Oof, that hurts

Looks like the NRA is buying billboards in its fight to unseat Debra Maggart:

 

You CAN  NOT bring you car,

You CAN  NOT bring you car, with or without a weapon, on My property.  Why don't you go visit someone in jail and take your weapon with you?

 

Real "private property" (read

Real "private property" (read as single family dwellings) were exempted from the bill, them and farms, the remaining public places where you have invited individuals with their vehicles are not.  20 other States have the same law, and it has been adjucicated Constitutional twice in Federal Court.

If the employers close their

If the employers close their parking lots, should the State force them to keep them open?

Article 1 § 8. Deprivation of

Article 1 § 8. Deprivation of life, liberty or property under law; due process

That no man shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed or deprived of his life, liberty or property, but by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land.

 

Article 1 § 21. Taking of property; eminent domain

That no man's particular services shall be demanded, or property taken, or applied to public use, without the consent of his representatives, or without just compensation being made therefor.

Article 1 § 34. Property rights

The General Assembly shall make no law recognizing the right of property in man.

 

As these are the only mentions of Private Property in the Tennessee Constitution, I would love for someone to point out where it is written that Property Rights trump the Right to keep and bear arms for our common defense?

Article 1 § 26. Weapons; right to bear arms

That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.

We are guaranteed via that if we are not engaged in illegal activity, and are where we have a Right to be under TCA Code 39-11-611.  Self-defense:

  (a) As used in this section, unless the context otherwise requires:

   (1) "Business" means a commercial enterprise or establishment owned by a person as all or part of the person's livelihood or is under the owner's control or who is an employee or agent of the owner with responsibility for protecting persons and property and shall include the interior and exterior premises of the business;

   (2) "Curtilage" means the area surrounding a dwelling that is necessary, convenient and habitually used for family purposes and for those activities associated with the sanctity of a person's home;

   (3) "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, that has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed for or capable of use by people;

   (4) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides, either temporarily or permanently, or is visiting as an invited guest, or any dwelling, building or other appurtenance within the curtilage of the residence; and

   (5) "Vehicle" means any motorized vehicle that is self-propelled and designed for use on public highways to transport people or property.

(b)  (1) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.

   (2) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, if:

      (A) The person has a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury;

      (B) The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury is real, or honestly believed to be real at the time; and

      (C) The belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds.

(c) Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within a residence, business, dwelling or vehicle is presumed to have held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury to self, family, a member of the household or a person visiting as an invited guest, when that force is used against another person, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, business, dwelling or vehicle, and the person using defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

(d) The presumption established in subsection (c) shall not apply, if:

   (1) The person against whom the force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, business, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder; provided, that the person is not prohibited from entering the dwelling, business, residence, or occupied vehicle by an order of protection, injunction for protection from domestic abuse, or a court order of no contact against that person;

   (2) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to remove a person or persons who is a child or grandchild of, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used;

   (3) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, the person using force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, business, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

   (4) The person against whom force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in § 39-11-106, who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, business, residence, or vehicle in the performance of the officer's official duties, and the officer identified the officer in accordance with any applicable law, or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(e) The threat or use of force against another is not justified:

   (1) If the person using force consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other individual;

   (2) If the person using force provoked the other individual's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:

      (A) The person using force abandons the encounter or clearly communicates to the other the intent to do so; and

      (B) The other person nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the person; or

   (3) To resist a halt at a roadblock, arrest, search, or stop and frisk that the person using force knows is being made by a law enforcement officer, unless:

      (A) The law enforcement officer uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest, search, stop and frisk, or halt; and

      (B) The person using force reasonably believes that the force is immediately necessary to protect against the law enforcement officer's use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

TN is a Right To Work state,

TN is a Right To Work state, why don't you quit if your empoyer will not let you do this.  The STATE may tell the employer they can not fire you, but why would you want More state laws?  Just because the State can pass this bill, doesn't mean that they should.  (I would think the business would take it to court and I think they would win)

The business would not win,

The business would not win, it was tried in two States under the exact facts you espouse, and in both instances, Florida and Oklahoma, the Courts found the Right to protect one's life superseded any perceived Property Rights loss.

So, SCOTUS just declared

So, SCOTUS just declared ObamaCare constitutional, so what's your point? Legislatures can and do write unconstituitonal laws, and courts do issue unconstitutional opinions.

By definition said opinion by

By definition said opinion by the court can not be unconstitutional. They are the determinate factor in what is constitutional and what is not. It would be best to accept the decision and proceed with your misguided efforts to destroy any semblance of citizen equality as it exists today and effect the plutocracy you so desperately desire.

Yet, they reverse themselves

Yet, they reverse themselves sometimes.

Rarely! Usually because of

Rarely! Usually because of additional information, change of focus of the suit, or a change of personel in the court. Still and all, if the SCOTUS says it is constitutional, it is constitutional!

Did the constitution change? 

Did the constitution change?  Rarely indeed.

"Private Property and Freedom

"Private Property and Freedom are Inseparable" - George Washington
"Property Must Be Secure or Liberty Can Not Exist" - John Adams

No right is absolute.  We may

No right is absolute.  We may choose to favor some rights over others in specific circumstances but that is part of people having the responsibility for self-government.

It is true that private property is probably the strongest guarantee of individual freedom and not freedom being the strongest gurantee of private property.  Certainly the rise of democracy and individula rights in the West is built on the rise of a strong middle class.

But the right to provate property is not absolute.  

If certain rights are

If certain rights are determined to be inalienable and endowed by a higher power beyond reproach, would they not in fact be absolute? They may be violated, they may be in error be repealed, but they would still remain an absolution.

Glad to see her leaving!

Glad to see her leaving!

This is not all she has done

This is not all she has done to undermine the people......that she is suppose to represent. Lets not forget how she was responsible for presenting a bill that eliminated our Teachers ability for collective bargaining. The irony to that story....She sponsored this bill for "Tennessee School Board Association" (aka...paid her to carry the bill). This was never about our children. It was about her getting paid from "Tennessee School Board Association" to push out the "Tennessee Education Association"....

I had allready decided to vote her out even before the NRA stuff. It is pretty funny that someone else is going out of their way to see her gone also.

 

Don't forget about her

Don't forget about her sponsorship of the Voter Suppression laws under the false reason of "voter Fraud."  Any legislator who votes for this is un-American.

MD, Of course.  Because the

MD,

Of course.  Because the Dead deserve representation too?

'Voter suppression' is code for protecting illegal voting.  Nothing more.   

So the elderly, poor folks,

So the elderly, poor folks, the disabled, rural people, and similar are "the dead?"  Voter fraud is a rare occurence and placing barriers to voting under the guise of prevenitng voter fraud is nothing but naked partisanship.  Actually it's even worse since it, in effect, prevents many from being able to exercise their RIGHT to vote.  Every legislator that voted for it doesn't derserve re-election.

MD, No.  Despite the

MD,

No.  Despite the pandering and downright {or better yet, downwrong} efforts of the Democratic Party and its minions, this has lways been about stopping voter fraud.  Nothing more.

 

You are much too intelligent

You are much too intelligent and honest to say that with a straight face. This is without a doubt a matter of political shenanigans of the highest proportion, not seen since Nixon's tenure and ethically conected to the "birther" fiasco! It exceeds the corruption of the "hanging chad's" of the Bush v Gore election fraud in Florida!

The NRA must have more money

The NRA must have more money than brains. Like asking a grizzly bear to pass the salt.

The NRA evidently needs some new leadership.  

The NRA must have more money

The NRA must have more money than brains. Like asking a grizzly bear to pass the salt.

The NRA evidently needs some new leadership.  

Perhaps it should say she

Perhaps it should say she Does Support Private Property Rights.

 

Fair enough, but it could

Fair enough, but it could also read "She Wants Women Disarmed"

After all a very large number of the Carry Permit holders are female.  They can carry a gun legally, but since most people go to work 5 out of 7 days... they may very well be rendered defenseless most of the time.

Your vehicle is your property, if someone is going to allow your vehicle on their property do their rights extend into your property?  What if it were a state owned parking lot?  Some semantics at play.

 

State owned is Not Private

State owned is Not Private property and you should (and can) carry mostly. All PUBLIC (government - with reasonable exceptions (jails..)), yes. Private, no.

Who determines the

Who determines the "reasonable exceptions"? This is and has always been a matter of private (or government) property rights vs the desire of a particular segment of the citizenry to thumb their nose at such. NO ONE has the right to park on private property without either dominate ownership or the permission of such. They must and will be subject to what conditions the property owner requires. Same with the state. We have, through the structure of government, entrusted certain government officials with the safe keeping of such property, and by virtue of that trust should accept the conditions required. Would you insist on the right to carry ANYWHERE, on ANY private property, regardless? Church services, hospitals, courtrooms, legislative halls, post offices? This is blatant insanity!

I have never advocated the

I have never advocated the 'right' to carry everywhere.  Only on Government (public) land. Private property (personal or business) should be up to the owner.  Jails (being government) would be a reasonable exception (decided by the legislature).
The issue is not is it Legal to carry on the Parking Lot, the issue is should your employer retain the right to Fire you if you violate their rules.
 

At what point does the

At what point does the employer have ANY right to dismiss the employee. When you violate company policy certainly MUST be one! Otherwise you undermine the authority of mangement in company policy issues.

Right!  In TN it would be

Right!  In TN it would be best if the employer NOT GIVE a Reason. It is strange how republicans want 'less' government and want 'right to work' but then want Big Daddy Government to NOT let them get fired.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.