[jwalsh07]

I'm big on private property and guns. But I think its clear that the property owner controls here. Nobody forced them to work for AOL.

[isthisnickcool]

I'm big on private property and guns. But I think its clear that the property owner controls here. Nobody forced them to work for AOL.

Doesn't the person own the car? And what's in it? It's their property. Or does it no longer belong to them when they drive it onto anothers property?

What a about a persons pants? Or dress? Can AOL now demand strip searches? What about body orifices? Can AOL check "up there"?

[twntaipan]

Does that logic have any limits? What if AOL decided, because the parking lot is their property, that they did not want you to own an SUV and drive it to work? Where, exactly, is the limit of the owner's property as controlling authority end?

I'm not trying to pick a fight--I just am not sure that I agree with the notion that because I drive into an employer's parking lot something that is, in almost all other instances, a legal activity or item, suddenly becomes verbotten because it offends the political sensibilities of the employer.

[snopercod]

So can a property owner demand that law enforcement officers not carry firearms on their property, or do we have two classes of citizens now?