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 Your right to self defense is a basic human right, which is not superseded by the property rights of another.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your person, including the tools necessary for your basic human rights such as self defense, should therefore not be superseded by the property rights of another.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.
