Tndeer Logo

Page 5 of 8 « First<34567>Last »
Topic Options
#3163750 - 02/14/13 10:41 AM Re: Tennessee Senate approves guns-in-parking-lots bil [Re: -DRM-]
woodchuckc
8 Point


Registered: 02/09/05
Posts: 1802
Loc: Hickman County, TN

Offline
Regarding property rights, I was under the impression that your car is your property, no matter where it is parked, and what is inside it is your property as well. It seems that some are inferring that when your car, with its contents, is parked in your employer's parking lot it ceases to be your property and becomes your employer's. I'm sure that there are a number of things besides guns that employers prohibit from being brought into the workplace that people sometimes have in their cars because they used them before or will use them after work.


Top
#3163789 - 02/14/13 11:06 AM Re: Tennessee Senate approves guns-in-parking-lots bil [Re: woodchuckc]
John Harris
4 Point


Registered: 09/04/03
Posts: 288
Loc: Nashville

Offline
 Originally Posted By: woodchuckc
Regarding property rights, I was under the impression that your car is your property, no matter where it is parked, and what is inside it is your property as well. It seems that some are inferring that when your car, with its contents, is parked in your employer's parking lot it ceases to be your property and becomes your employer's. I'm sure that there are a number of things besides guns that employers prohibit from being brought into the workplace that people sometimes have in their cars because they used them before or will use them after work.



This is a good point. It is interesting that during the 2012 legislative hearings, Federal Express had a representative who testified in the Senate. The video is still available on the legislative website and, if not, I have a copy. Anyhow, the Federal Express representative testified that they could, as the property owner, prohibit employees from having even Bibles in their cars. The point is that Federal Express and others opposing this law in the past have asserted that once anyone crosses the property line that the owner/renter/manager has all rights to declare what is and is not allowable on the property.

While I agree that real property owners have a lot of rights regarding what use to make of the property, once a use is selected that involves allowing others to come onto the property some of those "owners" rights are constrained by a wide variety of laws and I would agree that too many laws are imposed on property owners and limits on the uses.

Where the courts (as opposed to legislatures) have worked to find balance is where activity on property has an identifiable impact on the rights of others off the property. Thus, there are nuisance laws that limit what one property owner can do (such as a pig farm) if it materially impacts the adjoining ability of adjoining property owners to reasonably use their land.

Thus, the issue for me is not absolute control over real property which is merely an illusion but the balance between the rights of the real property owner, the personal property (car) owner relative to contents, and the right of self-defense which in my mind has a higher priority to any property right.
_________________________
John Harris
_________________________________
Attorney &
Executive Director, Tennessee Firearms Association
both of which support my hunting interests.

Top
#3163805 - 02/14/13 11:15 AM Re: Tennessee Senate approves guns-in-parking-lots bil [Re: Hunter 257W]
easy45
Non-Typical


Registered: 11/06/07
Posts: 29752
Loc: Chester County

Offline
cool
_________________________
Work to live, Live to hunt

Top
#3163826 - 02/14/13 11:27 AM Re: Tennessee Senate approves guns-in-parking-lots bil [Re: John Harris]
woodchuckc
8 Point


Registered: 02/09/05
Posts: 1802
Loc: Hickman County, TN

Offline
 Originally Posted By: John Harris
 Originally Posted By: woodchuckc
Regarding property rights, I was under the impression that your car is your property, no matter where it is parked, and what is inside it is your property as well. It seems that some are inferring that when your car, with its contents, is parked in your employer's parking lot it ceases to be your property and becomes your employer's. I'm sure that there are a number of things besides guns that employers prohibit from being brought into the workplace that people sometimes have in their cars because they used them before or will use them after work.



This is a good point. It is interesting that during the 2012 legislative hearings, Federal Express had a representative who testified in the Senate. The video is still available on the legislative website and, if not, I have a copy. Anyhow, the Federal Express representative testified that they could, as the property owner, prohibit employees from having even Bibles in their cars. The point is that Federal Express and others opposing this law in the past have asserted that once anyone crosses the property line that the owner/renter/manager has all rights to declare what is and is not allowable on the property.

While I agree that real property owners have a lot of rights regarding what use to make of the property, once a use is selected that involves allowing others to come onto the property some of those "owners" rights are constrained by a wide variety of laws and I would agree that too many laws are imposed on property owners and limits on the uses.

Where the courts (as opposed to legislatures) have worked to find balance is where activity on property has an identifiable impact on the rights of others off the property. Thus, there are nuisance laws that limit what one property owner can do (such as a pig farm) if it materially impacts the adjoining ability of adjoining property owners to reasonably use their land.

Thus, the issue for me is not absolute control over real property which is merely an illusion but the balance between the rights of the real property owner, the personal property (car) owner relative to contents, and the right of self-defense which in my mind has a higher priority to any property right.


You brought up a pertinent example with FedEx and their stance of having a Bible in their car. It would seem that the exact same issue of Constitutionality would apply (just different Amendments). Do employers have the right to enact an absolute prohibition of having a Bible (or Torah or Quran or prayer rug) in the car or just one laying on the dashboard or seat of the car (i.e., visible to someone from outside the car)? Would it infringe on an employee's right to freedom of speech/expression or freedom of religion to be forbidden to have a Bible in your car even if locked in your glovebox or trunk, like a gun would be?

Top
#3163833 - 02/14/13 11:30 AM Re: Tennessee Senate approves guns-in-parking-lots bil [Re: woodchuckc]
Redfred16
8 Point


Registered: 01/22/12
Posts: 1411
Loc: Hartland, WI

Offline
 Originally Posted By: woodchuckc
 Originally Posted By: John Harris
 Originally Posted By: woodchuckc
Regarding property rights, I was under the impression that your car is your property, no matter where it is parked, and what is inside it is your property as well. It seems that some are inferring that when your car, with its contents, is parked in your employer's parking lot it ceases to be your property and becomes your employer's. I'm sure that there are a number of things besides guns that employers prohibit from being brought into the workplace that people sometimes have in their cars because they used them before or will use them after work.



This is a good point. It is interesting that during the 2012 legislative hearings, Federal Express had a representative who testified in the Senate. The video is still available on the legislative website and, if not, I have a copy. Anyhow, the Federal Express representative testified that they could, as the property owner, prohibit employees from having even Bibles in their cars. The point is that Federal Express and others opposing this law in the past have asserted that once anyone crosses the property line that the owner/renter/manager has all rights to declare what is and is not allowable on the property.

While I agree that real property owners have a lot of rights regarding what use to make of the property, once a use is selected that involves allowing others to come onto the property some of those "owners" rights are constrained by a wide variety of laws and I would agree that too many laws are imposed on property owners and limits on the uses.

Where the courts (as opposed to legislatures) have worked to find balance is where activity on property has an identifiable impact on the rights of others off the property. Thus, there are nuisance laws that limit what one property owner can do (such as a pig farm) if it materially impacts the adjoining ability of adjoining property owners to reasonably use their land.

Thus, the issue for me is not absolute control over real property which is merely an illusion but the balance between the rights of the real property owner, the personal property (car) owner relative to contents, and the right of self-defense which in my mind has a higher priority to any property right.


You brought up a pertinent example with FedEx and their stance of having a Bible in their car. It would seem that the exact same issue of Constitutionality would apply (just different Amendments). Do employers have the right to enact an absolute prohibition of having a Bible (or Torah or Quran or prayer rug) in the car or just one laying on the dashboard or seat of the car (i.e., visible to someone from outside the car)? Would it infringe on an employee's right to freedom of speech/expression or freedom of religion to be forbidden to have a Bible in your car even if locked in your glovebox or trunk, like a gun would be?


The same could be said for bummer stickers. Can they restrict the 1st Amendment just cause you work for them and the vehicle is parked on thier property?
_________________________
Packer Fan back in Packer Country

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

Top
#3163839 - 02/14/13 11:37 AM Re: Tennessee Senate approves guns-in-parking-lots bil [Re: Redfred16]
John Harris
4 Point


Registered: 09/04/03
Posts: 288
Loc: Nashville

Offline
As one of other posters commented, the Bill of Rights and other Constitutional prohibitions are restrictions on the extent to which, if any, government may limit or impair rights. When it comes to private relationships, other common law principles like nuisance, interference with contract, or impairment take over and to some extent yield similar results.

My position is that as to a car or other item of personal property, you should be able to keep, store, carry anything that you legally own or possess in your car because its your personal property. If you (or the public) are generally granted permission to park your car on another's property, such as employee parking lots or open business parking lots, then the real property owner has "invited" that use of their property. That does not mean that they have the right to impair or infringe your use of your car any more than you would have the right to get out of the car and repaint their parking lot.

On the 1st amendment issue, it is interesting that the federal court in California has specifically held that a property owner that provide open parking to the public (e.g., a mall) cannot prohibit the distribution of handbills on car windows b/c that would constitute an unreasonable restraint of the 1st Amendment.
_________________________
John Harris
_________________________________
Attorney &
Executive Director, Tennessee Firearms Association
both of which support my hunting interests.

Top
#3163853 - 02/14/13 11:55 AM Re: Tennessee Senate approves guns-in-parking-lots bil [Re: John Harris]
BamaProud
12 Point


Registered: 04/03/11
Posts: 7033
Loc: Shelby County, TN

content Online
 Originally Posted By: John Harris
 Originally Posted By: -DRM-
So John, you admit the bill does not protect an employee from being fired. It ONLY covers permit holders (so much for this being a freedom issue), along with half a dozen other problems with the wording...

Why are you not advocating that this bill be pulled on principle alone?


I am trying to persuade legislators and enlist the support of other voters to understand that the bill has serious flaws and should be addressed before they rush to make it law.

On the property rights issue, I wrestled with that myself. I have considered the federal appellate cases which specifically looked at that issue (a case called Ramsey Winch) after the law was passed in Oklahoma about 6 years ago. The federal government found that this is a balancing a rights (real property rights, personal property rights (i.e., the contents of the car), and self-defense/2nd Amendment rights) and that there is not a material or unconstitutional violation of any real property rights or even a "taking" because any infringement is minimal to non-existent. That same opinion was adopted by the Tennessee Attorney General in 2012 when the Senate Judiciary asked for a review of the proposed legislation then.

In addition, the court of appeals noted that real property rights (particularly commercial/business property) are actually heavily regulated with zoning, land use, aesthetics, ADA, and other government infringements.

The court also noted that since most states adopt a civilian carry law at least with the belief or statement that allowing citizens to carry firearms has a proven deterrent effect on generalized and specific crime, that such laws also fall within the state's police powers. Thus, allowing a private property owner to "nullify" a police power of the state was seen as unwarranted under the law just as a property owner could not declare rape or murder laws "void" on their properties.


that is the same response 3 or 4 other have given him, yes, 2nd Amendment rights trump any insignificant "rights"(really desires or preferences) of a business/property owner.

In my opinion -DRM- is confusing a right as defined by the constitution with a preference. There never has been no should there be absolute control of your property.
_________________________
Save the Little ones for the Little Ones.
Wine-Down Brewing and Winemaking

Top
#3163862 - 02/14/13 12:04 PM Re: Tennessee Senate approves guns-in-parking-lots bil [Re: TNGunsmoke]
BamaProud
12 Point


Registered: 04/03/11
Posts: 7033
Loc: Shelby County, TN

content Online
 Originally Posted By: TNGunsmoke
I don't know about every employer, but I do know the reasoning where I work for why employees are denied their carry rights. Several years ago, they had a supervisor who had a carry permit, and used the sidearm on his waist to intimidate the guys working under him. He was reprimanded, and policy was then changed to disallow the carry of arms while at work. As far as them being in your parked vehicle on their lot, it is prohibited, but it is don't ask don't tell and as long as their isn't a problem, as far as they are concerned, it isn't there.


That is illegal. Someone should have pressed charges.
_________________________
Save the Little ones for the Little Ones.
Wine-Down Brewing and Winemaking

Top
#3163872 - 02/14/13 12:16 PM Re: Tennessee Senate approves guns-in-parking-lots bil [Re: woodchuckc]
-DRM-
6 Point


Registered: 08/21/12
Posts: 774
Loc: Spring Hill, TN

Offline
 Originally Posted By: woodchuckc
It seems that some are inferring that when your car, with its contents, is parked in your employer's parking lot it ceases to be your property and becomes your employer's.


I'm not aware of anyone who thinks your car becomes the property of your employer when it is on their parking lot.

But some of you seem to think that when you place your property *on* someone else's property, they should be stripped of the ability to tell you to remove your property from ON their property.

I want someone to explain to me why YOU can ask me to not bring a gun into your yard by way of my car, but business property owner cannot do the same thing.

In either case - the real property owner should have the same recourse: Ask you to remove the thing - and yourself - from their property.
_________________________
~DRM~

Top
#3163901 - 02/14/13 12:36 PM Re: Tennessee Senate approves guns-in-parking-lots bil [Re: John Harris]
-DRM-
6 Point


Registered: 08/21/12
Posts: 774
Loc: Spring Hill, TN

Offline
 Originally Posted By: John Harris

Thus, the issue for me is not absolute control over real property which is merely an illusion but the balance between the rights of the real property owner, the personal property (car) owner relative to contents, and the right of self-defense which in my mind has a higher priority to any property right.


Good stuff here, John.

I personally have no illusion that property rights should be absolute. As you stated, in the case of adjoining property, there are certain unavoidable issues where balance needs to be found.
And as I have said - if a real property owner were *forcing* you to be *on* their property (as a neighboring property owner is *forced* by the nature of real property to be adjoined to other real property), then that argument applies.

But nobody is forced to be in the parking lot of FedEx. Nor are they forced to be employed there.

As such, the claim that you need to be allowed to carry a gun on their property is merely a matter of CONVENIENCE, at the expense of someone else's control of their real property.

Claiming that your convenience trumps their property control simply does not hold water, nor is it logical.

Beyond that, I entirely disagree with your position that the right to self defense is of higher importance than the right to property. The right to self defense exists (as an innate right) exists so that you may protect your right to property, property to include your very person. As I have said before - the 2A is not an end, it is a mean to an end. Without the concept that property rights exist (again, including yourself as property), the 2A serves no purpose... i.e. - it ceases to be relevant as there is no use for it. The same can not be said of the inverse.


I'm not some anti-gun nut, or a liberal, or just trying to stir stuff up. I'm about as conservative as they come (admittedly pretty libertarian), have an HCP and carry daily, and would be considered a "gun nut" by the casual observer.

Still, when I apply some common sense to this - not relying on past court cases, I can't ignore the fact that for gun owners to get their way here they must use the government to take away someone else's property rights, merely for their convenience, and not out of need.

If a property owner does not want my gun there, it is *my* responsibility to give them the same respect I would ask of any other man who came on to MY property.
_________________________
~DRM~

Top
Page 5 of 8 « First<34567>Last »


Moderator:  RUGER, Unicam, gtk, Tennessee Todd, Lakeland Charlie, Cuttin Caller, CBU93, stretch, TurkeyBurd, MAN, Bobby G, Kimber45, Crappie Luck 
Hop to:
Top Posters
4105846
RUGER
87547
Deer Assassin
65575
BSK
61366
Crappie Luck
51376
spitndrum
Newest Members
AKeys, GUIDO, Bnpainter, TannersDad, Bowkiller13
13380 Registered Users
Who's Online
39 registered (Hangnail, Daniel n, Eric Kilby, TNRazorback, Paul Burns, Yotehntr, 3 invisible) and 187 anonymous users online.
Forum Stats
13380 Members
42 Forums
95603 Topics
1118818 Posts

Max Online: 788 @ 11/11/13 08:06 PM
Moon Phase
CURRENT MOON
October
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 31
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 0.051 seconds in which 0.002 seconds were spent on a total of 15 queries. Zlib compression enabled.