TexasCHLforum.com

This thread definitely has drifted away from the original topic that I posted. I guess the late-comers read the thread title, skip to page 4, then respond to the last post or three without reading the initial post.

Someone please let me know how to get a Texas lawmaker to propose such a law.

It's completely ridiculous to think that a CHL holder is likely to go on a shooting spree at his place of business.

It is way beyond ridiculous to think that a CHL holder who has decided to go on such a shooting spree, but will be convinced not to do so because of the employer's no-guns policy and their risk of being fired for possession of a firearm while at work.

This notion is patently absurd. Quite simply the law needs to be changed. We need legal protection so that no employer can prohibit any employee from the legal possession of any item or object which remains concealed and undetected, does not impede the employee's normal work, and does not impact any other person's free exercise of their own rights. I don't care if it is guns in cars, your inhaler or glasses, Bible, a lucky rabbit's foot you like to carry on your key chain, a picture of your grandpa, your lunch, a pocket copy of the Constitution, whatever inanimate thing that you can have on your person or in some other container that belongs to you, which remains concealed and does not do any harm to any other person.

No special law for guns, or pocket knives, pepper spray, or anything else. Across the board, if it's legal to own and carry on a public sidewalk, it is legal to own and carry at work.

Period!

WildBill wrote:I was responding to one line that you posted. My point is that there law restricting our possession of certain items that do no harm to others and people accept these laws.

You mean, like guns.

WildBill wrote: Your possession of the asthma inhaler, critical to your health, does not interfere with anyone else's rights, but you have to get permission from the government to possess it. Our society seems to be okay with these restrictions.

I don't see how that bolsters the point you seem to have been making, or how it has anything to do with this discussion.

One can legally possess four items (which I pointed out), possession of which do not interfere with any other person's rights: a Bible, eyeglasses, an inhaler, and a pistol. Only one of these items can an employer ban you from possessing on their property without retribution.

Let's level the playing field.

WildBill wrote:

mr.72 wrote:As a society, we wouldn't stand for the banning of any property which is necessary for our basic human rights, whose possession does not interfere with anyone else's rights, but we do so with guns.

You just gave two perfect examples. Why does our society stand for requiring citizens to have to pay someone so that they can get permission to buy health-critical implements such as a pair of glasses or an asthma inhaler?

I'm afraid I don't understand this at all.

There are multiple issues getting [intentionally, I think] confused here.

1. a CHL holder's right to carry <period>
2. a property owner's right to dictate what is allowed on their property, even if it is contained inside of the property of another
3. a person's rights to sole discretion over the contents of their own car, wherever it is parked
4. a person's inherent right to their own self defense
5. an employer's right to fire an employee for any reason

I am suggesting that a car is little different than any other container (including a holster) which might be used to transport a gun or any other object or item. A gun is an effective and convenient tool for self defense. Therefore the employer's dictating of "no guns" on their property, regardless of whether it is in a car or carried on one's person, interferes with the employee's more basic right to self defense while traveling to and from work, while not on the property of the employer. So while I concede that once on the property of the employer, you can be compelled to comply with the employer's property wishes by virtue of your employee aggrement, if no accommodation is made for you to safely disarm and store your gun on site, then the employer is unnecessarily impeding your exercise of your right to self defense.

I think we (we being gun owners and CHL holders) need to stop framing this as a gun rights issue. Instead it is truly and simply a property rights issue, counter to individuals' right to self defense. Your right to self defense is a basic human right, which is not superseded by the property rights of another. Your right to property, carried upon your person, including the tools necessary for your basic human rights such as self defense, should therefore not be superseded by the property rights of another.

Let's say that the property in question is not a gun, but a Bible. If an employer says I cannot carry a Bible, of any kind, even pocket sized, stuck in my sock, onto their property, or store it in my car while parked there, and do not provide me any place to store a Bible, then they are preventing me from carrying a Bible with me anywhere I go on the way to and from work as well and they are also denying me my right to free exercise to religion. Or let's say the property in question is an asthma inhaler, or eyeglasses, or some other health-critical implement. As a society, we wouldn't stand for the banning of any property which is necessary for our basic human rights, whose possession does not interfere with anyone else's rights, but we do so with guns.

I think conceding it as a property rights issue frames the argument in a losing scenario for us. That's basically my point.

Each person has a right to self defense. So it is a self-defense vs. property rights issue IMHO.

Also I think it is a privacy rights issue as well.

I don't like this idea that you give up your rights when you enter an employment contract. I think that's the bigger issue to me, and it has nothing to do with guns.

Trying to avoid hijacking a thread here... this was in the other thread:

Lodge2004 wrote:

CompVest wrote:I hope that the parking lot bill passes because I don't think anyone should be able to tell me what I can have in MY bought and paid for car. It is my property and I should be able to have my gym bag and/or my range bag in my car.

That's why I have trouble understanding the "property rights of owners" argument as it relates to parking lots.

Just because they may not be appropriate IN the workplace does not mean a person should be terminated because they have a box of bibles in the trunk of their car. The property owner's rights do NOT extend INTO my vehicle or my body.

Let it be known that I am highly in favor of less restrictive gun laws.

However this is a tenuous argument and puts us on a slippery slope that might end in a non-defensible argument.

For example, if they can't tell you what you can and cannot have in your car, which is clearly your property, then why can they tell you what you can and cannot have in your pocket? Certainly your own clothing is as much your property as your car, is it not? Well if they can't tell you what you can have in your pocket, they definitely cannot tell you what you can have in your waist band, right? Definitely "on or about your person" is about as much "your property" as you can get. I don't think your car is some special thing.

So if they can tell you what you cannot carry on your person, they certainly can tell you what you can carry in your car, I would think.

Anyway, I think there is another tactic to take regarding this issue, which is one of disarmament when leaving the company property. By preventing you from safely storing your firearm in your own car, they are effectively preventing you from carrying it from your home. Likewise for those who ride a bicycle, ride the bus or walk to work, they are depriving you of your right to carry from your home by not offering any sort of storage alternative for your firearm when on the company premises. Certainly you can go get a different job. However at some point this is not a "gun rights vs. property rights" issue, it is a property rights vs. right to self defense issue. As long as we continue to frame this as a gun rights issue, we are going to lose. Nearly everyone agrees with private property rights. Not everyone agrees with your right to own a gun. But most will agree with your right to self defense, certainly when you are not on private property. So I hope we can begin to craft our side of the debate in terms of our right to self defense while en route to our employer's property.

In short, I think if my employer wants to post a 30.06 sign, they need to provide employees the right to store their guns on site safely. They need to allow the employee to bring in their own locker or safe, and then allow the employee to store a secured firearm on the premises.

Maybe it should be that the 30.06 should be amended to include the "unsecured" possession ...

Just a thought.