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.
They 'really' are attempting to disarm their employees, and it's obviously their intent. -- And that is "ill advised" by the clear words of our 2nd. And at least 2 state legislatures plus the Georgia supreme court agree that it is not a company power or 'right' to search private vehicles.
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.
Local law says otherwise. Most larger companies are required to provide off street parking to employees & visitors as part of the business license/use permit process.
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.
You say above such a choice is "ill advised", yet you argue they ought to have that power "even if ill advised." Can you explain why?
Why should we allow companies to ban guns in parking lots? It makes no constitutional sense.