Parking Lot Bill?

[Fallguy]

Well didn't thourghly read every post since I last checked in on this thread....but it appears the summer study committee debate has already began.

[Punisher84]

I think you have a right as a business owner to say what comes into your BUILDING, not what is inside a person's privately owned vehicle.

I do NOT believe a business' property rights extend to my privately owned vehicle, period. Not anywhere. Many states recognize your car as an extension of your home so should a business owner be able to tell me what I can or cannot have in my home? Nope.

I hope it passes.

[Guest GhostHunter]

Is my car not my private property? I drive 72 miles one way to work pull a 12.5 hour shift and 72 miles back home 14 days a mth. I cant have a gun on company property, soooo i dont have right to protect myself even tho the state of tennessee says i can carry a hand gun? the property owner gets to override state law? SORRY im a little touchy on this one!

That's the same boat I am in. I drive 50 miles each way to work and back, and go through some pretty rough sections of Nashville to get there and I will be d---ed if I go unarmed! They can discipline me if they want (the first offense is suspension), I'll just park on the side of the street. My vehicle is my private property and whatever is locked inside it is even more private.

Until they pass this law to let me legally have my gun on company property, I will carry and keep my mouth shut.

As far as driving home and leaving my gun before going to the post office, that's Bulls**t!! The way I see it, my taxes bought the property, built the building, and pays the salaries of those who work there! The gun stays in my truck!!

[K191145]

Then add in the places that receive huge tax breaks from local government to operate their business there like Dell? Property given or sold to them for a song at tax-payer's expense. Think only Dell gets that? How about GM, Nissan, Toyota, etc. Since our tax dollars go to fund that purchase, do they still have the right as to if it's their private property? Again, what's in my truck is my dang business!

Well how about this as a thought? Dell, GM, Nissan, etc. are large companies not owned by any one individual but really by stockholders, in a way their company sits on public property, the public meaning the stockholders. Can't really refer to those companies as private businesses.

[Guest tn-dave]

I think you have a right as a business owner to say what comes into your BUILDING, not what is inside a person's privately owned vehicle.

I do NOT believe a business' property rights extend to my privately owned vehicle, period. Not anywhere. Many states recognize your car as an extension of your home so should a business owner be able to tell me what I can or cannot have in my home? Nope.

I hope it passes.

My thoughts also... I too have a long drive to work and my company has chosen to disarm me for that time because they have banned weapons in the parking lot.

[Guest SUNTZU]

So it seems we both agree that "search" is not part of the rights of the property owner. Good.

But it seems that you agree that a property owner should be able to say "If you have a gun on my property, please remove the gun from my property",and you should comply.

DRM, if you ask me to leave your home and land because you don't like guns, I'm leaving. If you say that guns aren't allowed on your hardware store property, I'll drive right on by. If you don't post that you don't want guns, I'm parking and shopping. If you ask to search my vehicle, I'll tell you to get lost.

And I would assume that you also agree that if the property owner feels they are being lied to at that point, they should have the right to say "leave my property", and that person should leave, correct?

A property owner can ask someone to leave their property at any time for almost any reason. If its their home, for any reason or lack thereof, just get off my lawn. If its a business, you can ask me to leave and I'll comply, not just for feeling like someone's lied to you.

You keep changing the questions to find an answer that suits whatever you have hidden in your head. Figure out how you feel on the subject and post a clearly written response. Fish or cut bait.

[Guest HexHead]

Everyone seems to be missing the real issue here. These employee rules are written by the compay's lawyers to limit their liability in the event of an employee shooting. Just like the restaurant owners threatening to post their establishments come July 14th. Some may be rabid anti-gun types, but most are just afraid of the liability exposure. The legislature needs to pass a bill limiting or eliminating the liability of a civil suit for not postng and a lot of this nonsense will go away.

Edited June 18, 2009 by HexHead

[E4 No More]

Everyone seems to be missing the real issue here. These employee rules are written by the compay's lawyers to limit their liability in the event of an employee shooting. Just like the restaurant owners threatening to post their establishments come July 14th. Some may be rabid anti-gun types, but most are just afraid of the liability exposure. The legislature needs to pass a bill limiting or eliminating the liability of a civil suit for not postng and a lot of this nonsense will go away.

I said that earlier, but not in so many words.

[E4 No More]

Well how about this as a thought? Dell, GM, Nissan, etc. are large companies not owned by any one individual but really by stockholders, in a way their company sits on public property, the public meaning the stockholders. Can't really refer to those companies as private businesses.

So if two partners open a business it's no longer private? The government considers them private businesses regardless that they are publicly traded.

[DRM]

You keep changing the questions to find an answer that suits whatever you have hidden in your head. Figure out how you feel on the subject and post a clearly written response. Fish or cut bait.

Not sure where you got confused - but I've been dead on consistent in my position so far.

Kindly quote where I was inconsistent, and I'll address it.

Instead, I think the inconsistencies are with people who keep bringing up "searches", when I have clearly said searches should not be allowed. And some seem unable to talk about the right for a property owner to ask you to remove yourself or your gun - without somehow assuming that a search has to be involved.

This isn't the first time I've discussed this issue with gun owners, and generally speaking, gun owners get so wrapped up in in their perceived "right" to "carry a gun anydamnwhere they want", and start blatantly tossing aside other rights in the process. (side note - don't take that as me being against the right to carry, I can almost guarantee my views on that are so far to the right of you that you'll look like nanci Pelosi in comparison )

Like property rights.

Or they make excuses that somehow if a business owns a piece of property the owners have less of a right to control what comes on to their property.

Or they try diversion type arguments - like the racist angle above - which do nothing bur detract from the issue.

Or they toss out blanket statements like "2nd Amendment, baby!", which in no way passes for a discussion on the topic.

Plainly put - gun owners (or more specifically in this case - gun CARRIERS) let their passion for carrying a gun cloud their view of the rest of the issues at hand.

I can't for the life of me understand why some of you are so adamant about wanting the government MORE entrenched in your daily lives, and why you can't just respect that if a property owner doesn't want your gun (and by extension - one could assume YOU) there, then just RESPECT their wishes and go elsewhere.

And since you seem to think I was being inconsistent, I'll sum up my views:

-I think any property owners should be able to ask you to remove your gun from their property at any time.

-I think it should be illegal for an employer or any other PRIVATE entity to be able to search your property (car), they should only be able to ask you to leave (remove the perceived threat), or they need to call the police if they think a crime has been committed or a crime is about to be committed.

-I think it should be illegal for an employer to fire or otherwise punish you for having a gun in your car, UNLESS (and I just added this part) they have informed you not to have it on their property, and are able to confirm that it you have returned with a gun on their property WITHOUT searching your car.

Anyway, I think I've explained my position clear enough so far. My main point is that this issue is not a black and white issue... for HCP holders to get their way, you need to realize that you will be TAKING someone else's rights away, AND in the process - you got the GOVERNMENT in the middle of it all... and never forget:

As soon as you you give the government the power to say YES, you also gave them the power to say NO.

Enjoy

[Guest SUNTZU]

Not sure where you got confused - but I've been dead on consistent in my position so far.

Kindly quote where I was inconsistent, and I'll address it.

Instead, I think the inconsistencies are with people who keep bringing up "searches", when I have clearly said searches should not be allowed. And some seem unable to talk about the right for a property owner to ask you to remove yourself or your gun - without somehow assuming that a search has to be involved.

This isn't the first time I've discussed this issue with gun owners, and generally speaking, gun owners get so wrapped up in in their perceived "right" to "carry a gun anydamnwhere they want", and start blatantly tossing aside other rights in the process. (side note - don't take that as me being against the right to carry, I can almost guarantee my views on that are so far to the right of you that you'll look like nanci Pelosi in comparison )

Like property rights.

Or they make excuses that somehow if a business owns a piece of property the owners have less of a right to control what comes on to their property.

Or they try diversion type arguments - like the racist angle above - which do nothing bur detract from the issue.

Or they toss out blanket statements like "2nd Amendment, baby!", which in no way passes for a discussion on the topic.

Plainly put - gun owners (or more specifically in this case - gun CARRIERS) let their passion for carrying a gun cloud their view of the rest of the issues at hand.

I can't for the life of me understand why some of you are so adamant about wanting the government MORE entrenched in your daily lives, and why you can't just respect that if a property owner doesn't want your gun (and by extension - one could assume YOU) there, then just RESPECT their wishes and go elsewhere.

And since you seem to think I was being inconsistent, I'll sum up my views:

-I think any property owners should be able to ask you to remove your gun from their property at any time.

-I think it should be illegal for an employer or any other PRIVATE entity to be able to search your property (car), they should only be able to ask you to leave (remove the perceived threat), or they need to call the police if they think a crime has been committed or a crime is about to be committed.

-I think it should be illegal for an employer to fire or otherwise punish you for having a gun in your car, UNLESS (and I just added this part) they have informed you not to have it on their property, and are able to confirm that it you have returned with a gun on their property WITHOUT searching your car.

Anyway, I think I've explained my position clear enough so far. My main point is that this issue is not a black and white issue... for HCP holders to get their way, you need to realize that you will be TAKING someone else's rights away, AND in the process - you got the GOVERNMENT in the middle of it all... and never forget:

As soon as you you give the government the power to say YES, you also gave them the power to say NO.

Enjoy

I was the one who was confused. We were arguing on the same side of the aisle. I don't want .gov involvement in my everday life. Respecting each others rights is what it comes down to, not needing a nanny state.

[Guest Jamie]

As soon as you you give the government the power to say YES, you also gave them the power to say NO.

You know what the sad part about all of this is? The government is supposed to be US!

But somewhere in there... when nobody was looking, I guess... it turned into THEM.

[DRM]

I was the one who was confused. We were arguing on the same side of the aisle. I don't want .gov involvement in my everday life. Respecting each others rights is what it comes down to, not needing a nanny state.

Amen on that... the less the gov't has to do with my daily life the BETTER!

You know what the sad part about all of this is? The government is supposed to be US!

But somewhere in there... when nobody was looking, I guess... it turned into THEM.

Yes, it is sad. Wish I knew how to fix it

[Guest SUNTZU]

Its just one big Home Owners Association.

[DRM]

Its just one big Home Owners Association.

Except it's not so easy to just move out of the neighborhood and into a house down the road with no restrictions...

Costa Rica is looking better and better...

[Guest crotalus01]

Bottom line to me is some rights overlap; some rights trump other rights. I believe my right to self defense on the way to and from my job trumps your right to tell me I cannot have my firearm locked in MY vehicle on Company property so long as it stays in my vehicle (my property). This is the legal basis for Castle Doctrine - the concept that my right to life and safety supercedes a businesses right to regulate weapons on company property, and that my vehicle is an extension of my home.

As for FedEx, I work there and they are the biggest hypocrites in the world as far as guns go - all of the corporate security are armed, but they fight against my right to self defense because they dont want guns on their property??? What kind of crap is that?

[Guest GhostHunter]

I mentioned this in another thread, but Fed Ex are highly opposed to this and are lobbying against it. they have a lot of pull and will be a big hurdle, so make sure to let your legislators know your feelings on this bill. Mine are effing useless since I live in the city limits of Memphis and they are all a bunch of gun hating commies. At least we got some decent ones in some of the burbs. I don't get why Fed Ex has such a hangup with this, their parking lot is in a ROUGH part of town (I know, I used to live next to the airport) you would think they would have some concern for the safety of their employees, but apparently not.

Isn't "Lobbying" just another word for legal bribery of our elected officials??????????

[Chucktshoes]

I am hard pressed to name a politician that hasn't been bought and paid for by some special interest group.

[Guest HexHead]

Yes, it is sad. Wish I knew how to fix it

I know how, it's just not a popular opinion yet.

[E4 No More]

Bottom line to me is some rights overlap; some rights trump other rights. I believe my right to self defense on the way to and from my job trumps your right to tell me I cannot have my firearm locked in MY vehicle on Company property so long as it stays in my vehicle (my property). This is the legal basis for Castle Doctrine - the concept that my right to life and safety supercedes a businesses right to regulate weapons on company property, and that my vehicle is an extension of my home.

As for FedEx, I work there and they are the biggest hypocrites in the world as far as guns go - all of the corporate security are armed, but they fight against my right to self defense because they dont want guns on their property??? What kind of crap is that?

Exactly!

[Guest Jamie]

I know how, it's just not a popular opinion yet.

I can think of several ways myself.

But not the first one that will prevent US from eventually turning back into THEM.

The founding fathers started off with the best of intentions, and wrote down a pretty good plan. The problem is, they couldn't do a helluva lot about or with human nature.

[K191145]

I think a better piece of legislation would strengthen our 4th amendment privacy rights against unwarrented searches. Put in specific language that places our vehicles as an extention of our homes and no one besides law enforcement, (not company security), is allowed to search our vehicles and only if there's strong evidence, (not hearsay or NRA sticker), that a felonious crime has been committed or the owner is intoxicated. Then adopt a "don't ask don't tell policy" between the employer and employee as to what you may have in your vehicle.

They can ban guns on their property but can't search to find them.

[Worriedman]

The founding fathers started off with the best of intentions, and wrote down a pretty good plan. The problem is, they couldn't do a helluva lot about or with human nature.

A study of the writings of the Founding Fathers will evidence a strong intent by them relative to the issue at hand today.

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself! They are the American people's Liberty Teeth and keystone under Independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security, and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere, restrains evil interference -- they deserve a place of honor with all that's good!" --President George Washington, in a speech to Congress. 7 January, 1790

“Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self-defense.â€

John Adams

"The great object is, that every man be armed. [...] Every one who is able may have a gun." -- Patrick Henry, speech of June 14 1788

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms... -- Samuel Adams, in "Phila. Independent Gazetteer", August 20, 1789

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

--Thomas Jefferson.

The Founders intent is clear and obvious for those who will read and understand, the above is simply a minuscule sampling. Each property owner should have the ability to refuse to allow carry on their property, to usurp the right of the individual to keep their arm safely locked in their vehicle for the trip to and from their home oversteps the bounds of propriety, and defies the spirit of the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

[E4 No More]

This issue is similar to freedom of speech. We all have the right of freedom of speech: however, we do not have the right to falsely yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. Your rights cannot unreasonably intrude upon anothers'.

[Fallguy]

This issue is similar to freedom of speech. We all have the right of freedom of speech: however, we do not have the right to falsely yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. Your rights cannot unreasonably intrude upon anothers'.

Well said...

The question is, does a handgun in a locked container and/or in my locked vehicle unreasonably infringe on the rights of the property owner?

My opinion is, No.

Reminds me of something my dad always said..."Your right to swing your first stops where my nose begins." Dad just seems to get smarter and smarter the older I get.