Worriedman

I did not so indicate. My point is that when the management creates a "gun free" zone, it will by necessity foster a more likely atmosphere conducive for criminals to ply their trade. By so doing, it is going to cost the customer more, not the Bank. I do not like being disarmed anywhere, be it bank, grocery store, Dr.'s office. There has been a rash of robberies and beatings at hair salons in Jackson, no place is safe from thugs. It is my own personal belief that if banks (and any other business type) had signs saying in effect "Legal permit holders and their weapons welcome here" it would have a much different consequence. If our society promoted the ability of the legal weapons holders to provide for their own defense at large, I truly believe we would see less crime of all types.

Maskirovka! The advantage they are taking is to obscure the sorry state of affairs that they have wrought in the last two years. What better issue to polarize and demonize the right, while keeping the eyes of the country off the real issues that are driving a surge against the Left. If they can polarize the country with this issue, they do not have to deal with the inflation that is beginning to grip us, rapidly rising gas and food prices, a shrinking dollar etc. If they threaten take away gun rights, it could be that we are too focused on that to the extent that maybe we will not notice them trying to slip off with our 401K's.... Never let a crisis go to waste, and if there is not one, make one up!

And I am sure they pick the dollars for their premiums off the government cash tree out back, instead of taking it out of the customers via service charges, did not cost us a dime, huh?

No problem, it has been a good exercise for the coming contest with the Legislature. I have meetings set for next week with some folks who actually can help foster a change with regard to this specific issue. The give and take has been beneficial, as it made me pull out my old notes and study up.

We are promised "Life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness" by those same governments. Any thug with a stick can deprive any one of us of those commodities, and who do the survivors petition for redress in the case of loss of them? We are instructed by those same courts you reference that the government has no responsibility for offering the protection of them. So if it is the individual's responsibility to provide the most rudimentary protection of those possessions, the basic tenants of God given Rights to continue life in a hostile environment, I for one will read the Constitutions and Declarations and Bills of Rights as I see fit, and if a small group of men who desire control over all that they survey does not suit me, and if my understanding of the written documents varies from their twisted take on the matter, it is my prerogative. I am sure the British Empire had a different view of these issues than did the "Rebels" which were the Founders of our Nation. Which view won out in the end of the contest. To give up debate and advocacy of what I think is the correct interpretation of these maters and subscribe to the perception that you hold would be cowardice in the face of duty that I owe to my children and grand children, to leave them a future that holds some semblance of Liberty. Samuel Adams spoke of this mindset: “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!â€

That the Governments of the union and the State of TN have manipulated by regulation the Constitutions of both, with respect to the stated Right to keep and bear arms, that does not mean that that Right does not exist, it simply means that some accept the yoke of tyranny imposed upon them, while others continue to advocate for the Right as intended. Because you accept the premise of a Police State that offers no surety of protection or safety willingly, does not mean the rest of us have to.

DRM, I would like to see your Constitution cites that reference private property ownership as a trump on the individual right to keep, bear or carry arms.

No, you started this one by stating the difference inside and out with relation to dancing naked, and the difference in how the law would look at that. They also look at the use of deadly force differently per location. My belief is that there is a difference, that the yard of the home is governed by different rules than the inside is, i.e. the Castle Doctrine. The State has extended the same personal protection to a personal vehicle. I say let the same difference apply to the work place, Government properties, stores, and schools. There is no empirical data to suggest that HCP holders pose a risk of committing crime just because they have their weapons locked in their small little pieces of their Castle in a parking lot, which is required by the Constitution to restrict the individual from "keeping" their weapons in their private vehicles, as was stated by the Supreme Court in the same case, Andrews v. State: On this you and I disagree. I say that someone should be required to prove a material risk on the part of HCP holders by proximity to their legally approved weapons to retain the restriction.

It is the best chance to advance the issue. The fact that the Legislature recognizes that the HCP holders as a group, having been vetted via an FBI background check, and trained in the knowledge of the law regarding the use and prescriptions enumerated by the TCA against the incorrect use of their weapons, makes it more likely they will approve a change to allow this group to enjoy their basic, Constitutional Right to keep a weapon in their vehicles.Prior to the institution of the HCP program, we were divested of the legal ability to carry handguns at all, (except for those who could co-opt a County Sheriff to issue a Special Permit). Do I agree with the premise, no, but I obey the law as I can. So now I advocate for moving more to what I think are the Constitutional guarantees that I think are necessary to allow me to protect my life. I have answered this in previous post, but once again, I believe that as businesses are seeking a profit, and are basically open to the public, drawing in the public, depending on the public, as customers and laborers, then that business involves the Rights of many, not just one, and as the Constitution says that the individual has the Right to carry their weapons, and places the burden of their safety and security squarely on the shoulders of that individual, the Rights of the individual to provide for that in their traverse to and from their homes as stated in Andrews v. State should be protected.

No, you posed the difference in inside and outside the house. There is no requirement for "burden of proof" inside the home or personal vehicle. The burden is on the perp to stay out of those places. Plus I did not say anything about taking a life, I said use deadly force, which does not always equate with loss of life. The purpose of a defensive weapon is to make the individual stop the course of action they have chosen, whether they live or die is immaterial, as long as they are incapacitated to the extent that they can no longer pursue the course of action that precipitated the response.

In your home or vehicle, you do not have to attempt to discern whether an intruder is intending to do you harm to avail yourself of the use of deadly force by Tennessee Law.You do not have the same ability or "defense" if you will, outside your home, in your yard or on your driveway. If you wake up in the middle of the night (or at any time) and notice an intruder in your home, you can fire on that person instantly, you are not required under the law to retreat, nor do you have to wait till they commit an overt act of aggression to employ deadly force. Neither do you have to make a determination of intent if a person lays hands on you in your vehicle, both scenarios valid under current law. If that person is armed or not, you still have the weight of the law on your side for using deadly force, i.e. employing a weapon. You are armed with the presumption of intent to do you harm within the confines of your home or your private vehicle. On the other hand, if you are confronted with the appearance of an intruder OUTSIDE your home or vehicle, even if they are on your personal private property, you are not provided the same largess, and if you utilize deadly force, and the suspect is proved to be unarmed or is moving away from you, you are not afforded the same protections, "defense", as you are in your home or vehicle. That is the difference.

I think DRM has the right to ask any one to leave his property, for any reason. If however DRM desires or needs my expertise and agrees to employ me, then I think DRM should be able to require I enter DRM's building sans weapons, it that be DRM's choice. Inside that work space, if something of a violent nature befalls me, I can sue DRM for damages. However in my personal vehicle parked on the lot outside the workspace, I think the TN Constitution says I have the right to avail myself of the God given right to self protection for my traverse to and from DRM's property.Currently the Legislature agrees that any business owner should be able to trump my right to provide for my self protection, but that is going to come up again, and if we, the "gun guys" can convince them that it is Constitutionally directed to allow the legal HCP holder to enjoy that lack of restriction, that will be all that is necessary, as our Constitution is set up to allow the Legislature to be the single arbiter of that situation. How does DRM know I have a weapon, if it is locked in my car, to ask me to leave in the first place? If I back out of your drive way, (assuming we are at DRM's home and not DRM LLC), and park in the street, (assuming again, that there is not a civil statute against leaving the vehicle there), would you feel misused, knowing a firearm was only say 3 feet away from DRM' property? If at DRM LLC, I rent a parking space from the property owner across the street, and leave my weapon in my personal vehicle there, would DRM LLC, suspecting that I did so in an effort to keep a weapon in my vehicle, (now 24 feet away from DRM LLC jurisdiction) be justified in terminating my employment? That every legally entitled Citizen has the right to carry State allowed instruments of self protection, (knowing that no other entity is responsible for that act, but each individual, a fact you keep disregarding). That you don't like the HCP rule in TN is tough, and your not liking it is moot, it is Constitutionally mandated at the present time, just as I don't like the ability of a business owner to divest me of my instruments of self protection, but as that is Constitutionally mandated for the time being, I have to abide by it. If I and others who share my view can convince the Legislature to change that, it will then become the law, that is the crux of the whole conversation. I am not sure what your "solution" is. Are you advocating knowingly violating the law?It is already established in Tennessee, that your private vehicle is an extension of your "castle" (sorry for the inference Fallguy). I personally believe that is going to be the tipping point of the law, and, I believe that HCP holders will be able to keep their legally carried weapons in their vehicles in the near future. We all know with certainty that a criminal intent on committing an illegal act will not be dissuaded by posting, signs or laws. We also know that no Law Enforcement entity is responsible for our security and safety, that they are charged only with the investigation of crime, and that Article 1 Section 26 puts the onus on the individual to provide the same. the supreme Court of TN has said we have the Right to carry our weapons that are approved for our own defense, from the Andrews v. State findings:

Two questions for you. 1. If you wake and find an individual in your home, are you legally allowed to use deadly force to remove them as a threat, without determining if they are armed and pose a possibility of danger to you or your family? 2. If you hear a person outside your home, are you legally allowed to use deadly force to remove them as a threat, without determining if they are armed and pose a possibility of danger to you or your family? My contention is that there is a HUGE difference between the inside of a building and the outside. I will go further, and intimate that the inside of your personal vehicle is vastly different than outside the same.

First, you have chosen a "gun site" to post on, it would appear that those who have interest in the topic might be the general participants, and in so far as one might suppose that the general focus would be for Constitutional issues relating to gun ownership and the freedom to enjoy those, I am surprised that you tend to act as if this is abhorrent to you. What you "see here"as you put it, is in fact "gun people" wanting the Constitution to be applied as it was meant to be, not as some would wish it. Currently there are unconstitutional measures relating to carry on the books, that us "gun people" want to advocate for corrections to those, and discussing them on a "Tennessee Gun Owners" forum to forward that would be normal? The outcome "desired" as you put it, is one of following the intent of the document that rules, in the manner proscribed, and not as some wishy-washy feel good, want to just get along appologist for the Kumbaya crowd wish it to be. Simply read and follow the law.

If you intend to honor the Tennessee Constitution, which says that the citizens have a right to own and transport their weapons, and be secure in their possessions, if they are behaving with those weapons in such a manner as to not alert you as to their existence, I fail to see where it would be a problem. Do you, as a matter of course, ask every visitor to your home if they have weapons in their vehicles? If you post your private property against carry, (which you have every right to do, however, if you do not, then there is no preclusion against carry by HCP holders on your property) then I suggest you make yourself a target, we all know how criminals love a "gun free" Zone!

You evidently do not earn your daily bread from dealing with such issues. Failure of industry to provide viable payback of that public support is legendary. The billions invested in "Green power" initiatives is but one instance showing where good money has been thrown after bad. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/15/business/energy-environment/15solar.html They going to pay our $43 million back?

I work with many government agencies with letters for names, OSHA, EPA, COE, DOJ etc., there is NO end to their intervention. As "Dead Fish" Emanuel said, either legislate or regulate.

Each and every one of these types and kinds of "business" has some component of their ability to function owed to public sector support, ranging in magnitude from minor for "Mom and Pop" venues to complete for governments. The fact that we are talking about parking lots points out the reliance by each business on the public finance and ownership of the streets, roads and drainage public works which bring the employees and customers to that parking lot, without which those businesses could not function. The average Citizen helps to finance the infrastructure for every commercial venture, some more so than others, depending on the level of graft or largess, (which is the prerogative of the viewer to discern) of the Government officials in charge of reaching into our back pockets to take/give our money to entice new business for the "common good".

This issue of "private property" rights is bothersome to me for a couple of different reasons, especially when it comes to the parking lot issue. My employment is in the Construction field, I build larger than bread box structures such as factories and distribution centers. In every instance of a major Project, I deal with various governmental entities with respect to utilities and infrastructure enhancements for those industries. I can promise the State of Tennessee puts a lot of public money into every new employer that comes to the State, some of them huge sums. You and I gifted a certain industry with the land gratis, the civil work prior to beginning actual construction, and all the roads and bridges necessary to bring in raw materials and to ship finished products out, for a Project in North Central Tennessee that began just recently. For the millions of dollars the State pumped in to this Project, (our tax dollars by the way) I find it difficult to call it "Private Property", not to mention the Federal Dollars given to them as it is a 'Green Power" endeavor. Yet they deny the right to employees to keep weapons in their personal vehicles for personal protection. Every business reaps the benefits of public monies via the roads and streets that bring customers to them, the electrical power that is a public utility, the water, sanitary sewer and storm sewers that each of us finance to the benefit of the "private business" without which they could not exist or earn a profit. Without publicly funded streets and roads, no business could function. I feel I have a vested interest in all these businesses, and I do not appreciate my largess being repaid by denying my Constitutional Right to provide for the only safety and security I might enjoy, as it is my job and no one else's to provide. In Andrews v. State the Supreme Court of TN found: "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. But farther than this, it must be held, that the right to keep arms involves, necessarily, the right to use such arms for all the ordinary purposes, and in all the ordinary modes usual in the country, and to which arms are adapted, limited by the duties of a good citizen in times of peace; that in such use, he shall not use them for violation of the rights of others, or the paramount rights of the community of which he makes a part."

I am lucky enough to work for a Company that allows carry on the premises, I get to keep my weapon on me in my office. (My Owner stated he considered me Company Armorer and Designated Shooter.) On some of my job sites I am precluded from having it in my vehicle, not my firm's choice, but the whim of the Owners of the businesses we work for. I simply am advocating for others to at least have the ability to keep theirs in their vehicles, as it really bothers me to have to traverse the long miles across the State sans protection, knowing I can not count on any other entity to provide it for me.

I did not say we are "called" to go armed, I quoted the Constitution as saying we have the Right under restrictions placed by the Legislature, which by the chains placed on them by the document, must be related to reducing crime. The distinctions I draw relate to being a law abiding gun owner, reading and understanding the rules. Willing to use the system in place to attempt to change the things I think are incorrect, and which do not adhere to the written words of our current Constitution. As most applauded the change in law that allowed HCP holders to carry their long guns in their vehicles with ammunition in the magazine, just not in the chamber, (until such time as conditions warrant) it is an incremental regain of our Rights. This was a change won by talking to our Legislators, and having the law mitigated from it's previous restriction on that ability. The next year, we were able to remove the ridiculous restriction against the non HCP holder being able to carry their long gun with ammunition in the same compartment of the vehicle, (just not in the magazine of that weapon), again, small steps. Different abilities for different groups based on the current laws. Good changes, I think so. We will not win all we want in one fell swoop, but approaching our Legislators with the document in hand, pointing out the words and making them understand is the first step in regaining what were our rights in the original Constitution.

We have to start with the situation at hand, and as of now, we HAVE the HCP restriction in place. Returning to Constitutional legality will take years to achieve, but, it can not begin until we assert the basics. As the Legislature is given the power to restrict the wearing of arms, we must abide by the laws in place, until such time as we can change them, in the Legislature. We must affect change incrementally, and as such, offering up the ability of HCP holders to enjoy the ability to keep a weapon locked up in their vehicle seems salable, legal gun owners vetted to be allowed to carry by virtue of background check and at least some modicum of schooling, I believe is the best place to start. And I did not say no one should be able to "Post" a business that they own, just as any persons home is their "castle", and inside the confines of that, they should be in control. But, that home owner does not control whether a visitor can leave a weapon locked in their vehicle parked on the street. The home owner's ability to control stops at the confines of his castle, and does not intrude into the visitors vehicle. I believe that business owner should have the same ability, if they want to preclude carry inside the physical work space, then so be it, but not in the vehicles of it's employees. Again the Constitution states it is up to the Legislature to decide all things related to the keeping and wearing of arms, that is an irrefutable fact. No other entity is entitled to be responsible for restrictions, not City Councils, County Commissions, or business owners, it is a black and white thing, for those who will see it and honor the Law. As to what class of individual that should be able to have a weapon on their person or in their vehicle, at this point we have laws in effect, rightly or wrongly, and till such time as we can change them, render unto Caesar.....felons and the proved mentally incompetent accepted of course.

If in fact, the Tennessee Constitution has any bearing on this discussion, then the only individuals who are to have a say relative to this issue are in fact our State Legislators. Article 1 Section 26 clearly states that the people have a Right, (and that is the word that is used, not privilege), to keep and bear arms for the common defense. Note that there is no mention of a militia or protecting the People from a despotic federal government in this document, merely the Right of the citizens of this State to provide for their own defense, knowing that the State has no charter for any other entity to provide the same. The Legislature shall have the power by law to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime, only. There is no mention of land, property or business owners to have a hand in that decision, only the Legislature, and then, and only then, if they can prove that restrictions on the Right as written down in the document can be proved to prevent crime. We have already had an opinion from the Tennessee AG to that effect, that any law restricting the keeping and wearing of arms MUST be proved to prevent crime, or that law is unconstitutional. The only "property right" which is germane to the conversation at all is the one which decides whether every citizen of the State of Tennessee personally owns the Constitution of this State, or whether it belongs only to those who own businesses. Or more clearly to whom does the Legislature owe it's allegiance, the President and CEO of Fed Ex or the average Citizen. Fed Ex sits in Mogadishu on the Mississippi due to geography and cost of running it's business. Why else would it chose to locate in one of the most dangerous locations in America. The price of Jet A fuel is the single biggest limiting factor for it's location in Memphis, and being the geographical center of the US is the reason why. They are not going to pick up and run if the State Legislature grew a pair and decided to honor our Constitution, allowing HCP holders to keep their handguns locked in their personal vehicles on their parking lot. The millions of dollars already invested in infrastructure, and the Government teat they suckle on at the airport to their benefit will preclude that from happening. They just have the bluff in on our Representatives and Senators, and we as the money stream to them allow it, because we bicker on the issue instead of reading the document that controls it and demanding our Legislators do the right thing according to the Constitution.

I sat on a panel with MR. Peck at the First Amendment Center in Nashville Nov. 3, 2009 where we discussed the "Right to Carry vs. Right to Know". He stated that his reason for publishing the database of HCP holders was to provide parents with a method of finding out if a home their children were going to visit housed weapons. I asked him at that panel discussion why he did not push to make public all Hunting License holders as well, given that each and every one of those homes would have weapons there as well, I never did get a straight answer to that question. I further posed the thought that HCP Holders have a FBI background check run prior to issuance of that permit, but no such background check is done to certify suitability of "character" for the millions of hunters who legally obtain and keep weapons, which normally are much more devastating in their abilities than the handguns used by HCP holders, he had no retort for that either. I do applaud the effort on the part of Mr. Peck to allow Mr. Givens' statements to be published, it is the first time I can recall a balanced presentation of gun owner's perspectives in the Commercial Appeal.

Maybe an answer to this would be to make the Lawyers pony up if the civil case was found in favor of the defendant. As attorneys take the cases on a contingency factor, betting on the come so to speak, make them, as experts in determining the validity of a suit, be responsible for the 1/3 of a judgment against the person bringing a spurious suit. The attorneys basically finance the suits, banking on getting paid if and when a judgment is made, let them be responsible if it goes in favor of the defendant. If the suit has merit and they are able to convince a jury they enjoy the benefit, if it is found to be sans merit, let them share in the down side as well.