Proposed Bill Allows Employees to Keep Guns in Cars at Work(ND)

kfyrtv.com ^ | 22 March, 2011 | Amanda Tetlak

[marktwain]

I understand that property rights must be respected. There are always arguments around the boundaries. For example, we grant eminent domain for utilities, and that infringes on property rights. I think this minor infringement, to allow a much greater utilization of another right, is acceptable.

[circlecity]

I would go just the other way. To protect private property rights, the slight (even illusory) infringment on gun rights to allow a much greater utilization of another right is acceptable. I should be able to dictate whether someone can carry on my property.

[Wonder Warthog]

"To protect private property rights, the slight (even illusory) infringment on gun rights to allow a much greater utilization of another right is acceptable. I should be able to dictate whether someone can carry on my property."

If the gun is in the person's vehicle, it's not being carried on YOUR property. There is no confusion on "property rights" on the question. the property boundary is the outer sheet metal of the vehicle. The interior of the vehicle is the vehicle owners property.

Now, if he pulls it out and walks around with it, you have a legitmate case......otherwise not.

[circlecity]

"If the gun is in the person's vehicle, it's not being carried on YOUR property. There is no confusion on "property rights" on the question. the property boundary is the outer sheet metal of the vehicle. The interior of the vehicle is the vehicle owners property."

That's not true at all. The parking lot is the owners property and he can ban any car carrying a firearm. It's his lot. If the employee doesn't like that he can go work elsewhere. That's the way the private property fee market economy works. IF enough people don't want to work under those conditions they will go somewhere else and the company will go out of business and those companies allowing firearms will thrive.

[Wonder Warthog]

"That's not true at all. The parking lot is the owners property and he can ban any car carrying a firearm. It's his lot."

That incorrect perception is what the law is all about. But the LEGAL question is simple to answer. Do police have to get a warrant or permission to search a person's vehicle?? The answer is yes.

[bruoz]

We got this passed in Florida some time ago. It is a basically a "don't ask, don't tell" law. The law prohibits business owners from asking employees if they have the required concealed weapon permit. Even if a firearm is discovered in an employees car, the employer has no way to know if the employee has a CWP because it is not public record in Florida. Also the law provides civil and criminal immunity for the employer if that firearm is used on the property.

[circlecity]

We are not talking about police here but private property owners. They would have every right to require that anyone wishing to use their parking lot and work in their business sign a consent to search such vehilce at any time, all are part of their efforts to enforce their no gun ban. Just as one’s right to free speech doesn’t prevent them from being fired if they mouth off to their employer.

[papertyger]

Nonsense.

In no other instance does a American’s civil rights end at anothers property line. Furthermore, an American’s vehicle being considered an extension of his “castle” is a well established legal doctrine.

What really is at issue here is the civil liability of an employer for torts committed on his property by a gun wielding employee.

Simply exempt the employer from civil liability for the employee’s firearm and the whole problem goes away.

[circlecity]

"In no other instance does a American’s civil rights end at anothers property line. Furthermore, an American’s vehicle being considered an extension of his “castle” is a well established legal doctrine."

I don't even know what that means. And it is not a "well established doctrine". Certainly a person has a privacy interest in a vehicle to be free from unreasonable search and seizure from agents of the state. The right is much less than with a home as demonstrated by the legalilty of a "Terry" stop and search. But any employer would have the right to require consent to search as a condition of using a parking lot. The employee can refuse and work, or park, somewhere else if that is his desire.

[Retired COB]

We are not talking about police here but private property owners. They would have every right to require that anyone wishing to use their parking lot and work in their business sign a consent to search such vehicle at any time, all are part of their efforts to enforce their no gun ban.

If you've ever been on a military base you may remember a sign at the gate stating that entry onto the base grants them permission to search your vehicle. What they don't tell you is that as a citizen you can withdraw that permission at any time. At that point all they can do is either get a warrant or ask you to leave.

Implied consent is subject to revocation.

[circlecity]

"At that point all they can do is either get a warrant or ask you to leave."

Abslutely. This is exacly my point. Presence on another's property can be conditioned on them giving consent to search their vehicle at any time. If they revoke their consent they can be booted off the property, or in the case of an employer's parking lot, fired from their job.

[dbehsman]

The parking lot is the owners property and he can ban any car carrying a firearm. It's his lot.

REALLY?

Suppose a business owner wanted to ban handicapped people from his or her business. Should the business owner be able to also forgo placing handicapped signs on his or her lot?

When a business owner is open to the public, there are reasonable limits on what he or she cannot allow on their property.

If the employee doesn't like that he can go work elsewhere.

And if the business owner doesn't like Constitutional rights being exercised, he or she can always close down their business to the public. Nobody is FORCING business owners to stay open.

This argument is about what a business owner will allow in another persons car. What about the car owners rights?

[bruoz]

"... I should be able to dictate whether someone can carry on my property."

If you invite the general public into your parking lot in Florida, anything that I may legally posses in my car comes with me (including my rights) and there is nothing you can do about it. If you want to post your property and deny entry to everyone except yourself than you can dictate all you want.

[dbehsman]

Presence on another's property can be conditioned on them giving consent to search their vehicle at any time. If they revoke their consent they can be booted off the property, or in the case of an employer's parking lot, fired from their job.

As the Second Amendment goes, so goes the Fourth.

[papertyger]

Can an employer require an employee to wave OSHA regs as a condition of employment?

And what the hell is a “terry” stop?

[circlecity]

"Can an employer require an employee to wave OSHA regs as a condition of employment? And what the hell is a “terry” stop?"

No, the OSHA statute itself prohibits this. A Terry stop is the type of warrantless searches, short of probable cause, authorized by the USSC in the seminal case of Terry v. Ohio.

[Poison Pill]

Do police have to get a warrant or permission to search a person's vehicle?? The answer is yes.

Let's perfect that analogy. You need the permission of the state to drive that car on the public road (operator's license, state inspection certificate, mandatory insurance, etc.). That permission has to be applied for. The state has requirements that you have to meet in order to be granted permission. The state asks you questions and requires you to prove things to them. There is no reason I see that a private company can not require you to get similar permission from them before granting you access to their land. Nobody has an inalienable right to be on another person's land.

[dbehsman]

Nobody has an inalienable right to be on another person's land.

Amen.

Until the property owner decides to open his property up to the public.

[meyer]

Do private property owners have the right to supercede a constitutionally enumerated right?

[circlecity]

"Do private property owners have the right to supercede a constitutionally enumerated right?"

provide an example to demonstrate what you are asking.