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

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

[marktwain]

A bill in the legislature has taken an unlikely path, and a senate committee is taking the latest look. The bill would make it illegal for employers to forbid employees from keeping guns locked in their vehicles while at work.

The bill got a do not pass recommendation from the House committee that first looked at the bill, but passed overwhelmingly on the floor.

Basically the bill sets up a battle over property rights.

It`s no secret that many North Dakotans like to hunt, and the state constitution holds Second Amendment rights in high regard. But some gun owners say their rights are being violated when employers set rules not allowing employees to keep their guns locked in their vehicles at work.

"Somebody might want to go hunting before or after work. I have a friend in Aberdeen, S.D., who used to go over his lunch hour," explained Darin Goens of the National Rifle Association.

It`s not just hunting rifles, but also concealed weapons. Supporters of the legislation to block employers from prohibiting employees from keeping guns in their vehicles say gun owners should be allowed to protect themselves to and from work.

"The only thing that happens is we disarm the people who are using their guns for self defense against these guys. The bottom line is, the bad guys are going to ignore the signs," said Goens.

But businesses say this bill in turn violates their property rights.

"It should be the right of the company to enforce the firearm policy they deem appropriate," said Andy Peterson of the North Dakota Chamber of Commerce.

And at least one gun owner agrees.

Gun owner Mike Donahue said: "I think if somebody says, `I don`t want you bringing guns on my property,` he has the right to say that or do that. If a business owner says, `I don`t want any guns in my parking lot,` no guns in the parking lot."

Donahue says if gun owners want to have their guns locked in their vehicles at work. They should find somewhere else to park, like on the street.

Supporters of the legislation say, the owner of the vehicle also has property rights.

Similar legislation has passed in 13 other states, but failed in Montana and Wyoming. The bill does exempt certain workplaces like schools, correctional facilities and places with hazardous materials.

[circlecity]

"Are you also responsible for the physical safety of all people on your property while they are on you property? If so, wouldn't they require you to be armed?"

not necessarily. There are other ways to protect business invitess and employees available. But I've got an idea - you administer your personal property the way you want to and let others do the same. See how easy that is.

[hoosierham]

The practical reality is that private (or public) parking lot bans on firearms in personal vehicles effectively limits firearms to the home (unless the landlord bars firearms).

Besides ,the "legal" status is that only a very tiny number of people in the U.S. actually have absolute property rights through land grants;the rest of "private property" is rented from the government.Think not?Then don't pay your property taxes and see how long it remains "your" property.

If you as a private or public property owner or agency wish to ban firearms then YOU should be held fully and personally liable for any injury suffered by any person unable to defend theirself on your property,or who was unable to defend theirself while enroute to or from your property from their home.

I want a list of the other constitutional and natural rights you think property owners should be able to ignore at will.(REALLY want to hear how you plan to deny homosexuals,handicapped,blacks, or Democrats from your place in light of current law!)

[dbehsman]

Oh, I'm sorry. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. Let me put it to you this way.

Which is more important to you:

The Second Amendment rights of all Americans.

-Or-

The property rights of anti-gun bigots?



The property rights absolutists are obsessing over a totally bogus question. They are concerned about their property rights (while ignoring the property rights of automobile owners parked on their property at the property owners invitation) above the Second Amendment rights of the public who they have invited onto their property.

[dbehsman]

Which is more important to you:

The Second Amendment rights of all Americans.

-Or-

The property rights of anti-gun bigots?

[circlecity]

"If you as a private or public property owner or agency wish to ban firearms then YOU should be held fully and personally liable for any injury suffered by any person unable to defend theirself on your property,or who was unable to defend theirself while enroute to or from your property from their home."

That is nonsense. But if that's what you want than to be consistent a gun owner should be guilty of murder if they allow someone to steal their gun and kill someone else.

[dbehsman]

BTW, the Whirlpool facility in question was not open to the public.

No kidding? They didn't have a "Visitors Only" parking spot?

[Poison Pill]

my private vehicle property rights supercedes his parking lot property rights, imo.

If you have permission to be there

As long as my guns stay in my vehicle, I don't see where he has the right to violate my property rights.

But he does have the right to deny you entry, set terms of entry or revoke permission after the fact. If he does, you and your vehicle have to go.

[circlecity]

I understood the question, perhaps you didn’t understand the answer. Both are equally important. And a property owner’s invitation can be accompanied by any legal condition they want to put on that invitation, including no guns. That does not interfer and abridge anyone else’s rights. IF you don’t like it, take your business somewhere else. Why do you think you have a right to impose your absolutist concept of gun rights on others to the detriment of their property rights? Nobody is forcing you to visit anyone elses property so why should you be able to force your guns on their property?

[dbehsman]

That is nonsense.

It most certainly is NOT nonsense. As a business owner, you have conscientiously made the decision to disarm another person through coercion. You have also willfully made that person an easy target for a criminal. You have made a decision that will help a criminal perpetrate a crime against the person you have coerced into disarming themselves.

But if that's what you want than to be consistent a gun owner should be guilty of murder if they allow someone to steal their gun and kill someone else.

Unless you can prove that the gunowner (who was a victim of theft) ASKED for his or her guns to be stolen, they bear NO responsibility.

[circlecity]

A"s a business owner, you have conscientiously made the decision to disarm another person through coercion. You have also willfully made that person an easy target for a criminal. You have made a decision that will help a criminal perpetrate a crime against the person you have coerced into disarming themselves"

I have not coerced anybody in that situation. They have no obligation to come onto my property - if they don't like my rules then go to another person's private property who allows guns. There is no coersion at all.

"Unless you can prove that the gunowner (who was a victim of theft) ASKED for his or her guns to be stolen, they bear NO responsibility."

Unless you can prove that a property owner asked a robber to come and shoot one of his customers or employees then the property owner should bear NO responsibility. Works both ways.

[dbehsman]

I understood the question, perhaps you didn’t understand the answer.

You're evading the answer. Another name for it is cowardice.

Both are equally important. And a property owner’s invitation can be accompanied by any legal condition they want to put on that invitation, including no guns. That does not interfer and abridge anyone else’s rights.

WRONG. By forbidding firearms in another person's car, you are disarming them not only or your own property, you are also disarming them on the drive to your place and the drive back.

IF you don’t like it, take your business somewhere else.

Believe me, I do. I will not tolerate anti-gun BIGOTS.

Why do you think you have a right to impose your absolutist concept of gun rights on others to the detriment of their property rights?

Self defense is a human right. Anti-gun bigotry is not.

Nobody is forcing you to visit anyone elses property so why should you be able to force your guns on their property?

YOU are the one who wants to force me to be disarmed in my own property. My car. Just because I park my car on your property, at your invitation, does not mean that you can dictate what is in my car (my own personal property).

[Poison Pill]

Which is more important to you:

The Second Amendment rights of all Americans.

-Or-

The property rights of anti-gun bigots?

You are setting up a false choice. Your premise is non sequitur. If they don't coexist, they are both meaningless. Your shotgun is your private property.

[dbehsman]

I have not coerced anybody in that situation. They have no obligation to come onto my property - if they don't like my rules then go to another person's private property who allows guns. There is no coersion at all.

The hell there's no coercion. As a business owner you are FORCING an employee or a visitor to become defenseless, all to serve your little whim for whatever reason.

Unless you can prove that a property owner asked a robber to come and shoot one of his customers or employees then the property owner should bear NO responsibility. Works both ways.

When the property owner FORCES people to become disarmed, that property owner is nothing more than an accomplice to the crime.

[dbehsman]

You are setting up a false choice. Your premise is non sequitur. If they don't coexist, they are both meaningless.

You already have answered.

Your shotgun is your private property.

So is my car.

[circlecity]

"By forbidding firearms in another person's car, you are disarming them not only or your own property, you are also disarming them on the drive to your place and the drive back."

Wrong. Nobody has an obligation to come to my property if they don't like the rules. By staying away they can carry their gun all they want. If they disarm themselves to come onto my property instead of staying away that is their voluntary choice.

"Believe me, I do. I will not tolerate anti-gun BIGOTS."

Then it's a good thing I couldn't care less what you will or won't tolerate.

"Just because I park my car on your property, at your invitation, does not mean that you can dictate what is in my car (my own personal property)."

Yes. It does. I can place any legal restriction on my invitation I want. If you don't like it stay away. If you don't want to abide by my rules I don't want you on my property anyway. No loss for me.

[upsdriver]

How does he know I have guns in my vehicle?

[circlecity]

"The hell there's no coercion. As a business owner you are FORCING an employee or a visitor to become defenseless, all to serve your little whim for whatever reason."

There's no coersion because you can refuse to come and keep your gun on you. If a property owner only wants to extend his invitation to non gun bearing individualts that's his right. And if you are carrying you are not invited - so stay away.

[Poison Pill]

So is my car.

Correct. And you are within your rights to have a gun in it. But you are not within you rights to park it on someone's land without their permission. If they don't grant permission, you can't come on. Now they can't open it and search it, IMO, but if they later revoke permission to be there, you have to go.

[dbehsman]

Wrong. Nobody has an obligation to come to my property if they don't like the rules. By staying away they can carry their gun all they want. If they disarm themselves to come onto my property instead of staying away that is their voluntary choice.

Oh, so the delivery guy who has to drop off a package to your place is not forced?

Then it's a good thing I couldn't care less what you will or won't tolerate.

Well, that's fine by me too, because I don't care what you will or won't tolerate either.

Yes. It does. I can place any legal restriction on my invitation I want. If you don't like it stay away. If you don't want to abide by my rules I don't want you on my property anyway. No loss for me.

You opened your land up to the public. You do not have any right to invade my private property (my car), unless I open it up to you.

[circlecity]

"You opened your land up to the public. You do not have any right to invade my private property (my car), unless I open it up to you."

And I opened it up to the public with restrictions, as is my right. And if you want to preserve the sanctity of your car then park it somewhere else. I'm done with this debate and the same points are just being asserted. I will only say that in my state the law allows private property owners to ban guns from their property and I am very satisfied with that state of affairs. I don't see it changing.