Replies

Ol' jonestown here bases his entire argument on a falsehood...no one is prohibiting employees from driving to and from work with a weapon in their car, he just claims that the employees are entitled to park in the parking lot, and as such they are also entitled to set the rules for access and usage of the employer's private property.

When faced with the logical response that employees can drive to work, park off premises, and drive home with weapons in their cars without being bothered by their employer, he claims that employees are "forced" or "required" to park on the employer's property...thus far, he's refused to provide one shred of evidence that Weyerhauser required their employers to park on the company parking lot, or that any company requires anyone to not only drive themselves to work, or park on their parking lot.

No one here, or in Oklahoma, has the idea that the employee is entitled to a job, or a parking spot on someone else's property.

The simple facts of the issue are that employers are required by local government to provide employee parking, and the employees seldom have any option but to use it.
Thus, if arms are prohibited in the lot, the employees RKBA's is being infringed.

409 jonestown

Luis Gonzalez wrote: Ol' jonestown here bases his entire argument on a falsehood...no one is prohibiting employees from driving to and from work with a weapon in their car, he just claims that the employees are entitled to park in the parking lot, and as such they are also entitled to set the rules for access and usage of the employer's private property.

See above.

LG, STOP! You should know very well from personal observation that nearly all businesses have private lots in which the employee is expected to park,and additionally that cities usually require a business to provide off-street parking for the employees.Often this includes the provision for fines against the business owner and/or employee if their cars are parked in the "public" spaces ,i.e. curbside. I know of such rules in SMALL cities as well as large ones.

And where is the application of the "reasonable" man oft mentioned in law ? A reasonable man can easily conclude that the imposition of restrictions that cannot be met without extra-ordinary actions , effectively prohibit whatever is restricted. And I remember something in the Constitution about "the right ...shall not be infringed." It DOESN'T say only Congress shall not infringe on the right ,but that NO ONE shall, Notwithstanding, the various elitists have been breaking the chains placed upon gov't and the people have allowed this;perhaps under the doctrine of a "living Constitution" this means we have no rights. This happens to be a theory rejected by those who understand that words mean things and have no great difficulty with the meaning of ,for instance, the word IS.