Not applicable here. That law deals with transport on public roads to and from where you may lawfully possess a firearm. Try again.
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.
The parking lot is as much the property of the business as your office. It is all part of the workplace, as any slip-and-fall lawyer will tell you if someone injures themselves in your parking lot. Your car "entered the workplace with the employee" as well. What makes your car exempt from compliance, but your briefcase not?
Again, the company is not banning your arms from your vehicle.
Another silly comment. That is the issue here.
I know you really, really want this to be so. But it isn't. As I have been patiently explaining since my first post on this thread, this is about property rights, not bearing arms. If the boss wants to ban cars with leather seats and fuzzy dice except on the third Wednesday of the month, he can do so. Your car and all it contains, and you too, are there conditionally, and the property owner sets the conditions. Period.
Keep your arms locked in your car and park in the company lot. Conflict resolved;...
That doesn't solve the conflict. That IS the conflict. You brought the guns to the property; the owner didn't bring his property to your guns.
...because a locked vehicle on your parking lot imposes no 'force' upon you, no matter if it contains arms. - Admit it.
That's a dead strawman that you've already attempted to beat last post. Repetition doesn't make it more valid.
You cannot place that car on that spot with those guns inside, against the will of the owner, without using force or deception. You propose to use the force of the government to make the owner accept your terms.
Not applicable here. That law deals with transport on public roads to and from where you may lawfully possess a firearm. Try again.
How lame, - try again yourself. -- That law deals with transport on public roads to and from your home; --where you may lawfully possess a firearm.
-- The gun is not leaving the employees vehicle.-- A purse, briefcase, backpack, or pair of trousers enter the workplace with the employee.
The parking lot is as much the property of the business as your office.
"-- let's be honest -- a parking lot isn't a workplace. It's more like a locker room, where your personal belongings are stored until your workday is finished. -- "
It is all part of the workplace, as any slip-and-fall lawyer will tell you if someone injures themselves in your parking lot. Your car "entered the workplace with the employee" as well. What makes your car exempt from compliance, but your briefcase not?
Your car doesn't enter the actual workplace. It remains parked in the lot..
Again, the company is not banning your arms from your vehicle.
Another silly comment. That is the issue here.
I know you really, really want this to be so. But it isn't. As I have been patiently explaining since my first post on this thread, this is about property rights, not bearing arms. If the boss wants to ban cars with leather seats and fuzzy dice except on the third Wednesday of the month, he can do so. Your car and all it contains, and you too, are there conditionally, and the property owner sets the conditions. Period.
"--- The truth is that our opponents are simply scared. The undertone to nearly all of the objections voiced by big business is plain and simple fear, particularly of potential liability.
['Slip & fall' anyone?]
That's why our model Workers Protection laws protect employers from liability lawsuits. But apparently that's not enough to overcome the knee-jerk hysteria of our opponents. We've sent the gun-ban activists at the group formerly known as Handgun Control, Inc. into sheer apoplexy. And true to form, their response has been organized around the formation of derogatory buzzwords intended to spark baseless fears.
"Forced Entry" is what they call our Workers Protection proposal. What exactly is "forced" about an employee reporting for work? And how does "entry" apply to a law whose effect is limited to the parking lot? --"
Keep your arms locked in your car and park in the company lot. Conflict resolved;...
That doesn't solve the conflict. That IS the conflict. You brought the guns to the property; the owner didn't bring his property to your guns.
I came to work in my car, parked it in the company lot, and you want a 'conflict' over whether my vehicle contains a gun. --- Why? -- Why do you go into near apoplexy at the thought of a gun in my car?
...a locked vehicle on your parking lot imposes no 'force' upon you, no matter if it contains arms. - Admit it.
That's a dead strawman that you've already attempted to beat last post. Repetition doesn't make it more valid. You cannot place that car on that spot with those guns inside, against the will of the owner, without using force or deception.
"--- Forced Entry" is what they call our Workers Protection proposal. What exactly is "forced" about an employee reporting for work? And how does "entry" apply to a law whose effect is limited to the parking lot? --"
You propose to use the force of the government to make the owner accept your terms.
Because the business owner is using force to fire employees who do not meet ~his~ irrational terms.
I propose we use the rationality of our Constitution to convince business owners to accept our right to carry arms to & from work.