Posted on 03/26/2009 1:43:46 PM PDT by Eaker
AUSTIN, Texas — Texans who love guns and pickup trucks with equal fervor could soon have the right to keep them together all the way into the company parking garage.
The Texas Senate gave unanimous approval to legislation Wednesday that would allow people to carry firearms to work and then store them in their parked vehicles outside. Businesses could still keep guns out of their offices and company-owned vehicles.
But the bill, a top priority of the National Rifle Association, would no longer let employers ban guns in company parking facilities — as long as they remain locked up inside an employee's vehicle.
"Here in Texas, people like their firearms," said Republican Sen. Glenn Hegar, author of the legislation. State law already allows Texans to carry concealed handguns in their vehicles, with some restrictions.
The bill drew criticism from business leaders, who called it an affront to property rights. Bill Hammond, president of the Texas Association of Business, warned that it could also spark more workplace gun crimes — particularly at a time when more and more people are losing their jobs.
"People could go out to their car, get their weapon and go after their supervisors or co-workers who hadn't been laid off," Hammond said.
Senators engaged in a sometimes lively debate, but — in a state where guns are generally pried away from cold dead fingers — not a single "no" vote was cast. Business groups are hoping to derail the legislation behind the scenes, but if it makes it to the House floor, passage is considered likely there, too.
The bill states that Texans carrying legal firearms, including concealed handguns, could store them in locked vehicles in company-owned parking lots.
(Excerpt) Read more at chron.com ...
That’s just it, the interior of my vehicle is NOT his property.
The employer's real estate is his -- and the dividing line between our properties is at the point where my tires contact his pavement.
He has no more right to prevent me from having my weapon in the mobile part of my "castle" than he does to prevent me from having it at my bedside.
Allowing an employer to dictate what I can or cannot have in my vehicle empowers him to disarm me on the way to work -- and is a threat to my life -- and is a direct violation of my Second Amendment rights.
The employer's only recourse is to fail to provide onsite parking -- to all employees, lest he be guilty of discriminatory harassment.
No, private property rights do not extend to over-rule constitutional rights of others.
They should no more be allowed to refuse you keep a legal firearm in your car than to exclude people based upon race.
When I was in high school, about a quarter of the vehicles in the parking lot were pick-ups with gun racks. During hunting season, all those racks had rifles or shotguns.
I think you are going way too far there.
First, I hope everyone would agree that an individual has almost no constitional rights in another person’s home. It is MY house and I decide what type of guns, speech, religion, etc. are allowed in it.
The workplace is much more complex, but I certainly do not have the same degree of constitional rights in your business, as I do on the street.
Do you believe a company has no right to forbid employees or customers to carry guns in its stores or offices?
If you own a business and a homosexual employee wants to read gay porn in the breakroom, would you be violating his rights if you did not allow it?
The ‘my car is my domicile’ argument is a much stronger one.
It could also be argued that if the gun is locked in a car, in the parking lot, the infringement on the employer’s private property rights is minimal, and does not justify effectively (though not directly) preventing employees from being able to drive to and from work with their guns.
I am strongly in favor of employees being able to drive to and from work with their guns. I just don’t want private property rights being eroded.
Were you against smoking bans in bars?
If your theory is correct, and you may be, the gun owner can be prohibited (by company policy) from taking the gun out of his car while on company property.
So if the situation developes that a gun is needed to stop some crazy, and a worker runs to his car and pulls a gun, and the crazy has second thoughts and runs away without doing anything, the worker can be fired. The company can claim that the guns was unneeded, and unnecessarily endangered other workers.
Kind of like what Pizza Hut does to it’s drivers who use a gun to save their own life. It may be wrong, but if your theory is right, that’s what will happen.
See my post #47
I agree with you.
By enforcing a ‘no guns’ policy property owners are in effect saying that their place is so safe that employees have no need for deadly force to protect themselves.
I think a better solution would have been to force and employer with a ‘no guns’ policy to be responsible for, be liable for any incidents, and carry an insurance policy that guarantees their employees safety.
“Were you against smoking bans in bars?”
Hmmm. I’ve honestly never given that much thought. I don’t drink or smoke, or go to bars, so they could ban drinking and smoking at bars and it wouldn’t affect me. :-)
I think there is a distinction between a law forbidding something an employer would otherwise allow and forcing the employer to allow something it does not want.
That said, bars are places where people go to do unhealthy tbings, so I would tend toward leaving it up to the individual bar owners to decide.
I’m sure the market would quickly produce the right number of smoking and non-smoking bars to meet the demand.
What will change is that the employees will now be able to protect themselves on the way to work.
It is up to the employee to determine if he/she wants to retrieve their weapon and "play hero" by re-entering a threat situation -- or to simply keep going when they reach their vehicle...
If you knew your employer was an @$$hole, would that affect your choice?
You miss the point by condescending. You don’t seem to have a problem with smoking bans in establishments violating property rights just guns.
You're right, and from that perspective this is a very good law.
Are you saying that property owners SHOULDN'T be able to ban smoking in their own establishment?
Are you kidding me?
I am discussing government dictating property rights.
Ban smoking on private property by government = OK to some.
Affirming the 2nd Amendment on private property by banning guns in one’s car = wrong to some.
This is simple.
I really did not mean to be condescending.
I think the smoking ban camparison is apples to oranges.
A more valid camparison would be a law requiring bar owners to allow smoking.
Generally speaking, I believe the government forcing someone to allow something on their private property is a greater infringement on private property rights than banning someone from allowing something.
Also, I am not saying the government should prohibit employers from allowing guns in their parking lots or workplaces. I am saying the property owner should decide.
If a business chooses to allow their employees and/or customers to keep guns in locked cars, or carry them on company property, I say good for them!
Well that’s what I thought, but you were citicising the other guy for saying the property owner could decide about smoking.
Sorry, done for the night, battery is nearly dead.
Parsing.
Since a lot of gov spending is based on cigarette sales and they can ban smoking them on private property with or without your approval how about they mandate smoking on your property to increase tax revenue?
I can smoke in my car, do you want them to have the power to force you to do so as well?
TEXAS & General Interest Ping! Ping! Ping!
That was good!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.