RobertNashville

Yes...after I asked the question in my post and which I've now responded to. Even assuming I didn't want it to "run its course", which would be an incorrect assumption; what power do you believe I have that would make it possible for me to stop it from doing so???

Understood and thanks for clarifying. Before I get into my reasons for why I carry, I don't know if OC or CC has all that much to do with what holster you might want. I have both IWB and OWB holsters but how concealed or not concealed they are has almost everything to do with whether I have a garment that covers the weapon or not. I would suggest that whether you do or don't open carry should depend on where you plan to carry...some places/groups of people, etc. are simply more comfortable with the idea of seeing someone with a holstered gun on his hip than are other people...I can almost guarantee you that if you open carry in some places, even though it's perfectly to do so, it will be far more likely that someone is going to freak out/get pissed/call the police/complain to the nearest authority store manger, etc. Other places open carrying won't raise an eyebrow. I almost never open carry for 2 simple reasons. 1. I don't really want people, especially possible "bad guys" (for pretty obvious reasons) to know I'm armed. 2. I think the potential "bad effect" it can have on people's perception outweighs the potential "good effect"; at least most of the time. In general, if people don't know I'm armed, I don't need to be concerned about how they'll react (such as what happened not long ago when a person who was open carrying was made to leave a theater that was not posted against carrying just because someone didn't like the fact that he was there and armed). Despite what some (apparently super-sensitive) folks here want to think, I have no problem with anyone who wants/does open carry. Do what you want and what you feel comfortable with.

Actually, I didn't make my point clear at all if you think what I said in the other thread had anything to do with the subject of open carry. That's what certain people tried to turn it into but was NOT what I was talking about ATALL.

Sounds (and looks) good...I'll be interested in your comments after you've used it a while. I have some pretty expensive OWB holsters for my 1911s but I have to say, my crossbreed is, for me at least, the best I've ever had so far.

I voted concealed because 99.99% of the time that's how I carry but I have open carried on a few occasions. I do wonder, however, why does this make any difference to anybody???? Not trying to be mean to anyone but other than pure curiosity (and I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with being curious), I truly don't see the point of this question that seems to come up in one form or another all the time. It sort of reminds me of the "automatic" vs. "manual" debates on most sport car forums I belong to...they never end!

It might well be that keeping bad guys from carrying guns might have been how they sold the HCP process to the anti-gun zealots in the legislature and anyone with an ounce of common sense and the ability to reason knows how absurd that concept actually is. However, I suspect that there was also some consideration given to trying to keep the truly gun-incompetent from carrying as well and the HCP process may (and I do stress the word may) have some impact on that. I think the price of the process should come down (although nothing we can do about the cost of ammo of course) and I think the process can also be improved substantially.

I wish someone would help bring the calamity quickly. I know a lot of folks/groups organize to show up as counter-protests and to keep these sick people away from the funerals but wouldn't it be nice if groups from all over the country organized so that 24/7, a decent sized, vocal group "picketed" their church - maybe be loud enough that they could hardly hold services because they couldn't hear themselves...sort of like the horn-honkers at Legislative Plaza a few years (of which I was a proud member).

I'm sorry to hear what's happened...I lost my Dad to cancer in '01...the Germans couldn't kill him but that stinking disease did. You have my prayers for strength and good news.

One thing is for certain, having bullets (or motor shells) come AT you will give you a different perspective on life.

My original statement was and is correct and I wasn't trying to imply otherwise. As I said... "One "violation" of company policy or three or four or more violations of company policy, my point was and is that if you violate company policies you can be fired with cause..". No employer must wait for multiple violations of company policy or any violation for that matter. 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).

I wasn't trying to "instruct"; simply offering a thought on the matter. I find it odd that within the same sentence, you state that employers are not required to honor the "Bill of Rights" and then state that you are confused by strickj's thought process that there is no duty from an employer in that respect. If there is no requirement it would logical to think that there would also be no duty. You can tell anyone, including an employer, to go pound sand, just be prepared for the consequences that can follow, depending on who you are telling.

Yes...hadn't though of it from that perspective. My experience with this issue has been that many employers don't "post"; they just make "firearms" an issue of "company policy"...I would suspect that if the state simply changed the law to say that employers, for example, can't have a company policy against firearms but didn't say anything else, those employers might then go ahead an post which would turn what is currently an issue of violation of company policy into a criminal matter.

Since what I think is immaterial; why didn't you just ignore my post? :-\ Citizen's rights aren't being disregarded - employers can ask...ANYONE can ask to search your vehicle (home, body, etc)...you ALWAYS have the right to refuse. That isn't anybody's "rights" being violated.

Sorry if I wasn't clear...I guess I thought that anyone intelligent enough to cite all those court cases and argue Constitutional rights would have figured that out. One "violation" of company policy or three or four or more violations of company policy, my point was and is that if you violate company policies you can be fired with cause...while having cause may not prevent an eventual lawsuit from the person fired, it certainly does provide the employer with a very reasonable defense and most especially so in a right to work state.

1. I never said it as an undue burden; in fact, I've said exactly the opposite in prior posts in this thread. 2. Yes, the sanctity of a person's vehicle is protected; with or without a "parking lot bill" An employer does NOT. Your right to refuse a search (sans law enforcement) is and has been in effect. Anyone, including an employer, can ask you to allow a search...you can ALWAYS refuse. But, if you refuse, there may be consequences to doing so. Your "right" is fully intact, you just have to be willing to face the consequences of exercising your rights (as is always the case, regardless of what right one is exercising, isn't it?). You seem to be still, and erroneously, equating a tool(s) that can be used for self-protection with self-protection itself; they are not and never will be the same thing. We ALWAYS have the right to self -protection regardless of where we are...what tools we may be allowed to have that can be used for that protection are a separate issue. I'm not saying that one is more or less important than the other; just not interchangeable. It isn't written anywhere I that I know of nor have I claimed that it is (and as far as I can recall, no one else has made that claim either) so I don't see the reason for your demand??? In any case, perhaps you can quote for me where, in any of our legal codes, it is written that ANY one right AUTOMATICALLY trumps any other right(s) of another - I can not find that statement either. As I've said, perhaps not well, when one entity's right bumps up against another, it's isn't and shouldn't be a matter of one "trumping" the other, it's a matter of finding an equitable way to handle the situation which often comes down to what it best societal policy overall.

Glad to hear it was made in jest - please consider my prior comments regarding the statement withdrawn. As to what to do, I think we keep doing what we've been doing...going about our law-abiding lives and not adding to the misconceptions that abound while concurrently working within the legislative and legal process to regain and expand our firearm related rights. I suggest that any sort of "in your face" actions (or actions that could easily be misconstrued as such) should be avoided as I believe they have little "up side" and much "down side" potential. I say the above because it seems to me that most of the "anti-gun" crowd and those who are sympathetic to their position are so because of emotion; not because of logic or fact. If that is true, then we need to be reluctant to do things that could reinforce their emotion-based arguments.

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with OhShoot's reasonable statement; vehicles are searched by the side of the road all the time; whether or not your vehicle has been or not doesn't in any way disprove his statement. You also seem to refuse to understand that we haven't lost any "right" with regards to the search of our vehicles in a parking lot...no one but law enforcement has the power to compel a search of your vehicle; only law enforcement can do so and only then with cause and/or a warrant. The issue is that employers have the right to request a search of an employee's vehicle parked in a company parking lot (something the employee has likely already agreed to as a condition of employment). The employee ALWAYS has the right to refuse (sans the involvement of law enforcement) but his refusal can result in dismissal from his job. THAT is the issue that mush be changed with regards to an employer/employee situation if HCP holders are going to be protected from being punished for having their otherwise legal firearm in their vehicles. In addition, when it comes to all "parking lots", the current law would have to be changed so that while individual business can post their business proper (the inside of their store, factory, etc); they cannot, by law, "post" a parking lot. And by the way, I've never said that such a change would place an undue burden on anybody nor do I t think it would. For the record, as you would already know if you had read my prior posts in this thread, I AGREE WITH YOU that any person otherwise legally carrying a firearm should be able to leave that firearm(s) in their locked vehicle and should be able to do so without fear of reprisal from anyone REGARDLESS OF WHERE THE VEHICLE IS PARKED. But, I do wish that you would get your argument straight or at least more precise as we do now and always have had the "right" to refuse a search of our vehicles (only law enforcement can compel). As such, that is not a "right" we need to win back because that right has not been lost.

While I'm sure strickj is capable of defending his own statement, I believe what he was attempting to say that an employee, while they may retain their "rights"; such as to freedom of speech...that does not mean that they can say anything they want to anyone they want; especially while in the workplace, and not suffer the consequences (reductions of pay, demotion, fired, etc). You still have the "right" of free speech; but you may not have the job you had.

I would think that someone with so much experience would know that if an employee violates company policies; especially if he/she does so multiple times, the employer is not going to have a problem firing his ass....repeated violations of company policy, whether it be about firearms on the company's property or any other policy; are all the "ducks" an employer needs. You are right, there is no good reason for us to be having this discussions since nothing in the above statement has anything at all to do with my simple and factually correct statement that a company has the power to fire an employee that violates company policy and since people generally need the jobs they have, that gives an employee all the "power" it needs to enforce its policies.

Not only is the above a huge pile of "AAA" ; it's also a damn bigoted comment to make.

By the way... Regardless of what an employee might have agreed to at the time he hired in, no employer can truly force an employee to allow a search of his vehicle...only a law enforcement officer and only then with cause and/or a warrant, can force a search. However, while the employee can refuse the employer's request, the employer can fire the employee..the power to "fire" gives them the only power they really have. I suppose what I'm saying here is that "rights" are bumping up against "reality". Yes, we have a right to "free speech" (including bumper stickers)...yes, we have a right to defend ourselves and to "go armed"...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 (except of course for the protected issues of race, creed, sex, age, etc.).

I suggest that we are dangerously close to the edge of error, when we equate the right of a person to defend his life with the right to go armed...the firearm is a tool, no more or less...being denied a particular tool to defend ourselves is not the same thing as being denied the right to defend ourselves. I'm not saying we should all go unarmed; just making what I believe to be a point of clarification. I also think we should avoid the dangerous line of reasoning that the loss of freedoms that have already occurred (not allowed to park on our lawn, business owners being told no one is allowed to smoke, etc.) as justification to deny even more rights that are supposed to part of our property rights. We've (both business and non-business owners) have lost a lot of our property rights but if we truly believe in all the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and much of English Common Law that shaped those documents, I would think we should be hesitant to elevate our "favorite" right above any other. In fact, that we should be working to preserve what we have left and restore what we've lost. With regards to you question; private property rights do not trump the right to self protection...as long as you didn't start or instigate the violence, you have an absolute right to defend yourself against violence no matter what piece of property you happen to be standing on at any given moment. However, no one right automatically trumps any other and if two rights are in conflict then society must decide on what is the most equitable for both...to do otherwise breads anarchy. I think this is an area where both the rights of the property owner and the rights of the individual to go armed can be accommodated without undue burdens placed on either. That does not mean, however, that either side will get all that they want nor should they expect to do so.

While nothing has been specifically proposed in Tennessee yet, I am sure that liability protection for those who own the parking lots would be included in such a bill.

I understand your concerns and I don't discount the problem...I have concerns about some people myself. Bottom line is, I believe we already have a method for handling a HCP holder who is subsequently known to be addicted to drugs or has psychological problems and that is the method that should be followed - restricting someone's HCP should never simply be up to an individual, even if that individual is a squad leader or a company commander. That aside, if a soldier is having such problems as you describe then the Army ought to be doing a hell of a lot more about it than simply saying he/she can't carry a weapon off post and if the Army isn't then shame on them.

I'm not trying to pick your opinion apart; I am trying to understand it and to reconcile it with the freedoms this country was founded on and purports to cherish. I'm sure that there are plenty of private citizens who aren't skilled with handling a weapon (no matter what their age)...I'm sure there are more than few cops in that same category and I'm sure there are some sergeants and privates and generals in that boat as well. However, thankfully, very, very thankfully, rights, if they are a right at all, aren't (or at least aren't supposed to be) dolled out by governments (or company commanders). If I have the right to carry and if you have the right to carry then THEY have the right to carry no mater what you or I think about their abilities and if that isn't true then the right to carry is not a right at all. I appreciate your service...I, too was a sergeant (although I was called a Petty Officer)...I only served eight yeas active but I know a little bit about how young military recruits are "wired" and I know how a lot of them today are wired as quite a few of the guys currently at Campbell are good friends of mine...I think your idea that some CO should be able to take their rights away at a whim is a poor idea and not what this country is about. If these young men and women are old enough and "stable" enough to fight, bleed and die for this country then they sure as hell are good enough to carry a weapon on their person; just like you or I can. If you diminish the rights of one; you've diminished the rights of all.