Worriedman

A different approach to this problem, carry everywhere. That way you are prepared to go to the airport, with the proper case (used to be you could simply remove the magazine and put it in a separate magazine holder, if it was completely enclosed the magazine and rounds in it, but no more, have to have any ammunition in an "approved" box and the magazine must be unloaded). My last stop before heading in to the counter is to remove my little Leatherman pocket tool and my Benchmade and drop them in my checked bag, along with my pistol. I doubt anyone would have the car rental place take the spare out of their vehicle when they get to a destination.

Here is one man's opinion, of course I am from the camp that considers the ability of the individual HCP holder to keep their lawful weapons in their personal vehicles as the correct action:

Here is a little of what we got in West TN Sunday and Monday night. Got a gen-set hooked up today, will be weeks before we get power back. All this on my little 3 acres.

I have not once insinuated that you are dumb for any reason. I disagree mightily with your perspective, and would like to change your mind, as we need "all hands on deck" to get this vital (in my mind anyway) issue assuaged. If you would argue for it as vehemently as as you have against it, you would be a formidable ally. Comparing me in any way to that pussbucket in any form other than being member of the same species is insulting, but I knew you were simply trying to make a point, so I did not take it personally. At no point did I intimate that age ONLY should be a consideration of wisdom, but my nearly double your years has afforded me lots more ability to make mistakes by the sheer virtue of opportunity, and you know what they say, the burnt hand teaches best.

Those dead guys wagered their very lives and fortunes so that we can argue the merits and intents of the plan they left for us. Midtennchip gets to argue his stances because they gifted us a Republic, replete with rules vested in the Constitution. They had concern for others outside of themselves, I am sure you meant no disrespect to those who offered to give all for you, but it could be so construed by the tone of your comment. I have the utmost respect for the legal profession, nothing can be substituted for a good lawyer when one is needed. But, a law degree is not a prerequisite to read and comprehend the Constitutions. They are not the IRS Code, written to preclude understanding by the average intellect. The point of those "dead guys" quotes was to assert the fact that your statement: was in error, the 2nd has nothing to do with the "Parking Lot" Bill. The 2nd Amendment only limits the Federal Government's ability to infringe on the Citizen's right to keep and bear arms. The various States are charged with deciding if and were it's citizens can wear arms, not the Federal Government. Also, I do not get your antipathy to age and the wisdom it brings. Any deer hunter will tell you that he can fill a pickup bed with 1 1/2 year old bucks, but he might spend a life time hunting and never lay eyes on a 5 1/2 year old. Luck gets the few through the fist season or two, developed caution and experience gets them to a ripe old age. Nature gives to each living creature a desire to live, it is inherent from the first breath a being takes.The average human is vested with a desire to live at all cost, until they become liable for other lives, normally those of their children, at which point they are willing to give their own to protect those they feel responsible for. It is hard to describe the change in the inner being, that demands less concern for self, and gives precedence to concern for others. The birth of one's first grand child elevates that thought process to a level that cannot be described, it must be experienced to be understood. Once the "old" man starts to hear the footsteps of his death, fatalism replaces the "live forever" attitude of youth, and he begins to lay by in store for those he leaves behind. I advocate for a return to what was intended by those who gave their homes and blood to start this Nation for the same reasons, to make sure when I am no longer here to take a direct hand in the protection of my offspring, that my efforts while I was were the best I could give. I am going to give my newest grand daughter a kiss, then I intend to scheme some more on how to get the parking lot bill passed. It is a habit of the old, to sleep less and to think and write letters, conversing with others to bring about a better life for their progeny. You have suggested that as a "selfish" thing, I see it quite the contrary.

I just got off the phone with the Lt. Governors office, was not able to speak with him directly, but did have a fairly long conversation with one of his staff members that I know. His is a realistic appraisal of the situation. With the perception of the "Top Management" of the current Republican Party regarding firearms issues, Ramsey is doing what he can. Earlier in the session, it become apparent that legislation bearing on firearms was not going to be a priority of the Governor or the Leadership in the House. Communication with his office has shown that "Parking Lot Bill" to be the single most referenced issue. I believe that he is doing his best to at least get that issue passed, knowing that there is a finite amount of political capital to be expended in the session with regards to firearms issues. I can remember when he carried the Handgun Carry Bill as a Senator. In my view, (as insignificant as that is) there is no stronger supporter of the gun owner in Tennessee Government. I wish he had a magic wand to wave and give us all that we want and desire, but that is not the case.

Here is a different article: AP News: Haslam, Ramsey line up against guns on campus It gives a slightly different take, and different quotes, allowing that Ramsey AND Haslam are for passing the "Parking Lot Bill"???

One has to remember that the Republican Party in Tennessee is controlled by our "Senior Statesman" Lamar Alexander, arguably the most anti-gun Legislator in the Nation, more especially insidious in that he hides behind his plaid-shirt purported every-man facade. He and the Old School Blue Blood "Moderates" have great designs for Haslam. Can't have him showing any gains for Firearms issues during his tenure as Governor. I too am disappointed in Ramsey, I HAD respect for him prior to this announcement. I would suppose that when you are afforded taxpayer funded armed security for your every step, (and most likely for all family members as well), being able to provide it for yourself is not so important an issue.

Under what auspices do you consider the private property owner to be constrained in his actions in this situation? And, the 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with the "Parking Lot Bill" as the 2nd deals with putting chains on the Federal Government with respect to interfering (operative word is infringed) with the Right of the People to keep and bear arms for use in taking on an out of hand Federal Government, according to George Washington: "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." This proclamation was offered by President John F. Kennedy on the 2nd Amendment: “By calling attention to ‘a well regulated militia’, the ’security’ of the nation, and the right of each citizen ‘to keep and bear arms’, our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason, I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.”(emphasis mine) The 2nd Amendment, when upheld, DOES offer the Citizens of this Republic benefits, according to John Adams: “Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense.” But, make no mistake, the 2nd Amendment was not placed in the Bill of Rights for supporting an individual Citizen's Right to provide for their own defense, that was understood as a "Natural Right". As there is no mention of a power given the Federal Government by the States to regulate the wearing of arms, it is left then (per the 10th Amendment) to the various States, and is specifically enumerated in our State Constitution in Article 1, Section 26. As this is the sole mention of a Right to Arms in our Declaration of Rights, and per Article 11, Section 16: "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." The State Legislature has been charged to decide what restrictions are to be laid on the Citizens of Tennessee with respect to when and where arms may be carried, and then only "with a view to prevent crime".

But you DO have rights while on private property then? Or, could a private citizen treat you any way they want to if they find you on their property? Due process is only owed by governmental agencies and not by private citizens? If a person who does not have permission to do so pulls up in a driveway and plays his music loud, does the property owner have the largess to handle that situation any way they want to?

Question for you stickj, if a Police Officer arrest someone on another's private property, (Shopping Mall, 7-11, factory parking lot, your driveway, take your pick) do they read him his "Rights", or is the arrested party divested of all rights due to location on "private Property"? Is due process precluded because of location on another's property?

Dead on correct!

It should be agreements between the States, the Federal Government has no business delving into this issue.

Every NEW business building is required to comply with ADA requirements, to a greater or lessor degree, dependent on it's location and the Building Codes that the entity responsible for permitting adheres to. Some States even require compliance in new residential construction. The County, City or State, depending on where an edifice is being constructed and which entity is responsible for inspections and permitting can absolutely tell the owner what electrical, structural, ADA and fire protection must be included (AZ requires fire sprinklers in any new habitation structure, including residential, or even a single person occupancy guard shack) . The business owner has no choice in what they will include, Plans Exams will mark up your drawings and tell you what you MUST provide. IF you would like a Certificate of Occupancy, you will abide by their Codes.

They can in fact determine "do not fight back against robbery" in their establishment, should they also be able to control how you react off their property, on your travel to and from their place of commerce?

I did not take umbrage at your statement, I have been called worse by others for less. I have a couple of different degrees, as I seek to always advance in knowledge, neither which are of a direct benefit for the work I do now. Though I hold that education of any kind is a good thing. I simply am trying to gain for my children and grandchildren, all the advantage to provide for their safety when I am no long a resident of this vale of tears. I know what should be, and that no entity is going to provide for their safety, that they are on their own against the ravages of criminals who would seek to make their job of preying on the unprotected easier. If a business can find it in their best interest to make a criminals life easier, and they can sleep with that, so be it. The fact that I can not fail to fight against that is simply a fact. If you do not have children, you can not understand, if you do not have grandchildren, you can not understand that desire squared. I am several years you senior, and have more years of life experiences. Personal observations of the reality of life give me a different perspective evidently. I have always tried to offer what I see as the reality of life in my arguments, but I will continue to make them, as I have my own wealth and store of knowledge from having been here nearly 60 years, and I know what is. I try to use reason in my advocacy for what I think is correct, and hold no ill feelings against you for your perception, though I will continue to seek to gain proponents for my way of thinking. You continue to say that the wish to have the ability to carry a weapon is a "selfish" desire, I do not disagree. But when I consider my daughter driving home from work, knowing that she has to pick her child up from day care on the way home, then the thought of her having to change a flat tire on the side of the road, being unable to keep her legal weapon at hand because some some corporation has decried it better than adhearing to the original intent of the Constitution, which said that we each should be able to bear arms for our defense, then I am guilty of that, unashamedly. You owe me no apologies, we simply differ in our take on the issue.

Not hardly, I am a concrete finisher by trade, and now a Sr. Project Manager for a Design/Build Firm that constructs larger than breadbox things such as Steel Mills and Distribution Centers. I wade through more Government Regulations than most lawyers on any given Project, dealing with OSHA, EPA, etc., and various State, County and City entities. Have done so in four different nations and on two continents. As our firm works Merit Shop, i get the pleasure of dealing with those Projects that fall in areas of high collective bargaining activity, probably the most contentious of all aspects, and were the mere slip of a tongue can cost millions, and result in jail time. I am fully cognizant that money talks and BS walks, and Nashville operates just as Washington, Paris and Mexico City does, the loudest squeak with the largest bank account, or the propensity to provide the most votes next round, will get their way. I also know that Nashville, (the Legislature) can decide what business can keep as conditions of employment, and if they decide the HCP holder should be allowed to keep their weapons in their personal vehicle, that is the way the law will read.

Our current government could not pour piss out of a boot with directions on the heel.

What I find ironic is the perception that private property rights are couched in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutions as inviolate, while an individual's Right to provide for their own defense with a legal weapon under the rules of the State of Tennessee is not. Under the 10th Amendment, a power that is not expressly given to the Federal Government by the States is left to the States, or the People. As Tennessee has in fact listed the power to control and regulate the wearing of arms as a Power of the State, as well as the dispensation and protection of property rights specifically as both being within it's purview, then a discussion of those Powers is in order I would think. The motivation on the part of those who would keep the "status quo" with regard to the laws respecting arms carry within a private vehicle on a business owner's parking lot is the desire for control, has nothing to do with the "greater good". Empirical data showing possession of weapons by the Handgun Carry Permit Holders as a detriment to business owners interest would be welcome and useful in the discussion. Were the issue at hand not specifically addressed as a Right of the People "for the common defense" it would be a different thing, but it IS addressed as an important issue, one deserving it's own article in the State Constitution in the minds and under the hands of our State Governmental Framers. It would seem that as the Framers put down on paper, in order of importance I would imagine, the responsibilities of, and constraints on State Government, then a view of the order of their listing would be reasonable. Article 1, Section 1 of our Constitution states: "That all power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and happiness; for the advancement of those ends they have at all times, an unalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner as they may think proper." Evidently, the Framers placed "peace, safety" at the head of the list of things that were of concern when organizing the "Rights" to be protected, because without those, all others are useless. "Happiness" (which I would anticipate to include private property rights in our State Constitution) comes in after the establishment of the of the other two. The "unalienable rights" so often referenced as the phrase and location paramount in describing private property rights, list them in the order of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", the order of which I can not imagine the Founders to have put down randomly. The first (and only) mention of "property" private or otherwise in our State Constitution (other than a directive against unreasonable search and seizure of it in Article 1, Section 7) is in Article 1, Section 21: "That no man’s particular services shall be demanded, or property taken, or applied to public use, without the consent of his representatives, (emphasis mine) or without just compensation being made therefore." There again is the statement that Power is given to the Legislature, to order and control the individual's Rights for the common good, this time in relationship to private property. With respect to the Right to provide for one's own defense by the use of arms, it is listed in Article 1, Section 26: "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." This is the latest version, amended in 1870, at which time the Legislature took upon itself the ability to regulate the wearing of arms. Prior to this juncture in history, there was no such Power enshrined, as the original version (1796) Article 11, Section 26, named under the Declaration or Rights read: "That the free men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." Why this change came about is open to interpretation, some say it was an institution of "Jim Crow" laws to deny African Americans the ability to bear weapons, another school of thought is that the Legislature of the day intended to limit the KKK from operating with impunity. Regardless of the true motive, the result is the Legislature now holds Power to regulate the wearing of arms in Tennessee, where they did not before this portion of the Section was added. However, the onus is placed on the Legislature to constrain themselves in such executions, "with a view to prevent crime". Without such a proven link, any restraint on the carrying of weapons is unconstitutional. The Legislature is the sole entity that is empowered to decide when and where the Citizens of this State may avail themselves of the ability to provide such tools as the State may adjudicate as legal for the fulfillment of the intent of Article 1, Section 26, subject only to scrutiny of their enactment of "Public Chapters" by the courts. It has been decided by our Courts (both State and Federal) time and again, that Government, and by virtue of extension of it's responsibilities, Law Enforcement, at any level, is NOT responsible for the safety and protection from criminal activity of it's Citizens. If Natural Law is to be the only criteria used, and the Constitution is to be tossed aside, then the unalienable Right to protect Life supersedes all other Rights, for without Life there can be no expectation of enjoyment of any other. Prudence would dictate that the continuing downward spiral of our economy, and the resulting upward increase in crime would be a cause of concern to the general public. Pressures on Government by virtue of decreases in revenue to the said Governments would surely indicate a lesser supply of services, e.g. Police presence for one. Trips to and from places of employment will become less and less safe, as we can afford to incarcerate fewer criminals, and put fewer Officers on patrol. To paraphrase Jeff Snyder, this whole discussion could be considered less about private property rights, and more about "victim disarmament", as that is the true end result achieved by entities that seek to limit the ability of the individual Citizen to make use of the legally specified remedy (procurement of a Handgun Cary Permit) and the best tools (lawfully owned firearms) to provide for their own safety and security.

The State of Tennessee allows any business to preclude you from carrying, permit or not, whether the venue is posted or not, at any time for any reason. If they are not posted, and they ascertain that you are armed, they can still ask you to leave and if you do not, you are guilty of criminal trespass. The whole argument comes down to money, you have to follow it to understand the debate. Firearms carry in Tennessee is under the auspices of the Legislature. Article 1 Section 26 bears this out. We can flap our gums all day about our opinion regarding if we should be able to keep our otherwise legally permitted weapons in our private vehicles, all to no avail, as the only opinion that matters is that of the Legislature. The side that purchases the larger number of Legislators will prevail. Tennessee has already decreed under their Powers that it is illegal to walk around armed, after the changing of the Constitution in 1870. The State took that right away from the People, and issued to themselves the ability to decide that issue, even though it had been a Right since the founding of our State until that time. Added to the usurpation by the General Assembly, was a codicil to make it seemingly more palatable, they intoned that any restriction of the ability to bear arms must be in concert with a view to prevent crime, but that has no real bearing on the subject. Arguments can be made for both sides of the issue regarding Private Property Rights vs. Right to Carry, with some compelling source material for both sides of the debate. At the time of the penning of the Constitution, had the question been asked relative to whether some employee who lived off site of a business SHOULD be allowed to bear his arms back and forth, you would have been laughed at for even posing such a ludicrous query, as the protection from wild animals and contentious native inhabitants proved personal armament necessary to survive. Male children were given their own weapons at the age of 12 as a general rule, a rite of passage so to speak, and additional guns were considered extra security for frontier families. They were looked at as tools to be used to provide for defense and survival. There was little to no constabulary to call upon, and then only in larger cities, certainly they could not be counted upon to be in attendance of the outlying regions should a crime be committed, survival was up to the individual then, just as it truly is now, and, you can bet that the weapons were privately owned and so wielded. Private Property was defended at all cost, if livestock was stolen, the perpetrators were hung. If a criminal was caught carrying off your goods, he was most likely shot, to the general acclaim of your neighbors. There was no such thing as Political correctness or rehabilitation. Our lives are not the same today. Some businesses recognize the need to allow their most valuable asset, (their employees) to take advantage of the State rules in place to provide for their own defense on their traverse to and from their homes to their work, while others seek to control the space between the place of labor and that of the abode of their employes without concern for the ability of their employes to avail themselves of the benefit to provide for their safety by paying the tax to obtain their permits. The law abiding will continue to observe the legality, the criminally inclined will not. This issue will go to the highest bidder, there are SOME Legislators that will vote on principal alone, but as in most instances, the side that buys them most votes will win.

Rep. Andy Holt's Bill 2016, which authorizes full-time faculty at a public college to carry a firearm on such campus if they have a handgun carry permit, and amended at the request of Rep. Eddie Bass to add a requirement for an additional 2 hour training session and requires the Staff person to keep the weapon on their person, not stored in campus, approved in sub-committee and sent to full committee. Buddy Peaster, Chief of Police of MTSU speaking for the TN Association of Chiefs of Police and University Campus Chiefs of Police, believes that allowing HCP carry will make "things worse for us" by allowing HCP carry by full time staff. He believes "Just on the qualifications of being able to carry in this state, it does not to me appear to be a good threshold by which to measure whether someone should be allowed to carry on the premises of a College or University." He also states under questioning by Rep. Barret Rich, that his suggestion for redress of assault or rape is to try and "escape" to paraphrase his response. Do I misunderstand that an Officer in uniform, apparently in the official performance of their duty as a tax payer paid employee, attempting to affect the outcome of a political issue, and that they are not a direct legislator responsible for the issue, might be committing Official Oppression? Re. Barret Rich stood firm in favor of the Bill with his line of questioning. Rep. Holt did a good job of laying out his points, and deserves our thanks. At 22:08 for video. House-Judiciary-Sub Committee

No worries on the AR style pistol, do not own one nor do any of my fellows, thought I could if I wanted, carry my 1911 AND my grown up AR as long as it did not have a round up the pipe, but, I am sure that if the constabulary in a small town saw that, it would really raise some hackles, legal or not. I would just as soon not have that conversation, so I will be packing only the pistol in case they find a reason to ask for I.D. As the home town makes the majority of it's money from running a speed trap, I am sure to be cautious with respect to traffic laws. I do wonder, is there some statute against having any weapon in a vehicle with a felon in attendance regardless of the possession of a legal permit by the weapon's owner?

Is there a moment's consideration that whatever weapon type was in the defendants possession, that there would not have been some charge that would have allowed the pistol, whatever kind it might have been, to be be taken after the stop was made? What was the cause of the stop in the first place? Was it the fact that he was I would suspect that he was not waving it out the window, most likely was not brandished for the Officers to see at any point, or he would still be in the Crossbar Motel.I have an event in my old Home Town tomorrow night, my '71 State Championship football team is being inducted into the County Sports Hall of Fame, and the three guys riding with me to the presentation all look pretty darn rough, should I anticipate being stopped because I have an out of county tag and we look like trouble?

One of the problems we seem to have this session is the Teachers Union situation, it has kept the major attention spanned I believe. But never forget, the Senate gets to deal with the Parking lot issue as well as the House, and if a Bill with the original verbiage hits the floor after the conference committee, then the Legislators have to vote en-mass, not just a few powerful committee members who want to have things heir own way.

I would not turn the points up and pull the sod over the carcass just yet. It is apparent to me that Rep. Eddie Bass is desirous of seeing this Bill come to a floor vote in it's original form, and Rep. Jim Gotto made a strong statement in favor of it, as well as intoning possibly the most on point comment on the fact that we have a "Right" to keep and bear arms" that I have ever heard a Representative utter in chambers of the Tennessee Legislature, ever. Vance Dennis is the causal agent of the "Hand that pulls the strings", Sam is 100% dead on in that assessment, and it is so apparent by the actions that were evident in the committee meeting yesterday. But, because one individual Representative is leaning on the sponsor, that does not mean the fat lady has sung yet. Evidently Dennis has obligations to "Business" interest that he is struggling at this point to satisfy, but there are many other members of the House that get to wade into the fray if the Bill gets to the floor, and do not forget the machinations that occur When you throw in the Senate. The sausage mill that is the TN Legislative process has not stopped grinding on this one quite yet. I would surmise that should one be of a mind to see this issue to fruition, then a strong effort to convince our Senate of the merits of the case would be in order, as there is always the possibility that a conference committee, well constituted, might just place the meat back on the bones and put the original Bill back on the floor. Reasoned, impassioned contact with your Legislators of both Houses is in order I think, and, we have friends on the issue. Personally, I intend to advocate for this, as I would rather go down swinging than pout and bemoan a fate that I might be able to sway.