN

Offline
 Originally Posted By: Redfred16
[quote=-DRM-]
Not really since my lawn isn't a parking lot. But if I were to invite you onto my property and tell you to park there, whatever you have in that car(that's legal to own) is your business not mine. It becomes my business when it comes out and I have to determine if it's a threat or not.


That may be where you draw the line (in vs. out of the car), but that is an arbitrary line set there because YOU want to be able to carry on someone else's property.
_________________________
~DRM~

Top
#3156022 - 02/08/13 10:00 AM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: -DRM-]
-DRM-
6 Point


Registered: 08/21/12
Posts: 768
Loc: Spring Hill, TN

Offline
So nobody else has a problem with this "right" to bear arms on someone else's property only being for carry permit holders, and not for any other citizen?

Or is this like I said - case of permit holders getting what they want, everyone else can fend for themselves?
_________________________
~DRM~

Top
#3156119 - 02/08/13 11:22 AM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: -DRM-]
BamaProud
12 Point


Registered: 04/03/11
Posts: 6820
Loc: Shelby County, TN

Offline
 Originally Posted By: -DRM-
So nobody else has a problem with this "right" to bear arms on someone else's property only being for carry permit holders, and not for any other citizen?

Or is this like I said - case of permit holders getting what they want, everyone else can fend for themselves?


Does the parking lot bill(s) ONLY allow permit holders to possess a firearm in their vehicle, or can non permit holders heading to the firing range or hunting camp after work(legal transportation of a firearm) have their guns in the parking lot as well?

...If its worded ONLY favoring permit holders I think it is flawed.
_________________________
Save the Little ones for the Little Ones.
Wine-Down Brewing and Winemaking

Top
#3156125 - 02/08/13 11:28 AM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: BamaProud]
BamaProud
12 Point


Registered: 04/03/11
Posts: 6820
Loc: Shelby County, TN

Offline
I have read all of this and its been a good discussion.

Sounds to me like -DMR- equates property rights with rights given by our Constitution.

I don't think that is the case at all. Constitutional RIGHTS take precedence over a persons or businesses "rights" -more accurately called preferences, desires or wants- all the time.
_________________________
Save the Little ones for the Little Ones.
Wine-Down Brewing and Winemaking

Top
#3156130 - 02/08/13 11:30 AM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: BamaProud]
-DRM-
6 Point


Registered: 08/21/12
Posts: 768
Loc: Spring Hill, TN

Offline
 Originally Posted By: BamaProud
...If its worded ONLY favoring permit holders I think it is flawed.


*only* permit holders are covered by the proposed law, and I agree - it is flawed.
_________________________
~DRM~

Top
#3156133 - 02/08/13 11:31 AM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: -DRM-]
BamaProud
12 Point


Registered: 04/03/11
Posts: 6820
Loc: Shelby County, TN

Offline
 Originally Posted By: -DRM-
 Originally Posted By: BamaProud
...If its worded ONLY favoring permit holders I think it is flawed.


*only* permit holders are covered by the proposed law, and I agree - it is flawed.


I think that is the only part that is flawed though. anyone who legally possesses or is transporting a firearm should be protected.
_________________________
Save the Little ones for the Little Ones.
Wine-Down Brewing and Winemaking

Top
#3156146 - 02/08/13 11:43 AM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: BamaProud]
-DRM-
6 Point


Registered: 08/21/12
Posts: 768
Loc: Spring Hill, TN

Offline
 Originally Posted By: BamaProud
Sounds to me like -DMR- equates property rights with rights given by our Constitution.

I don't think that is the case at all. Constitutional RIGHTS take precedence over a persons or businesses "rights" -more accurately called preferences, desires or wants- all the time.


You are correct that certain rights pre-date the Constitution, in that they are considered innate, or inalienable. They simply exist - and the COTUS, and the Amendments merely serve to name some of them (with the 9th secure that there are many others not listed).
You are incorrect in assuming that property rights are not on par with religion, arms, or other innate or inalienable rights. Property rights are mentioned both in the 3rd and 4th Amendments, right along with other rights mentioned in the 2st and 2nd.

Further, it is common sense - and historically accurate - to understand that the second Amendment is not an "end", it is a means TO an end... The very reason we have the right to keep and bear arms is so that we ma defend and protect ALL OTHER RIGHTS, including life, liberty, property, religion, and many many more.

That has been my position all along.


Several here have tried to claim this is about "rights", but when the proposed law only applies to permit holders, and they support the law as applying only to permit holders - their position is made clear, they have no interest in securing rights for ALL men, just for them and their fellow permit holders. And to be honest, that is sad.

While I still disagree with the ability of a gun owner to FORCE a property owner to give up their property rights, I can at least understand the position if it were to apply to ALL gun owners.

But to apply it to only permit holders makes it quite clear this isn't about rights, it is about a privileged class (carry permit holders) just wanting to get their way, regardless of whose rights they take, or the fact that every other law abiding gun owners gets left out in the cold on this.
_________________________
~DRM~

Top
#3156148 - 02/08/13 11:45 AM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: BamaProud]
-DRM-
6 Point


Registered: 08/21/12
Posts: 768
Loc: Spring Hill, TN

Offline
 Originally Posted By: BamaProud
I think that is the only part that is flawed though. anyone who legally possesses or is transporting a firearm should be protected.


By protected, do you understand that what you want is to use the state to force property owners to let you do what you want on THEIR property? This needs to be perfectly clear - you are TAKING AWAY ANOTHER MAN'S RIGHTS.

So many people want to couch this in other terms to feel better about it, but it needs to be called what it is.
_________________________
~DRM~

Top
#3156160 - 02/08/13 11:54 AM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: -DRM-]
ferg
Cancer Free
16 Point


Registered: 07/29/04
Posts: 15814
Loc: At the TNDeer shirt factory %^...

Offline
It's an eminent domain issue - it's for the good of the public that guns be permitted on the property of others

ferg....

(headed for the hills now) \:D
_________________________
What's your PSA #? Don't know? You should, do it.

USCG(Ret)
Semper Par !




Top
#3156171 - 02/08/13 12:07 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: -DRM-]
BamaProud
12 Point


Registered: 04/03/11
Posts: 6820
Loc: Shelby County, TN

Offline
 Originally Posted By: -DRM-
 Originally Posted By: BamaProud
I think that is the only part that is flawed though. anyone who legally possesses or is transporting a firearm should be protected.


By protected, do you understand that what you want is to use the state to force property owners to let you do what you want on THEIR property? This needs to be perfectly clear - you are TAKING AWAY ANOTHER MAN'S RIGHTS.

So many people want to couch this in other terms to feel better about it, but it needs to be called what it is.


Its not about me, its about allowing citizens (permit holders or not if I was drafting the bill) as the Constitution allows, to legally possess a weapon without fear of retribution from their employer.

I don't think that takes away another mans or business owners "rights" -more accurately called preferences or desires- at all. Does it limit what he can and can't do on his property or the control he has over his property?...sure. But even though I would like to, I can't hunt 365 days a year on my property, I can't establish my own dump, can't Dam up a waterway through my property, can't discharge a firearm if I'm in the city limits etc...property restrictions are quite common.

I think you are confusing RIGHTS with desires or preferences. A man might prefer that no Blacks or African Americans or Caucasians visit his business, that does not give him the right to tell them to leave.

There is no constitutionally given right to complete control of your property, there never has been and shouldn't be.
_________________________
Save the Little ones for the Little Ones.
Wine-Down Brewing and Winemaking

Top
#3156182 - 02/08/13 12:15 PM Re: Question? Guns at work. [Re: BamaProud]
BamaProud
12 Point


Registered: 04/03/11
Posts: 6820
Loc: Shelby County, TN

Offline
I also get the other side of the argument, I don't like the government or anyone else telling me what I can and can't do either...but some things are necessary. I feel strongly that the 2nd Amendment supersedes the wants or desires of a property owner.
It is that simple.
_________________________
Save the Little ones for the Little Ones.
Wine-Down Brewing and Winemaking

Top
Page all of 9 12345>Last »


Moderator:  RUGER, Unicam, gtk, Tennessee Todd, Lakeland Charlie, Cuttin Caller, CBU93, stretch, TurkeyBurd, MAN, Bobby G, Kimber45, Crappie Luck 
Hop to:
Top Posters
4105502
RUGER
86964
Deer Assassin
65387
BSK
60995
Crappie Luck
51376
spitndrum
Newest Members
UTRok16, ljhhunt3, perchjerkin, camohunter3, mtd
13273 Registered Users
Who's Online
7 registered (Bow Hunter, jbranham63, Prowler, buckslayerr, tn droptine, rabbit hunter) and 61 anonymous users online.
Forum Stats
13273 Members
42 Forums
93069 Topics
1087565 Posts

Max Online: 788 @ 11/11/13 08:06 PM
Moon Phase
CURRENT MOON
September
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30
Forum Donations
The TnDeer.Com Deer Talk Forum is for Tennessee Deer Hunters by Tennessee Deer Hunters. If you enjoy using our Talk Forum and would like to contribute to help in it's up-keep. Just submit your contribution by clicking on the DONATE button below and paying with PayPal or a major credit card. Any amount is much appreciated. Thanks for your support!

TN Burn Safe

Generated in 0.149 seconds in which 0.002 seconds were spent on a total of 14 queries. Zlib compression enabled.