[tpaine]

Jeff Head wrote:

I do not believe we should use the force of law and the government to compel a property owner, who has expressly stated they do not want firearms on their property, to allow those who come on that private property to do so, whether in their car or on their person..

Jeff, business property owners are required to honor the US Constitution, just like the rest of us. We have a right to bear arms to & from work.
Business property owners are trying to infringe upon that right by using the excuse that safety concerns gives them the right to ban dangerous weapons from employees cars.

It is Constitutional to use the force of law and the government to require that parking lot property owners allow guns in parked cars -- as this complies with our Law of the Land, the 2nd Amendment.

[Jeff Head]

Sorry, we disagree. On their private property, they can have the say. It's like saying that since a person has the right of free speech, you should allow them to say whatever they want on your property at work...that does not fly. Or, since you have a right to freely travel, no tresspassing signs must be taken down or not be allowed so you can get from one side of someone's property to the other. These principles do not apply on someone's private property...and we can;t have it both ways because it will lead to not havinbg those private property rights at all IMHO.

The firearms owner has his option and choices, he can go work somewhere else, park somewhere else, elect not to go armed, or even violate the policy (employee agreement) and risk taking full responsibility for that decision. HIs rights are not violated.

Like I said, I do not necessarily agree with them making such a prohibition on their proerty...but it is their property and they have the right to do so if they wish.

But now the discussion is getting circular. We are saying the same things we have already said. Folks will have to decide how they believe on their own. I have stated my own feelings.

Best freregards my friend.