The Coalition of the Swilling

It's always tough when different rights bump up against each other. I agree completely for sole-owner businesses, but not for corporations, which derive a number of benefits by virtue of being incorporated by the government. They can be required to observe people's rights (see all of the civil rights laws), which is not necessarily true of small, self-owned businesses.

Of course, the issue of some lunatic or criminal going off is actually pretty irrelevant, since such types tend not to follow rules anyway. I suspect that someone who has skipped bail would be armed irrespective of any rules laid down by his employer.

But this paragraph:

...employees who believe their gun rights are being violated could file a complaint with the state Attorney General, who could then bring legal action against a business owner. The law would only apply to private businesses, not facilities like government buildings and schools.

And you're right ~ I don't see how you ever stop the loon intent on killing. 'No', restraining orders ~ nothing works because they're so far past the limits of rational behaviour.

Ken, I have to say I disagree completely. Most corporations, after all, are corporations sole, with one shareholder, incorporated only for the advantages of limited liability. But that's beside the point: corporations, partnerships, LLC's, LLP's, what have you, they're all still private entities, they're all ultimately OWNED by private individuals, and they have legitimate private property rights.

"It's always tough when different rights bump up against each other."

Uh, what two rights are in conflict? My right to say "I'm the only one who can carry on my land" versus your right to say "I can bring MY guns onto YOUR property whether you like it or not"? That doesn't seem like a close enough call in my mind to even merit being called a conflict.

The bill puts the burden of proof on property owners to show reasonable cause (or even "necessary reasons") why they should be able to prohibit firearms from their property. That's simply inappropriate: it's your property, so "I feel like it" be should more than reason enough. A judge or a jury should not be deciding whether my reasons to do what I want with my property are "good enough": that's none of their business.

Well said, Dave.

it's your property, so "I feel like it" be should more than reason enough.

What Dave said!

Dave pretty well nailed it. I am all for guns rights, but this is the wrong direction, and the first time some loon uses this law to bring a gun to work to kill someone, the Bradys of the world will use this to try to take more of our legitimate rights.

But it becomes a bit more muddled if it is restricted to being locked in the employee's car (we're not talking about allowing the employee to carry inside the business). That is the employee's property and the company has, in fact, restricted the employee's freedom off the company's property (enroute to work). Businesses do not have the right to dictate every aspect of an employee's life while on company property - think free speech and religious rights.

Dave, granted that corporations are ultimately owned by individuals, but acquiring certain benefits from incorporation does open the business, in return, to potential restrictions on its behavior. That's why individuals have the right to refuse to associate with people based on race but businesses generally do not.

It's not a great analogy, but substitute religious expression for gun rights in the argument. A company can restrict religious expression in the workplace (within limits). Could a company ban employees from keeping a bible in a car in the parking lot?

This is not to say that I necessarily support the law (I think it may well cause far more problems) but only to suggest that it's nowhere as clear cut as people on either side seem to think.

Dave, forgive a poor non-lawyer, but I'm having a lot of trouble reconciling your comment here with the one here (and I do understand the fed vs. state power issue, but these are about state/local power).

Here, the state does not have the power to override a business's decision to ban items kept in employees' cars.

There, the state does have the power to override a business's decision to allow dancing.

Sometimes a state has a compelling interest (though for the life of me and my two left feet I don't see one in banning dancing) but one can easily argue that the state has a compelling interest in maintaining an armed populace to keep down crime. Surely a compelling interest like that can override a business decision, particularly if the state constitution has a strong RKBA clause.

It may be "their" property, but generally parking lots are considered public spaces.

"Parking lots", yes, but specified "Employee Parking Lots", no.

Dell had a similar such silly rule. I routinely broke that rule when I wanted to go skeet shooting after work. I really don't see the big deal of having my shot gun safely in the trunk of my car. I don't allow Dell to search my car, and the state of Texas, as do most states, allows me to transport my weapon in the trunk of my car.

I am not going to drive a half hour to my house, and then back track past my work place and go another 20 minutes just so someone can feel better that there is no scary gun in my car.

It's none of anyone's business, frankly. I'm not armed, I'm just using my car to transport my weapon to a legal activity of skeet shooting.

Since they're not allowed to search my car, all this does is allow someone to say "gotcha" after the fact. It's pretty meaningless to make this restriction. They can make it, but I won't obey it.

Gonna go with Mike on this one. Make all the laws you like, but I'm still carrying in my car. Now, instead of preventing criminals from posessing firearms, you've simply made more criminals (like me and Mike).

THS, if you look hard enough (and you won't find these stories from the MSM that much) you'll find plenty of stories where someone was assaulted in a parking lot and managed to protect themselves with a firearm from their vehicle. I'm willing to place a bet there are more positive stories like that than negative.

Again, gun laws only hamper law abiding citizens. They have no effect on those who do not respect laws.

Two more points:

It rarely makes it in the news, but I remember one example of a shooting at a school or workplace that was stopped because someone went out to their car to retrieve their weapon and shoot the lunatic.

Secondly, I remember at El Toro when the first Gulf War started, and THS was in the same squadron as me. They started searching cars coming on base. Turns out that almost every car had a weapon in it, and they had to finally put out the word to please stop violating the law by bringing in weapons, they might even start acting on these violations.

So, it may sound scary to some people, but carryin weapons in cars is actually more common than you might think.

Mike, that school incident was in Virginia at Appalachian School of Law (I'm not easily finding a direct link but Instapundit mentions it here). Many of the news reports neglected to mention that the joker was stopped with a gun, they left the impression that he was jumped by unarmed students.

Found a slightly more direct link.

"So, it may sound scary to some people, but carryin weapons in cars is actually more common than you might think."

I personally don't see anything wrong with that, Mike. My problem is when the STATE tells a property owner, you MUST allow X, Y or Z on your property. In doing so, I've figured out my own reasoning behind the distinction Ken is having trouble with: while neither is good, the state compelling a property owner to actively allow something strikes me as just fundamentally more intrusive than "time, place and manner" restrictions on particular activities.

Dave, my understanding (possibly incorrect, going only from the news story) of the dance ordinance was that it is more intrusive than just time, place and manner.

I see how the gun ordinance could be considered more intrusive but I'm still not convinced that's a real difference, especially since allowing employees to keep firearms locked in a car, rather than at hand, strikes me as fitting a time, place, manner (opposite direction, of course). I am interested, though, in your take on the compelling interest idea.