Posted on 03/23/2011 4:58:55 AM PDT by 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.
He asks, and then trusts that you answer truthfully. He gives you an application to fill out that states rules for entry. He posts a sign. Etc, etc...
>>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. <<
If parking is available I see nothing wrong with this. Otherwise, keep your mouth shut and don’t brag that you have a gun on your ankle or in the trunk.
And if parking "isn't" available??
I see it differently. My right to defend my life (which, at bottom, is what we're REALLY talking about) outweighs a business owner's right not to "feel uncomfortable", which is really all that is at stake on their part.
If the cops get a search warrant on your business property can they go through all the employee vehicles on the parking lot? Probably not.
I'm still uncertain why this is an issue. More like a power play type thing between both sides.
Business owners: If you don't want to hire gun owners. Fine. Have the balls to say so outright.
Gun owners: Why are you working for anti-gun people? They don't give a tin sh*t about your safety or your Rights.
MouseWorld “We can't ask if you have a CWP but the NRA sticker on your car has lead us to believe that you have a firearm in your car and your employee agreement says that you will consent to a search. May we search for it?”
Employee “Yes, by all means.”
MouseWorld “We found a gun in your car therefore you are fired”.
Employee “Thank you, I always wanted to retire as a millionaire.
BTW. My wife's employer (a state agency) had to amend their "no guns on the premises" policy after the law took effect.
If I was the plant owner, tough. If I was the gun owner who wanted to carry, I’d do so and take my chances knowing that it might cost me my job.
Check your mail.
Sez who? Certainly not the constitution. However, if that is important to you then stay off of private property that doesn't allow guns.My right to keep extreme dangerous gun nuts off my property outweights your personal insecurities.
From the article: “The bill would make it illegal for employers to forbid employees from keeping guns locked in their vehicles while at work. “
So if the bill eventually becomes law, “no guns” won't be a legal condition and you shouldn't have a problem. What's the argument against passage of the bill? Are Property rights the argument?
From the Bill of Rights:
“...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...”
“...The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...”
Those statements reflect pre-existing rights, not Constitutionally created rights.
If “property rights” are the argument against passage of the bill, try bolstering your argument by providing a statement of property rights at least similar in clarity and authority to the statements from the Bill of Rights.
The bill of rights isn’t exclusive as the 9th amendment specifically points out. There’s nothing in the bill of rights stating a right not be raped but I believe we do have such a right. The Declaration of Independance cites England’s violations of property rights as the primary trespass justifying revolution. And my state protects my property right to restrict guns from my property. I’m confident our legislature will remain free of nutburgers such that this property right will be preserved.
I couldn't find the word “property” in the Declaration of Independence. Can you verify your assertion with a citation or logic or something? Here: http://constitution.org/us_doi.htm
“...my property right to restrict guns from my property.”
Where is that particular property right documented?
In my previous post, I suggested you “try bolstering your argument by providing a statement of property rights at least similar in clarity and authority to the statements from the Bill of Rights.”
Are you unable to do that?
What exactly are the property rights you are arguing for?
Again, here:
“...the right of the people to ____ and ____ and etc. Property...”
“...The right of the people to be secure in their property against ____ and ____ and etc....”
Fill in the blanks. Anybody else reading this feel free to have a go at it too.
(To Whom It May Concern: I know that Arms, houses, papers, and effects are property, and that in effect the The Second and Fourth Amendments are statements of property rights as they stand.)
The ninth amendment
The ninth amendment. The declaration also complains of "For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us" Gee, the people believed they shouldn't have to let armed people quarter at their property. Sounds exactly like what we are discussing.
“The ninth amendment.”
Which states: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
That alludes to a right to property or property rights, among others, but doesn’t provide a clear statement of what those rights are, their extent, their scope. That’s what I’m trying to get out of you (and others).
The words “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” convey meaning, though in my opinion not as clearly as many think. They convey that in regard to arms, people can keep and bear them. Or they convey that in regard to keeping and bearing, people can do so with arms. You don’t seem to be able to provide any words that convey anything in a similar manner in regard to property rights.
When you talk about property rights, what are you talking about? How do you know you’re correct? Do you have some authority to rely on or is it just some internal feeling like a hunch or something?
All logic and law, basically. Certainly the Bill of Rights says precisely that..."life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Your "property rights" fall in category 3.
"However, if that is important to you then stay off of private property that doesn't allow guns."
I always do. Any business that posts "no guns allowed" will NOT get my money.
"My right to keep extreme dangerous gun nuts off my property outweights your personal insecurities."
So, it all boils down to your (irrational) fear of guns and gun owners. FYI, there are places where it is perfectly legitimate to feel "insecure". Fortunately, I don't have to go there, but there are people who, due to circumstances of employment, "do" have to go into those places. I think their right to protect themselves outweighs your right to "property usage".
But we'll just have to disagree, because "I" don't plan on changing my opinion.
This is one of those times when the well meaning don’t see the possible repercussions of their actions. Employers that don’t want firearms on their property will always have the option to cease providing employee parking. It’s already common in large cities, so it’s not nearly the stretch that some think.
You’ve never worked in a secure facility where sign away the right to refuse searches have you? I can take you directly to a Raytheon facility miles from my house where at 5:00pm the employees form a double line at security where their briefcases and bags are opened and searched before they can leave. Is it legal? You betcha, because all the employees gave Raytheon permission as a condition of their employment. That makes it consensual, and a consensual search is never unreasonable before the law.
Since the property owner has the right to deny carrying a firearm under other normally legal conditions as well, I would have to say yes. Legally speaking, what makes the parking lot special?
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.