I Disagree with this entirely
A workplace is private property and if the owner doesn’t want guns on their private property then they have every right to ban them. Don’t like it, leave the gun home or find a new job.
Ah, property rights vs. gun rights. Now that’s a topic.
My vehicle is not your private property.
I agree wholeheartedly.
In New Mexico one’s vehicle is considered “extended domain” or the same as your house. As long as the firearm is in the vehicle, a company can’t say boo about it.
The parking lot is one of those gray areas that is not quite public, but not quite private either. By exercising control over an individual's vehicle, the employer is infringing on that individual's privacy. While an employer is not the government, the employment contract does not give the employer the right to interfere in the employee's private affairs, absent a valid interest.
The OK legislature decided that the employee's privacy interest outweighs the employer's theoretical contractual interest in whether or not the employee has a firearm in the car. That's their job.
that’s why there’s debate. does the company’s private property rights trump your personal property rights?
if so, how does that square with searches of vehicles for any or no reason, and where does it end?
for example, can they tell you what bumper stickers are allowed on your car in their lot?
personally, i say park on the street or a public lot and demand a security escort to and from your car- as that would square with the part of their justification that they are responsible for anything that happens to you on their property.
I would agree, but only if the business is totaly responsible for the workers safety from home to work and back. This would inclide all officers, board members and share holders, both as the business and individually.
“I Disagree with this entirely.”
So, a state passed a law in accordance with the Tenth Amendment, a Federal Government judge said that Federal Law took precedence over the State law, and a Federal Appeals Court overruled the lower Federal Court, ruling in favor of the State’s right.
And you disagree with this entirely meaning you think the Feds should have prevailed in accordance with the lower level Federal Court decision?
“… they have every right to ban them.”
Do you have anything to back that up? For instance “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms…”, words from the Second Amendment, is an authoritative statement that people have a right to keep and bear arms. Do you have anything other than your opinion that “… they have every right to ban them”?
I have the same problem. My property, my business, my rules, and if you don't like it, then go start your own business and make your own rules. (Before you flame me, I do not prohibit anyone, including employees or invited guests, from lawfully possessing a firearm on their person or in their motor vehicle, open carry or concealed carry, at any of my business properties. I do prohibit smoking, the consumption of alcohol, sexual activity, nepotism, and intra-office romance. My business, my rules.)
Think this through, qam1. First of all, this is not allowing employees to tote guns around the workplace, it just allows them to keep their gun in their locked car on the employer’s property. What this does is prevent employers from disarming employees during their travels to and from work, and at other locations they may need to stop at or spend time at along the way. This ensures that a couple of large employers can’t effectively disarm an entire town. If employees can’t have a gun in their locked car at work, this has the effect of decreasing the percentage of the general public that is armed while on public property and other private property where the owner is happy to have people armed. The general public is endangered by having law abiding citizens disarmed, and a private employer shouldn’t have the power to cause this.
IMO, the law doesn’t go far enough, as it should also require employers who don’t allow firearms to be carried by employees on thier premises, to provide firearms storage lockers at actual cost, to employees who use public transportation or get rides to and/or from work with a non-employee.
I have offered a solution to the conflict between private property rights and the right to self-defense.
Most large companies are corporations; that is, they are entities which owe their existence to the legislation which allows their creation and which endows them with limited liability. There is no "right" to form a corporation and doing so involves seeking permission from a government to do so and obeying the corporation laws within the jurisdiction permitting the incorporation.
I would see nothing wrong with adapting the corporation laws such that corporations do not have the private property right to infringe the right to self-defense in their parking lots.
Those who wish to conduct business without the benefits of limited liability can continue to enforce their private property rights as they see fit. If a person comes to harm because of the policies of such a private business, then the owners of that business will face full liability for the harm. Those who wish the benefit of limited liability will have to recognize that there is a price to be paid in exchange for that human-created benefit.
Bull$h!t.
Your car is your property. If you are required to park on company property, you do not give up the rights that your car and whats in it, is your private property.
Unless your an Obama-ite.
So my vehicle is now your property because I am on it?
It's not so much that employers disliked guns, it's that OSHA was pressuring employers behind the scenes to adopt rules against guns as a "workplace safety" issue. This ruling lets employers off the liability hook.
What you fail to understand is that the inside of the vehicle is NOT the "private property" of the business. It's the private property of the vehicle owner, no different from the inside of his/her home. The fact that said vechicle may, for some time, be parked on the business owner's lot is of zero relevance.
I agree, HOWEVER, this needs to be added:
The company has, by not allowing self denfense weapons on it's property, implied that the property is safe, and the person doesn't need any weapons.
IF anything happens, the property owner should be held civily, and perhaps even criminally liable for his prohibition.
This judgement is just the tip of the iceberg, more and more individual property rights are going to be taken away.
It's in their locked vehicles, which is the private property of the workers. If the employers provide for parking, then they can't reasonably object to the lawful possessions that people keep inside their cars. It's none of their business.
On the other hand, most states consider the car to be an extension of the home. For its own benefit (less tardiness, absenteeism), the employer has erected a parking lot, inviting its employees to drive from home in their cars thus bringing that extension of home to the worksite.
If the employer is not willing to accept all the ramifications of that decision, they can close the parking lots and make employees find somewhere else to park their cars.
My car isn’t company property.