Replies

Second amendment rights trump private property rights? I don't think so, but it'd be nice if it were so (for 1st amendment too!).

Gun-free zones are invitation to become crime zones. Any business owner that's okay with that I don't think has their customer's safety in mind. It' their property to do as they see fit so long as they don't initiate force against anyone or their property. In other words, each person is free to say "no" and walk away. Freedom of association is also the freedom to not associate.

Dilbert56: "Utter nonsense. Why would the Second Amendment work differently than the First? My right to free speech is seriously curtailed while I'm at work. I could go to the mall and use abusive language or bad-mouth my company's products. Can't do that at work and remain employed. It's that simple."

amchugh: "Second amendment rights trump private property rights? I don't think so, but it'd be nice if it were so (for 1st amendment too!)."

=======================
I'm getting tired of explaining that this is a Fourth Amendment issue, but...
=======================

You have this all wrong. It is a private property issue: your car is your private property and (for Fourth Amendment purposes) is considered to be an extension of your home. And like your home, the police must have a warrant to examine (search) what is inside of it.

No private party has any right to define what may be (legally) secured inside your home or your car. The employer's property rights end at the point at which your tires contact his pavement.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Employer's rights only extend to telling you whether or not your tires are allowed to contact (park on) his pavement -- or whether or not he will employ you.

"Second amendment rights trump private property rights? I don't think so, but it'd be nice if it were so (for 1st amendment too!)."

There is some confusion as to the ruling by the court. The court denied the UPS motion to dismiss, meaning that the case may go to trial. The facts were not clear as to whether the parking lot was on UPS property or on property not owned by UPS. For the purpose of the motion, the court is required to assume facts in favor of Plona, so the court assumed that the property was not UPS property.

Thus, the court said that an employee could have a case for wrongful termination if UPS fired the employee for the sole reason that the employee had a firearm [complying with local law] in the car, assuming that the car was not parked on UPS property.

It’s really not a property rights case at this point. We will see what happens as the case continues.

For a copy of the ruling, see:

http://volokh.com/files/plona.pdf