TexasCHLforum.com

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.

mr.72 wrote: 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.

I really, really (really) agree with the above.

I had already posted this in the other thread, but thought I would add it here as it makes more sense here:

I really don't see this as a property rights issue. There are already a number of laws governing parking lots for business owners. Some are for equal access (handicap slots), others for public protection (fire lanes). This one falls under the issue of public protection. More armed law abiding citizens equals less crime.

At the very least I would like to see the law written such that it protects visitors (i.e. all non-employees can lock a weapon in their car in the business' lot). Very often a visitor does not know whether a business is going to prohibit handguns in the lots or not until arriving. If the nearest legal lot is some distance away, the visitor may not be able to use the facility at all (especially if the CHL holder is handicapped). This scenario I would put under the category of equal access.

So interesting question: can a business owner run afoul of ADA if they prohibit a handicapped CHL holder from locking their weapon in their car? Could ADA become our friend here? Any case law yet?

mr.72 wrote: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.

Mr. 72, that was an excellent post. I like and agree with your line of thought on this subject. Thank you!

-geo

While I don't disagree with the idea in theory, it really boils down to a compromise. If you push too hard , too fast for getting rights to carry on private property, you will get nowhere and make enemies. However, if you compromise on 'locked in vehicle' while on property, then you may get it past the critics. It is gonna take baby steps; too big a step too fast and we fall on our keesters instead of moving forward.

I started a whole multi-page thread on this very issue a few months ago and got thoroughly jumped on by the "property rights" crowd.

good post!

.

txflyer wrote:I had already posted this in the other thread, but thought I would add it here as it makes more sense here:

I really don't see this as a property rights issue. There are already a number of laws governing parking lots for business owners. Some are for equal access (handicap slots), others for public protection (fire lanes). This one falls under the issue of public protection. More armed law abiding citizens equals less crime.

At the very least I would like to see the law written such that it protects visitors (i.e. all non-employees can lock a weapon in their car in the business' lot). Very often a visitor does not know whether a business is going to prohibit handguns in the lots or not until arriving. If the nearest legal lot is some distance away, the visitor may not be able to use the facility at all (especially if the CHL holder is handicapped). This scenario I would put under the category of equal access.

So interesting question: can a business owner run afoul of ADA if they prohibit a handicapped CHL holder from locking their weapon in their car? Could ADA become our friend here? Any case law yet?

We'd probably have a better chance (as in better than none) with the ACLU than relying on ADA.

I'd say that we could very easily equate companies who decide what we keep in our own cars with companies that decide what we can put in our bodies. There are already several cases out there of employers firing employees for smoking on their own time or for being overweight, citing healthcare costs. I think that whatever the outcome of those cases is will determine how likely we are to see our cars' contents become our own business.

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.

bdickens wrote:I started a whole multi-page thread on this very issue a few months ago and got thoroughly jumped on by the "property rights" crowd.

I am with you, bdickens.

Anygunanywhere

Although I have a strong feeling toward property rights, in this case I feel that there are mitigating circumstances.

In my case I work at Home Depot, and THD says we cannot carry on company property, including the parking lot, which puts some of us in the sort of danger discussed before, but I have a quibble with this.

THD is not posted 30.06.

THD's parking lot is used by both employees and the public, including customers and just people staying overnight or having a tryst, which makes it a pretty public place for private property. While I think that THD should have control over their own property, I feel that in this instance, and in any such where parking is for public customers, that a different set of rules needs to apply. I think it should be against those rules for THD to declare the parking lot off limits for employees to carry, or Tom Thumb, or Sam's, or Costco, or any of those places where the parking lot is open to the public for use.

Having settled that, in my mind, then I come to the question of private businesses, like the one I used to work at, where the public walking in to shop is not going to happen. I divide this into two categories, those that own the property and those that do not, with those that do divided into sub-categories based on security of parking and alternative parking.

The private business I worked at had a set of "unwritten rules" that were not even clearly announced, and when someone noted (not me) to management that the rules were inconsistent and vague, they were published, and they remained inconsistent and vague. That business set down a rule against carrying dangerous weapons, including in the parking lot, but they didn't own the parking lot and weren't even guaranteed more than four parking spaces by the property owner, so I see that parking lot rule as being invalid on its face, but needing legislative clarification included in the above.

I also see a private business with an unsecured parking lot, like a couple of other places where I have worked as being a pretty close fit with the two examples above. If the lot is unsecured, or just has a walking security patrol, then there is no guarantee of safety of employees on that property, whether or not the employee manual uses that as an excuse.

The really sticky one in my way of thinking is the business owner that owns the land that the parking lot is on and fences it off with an attended gate (anything less is unsecured) and that one, to me, would be easily solved by having the business owner recognize that in preventing people from carrying on the way to and from work is depriving them of a right more basic than his property rights (2nd A vs 4th A) and that he either needs to provide: a) alternate parking where they can carry; or b) storage at entrance to the parking facility and failing that allow all those who may legally do so otherwise to carry onto his property, limited to the parking lot and its environs, without restriction.

Of course I don't really like the idea of having to take off and store my gun in a provided area, so that Idea is tempered, in my own mind once again, by requiring a property owner restricting a right to self defense being required to carry adequate insurance.

I don't know how to write this up in the appropriate legislative legalese, and I am sure others will come up with further modifiers, but this is just my own simplistic view.

mr.72 wrote: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.

You are right it is a slippery slope and it is ONE that I want to slide down. I absolutely agree it is my body and what I carry on it (just like people who wear too much perfume) is my business and no one else's. Now if I choose to carry and I am "made" then I can be asked to leave but I should not have to put up with anyone telling me what I wear under my outerwear.

And another way to look at the vehicle and parking lot issue. A car could easily be considered an extention of my home. Afterall I am allowed with or without a CHL to carry in my car. Parking lot postings prevents me form carrying from home to work and then back home or other places I can legally go before or after work. I don't believe an employer should be able to tell me I have to come to work unarmed and NOT provide the same level of protection I am capable of giving myself.

My employer (AT&T) holds to the no guns on company property rule. Its in the Code of Business Conduct that each employee must sign annually. Violation of this rule results in instant termination. I have a good job and I don't intend to put it at risk for a violation of this rule.

However, I could see this rule being changed under certain circumstances. Let's say that a nut ball did go on a rampage and killed or wounded a bunch of people at some office. Might not the survivors or their families sue the company because its own rule put the victims at risk? In other words, if the no weapons rule made it impossible for the victims to defend themselves, doesn't the protection of the employees become the obligation and responsibility of the company? Seems like the company is taking on a large liability. Under a scenario like this, the company could lose millions and millions of dollars.

I would hate to see it happen, but it might be the only way businesses change their policies - when the risk of damages becomes greater than the risk of relenting some property rights.

Out West

A better case and I sincerely pray it doesn't happen, would be a woman CHL is attacked on her way to work and her employer doesn't allow guns in the parking lot.

CompVest wrote: I don't believe an employer should be able to tell me I have to come to work unarmed and NOT provide the same level of protection I am capable of giving myself.

An employer can't "tell" you to come to work. Whether or not you go to work is your decision.

Out West wrote:In other words, if the no weapons rule made it impossible for the victims to defend themselves, doesn't the protection of the employees become the obligation and responsibility of the company?

Since the courts have ruled that the police have no duty to protect citizens, drawing this conclusion would be a very long leap.

mr.72 wrote: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.

How you get to work or whether or not you can defend yourself on the way to work is up to the employee, not the employer. If you have to drive through a "bad section" of town to get to work should your employer give to money to move the a different neighborhood, or maybe provide an armed escort?

mr. 72 wrote: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.

That's a good idea. When an employee has an AD and wounds his co-worker while putting his handgun in their locker, then the company can get sued for not providing for the employee's safety.