Replies

As the employer, and the owner of the lot, he does have the say, if he so chooses, if that vehicle can be found on his premises or not. The owner sets the rules on what comes onto his property...the owner of the vehicle then decides if he/she is willing to abide by those stipulations.

That's how the market works...and that's how property rights work (or at least they ought to). And that is really what this issue is about.

As to OSHA, for the most part it is an overburdensome, governmental regulatory agency that sucks up untold citzens funds, and infringes on property rights. I certainly don't want more of anything like that.

Anyhow...it appears we disagree on this issue. So be it. Others can decide for themselves. But i know this, I will never asceed to the government, by force of law, and again outside of war or insurrection, telling me that armed individuals whom I would otherwise not want on my property, must be allowed there against my wishes. That is the same slope the British took with the colonists.

"The owner sets the rules on what comes onto his property."

What comes onto is the vehicle. His property right does not extend to the inside of the vehicle.

"I will never asceed to the government, by force of law, and again outside of war or insurrection, telling me that armed individuals whom I would otherwise not want on my property,"

The matter involves an employee, that is not armed in the parking lot, or any part of the workspace. The employers decision regarding whether, or not the employee is welcome, is limited to workspace and work quality.

"As to OSHA, for the most part it is an overburdensome, governmental regulatory agency that sucks up untold citzens funds, and infringes on property rights."

It's justification is to protect the rights of citizens of the US, that would otherwise be violated by unscupulous employers. Regardless of the worth of any particular regulation, the govm'ts main job is to protect rights and OSHA is one such branch which does that.

I have mixed feelings on this. These are two rights that conflict with each other. I am of the opinion that you should have the right to have a gun in your car but also, I believe that a peron who owns property should have a say how it is used.

The following item, I have mixed feelings as well. The job I use to work at, management was pretty arbitrary. I have a couple of vehicles. One of them is a 15 year old Toyota Truck. It has a few body blemishes obtained from four wheeling. It has a roll bar and a double pipe bumper. One Friday late morning, there was an orange tow sticker on the driver's side window. The sticker said that I was basically told to park away from the building. I happen to get in early enough where you can get a decent parking spot. I was then called into my manager's officer (my relationship with my manager wasn't that good anyway) and was told that I was not to park near the building ever. My manager quoted what the bigwig said about my truck. It was basically mentioned that I was not to park that piece of sh*t by the building. If I refused to comply, I was told that I would be charged with insubordination and my vehicle would be promptly towed away. I then raised the issue that it is open parking, no spaces were reserved for certain type of vehicles and I refused to go along. I also mentioned that if they were concerned that only nice vehicles should park by the building, they should prominently put up signs indicating this policy for all to see. They were not too keen on this. I'll put it this way, I no longer work there !

As the employer, and the owner of the lot, he does have the say, if he so chooses, if that vehicle can be found on his premises or not. The owner sets the rules on what comes onto his property...the owner of the vehicle then decides if he/she is willing to abide by those stipulations.