I'm not arguing for it at all; it's a stupid and counterproductive policy. But for better or worse, the freedoms we enjoy allow all sorts of stupidity.
How does this type of 'policy' serve the Constitution?
It doesn't. It serves the property owner's whim, which is all that's required. Contrary to your false assertion upthread, private companies are not required to serve the Constitution in order to conduct commerce in the US.
Why argue for a "No Firearms in your cars policy"?
How does this type of 'policy' serve the Constitution?
jones
One of the reasons the Constituiton was created was to have a fed gov protect the rights of market players involved in interstate commerce. That was to maintain fairness in the marketplace. The 14th amend. extended their jurisdiction to State and local govm'ts and to any parties violating fed recognized rights.
In this case the concerns of the employer are not the workplace and workplace safety, because the guns are locked in the car, out of the sphere of the workplace, and the employer(s) deliberately linked them with, employee mental stability and illegal drugs. The employers intend to infringe on the right of their employees to maintain and keep private their property contained within their vehicles. The right of the employer to determine what is in the parking lot ends at the vehicles body.
The employee is the property owner being deprived of his property, privacy and liberty, by the employer's slander and libel campaign and attempt to extend his property boundary into the employees property right.