Freedom1Man
Regular Member
So, you can "volunteer" to give up all rights?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Guns in vehicles business/employer parking lot.
- Thread starter twoskinsonemanns
- Start date
OC for ME
Regular Member
Not what Freedom1Man stated...remain focused please.
Freedom1Man
Regular Member
Finally someone who understands what I was addressing.
georg jetson
Regular Member
Good point to make. Let's see how this plays out...
since9
Campaign Veteran
No, it's not. But it is an infringement when one party is forced to make a decision between exercising their right and being able to do business on what is legally termed, "semi-public property."
Depends on the nature of the contract. Many contracts are illegal precisely because one party is placed into a situation such as the one I mentioned immediately above, hence my continuing emphasis on how our Founding Fathers' "shall not be infringed" MEANS "shall not be infringed." By anyone. Including businesses open to the general public i.e. most businesses.
Last edited:
since9
Campaign Veteran
Cool.
Yes. Colorado does.
USAA Federal Savings bank does, yet they have a "NO FIREARMS" sign at the entrance to their parking lot.
Because, despite the fact they cater to those of us who risk our lives in service to our country, when it comes to respecting our Constitution, particularly our Second Amendment, USAA scores a big, fat FAIL.
OR, one could ditch their services altogether and go with companies that not only respect the Constitution, but also provide better service for less cost. :banana:
they seriously have a sign at the entrance to the parking lot??
they fail at law then... they cannot prevent a patron from keeping his firearm in his vehicle while conducting his business, because the law makes vehicle an extension. they CAN however bar firearms from the building. as it is common sense you can't drive into the lobby.. or at least that you shouldn't.....
Phoenix David
Regular Member
Yes.
In my opinion the owner of a business have no private property rights once they open up to the public. Can a business open to the public deny entry to white people? The private property rights of a business owner are just a smoke screen thrown up when someone doesn't like something.
I will or will not carry a tool of my choice that is none of your business in a manner that I see fit your signs mean nothing and will be ignored. Don't like it TFB. Also on the flip side OPSEC is your friend.
since9
Campaign Veteran
Yes, they do. I know - crazy, right?
Their sign states that the property belongs to USAA and firearms are prohibited from being brought onto USAA property, even if they're left in one's car. Well, words to that effect. It's been about five years since I last pulled in to their parking lot. If I remember, I'll swing by and take a picture tomorrow. In the meantime, it looks a good deal like this sign:
Colorado State Law, however, states that vehicles are an extension of one's home, so...
I agree with you 100%, Ezek. Sadly, we were actually able to overturn the ban against firearms in the parking lots of post offices, but it was overturned on appeal. One of the judges actually mentioned that we have more to worry about from postal workers than patrons, but it didn't change the final result, which is, "no change - firearms are banned in post office parking lots.
I'm one of the "shall not be infringed" means "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" crowd. I don't care if it's a post office, federal land, or my Congressman's office. If it's legally owned by accessible to the general public, then "shall not be infringed" means "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
Last edited:
countryclubjoe
Regular Member
A slippery slope
No, I would not support the legislation and yes I would be concerned about property rights violations..
Only governments can violate Constitutional rights, not businesses.. If the business owns the property, they make up the rules concerning that property.
If they choice to ban guns on their property, that ban is their right same as if they banned spray painting of their buildings.
The state should not dictate what rules a private business choses to enforce..
Caveat, I was visiting a casino here in NJ a couple weeks pass, I always valet park, when pulling up to the valet, I noticed a sign that read, " we reserve our right to ask customers to open their trunks"... Now if you failed to allow their security people to look inside your trunk, they refused to park your vehicle. Again their business their property their rules.
My .02
Regards
CCJ
Last edited:
countryclubjoe
Regular Member
The spelling nazi is back..
OC for ME
Regular Member
https://www.google.com/maps/@38.957...v9xO_VNUi3A-V_hS3g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1
Hard to make out due to the resolution. But, it seems to state "No Firearms permitted in this property."
There is a sign at each entrance, along with a "No smoking on this property" sign as well.
JoeSparky
Centurion
Regarding the sign objecting to firearms or "weapons" as seen earlier on this thread----
Since it is a well known axiom that "the pen is mightier than the sword", there would be NO PENS on the property. Just how do they do their work- filling out various forms, signing of documents, etc!?
Since it is a well known axiom that "the pen is mightier than the sword", there would be NO PENS on the property. Just how do they do their work- filling out various forms, signing of documents, etc!?
yet, the mightiest religious organization in the great state of Utah has notified BCI & the public, quote:
Houses of Worship Prohibiting Firearms on Premises
The following churches have notified BCI of their intent to prohibit firearms in their “houses of worship” in Utah.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Congregation Kol Ami
Instructions for notifying the Bureau of Criminal Identification of your intent to prohibit firearms.
Read Utah Code 76-10-530 regarding the prohibition of firearms by Utah houses of worship.
Per state statute, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints made public notice on January 15, 2017 in the Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News of their intent to prohibit firearms. unquote https://bci.utah.gov/concealed-fire...-of-worship-prohibiting-firearms-on-premises/
but thank goodness Utah's employers can't prohibit firearms in their parking lots...HUMMMMM!!
ipse
Last edited:
countryclubjoe
Regular Member
If a business or private person does not wish for us to bring our property onto their property, said business and said person is well within their right.
And we have a right to boycott or seek employment at a business more suitable to our way of thinking..
States have no authority to dictate what rules a business should or should not incorporate on said businesses property, same as they have no authority to tell us that we cannot park our car on our own driveway..
Personally, I would not work for a company that would not allow me to exercise my right to keep and bear arms, either on their property or inside their property.. However, others may not be in the same situation as myself..
My .02
And we have a right to boycott or seek employment at a business more suitable to our way of thinking..
States have no authority to dictate what rules a business should or should not incorporate on said businesses property, same as they have no authority to tell us that we cannot park our car on our own driveway..
Personally, I would not work for a company that would not allow me to exercise my right to keep and bear arms, either on their property or inside their property.. However, others may not be in the same situation as myself..
My .02
CCJ, oh dear, IAW 21.2.14 of the LDS Handbook 2, Administering the Church, the Mormon facilities are a tad barren of participants who OC/CC or carry lethal weapons per se!
quote: 21.2.4: Firearms
Churches are dedicated for the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world. The carrying of lethal weapons, concealed or otherwise, within their walls is inappropriate except as required by officers of the law. unquote.
wonder if the pens analogy is apropos with 21.2.14 and therefore ban'd?
ipse
since9
Campaign Veteran
Hmm... That's simpler than I recall. Then again, as I mentioned, it's been five years or more since I was last there.
Regardless, it's a parking lot, and by Colorado State law, my vehicle is an extension of my own.
Countryclubjoe, while I'm not going to tell a business what they should do on their property, I'm sure as hell not going to allow them to tell me what I must or must not do in my own home (or extension of my home).
utbagpiper
Banned
As others have noted, Utah passed a "Parking Lot Preemption" law that prevents most employers from taking any negative employment action against an employee who keeps either religious material or a legally possessed firearm in their vehicle, while parked in a company parking lot. The gun must not be in plain view from outside the vehicle, and must be locked in some way (locked doors count according to my reading, a lock box attached to a motorcycle also works). The employer is provided protection from liability for the firearms stored in vehicles.
There are a few exceptions to the law including religious organizations acting as employers and employers subject to federal requirements regarding the security of their parking lots. While State & local government entities including public schools are exempt from this section of law, under our State Preemption of firearm laws, most government entities are subject to more strict laws that allow employees to carry into the actual workplace. On the flip side, the State Preemption law doesn't contain the remedies for violation provided to private sector employees.
Under our Parking Lot Preemption law, most employees have civil cause of action should they face negative employment consequences as a result of a prohibited ban on keeping either firearms or religious material in their cars in the company parking lot. The State Attorney General can also bring action against an employer who maintains or enforces a policy banning guns or religious material.
As they say about devils and details....but yes, such laws provide protection to the fundamental right to defend life. Let us remember, despite our short hand nomenclature about "gun rights", guns do not have rights. People have rights including the right to defend life and limb. An employer ban on guns inside private cars parked in company parking lots have the effect of infringing in self-defense rights well beyond the workplace as employees are disarmed from the time they leave home until the time they return home.
In a perfectly libertarian society I'd not suggest parking lot preemption.
But in our current world where we have a host of laws that limit employer property (and other rights) in the name of protecting employees in various ways, I'm not worried about loss of property rights for employers. Especially not when I weigh the impact to the employer against the impact to the employee.
For the employee, we are talking about infringing his ability to defend his life and limb.
What is the infringement on the employer? An inanimate object, that poses no risk to the employer's safety, inside an employee's car that in 99.999...% of cases the employer will never even know is present.
Short of the libertarian notion of going and getting another job where the boss doesn't have a problem with guns (or your race, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, etc) there is simply no comparison between the relative levels of infringement.
So in the real world where we live, where society has determined that most employers are subject to anti-discrimination laws that prevent them taking action because of an employee's religion, race, political or religious affiliation, sexual orientation/identity, national origin, veteran status, or handicap that can be reasonably accommodated, I'm not going to be concerned about a corporate person's property rights when weighed against a natural person's right to effectively defend his life.
In fact, if I had the votes to do it, I ban employers from enforcing a no gun policy in the workplace in most cases. I would tolerate a "dress code" that required guns to be concealed rather than carried openly. But I think disarming employees in workplaces without real and meaningful security is tantamount to chaining fire escape doors closed or deliberately violating building standards.
But since I don't have the votes to do that, parking lot preemption was a workable compromise that preserves employers' ability to set policy in the workplace itself without letting them reach into the private property of the employee nor presume to disarm them for the entire commute. Sadly, it does nothing for those who use mass transit and so don't have a personal, rolling storage locker available.
Charles
utbagpiper
Banned
Contract law has always contained exceptions and limitations for contracts that violate public policy or basic social values.
As the extreme example of this, regardless of the level of consent and number of witnesses, our society (and its government and courts) are not going to allow enforcement of a contract for one man to sell his heart to another while the first man is still alive. We do not permit selling oneself into slavery or even indentured servitude.
We do not permit one man to sell his vote. I believe many locations have laws against buying or selling votes.
I think most would be a bit uncomfortable with most employers having employment contracts requiring an employee to change his religious or political affiliation.
Admittedly, the constitutionally enumerated right to keep and bear arms based on the natural right to an effective self defense or self preservation has not (yet) obtained the social acceptance or legal recognition to have the same statutory protections as we afford to other rights in terms of limitations on contracts.
I fully concede that there are those with libertarian views very much opposed to the current limitations on contracts, or who strongly oppose anti-discrimination laws. For such folks, protecting employees' RKBA and right to self defense with laws limiting the terms of contracts would naturally be as offensive. But for most of us, as we realize the current reality is, there is not much reason for our right to defend our life and limb to be given any less statutory protection than is our choice of religious or political affiliation, our race or gender, sexual identify, ethnicity, national origin, veteran status, marital/family status, or disability.
We have just about reached the group where lawful gun carriers are the only minority not to enjoy some level of anti-discrimination protection.
Charles
since9
Campaign Veteran
I think that's an essential key element, without which, most corporate lawyers would strongly advise their corporate clients to fight it tooth and nail. I'll include this in my ongoing suggestions to my state legislator.
I wish Colorado would get its act in gear on this matter. There are many fronts where people "in charge" have way too much authority over private citizens, beginning with our own government, created to safeguard our rights, but who now deprive us of them every time we step foot on "federal" land which, according to the Constitution, does not legally belong to the feds in the first place.
I thank God our Founding Fathers weren't libertarians and instead created a Republic.
Agreed, and I would extend that to landlords of all types.