[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.

[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.

[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?