Parking Lot Bill Moving

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Fallguy

"So if the government can tell me I have to do business with certain people, even though not mentioned in the Consitution....I don't see it as a big intrusion for them to allow a firearm to be stored in a vehicle in the parking lot."

Well, I am sure liberals don't think taking gun rights away is a big deal either. It isn't only the bill, its what the bill gives the Gov the right to control. The only reason your supporting this is because it supports your personal beliefs, but what it also does is say Its ok to force personal beliefs on others. That can go both ways Left or Right. I would rather leave it be than give them a bigger opening for future control.

All it does is keep you from ransacking someone's car if you think he or she has a gun. That car is personal property.

What exactly is the right you expect to have? How is it infringing on your property rights? What are my personal

property rights? I don't see a better way to allow someone to protect himself while in transit to and from work than

this bill.

The states that have this have had no problems, whatsoever. It also requires one to have a permit to do it.

[thundersnow]

All it does is keep you from ransacking someone's car if you think he or she has a gun. That car is personal property.

What exactly is the right you expect to have? How is it infringing on your property rights? What are my personal

property rights? I don't see a better way to allow someone to protect himself while in transit to and from work than

this bill.

The states that have this have had no problems, whatsoever. It also requires one to have a permit to do it.

Well said sir...!

[Guest A10thunderbolt]

So if this bill is passed and I don't want someone (It could be an individual) on my property with access to a hand gun (There are people who are good workers but aren't someone you trust to be carefull with one) I can tell them not to bring one onto my property (ie my parking lot).

[Guest A10thunderbolt]

I know i'm taking a lot of flack for this but, I am just trying to understand what gives others the right to bring what they describe as their property onto my real property. Can someone back an RV in my parking lot and claim they have the right to live there because its their property?

[Guest A10thunderbolt]

BTW I am not entirely convinced one way or the other, it just irritates me when others dismiss an argument as CRAZY and say that its a media distraction. I think its a very valid argument. Business owners are not different from a private citizen.

Edited April 17, 2012 by A10thunderbolt

[Motasyco]

I know i'm taking a lot of flack for this but, I am just trying to understand what gives others the right to bring what they describe as their property onto my real property. Can someone back an RV in my parking lot and claim they have the right to live there because its their property?

You would have every right to have the RV owner remove their vehicle from your parking lot. What legally owned property they have in their RV is none of your business regardless of your decision to allow them to stay there or not.

[Fallguy]

I know i'm taking a lot of flack for this but, I am just trying to understand what gives others the right to bring what they describe as their property onto my real property. Can someone back an RV in my parking lot and claim they have the right to live there because its their property?

No....You can prevent the RV owner from parking there. Just like you can prevent anyone from parking a car there if you want. It's just that if you do let them park there, any property of theirs that remains in their vehicle shouldn't be any concern of yours.

This bill doesn't force anyone to allow parking where there isn't parking now. It just prevents actions being taken against someone that has a lawful item stored out of site in their vehicle in that parking space.

[Jonnin]

I am no good at this legal stuff. If the property rights thing is a valid argument, then, what other parts of the state and federal constitutions can property owners ignore upon demand? Can the property owner DO a search and seizure of the offending guns, because their property rights trump the second ammendment, so they also trump the fourth? Can they detain an individual without trial because the person said something the owner did not care for?? (first and seventh). ?????

I cannot make a leap that magically allows the suspension of the second without suspension of the others. But then again, I totally believe that it would be OK to make all liberals pay $500 to get a liscense to exercise free speech --- clearly that is also acceptable under our current legal system.

[GKar]

I heard an interesting take on this issue recently: I hate rap music. I wont allow anyone to play it on my property. But, do I also have a reasonable expectation of preventing them from having a rap CD (otherwise lawfully owned) in the CD sleeve on their sun visor?

[JAB]

So if this bill is passed and I don't want someone (It could be an individual) on my property with access to a hand gun (There are people who are good workers but aren't someone you trust to be carefull with one) I can tell them not to bring one onto my property (ie my parking lot).

If this bill were to pass then you could not tell them that they were forbidden from having a firearm inside their car when the car is parked in your parking lot. You could either tell them they can't park in your lot, period or allow them to park in your lot and accept that they might have a firearm secured, out of sight, in their vehicle. Further, you could still legally tell them that if they choose to store their firearm (private property) inside their car (private property) then it has to stay secured and out of sight inside their vehicle while their vehicle is on your property. You can tell them that they are not allowed to carry the firearm on their person while on your property - these bills do not change that. The way I see it, as long as THEIR gun is in THEIR car it is none of your business as their property is contained inside the boundaries of their property. In other words, to my mind your property rights do not apply within the boundaries/confines of their property. That is what the bill does from a practical standpoint although I don't think that is how it is worded (would be a lot simpler if it were, I believe.) Once the gun leaves the car, however, it is no longer contained inside their property and your property rights - including the right to prohibit the firearm - then apply. Of course, if that irresponsible employee has just decided that today is 'the day' then it really doesn't matter how many laws/rules prohibit him from having a firearm. Strangely enough, people who have decided to commit murder don't seem to really care that it is against 'the rules' for them to have a firearm in a particular location.

To me, this whole issue simply underlines the sorry state of relationships between employee and employer in our day and age. First, it seems that many employers are more concerned about a perceived, slight 'infringement' of (non-existent, IMO) property rights than about whether or not their employees can be adequately equipped for self defense on their journey to and from work. Secondly, it shows that some employers seem to think that the term 'employee' equals 'slave' - the employer wants to run the employee's entire life, control parts of the employee's life even when he or she isn't at work, hold dominion over the employee's own, private property and strip the employee of his or her rights while he or she is at work (or, in some cases, even when he or she isn't at work.) Of course, the same employer wants to reserve the right to kick said employee to the curb as soon as 'the bottom line' indicates that such a move is best. There is no loyalty by most employers to their employees any more yet so many employers whine about the lack of employee loyalty - as if they expect employees to be loyal to companies who treat employees as cogs in a wheel, not human beings with both natural and Constitutional rights of their own.

Edited April 17, 2012 by JAB

[Guest A10thunderbolt]

You may be moving me in you direction, I still don't like the fact we have to get the Gov involved. I believe there will always be two kinds of employers, good and bad, I think one of the things that could make this country better would be more small company's, who employ close groups of people. If you treat others around you with respect and are a hard worker, you then you would always have a way to get a good job. My Grandpa always said "Life is a crap shoot but consistent hard work will fix it in your favor" Part of the problem is also with people who work, its not enough to just show up, they should be there to grow the Co not just put a paycheck in there pockets and go home after 8Hrs. Good workers are hard to find, but I will say this if you run a Co and you get a good worker PAY THEM!!!! You always get what you pay for.

I am officially on the fence. P.S. I hate the fact I cant make rules for some employees and not others based on their attitude.

[JAB]

...I still don't like the fact we have to get the Gov involved.

That is too bad but if certain (many) employers didn't insist on trying to control aspects of employees' lives and property that they should really have no right to control then it would not be necessary.

[Guest A10thunderbolt]

Company's do what is financially best for themselves( I for one am glad my company makes wise decisions), larger Company's are at great risk for lawsuits, that are tolerated by our Gov, so it all falls on the gov once again, as well as the ignorant people who jump to sue and form unions.

[Guest mds3d]

A10thunderbolt:

Since you brought up lawsuits...  There is no evidence that this bill will increase a company's liability, and as far as I am aware there have been not lawsuits in any other states pertaining to the passing of a "parking lot bill"

BTW my family classifies as Business owners.  I would not trust all of our employees with a gun.  However, we see no reason for us to restrict the contents of their cars, or even their right to carry.

This bill is more likely to protect a company from liability than it is to increase it.  Defending yourself because you have no control over what is in an employee's car would be much easier than explaining why your restriction was not enforced.

[Guest A10thunderbolt]

I believe you are.............RIGHT!!!!

[Guest Gunbunnie]

It may not fly, but if I was assaulted on my way to or from work, I would sue the company I worked for because they removed my right to selfdefence. This bill would allow me to able to defend myself to and form work without the fear of losing my job.

[Guest mcgyver210]

It may not fly, but if I was assaulted on my way to or from work, I would sue the company I worked for because they removed my right to selfdefence. This bill would allow me to able to defend myself to and form work without the fear of losing my job.

I agree 100% & I also think any property owner that post should be able to be held liable for creating an unsafe environment with inadequate protections if someone is hurt while deprived of their ability to protect themselves.

[Wheelgunner]

I don't understand. How does the employer even know there's a gun in the employee's car in the first place? How does the employee know that's prohibited? It's not like this stuff comes up in your average hiring interview.

"That's great, Bill. Based on your experience and references I'm sure you'll fit right in here. By the way, I know you've said absolutely nothing about firearms and that our conversation is completely unrelated to them, but I thought I'd let you know that our company policy prohibits legal handgun carry permit holders from storing a handgun in the trunk of a car while parked on company property. So do you have a handgun in the trunk of your car on company property? No? Fine, fine. Well, when are you available to start work?"

[Fallguy]

In 9 situations out of 10 an employer probably would never know if you had a firearm in your car....but then there is always that 1.

As far as knowing the policy...in many places you receive some type of employee handbook and/or sign something saying you have read and understand (although you probably don't either) all the companies policies...

[Sternen]

In 9 situations out of 10 an employer probably would never know....

More like 999 out of 1000.

[Fallguy]

More like 999 out of 1000.

Yeah...

[R_Bert]

Yep. Just don't speak of your hobby, shooting interests, NRA membership, hunting or other firearms related interest, and the employer will never suspect a thing. oh...too late. nevermind!

The last thing my former employer did was ask to search my car.

Edited May 4, 2012 by R_Bert