List your highest priority issue for 2011

[Douva]

I still have problems with the EPL bills and private property rights.

Texas is big. I think it's plenty big enough to park somewhere else if some property owner doesn't allow guns.

I firmly support private property rights, which is why I don't support forcing private colleges to allow concealed carry on campus. But when it comes to people's cars, I think the issue isn't quite as black and white as some private property advocates want to portray it.

Our cars are extensions of our homes--we eat in them, change clothes in them, and occasionally even sleep in them. If employers are allowed to tell employees that they can't have certain things in their cars, where do we draw the line? Guns? Pornography? Tiny plastic Jesus statues? If an employer is uncomfortable with you having a gun in your car, maybe that employer is also uncomfortable with you having a gun in your home. Would it be okay for employers to tell employees that they can't own guns?

I'm a pretty libertarian-minded guy, but the libertarian view that business owners shouldn't be subject to any governmental regulations (i.e., anti-discrimination laws) on how they deal with employees and/or customers is one of those areas where I part ways with the purists. Telling supports of this legislation to "park someplace else" is fine if they work in a nice part of town with plenty of free parking, but it's not a viable option for people who work in crowded downtown areas where parking is not readily available or in bad parts of town where they might actually be placing themselves at risk by parking off site.

Your car is essentially your private embassy--your territory on foreign soil. Once you set foot outside that car, you fall under the jurisdiction of the property owner, but it shouldn't be anybody else's business if you choose to keep a gun, a Bible, or a complete set of S&M fetish gear in the trunk.

[Bullwhip]

I still have problems with the EPL bills and private property rights.

Texas is big. I think it's plenty big enough to park somewhere else if some property owner doesn't allow guns.

I firmly support private property rights, which is why I don't support forcing private colleges to allow concealed carry on campus. But when it comes to people's cars, I think the issue isn't quite as black and white as some private property advocates want to portray it.

Texas is big enough to park somewhere else. It's big enough to find a different job. You park your car on my property, you agree to my rules, or you walk.

The no-guns companies are wrong. But they have the right to be wrong. Detroit car companies banned import cars from their employee lots too. Stupid, because some of those "furrin" cars were made in America. It was still their right.

Goverment shouldn't get involved. If they can say anti-gun companies must allow gun-totin employees, they can say churches have to hire gays and PETA has to hire fur wearin meat eaters and NRA has to give equal funds to Brady.

If I own a sleepin bag in a flop house or own a big mansion or own wal mart, if I own it its mine and I get to say who is welcome. If the goverment says othwerwise the goverment is wrong.

Just so no one gets the wrong idea, I hate racism and descrimination and would not support companies that practice that. I wish the racists companies could be racistin the open so I could know, instead of racist in secret like their are now. Goverment makes it worse, racists can hide it and pretend to fire "them" for other reasons. Same thing will happen with guns in parking lot. "oh no we didn't fire him because he had a gun, we fired him because we were downsizing."

[Douva]

I still have problems with the EPL bills and private property rights.

Texas is big. I think it's plenty big enough to park somewhere else if some property owner doesn't allow guns.

I firmly support private property rights, which is why I don't support forcing private colleges to allow concealed carry on campus. But when it comes to people's cars, I think the issue isn't quite as black and white as some private property advocates want to portray it.

Texas is big enough to park somewhere else. It's big enough to find a different job. You park your car on my property, you agree to my rules, or you walk.

The no-guns companies are wrong. But they have the right to be wrong. Detroit car companies banned import cars from their employee lots too. Stupid, because some of those "furrin" cars were made in America. It was still their right.

Goverment shouldn't get involved. If they can say anti-gun companies must allow gun-totin employees, they can say churches have to hire gays and PETA has to hire fur wearin meat eaters and NRA has to give equal funds to Brady.

If I own a sleepin bag in a flop house or own a big mansion or own wal mart, if I own it its mine and I get to say who is welcome. If the goverment says othwerwise the goverment is wrong.

Just so no one gets the wrong idea, I hate racism and descrimination and would not support companies that practice that. I wish the racists companies could be racistin the open so I could know, instead of racist in secret like their are now. Goverment makes it worse, racists can hide it and pretend to fire "them" for other reasons. Same thing will happen with guns in parking lot. "oh no we didn't fire him because he had a gun, we fired him because we were downsizing."

Your argument might work in an ideal world, but unfortunately, it relies on public support in an imperfect world. It's the same logic that was used prior to the Civil Rights Act. Sadly, many people learned the hard way that racism had majority support in some parts of the country. So, letting the people make up their own minds whether to work for a certain company or do business with a certain company led to a certain segment of the population not being allowed to work for a great many companies or do business with a great companies.

Such ideals are wonderful until a person has to choose between protecting his own life or putting food on his family's table. Just as was the case in the Deep South of the 1960s, not everyone has the luxury of being able to simply choose to work someplace else (last I checked, unemployment is still at a twenty-year high). And as I explained in my previous post, not everyone has the ability to park someplace else (Texas may be big, but the amount of available parking in many urban areas is not). Libertarian ideals are great, as long as you realize that, like most ideals, they start to collapse under their own weight outside the vacuum of idealism.

I'm for limited government intervention on virtually all fronts--from gun rights to gay rights to property rights. But limited government intervention is not the same as no government intervention. Just as businesses must adhere to building codes, fire codes, ADA accessibility laws, etc., it makes sense that they be required to adhere to certain fair hiring/firing practices.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I still have problems with the EPL bills and private property rights.

Texas is big. I think it's plenty big enough to park somewhere else if some property owner doesn't allow guns.

I firmly support private property rights, which is why I don't support forcing private colleges to allow concealed carry on campus. But when it comes to people's cars, I think the issue isn't quite as black and white as some private property advocates want to portray it.

The no-guns companies are wrong. But they have the right to be wrong. Detroit car companies banned import cars from their employee lots too. Stupid, because some of those "furrin" cars were made in America. It was still their right.

Goverment shouldn't get involved. If they can say anti-gun companies must allow gun-totin employees, they can say churches have to hire gays and PETA has to hire fur wearin meat eaters and NRA has to give equal funds to Brady.

. . .

Just so no one gets the wrong idea, I hate racism and descrimination and would not support companies that practice that.

Actually, your position is an argument for legalized racism in a commercial setting. I'm not saying you support it or that you are racist, but your argument supports a right to establish racial standards for hiring and for a business' customers.

Like it or not, and I do like it very much, "private property rights" has a different application when we are dealing with commercial property as opposed to non-commercial property like your home, vacation property, hunting lease, etc. I want to be able to do want I want with my home, subject to the homeowners association rules that help protect the value and quality of life in my neighborhood. I want to be subject to fewer restrictions on land in unincorporated areas of the county that is not used for commercial purposes. My position is reasonable because I am not trying to attract people to come to those locations to benefit commercially from their money or labor.

Commercial property is an entirely different matter. When I walk into my downtown Houston law office every day, I don't want to have to worry about being killed or injured because the building owner doesn't want to comply with the elevator code, building codes, or fire codes. I don't want to attend my granddaughter's funeral because her church pre-school didn't want to comply with state licensing requirements dealing with ratios and qualifications for employees at such institutions. I didn't want to attend the funeral of either of my son's because they died in an apartment fire while attending college because the landlord thought fire alarms were too expensive to install. I could go on and on.

Commercial property is much more heavily regulated than non-commercial property and rightfully so. (I don't agree with all regulation of commercial property.) When someone decides to open a business and invite people to enter their property, they no longer have the right to do or not do anything they please. If you want me to enter your facility to work for you or buy your goods or services, you owe a duty to meet minimum safety standards. I can't look inside your walls and see you used aluminum wiring instead of copper; I can't open the elevator shafts at my office and see that the elevators are properly maintained. Most codes and building regulations were adopted in response to injuries and deaths, while a much smaller number were adopted for quality of life reasons.

Some argue that I could work somewhere else or shop somewhere else, but that's a hollow argument. If commercial property were unregulated, no one is going to spend the money to comply with voluntary codes. That was the case before commercial property was regulated over 100 years ago, and currently code violations frequently lead to injury and death.

Compare the regulations currently facing commercial property owners with the employer parking lot bill (EPL) and it's obvious that the EPL places absolutely no burden on the property owner whatsoever. It merely prohibits an employer from interfering with their employees' private property rights, and in so doing, it provides those employees the means to defend themselves when going to and from work. There is no fee involved, no required reporting, no periodic inspections; the property owner/employer does not have to life a finger or spend a dime.

Chas.

[EconDoc]

I voted Campus Carry, but EPL is just about equal in priority for me. If the EPL covers college campuses, so that I couldn't be fired for having a gun in my truck, then that would be almost as good as campus carry.

[kyreb]

I would also like to add that when I hired on in 1979 with my company these silly parking lot restrictions did not exist. We could actually hunt before work in the morning and (gasp) have our rifles and shotguns hanging in the back window of our truck in the parking lot at work later in the day. Nobody thought twice about it and "going postal" was unheard of.

Now I have 30+ years with the company and like most major corporations, limp wisted, diversity oriented HR types set the rules.

Kinda tough to throw away 30 years, medical benefits and a pension every time they decide to implement a new "politically correct" policy. I will however, work within the system in any way legally possible to make changes. My Company has already stated the only way they will change this policy is when more states in which we operate pass EPL protection legislation.

[Pacific Job]

Actually, your position is an argument for legalized racism in a commercial setting. I'm not saying you support it or that you are racist, but your argument supports a right to establish racial standards for hiring and for a business' customers.

Like it or not, and I do like it very much, "private property rights" has a different application when we are dealing with commercial property as opposed to non-commercial property like your home, vacation property, hunting lease, etc.

That's a flawed example. It's true it's not legal for a business to be racist in their parking lot, but they also can't be racist inside buildings.

If the law is going to be changed to remove the ability of commercial property owners to prohibit guns, then it should apply inside buildings too. (Like racial discrimination.) On the other hand, if it's acceptable for companies (for-profit or not-for-profit) to prohibit guns in their office buildings and industrial buildings, then morally and logically they should also be allowed to prohibit guns in their parking buildings, and other real property.

[Pacific Job]

I still have problems with the EPL bills and private property rights.

Texas is big. I think it's plenty big enough to park somewhere else if some property owner doesn't allow guns.

I firmly support private property rights, which is why I don't support forcing private colleges to allow concealed carry on campus. But when it comes to people's cars, I think the issue isn't quite as black and white as some private property advocates want to portray it.

Our cars are extensions of our homes--we eat in them, change clothes in them, and occasionally even sleep in them. If employers are allowed to tell employees that they can't have certain things in their cars, where do we draw the line? Guns? Pornography? Tiny plastic Jesus statues? If an employer is uncomfortable with you having a gun in your car, maybe that employer is also uncomfortable with you having a gun in your home. Would it be okay for employers to tell employees that they can't own guns?

As long as you don't live in company housing or park your car on company property (or drive a company car) your argument is fair. However, when you intentionally drive your car on their property, or live in an on-site dormitory, that's different.

For example, when you rent that's your premises or premises under your control, but the landlord can still prohibit pets, parking of unregistered vehicles, long term guests who aren't on the lease, etc. Why? Because it's their property.

[Douva]

Actually, your position is an argument for legalized racism in a commercial setting. I'm not saying you support it or that you are racist, but your argument supports a right to establish racial standards for hiring and for a business' customers.

Like it or not, and I do like it very much, "private property rights" has a different application when we are dealing with commercial property as opposed to non-commercial property like your home, vacation property, hunting lease, etc.

That's a flawed example. It's true it's not legal for a business to be racist in their parking lot, but they also can't be racist inside buildings.

If the law is going to be changed to remove the ability of commercial property owners to prohibit guns, then it should apply inside buildings too. (Like racial discrimination.) On the other hand, if it's acceptable for companies (for-profit or not-for-profit) to prohibit guns in their office buildings and industrial buildings, then morally and logically they should also be allowed to prohibit guns in their parking buildings, and other real property.

You seem insistent on choosing between one extreme or the other--either business owners have no property rights or absolute property rights. But the answers seldom lie in the black and white extremes. More often than not, the answer is somewhere in the gray areas.

We must strike a balance between the property rights of the land owner and the property rights of the car owner. There is more to property than real estate.

[Pacific Job]

Why the focus on cars and parking lots? What about a woman's purse? What about my wallet?

Isn't my wallet my private property as much as my car?

Isn't an office building (or retail store, or restaurant) commercial property as much as the associated parking lot?

[Douva]

I still have problems with the EPL bills and private property rights.

Texas is big. I think it's plenty big enough to park somewhere else if some property owner doesn't allow guns.

I firmly support private property rights, which is why I don't support forcing private colleges to allow concealed carry on campus. But when it comes to people's cars, I think the issue isn't quite as black and white as some private property advocates want to portray it.

Our cars are extensions of our homes--we eat in them, change clothes in them, and occasionally even sleep in them. If employers are allowed to tell employees that they can't have certain things in their cars, where do we draw the line? Guns? Pornography? Tiny plastic Jesus statues? If an employer is uncomfortable with you having a gun in your car, maybe that employer is also uncomfortable with you having a gun in your home. Would it be okay for employers to tell employees that they can't own guns?

As long as you don't live in company housing or park your car on company property (or drive a company car) your argument is fair. However, when you intentionally drive your car on their property, or live in an on-site dormitory, that's different.

For example, when you rent that's your premises or premises under your control, but the landlord can still prohibit pets, parking of unregistered vehicles, long term guests who aren't on the lease, etc. Why? Because it's their property.

I'm not sure what point you're making with your analogy to renting property. Are you simply pointing out that property owners have some rights and can place some restrictions on the use of their property? I don't think anyone is disputing that. But I can just easily point out that a person renting you property can't discriminate based on your age (with certain exceptions), race, gender, familial status, or any disabilities you have. And the landlord is required to meet certain construction standards, fire codes, ADA restrictions, etc. So clearly, the property owner's rights are not absolute.

As I said in my previous post, the question is "Where do we draw the line?"

[Douva]

Why the focus on cars and parking lots? What about a woman's purse? What about my wallet?

Isn't my wallet my private property as much as my car?

Isn't an office building (or retail store, or restaurant) commercial property as much as the associated parking lot?

As I already said, you seem to have trouble with solutions that don't gravitate toward one extreme or the other. In the real world, the lines that dictate where one person's rights end and another person's rights begin are not so clearly defined. That's why it's up to elected officials to make intelligent decisions that strike the right balance between the rights and interests of all involved. If determining the boundaries of individual and collective rights were as simple as you seem to believe, we wouldn't need legislative bodies at all.

[Pacific Job]

Are you simply pointing out that property owners have some rights and can place some restrictions on the use of their property? I don't think anyone is disputing that. But I can just easily point out that a person renting you property can't discriminate based on your age (with certain exceptions), race, gender, familial status, or any disabilities you have.

Like I said earlier, those same rules apply inside the buildings too. They're not only for cars and parking lots.

I might buy the argument that commercial property should be an exception to 30.06 like property "owned or leased by a governmental entity" based on the discrimination argument you make, but the EPL bills I saw don't do that.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Actually, your position is an argument for legalized racism in a commercial setting. I'm not saying you support it or that you are racist, but your argument supports a right to establish racial standards for hiring and for a business' customers.

Like it or not, and I do like it very much, "private property rights" has a different application when we are dealing with commercial property as opposed to non-commercial property like your home, vacation property, hunting lease, etc.

That's a flawed example.

Nope, not flawed at all. Reread the post.

You argue that any regulation must treat the inside of the building the same as the outside or parking lot. Now there's a flawed argument. Numerous commercial property regulations apply only to the inside of commercial building, while others apply only to the outside. Fire codes require sprinklers inside buildings, not in the parking lots. Fire codes also set maximum occupancy numbers inside buildings, but not in parking lots. State law requires a certain number and placement of parking spaces for the handicapped, but this does not apply to the building.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Why the focus on cars and parking lots? What about a woman's purse? What about my wallet?

Isn't my wallet my private property as much as my car?

Isn't an office building (or retail store, or restaurant) commercial property as much as the associated parking lot?

I think you just need to accept that most people who respect property rights do not carry it to the extreme as do you, especially when you resort to absurd examples like a woman's purse or your wallet. We get the point; you don't like regulating property. Too bad, it's done, it's constitutional, and it will continue. The employer parking lot bill doesn't regulate private property like any existing regulations, other than those that prohibit discrimination. It does not put a single new burden on the property owner.

Chas.