#3142653 - 01/28/13 03:37 PM
Re: Question? Guns at work.
[Re: Redfred16]
|
-DRM-
6 Point
Registered: 08/21/12
Posts: 521
Loc: Spring Hill, TN
|
Offline
|
|
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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: 1086
Loc: Hendersonville, TN
|
|
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 stuck in Titan 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: 927
Loc: Bells
|
|
Offline
|
|
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: 927
Loc: Bells
|
|
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.
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: 927
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
Spider
16 Point
Registered: 07/29/04
Posts: 13735
Loc: At the TNDeer shirt factory %^...
|
|
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."
I have often wondered about this - and why it's so blatantly ignored....... 
_________________________
"...deer are magnificent animals to be hunted by skill and knowledge, not large vermin to be shot over piles of garbage like rats at a dump." -Eric Sharp, DFP, 06/05/2011
U.S. Coast Guard, Retired !!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#3142819 - 01/28/13 05:42 PM
Re: Question? Guns at work.
[Re: Redfred16]
|
-DRM-
6 Point
Registered: 08/21/12
Posts: 521
Loc: Spring Hill, TN
|
|
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.
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: 521
Loc: Spring Hill, TN
|
|
Offline
|
|
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.
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
|
|
|
|
Moderator: RUGER, Unicam, gtk, Tennessee Todd, Lakeland Charlie, Cuttin Caller, CBU93, stretch, Outdoor Lady, TurkeyBurd, MAN, Bobby G
|
12113 Members
38 Forums
115959 Topics
1412273 Posts
Max Online: 756 @ 11/20/12 09:10 AM
|
|
|
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!
|
|
|
