Court allows firearms in locked vehicles at work.

[gorfle]

"Court allows Oklahoma workers to have guns in vehicle"

http://newsok.com/court-allows-oklahoma-workers-to-have-guns-in-vehicles/article/3346987

"The law, which allows nonfelons to lock legal guns in their vehicles while parked at work, was passed in two stages in 2004 and 2005.

The law was proposed by legislators after Weyerhauser reportedly fired eight workers who violated policy by having guns in their vehicles at a mill in southeastern Oklahoma."

[scrinmaster]

1. We have this in Florida now, as long as you hold a vaild CCW permit.

[iverglas]

2. and once again

everybody else's rights go out the window when the gun militants stamp their feet.

[Raskolnik]

3. Could you please point out what "rights" are being tossed out the window? n/t

[iverglas]

4. I'll play

You guess, and I'll tell you whether you got it right.

[Raskolnik]

6. Why should I have to guess at what you are trying to say? That's childish at best,

and I have no desire to give you the attention you obviously love by trying to mine your own point for you out of endless circumlocution.

Iverglas, you constantly moan about how posters mischaracterize your posts by implying you said things you didn't say, but when asked a direct question about what "rights" you think other people are losing, you invite me to "guess." Ridiculous.

If you have a point, make it. Otherwise, you're just wanking.

[iverglas]

7. awwww, pout pout pout

I wonder. When an employer is prohibited by law from determining how its property may be used by third parties, whose rights might be getting trampled by the stamping feet of the gun militants?

I wonder, I wonder, I wonder.

[Raskolnik]

8. Ah, so you *want* to make the point that the property rights of the employer are at issue

but for some reason you can't actually make a declarative statement to that effect.

But, let's pretend for the moment that you did have the intellectual honesty to make a direct statement about the point you were trying to make:

Your concern for the property rights of the businesses is admirable, but, of course, those property rights are not absolute. For example, the business at issue could not forbid employees from reading the Quran during their meal breaks, or maintain segregated bathrooms. Are you upset with property rights being "trampled" in those instances? In fact, the federal regulation the businesses were relying upon for the authority to ban guns from their parking lots is itself a *quite* large restriction on the "property rights" of businesses, and regulates many of the activities that occur in those private properties.

The present matter involved a question of whether OSHA regulations preempted the OK law at issue (not that you bothered to find that out--I know you not generally in the habit of actually reading the legal opinions you criticize here). The 10th Circuit determined that the judge had overstepped his authority by ruling that the issue of guns secured in vehicles constituted a "hazard" which OSHA meant to regulate.

You can disagree with the practical result of the ruling all you like, but I'm willing to bet you can't take issue with the court's reasoning (even if you had bothered to read it).

edit for clarity

[iverglas]

10. born yesterday, were we?

Ah, so you *want* to make the point that the property rights of the employer are at issue
but for some reason you can't actually make a declarative statement to that effect.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3131649&mesg_id=3138666

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3131649&mesg_id=3142326

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3131649&mesg_id=3140629

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3131649&mesg_id=3145104

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3131649&mesg_id=3138631

and some more here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x99225

and there's more, but that should do you.


Or is it my job to repeat the whole of human history for you?


For example, the business at issue could not forbid employees from reading the Quran during their meal breaks, or maintain segregated bathrooms.

Uh huh. And which equality right is being violated by a rule prohibiting the use of an employer's property to store firearms?

Is that covered by prohibitions on discrimination on the ground of religion? sex?


I'm willing to bet you can't take issue with the court's reasoning (even if you had bothered to read it).

I'm taking issue with the gleeful stamping of gun militant feet and trampling of everybody else's thereby.

[Raskolnik]

15. Weak, Iverglas. Very weak.

Leaving aside for the moment the irony of someone who loves nothing more than to spend an entire thread playing the victim when someone tries to ferret out a nugget of information from one of your posts now crying foul when someone *doesn't* just assume what you are trying to say, this is a weak post.

You don't know what legal issues are involved in the 10th Circuit's decision because you haven't even bothered to read a summary of the opinion. Your broad appeal to "property rights" only serves to illustrate that you aren't even vaguely familiar with the preemption issue that decided this case. Once again, you remain wilfully ignorant to the factual and legal issues that actually mattered in this decision, but, god bless you, you don't let that stop you from criticizing the decision.

Is that how the legal practice works in Canada, or are you an exception?

[gorfle]

18. Bwhahahahahah!

Leaving aside for the moment the irony of someone who loves nothing more than to spend an entire thread playing the victim when someone tries to ferret out a nugget of information from one of your posts now crying foul when someone *doesn't* just assume what you are trying to say, this is a weak post.

Nononononono....we mustn't leave aside this brilliant synopsis of Iverglas' posting method! Well done!

I bow to your superior eloquence, sir.

:fistbump:

[iverglas]

20. you haven't noticed that I don't give a flying fuck?

It is the legislation at the bottom of this situation that is the problem. I have observed that it is common in the US to go at problems in strange and convoluted ways in the courts when there are direct ways of attacking them, and I don't know why that is, and I don't really care.

The legislation that compels employers to allow employees to store firearms on the employer's property is a clear violation of property rights, and is clearly unconstitutional.

Why anybody would want to attack it under health and safety legislation, I don't know. How I would attack the legislation in Canada is by way of a constitutional challenge, seeking a declaratory judgment that the legislation is contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and therefore void and of no effect, if I thought that were the case.

(The Cdn constitution doesn't actually contain an express recognition of property rights, but the issue could certainly be brought within something like the fundamental right to liberty and not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Heck, if it were a provincial law, I'd challenge it as ultra vires, since the SCC has held that firearms come within the federal power over criminal law, and if it were a federal law, I'd do the same in reverse, since "property and civil rights" is a head of provincial jurisdiction.)

How, exactly, does this law not contravene your Bill of Rights? --

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

?

Gotta love them what loves that Bill of Rights ... all of it.

Reclaiming your rights one at a time ... and fuck anybody else's that get trampled in the process of you getting yours. Even if your "rights" really aren't.

[Raskolnik]

22. I've noticed that you don't care enough to educate yourself, but you care enough to complain.

Again, I'm not sure how the legal profession works in Canada, but here in the U.S. that is a bad combination.

The legislation that compels employers to allow employees to store firearms on the employer's property is a clear violation of property rights, and is clearly unconstitutional.

Frankly, you have a very facile view of constitutional "property rights." I don't particularly feel like taking you through the basics of ConLaw from day one, but you really shouldn't be making statements that something is "clearly unconstitutional" if you haven't even read the legal opinions that discuss it.

[iverglas]

29. hmm

You wouldn't be commenting on my opinion of constitutionality without reading it (in the links I gave you), would you??

You do know what "property" is, as a legal concept, right?

[Taitertots]

34. Sounds like Ron Paul is in the building

There is a list of things you can/can't do on private property too long to list here.

[iverglas]

36. yuppers

There is a list of things you can/can't do on private property too long to list here.

Do any of them involve telling the owner of private property what s/he/it must allow third parties to do / possess on his/her/its property?


Employers may not discriminate against employees on the ground of race, religion, sex, etc. Almost all of those grounds involve inherent personal characteristics; religion is the exception, and for some reason we grant it the same protection.

Employers may not differentiate adversely among employees (or potential employees) on those grounds. They must make reasonable accommodations to ensure equitable treatment. In their capacity as employers.

Employers may prohibit employees from bringing animals to work, I believe. And they may prohibit any other third party from bringing animals onto their property. (As both employers and property owners, they may not prohibit guide dogs, for instance, since that would amount to discrimination on the ground of disability.)

What exactly is different about employers prohibiting employees, or third parties, from bringing firearms onto their proeprty?

Do you really imagine that your Constitution gives you the right to tote your gun onto someone else's property?

Would that include my property, if I decide to snap up a cheap condo in Florida?

[Taitertots]

45. OK Ron Paul

I don't remember anything about animals in the constitution. I do remember religion, race, sex, and bearing arms. So you got the right idea, but the wrong conclusion.

I you lived in Florida I could leave it in my car.

[gorfle]

93. and now...

Employers may not discriminate against employees on the ground of race, religion, sex, etc.

And now, they may not discriminate based on employees who choose to exercise their 2nd amendment rights. At least our court in Oklahoma.

Must just chap your ass, eh?

Do you really imagine that your Constitution gives you the right to tote your gun onto someone else's property?

Seems our courts in Oklahoma think so. I'll send you some Butt Paste.

[Raskolnik]

35. Iverglas, you aren't doing yourself any favors right now.

You may be a wiz when it comes to Canadian statutory construction, but U.S. constutional law is not your strong suit.

[iverglas]

37. well well

That was a content-ful post.

If you have something to tell me, why not come out and say it? Playing peek-a-boo?

Proof by blatant assertion, looks like to me. Which ain't no proof at all.

[Raskolnik]

41. You want me to teach you ConLaw on the DU messageboard?

No thanks.

Iverglas, you really are barking up the wrong tree when you assert the Fifth & Fourteenth Amendments' "property" clauses to fight against regulation of this kind. Businesses are not being deprived of property as a result of this law any more than under the OSHA regulations the businesses sought to use as authority to fight the state law. As I'm sure you already know, the state may regulate a host of activities that occur on private property (including but not limited to discrimination). OSHA regulations themselves are a prime example of this, but for some reason I don't see you arguing that regulating what type of lightbulbs may be used in a storage warehouse is a violation of the business' property rights. Why is that?

There is a reason that the court didn't decide this case on constitional grounds, and hard as it may be for you to believe, it isn't because they aren't as clever as you.

[iverglas]

51. yeah

I asked whether you knew the meaning of "property", and you demonstrated that you didn't.

I'm not about to give you a course.


As I'm sure you already know, the state may regulate a host of activities that occur on private property (including but not limited to discrimination).

And as I've asked elsewhere here -- exactly what laws can you cite that COMPEL an owner of private property to allow third parties to do something on his/her/its property?

When you factor out discriminatory practices, I think you'll find the answer is "none".


OSHA regulations themselves are a prime example of this, but for some reason I don't see you arguing that regulating what type of lightbulbs may be used in a storage warehouse is a violation of the business' property rights. Why is that?

Well, that would be because of the various rules of constitutional interpretation as to what is a justified interference in the exercise of rights. We have reached a stage of human progress where we believe that workers' welfare supercedes profits in these regards.

What workers' welfare issue is involved in a workplace rule against / law prohibiting a workplace rule against storing firearms on an employer's property?

What other overriding justification might there be for overriding a property owners' interests in controlling the use of its property as it considers appropriate in its own interests and the interests of other permitted users of the property? What entitles a legislature to make that decision for the property owner when the property owner doesn't agree?


There is a reason that the court didn't decide this case on constitional grounds, and hard as it may be for you to believe, it isn't because they aren't as clever as you.

Huh. I would rather think that it was because no constitutional challenge was mounted. Courts tend not to go striking down legislation on constitutional grounds when nobody has challenged its constitutionality. Bit of an interference in the legislative branch's functions, that would be, eh?

[Raskolnik]

59. None? Really?

what laws can you cite that COMPEL an owner of private property to allow third parties to do something on his/her/its property?

When you factor out discriminatory practices, I think you'll find the answer is "none".

Really? None? Easements, to name one of the top of my head, COMPEL an owner of private property to allow third parties to do something on his/her/its property. There are numerous free speech cases that make clear that in certain situations a private business may be considered a "public square" for purposes of the First Amendment, and the owner of the private property is COMPELLED to allow third parties to do something on his/her/its property. Is that enough to get you started?

Well, that would be because of the various rules of constitutional interpretation as to what is a justified interference in the exercise of rights. We have reached a stage of human progress where we believe that workers' welfare supersedes profits in these regards.

Exactly. Property rights are balanced by other interests constantly, and sometimes those competing interests outweigh property rights. The state legislature in this case has balanced those interests, and the result is the law at issue. Frankly, there isn't much question that a the small "property right" of the businesses to regulate what is kept inside locked cars in a parking lot is not going to be seen to outweigh something found in the Bill of Rights. This isn't really any different than if the state had passed a law barring businesses from prohibiting their employees from having political literature in the locked trunk of their cars in the company parking lot. Yes, the "property right" of the business is being restricted, but it is being balanced against the rights of the employees.

Iverglas, you're not really being intellectually honest here. I understand that you oppose the effect of the court's decision on policy grounds, but to pretend that you think the outcome is also unconstitutional is stretching credibility.

[iverglas]

68. apparently

what laws can you cite that COMPEL an owner of private property to allow third parties to do something on his/her/its property?

Really? None? Easements, to name one of the top of my head, COMPEL an owner of private property to allow third parties to do something on his/her/its property.

Perhaps you are not aware that an easement is not a law. I learned what an easement was in the first term of my first year at law school, at the feet of the old dean.

Now, maybe you're referring to laws that grant easements for such things as public utilities: hydro wires, telephone lines, and such.

Are you suggesting that a use of private property for a purpose in the interests of the public and adjacent property owners is similar to the use of private property to store your firearms on?

I assure you: I'll laugh if you are.


There are numerous free speech cases that make clear that in certain situations a private business may be considered a "public square" for purposes of the First Amendment, and the owner of the private property is COMPELLED to allow third parties to do something on his/her/its property.

This, I do believe, would involve, as one condition, that the property owner have opened the property to members of the public. Hence its characterization as the "public square" and all.

Seeing a common thread here at all? Maybe the word/concept "public"?

Does an employer open its property to the public? Hey, if so, all the more reason to take measures to protect the public, I'd say. But is the legislation telling employers they must allow members of the public to tote firearms onto their property? Hmm. I hadn't thought so.

Is the storage of firearms on the employer's property necessary in the interests of the public, or adjoining property owners, or anyone but the gun-toting employee in question, per that employee's opinion?


Frankly, there isn't much question that a the small "property right" of the businesses to regulate what is kept inside locked cars in a parking lot is not going to be seen to outweigh something found in the Bill of Rights.

I seem to be missing something here.

The Bill of Rights recognizes a right to drive to work and park on employers' property? Hell, I thought driving was supposed to be a privilege; I can't imagine what parking on someone else's property might be. A favour?


This isn't really any different than if the state had passed a law barring businesses from prohibiting their employees from having political literature in the locked trunk of their cars in the company parking lot.

How do you stay alive, when you can't tell the difference between an apple and an orange coffee table?


Yes, the "property right" of the business is being restricted, but it is being balanced against the rights of the employees.

How come you're not coming right out and telling me what rights those are?


I understand that you oppose the effect of the court's decision on policy grounds, but to pretend that you think the outcome is also unconstitutional is stretching credibility.

You can pretend to "understand" anything you like. Heck, I understand that you're being completely sincere here. Hahahaha.

I think it's hilarious that a bunch of yahoos who evidently spend their lives jumping up and down and screeching about their rights (note that I refer to the yahoos who instigated these laws and brought these actions) just too obviously don't give a shit about anybody else's rights.

Which means, of course, that they don't give a shit about rights, period. You can't spend your life screeching about your own rights and trampling on other people's and claim to care about rights. All you care about is yourself, in that case.

[Raskolnik]

72. Nope, still not cutting it.

Private property owners can't be compelled to allow a 3rd party to do things on said property, except the numerous examples to the contrary, which don't count because they involve discrimination, except when they don't, but those don't count either because they aren't "laws," but instead merely the state directing the owner of a private piece of property to allow a 3rd party to do things on said property. I think I've just about got it down.

The fact remains that the businesses' "property rights" in regulating what is kept inside is employees' locked cars in the businesses' parking lot is not going to be sufficient to outweigh both the employees' rights to keep arms, their right to privacy, and their own property right in their vehicle.

Honestly, I'd respect you more if you just stuck to your opposition of anyone owning/possessing firearms on policy grounds, and not try to shoehorn the issue of "property rights" into a discussion in which they do not belong. You don't like guns, and you don't want anyone to have them. I understand that, and a reasonable case can be made for such a position. I disagree with that position, but I at least respect it more than these rather half-assed attempts to pretend that you actually care about the "property rights" of businesses.

[iverglas]

79. "public"

I think you missed that bit.


The fact remains that the businesses' "property rights" in regulating what is kept inside is employees' locked cars in the businesses' parking lot is not going to be sufficient to outweigh both the employees' rights to keep arms, their right to privacy, and their own property right in their vehicle.

So I still want to know.

If this "right to keep arms" and right to privacy and property right in one's own vehicle outweighs everything else in the world ... oh, okay, just property rights for the moment ... and I buy that condo townhouse in Florida, and I invite you to dinner and tell you that you may not bring firearms onto my property, including a firearm in your car in my driveway, and you do anyway, and I tell you to leave your chicken saag and get out of my house and get your car off my property, and you don't, and I call the police, they'll tell me that I can't uninvite you just because you have a gun in your car?

Well, not now they wouldn't. But the Florida legislature could make a law telling me that I can't tell you your gun isn't allowed in a car on my property. Right?

Are there any rights at all that this arr kay bee eh thing doesn't supercede? And if not, are there any rights at all?

Does "your own property right in your vehicle" really entitle you to PARK ON SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY when you refuse to comply with the conditions they place on the use of that property?

Looks like nobody needs to be paying parking lot owners for the use of their space any more.


Honestly, I'd respect you more if you just stuck to your opposition of anyone owning/possessing firearms on policy grounds

I would say that I'd respect you more if you stopped making false statements that you know are false, but I'm afraid that horse has too long ago departed that barn.


and not try to shoehorn the issue of "property rights" into a discussion in which they do not belong.

Hahaha. That one is really funny.

Given how we know the right wing will "shoehorn" those "gun rights" into any crevice it can find.

Including the utterly ludicrous present situation. The whinging and whining and stamping of feet of the poor, hard-done by you-know-whos, who might not be able to have their trusty companion pieces pressed comfortingly against their flesh at all times.

Until there is not one square inch of earth not covered in guns and blanketed by racist speech and religious fanaticism and the hatred of women and every ethnic and sexual and other minority you can think of, so that all but they will have to move to the moon if they want any hope of being able to live without constant fear and in the ever-present knowledge that their lives are worthless to those who make the rules, the right wing will not rest. And be its handmaidens co-conspirators or dupes, it matters not to the victims.

The world doesn't belong to women or to racial or ethnic or religious or sexual minorities. We know whom it belongs to, and we need not to forget it. Guns in cars at the workplace are just one reminder among many.

[Raskolnik]

91. That's right. This is all about oppressing women, racial, ethnic, religious and sexual minorities.

Good on you for keeping this intellectually honest.

Good evening.

[gorfle]

94. Ding!

I disagree with that position, but I at least respect it more than these rather half-assed attempts to pretend that you actually care about the "property rights" of businesses.

It's quite clear that Iverglas will clutch onto any "right" she can to beat down firearm ownership. From medical privacy, to property, to anything. But she consistently rejects any attempt at debate to find an equitable solution. She's not really interested in property rights, or medical privacy rights - she just wants an uncompromising lever to beat down firearm ownership rights.

Well fuck it. I'm tired of that kind of compromising. I'm going to carry my gun wherever I feel like it. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

[iverglas]

97. dear dear me

There sure are some upset sore losers here since November ...

edit: bitter, that's the word I was looking for. Bitter.

[Scout]

50. would you at least bother to spell her name right? n/t

[Raskolnik]

52. huh? n/t

[Scout]

57. pretty simple request/question, for such a lofty mind ... what's not to understand? n/t

[Raskolnik]

60. I wasn't aware that I was misspelling anyone's name.

Please point out where I have done so and I will make every effort to correct my error.

[iverglas]

76. I'm a bit of a third party here

but my name is not capitalized.

It is a word devised by myself from various bits and pieces and applied to myself, and could therefore be regarded as a proper noun. However, proper nouns are not always capitalized, where they are names of people or things and the namer has chosen a lowercase form. I try to think of a corporate name as an example, and it being the end of a long Friday of a long week, I come up empty.

[Raskolnik]

77. My sincere apologies.

It's hard to break the habit of referring to other people with proper nouns, and there is a part of my brain that finds in inherently disrepectful to not capitalize someone's name.

But people can be called whatever they like, so I will make every effort to comply.

[Scout]

88. sorry to butt in like that

just struck a nerve as i looked at the thread ...

:hi:

[Raskolnik]

78. Ok, mystery solved. Thanks for you input. You really added a lot to this discussion.

Anything else I can do for you?

[Scout]

87. you can take your condescending attitude, fold it five ways, and shove it

how about that?

[Raskolnik]

90. Condescending? Moi? Perish the thought.

I really do appreciate your input in this sub-thread. Your thoughts have been an invaluable addition, and I'm sure Iverglas appreciates...oops, I mean I'm sure iverglas appreciates you looking out for her.

Keep up the good work!

[57_TomCat]

48. It seems to me that no rights are being violated of the employers.

iverglas wrote; The legislation that compels employers to allow employees to store firearms on the employer's property is a clear violation of property rights, and is clearly unconstitutional.

The employees are not storing weapons on the property of the company. They are storing weapons in their private property that happens to be a vehicle. The privately owned vehicle (POV) is allowed on the property of the company. The company should not be allowed to ban the storage of firearms in the vehicle it allows on property unless such storage is against the law. If the company wants to prevent someone from storing a gun in a private automobile then ban POV's from their property.

I imagine that the law does allow for the restriction of storage of weapons in company vehicles. It might well allow for company policy to restrict weapons "at work". On the other hand the POV is not company property and a person can park their pistola in a lock box in the trunk if they want. No one's rights are being trampled.

Of course you do not care but others might :)

[iverglas]

53. I'm afraid

The employees are not storing weapons on the property of the company. They are storing weapons in their private property that happens to be a vehicle.

that this really doesn't even merit comment.

[57_TomCat]

63. But you could not resist could you.

Shame since the point is still valid. :)

[gorfle]

92. Wow, Iverglas is learning!

Reclaiming your rights one at a time ... and fuck anybody else's that get trampled in the process of you getting yours. Even if your "rights" really aren't.

Now you're gettin' it! Fuck 'em! When people like you show absolutely zero interest in considering my interests and my rights, quite naturally my response is going to be "Fuck 'em!" We've got the guns, baby. Whatcha gonna do about it? Whimper? I thought so.

[iverglas]

98. the odd thing here

Now you're gettin' it! Fuck 'em! When people like you show absolutely zero interest in considering my interests and my rights, quite naturally my response is going to be "Fuck 'em!" We've got the guns, baby. Whatcha gonna do about it? Whimper? I thought so.

is that I've never been involuntarily committed to a hospital in the US, and am not a property-owning employer in the US.

My interest in anything is supremely irrelvant here.

There are these things in the world called "ideas". And, oh, "principles".

You seem to be in short supply.

[gorfle]

100. whimper whimper whimper.

My interest in anything is supremely irrelvant here.

Boy is that the understatement of the year.

There are these things in the world called "ideas". And, oh, "principles".

You seem to be in short supply.

If the drivel that comes out of your keyboard is what constitutes ideas and principles I consider myself contentedly poor.

You keep the principles and ideas. I'll keep the guns and ammo. We'll see who comes out on top.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gorfle]

19. "Equality rights"

Uh huh. And which equality right is being violated by a rule prohibiting the use of an employer's property to store firearms?

Is that covered by prohibitions on discrimination on the ground of religion? sex?

Equality rights aren't the only rights that can be infringed upon, you know. How about the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, for example?

[iverglas]

21. so?

Where was the analogy with employees' religious practices and sex, then?

[gorfle]

26. I wasn't trying to make one.

Where was the analogy with employees' religious practices and sex, then?

I wasn't trying to make one. I'm just not allowing you to frame the argument in terms of "equality" rights.

[paulsby]

108. their property

yes, the lot is their property. but the CARS are the employees property.

should employers be able to ban people from having certain books in their car (first amendment), pro-choice stickers on their car (first amendment), etc?

if we take your "it's their property" argument seriously, then it would seem you think that employers can tell people what books they can have in their car and/or what bumper stickers they can have too.

furthermore, if a business can ban employees from storing their guns in their cars then they are directly affecting the employees second amendment rights OFF their property since the citizen will be gunless on his way to work (and wherever he stops off on the way) and on the way home (same).

think of a car kind of like an embassy. just because you, an employee, park it on the property of your employer doesn't mean it's not still your own little country to control.

[iverglas]

109. and some for you

should employers be able to ban people from having certain books in their car (first amendment), pro-choice stickers on their car (first amendment), etc?

Should employers be able to ban people from having sex in their cars in the employer's parking lot?

Put your thinking cap on, now.

In what sense is a book in a car LIKE a gun in a car?

In about the same sense that a fish is like a bicycle, I'd say.


if we take your "it's their property" argument seriously, then it would seem you think that employers can tell people what books they can have in their car and/or what bumper stickers they can have too.

"It would seem" ... to someone who can't tell a fish from a bicycle.


furthermore, if a business can ban employees from storing their guns in their cars then they are directly affecting the employees second amendment rights OFF their property since the citizen will be gunless on his way to work (and wherever he stops off on the way) and on the way home (same).

Huh, maybe YOU will answer the oft-asked question.

Who's FORCING those employees to park on the employer's property???

Nobody???? Well then. Think it through, now.


think of a car kind of like an embassy. just because you, an employee, park it on the property of your employer doesn't mean it's not still your own little country to control.

Uh huh. Now you think of a car like an embassy.

If Soviet Canuckistan decides to assemble a nuclear arsenal, or conduct chemical warfare experiments, or store a load of toxic waste, at its embassy in Washington DC, how long do you think the embassy will be permitted to remain there?

Excellent analogy. Ta very much.

[paulsby]

110. analogy

"In what sense is a book in a car LIKE a gun in a car?"

both are exercises of a constitutional right. see the respective amendments.

having sex in the car would be more analogous to reading while driving, which is still banned (as careless or inattentive driving).

it;s a bogus analogy and you know it.

the reality is that you are failing to understand that carrying a gun is an individual constitutional right. just like free expression.

and yes, free expression can be limited in the workplace. a boss can fire you for calling him a buttmunch. but he can't tell you what books you can have in your car.

similarly, he should be able to say "no guns in the workplace", but not prohibit you from storing one in your car.

the car is YOURS, and again it affects activities outside the workplace.

he couldn't tell you "no political posters in your car".

he can tell you you can't carry one around at work.

do you understand the difference.

afford gun rights the same respect you afford OTHER constitutional rights

[iverglas]

111. snork

having sex in the car would be more analogous to reading while driving

Here I thought we were talking about parked cars. In fact, I'm absolutely sure we were talking about parked cars. You never parked?

the reality is that you are failing to understand that carrying a gun is an individual constitutional right. just like free expression.

Yes. Now you g'head and tell me that your employer may not prohibit you from making political speeches in its parking lot. Or holding political rallies in its parking lot. Freedom of assembly is an individual constitutional right too, you know.

the car is YOURS, and again it affects activities outside the workplace.

The car is parked on ITS property. (What's this "his"? Is that how we refer to corporations these days?)

he couldn't tell you "no political posters in your car".
he can tell you you can't carry one around at work.
do you understand the difference.

I'm the one who can tell the difference between a poster and a gun.

You're the one who seems to be having the problem here.

afford gun rights the same respect you afford OTHER constitutional rights

Gunz got rights.

The moment you can show me who is forcing employees to park on an employer's parking lot is the moment when you all may have a point.

Not really. But it would be fun to see.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

101. You seem to be regressing.

[gorfle]

17. It's one of the perks...

...of having the guns.

[marksmithfield]

58. ignore

[iverglas]

69. snooze

Puke.

Run.

Shilly-shally.

<insert verb of your choice>

This is fun. Is there a prize for the best verb?

[TheWraith]

5. Frankly I don't think you should leave a gun unattended in public.

Too easy to steal. If you have reason to think you need to carry, then keep it with you.

[spin]

9. You have a point, and I have a solution...

a car gun safe.

[iverglas]

11. and if the car is stolen

that car gun safe is just magically transported to ... another planet?

[TheWraith]

13. No, but it would remain securely locked.

I suppose if you absolutely have to leave a carried weapon in the car, that's the way to go.

[iverglas]

14. ... until somebody got it open.

Sheesh. Yes, the car thieves would just say Hmm, a safe, must be something good in there, guess we should return it to its owner ...

Sheesh.

[gorfle]

24. 2 locked containers not enough?

If a thief is going to break into both the car and the safe, what more could be done?

[iverglas]

30. what more could be done?

Uh ... what less could be done?

The gun could be left at home? If it gets lonely, you could always leave the radio on for it.

[gorfle]

44. Sorry, not an option.

I'm not going to cater to pantywaists who go into apoplexy because some car out in the parking lot might have a gun in it.

[iverglas]

54. yes an option

just not your whim.

[gorfle]

64. I'm glad.

yes an option just not your whim.

I'm glad my whims jive with the court.

[iverglas]

70. "I'm glad my whims jive with the court."

Yes, many people have been.

Your court was much loved by slave-owners, and mine by people who thought women should not be appointed to the Senate.

[gorfle]

74. I'm lovin' it.

Keep on showin' me tha love, baby!

[Scout]

55. better a pantywaist than a paranoid n/t

[gorfle]

65. Better prepared when you don't need it than unprepared when you do. n/t

[Scout]

67. you agree that you're paranoid then, i see. n/t

[gorfle]

73. I guess so.

I'm so paranoid I have fire insurance, car insurance, life insurance, flood insurance, and health insurance.

I even keep a spare tire in my car and fire extinguishers in my house!

Damn I'm paranoid. But prepared.

[iverglas]

80. huh

I'm so paranoid I have fire insurance, car insurance, life insurance, flood insurance, and health insurance.

And as a result, will you never have fires, car thefts, deaths, floods or disease?

Of what earthly relevance are these things?

They provide compensation after the occurrence of an insured event. What the hell does that have to do with dragging a gun around with you everywhere you go?


I even keep a spare tire in my car and fire extinguishers in my house!

You'd better be careful. Somebody may steal one of those things and hold up a liquor store with it.

Still not seeing any relevance, of course.

Maybe if you kept everything in your house wet at all times so it wouldn't burn, we'd have a bit of an analogy to dragging that gun around with you everywhere you go.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[marksmithfield]

61. Why iverglas

would someone buy a pistol for personal protection and then leave it at home?

[iverglas]

71. uh, mu?

Why ... would someone buy a pistol for personal protection and then leave it at home?


Why would someone buy an apple to wash the car with and then go to Florida?

Why do I care?

Why do you imagine your question is relevant?

Perhaps I have been taken too literally.

Buy your pistol, for whatever reason you claim, and leave it somewhere where someone agrees to let you leave it.

Why would someone buy a pistol "for personal protection" and then leave it IN THEIR CAR??

It seems to me that if you can't find an employer who allows you to tote your gun at work, you need to change jobs. If you can't find such an employer, you'll just have to apply for social assistance, I guess.

Certainly the welfare authorities will have no objection to paying benefits to someone who quit a job because s/he wasn't allowed to wander about the workplace festooned in firearm.

I mean, it's a right. Right?

If I quit my job because my employer wouldn't give the women workers a washroom, or if my Haitian friend quit her job because her employer wouldn't let workers of colour use the lunchroom, we'd have no problem at all getting benefits if we couldn't find a job.

So I'm sure that anyone who quits a job because s/he isn't allowed to take his/her gun to work would be treated the same way.

Then, when the authorities get tired of paying welfare benefits to people who are being discriminated against at work and denied their fundamental human right to attach firearms to their bodies, they'll pass a law prohibiting employers from prohibiting the packing of pistols on the job.

There you go. Your next campaign, all mapped out for you.

[gorfle]

82. MUUUuuuuuuuu!

I always envision a fat old hairy cow every time you write that.

[iverglas]

83. "I always envision a fat old hairy cow every time you write that."

And that speaks so well of you.

Hmm. You seem upset ...

[gorfle]

84. MuuuuuUUUuuUUuuUuuUuuu!

Bwhahahahahahahah!

[spin]

27. You also have a point, and I have a solution...

Lojack

http://www.lojack.com/

[X_Digger]

28. .. because a house with a safe is too heavy to carry?

You've already said you think guns outside of locked gun clubs is dangerous..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x201551#201637

In my own opinion, it is careless to have firearms anywhere.

[AtheistCrusader]

86. Maybe.

I don't know, let me ask our Police Chief.

Oh, I can't, because he doesn't know where his service pistol went either.
It is a mystery.

[gorfle]

23. I agree.

I agree and would like to see CCW permit holders be able to keep their firearms on them while at work, rather than leave in in their car.

[iverglas]

31. you mean ...

I agree and would like to see CCW permit holders be able to keep their firearms on them while at work, rather than leave in in their car.

... rather than leave them at home.

False dichotomy much?

[gorfle]

42. Since that is not an option...

I suppose you could say it's a true dichotomy much.

[57_TomCat]

49. A good point and I see car gun safes have been mentioned.

If the car is stolen then that is one more gun in the hands of criminals. Not good BUT the same chance of theft occurs with it being stored at home. In my case I bring the personal gun in to work and lock it in a safe on my desk and then put the government gun on. Works for me. :)

[iverglas]

12. I liked this bit

"Attorney general used an NRA lawyer to argue the state’s position"

[Raskolnik]

16. Which you haven't bothered to read.

But don't let wilfull ignorance stop you from having an opinion about it. It sure doesn't stop you with Heller, so why start here?

[gorfle]

25. I liked it, too.

Lets me see my NRA dues are well spent.

[iverglas]

32. actually

I would expect that the lawyer in question was from the NRA-ILA, not the NRA.

You know. The outfit that endorsed George W. Bush, that campaigned against Obama ...

[gorfle]

43. And...

I would expect that the lawyer in question was from the NRA-ILA, not the NRA.

I support them both.

You know. The outfit that endorsed George W. Bush, that campaigned against Obama ...

...that supported my firearm rights...

[paulsby]

115. the NRA

is essentially a single issue org. so, of course they are going to support a candidate that supports gun rights vs. one that doesn't (or has a spotty history e.g. the joyce foundation membership, etc.)

the NRA is not a "pro republican" organization/

however, since more repubs support gun right (ie THE civil right that the NRA is concerned with), the NRA will naturally support more repubs.

i would assume that NARAL, in an election where the local repub was pro-choiceand the local dem was anti-choice, would support the repub in that election too.

i'd be interested to see if that ever happens. it would make sense.

[iverglas]

119. "it would make sense"

i would assume that NARAL, in an election where the local repub was pro-choiceand the local dem was anti-choice, would support the repub in that election too.

Yowie, how I thank my stars constantly that I don't live in a world where it makes sense that the party that supposedly represents my interests fields anti-choice candidates. In the world I live in and the party I'm a member of, anti-choice candidates ... uh, well, they aren't candidates. Not for my party. We don't field vicious right-wing scum in elections in my party.

In the analogous situation for the guns, the NRA does endorse Democratic candidates from time to time. Nobody has ever said the NRA is stupid.

Now, the Pink Pistols, they were a little farther back in the line when brains were handed out. Libertarian Party, straight ticket. Of course, that could be because they're just a front for / organ of the party.

Oh well, la di dah, yes, the NRA(-ILA) is just a sincere, single-issue, non-partisan pressure group. Yes indeed, lalala, that's what the NRA -- and of course all the other gun militant outfits ... and all the anti-choice outfits and "free speech on campus" outfits and all their other right-wing fellow travellers -- really is. Just simple honest folk who only care about the guns. Yuppers.

It's just a straaange coincidence how they place themselves deliberately and decisively on the opposite side of the fence from anybody and anything decent in their society.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=15

Strange coincidence ......

[paulsby]

121. except you are wrong

is your claim that there are no democrats in the USA who are anti-choice?

if that is your claim, i'll feel free to debunk it.

most dems are stronger on abortion rights than repubs.

sadly, most dems are weaker on gun rights than repubs.

but there are of course exceptions- pro gun right dems and prochoice repubs., and anti-choice dems and antigun right repubs.

[iverglas]

124. why do you ask?

is your claim that there are no democrats in the USA who are anti-choice?

Was there something in my post that looked like that to you?

Maybe you need a new lens prescription.

[paulsby]

126. maybe you need

to stop obfuscating and try to intelligently discourse.

Like I said, the fact that NRA supports more repubs than dems is natural - because more repubs than dems support gun rights.

*if* you can show me examples where the NRA supported an anti-gun-rights repub OVER an pro-gun-rights dem, then you would show that they are truly a repub org.

but you haven't.

they are a gun rights org

[iverglas]

129. think it through, now

the fact that NRA supports more repubs than dems is natural - because more repubs than dems support gun rights.

The nasty spectrum of nasty anti-choice organizations in the US supports more Republicans than Democrats -- because more Republicans than Democrats are misogynistic assholes champing at the bit to violate women's rights.

Funny how these "gun rights" are just more attractive to Republicans, ain't it?

As if anybody actually believed that the Republican Party's masters gave any more of a shit about "gun rights" than they do about fetuses.

And as if anybody thinks that the NRA is actually too stupid to realize this, let alone not to be in on the joke.

[paulsby]

130. non-responsive

histrionic, and boring.

[iverglas]

132. "histrionic"?

C'mon now. You know you wanted to say "hysterical".

[Taitertots]

33. I might have to donate more

Good to see all that money is well spent.

[iverglas]

38. yuppers

Gotta defeat those Democrats, no matter what the cost.

http://www.nraila.org/OBAMA/

[Taitertots]

39. I'll keep voting Democrat

and being an NRA member. It is not the NRA's fault the democratic party and Obama have an anti-gun bias. Hopefully they will get there shit together, stop supporting the policies that got Bush elected(1994 AWB), and get supported more by the NRA.

I better way to assure the Democrats lose is to push the radical anti-gun positions that push huge numbers of people away from them to the republican party.
Gotta get them guns, no matter what the cost.

[iverglas]

40. gotta keep saying it

the radical anti-gun positions that push huge numbers of people away from them to the republican party.

No matter what utter bullshit it is and everybody knows it to be.

But hey ... say it often enough and loud enough, and it might come true.

Dog knows the dungeon denizens tried over the fall of 2008. Oh well. Better luck next time, guys.

[Taitertots]

46. Just keep doing it

Because we all know that the 2000 election was such a land slide that 1994 AWB couldn't have had anything to do with the results. Same with the 2004 and 2002 midterms and 1998 midterms, they were all such wide margins Democratic anti-gun bias couldn't have swayed the results at all. The NRA has only a few million members, how could that have effected the results. :sarcasm:

It is also worth taking into consideration how little Obama spoke out against guns, and how often he affirmed his support of the second amendment.

[rrneck]

47. It seems to me

that while the automobile may be parked on somebody else's property, the vehicle itself is the property of the gun owner. The question is whose property rights trump whose. Since the rights RKBA seem to be the more fundamental rights, a reasonable compromise has been made by the requirement to secure the firearm in a locked vehicle as opposed to a locker inside the facility, which could be considered the personal space of the employee as well (at least if the employee wants to make a case of it).

Now, if your intent is to regulate firearms out of existence by whatever means necessary, it would be in your best interest to make it as inconvient as possible. So if you can't make people stop carrying firearms, make it difficult or impossible to take them to a destination, which would make CCW moot.

[iverglas]

56. whose intent?

Now, if your intent is to regulate firearms out of existence by whatever means necessary

The employers? That's who we're talking about, you do understand.

Laws telling employers what use they must permit to be made of their property.


while the automobile may be parked on somebody else's property, the vehicle itself is the property of the gun owner. The question is whose property rights trump whose.

Really? You mean, employers can be compelled to allow employees to park cars on their property?

Or maybe employers can compel employees to park cars on their property.

I dunno. Sure is confusing. The vehicle is the property of the gun owner, and it is parked on the employer's property. So ... the employer can make a rule that vehicles containing guns may not be parked on its property. Duh.

[rrneck]

89. Yes, they can. That is how these

things get worked out. A law is a codification of popular consent.

I'm old enough to remember the controversy over "Saturday Night Specials". Now you can't swing a broom without hitting somebody who owns a Glock.

Then it was "assault weapons" and suddenly there are semi automatic rifles with detachable magazines all over the place.

Laws to regulate carrying firearms on one's person have spread to almost every state in the union.

So, what the people of the United States seem to have decided is that it is ok to own small arms including rifles, pistols, and shotguns. They seem also to have decided that it is ok to carry pistols on their persons. The lines are now being drawn to determine exactly where those firearms can be carried since most of the time personal movement presumes a destination. The issue has been discussed at great length in this forum concerning state and federal parks, colleges and universities, shopping centers and other "no gun zones" to name a few. It remains to be seen how that will be worked out.

I expect cultural adjustments will have to be made on both sides to further codify a way to allow persons to have firearms on their persons in a mobile and dynamic society. If, for example, an employer has a fair number of people on staff who own guns and who would seek employment elsewhere if they were not allowed to park on company property, that will figure the design of their parking policy. More lawsuits may ensue since we are talking about a second amendment right here, but that's just how it works. On the other side of equation, gun owners as a group may find they have to increase some demonstration of proficiency and stability to assure the rest of society that having people walking around with guns is not so scary and there is no real need to worry about gun free zones etc.

And then of course there tons of other cultural, economic, and societal variables that could come into play to affect the outcome. If the economic crisis becomes significantly worse, then the "streets" will become much more dangerous and going personally armed may become the norm rather than the exception. On the other hand, in light of the last election policies may be enacted and systems put into place that make the United States a more fair, compassionate, and just place to live. Thus reducing the appeal and hopefully the need for that degree of personal defense and affecting where we think people need to carry guns. And those are just two variables among scores of others.

So, to answer your question, yes. Laws that compel employers to allow employees park their personal property on employer owned property can be put into place if there is sufficient political will to make it happen. An employers property is not a personal fiefdom, no matter what the corporate board of directors seems to think. Imagine what the workplace would look like if the federal govenment were not allowed to oversee it's structure. Certainly the safety and security of employees in the parking lot would be a consideration as well. If an employer cannot guarantee the safety and security of an employee on property owned by the employer, then that task would fall to the employee. I know of an entire grocery store chain that pulled out of Nashville because a woman was assaulted and killed in its parking lot. They left town after the lawsuit.

I kind of like the idea of a CEO looking out on the parking lot of his company at the vehicles of his employees and wondering how many guns are out there. Gives 'em something to think about.

[iverglas]

99. good luck with that

If, for example, an employer has a fair number of people on staff who own guns and who would seek employment elsewhere if they were not allowed to park on company property, that will figure the design of their parking policy.

I think the case under discussion illustrates how worried employers are about losing employees who don't think employer policies apply to them.

I wanna see that test case.

Somebody - quit yer job because yer employer won't let you park your firearm, or wear your firearm, whatever, on employer property.

Claim that your rights were violated. Be unable to find another job - won't be hard to do that in your present economy. Claim social assistance benefits. Let us know how it goes.

Surely nobody's afraid to do it. Surely the NRA-ILA will take up the case and cover all costs.


Laws that compel employers to allow employees park their personal property on employer owned property can be put into place if there is sufficient political will to make it happen.

Laws that compel people to work for nothing and impose the death penalty for escaping from their "employers' can also be put in place if there is sufficient political will.

Fuck those other people's rights, eh?

[spin]

62. The question is...

Does the employer have the right to regulate what is in your car while it's in his parking lot?

The background of the Weyerhauser incident:

On October 1, 2002, the company sent detection dogs into the parking lot of their Valliant, Oklahoma paper mill plant looking for drugs in vehicles in response to an employee drug overdose. They found no drugs, but the dogs alerted on 12 cars with guns in them.<16> Some of the employees were provided by sub-contractors, including Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR) and Kenny Industrials.<17> The company then asked the employees if they would open their vehicles for a hand search, two of them refused, of the remaining 10 vehicles rifles, shotguns, and handguns were found.<16><17>

All three companies, Weyerhaeuser, KBR, and Kenny, "prohibited the possession of firearms by employees, including in parking lots used by employees." In addition, "KBR also maintains various bulletin boards throughout the Weyco mill and has posted specific "no weapons" literature on those bulletin boards. Further, 'll KBR employees working at the Valliant Mill have completed a computer safety module which states that no weapons are permitted on the Mill site'."<17>

On November 14, 2002, the vehicles in the parking lot were searched for a second time. All employees were warned that if contraband, either drugs or firearms, were found a second time, they would be terminated. 12 employees were found with contraband and were immediately suspended.<17>

KBR ultimately determined to terminate their contractors: Steve Bastible, John Bryan, Douglas Rowan, Donald Payne, Larry Mullens and Scott Darden. Kenny Industrials terminated Ryan Lewis. And, Weyerhaeuser terminated Jimmie Wyatt, a shift supervisor of 23 years, with an exemplary record. An additional four employees were terminated, but because these individuals did not file suit against the company, their names remain unpublished. Jimmy 'Red' Wyatt and all the others said that they were never told of the policy change, extending the company gun ban to the parking lot, which had occurred in 2002.<17>

The plant manager, Randy Nebel, said that firing the men was difficult but he felt safer with all the guns out of the parking lot. Nebel stated that all the employees had been warned of the policy change.<16>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weyerhaeuser

Granted, an employer should have the right to regulate what an employee has in his possession while working inside the employer’s building. Should an employer have the right to regulate what legal items an employee has in his house or his car?

The employee’s home is his property as is his car. The mere fact that the employee’s vehicle is parked in the employer’s parking lot doesn’t make the car the temporary property of the employer. If the employer wants to search the car, he has to obtain the permission of the employee.

In many cases, employers implemented a no firearm policy for their parking lots because of the threat of a lawsuit if a weapon was obtained from a vehicle in their parking lot and misused. To me this is understandable and a legitimate concern.

The company I worked for before I retired implemented this policy. A lot of animosity developed between the large number of employees who commonly carried weapons in their vehicles and management. The management was adamant and the employees were informed that if a firearm was found in their vehicle they WOULD be terminated on the spot.

But this was more of a “don’t ask, don’t tell” program. My superiors were well aware of the fact that prior to the new policy; I had always had a handgun in my car. I made my opinion of the new policy abundantly clear. I’m positive that they realized that I had no plans of following their new firearm policy. But they never asked to search my car or any other cars. Of course, if they had, I would have refused permission.

Eventually the Florida laws were changed to allow employees to have firearms in their cars while at work. The “Bring your gun to work” law required the employee to have a concealed carry permit. It also relieved the employer of liability concerns if he complied with the law.

In my opinion, this was an excellent solution to the problem.


For a quick look at the law visit:

http://www.fordharrison.com/shownews.aspx?show=3590

[slackmaster]

66. Another question is whether they have a right to search it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5099367

[iverglas]

75. mere facts

The mere fact that the employee’s vehicle is parked in the employer’s parking lot doesn’t make the car the temporary property of the employer.

The mere fact that a firearm is inside a vehicle doesn't mean that it is on Mars. It is on the employer's parking lot.

My bicycle is my personal property. If I leave my pistol tied to my bicycle in the company parking lot, cool? How about if I leave my backpack with my pistol in it sitting beside my car? My property. No right to search it, or tell me what I may have in it.


The employee’s home is his property as is his car.

You want to park your trailer on the employer's lot now?!?

If the employer may not control what you put on its parking lot, I guess you could go ahead.


If the employer wants to search the car, he has to obtain the permission of the employee.

Unless the employer has a policy that employees must consent to such searches for the specific reason of investigating compliance with employer rules. I'm sure you think employers couldn't have such policies. I'm sure I have no idea why you would think that.

In any event, the search issue is a red herring. The issue is whether governments may restrict employers' exercise of property rights by telling them what they must allow to be done on their property.


The “Bring your gun to work” law required the employee to have a concealed carry permit. It also relieved the employer of liability concerns if he complied with the law.

And so someone who suffers harm that would not have occurred but for the firearm in the car in the parking lot is left to seek damages from ... whom?

I'd go for the legislature, myself.

[spin]

85. Since you have an excellent legal background...

I'll give you a link to the section of Florida law with deals with firearms in an employer's parking lot.

1790.251 Protection of the right to keep and bear arms in motor vehicles for self-defense and other lawful purposes; prohibited acts; duty of public and private employers; immunity from liability; enforcement.--

(1) SHORT TITLE.--This section may be cited as the "Preservation and Protection of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Motor Vehicles Act of 2008."

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0790/SEC251.HTM&Title=-%3E2008-%3ECh0790-%3ESection%20251#0790.251

You should find the answers to your questions there.

******

I doubt if you'll agree with the law as written and will probably find fault with the wording.

I would bet Canada would never pass such a law.

Of course, this is why I like living in Florida and you prefer Canada.



I don't agree with all Florida law. For example:

A special law prohibits unmarried women from parachuting on Sunday or she shall risk arrest, fine, and/or jailing.

If an elephant is left tied to a parking meter, the parking fee has to be paid just as it would for a vehicle.

When having sex, only the missionary position is legal

It is illegal to sing in a public place while attired in a swimsuit.

Oral sex is illegal.

You may not kiss your wife’s breasts.
http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/florida

more at:
http://weirdfascinatingstuff.blogspot.com/2008/05/weird-laws-in-florida.html

[paulsby]

113. this is typical... "felt"

note "but he felt safer with all the guns out of the parking "

so often, gun grabbers resort to argument about how guns make them "feel" or they would "feel safer" if...

actual evidence based arguments are rare

[iverglas]

114. indeed

actual evidence based arguments are rare

And you know that the employer representative quoted is a "gun grabber" by ... osmosis? Just feel it in your bones, mebbe ...

[paulsby]

116. if a person talks about the way guns make them "feel"

it's strong evidence, but not dispositive.

[iverglas]

120. having a clue whereof you speak

The plant manager, Randy Nebel, said that firing the men was difficult but he felt safer with all the guns out of the parking lot. Nebel stated that all the employees had been warned of the policy change.

Nebel isn't speaking as an individual. He is speaking as a senior manager for a corporation.

http://www2.eugeneweekly.com/2001/06_07_01/news.html

Many long-time employees say that Weyco once took care of its workforce and treated them with respect. But things changed, they say, after Randy Nebel became manager of the mill six years ago. In an effort to boost corporate profits, Nebel cut many hourly and salaried employees and changed the culture of the company. Workers on the picket line referred to him as the "Prince of Darkness."

He quite undoubtedly "felt safer" because he believed there was less chance of a profit-diminishing incident occurring on company property. He "felt" that the corporation's interests were better protected.

Yeesh.

[paulsby]

123. you can play

mind reader all you want, but what your claims about what he "undoubtedly " (lol on your certainty of your mind reading skillz) felt are not at all a given.

what is clear is that he said that he "felt" safer.

[iverglas]

127. so you retract your non-evidence-based allegation

Good.

[paulsby]

128. i said it was evidence

but not dispositive.

if you would at first read, then think, then post, it would make your posts better.

[iverglas]

131. kind of like what I presented

A context in which to interpret words.

safe (sf)
adj. saf·er, saf·est
1. Secure from danger, harm, or evil.
2. Free from danger or injury; unhurt: safe and sound.
3. Free from risk; sure: a safe bet.
4. Affording protection: a safe place.

One meaning's as good as another, if you ask me.

So my interpretation - offered only to demonstrate that yours was not a complete canvassing of the options and that you had arbitrarily lighted on one that supported your desire to portray people who object to the storage of firearms in unattended vehicles on an unwilling third party's property as silly - is just as good as yours.

Cool.

[old mark]

95. PA state hospitals will terminate immediately any employee

with a firearm on hospital property,even locked in a car. They reserve the right to inspect all employee vehiclse even locked vehicles. If the employee refuses to unlock the vehicle for inspection, they take that as an admission there is a weapon in the car and may fire the employee right there.

On the other hand, I have heard a high administrator of one hospital state that there are so many guns in the parking lots that they didn't dare to search - they could not run the hospital without all the employees that would be fired.


mark

[spin]

96. Pennsylvania needs to pass a "bring your gun to work" law like Florida...

To see what this law looks like visit:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=firearms&URL=CH0790/Sec251.HTM

1790.251 Protection of the right to keep and bear arms in motor vehicles for self-defense and other lawful purposes; prohibited acts; duty of public and private employers; immunity from liability; enforcement.--

To legally leave your firearm in your locked vehicle in the parking lot, you have to have a concealed carry permit.

[Furyataurus]

103. Since when

do business/employer's rights become more important than individual rights? They don't. Individual rights will always trump business/employer rights.

[benEzra]

104. In most instances, corporations aren't even people; they are legal constructs

formed to shield individuals from personal liability.

[rrneck]

106. Yep. nt

[Indy Lurker]

105. The problem is employment at will

Except for very narrow classifications, such as race, gender, etc. In states with employment at will an employee can be fired for any reason, or no reason at all, including not unlocking your car for inspection. You would still receive unemployment, since your were terminated without cause, but you would still be terminated.

If you are under a union contract, the terms of the contract would apply instead.

[paulsby]

112. the graduate school i went to

banned firearms from campus. i said screw them, and had one anyway.

note that it is NOT illegal in my state to have a firearm on college campus . WA state.

I had to have a firearm for my work, and I frequently went to class before or after work anyways.

[iverglas]

117. and let's have a big round of applause to welcome

the graduate school i went to
banned firearms from campus. i said screw them, and had one anyway.

our newest LAW-ABIDING GUN OWNER.


note that it is NOT illegal in my state to have a firearm on college campus.

Yeah?

Probably not illegal for me to pee on your carpet, either.

Of course, if you allow me entrée to your home on condition I abide by your rules, one of which is that I not pee on your carpet, well, that would kinda make me a trespasser.

And it is illegal to trespass.

Not to mention just kinda rude to pee on other people's carpets, or otherwise refuse to abide by the rules that impose conditions for the use of property that isn't yours.

[paulsby]

118. do you have a problem with reading comprehension?

i WAS law abiding.

i BROKE NO LAW.

i broke SCHOOL POLICY.

It is also not trespass under my state laws to violate a condition of campus policy while otherwise legally on campus.

For example, my campus policy also forbade one to be impaired by liquor or drugs while on campus. However, if one did so, one could not be criminally charged with trespassing.

One could be ejected from campus and if one refused to leave, THEN one is committing trespass.

I know the law quite well, as I have been enforcing it in our state. It is NOT trespass.

[iverglas]

122. really?

For example, my campus policy also forbade one to be impaired by liquor or drugs while on campus. However, if one did so, one could not be criminally charged with trespassing.

If the school demanded that said drunk / drug-addled / gun-toting person depart the campus and s/he refused? Not trespassing?

One could be ejected from campus and if one refused to leave, THEN one is committing trespass.

Yes. Duh.

You evaded that consequence because you chose not to inform the school authorities that you had chosen not to comply with the conditions of your presence on the campus.

Congratulations, eh? Very big and brave of you.

[paulsby]

125. So, you admit you are wrong

Since you evaded the point.

You claimed I was lawless for doing what I did.

I wasn't.

I violated NO law.

thanks for conceding my point that you made a false claim about me, by evading, ignoring, and distracting.

Again, I violated no law.

Did I willingly violate policy?

yes

Would I do it again?

yes

That's my choice. If I was caught, I was willing to deal with the consequences.

[iverglas]

133. ya think?

you made a false claim about me

Can ya quote me?

If I was caught, I was willing to deal with the consequences.

I'll bet that's what some people think just before they hold up a liquor store.

My only response would be: who the fuck cares what you're willing to do?

[Longteeth]

107. Great news!!! Finally some respect for MY personal property rights

that my employer has to show. What great news for the freedom of people rather than for business in this country!!!

[aikoaiko]

134. A reasonable compromise.

If employers allow employees to park their cars on their property then its reasonable that the employees not be fired for the contents of the car where those contents are legally permissable.

Its a reasonable compromise between the rights of property owners and people exercising their second amendment rights.