Employers Requiring The Right to Search Your Vehicle

[KahrMan]

You have to hang-up a handicap sign, don't you? I am legally handicapped, but let's say that I wasn't handicapped and didn't want wheelchairs on my property. How do you think that'd fly?

 

I have already said disabilities are not the same. You do not choose to be disabled.

Edited January 10, 2013 by KahrMan

[KahrMan]

3. Government has a role and a responsibility to see that the rights of all are protected as much as possible while concurrently infringing on those rights as little as possible...that's why we have "noise ordinances" and zoning laws and may other restrictions/rules/requirements; a "guns in parking lot" bill is no different in concept or legality than your city telling you that you can't open a livestock slaughterhouse in your back yard in a residential area.

 

Not quite the same.  Noise and livestock or slaughterhouse would effect your neighbors.  That is more to protect your bordering property owners.  Me being able to limit the inanimate objects I allow on my property has no effect on bordering property owners.

[KahrMan]

I hope you don't ever want something like nitroglycerin or methamphetamine on your property.

 

Let's have a hypothetical here: If you didn't want guns on your business and wanted to exercise a search of an employee's vehicle, are your going to apply that to your customers too?

 

First off let me state I have no problem with my employees carrying.  Now as to your hypothetical.  If I was against guns in my business i would not search my employees vehicle and here is why.  I would not hire someone unless I thought I could trust them.  If they agree to my hiring conditions then they have my trust until proven otherwise.  I would have no reason to search them or their vehicle.  As for customers, I would not search them either.  If I saw a gun I would simply ask them to leave.

[RobertNashville]

Not quite the same. Noise and livestock or slaughterhouse would effect your neighbors. That is more to protect your bordering property owners. Me being able to limit the inanimate objects I allow on my property has no effect on bordering property owners.

You can call it not the same but that isn't the point. The point is the government has both a right and the responsibility to regulate property.

Sometimes, it is for the benefit of neighboring property. Sometimes, it's for the best interests of society.

I would probably come down on the side of property owners if they could offer a reasonable/logical reason(s) for their opposition but they have not (And I don't think they can) Edited January 10, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Guest 6.8 AR]

But you are only referring to one type of property and not the other. Real property is not the test. Please show me where it

says real property in regards to this anywhere in the Constitution. There is a contradiction when arguing real property over

one's personal property. In cases of the use of the word "infringement", the use of real property alone would be one. The

parking lot bill would only aid in an employee being able to protect himself during transit and store his weapon without fear

of punishment from a "real" property owner or lessee, whichever the case may be. That's another can of worms, the leasing

of said property. Do you really want to take it there?

 

I don't think the substance of the bill is for anything other than storing it in your "personal" property, which is your car.

 

Also, other states have had this legislation enacted without any problems.

Edited January 10, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[E4 No More]

First off let me state I have no problem with my employees carrying.  Now as to your hypothetical.  If I was against guns in my business i would not search my employees vehicle and here is why.  I would not hire someone unless I thought I could trust them.  If they agree to my hiring conditions then they have my trust until proven otherwise.  I would have no reason to search them or their vehicle.  As for customers, I would not search them either.  If I saw a gun I would simply ask them to leave.

"First off let me state I have no problem with my employees carrying." - I know; I saw that you said that earlier. It's kind of hard to discuss this topic on a gun forum because we are kind of "preaching to the choir" so to speak.

 

Trust? Therein lies a big part of the issue, but not all. The vast majority of employers do not trust their employees for various reasons of which some are quite justified. For instance, employees steal more from a business than customers. Some of the causality is brought on from the employer their self. You sort of hinted at the root of it earlier when you said that it's your way or the highway at the business. What if your way is being a complete A-hole to your employees? Yes, you'll argue the "they can just find another job" cop-out that is frequently cited by several others on this forum, but life doesn't work that way. Some people feel trapped by an employer because of various real or imagined circumstances.

 

When I was much younger trying to support my wife and three kids pouring concrete foundations I worked for an employer who thought that paying people to do a job entitled him to treat them nearly as slaves. With me being the exception, he employed people that have seen the wrong side of a jail house door. He would come on the job site calling us every name in the book and constantly threatening us. He worked us 60-70 hours a week without paying overtime and only allowed a half hour break each day. You didn't dare stop to take a leak or a drink of water when he was on the site unless it was during that half hour break, and it didn't matter if it was 100 degrees with 95% relative humidity at the time. I imagine that fellow wouldn't want guns anywhere around the job in the event that he pissed-off the wrong person.

 

My wife worked in an extremely hostile work environment for 9.5 years at Ingram Entertainment in LaVergne. My wife is really passive, (unless you threaten her children), so she dealt with it: however, there was one woman who worked there who cracked. She brought-in a large butcher's knife for "cutting her lunch" but was overheard mumbling to herself that she was going to kill one of the female bosses, (the VP of credit), that facilitated/contributed to the hostile work environment. Fortunately, they got her out of the building before she did anything, but I'm sure that employer wouldn't want guns in the parking lot either. Fortunately for my wife they laid her off, and it wasn't until she got a job elsewhere that she realized just how hostile and stressful the old employer was.

 

"Bad boss" stories are extremely common, and I would argue that many corporations know who they are and allow them to continue because they think that said bosses are productive, or that they "leave their managers free to manage" and thus wash their hands of it. In my wife's case the latter is the tact that the owner of Ingram Entertainment used when he was made aware of the situation. Anyway, I'm sure that they don't "trust" their employees either.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

"Sometimes, it's for the best interests of society."

This part I can't handle because when you cede your rights as an individual, you presume society knows better than you. Our

track record of political class doesn't very often know what society. The 2nd Amendment was decided as being a part of society.

That's just not valid. As a matter of fact, it is too Utopian for me.

[KahrMan]

"First off let me state I have no problem with my employees carrying." - I know; I saw that you said that earlier. It's kind of hard to discuss this topic on a gun forum because we are kind of "preaching to the choir" so to speak.

 

Trust? Therein lies a big part of the issue, but not all. The vast majority of employers do not trust their employees for various reasons of which some are quite justified. For instance, employees steal more from a business than customers. Some of the causality is brought on from the employer their self. You sort of hinted at the root of it earlier when you said that it's your way or the highway at the business. What if your way is being a complete A-hole to your employees? Yes, you'll argue the "they can just find another job" cop-out that is frequently cited by several others on this forum, but life doesn't work that way. Some people feel trapped by an employer because of various real or imagined circumstances.

 

When I was much younger trying to support my wife and three kids pouring concrete foundations I worked for an employer who thought that paying people to do a job entitled him to treat them nearly as slaves. With me being the exception, he employed people that have seen the wrong side of a jail house door. He would come on the job site calling us every name in the book and constantly threatening us. He worked us 60-70 hours a week without paying overtime and only allowed a half hour break each day. You didn't dare stop to take a leak or a drink of water when he was on the site unless it was during that half hour break, and it didn't matter if it was 100 degrees with 95% relative humidity at the time. I imagine that fellow wouldn't want guns anywhere around the job in the event that he pissed-off the wrong person.

 

My wife worked in an extremely hostile work environment for 9.5 years at Ingram Entertainment in LaVergne. My wife is really passive, (unless you threaten her children), so she dealt with it: however, there was one woman who worked there who cracked. She brought-in a large butcher's knife for "cutting her lunch" but was overheard mumbling to herself that she was going to kill one of the female bosses, (the VP of credit), that facilitated/contributed to the hostile work environment. Fortunately, they got her out of the building before she did anything, but I'm sure that employer wouldn't want guns in the parking lot either. Fortunately for my wife they laid her off, and it wasn't until she got a job elsewhere that she realized just how hostile and stressful the old employer was.

 

"Bad boss" stories are extremely common, and I would argue that many corporations know who they are and allow them to continue because they think that said bosses are productive, or that they "leave their managers free to manage" and thus wash their hands of it. In my wife's case the latter is the tact that the owner of Ingram Entertainment used when he was made aware of the situation. Anyway, I'm sure that they don't "trust" their employees either.

So I should have to give up some control over my property because other bosses are assholes???

[RobertNashville]

"Sometimes, it's for the best interests of society."

This part I can't handle because when you cede your rights as an individual, you presume society knows better than you. Our

track record of political class doesn't very often know what society. The 2nd Amendment was decided as being a part of society.

That's just not valid. As a matter of fact, it is too Utopian for me.

I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly here or for that matter, "who" you are actually replying to - anyway, I've used that phrase in this thread so I'll assume it's me. :)

 

When I said "in the best interests of society" I had something very specific in mind...our (TN) constitution specifically gives power to and instructs the state to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.  I would suggest that "preventing crime" IS in the best interests of society and we understand that and history proves that more guns really does mean less crime. Therefore, the state has both the permission and the responsibility to do what it can to promote the wearing of arms and to remove restrictions to the same.

 

That's why I said that, in this intance, legislation such as this "parking lot bill" is in the best interest of society; especially when opponents don't seem able to present a valid argument against the idea other than "it's my property/my rules" sort of argument.

 

Clear as mud, right?  :)

Edited January 10, 2013 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

So I should have to give up some control over my property because other bosses are assholes???

You are "giving up control" only in your own mind.

You don't and should not have any control over the contents of a vehicle you don't own. The only exception to that would be if you believe the contents are illegal (in which case you should contact law enforcement so they can do their job).  Further, the courts have already decided that this alleged infringement on "property rights" argument is without merit because no employer who has sued over this type of legislation has been able to present rational case for how "their property rights" are actually being infringed.

 

Unless you've got something in your quiver better than "my property my rules" I'd say your reason for opposition is without any real foundation.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Pretty close to partly cloudy. :D I won't be lengthy on this one.  The role of government, where preventing crime is concerned,

does no good to society when it restricts the rights of one to protect himself to and from his workplace, while granting so-called

real property owners exclusivity over personal property owners, leaving the whole other argument of company and money

aside. I'm just calling it what it really is: an infringement. In other words, I don't trust government very much in regards to its regards

towards society in general. It has a very bad record on society as a whole.

 

And for these people who say this is a right to work state, that they can fire you for anything, is bogus. A nonstarter.

 

Actually, Robert, all the parking lot bill does is attempt to give a little back where it should have never been taken, in the first place.

 

I think we're just agreeing with each other without admitting it. :D

Edited January 10, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[RobertNashville]

Pretty close to partly cloudy. :D I won't be lengthy on this one.  The role of government, where preventing crime is concerned,

does no good to society when it restricts the rights of one to protect himself to and from his workplace, while granting so-called

real property owners exclusivity over personal property owners, leaving the whole other argument of company and money

aside. I'm just calling it what it really is: an infringement. In other words, I don't trust government very much in regards to its regards

towards society in general. It has a very bad record on society as a whole.

 

And for these people who say this is a right to work state, that they can fire you for anything, is bogus. A nonstarter.

 

Actually, Robert, all the parking lot bill does is attempt to give a little back where it should have never been taken, in the first place.

 

I think we're just agreeing with each other without admitting it. :D

Yeah...I think we are too and yes, this is really just restoring something that should never have been taken in the first place.

 

A little over a year ago, I retired from one of the largest corporations in the work who has a major presence in Tennessee and is one of the major opponents to this legislation. They never posted their parking lots; just had a company policy which of course, only employees could know about (visitors had no restrictions on them since the property wasn't posted). The funny thing is, this "policy" was put into place with no warning and no explanation and this after there had been no policy for almost twenty years...suddenly, they didn't want firearms in vehicles anymore!  It affected a lot of people; not just those who carried to/from work but lots of people who did things like hunt, skeet shoot, etc. after work and/or before work.

 

As I had mentioned above, if these businesses could present a rational, logical reason for not allowing firearms in vehicles while parked I'd probably come down on the side of the property owner/business but I've yet to hear one (and I've been looking). ;)

[Dennis1209]

Here's my view point, as if it matters. I may not like it or agree with it but...

 

In my previous employment before I retired, I had to sign a "condition of employment" contract. That contract outlined some do's and don'ts of continued employment, which I wanted to remain employed so I followed it. One of the requirements was not in the condition of employment but, as a Federal employee, a federal regulation, no guns on federal property, period.

 

Had it been in a "condition of employment" contract, I would have still honored it, as I was employed and paid to abide by my performance, contract and conduct.

 

My solution was to not park on government property. I worked in a very high crime area and was subject to call out when I had to pass crack corners and street gangs prowling around in plain sight.

 

The need to support my family out weighed the potential threat to myself or getting fired. Everyone needs to make their own choice, risk / reward type of thing.

[Guest carter]

Sooner or later someone with a HCP is going to get murdered on their way to or from the office, and their family members are going to sue the living shit out of the employer for prohibiting the deceased from being able to have their legally possessed handgun in the car at the time.  When that happens, I hope the employer is bent over and their bank account is reamed out properly by the court system.

 

That is the only way this is going to change.  Until it does, we're all pissing in the wind with our hopes and dreams because TN's legislature isn't going to side with anyone other than the big tax payers.  i.e. Corporations.

 

for that matter...same can be said on your person at work...if you work in a high risk position for instance...in a hospital... and you have armed certified guards but the CEO will not let them carry a side arm... and someone comes in the place and starts shooting at will... 

[TMF]

Eh, I think that any employer could lend a good argument to restrict guns on their property. From the law abiding carrier, obviously it will not prevent workplace shootings since the employee doing the shooting probably isn't worried about being fired for ignoring the policy. However, the argument can be made regarding negligent discharges being a liability. Many of us here have witnessed an ND at one time or another. I actually knew a guy who accidentally shot another guy in the parking lot where he worked! So I think it IS relevant for an employer to make that call due to liability. After all, if one employee shoots another employee by accident, who do you think is going to end up paying the bill? I'll give you a hint, things don't work the way it should in our money grubbing litigious society.

Now, the other side of the coin is the employer searching your vehicle. I don't see how that should be legal. What is the difference between searching your vehicle or your person, or perhaps your phone? Should your employer get to look through your phone for nudie pictures of your wife or else you're fired? How about looking through your car? If he can look through your vehicle under the pretense that it is on his property and therefore he has a right to do so, shouldn't he also have the right to search a customer's vehicle? I realize that isn't going to happen, but the precedent is still the same, only the employee will lose his job if he refuses. Is there a difference? I don't think there is.

So I guess what I'm saying is the employer has a right to restrict guns on his property. Don't like it? Then park offsite, get a different job or suck it up. Carrying a gun isn't covered under any EO laws and it never will be.

Employers should have no right to search an employee or his vehicle. If they have probable cause they should call the Popo; that's why we have police, after all. Edited January 11, 2013 by TMF

[DaveTN]

Now, the other side of the coin is the employer searching your vehicle. I don't see how that should be legal. What is the difference between searching your vehicle or your person, or perhaps your phone?

They can search your person or cell phone. My wife works in food processing, they don’t allow jewelry, cell phones, etc. on the floor that can fall in the food. I’m sure places that handle sensitive data have polices against carry any kind of media, including a cell phone, that could be used for transporting data. I’m sure there are places that ban cameras.

In those cases the company would search your person or your cell phone. If you refused they would simply fire you.

We have Police to deal with crime; the Police are not going to be involved if a crime has not been committed or if the employer doesn’t want to press charges if one was committed. But that doesn’t mean you can carry anything you like onto a business owners property just because it isn’t against the law.

This whole problem can be stopped by adding absolute immunity for the business if there is a shooting on their property. Of course no one wants to do that. If Bubba shoots Bill Bob in the parking lot while showing him his new handgun, Billy Bob of course deserves a payday, and since Bubba doesn’t have anything he needs to get his pay day from the business.
 

Employers should have no right to search an employee or his vehicle. If they have probable cause they should call the Popo; that's why we have police, after all.

We have Police to deal with crime; the Police are not going to be involved if a crime has not been committed or if the employer doesn’t want to press charges if one was committed. But that doesn’t mean you can carry anything you like onto a business owners property just because it isn’t against the law.

This whole problem can be stopped by adding absolute immunity for the business if there is a shooting on their property. Of course no one wants to do that. If Bubba shoots Billy Bob in the parking lot while showing him his new handgun, Billy Bob of course deserves a payday, and since Bubba doesn’t have anything he needs to get his pay day from the business.

[Worriedman]

This whole problem can be stopped by adding absolute immunity for the business if there is a shooting on their property.

 

Vernacular from the Bill last year:

 

(d)  No property owner shall be held liable in any civil action for damages, injuries, or death resulting from, or arising out of, another person’s actions involving a firearm or ammunition including, but not limited to, the theft of a firearm or ammunition from a person's motor vehicle on the property of the property owner if the action of the property owner or failure to act was due to the property owner's compliance with this section.

 

(e)  No public employer or official or private employer shall be held liable in any civil action for damages, injuries, or death resulting from, or arising out of, another person’s actions involving a firearm or ammunition if the employer's or official's action or failure to act was due to the employer's or official's compliance with this section.

About as absolute as it could be written.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Worriedman

[E4 No More]

So I should have to give up some control over my property because other bosses are assholes???

1. You already have given up control of your property. The government has controlled our property for many decades now.

 

2. I was just illustrating why many employers fear guns in cars.

 

Also, no business owner has given a reasonable argument as to why their property rights override the property rights of the employee. We have the right to free speach, but we don't have the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater, for instance. There's also the fact that the vast majority of businesses do not own their property; banks and financing agencies own it. Even fortune 50 companies right here in Nashville lease their property rather than own it. They do this for the tax breaks.

 

EDIT: I will add that I was once a small business owner, and as such I still considered the employee's vehicle to be their property; not mine, and as long as what was in their vehicle parked on "my" property was legal I didn't concern myself with it. I never even considered searching their car or person because that is what the LEO's are for. Hiring employees is not a favor to them, (as some on this forum clearly believe); it was a favor to myself because the employee freed me to do other things that generated income. I would not have hired an employee that I did not need, and if they did not fulfill that need then they were gone to be replaced by someone who would fulfill it.

Edited January 11, 2013 by SWJewellTN

[RobertNashville]

Eh, I think that any employer could lend a good argument to restrict guns on their property. From the law abiding carrier, obviously it will not prevent workplace shootings since the employee doing the shooting probably isn't worried about being fired for ignoring the policy. However, the argument can be made regarding negligent discharges being a liability. Many of us here have witnessed an ND at one time or another. I actually knew a guy who accidentally shot another guy in the parking lot where he worked! So I think it IS relevant for an employer to make that call due to liability. After all, if one employee shoots another employee by accident, who do you think is going to end up paying the bill? I'll give you a hint, things don't work the way it should in our money grubbing litigious society.

Now, the other side of the coin is the employer searching your vehicle. I don't see how that should be legal. What is the difference between searching your vehicle or your person, or perhaps your phone? Should your employer get to look through your phone for nudie pictures of your wife or else you're fired? How about looking through your car? If he can look through your vehicle under the pretense that it is on his property and therefore he has a right to do so, shouldn't he also have the right to search a customer's vehicle? I realize that isn't going to happen, but the precedent is still the same, only the employee will lose his job if he refuses. Is there a difference? I don't think there is.

So I guess what I'm saying is the employer has a right to restrict guns on his property. Don't like it? Then park offsite, get a different job or suck it up. Carrying a gun isn't covered under any EO laws and it never will be.

Employers should have no right to search an employee or his vehicle. If they have probable cause they should call the Popo; that's why we have police, after all.

If they can present a good argument they've certainly failed to do so; both in Tennessee and in numerous courtrooms.

I'm certainly not saying that there can't be problems but such as NDs, etc have not been experienced in the many states that have had such legislation in place for many years now. Perhaps more to the point, many of the large businesses that opposed this legislation already operate facilities in states that have this legislation in place and they've not had any problems. And, so long as the law is written to exempt property owners from liability in the event of such problems then their objection on that basis is moot.

[TMF]

[quote name="RobertNashville" post="882004" timestamp="1357947076"]And, so long as the law is written to exempt property owners from liability in the event of such problems then their objection on that basis is moot.[/quote] Sure, I guess that neutralizes the argument against it if the law in that state addresses it. I'd still fall on the side of business though in regard to what they say they can have on their property, but do not agree with them having the ability to search your vehicle as a condition of employment. Perhaps that would be the best of both worlds. A meaningless policy that says you can't have a gun in your car with no teeth to enforce said policy. Employers get to feel empowered and employees get to keep their guns.

[Guest carter]

my 2 cents...

 

i think its a liability issue... just like all these gun buster signs... i haven't searched but is there a law on the books that says the business is free and clear of any law suits if a shooting happens and there was a HCP holder in the business at the time that was forced to leave there gun in there car that could of prevented them from protecting them selves? 

 

it's one out weighs the other... it is probably more of a liability for them to allow it verses the chance of it happening...sort of a gamble

 

i talked with a previous security manager at my place of work (( for some reason they don't last more than a year before getting fired ))... our officers are unarmed but some of the shift supervisors are required to have an armed license... he said if someone where to walk in and start shooting and i was injured or even killed that the business could be sued for failing to provide proper protection for me... same goes with HCP holders... I'm sure they can sue for not being able to protect them selves... and that place did not provide adequate protection...

[Dolomite_supafly]

 We have the right to free speach,

 
Not on private property. A private property owner or their agent can dictate what you say, and how you say it, while on their property.

 

A private property owner can also set conditions on what you can and cannot do while on their property not related to speech. As a condition of being on their private property the owner or agent can mandate you wear a pink tutu and carry a Nerf gun for self defense. You have no right to do anything on private property unless the owner or agent allow you to.

 

It is the property owner, not you, that determines you to say or do what you want on their property. And if you don't follow it you will be asked to leave and if you do not you will be arrested.

 

The Ammendments are there to protect you from abuses by the government. They are not there to protect you from private entities like private property owners.

 

Dolomite

[Guest carter]

 
Not on private property. A private property owner or their agent can dictate what you say, and how you say it, while on their property.

 

A private property owner can also set conditions on what you can and cannot do while on their property not related to speech. As a condition of being on their private property the owner or agent can mandate you wear a pink tutu and carry a Nerf gun for self defense. You have no right to do anything on private property unless the owner or agent allow you to.

 

It is the property owner, not you, that determines you to say or do what you want on their property. And if you don't follow it you will be asked to leave and if you do not you will be arrested.

 

The Ammendments are there to protect you from abuses by the government. They are not there to protect you from private entities like private property owners.

 

Dolomite

 

but in that case....does that not put a liability on the property owner if they do not provide adequate protection to you? i mean people can sue for coffee being hot...who knew coffee was served hot  :shrug: 

[Worriedman]

 
Not on private property.  A private property owner or their agent can dictate what you say, and how you say it, while on their property.

You might check PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 100 S.Ct. 2035, 64 L.Ed.2d 741 (1980). 

 

In PruneYard, California's constitutional protection of free speech rights prevented owners of a private shopping center from prohibiting the circulation of petitions on the owner's property. Despite the fact that individuals circulating petitions may have physically invaded the owner's property, the Supreme Court held that California's requirement that property owners recognize state-protected rights of free expression and petition clearly [did] not amount to an unconstitutional infringement of appellants' property rights under the Takings Clause.

 

Ownership of a static piece of land does not convey unbridled ability to enforce ANY issue so chosen by the owner. Laws that fall under public chapters e.g. TCA Code, must be obeyed regardless of who owns the property.  Just because someone trespasses, the owner is not allowed to shoot them, which would be allowable if absolute control of property were assigned via possession. 

 

http://www.shrm.org/Advocacy/Issues/WorkplaceSafety/Documents/OK%20WEAPONS%20JUDGMENT%2010TH%20CIR.pdf

 

Edited January 15, 2013 by Worriedman

[Dolomite_supafly]

Anyone can sue. I can sue a member here for not putting a period at the end of a sentence in their post. It does not mean they will win. Please define "adequate".

 

So let me get this straight. We are going to blame someone other than the person who committed the crime? If you invite me over and while I walk across your yard I get hit by a car driven by a drunk driver, is it your fault? Under your way of thinking it sure is because you didn't put up barriers to provide me with "adequate" protection from being run over or allow me to put up barriers for my own protection.

 

I have actually wrote my representatives requesting property owners assume liability if they don't allow a person to carry when a crime could have been prevented through the use of a firearm. I have even wrote in support of the parking lot bill. And I believed in both very strongly (you are more than welcome to go search because I have posted my support here). Then several on here took it as meaning if they were executing their Second Ammendment right they could come on anyone's property they wanted. One even said he could come on my property at anytime he wanted and do anything he wanted with my property because his Second Ammendment right trumped my rights as a private property owner. That is when I decided to side with property owners 100% of the time. No one is going to come onto my property and do something I do not allow them to do.

 

If you don't like the conditions set forth by the property owner then don't go on the property. And if you do then you assume the risks of folowing the conditions set forth by the property owners.

 

Laws dictate how we as private entities interact, not ammendments.

 

Dolomite