My problem with banning weapons in the locked cars is a bit more pragmatic. I have worked at such companies, one of which had a force of private security for their facility. Unfortunately, the pricate security was not armed, nor licensed to be armed as part of their job. So, the employees were not allowed to be armed for self defense, and the security was not allowed to be armed.
The question is: How does this enforce safety? It doesn't - there is no "force deterrent" to the looney who violates company policy and starts shooting up the place.
Worse yet, the company admitted no liability if this happened. In other words, the company was allowed to disarm its employees without having to guarantee their safety from such incidents.
It's really a private-property (parking lot) versus private-property (car) issue, IMO. As such, it should be adjudicated toward the least intrusive solution as possible - as long as the weapons stay inside the vehicle, no infraction has occurred.
Just my $.02
I pretty much agree with your thoughts except that the company was really not disarming its employees except when they were on company property, which should be its right, even if ill advised.
BTW, even though police forces *are* armed, they also accept no liability to protect the public.
Yeah, I agree, what good are unarmed security guards?
As for the private property vs private property, car owner vs parking lot owner, the corporation is not under a legal obligation to provide parking at all. I just think that if chooses to do so, it ought to have the right to impose whatever conditions it sees fit for those who choose (and choose is the operative word) to use those lots.