Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Protection of Activities in Private Vehicles

  1. #1
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273

    Protection of Activities in Private Vehicles

    Many thanks to utbagpiper for citing the UT statute that I have "stolen" and submitted, with appropriate changes to make it suitable to MO, to my state reps for consideration and filing.
    Missouri Revised Statutes
    Title 18 LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (285-295)
    Chapter 285
    Protection of Activities in Private Vehicles

    285.XXX. 1. Except as provided in Subsection (2), a person may not establish, maintain, or enforce any policy or rule that has the effect of:

    (1) Prohibiting any individual from transporting or storing a firearm in a motor vehicle on any property designated for motor vehicle parking, if:

    (a) The individual is legally permitted to transport, possess, purchase, receive, transfer, or store the firearm;

    (b) The firearm is locked securely in the motor vehicle or in a locked container attached to the motor vehicle while the motor vehicle is not occupied; and

    (c) The firearm is not in plain view from the outside of the motor vehicle; or

    2. A person may establish, maintain, or enforce a policy or rule that has the effect of placing limitations on or prohibiting an individual from transporting or storing a firearm in a motor vehicle on property the person has designated for motor vehicle parking if:

    (1) The person provides, or there is otherwise available, one of the following, in a location reasonably proximate to the property the person has designated for motor vehicle parking:

    (2) alternative parking for an individual who desires to transport, possess, receive, transfer, or store a firearm in the individual's motor vehicle that:

    (a) Imposes no additional cost on the individual; and

    (b) Is in a location that is legal and safe for parking; or

    (c) A secured and monitored storage location where the individual may securely store a firearm before proceeding with the vehicle into the secured parking area.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  2. #2
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    This the so called 'parking lot' exclusion that several states have that prevent a person from having a firearm in their vehicle while on company premises? So, are you sending it to your reps to pass this next session?
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

  3. #3
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Many thanks to utbagpiper for citing the UT statute that I have "stolen" and submitted, with appropriate changes to make it suitable to MO, to my state reps for consideration and filing.
    Yes. Sent to Mr. Spencer and Dr. Onder.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    St Louis, Mo
    Posts
    574
    I've actually already helped get this basic bill introduced and submitted with Rep Justin Hill. Check out HB1586 that's already been filed.

    I can't speak for them, but I would be shocked if Dr. Onder and Rep Spencer didn't support the bill.
    "Somebody ever tries to kill you, you try and kill em right back!" - Captain Malcolm Reynolds

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Do you have the right to control what goes on on your property?

    Do you have the right to carry?

    Conflicting rights .... statues cannot resolve these conflicts.

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Many thanks to utbagpiper for citing the UT statute that I have "stolen" and submitted, with appropriate changes to make it suitable to MO, to my state reps for consideration and filing.
    Best of luck in getting this (or a similar) bill passed. I do not believe employees should have to choose between earning a living and being able to lawfully defend themselves while traveling to and from their workplace.

    Let me know if I can be of any help. I believe I can put you or your State reps in touch with the sponsoring Legislators of the Utah bill.

    It is often much easier to pass good legislation if we are not blazing new trails, but rather following in someone else's proven path. If we can each leverage the good laws in other States we'd all have much better self-defense/RKBA/OC laws.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  7. #7
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Conflicting rights .... statues cannot resolve these conflicts.
    That is exactly what statutes consistently resolve, however imperfectly, but generally peacefully.

    A right to carry a gun for self-defense is not much of a right if one cannot go about normal, daily life while armed because of risk of job loss or exclusion from basic services because of small-minded, bigoted policies, or (perhaps even worse) because of policies encouraged or required by insurance underwriters, HR organizations, or Workers' Comp and similar laws that inaccurately place liability on lawful gun possession rather than on maintaining an attractive nuisance that encourages violent criminal conduct.

    This doesn't even force employers to allow guns into their buildings. It just prevents them from presuming to reach into their employees' private cars.

    If Hobby Lobby or some other business run by Christians were banning condoms, birth control pills, adult magazines, or other items potentially offensive to the personal religious sensibilities of the owners from the interior of employees' private cars parked in company parking lots, every liberal organization from the ACLU to MSNBC would be screaming bloody murder. But if it is guns being banned by secular businesses, that is ok, and a bunch of gun owners actually think they have some obligation to sit at the back of the proverbial bus in defense of some absolute theory of private property rights.

    Charles
    Last edited by utbagpiper; 12-16-2015 at 02:45 PM.
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Saint Louis
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    Best of luck in getting this (or a similar) bill passed. I do not believe employees should have to choose between earning a living and being able to lawfully defend themselves while traveling to and from their workplace.
    Likewise, I don't believe employees should have to choose between earning a living and being able to lawfully defend themselves while at work. Hopefully we can take this even farther. I wouldn't suggest forcing them to allow firearms (although I wouldn't oppose that), but I do think if they ban firearms they should be required to provide adequate safety measures to enforce it to ensure that non-law abiding citizens or disgruntled employees take advantage of the policy. Either allow me to carry, or place armed guards with metal detectors to ensure that others who don't care about the policies or laws can't attack me.

    Besides, we'd be safer if they were carried and not left unattended in vehicles to be stolen.
    Last edited by STLDaniel; 12-17-2015 at 12:08 AM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Oramac View Post
    I've actually already helped get this basic bill introduced and submitted with Rep Justin Hill. Check out HB1586 that's already been filed.

    I can't speak for them, but I would be shocked if Dr. Onder and Rep Spencer didn't support the bill.
    Got a reply from Dr. Onder, he intends to support HB1586.

    I recommend that "...or in a locked container attached to the motor vehicle..." be added to HB1586. This would mitigate the mis-interpreting (literal reading of) the intent of the term "in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle."

    My reasoning: I may leave my vehicle unlocked yet have a firearm secured in my locked truck box. Obviously this applies only to pickup trucks...with a some type of truck box.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  10. #10
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Yes. Sent to Mr. Spencer and Dr. Onder.
    Thanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oramac View Post
    I've actually already helped get this basic bill introduced and submitted with Rep Justin Hill. Check out HB1586 that's already been filed.

    I can't speak for them, but I would be shocked if Dr. Onder and Rep Spencer didn't support the bill.
    I will encourage my reps, Mr. Dixon and Mr. Haahr. Although, not my rep, I will encourage Mr. Burlison to support, too.

    Thanks Ormac for working with your rep.
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

  11. #11
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    Best of luck in getting this (or a similar) bill passed. I do not believe employees should have to choose between earning a living and being able to lawfully defend themselves while traveling to and from their workplace.

    Let me know if I can be of any help. I believe I can put you or your State reps in touch with the sponsoring Legislators of the Utah bill.

    It is often much easier to pass good legislation if we are not blazing new trails, but rather following in someone else's proven path. If we can each leverage the good laws in other States we'd all have much better self-defense/RKBA/OC laws.

    Charles
    [BOLDED] = Agree 100%

    I also agree with your initial comments to; but for legislation, you are spot on......it's often times easier to have reps follow the trail than have them cut down the trees, level the ground and move forward.
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by STLDaniel View Post
    Likewise, I don't believe employees should have to choose between earning a living and being able to lawfully defend themselves while at work.
    I think we're dealing with two separate questions.
    Do they have the right to demand your defenselessness from the time you leave your house in the morning to the time you return home?

    Do they have the right to demand your defenselessness while you're 'on the clock', so to speak?

    (and a third, related question, do you have the right to make them pay you a million dollars if their exercising that right gets you shot?)

    Incrementalism might be our friend here. Either go for half a loaf now, or go for the whole but be prepared to compromise by accepting the parking lot alternative, then go for workplace carry after the public has had time to acclimate to parking lot storage.
    Last edited by taxman; 12-18-2015 at 09:24 AM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by taxman View Post
    I think we're dealing with two separate questions.
    Do they have the right to demand your defenselessness from the time you leave your house in the morning to the time you return home?

    Do they have the right to demand your defenselessness while you're 'on the clock', so to speak?

    (and a third, related question, do you have the right to make them pay you a million dollars if their exercising that right gets you shot?)

    Incrementalism might be our friend here. Either go for half a loaf now, or go for the whole but be prepared to compromise by accepting the parking lot alternative, then go for workplace carry after the public has had time to acclimate to parking lot storage.
    The unsecured/unguarded parking lot is all that I ask. Once I'm inside his building it is his rules.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Saint Louis
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by taxman View Post
    Incrementalism might be our friend here. Either go for half a loaf now, or go for the whole but be prepared to compromise by accepting the parking lot alternative, then go for workplace carry after the public has had time to acclimate to parking lot storage.
    Absolutely agree. I'll absolutely support any step in the right direction.

    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    The unsecured/unguarded parking lot is all that I ask. Once I'm inside his building it is his rules.
    We (general society) have accepted all sorts of regulation for employers regarding employee safety, even for very minor safety concerns. Because I'm careful in where I travel, I'm much more likely to be a victim of workplace violence than any other violent crime. I'm not asking for an outright forced allowed to carry, but I do think employers should implement appropriate policies to keep employees safe. Leaving me unarmed with zero enforcement to prevent violent actions against me is much more unsafe than the vast majority of workplace safety regulations.
    Last edited by STLDaniel; 12-18-2015 at 06:17 PM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,881
    i would presume, historically, the employment enforcement of OSHA regulatory issue(s) came about due to those incidents where folk went 'postal' after an incident occurred in the workplace and the employee simply walked out and got their firearm and walked back inside to exact revenge...

    so perhaps national legislators also need to be petitioned so those federal regulations can be reversed and then employers won't feel compelled to develop and enforce the OSHA mandates.

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  16. #16
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by STLDaniel View Post
    Likewise, I don't believe employees should have to choose between earning a living and being able to lawfully defend themselves while at work. Hopefully we can take this even farther. I wouldn't suggest forcing them to allow firearms (although I wouldn't oppose that), but I do think if they ban firearms they should be required to provide adequate safety measures to enforce it to ensure that non-law abiding citizens or disgruntled employees take advantage of the policy. Either allow me to carry, or place armed guards with metal detectors to ensure that others who don't care about the policies or laws can't attack me.

    Besides, we'd be safer if they were carried and not left unattended in vehicles to be stolen.
    I agree.
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    St Louis, Mo
    Posts
    574
    Quote Originally Posted by STLDaniel View Post
    Leaving me unarmed with zero enforcement to prevent violent actions against me is much more unsafe than the vast majority of workplace safety regulations.
    Even having an armed guard(s) doesn't always mean anything. I've worked in banks and the like with armed guards. Having talked to them, they told me point-blank that if a "situation" were to occur, they'd be hiding right along side the employees.
    "Somebody ever tries to kill you, you try and kill em right back!" - Captain Malcolm Reynolds

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Saint Louis
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by Oramac View Post
    Even having an armed guard(s) doesn't always mean anything. I've worked in banks and the like with armed guards. Having talked to them, they told me point-blank that if a "situation" were to occur, they'd be hiding right along side the employees.
    Exactly! Completely agree. My suggestion, while not perfect, is armed guards at metal detectors. Forces the individuals hand immediately at the point of armed individuals. Considering the length of most armed violence or active shooters, anything that starts that countdown farther away from me, especially when I'm left unarmed, is beneficial.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    missouri
    Posts
    497
    so... while this allows for the possession and storage IN your vehicle.. how does this apply to a motorcyclist?

    sorry, where I live is OC friendly currently, and I carry 9/10 when riding.. a few buttholes in cars 2 feet from your rear tire, kind of made me start OC'ing while riding.. surprisingly, no more buttholes.. I guess the visual deterrent works...

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,156
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezek View Post
    so... while this allows for the possession and storage IN your vehicle.. how does this apply to a motorcyclist?

    sorry, where I live is OC friendly currently, and I carry 9/10 when riding.. a few buttholes in cars 2 feet from your rear tire, kind of made me start OC'ing while riding.. surprisingly, no more buttholes.. I guess the visual deterrent works...
    And when the motorist falsely accuses the open carrier of threatening with a gun and the responding cop discovers that the open carrier is armed, what might be the defense?
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    missouri
    Posts
    497
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    And when the motorist falsely accuses the open carrier of threatening with a gun and the responding cop discovers that the open carrier is armed, what might be the defense?
    seriously? it's been in the holster everytime.

    i'm also considering a go pro that way my rides are documented.

    so long as I'm not riding like an asshat, i see no reason why being pulled over and engaging in usual dialogue would equal a deadly response. or pulling over keeping my hands up while kicking out the kickstand would equal deadly force authorized.

    i also am not the only rider who OC's here, i have seen several Harley and sportbike riders OC here.

    also as far as i'm concerned the only one who should worry is ME the guy on the bike, if i tap my brake a few times to flash the light to signify you need to back up and you only inch closer, then you are posing a serious threat to me, one that can easily cause bodily harm and or injury, even death.

    most of the time i will take a turn off point, other times i will accelerate and get into another lane when there is an opening, and let them around, but when it is someone who just wants to have a bad day and mess with a cyclist, that is a different ball game, while i have no intention of unholstering while riding because 1:it is dangerous, and 2 bumpy roads don't make for accurate shots, and it is better to hit a radiator/engine block then the driver, cause now no one can control the vehicle

    . there is also brakes and lane splitting. meaning make the car get in front, get his license plates and call the cops on him. or if they follow you, get to a very public place.
    Last edited by Ezek; 01-04-2016 at 02:17 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •