Worriedman

Buttermilk!

Hopefully, this will be the last change, the Good Lord willing and the Creeks don't rise!. Madison County Sheriff David Woolfork, our originally scheduled speaker, had reported that he was made aware of a conflict, and his appearance before our group will have to occur at a later date. I then contacted Scott Conger, aspirant for the 5Th District City Council position, and he graciously agreed to appear. However, due to the recent inclement weather, a previously accepted engagement was postponed and has been re-set for the night of our meeting. We will also arrange to have Mr. Conger come before us at another time. Mr. Michael Peery, candidate for the 9th District City Council seat has been so kind, at this late date, to offer to bring his message before us, and barring some other natural disaster, will be present to address our meeting. As usual, our meeting will be held at the Old Country Store, located in the Casey Jones Village, Jackson, TN, and will take place Thursday, February 10th. Our room will be available for those who chose to dine together and share fellowship at 5:30 P.M., while the meeting proper will begin at 7:00 P.M. Membership is not a requirement to attend, all are welcome.

For us "full figured" types, the AKER reinforced leather belt is hard to beat. Aker International, Inc. Keeps my Colt positioned well, and the belt never rolls.

It appears that the "use by schools" issue was the limiting factor.

The comments to the article are hilarious. The interesting thing is, they parallel and parrot the exact same taking points of a like story from anywhere, the "wild west" and shoot outs at little league games, the same drivel gets posted no matter where the discussion is being held.

That is one of the best reasoned comments I have read on this forum.

What you originally said was "and as long as you work for anyone else, your employer has the right to fire you at any time for any reason or for no reason", that was an incorrect assessment of Tennessee's employment law, and has led many an employer to his accountants desk to order a very large check be prepared and mailed, or delivered to a lawyer, that his lawyer has been talking to. The norm is a settlement instead of a trial for being cocky and irresponsible in the process of firing someone rashly, that "for any reason, or no reason" is a dangerous precedent, and no labor attorney will suggest otherwise. You did back up when confronted with the facts of what you had said, and your last line " As a matter of practicality, most employers will try to protect themselves from lawsuits, etc. by establishing a reason for a firing (and that the firing didn't violate EEOC rules)" shows you have thought better of your original post. That was absolutely not your FIRST point, it is a retrench, we have established what your first point was, and this new one shows you read something or talked to someone, or at least thought better of your first point that you made.

Pretty simple from my view point. I personally believe that a business owner should not have the ability to search my vehicle, just because. (You may believe that to be perfectly acceptable, but that is why some people like GM, some like Toyotas) I perceive that as not honoring my 4th Amendment rights, I do not believe that practically, that is an acceptable thing. So, when strictj made his statement that private business owners do not have to honor the Constitution and Amendments, and implied only the Government is held accountable to those standards, I was genuinely interested in why he felt that way, I do not agree. I always try to be prepared, I am successful normally, other times not so much. But, I am grateful for your concern regarding my well being. I am fully cognizant of the ramifications of the telling someone to go pound sand, but thank you for pointing that out, don't know what I would do without your gentle remonstrations. You will notice I am still gainfully employed however, so I think I get the drift on the employer thing. Your statement that ANYONE can ask was slightly ridiculous in this discussion however, and if you suggest that some Joe Blow that is not my employer or LE with probable cause has some power to demand a look at my junk, well, I have a slightly different opinion.

I agree with you that Tennessee does not recognize the firearms freedoms that it should, and you have been correct in each of your statements. That we seem to want to approach the method of changing them, or at least the bites taken in consuming that change should not make us enemies.

.

Excellent point! We would gain towards a desired goal, the Speaker does not have to deal with a huge big 'ol new "gun bill", seems a workable solution to me.

What you thought, and what you posted are difficult to me to reconcile, as only you know what is in your mind, but what you posted was verbatim "and as long as you work for anyone else, your employer has the right to fire you at any time for any reason or for no reason" that is vastly different from your later statements regarding company violations. What you actually say, or type matters. If I could read minds, I would not be working 60+ hours a week to earn my daily bread. Case in point, I could, I suppose, take your above reference about my intelligence to be either a compliment or an insult, it could be construed both ways if I was bent on trying fathom what your intent was. How clairvoyance is connected to intelligence confuses me though, and I tend to take printed words at their literal meaning, in so far as my meager abilities allow.

What you think he meant is immaterial. What he said was as he is the one that said it, I would like to hear his full understanding and take.I know no one has unlimited freedoms under the Constitution, but I do not believe that a business can simply disregard a Citizen's Rights, I think that went out the window with the end of slavery??

If you violate stated company policies you may be terminated, if you do so repeatedly you certainly will, that was not the gist of your previous comment.

Is that clearer?

So am I to understand that I am only afforded the protections of the Constitutions at the hand of the Government, and that individuals are not constrained by their rules and laws?

First off, I am not stupid enough to think that a person's home and his vehicle are coequal in ALL respects, but for busting down the front door of "illogical" restrictions on my ability to have my State sanctioned handgun in my vehicle for the ride across this long State, I think my arguments are sound. I, like everybody else who cares to obey the law, must play by the rules of the game established at the current time, however, that does not mean that I can not attempt to change them. How bright is an all or none approach? Do I think we currently enjoy the benefits with regard to firearms rights intended by our Founders, much less what I personally believe they should be, no, absolutely not, but the various Governments, grasping for control and Power, have me outnumbered with lawyers and squad cars and radios, so being somewhat reasonable, I chose to use their supposed chains imposed by the Constitutions to slap away at the monuments they have built to restrict my rights, it beats sitting on the ground rending my clothes and heaping ashes on my head. If you will admit that there are SOME similarities between the home and the personal vehicle due to the "Castle Doctrine" allowed, imposed, understood or remotely considered by our Legislature, that is the only chance we have this year to affect a change in what I consider to be an oppressive overreach by Government and Big Business to wrongfully control my life to it's detriment, for no good reason re this single issue. There are over a million legal gun owners in the State of Tennessee, less than 10,000 who even give lip service to RTKBA State groups, and I would hazard a guess that there are less than 200 who really get after really trying to foster a change, other than on the keyboard. OS, I know that you are correct about long guns in your home as opposed to in a private vehicle, but over the last 2 years we have made huge strides in changing the rules of that game, are we done, no, but we are moving forward. That is all I am striving for here, incremental steps to move to a larger goal, just as has happened in other States, if we who seek to modify what the Government writes down as law regarding firearms Rights together, we can accomplish much. If we bicker and play "what ought to be" we gain nothing. Jackson TN was the first municipality of over 5000 in population to defeat the MTAS fostered "opt out" relative to parks, we manged to forestall that by offering what I consider logical, provable data in a polite, orderly fashion and we won the day, (In one of the most Liberal enclaves in the State).

I have run these roads for 40 years, and have never had my vehicle searched, (while I had Tennessee tags on my vehicle, once when headed back from TX when I lived out there, coming home to deer hunt, the welcome committee in Memphis rummaged though my truck, I declared enough guns to defend the Alamo, I had nothing to hide so I let them look, they opened a couple of coolers and sent me on my way) and I drive a lot of miles, far more than the average person I would warrant. I have been stopped a lot for speeding too, (a hazard of the job), but I have never had the "look" I guess, of a criminal, and I salute the man with the switchblade so to speak. I comport myself in such a manner that evidently, LE has never felt it necessary to look in my vehicle. I have never even been asked if I minded a search, other than that one time. If you are not carrying illegal items, a search would be no big deal, and if the "parking lot" issue is settled, then HCP holders would have nothing to fear in parking lots, as they do not now on the road, if they are obeying all applicable laws. Outside of an expensive, but well deserved speeding ticket. I swear I think the THP, upon being handed the HCP card, (because you know they know when they approach) seem to relax a little, may just be my take, but I have been afforded the opportunity to observe more than most I think. The average HCP holder is NOT a threat to anyone but the criminal element. In a parking lot environment, what reason would there ever be to search a vehicle if no suspicious activity was observed? This is simply a basic right to that needs to be won back.

With respect to warrant-less search and seizure, my statement is correct. With respect to being able to engage an assailant at your discretion in either one, my statement is correct. If an assailant defiles the sanctity of either, are you afforded the supposition of imminent bodily harm and given the right to protect yourself without having to ascertain intent on their part, are you required to retreat from danger in either one? The carrying of long guns loaded is a topic of discussion for another time, now we are looking to allow the keeping of loaded handguns, as that is the prescribed tool of the HCP. Till we achieve that, there is no chance on anything else. Run several years of State wide unrestricted by private property "rules" handgun possession with no problems, we will be back at the well, we will have the data to address our Legislators at that point, right now we have zilch. I personally will take that as a starting point, as it a dang site better than nothing. First we need to convince ourselves that retaking this Right is the proper thing to do. Working the angle of the already prescribed by law "Castle Doctrine" and already approved to extend to our vehicles (in part) by the Legislature, it is the next logical step. If we could just marshal our forces and get on the same page, we can advance. We have the most Conservative Judicial Committee in the House in years, and if we approach them with the idea of amending a current law, instead of breaching a whole brave new world, there is opportunity I believe, to chip away at the lost abilities that we should by virtue of our birth enjoy.

Having been involved in various levels of management for many years, and as such, been afforded a lot of education in Human Resources and Labor Law, I can tell you with clarity, that the "At Will" employment supposition that you can fire an employee "just because" will land you in a world of something that Farmer Brown hauls off. Wrongful discharge is a charge that every employee that knows beans about the law fears, and a good lawyer can gin up a good case for it's acceptance with startling regularity. If you intend to fire a person in Tennessee, you had best have your ducks in a row, because if you do not, you will be paying a lot of money for that same employee to do nothing, while being well paid, at your expense. There is no good reason for us to even be having this discussion except for a desire for Power on the part of some, that is criminal at worst, and simply Unconstitutional at best. If you have data that shows that HCP holders keeping their legal weapons in their personal vehicles on business properties is conducive to increasing crime, please publish the same. Without that, the whole thing is Unconstitutional. There is plenty of data to mine, as many employers afford their help the basic Right of self determination with respect to keeping their legal arms on business properties, where is the proof that is dangerous to do so?

There is no undue burden placed on the property owner by not breaching the 4Th Amendment sanctity of a person's "Castle" (personal vehicle). Tennessee has already decided that one's home and personal vehicle are coequal in their status of protection, why does an employer enjoy a precedent ( for any LE no probable cause, no warrant, no warrant, no search) for powers that the Governmental agency does not have? It is a ludicrous supposition that a contract for labor supersedes inalienable Rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Tench Coxe said " Their swords, and every other terrible instrument of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American. ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." In the instance of attack upon my person, can we suppose that a weapon allowed for carry by the HCP holder is not acceptable? I personally do not want to be guilty of carrying a less than 4' pocket knife to a gun fight. Our LE Officers deem it necessary to go armed with firearms, why should I not be able to provide for my protection in the same manner? I have been vetted and judge worthy, I have paid my tax to the man. If the State allows me to have in on my person in a store, why not allow it in a locked, safely stored compartment in my vehicle while I am work, not in proximity to it until my trip away from the location. What we are dangerously close to is being DISARMED for no good reason. The edge we stand near to is one of acceptance of serfdom. Where is it written that property rights (outside the owner's Castle, of course) contain the ability to deny any other's right to provide for self defense, if the otherwise legal instrument is not shown, brandished in some way, or as the Supreme Court has decried in Andrews v. State "he shall not use them for violation of the rights of others"? I have looked, I can not find it. Please quote it.

If in fact the 4th Amendment 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." is to be enjoyed by the individual Citizen, and as the State of Tennessee has extended it's "Castle Doctrine" to include a person's personal vehicle with the same protection as their house, sans evidence of intent to misuse any legal possession kept inside it re Andrews v. State "that in such use, he shall not use them for violation of the rights of others", what power does the employer have to search an individuals vehicle? Also, our Supreme court has said in the same ruling "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." speaking of Article 1 Section 26 of the Tennessee Constitution. What next, the employer denies the ability of the individual to put a political bumper sticker on a personal vehicle in the parking lot? Should they not have the power to quash the 1st Amendment as well as denying a person's right to self protection? None of those "protected" classes you mentioned are explicitly mentioned in the Amendments, nor are they referenced in any of our founding documents or commentaries, yet a God given Right (self protection) which is spoken about by nearly all of our founders as universally accepted as necessary is relegated to the trash heap under the auspices of Property Rights?

That's the best, most succinct argument against the parking lot bill I've ever heard. I will ask the same question again, what Constitutional edict allows private property Rights to trump the Right to self protection? Is there an Article that requires the individual to NOT attempt to preserve their life in case of an attack. Is there some preemption to not spill the criminal's blood on an employer's parking lot, but allows the victim's to flow? If in fact the "liability" is the issue, what of the non permit holder that is parked in the same lot, and is attacked because an employer chooses not to supply any security for those who labor to provide for that owner's profit potential. Keep in mind, that we allow the property or business owner to not just deny the ability for the individual to provide for their own defense while in that parking lot via this line of reasoning, but for the full time and length of travel that it takes to get from the individual employee's home to work, and back again. That extends the employer's control far beyond the confines of their private property. Government seems to be fairly restrictive in what they allow private property owners to do with their possessions, there is no carte blanche issued along with a deed. I don't see them championing unlimited Rights to the use of individual parcels of land or buildings. Can't park your car in your yard, don't mow the grass, they do it for you and fine you, leash laws are the norm, governments regulate your ability to do with your possessions all the time. From the second any life form draws it's first breath it fights to live, self preservation is an innate desire of any living thing. Is there a more basic freedom, or instinct than that of the pursuit of continued life? Should any one be able to deny that to a person for any reason? Capital Projects of all kinds are halted because some assay of the flora and fauna turns up the fact that some bot nosed fruit fly inhabits a particular square yard of ground, keeping the largest Corporation from creating huge factories and thousands of jobs, denying the beneficial use of a piece of property that millions of dollars are paid for. Yet it seem reasonable to deny a human being, who simply ask to provide for their own preservation when their employer or Government can not, and will not assume the role, and by law has assigned the requirement of that preservation of life to the individual? Show me an Article in the Constitutions of the Union or the State that expresses the priority of property over life, and I will cease my arguments.

Michael Corleone to Tom Hagan in The Godfather II: It is simply a line from a movie, but I think it is true, similar to the "death and taxes" thing. Because a single disturbed individual can get past the Secret Service, does not mean we should turn over the ability to rape, murder and pillage at whim without the means to contest it, if there remains a will to do so.

Which life is it that we are supposed to value? If I get a vote, I suggest mine, and the ones which belong to my family, are worth far more than the criminal who might try to take them. There was an old saying "God created man, Samuel Colt made them equal." Is a person more dead from a gunshot than say a stabbing or beating with a crowbar? Nefarious people have been depriving innocents of their lives since day one, and will continue to, regardless of laws to the contrary. If they develop a light saber or photon blaster, I want one, because the home invader will have theirs, (and if I have enough lucre of the present, I can have one, legal or not). Any sentient being has to admit that methamphetamine production and sale is legislated against, has that stopped it? (Just one example of the inability of any law to regulate any activity.) The highest courts have mandated that Law Enforcement and it's legal bond agents, City, County, State of Federal Government have no duty to provide protection to the individual. Evil exist, I would just as soon have the ability to confront it. If you choose not to, fine, but that "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" thing leads me to believe that I need the ability to protect me and mine.