Gun in parking lots

[TNFlyer]

I understand your position, employers have lot of control. But it is time to put a fine point on this discussion.

Imagine an employer has a rule: No guns at work. But they'll pick you up in a limo and pay you a million bucks a year. The driver is a former seal and carries not only 3 10 mm pistols but a tactical shotgun. The car is armored and has 50 caliber machine gun mounted to the top. The machine gun is manned by the best heli gunner in the world. Plus, there's breakfast in the car. Not that the food has anything to do with it but, geeze, if they are paying you that much...

So you've got choices. You can either take the job and give up your right or you can get fired for carrying. I'd go the job route.

And that is exactly the same question when it comes to any job. You are being asked if you are paid enough to not do something (a gun in your car) that you'd rather do. You have to decide what that is worth to you.

If you still think the company is treading on your freedoms try using your freedom of speech to dog out the boss. You'll be able to say it and you can join me in the hunt for work tomorrow.

then you dont have a say about what I do in your yard?

Now we are getting to some common sense.

Seems, half of the people in this thread are as bad as the people we rant about everyday taking our freedoms away. But, when it comes to their perceived freedoms they can tread on others real freedoms because "the Constitution says I can". Folks go back and read the Constitution see how it applies. I would bet the majority of people have not read their Constitution since being in school.

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official

[troy917]

then you dont have a say about what I do in your yard?

If you actually were my employee, cut my grass, clean my gutters, or some other labor that made you hundreds of thousands of dollars every year. You would be welcomed with six-shooters strapped on your hips.

That is not the case here...I want to be able to throw a towel over it while I'm inside the plant. I work in manufacturing and have ZERO interaction with the public. I do however drive 30 miles from home and pass through some of the worst neighborhoods in all of Nashville. In fact the gate I enter is just a mile from the most crime infested area in Nashville. I have had co-workers approached by crackheads and thieves while sitting at a red light to turn into the plant. We have employees in and out around the clock. One employee, during his lunch break, was exiting a local Taco Bell in his car. While stopped at a red light was approached by a subject to give him some money. He told him he just spent his last dollar at the drive thru. The subject then reached in and said then "give me that burrito". Taking the sack of food from my co-workers lap.

Now I'm not suggesting that someone taking food is justification for using a gun. I'm just demonstrating that at ANY TIME it may be required to save my life. He could have just as easily wanted the car and the wallet instead of the food.

[Trekbike]

If we as gun owners stood up for our rights at work like we do in the way we patronize restaurants and other businesses, we would see a big change in attitude towards us. If everyone challenged their employer about its firearm policy and walked off the job I believe we would see big changes. This would take huge cojones on most peoples part. I think many problems could be solved this way. Just my

That's easier said than done. I like my current job and have no desire to quit just because it is currently in their policy not to have weapons on the property. Their policy dates back a long time. In my particular case I started working for my current employer 6 years before you could even get a HCP in TN.

I did discuss the fact that the rule needed to be looked at again since it pre-dated HCP's. I said HCP holders have proven to be law abiding folks. I didn't press it further at that point since I could tell it wasn't the time. I will wait for the appropriate time to bring it up again.

Again, in my case I've got a family to support and I've chosen to comply at this time. Quiting to prove me point isn't in my family's best interest at this time. I'll bide my time and continue to gauge the waters and try to get the policy changed.

[Guest canynracer]

If you actually were my employee, cut my grass, clean my gutters, or some other labor that made you hundreds of thousands of dollars every year. You would be welcomed with six-shooters strapped on your hips.

That is not the case here...I want to be able to throw a towel over it while I'm inside the plant. I work in manufacturing and have ZERO interaction with the public. I do however drive 30 miles from home and pass through some of the worst neighborhoods in all of Nashville. In fact the gate I enter is just a mile from the most crime infested area in Nashville. I have had co-workers approached by crackheads and thieves while sitting at a red light to turn into the plant. We have employees in and out around the clock. One employee, during his lunch break, was exiting a local Taco Bell in his car. While stopped at a red light was approached by a subject to give him some money. He told him he just spent his last dollar at the drive thru. The subject then reached in and said then "give me that burrito". Taking the sack of food from my co-workers lap.

Now I'm not suggesting that someone taking food is justification for using a gun. I'm just demonstrating that at ANY TIME it may be required to save my life. He could have just as easily wanted the car and the wallet instead of the food.

You missed my point.

It is your employers right to have rules as to what happens on their property...just as it is YOUR right to have rules about what happens on yours.

I wish I COULD carry, but I will not trample my employers right in order for me to gain mine.

If I owned a business, I CERTAINLY would not want the government FORCING me into doing something I disagree with

[Guest crotalus01]

You missed my point.

It is your employers right to have rules as to what happens on their property...just as it is YOUR right to have rules about what happens on yours.

I wish I COULD carry, but I will not trample my employers right in order for me to gain mine.

If I owned a business, I CERTAINLY would not want the government FORCING me into doing something I disagree with

I dont understand your point canynracer. My car is my property, what is in my car is my property IN my property ON my employers property. If the gun never leaves my car, whats the problem?

I, too, have to drive through some really bad areas of Memphis going to and from work. The security guards that "protect" me from the parking lot into the facility do NOT accompany me home - their responsibility ends when I leave the parking lot. So am I supposed to just be helpless because my employer doesnt want guns in the parking lot? Its not like I am asking to be at work packing, I just want protection going to and from work.

Hopefully this will be resolved next year. Employer rights be damned when it comes to my right to self defense

[E4 No More]

Just as police have no duty to protect you, neither do security guards. If you think that the employer has them there for you then you are delusional.

[TNFlyer]

Hopefully this will be resolved next year. Employer rights be damned when it comes to my right to self defense

This thinking is exactly why we are in the position we are with regards to the country as a whole.

"Screw your rights mine are more important."

[Guest canynracer]

I dont understand your point canynracer. My car is my property, what is in my car is my property IN my property ON my employers property. If the gun never leaves my car, whats the problem?

I, too, have to drive through some really bad areas of Memphis going to and from work. The security guards that "protect" me from the parking lot into the facility do NOT accompany me home - their responsibility ends when I leave the parking lot. So am I supposed to just be helpless because my employer doesnt want guns in the parking lot? Its not like I am asking to be at work packing, I just want protection going to and from work.

Hopefully this will be resolved next year. Employer rights be damned when it comes to my right to self defense

And you dont HAVE to put your property on theirs...

Where do you draw the line? it is their property, just like your driveway is YOURS...if you dont want a red car there, you can ban red cars..that is YOUR right as a property owner.

If you are THAT concerned, you will find alternatives...Like I did...

its funny how such strong supporters of "Rights" dont seem to give a crap about others "Rights" unless it appeases them.

You are either FOR rights, or you are against them...pick ONE.

[KahrMan]

its funny how such strong supporters of "Rights" dont seem to give a crap about others "Rights" unless it appeases them.

You are either FOR rights, or you are against them...pick ONE.

Well said Canynracer!

[E4 No More]

And you dont HAVE to put your property on theirs...

Where do you draw the line? it is their property, just like your driveway is YOURS...if you dont want a red car there, you can ban red cars..that is YOUR right as a property owner.

If you are THAT concerned, you will find alternatives...Like I did...

its funny how such strong supporters of "Rights" dont seem to give a crap about others "Rights" unless it appeases them.

You are either FOR rights, or you are against them...pick ONE.

Question: Do you think an employer's property rights supercede your right to life?

To me it's not a matter of picking one over the other. If you want to hold employers civily liable for the protection of their employees from the time that they leave for work to the time they get home, then I'm with you. But they aren't liable. Even if you are killed while on the clock it is covered by Workmen's Compensation Laws and insurance. So the guy's wife gets a percentage of his salary until she remarries or dies. Ask me how I know this. Security is there to control employee theft and reduce insurance premiums, and that's all.

Edited September 30, 2009 by SWJewellTN

[Guest canynracer]

Like I said...Make other arrangements...I did.

It is NOT picking one over the other, it is clear, they have the right to do what they want on their property.

Nobody is discussing security forces or liability...this is about you stepping on anothers rights because you feel yours are more important...nothing more, regardless of the reason.

I do NOT carry on my companies property, because i respect their right to ban...but I DO protect myself to and from work.... again, make arrangements.

[E4 No More]

Like I said...Make other arrangements...I did.

It is NOT picking one over the other, it is clear, they have the right to do what they want on their property.

Nobody is discussing security forces or liability...this is about you stepping on anothers rights because you feel yours are more important...nothing more, regardless of the reason.

I do NOT carry on my companies property, because i respect their right to ban...but I DO protect myself to and from work.... again, make arrangements.

Making other arrangements simply isn't possible for everyone, so your argument is unrealistic.

You have the right to free speech, but you don't have the right to falsely shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. In other words, your rights do not extend you the right to risk another's safety.

This can be debated all day long, and I don't think that it'll change anyone's opinion. The government will do what they want to do. I don't think that they have the right to regulate the toilet water in my house, but they certainly do.

[Guest canynracer]

Making other arrangements simply isn't possible for everyone, so your argument is unrealistic.

You have the right to free speech, but you don't have the right to falsely shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. In other words, your rights do not extend you the right to risk another's safety.

This can be debated all day long, and I don't think that it'll change anyone's opinion. The government will do what they want to do. I don't think that they have the right to regulate the toilet water in my house, but they certainly do.

EXACTLY!!!!! your rights cannot trample others rights!!!!

[E4 No More]

So you agree that an employer has no right to risk an employee's safety? You know...LIFE, Liberty, etc.

[Guest canynracer]

I agree with that..they do not have a right to risk my safety, they cant ask me to stand in front of a robber, or rapell off the roof to wash windows

...but they certainly DO have the right to say whats allowed on their property.

Not everyone thinks they need to carry a firearm for protection...in fact, I would venture to say the we (permit holders) are the minority for MOST of the companies that ban.

"your rights do not extend you the right to risk another's safety."

In the eyes of those that do not know, a gun risks their safety. regardless of what YOU or I think...

[Fallguy]

Individual rights always have the possibility of conflicting with each other. That is one of the reasons we have law, rules and regulations and such, right?

Hopefully those things try to take into account the greater good and the least intrusion/inconvenience on the most people.

Sort of like no one argues that you can smoke, that a property owner can control his property and those that want to be free from others smoke should be free from it. However the first and third can not always happen in the same place. One could think that simply the property owner exercising his control over his property could determine whether smoking would be allowed or not, however the government decided the greater good is served by not allowing smoking in most places. Apparently they also felt it less intrusive to stop smokers from smoking than making non-smokers put up with smoke. Also smoking can still allowed outside and/or in other situations (age restriction and so on) and that these were reasonable restrictions/infringements.

You have a HCP and the right to carry your handgun, but again a property owner can control his property....these things are going to conflict at times.

So my argument is that guns being allowed in parking lots (but not within the business) not only serves the good of HCP holders and potentially all gun owners when/if you car becomes an extension of your home, but also the good of all citizens in that your rights are protected as long as they do not unreasonable restrict another's rights.

...and I do believe that firearms being allowed in cars in the parking lot isn't an unreasonable infringement on the property owner's rights. It is not very intrusive or inconvenient, if at all.

But there is no way everyone will be happy on this.....so what serves the greater good and is the least intrusive/inconvenient? You have my thoughts above.

[Guest canynracer]

Individual rights always have the possibility of conflicting with each other. That is one of the reasons we have law, rules and regulations and such, right?

Hopefully those things try to take into account the greater good and the least intrusion/inconvenience on the most people.

Sort of like no one argues that you can smoke, that a property owner can control his property and those that want to be free from others smoke should be free from it. However the first and third can not always happen in the same place. One could think that simply the property owner exercising his control over his property could determine whether smoking would be allowed or not, however the government decided the greater good is served by not allowing smoking in most places. Apparently they also felt it less intrusive to stop smokers from smoking than making non-smokers put up with smoke. Also smoking can still allowed outside and/or in other situations (age restriction and so on) and that these were reasonable restrictions/infringements.

You have a HCP and the right to carry your handgun, but again a property owner can control his property....these things are going to conflict at times.

So my argument is that guns being allowed in parking lots (but not within the business) not only serves the good of HCP holders and potentially all gun owners when/if you car becomes an extension of your home, but also the good of all citizens in that your rights are protected as long as they do not unreasonable restrict another's rights.

...and I do believe that firearms being allowed in cars in the parking lot isn't an unreasonable infringement on the property owner's rights. It is not very intrusive or inconvenient, if at all.

But there is no way everyone will be happy on this.....so what serves the greater good and is the least intrusive/inconvenient? You have my thoughts above.

so who makes the call on what is "reasonable"

I can BET that the majority doesnt think it is "reasonable" to force employers to do anything on their property that they do not believe in. I certainly dont think it is.

I for one, would HATE to see the government able to tell me what I can and cannot allow on MY property, that I am paying the bills for, just because someone else disagrees with my view.

this is why they call it "Private Property"

Oh ...the smoking thing isnt a good analogy...as a smoker I can say that it certainly DOES affect those around me...so the "common good' thing is an easy one in that case.

Edited September 30, 2009 by canynracer

[E4 No More]

There are some local governments that have banned smoking in your own apartment. I believe that it was in Commiefornia where this happened.

Well stated Fallguy.

[E4 No More]

so who makes the call on what is "reasonable"

I can BET that the majority doesnt think it is "reasonable" to force employers to do anything on their property that they do not believe in. I certainly dont think it is.

I for one, would HATE to see the government able to tell me what I can and cannot allow on MY property, that I am paying the bills for, just because someone else disagrees with my view.

this is why they call it "Private Property"

Oh ...the smoking thing isnt a good analogy apples and oranges...as a smoker I can say that it certainly DOES affect those around me...so the "common good' thing is an easy one in that case.

Like I said, make the employer liable for the employee's safety and I'll have no problem with your stance. Rights come with responsibilities, and responsibilities come with consequences for failure to act responsibly.

[Guest canynracer]

The liability is not what the law is about...but I agree with you on that...I believe its BECAUSE of that liability that they do NOT allow firearms on their property.

but then again, look at the other side of that coin...do they then become responsible for lost or stolen items from your car as well??

[Fallguy]

so who makes the call on what is "reasonable"

Right or wrong, the government, by law.

I can BET that the majority doesnt think it is "reasonable" to force employers to do anything on their property that they do not believe in. I certainly dont think it is.

Sometimes a majority simply means more people or on the wrong side of an issue.

I for one, would HATE to see the government able to tell me what I can and cannot allow on MY property, that I am paying the bills for, just because someone else disagrees with my view.

this is why they call it "Private Property"

The government already tells us what we can and can not do on our property at least to some degree.

Oh ...the smoking thing isnt a good analogy...as a smoker I can say that it certainly DOES affect those around me...so the "common good' thing is an easy one in that case.

I wasn't trying to directly compare smoking and carrying a gun, more the thought process going into restricting/allowing each.

[E4 No More]

The liability is not what the law is about...but I agree with you on that...I believe its BECAUSE of that liability that they do NOT allow firearms on their property.

but then again, look at the other side of that coin...do they then become responsible for lost or stolen items from your car as well??

They aren't liable. Can you name one person who got more than what Workmen's Compensation gave them from a spouse's death? They aren't worried about law-suits; they are worried about their insurance rates and losses due to employee theft. If someone wants to go postal on your business you can post all the danged signs and make all the rules that you want to, but it won't make a difference at all.

Although I was an employer at one time I am not big on employer rights. I practiced what I preach: What was in my employee's vehicle was their business and their responsibility.

[Guest canynracer]

I hear ya Fallguy!!

Right or wrong, the government, by law.

yep, which is why voting is so important.

Sometimes a majority simply means more people or on the wrong side of an issue.

yes, but that other side can say the same about us.

The government already tells us what we can and can not do on our property at least to some degree.

exactly!! so why ASK them to do more? we either want a nanny state, or we dont.

I wasn't trying to directly compare smoking and carrying a gun, more the thought process going into restricting/allowing each.

gotchya!! my bad, sorry for the misunderstanding!

[Fallguy]

I hear ya Fallguy!!

yep, which is why voting is so important.

Agree totally

yes, but that other side can say the same about us.

Very true

exactly!! so why ASK them to do more? we either want a nanny state, or we dont.

I admit not much on nanny laws, but to that is when the government is trying to prevent me from doing something to myself....not sure that is 100% the case here, but I see what you are saying

gotchya!! my bad, sorry for the misunderstanding!

No problem

[Guest canynracer]

They aren't liable. Can you name one person who got more than what Workmen's Compensation gave them from a spouse's death? They aren't worried about law-suits; they are worried about their insurance rates and losses due to employee theft. If someone wants to go postal on your business you can post all the danged signs and make all the rules that you want to, but it won't make a difference at all.

Although I was an employer at one time I am not big on employer rights. I practiced what I preach: What was in my employee's vehicle was their business and their responsibility.

Again...the law in question is not about liability, or workmens comp, or insurance premiums...it is simply about FORCING SOMEONE TO DO SOMETHING THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH. whatever the reason as to WHY they disagree is irrelevant....

and if someone DID go postal in your business, your gun in your car is the last thing to worry about...if you get to your car, you should be driving away.