Workers have right to keep guns in vehicle

[DaveM55]

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/o...aled_0107.html

Unreasonable company anti-gun policies continue to cause major problems for working men and women.

By CHRIS W. COX
Published on: 01/07/08

The Georgia Chamber of Commerce is trying to defend the indefensible ("Armed, dangerous to common sense." @issue Jan. 3). The Chamber believes that corporate interests trump civil rights. The National Rifle Association doesn't.

Let me state our position for the record. The NRA believes individual, constitutional rights are guaranteed by our Bill of Rights. We strongly believe in private property rights. We also strongly believe that the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens should not be trampled by corporations on their publicly accessible parking lots. And we believe that these rights are not conditional upon where a person may lawfully travel.

When property owners open a place of business, they consent to rules that limit their property rights. Property rights are constrained by civil rights laws, zoning laws, safety inspections, fire codes, and accommodations that are required for the disabled.

In fact, there are laws governing every parking lot owned by any business. These rules dictate the number, size and placement of parking spots. Bear in mind that the Constitution says nothing about a right to park a vehicle. But the Chamber isn't concerned about these limitations on their property rights. The Chamber chooses to fight against the basic right of self-defense of men and women who are their workers, customers and visitors, in short, their most valuable assets.

Why? The answer, regrettably, is too common in today's business world – lawsuits and liability. Companies fear being blamed for criminal acts by third parties, if they are committed on company property. That's a valid concern.

That's why the legislation supported by the NRA includes very clear language that limits the liability of companies who respect the rights of their employees, customers and visitors. And the bill goes even further. It would protect the rights only of law-abiding citizens, and would only protect that right within the citizen's vehicle, not the workplace itself. The bill states that no new duties are created for such property owners and employers, and the bill does not provide an exception to the doctrine of employment-at-will.

[sgt7546]

Great Post Dave, I hope this bill succeeds

[tourrider]

I am in Atlanta right now, and saw that on the local news last night. I thought, now that cool !


Our vehicles should be an extension of our castle.

[knight0334]

I agree with our vehicles being extensions of our castles. But I also believe that a landowner is God of his/her domain. Respect by both parties is necessary, the gun owner should keep his piece in the car if the landowner is inclined to limit such things. And that the landowner should leave it be if the gun owner stores their firearm in their own vehicles.

Any party that prohibits the carry/storage of a firearm should be 100% responsible for the safety and also liable for any/all losses(including punitive) that may occur due to limiting a person's means of self/property defense until that person is back to a point where he/she can re-arm them self.


Example(hypothetical):

My company says no firearms period in cars or on person. Since there is no place to store the firearm between home and work - my company should be liable for all acts of violence and property losses from the time I leave home to the time I walk back in my front door. If I get mugged and stabbed/shot within inches of my front door after quitting time - not only should my company pay for my stolen watch, wallet, money, medical, cleanup, legal, but also should have to pay a civil award to me just for the threat that they created. Also, all awards shall be paid by the company itself, not an insurance coverage - insurance only to cover anything exceeding what the company cant pay after being sold off and all investors' assets being seized.

[Philadelphia]

Originally Posted by knight0334

I agree with our vehicles being extensions of our castles. But I also believe that a landowner is God of his/her domain. Respect by both parties is necessary, the gun owner should keep his piece in the car if the landowner is inclined to limit such things. And that the landowner should leave it be if the gun owner stores their firearm in their own vehicles.

Any party that prohibits the carry/storage of a firearm should be 100% responsible for the safety and also liable for any/all losses(including punitive) that may occur due to limiting a person's means of self/property defense until that person is back to a point where he/she can re-arm them self.


Example(hypothetical):

My company says no firearms period in cars or on person. Since there is no place to store the firearm between home and work - my company should be liable for all acts of violence and property losses from the time I leave home to the time I walk back in my front door. If I get mugged and stabbed/shot within inches of my front door after quitting time - not only should my company pay for my stolen watch, wallet, money, medical, cleanup, legal, but also should have to pay a civil award to me just for the threat that they created. Also, all awards shall be paid by the company itself, not an insurance coverage - insurance only to cover anything exceeding what the company cant pay after being sold off and all investors' assets being seized.

The landowner's rights argument is right on except when the landowner opens the land for use for business purposes and making a profit. If you are going to have and allow others on your land, you also are required to allow them to exercise certain rights. The rights of self defense and to bear arms are among the most fundamental. If the landowner doesn't want other people on his land walking around with their legal guns, then don't open the land for business and profit and don't allow other people on it. Simple choice that preserves the landowner's rights.

Your hypothetical is really an extension of that. Make it so onerous and risky for a landowner to exclude legal guns that he just won't.

[knight0334]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia

The landowner's rights argument is right on except when the landowner opens the land for use for business purposes and making a profit. If you are going to have and allow others on your land, you also are required to allow them to exercise certain rights. The rights of self defense and to bear arms are among the most fundamental. If the landowner doesn't want other people on his land walking around with their legal guns, then don't open the land for business and profit and don't allow other people on it. Simple choice that preserves the landowner's rights.

Your hypothetical is really an extension of that. Make it so onerous and risky for a landowner to exclude legal guns that he just won't.

No landowner is required to do anything of the such. If a business, open to the public, decides that employees or patron cannot talk, worship religion or carry firearms on their property- then thats their choice as landowners. They can deny you access for any reason at all. ...Whether you have a gun on you or in your car, whether you are Buddhist, Catholic, Muslin, etc, or because the freckle on your left cheek doesn't match the gun leather that your Glock 19 is holstered in. Private property that is open to the public is still private property - nothing changes the landowner's right to limit those who may access the lands.

What the NRA and others are trying to do is get an exemption for within a vehicle on that company's parking lot. ...which would allow each party to save face or have protection. Sorta as a DMZ. Some companies are afraid of being sued because of an employee bringing a gun in a shooting up the place. So, they say no firearms at all on company property in a vain attempt to provide security.

[theshadow]

Originally Posted by knight0334

I agree with our vehicles being extensions of our castles. But I also believe that a landowner is God of his/her domain. Respect by both parties is necessary, the gun owner should keep his piece in the car if the landowner is inclined to limit such things. And that the landowner should leave it be if the gun owner stores their firearm in their own vehicles.

Major flaw in logic here. Let's look at omitted facts:

1) a Property or business owner (nor the police for that matter) has a right or authority to arbitrarily search your vehicle with out a warrant. Even the "we have the right to search" clause in employee handbooks are NOT part of your employment contract.

2) If something happens to your vehicle while on their property, you are told that hey wave responsibility and you use their parking facilities at your own risk.

3) Companies to not have a fiscal investment in Privately Owned Vehicles (POVs). the Owner is responsible for all Maintenances, insurance and upkeep of the vehicle. If said vehicle is used for company business, the owner is reimbursed for it's use, but only considered a company vehicle while on the task in question.

So what the Chamber of Commerce, and you are advocating is the act of parking on a parcel of land opened for the specific task of parking vehicles (be it public parking or limited public parking, i.e. employee only) instantly voids your private property claim on your vehicle. I don;t think that holds water. In my lay opinion, Individual Private property rights, are not trumped, nor can they be waved by the simple act of utilization of property for it's designated purpose, otherwise Corporations could just confiscate POVs and use them for corporate purposes once parked on their lots.

[knight0334]

Originally Posted by theshadow

Major flaw in logic here. Let's look at omitted facts:

1) a Property or business owner (nor the police for that matter) has a right or authority to arbitrarily search your vehicle with out a warrant. Even the "we have the right to search" clause in employee handbooks are NOT part of your employment contract.

2) If something happens to your vehicle while on their property, you are told that hey wave responsibility and you use their parking facilities at your own risk.

3) Companies to not have a fiscal investment in Privately Owned Vehicles (POVs). the Owner is responsible for all Maintenances, insurance and upkeep of the vehicle. If said vehicle is used for company business, the owner is reimbursed for it's use, but only considered a company vehicle while on the task in question.

So what the Chamber of Commerce, and you are advocating is the act of parking on a parcel of land opened for the specific task of parking vehicles (be it public parking or limited public parking, i.e. employee only) instantly voids your private property claim on your vehicle. I don;t think that holds water. In my lay opinion, Individual Private property rights, are not trumped, nor can they be waved by the simple act of utilization of property for it's designated purpose, otherwise Corporations could just confiscate POVs and use them for corporate purposes once parked on their lots.

You missed the point of my desire for such damages to be paid by employers that limit vehicle storage. And in no means did I convey that anything voids your private property claim on public lands, however when you bring your property onto private land - your property submits. You chose to traverse their property so you must abide by their rules. But companies should respect the interior of the vehicles. So long as the firearm is kept in the vehicle, it has no bearing as to the company's security practices. You still have a means to protect yourself once out of the company's security coverage and they still have control of their lands.

1. I dont agree that a landowner has a right to search a vehicle with unquestioned authority. If the firearm is in plain view, and the company holds such a policy - then they have grounds to have your vehicle removed or fire you.

2. A landowner is solely responsible for security of their own domain. If your vehicle is stolen or broke into due to the business's lack of security - then the business should be held responsible. Police have no authority to provide security, nor can they do anything to stop a crime. Their "duty" only takes effect after a crime has been committed. Until that point you are responsible for your security, and a landowner is responsible for their lands.

3. If you allow a company to consider your vehicle as company asset in the course of work - then thats your fault. You can tell them to pound it up their butts or provide you with a company vehicle IF it wasn't part of the employment agreement. If you knew that use of your vehicle was required to do your job at the time of hiring - well, you should have negotiated for limits to their authority.

Ultimately it is the employee that chooses to work for a company. You submit to their will the moment you decide to take the position. If you don't like it, you have the option to go elsewhere.

[theshadow]

Originally Posted by knight0334

2. A landowner is solely responsible for security of their own domain. If your vehicle is stolen or broke into due to the business's lack of security - then the business should be held responsible. Police have no authority to provide security, nor can they do anything to stop a crime. Their "duty" only takes effect after a crime has been committed. Until that point you are responsible for your security, and a landowner is responsible for their lands.

This is contradictory to real life and established case law, etc. IF a break in occurs, a branch falls on your vehicle, another car hits yours, or any other incident, who pays. Give you a clue, it's not the company or it's insurance. it's you, or YOUR insurance company. IF you take it to court the defense is and has been, you park at your own risk, so far that's been case law.

Originally Posted by knight0334

3. If you allow a company to consider your vehicle as company asset in the course of work - then thats your fault. You can tell them to pound it up their butts or provide you with a company vehicle IF it wasn't part of the employment agreement. If you knew that use of your vehicle was required to do your job at the time of hiring - well, you should have negotiated for limits to their authority.

Like many other people I've used my POV for company business, be it running to another site from my home office, to travel for training, or picking up a piece of equipment for a vendor. legally since I'm on company business, and reimbursed $.33 per mile at the time, I followed company policies for company vehicles. This wasn't negotiated as part of my contract, I was just doing my job in the most efficient way. Other times, if we have advanced warning and it's cost effective, I use a rental. point being, IF I park my vehicle on company property, i.e. the company parking lot, it does NOT automatically become company property, it remains MY PRIVATE PROPERTY, and so does the contents of the vehicle. If the company suspects illegal content, they have to call the police who have to get a warrant to do a lawful search. If I'm stupid enough to leave a firearm in plain sight, I deserve to be terminated, if it's counter to company policy.

Originally Posted by knight0334

Ultimately it is the employee that chooses to work for a company. You submit to their will the moment you decide to take the position. If you don't like it, you have the option to go elsewhere.

This is true, but the question you are dodging is simply this, by the act of parking on company/ corporate owned property do I forfeit my personal property? If the vehicle remains my personal property, and the contents remain my personal property and I must park at my own risk, please show me where the corporation has right trump my personal rights. in other words, in a conflict of rights, where do they have the legal right to tell me what the contents of my vehicle will or won't be.

[knight0334]

Originally Posted by theshadow

This is contradictory to real life and established case law, etc. IF a break in occurs, a branch falls on your vehicle, another car hits yours, or any other incident, who pays. Give you a clue, it's not the company or it's insurance. it's you, or YOUR insurance company. IF you take it to court the defense is and has been, you park at your own risk, so far that's been case law.

Yes, I concede that it is your own risk. It is also your own risk to park in your own driveway.

Like many other people I've used my POV for company business, be it running to another site from my home office, to travel for training, or picking up a piece of equipment for a vendor. legally since I'm on company business, and reimbursed $.33 per mile at the time, I followed company policies for company vehicles. This wasn't negotiated as part of my contract, I was just doing my job in the most efficient way. Other times, if we have advanced warning and it's cost effective, I use a rental. point being, IF I park my vehicle on company property, i.e. the company parking lot, it does NOT automatically become company property, it remains MY PRIVATE PROPERTY, and so does the contents of the vehicle. If the company suspects illegal content, they have to call the police who have to get a warrant to do a lawful search. If I'm stupid enough to leave a firearm in plain sight, I deserve to be terminated, if it's counter to company policy.

I too use my vehicle to do my job. I'm pretty sure that they also have a no-gun practice as well, however there is one in there right now. I rent a space at a church to avoid any corporate entanglement about having a firearm on their property. You're right, your property doesn't automatically become company property when you park on their land - but the fact that you brought your property onto theirs, they can deny access or limit what is brought onto their lands. We do need legislation that protects interiors of vehicles from corporate policy, or the corporations should be responsible for your security from the time you leave home until you get back home.

The police will rarely go get a warrant for something like such. They didn't witness a crime, nor did another person witness a crime to swear out charges or cause to get a warrant. In PA, its illegal for an LEO to let someone else know about your LTCF. If say an employer did bring in a LEO, you can take the LEO aside, show him/her your LTCF and say nothing as to there being a firearm in the vehicle. Since you showed the LEO the LTCF and, that even if there was a firearm in there, you are legally allowed to have it - thus negating any possibility of getting a warrant. And he could not tell the employer that you have a LTCF, nor tell them that you have a firearm in there because you never told them you did. The burden of proof is still on the employer - which, they still can fire you for it anyways. Hell, they can fire you for taking 61 breaths in a minute's time if they wanted.

This is true, but the question you are dodging is simply this, by the act of parking on company/ corporate owned property do I forfeit my personal property? If the vehicle remains my personal property, and the contents remain my personal property and I must park at my own risk, please show me where the corporation has right trump my personal rights. in other words, in a conflict of rights, where do they have the legal right to tell me what the contents of my vehicle will or won't be.

Trespass laws show that the corporation's property rights trump your personal rights. The Constitution only protects your rights from government encroachment, not corporate. No, you don't forfeit your property, however you do forfeit liberties. And you can be fired for any such violation of corporate policy. You have three options: 1. force by law to make employers respect vehicle interiors. 2. deal with it. 3. find another job. You have no right to violate their property rights with current law by bringing something onto their land that they don't want. Which in this case, you can be fired for it.

Its no different from me telling my neighbor that she cant walk her poodle on my property, but then allowing the next neighbor to walk his pit bull. A land owner can pick and choice what is allow on their property - if you don't like it, you don't have go on their land.