Dear spunkets,
"I don't believe it, as I have outlined. The excesses have all involved workplace/space rules and business related rules."
I'm not sure what it is you don't believe, and I'm not sure to what excesses you're referring. Please clarify. Thanks.
"The phrase 'bring firearms to work' is too vague. The firearms are not in the workspace, or within any reasonable jurisdiction of the employer. Firearms contained within the employee's vehicle are just as accessable as postal tools as the one's he maintains in his house."
I don't agree with this. I have employees come to my office who live 20 minutes, 30 minutes, in one case, 90 minutes from my place of business. But it is about a 30 second walk to the parking lot from my front door.
If someone gets very upset, the roundtrip to car and back, with the firearm in tow, might take nearly two minutes.
The trip home and back will take 40 minutes to several hours.
Lots of folks don't cool off in a ocuple of minutes. A much higher percentage of folks, initially bent on destruction, will cool off with a wait of 40 minutes to several hours.
As well, if someone shouts, "I'm going to kill you!" and goes to their car in the parking lot, the individual will return before any of us get through to 911 and get the police over to our premises.
If someone shouts, "I'm going to kill you!" and then leaves the premises to go home, the authorities can be involved before the individual returns.
But another more basic problem is this: I at least have an argument that I can regulate what does and doesn't come on to my property. I can't regulate what stays outside my property.
I can say, "You can't bring your gun on my land, period."
I can't say, "You can't have your gun on your land."
I can say, "If you insist on keeping a gun in your car, you can't bring it onto my property."
I can't say, "I forbid you to have a gun in your car when you are not on my property."
Thus, even if what you said was true, it wouldn't matter. I can regulate what happens on my property, but not off it.
"The employer can't simply break into the employee's car, that is at minimum breaking and entering and destruction of property. He must mount an extortion to do it. That highlights the fact that the employee's car is not the employer's property and he has no right to enter it, without mounting the extortion."
It's only an extortion if the employer is denying the employee's rights. You're begging the question. I haven't yet seen why anyone has a right to bring something on my property just because they keep it in their car.
I have a relatively-broad right to tell you that you may not bring something on my property, period. Even if you keep it in your car. Why? Because it's my property!
If I tell you, "I think you have a gun in your car - move it off my land." and you refuse, I can have your car removed without your permission, and at your cost.
Thus, because you have no right to put something on my property that I forbid, I can't be extorting you to forego that right.
"It's either a Free country, or it's not."
Indeed, that's the case. And the property owner isn't trying to infringe on the freedom of the vehicle owner. The property owner is merely asserting his own preference as to how he wishes to regulate his own property. He may make a rule that no one may park on his property. He may make a rule that one may park a domestically-made vehicle on his property, but not a foreign-made vehicle. He may make a rule that no one may park a red car on his property, or a car with more than a quarter tank of gas.
He may make a rule that one may park a vehicle that has no firearms, but not a vehicle that has firearms.
It's his property, either this is a free country or it isn't.
The individual who does not wish to abide by the property owner's rule does not have to. He merely needs to avoid parking on the property owner's property.
"The employee's property contained in the car is not a nuisance,..."
For purposes of determining what will and won't come on his land, it is the property owner who gets decide what is or isn't a nuisance. I would prefer that the state stay out of the property owner's decision to the degree possible.
"... nor is it reasonable to consider employees as criminal thugs."
I don't know why, if it's a free country, that the property owner is required to justify as reasonable his reasons for who and what he permits on his property, to his employees, to the courts, to the legislature, or to anyone else.
"This is FR and we discuss these things."
That's true, but I haven't offered any opinion on what I think should be, only what the law is. Others have stated that the law is as they think it should be. Only with that have I voiced disagreement.
Even you have advanced, seemingly as fact, a novel legal theory, which doesn't seem to have been actually ever successfully tried in court. If you want to say, "Gee, I think it would be a good idea if someone brought something based on Title 18, Section 241 or 242," that would be one thing.
But the way you presented it, it seemed as if you believed it was an objectively established fact. Yet, I have been unable to uncover a single use of it in this kind of case.
Furthermore, even though you assert it, it seems to beg the question of whether or not a right is actually violated in prohibiting firearms from company parking lots. Thus, in spite of your assertion, it doesn't seem that it even is a whole and complete, workable theory.
So, sure, we discuss things at FR. But the law is still the law, at least for now.
And as the law stands, unless a state legislature says otherwise, a company may forbid individuals from parking their cars on company property if those cars have firearms within them. Furthermore, because it is not a violation of rights to so forbid this, it is not then an extortion to coerce someone to forego his (non-existent) rights to have a gun on one's property by requiring submission to a search of one's car to ascertain that no firearm is present.
In order to prove extortion, I think you first have to prove that you have the right to bring a firearm onto my property even though I have forbidden it.
sitetest
There is no right to feel safe. Furthermore the data show that your fears are groundless, as I said in the last post. There's no data that support your contention. The postals that occured previously occured after the subject left. Several of them put on special outfits for the occasion.
"Lots of folks don't cool off in a ocuple of minutes."
Where's your data supporting shootouts over temper flairs? John Lott's work shows postals don't go that way and general public displays are very rare indeed. I'd guess they are less in number than the number of todlers that drown in 5 gal buckets.
"But another more basic problem is this: I at least have an argument that I can regulate what does and doesn't come on to my property. I can't regulate what stays outside my property. "
Your argument fails when the history of legitimate company policy is looked at. As I said, this measure goes outside the workplace into the employee's property. It violates his right to transport firearms. Those firearms are never used for criminal purpose, there is no criminal intent and there is no history that the employee is a danger to himself or others. Regardless of the article's claim that these policies are old, they are not. They are recent and they are a response to legislatures and courts refusing to take the guns away.
"I have a relatively-broad right to tell you that you may not bring something on my property, period. Even if you keep it in your car. Why? Because it's my property! "
The right is limited to deciding whether, or not the car can be there and you want the particular employee. You can not base the decision to employ, or threaten to fire him if he fails to buckle under to your extortion demand. His right to transport his property is his. His right to keep the contents of his vehicle private exists. His right to do that for whatever reason exists, especially for the purpose of his, or her self defense.
The demand for abandonment of those named rights, because of specious, unsupported, libelous claims against employees accompanied by the threat of firing for failing to do so, is extortion. That's the law.
"If I tell you, "I think you have a gun in your car - move it off my land." and you refuse, I can have your car removed without your permission, and at your cost. "
Sure, but you may not demand I acknowledge your nonsense, or let you search the car. Such bogus human relationship is allowed in at will employment. Hint at direct violation of anti discrimination laws and you're toast. Also, and this is very important, if there is a contract that would otherwise be in effect, except for the bogus outburst, you are liable for it's breach. If that outburst is clear extortion, then you are responsible for that also.
"In order to prove extortion, I think you first have to prove that you have the right to bring a firearm onto my property even though I have forbidden it. "
No. All I have to do is point out your property boundaries, the scope of employment, the rights you are attempting to cause me to abandon, that those rights you want me to abandon are in no way connected to workplace safety and in fact your focus ignored more obvious and known threats, and that your efforts are part of a conspiracy of leftists and gun grabbers to erode rights and establish precident. These rules came into effect not after a few postals, but after the grabbers failed to effectively prohibit their transportation and use in the legislatures and courts. I'll toss in the efforts of the critical infrastructure protection folks, because they're a big part of this push. They probably provided the impetus for the push to the natural grabbers.
"If someone shouts, "I'm going to kill you!" and then leaves the premises to go home, the authorities can be involved before the individual returns. "
Strange. All the hired security folks and resources spent to violate rights and none to actually protect the workplace. If the concern was postals, there'd be security in place. The concern's not postals, that's why the security and lawyers in place are to harass gunowners.