What Georgia's 'Extreme' New Gun Law Allows

[homeagain]

On several occasions I've seen employers hide flat-out racial discrimination behind "At Will" employment, so not the best of points with me.

 

Yup, they do that.  Even before Title VII of CRA1964 they did that.  They'll still do that.  If someone is wrongfully terminated based on membership in a protected class, can establish a relationship between the adverse employment action and membership in a protected class, and the employer can show no valid business reason for the adverse employment action, or the claimant can show pretext.....well, the claimant just may win some money.  Complexity abounds, so simply having the gubment tell us we can't fire someone  for something that isn't already a protected class doesn't serve well by and large.    

[homeagain]

So, wait.....we are for less government intrusion unless the government intrusion serves our particular interests?  Sounds inconsistent to me.

[E4 No More]

So, wait.....we are for less government intrusion unless the government intrusion serves our particular interests?  Sounds inconsistent to me.

You're right; why do we need a government at all?

[homeagain]

Yuup and no employer should have the power to control the contents of a privately owned vehicle any more than the contents of someone's home (or someone's mind).  Further, we aren't just talking about employer's with this issue either...we are talking about parking lots where the public (be they customers or employees) is/are invited to be. 

 

Could you extend that argument to lockers on employer premises?  Not sure how mind control gets introduced here.  Or, home for that matter, as most employees aren't likely to bring their house to work with them and park it in the employer's lot.  But most employers in question own the parking lot.  I just don't see how government intrusion on how an individual or entity rules its own property (as long as it doesn't violate  laws) does any good.

[E4 No More]

Could you extend that argument to lockers on employer premises?  Not sure how mind control gets introduced here.  Or, home for that matter, as most employees aren't likely to bring their house to work with them and park it in the employer's lot.  But most employers in question own the parking lot.  I just don't see how government intrusion on how an individual or entity rules its own property (as long as it doesn't violate  laws) does any good.

I think that he was referring to an employer claiming intellectual property of an employee's idea even when the idea did not occur at work, but I could be wrong.

[homeagain]

You're right; why do we need a government at all?

 

I do agree government should be smaller, provide fewer 'services,' and fulfill its narrowly-designed role.  It's also interesting to me that the same individuals who say the Fed should stay out of the State purview, and the State should defer to local goverments are often the same persons saying the State should step in and dictate employer actions further than has already been done by the Fed.....as long as it serves their narrow interests.  Same bunch that would get bent out of shape if the state were to overstep authority.

Edited April 28, 2014 by homeagain

[homeagain]

I think that he was referring to an employer claiming intellectual property of an employee's idea even when the idea did not occur at work, but I could be wrong.

Ah.  could be.  That happens, too.  Problem is employers are composed of people, and we all know that in general, people suck.  :2cents:

 

Anywho, we're probably all gonna continue to disagree on points here, so rather than continue to 'jack the thread I'm a gonna shaddap now.

Edited April 28, 2014 by homeagain

[RobertNashville]

Could you extend that argument to lockers on employer premises?  Not sure how mind control gets introduced here.  Or, home for that matter, as most employees aren't likely to bring their house to work with them and park it in the employer's lot.  But most employers in question own the parking lot.  I just don't see how government intrusion on how an individual or entity rules its own property (as long as it doesn't violate  laws) does any good.

The "good" is that those who can otherwise legally possess and transport arms for their protection (or any other reason) can do so and not have to travel without the protection such arms offer.  Contrast that "good" with the absolute lack of any demonstrable infringement to the entity that owns the parking lot and the logic of laws that protect the contents of a person's vehicle is obvious.  Further, in many states a person's vehicle IS considered as much their "home" as the physical structure they call "home".

 

As to the "lockers"; there is a difference and an obvious one between a person's vehicle and the vehicle's contents sitting in a public parking lot and vs a "locker" that is both not the individual's property and situated not in a parking lot but (presumably) inside of the business's physical building(s).  The government telling the parking lot owner that they cannot dictate what can be in a person's vehicle is in no way an infringement on the parking lot owner's "right" (which is what the courts have held). The bottom line is that none of the businesses that have sued over this issue of firearms in vehicles in parking lots have ever been able to demonstrate how they are harmed and/or their rights infringed by these laws - I would suggest that is because there simply is no real infringement and if there is no infringement then all the angst about the parking lot owner's "rights" is what my Dad used to call "cat's fur".

 

That said, I fear this thread is getting far off course...these laws don't even effect those in Tennessee...have a nice day!

[Worriedman]

Could you extend that argument to lockers on employer premises? 

Castle Doctrine does not extend to lockers, it does to vehicles.

[JayC]

I'm not telling anybody to quit their job...  I'm saying we're all adults here, and as an adult you have to make choices...  and the choice to stay in a job where they prohibit you from having a firearm in your car.. is still your choice.

 

The 2nd amendment prohibits the government (both state and federal) from infringing on your rights to own and carry a firearm...  and the State of TN as well as the Federal government are still doing a lot to infringe of those rights.  

 

The 2nd amendment does not control interactions between consenting adults, which is what the employer/employee relationship is....

 

As a community we should be focusing on interactions with government and how they infringe on our 2nd amendment rights...  such as prohibiting carry at the capital, in city and county parks, places where we vote, universities and colleges, schools, and other government buildings not housing prisoners....  

 

Instead we're focused on dividing the conservative community over controlling the scope of government...  by trying to increase the scope of government to include a new protected class of worker.

 

It's not inline with the principles most of us believe in, and it hurts us getting other legislation through which would limit the size and scope of government, and have better support among other conservatives.

 

I think it's pretty facile for a self-employed person to suggest to someone who is not self-employed that they quit their job when they do not know what's going on in that person's life that affects his/her decisions. Not everyone can be self-employed, and there are way too many unemployed at this time.

Edited April 29, 2014 by JayC

[E4 No More]

I'm not telling anybody to quit their job...  I'm saying we're all adults here, and as an adult you have to make choices...  and the choice to stay in a job where they prohibit you from having a firearm in your car.. is still your choice.

 

The 2nd amendment prohibits the government (both state and federal) from infringing on your rights to own and carry a firearm...  and the State of TN as well as the Federal government are still doing a lot to infringe of those rights.  

 

The 2nd amendment does not control interactions between consenting adults, which is what the employer/employee relationship is....

 

As a community we should be focusing on interactions with government and how they infringe on our 2nd amendment rights...  such as prohibiting carry at the capital, in city and county parks, places where we vote, universities and colleges, schools, and other government buildings not housing prisoners....  

 

Instead we're focused on dividing the conservative community over controlling the scope of government...  by trying to increase the scope of government to include a new protected class of worker.

 

It's not inline with the principles most of us believe in, and it hurts us getting other legislation through which would limit the size and scope of government, and have better support among other conservatives.

 

You mention the government should not control the interactions between consenting adults, so you must believe that a psychiatrist should be able to have sex with their adult patient, or a pastor should be able to have sex with an adult member of their congregation, or a judge should be able to have sex with an adult prisoner. So rape of an authority figure shouldn't be a law with your stance? 

 

Does this sound absurd to you? Employers are an authority figure with the same type of psychological power over their employees, and they have used that power to abuse employees on numerous occasions throughout history whether it be for sex, uncompensated work, or unethical/unlawful purposes.

 

The concept of someone opening up their property, (and in most cases it's not even their property to begin with since they LEASE the property from another party), for business with the public somehow trumps the rights of the people that they've invited onto their property to do business is absurd. This is not your home where everyone has an expectation of privacy - the exception being where someone does open their house for business traffic.

 

The SC has long held that one's right does not trump another's rights such as your 1A right to free speech doesn't entitle you to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.

[JayC]

I don't have an issue with a Doctor having sex with a patient if both are consenting adults and both are of sound mind to consent...  I for sure don't have an issue with a Pastor having sex with an adult member of their church, and I suspect nearly 100% of married Pastors are doing so :)  A judge who has sex with a prisoner is a different story, because that is a government official in a lawful position of authority over a prisoner (just the same as a guard) and it's completely within the realm of powers granted to the government to regulate the behavior of people vested with authority over others.

 

Now, could the doctor or pastor abuse their non-government granted authority over others, sure...  and because of that the other Doctors in his practice, or the members of the pastors church may set standards of conduct governing those people, but the government doesn't need to be involved unless the interactions aren't consensual or one of the parties was not fit to give consent - minors, mentally ill, etc. 

 

And employer has no legal control over their employees (in most situations)...  I can ask you to go sweep the parking lot dressed as a woman and you're free to tell me to pound sand.  There might be consequences for you telling me to go pound sand...  but you're free to make that choice in what you believe is your best interest.

 

Freedom of choice is the key, if at anytime you're free to walk away then there is no force in the relationship...  And the government should stay out of it.

 

You mention the government should not control the interactions between consenting adults, so you must believe that a psychiatrist should be able to have sex with their adult patient, or a pastor should be able to have sex with an adult member of their congregation, or a judge should be able to have sex with an adult prisoner. So rape of an authority figure shouldn't be a law with your stance? 

 

Does this sound absurd to you? Employers are an authority figure with the same type of psychological power over their employees, and they have used that power to abuse employees on numerous occasions throughout history whether it be for sex, uncompensated work, or unethical/unlawful purposes.

 

The concept of someone opening up their property, (and in most cases it's not even their property to begin with since they LEASE the property from another party), for business with the public somehow trumps the rights of the people that they've invited onto their property to do business is absurd. This is not your home where everyone has an expectation of privacy - the exception being where someone does open their house for business traffic.

 

The SC has long held that one's right does not trump another's rights such as your 1A right to free speech doesn't entitle you to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.

Edited April 29, 2014 by JayC

[homeagain]

I don't have an issue with a Doctor having sex with a patient if both are consenting adults and both are of sound mind to consent...  I for sure don't have an issue with a Pastor having sex with an adult member of their church, and I suspect nearly 100% of married Pastors are doing so :)  A judge who has sex with a prisoner is a different story, because that is a government official in a lawful position of authority over a prisoner (just the same as a guard) and it's completely within the realm of powers granted to the government to regulate the behavior of people vested with authority over others.

 

Now, could the doctor or pastor abuse their non-government granted authority over others, sure...  and because of that the other Doctors in his practice, or the members of the pastors church may set standards of conduct governing those people, but the government doesn't need to be involved unless the interactions aren't consensual or one of the parties was not fit to give consent - minors, mentally ill, etc. 

 

And employer has no legal control over their employees (in most situations)...  I can ask you to go sweep the parking lot dressed as a woman and you're free to tell me to pound sand.  There might be consequences for you telling me to go pound sand...  but you're free to make that choice in what you believe is your best interest.

 

Freedom of choice is the key, if at anytime you're free to walk away then there is no force in the relationship...  And the government should stay out of it.

 

I said I was gonna shaddap, but I feel compelled to add my :2cents: . 

 

I concur with ya JayC.  The employer/employee relationship is a commerce-related exchange of services for compensation.  Employers aren't statutory 'authority figures' as would be a judge, or even a figure held to something such as the Hippocratic oath (or responsible to a professional board).  Pastors, well....the congregation decides whether or not sexy-time with members is kosher, if its an independent congregation.  If its hierarchical and answerable to an organizational structure, that entity decides.  I cringe at the thought of government regulating which preachers can and cannot do the wild thang with whomever.   

 

Until the employer establishes  some degree of expectation of due process, property rights in employment, or liberty interest in employment (i.e. contractual agreement [implicit or explicit], bargaining unit compromise, or is a government employer, etc.), the relationship is arm's length and at will in this good state.  Having the state step in and establish those expectations forcefully upon an employer would be problematic on many fronts.  One that comes to mind is that it isn't good for commerce at all....I've worked in NY and CT where gov likes to overstep their roles and it ain't a good business environment....ends up with companies like Beretta (MD) coming here....which we all agree (I think) is a good thing.  I doubt Beretta (or any employer, for that matter) would be favorable to the state intervening and telling them that they cannot fire employees for whatever legal reason, be it guns in the parking lot at their plant, or for wearing a purple shirt.

 

At will simply means that an employer can legally terminate employment capriciously and arbitrarily;  for good cause, bad cause, or no cause at all - as long as it isn't unlawful cause.  There are narrow exceptions to at will, entailing discriminatory practices (there's a venue to legally test this), and for other restrictions (i.e. military service, worker comp claims, whistleblowing, etc.).  Employers should have the right to decide what makes the best sense for their businesses. 

 

What's being balanced legally, not morally, is the rights of the employer to govern their property vs. individual liberty rights.  I'm all for individual freedom, up until the point that someone else's individual action infringes on my rights.  I wouldn't expect the State to mandate that I allow whomever on my property...can't expect them to erode at-will, either.  I just see the mandate of 'no firing for guns in cars' as a slippery slope with unintended consequences as far as statutory construction and interpretation.  Kind of a be careful what you wish for.

Edited April 29, 2014 by homeagain

[E4 No More]

I don't have an issue with a Doctor having sex with a patient if both are consenting adults and both are of sound mind to consent...  Who determines that?  I for sure don't have an issue with a Pastor having sex with an adult member of their church, and I suspect nearly 100% of married Pastors are doing so :) I assume that you mean with their wife which is clearly not what I'm implying. A judge who has sex with a prisoner is a different story, because that is a government official in a lawful position of authority over a prisoner (just the same as a guard) and it's completely within the realm of powers granted to the government to regulate the behavior of people vested with authority over others. Can't have it both ways. If both parties consent then it's ok with you according to the first point.

 

Now, could the doctor or pastor abuse their non-government granted authority over others, sure...  and because of that the other Doctors in his practice, or the members of the pastors church may set standards of conduct governing those people, but the government doesn't need to be involved unless the interactions aren't consensual or one of the parties was not fit to give consent - minors, mentally ill, etc. So you're ok with other people running your life, but not government? Who defines mentally ill...the very doctor who wants to screw their patient? Yeah, that'll work.

 

And employer has no legal control over their employees (in most situations)...  I can ask you to go sweep the parking lot dressed as a woman and you're free to tell me to pound sand.  There might be consequences for you telling me to go pound sand...  but you're free to make that choice in what you believe is your best interest. Now you know employers do not ask; they order. "Do it or you're fired!" type of mentality. One could argue that there could also be consequences for firing someone for not following such an order too. I think that you just choose to ignore the psychological power that people in the position of authority have over their subordinates just for the sake of trying to hold true to your disingenuous argument.

Freedom of choice is the key, if at anytime you're free to walk away then there is no force in the relationship...  And the government should stay out of it. I think that was tried before, and that's what gave rise to unions and laws that are on the books.

[Oh Shoot]

Castle Doctrine does not extend to lockers, it does to vehicles.

 

That's a point that most all the folks arguing for "employer rights" or "property rights" are missing regarding this issue.

 

The inside of your vehicle is treated same as the inside of your home in regards to deadly force, and now that seems we will have legalized non-permit firearm possession in it same as your home, the actual means to achieve it too.

 

Your employer does not have to allow your vehicle on his property, but he chooses to, he has no more rights regarding it than anyone else.

 

The issue of being fired for having a firearm in vehicle is really another issue, more dealing with TN labor law than anything else. Not sure what the future of all that is, but feel sure that the first person to be expelled or terminated from a state supported institution for legal storage of a firearm in his vehicle will get at least that part changed in a hurry.

 

- OS

[homeagain]

That's a point that most all the folks arguing for "employer rights" or "property rights" are missing regarding this issue.

 

The inside of your vehicle is treated same as the inside of your home in regards to deadly force, and now that seems we will have legalized non-permit firearm possession in it same as your home, the actual means to achieve it too.

 

Your employer does not have to allow your vehicle on his property, but he chooses to, he has no more rights regarding it than anyone else.

 

The issue of being fired for having a firearm in vehicle is really another issue, more dealing with TN labor law than anything else. Not sure what the future of all that is, but feel sure that the first person to be expelled or terminated from a state supported institution for legal storage of a firearm in his vehicle will get at least that part changed in a hurry.

 

- OS

 

It will be interesting to see how this evolves regarding state-supported institutions (or local gov, for that matter) as they are subject to the 4th Amendment and such.  Can't see most being able to fire without cause anyway.  You'd be surprised how many local governments 'think' they are at-will and are not because of either charter language or personnel policy. 

 

Private employers that provide proprietary parking, it seems, may have more claim to property rights than say a Kroger that shares a parking lot with a Dollar Tree.  It would be very hard indeed for those to say no guns in their parking lots as opposed to a factory with an 'employee only' parking area.  As you allude to, the employee doesn't have to park there in most cases to work there.

[JayC]

If you want a union to come in and use collective bargaining to get you permission to store a firearm in your vehicle, I'm all for it.  I'd think you're nuts, but that is your choice.

 

Who gets to determine who is sound mind...  well mostly it's a DA's final call to charge somebody with a crime....  If a relationship with a Doctor is brought to his attention, and he has probably cause to determine the sex was rape, he should bring charges against the Doctor.  Then a jury of his peers can determine if the sex was criminal.

 

I can have it both ways...  it's perfectly ethical to place restrictions on the freedom of public servants...  We do that everyday on members of the Military and unlike Judge's they can't quit whenever they want to.

 

I'm not ok with random people running my life for me...  that's why I became my own boss, and now my wife runs my life for me ;)  It's also why I'd rather not support a bigger government because my biggest problem day to day is dealing with the government.

 

Now, in all seriousness...  all of this complaining about not being able to keep a firearm in a car at work, is because of poor choices made in people's life, and not the fault of anybody else.  In many cases the failure is caused because people simply won't make hard choices...  or refuse to live within their means, plan for bad things, or be inconvenienced... and would rather the Government come in and remove liberty from their employers so they don't have to make hard choices.

 

First off, most people don't think outside the box...  company won't allow you to have a firearm in their lot, why not park somewhere else?  Not an answer for everybody, but it would be for some.

 

Second, if you don't have enough of an emergency fund to handle unexpected unemployment that is your own fault...  be smart and don't let yourself get into that situation, make hard choices and get yourself out of debt, live on less than you make, and save up enough money that being out of work for a year...  I was raised to plan for bad things to happen, so myself and my wife have already lived on less than we earned, because I don't ever want to be in the situation where I can't tell a 'boss' to go pound sand.

 

Third, if you can't leave because of pending retirement, that's your choice, but you've lived for 18 years at least where you could legally carry and knew your employer prohibited firearms...  you've accepted that risk for so long, why does the government need to come in and rescue you now?

 

Fourth, if you've only been somewhere for 3 or 5 years... why are you still working there?  This fight over the parking lot bill has been going on for 2 or 3 years...  you're telling me even in this poor economy you can't find a similar job in 2 or 3 years?  You may very well have to take a pay cut of benefits cut...  and only you can decided which is more important, your personal safety or money...  but make no mistake everyday you're not out looking for a new job, is a day you're making the choice to be unarmed... and you have nobody to blame except yourself.

 

Finally, just keep a gun in your car and don't tell anybody you're even interested in firearms...  the chances your car will be searched are slim and none, and hopefully even if it is searched, you've selected a good enough hiding place nobody would notice it.

 

At the end of the day, this is a question of personal responsibility...  people continue to place other priorities over being armed to and from work...  and there is nothing wrong with that...  but make no mistake they're making that choice, nobody else.  

 

 

I don't have an issue with a Doctor having sex with a patient if both are consenting adults and both are of sound mind to consent...  Who determines that?  I for sure don't have an issue with a Pastor having sex with an adult member of their church, and I suspect nearly 100% of married Pastors are doing so :) I assume that you mean with their wife which is clearly not what I'm implying. A judge who has sex with a prisoner is a different story, because that is a government official in a lawful position of authority over a prisoner (just the same as a guard) and it's completely within the realm of powers granted to the government to regulate the behavior of people vested with authority over others. Can't have it both ways. If both parties consent then it's ok with you according to the first point.

 

Now, could the doctor or pastor abuse their non-government granted authority over others, sure...  and because of that the other Doctors in his practice, or the members of the pastors church may set standards of conduct governing those people, but the government doesn't need to be involved unless the interactions aren't consensual or one of the parties was not fit to give consent - minors, mentally ill, etc. So you're ok with other people running your life, but not government? Who defines mentally ill...the very doctor who wants to screw their patient? Yeah, that'll work.

 

And employer has no legal control over their employees (in most situations)...  I can ask you to go sweep the parking lot dressed as a woman and you're free to tell me to pound sand.  There might be consequences for you telling me to go pound sand...  but you're free to make that choice in what you believe is your best interest. Now you know employers do not ask; they order. "Do it or you're fired!" type of mentality. One could argue that there could also be consequences for firing someone for not following such an order too. I think that you just choose to ignore the psychological power that people in the position of authority have over their subordinates just for the sake of trying to hold true to your disingenuous argument.

Freedom of choice is the key, if at anytime you're free to walk away then there is no force in the relationship...  And the government should stay out of it. I think that was tried before, and that's what gave rise to unions and laws that are on the books.

 

Edited April 29, 2014 by JayC

[JAB]

 

Your employer does not have to allow your vehicle on his property, but he chooses to, he has no more rights regarding it than anyone else.

 

- OS

 

This.  Exactly this.  I fully agree that an employer should have the right to prohibit firearms inside their buildings, facilities, etc.  I even agree that they should have the right to prohibit firearms outside the bounds of private vehicles within employee parking lots.  However, as I have said, before when it comes to private property (a gun) stored inside private property (a privately owned vehicle) I do not see how the employer's rights with regards to a rectangle of pavement (or gravel/dirt) in a parking lot supposedly trumps my rights with regards to my privately owned vehicle.

 

As I have said, before, I think the real problem is approaching this as a 'guns rights vs. property rights' issue when it is really a 'property rights vs. property rights' issue.  Instead of specifically saying 'guns' I believe the law should clearly state that an employer has absolutely no right to search an employee's privately owned vehicle, ever, period, under any circumstance.  Further, the law should state that no employer can make employment conditional on an employee agreeing - expressly or by implication - to allow an employer to carry out such a search.  The employer should be prohibited by law from even asking to search an employee's privately owned vehicle.  If the employer has reason to believe that a criminal act that is harmful to the company (such as theft from the company) has been committed and that evidence of such is inside an employee's privately owned vehicle (such as stolen company property hidden in the vehicle) then the company should be required to notify police, report the suspected crime and allow the police to handle obtaining a warrant and conducting a search - but only with probably cause.  Again, the employer's property rights regarding a slab of pavement do not trump my property rights regarding my private vehicle - no matter where that vehicle is parked - and should not trump those rights under the law. 

Edited April 29, 2014 by JAB

[dawgdoc]

You know the shooting at the FedEx facility near Atlanta today?  People are already blaming the new law, even though it doesn't go into effect until July 1, and it doesn't affect private property. 

 

There is a picture circulating of the aftermath, and the large gun buster sign is clearly visible at the entrance.   Apparently, FedEx has a very strict no weapons policy for employees.   I guess the magic didn't work today, or maybe the disgruntled employee forgot to read the handbook.

Edited April 29, 2014 by dawgdoc

[Erik88]

[Oh Shoot]

There is a picture circulating of the aftermath, and the large gun buster sign is clearly visible at the entrance.   Apparently, FedEx has a very strict no weapons policy for employees.   I guess the magic didn't work today, or maybe the disgruntled employee forgot to read the handbook.

 

That's just customer entrance. Hell, all employees have to go through guard shack where theoretically the security is tighter.

 

Though it's really not most of the time -- see my post in the FedEx shooting thread. I could have carried a heater into terminal most any time when I was Ground "employee" (technically, "contractor").

 

- OS

[homeagain]

That's just customer entrance. Hell, all employees have to go through guard shack where theoretically the security is tighter.
 
Though it's really not most of the time -- see my post in the FedEx shooting thread. I could have carried a heater into terminal most any time when I was Ground "employee" (technically, "contractor").
 
- OS

Hah. Old RPS'r myself. Was there for the FedEx buyout and the Fred Smith visit. Opened the Nashville hub. Back then you had a pretty good chance of getting one by security, as well.

[Oh Shoot]

Hah. Old RPS'r myself. Was there for the FedEx buyout and the Fred Smith visit. Opened the Nashville hub. Back then you had a pretty good chance of getting one by security, as well.

 

Far out. How long did you stay with the Purple Penis after the takeover?

 

- OS

[homeagain]

Far out. How long did you stay with the Purple Penis after the takeover?

 

- OS

 

Not long at all.  Was a hub guy, so I was looking to escape anyway.  7 years across the street at UPS and a couple more there was enuff cardboard avalanche for me.  Never understood how a 'contractor' wasn't considered an 'employee' there.  Getting hit on the head repeatedly by boxes from on high is probably why I'm the way I am today.  :crazy:

Edited April 30, 2014 by homeagain

[RobertNashville]

The entire issue of the alleged infringement of property rights of property used for business purposes (i.e a parking lot for customers, employees, etc.) when a state forbids the owner/controller of a parking lot from forbidding the presence of arms in a vehicle parked there really rests on just one issue; is there demonstrable harm to the owner of the parking lot!

 

To the best of my knowledge, and I've followed this issue for some time now, NO parking lot owner has ever been able to actually show any harm meaning no infringement on their rights to the property. In fact, the excuses I've heard make about as much sense as those gun-grabbers/haters when they start claiming that there will be "wild west shootouts" and "blood in the streets" whenever some expansion of firearm rights are proposed (such as the so-called "guns in bars" bill).

 

Until someone can show actual harm all these arguments are pointless aside from the intellectual stimulation they provide; not that I don't enjoy them.  ;)