The Brits were attempting to extend their will beyond what they were entitled to. That's the motivation for mounting the war in the first place.
The employer's right extends to the workplace. The parking lot is where his employees park there cars. If they have anything in particular in them while they are engaing in workplace activities, it doesn't matter. They are for use offsite and off company time. That is traditional American practice and culture. Most employers formerly had no problem recognizing their boundaries.
The boundary between the employer's jurisdiction and the employee's is the vehicle body. That's consistent with That's consistent with the OK and MN laws, other State laws I don't know about, the fed Firearm Owner Protection Act(McClure-Volkmer) and 18USC241. The employee is not actively exercising his 2nd amendment right within the employer's workspace. He excersises it offsite and off the clock. Just like one might do with a skien of yarn and knitting needles, a chainsaw, a fishing pole, or their toolbox. Parking lot signs say, "park at your own risk", "no trucks", "parking", "no parking", "no loitering", no ball playing", ect. Some installations are, or contain a reasonable target where banning certain items from the premises is legit.
THe fact is that the employer is in fringing on the employee's right and the employee is not infringing whatsoever by having any legal item in his car and asserting his right to have it. That's what the govm't acknowledges. Now, if Freedom of association becomes the employer's claim, he then has the right to enter the employee's personal sphere of jurisdiction and make the demands. If Weyerhauser, or anyone else admits that this is the case, then they can legitimately pull the crap they are pulling.
What they are doing now is a backdoor gun grab, that infringes on the employee's rights. They are spewing lots of BS, to hide their sentiment and obfuscate in the matter. It needs to be shown, that Freedom of association is all they have and that gun grabbing is their move in the game. These employers can not claim there is any danger in allowing their employees to have this item in particular in the cars parked in the lot, because they have not provided measures to exclude criminals, only measures to harass, slander, and libel their employees.
On this point we may disagree.
As to the larger point of self-defense, I know we will agree...I am glad the young man defended himself. He had every right to do so. It is up to him now to come to terms with his employer based on the conditions that were set before the incident ever occurred.
Regards.
The employer's rights extend to the entirety of his property, the fact that you are allowed to use his property (parking lot) does not negate his ownership of it, nor his property rights to it.
The employee retains the right to seek work elsewhere.
What you're advocating is a blatant land grab that violates the property rights of the employer.
He's left without a choice.
Let's say that you work for a company that does research and development of new systems of water purification; you are directly involved in research for a revolutionary new system will change the industry.
You are seen and heard discussing the specifics of the ongoing research, and giving detailed information about the project, tools, and the progress made by your employer to employees of a competing research firm at a local restaurant. You are on your own time.
Does your company have the right to fire you?