Posted on 02/12/2012 10:21:03 AM PST by SmithL
NASHVILLE — A new effort is under way toward passage of legislation that pits the interests of gun rights advocates against the property rights of businesses, a politically volatile mix that was apparently a factor in a public confrontation between two legislators.
Senate Speaker Ron Ramsey last week declared he strongly supports passage of the key proposal, which would authorize handgun permit holders to take their weapons to work — provided they are left in a locked car — even if the permit holder’s employer prohibits guns on company property.
“It almost negates even having a permit if you can’t do that (keep a gun in car),” said Ramsey in an interview.
House Speaker Beth Harwell said she is concerned that the proposal could conflict with her overall priority of making Tennessee “the most business friendly state in the union,” but believes some compromise can be reached.
“It’s not a priority to me this session,” she said in an interview. “I want to be sure not to do anything detrimental to business ... (but) I think we can work something out.”
(Excerpt) Read more at knoxnews.com ...
Texas recently passed allowing firearms in a vehicle despite employer objections (since your vehicle is an extension of your home here). Of course, my employer has yet to update the employee manual regarding firearms on the premises despite being advised of changes in the law. Oh well.
Had the same problem while doing consulting in VA.
I had the carry permit, but the firm prohibited firearms on their property, which was amusing in itself given that I was working on LAV turrets (20mm cannon with a 7.62 MG coax).
I did what should have been expected: left the weapon and holster in the truck out in the parking lot when I went in, then reconfigured when I left.
Not legal under their terms, but they didn’t provide me with security on the commute, nor did they have armed security guards to protect me on their premises.
Oh well, it is called a concealed permit for a reason...
Had the same problem while doing consulting in VA.
I had the carry permit, but the firm prohibited firearms on their property, which was amusing in itself given that I was working on LAV turrets (20mm cannon with a 7.62 MG coax).
I did what should have been expected: left the weapon and holster in the truck out in the parking lot when I went in, then reconfigured when I left.
Not legal under their terms, but they didn’t provide me with security on the commute, nor did they have armed security guards to protect me on their premises.
Oh well, it is called a concealed permit for a reason...
That’s a statement from an authoritative source that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” exists. I don’t recall seeing it’s equal in regard to property rights.
The referenced statement does leave open the question of the scope of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”. If the scope includes keeping and bearing arms on someone’s real property despite their objection, then a law forbidding it would be an infringement. If the scope does not include keeping and bearing arms on someone’s real property when they object, then a law forbidding it would not be an infringement.
Of course to make a determination as to which right prevails, we really need the above noted equal statement regarding property rights, and it should address personnel property as well as real property because guns and autos and etc are property too—personnel property.
As to where I stand: On the one end, if residents of a community own and operate a business in that community, and they object to guns on their real property in opposition to other residents of the community, all else being equal I’ll be on the real property owner’s side. On the other end, if Mayor Bloomberg of New York City owns a corporation that owns a business in the aforementioned community, and he objects to guns on that real property in opposition to the residents of that community, all else being equal I’ll be on the residents’ side. If you’re an absentee owner hundreds of miles away, all else being equal I don’t see why rights derived from your ownership of real property in a community include the right to dictate community standards to the residents of the community.
There is no conflict of interest. Personal transports are an extension of the owner's home. Property rights attach to the transport's owner, not the owner's employer. The owner retains both his Second Amendment rights and his property rights in his vehicle.
An employer can restrict access to his property. But he cannot dictate the contents of an employee's personal transport any more than he can dictate the contents of an employee's home.
Interesting article about the ‘rights’ we have in the USA as set out in the Constitution. >We have the right to bear arms.
I wonder what The ‘Ruling-Class’ in Tennessee & elsewhere would say if a business declared, ‘We got our >property rights & we do NOT want any >talk that advocates-homosexual-activity & any birth control items on our property.’
Interesting article about the ‘rights’ we have in the USA as set out in the Constitution. >We have the right to bear arms.
I wonder what The ‘Ruling-Class’ in Tennessee & elsewhere would say if a business declared, ‘We got our >property rights & we do NOT want any >talk that advocates-homosexual-activity & any birth control items on our property.’
I don't know if the employee manual has been updated or not - I pack to work now.
Compare and contrast:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” with “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The First is a prohibition on Congress (i.e. the federal government) to not infringe religious freedom; free speech rights, and peaceable assembly; it does NOT prohibit any of the listed freedoms/rights from infringement by any other entity, public or private.
The Second is an absolute statement of an uninfringable individual right, PERIOD. NO public or private entity has authority to infringe the right; though one can certainly ban some behaviors with regard to exercise of it, such as murder, dueling, armed robbery, etc.
Now, if we could just convince the courts & Congress to enforce....
Then we come to another absolute right, regardless of jurisdiction, public or private:
“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.”
As to this particular issue, regardless of some wrong-headed court precedents, one’s vehicle is part of one’s “effects”, so the Fourth Amendment would apply, since it would be unreasonable to allow the property owner to search, or cause to be searched, the locked vehicle for a possible concealed/hidden weapon.
No law should be necessary —and neither should a “permit” or “license” be necessary— to peaceably exercise an absolute right.
“The Second (the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed) is an absolute statement of an uninfringable individual right, PERIOD. NO public or private entity has authority to infringe the right; though one can certainly ban some behaviors with regard to exercise of it, such as murder, dueling, armed robbery, etc.”
True enough. But what is the scope of that right? What are it’s boundaries? What is its extent? Because anything beyond that scope and extent, beyond those boundaries, may be subject to so called infringement.
Look at the 15th Amendment. “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged…” The structure is the same as “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. But there are bounds on “The right of citizens of the United States to vote”. Denial or infringement beyond those bounds may be done.
For instance, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote” does not in and of itself include participation of a citizen of one district in a vote taken in another district. Nor can a citizen demand a matter be voted on, particularly a private matter, just because the citizen has a right to vote.
The question of whether the uninfringable individual right stated in the Second Amendment extends to taking a gun within the bounds of real property when the real property owner objects has not been adequately addressed.
The conflict, if any, between what an individual would claim based on the right to keep and bear arms and another individual would claim based on property rights (whatever they are) has not been resolved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.