No, it isn't the issue. The issue is not carrying the arms in the vehicle. That occurs outside of the workplace, going and coming, and can be resolved by not parking in the company lot. The instant you leave the gun behind in the car, you are no longer carrying it. Since you agree that vehicles have no rights, then you understand that the vehicle cannot "carry" your arms in your absence. It becomes a mere storage location.
Another weird 'point'. An employees right to carry arms in their vehicle, and to lock them there while at work, -- is the issue.
Only the bolded part is the issue. The other part was decided when the employee agreed not to personally carry while at work. The second part has nothing to do with the right to carry; rather it is a property question. Where are you allowed to keep your stuff, and can the categories of stuff be limited on other's property? Does the disallowed stuff you desire to keep stored become allowed simply by placing it inside some other stuff you own? It becomes a strict property rights vs. property rights question. The answers are obvious to anyone who approaches it constitutionally: the owner of the property on which the other items and persons reside gets to determine what items or persons are allowed there. If you don't like it, take your person and items and clear off.
Good grief. Are you seriously suggesting that shopping for food & booze before work, & locking the stuff in your car while at work, -- can be a firing offense, - against company policy?
Anything can be against a company policy. There is no constitutional requirement that companies must not set certain policies, just that they are free to associate with whomever they wish. I can see several instances where a company might have a strict no-booze on site policy: religious groups, AA organizations, halfway houses, private schools, etc., who wish to keep even the opportunity for drinking away from the premises. There was a case where a Muslim based organization banned pork products in their employee's lunch boxes. When you agree to work for company X, you contract to abide by their policies under penalty of dismissal.
'We the people' established that our right to bear arms applies to within in our vehicles, - quite a few years ago.
Documentation? Show me where "we the people" decided that you can violate other people's property restrictions merely by enclosing the violating item within a vehicle. And don't say "the Constitution", because that's just begging the question. It doesn't say what you keep insisting.
You own the vehicle, and are authorized by the business to park it on the lot while working. There is no 'authority' or power delegated to a business to ban arms from that private vehicle.
You may also own a purse, briefcase, backpack, or pair of trousers which are authorized by the business. Does that mean you can carry a gun in them, against company policy? Again, the company is not banning your arms from your vehicle. It is banning vehicles which are being used to store arms. Keep your arms in your car and park off site. Conflict resolved.
A locked vehicle on your parking lot imposes no 'force' upon you, no matter if it contains arms. - Admit it.
Never argued otherwise; we have already established that vehicles are not sentient. That you cannot understand plain language is not my fault. The force occurs when you insist the vehicle containing arms be parked on private property, regardless of the owner's wishes, and use government writ to enforce it.
Rational employers find it 'desirable' that employees park on the company lot. It's good business.
It may be good employee relations, but it is strictly a perk. It is land allocated for employee convenience that might be more usefully used otherwise, like for customer parking for example. It is the employees that find parking there "desirable", and should therefore abide by the restrictions. It is hardly a mandated requirement of business.
Bump
Documentation?
Since 1986, federal law has protected the right to transport firearms in vehicles interstate. USC sec 926a
Show me where "we the people" decided that you can violate other people's property restrictions merely by enclosing the violating item within a vehicle.
No ones property rights/"restrictions" are being violated by a gun in the employees vehicle.
Show me where "we the people" decided that you can violate other people's right to carry arms in vehicles merely by claiming "property restrictions" apply to items within another persons vehicle.
You own the vehicle, and are authorized by the business to park it on the lot while working. There is no 'authority' or power delegated to a business to ban arms from that private vehicle.
You may also own a purse, briefcase, backpack, or pair of trousers which are authorized by the business. Does that mean you can carry a gun in them, against company policy?
Silly, senseless point. -- The gun is not leaving the employees vehicle.-- A purse, briefcase, backpack, or pair of trousers enter the workplace with the employee.
Again, the company is not banning your arms from your vehicle.
Another silly comment. That is the issue here.
It is banning vehicles which are being used to store arms. Keep your arms in your car and park off site. Conflict resolved.
Keep your arms locked in your car and park in the company lot.
Conflict resolved; because a locked vehicle on your parking lot imposes no 'force' upon you, no matter if it contains arms. - Admit it.
Never argued otherwise -- I don't mind if responsible adults carry weapons, but won't force others to accept it on their property.
You seriously need to address the issue rationally. -- No one is forcing "others to accept it [carrying arms] on their property. -- The arms are being carried on the employees property, locked in their vehicles.
Admit it; you believe your property right has automatic precedence over an employees right to carry in their vehicle.