firearm in vehicle in work/private parking lot

imported post

I read several months back that Utah was working through legislation on the right of an employee to have a firearm in their own vehicle on their employer's property. Even if the employer has a policy against have firearms at work. Any news on the outcome or status of this legislation?

thx!

imported post

buster0535 wrote:

I read several months back that Utah was working through legislation on the right of an employee to have a firearm in their own vehicle on their employer's property. Even if the employer has a policy against have firearms at work. Any news on the outcome or status of this legislation?

thx!

Click to expand...

There was legislation in the last session, and it didn't pass. I'm not sure what is planned for the upcoming session.

imported post

Legislation like this tears me. On one hand, I believe in the rights of the property owner to do whatever he wants. On the other hand, people should be armed wherever they wish.

I think the ideal thing would be to let property owners prohibit whatever they want, but make them responsible for the safety of those on their property.

Remember that those prohibitions carry no legal weight. You might get fired by carrying to work (even leaving it in the car), but there wouldn't be any legal trouble. What someone doesn't know...

imported post

thoughtpolice wrote:

ScottyT wrote:

I think the ideal thing would be to let property owners prohibit whatever they want, but make them responsible for the safety of those on their property.

Click to expand...

I like that idea, good compromise. +1

Click to expand...

The only thing that hangs me up on this argument is that you have a choice to enter their property or not. You are not being forced to enter. Same with work you have a choice where you work.

imported post

ainokea wrote:

thoughtpolice wrote:

ScottyT wrote:

I think the ideal thing would be to let property owners prohibit whatever they want, but make them responsible for the safety of those on their property.

Click to expand...

I like that idea, good compromise. +1

Click to expand...

The only thing that hangs me up on this argument is that you have a choice to enter their property or not. You are not being forced to enter. Same with work you have a choice where you work.

Click to expand...

Well: its all Wording...

like, no one FORCES you to own a car. but you have to if you want to work. You are not FORCED to go to the supermarket, but i kinda need to in order to eat, well, feed my family at least. i am not FORCED to get a formal education, but if i want to get an 'OK; job, i better do it.
Same here, no one is FORCING us to go into these stores, but we HAVE to.

Maybe i should just stay inside my house with my gun on my hip so my 2A right does not infringed. OR, we can stand up and let ppl know what society has a right to protect themselves.

...this is such an old debate...

imported post

ProtectedBy9mm wrote:

ainokea wrote:

thoughtpolice wrote:

ScottyT wrote:

I think the ideal thing would be to let property owners prohibit whatever they want, but make them responsible for the safety of those on their property.

Click to expand...

I like that idea, good compromise. +1

Click to expand...

The only thing that hangs me up on this argument is that you have a choice to enter their property or not. You are not being forced to enter. Same with work you have a choice where you work.

Click to expand...

Well: its all Wording...

like, no one FORCES you to own a car. but you have to if you want to work. You are not FORCED to go to the supermarket, but i kinda need to in order to eat, well, feed my family at least. i am not FORCED to get a formal education, but if i want to get an 'OK; job, i better do it.
Same here, no one is FORCING us to go into these stores, but we HAVE to.

Maybe i should just stay inside my house with my gun on my hip so my 2A right does not infringed. OR, we can stand up and let ppl know what society has a right to protect themselves.

...this is such an old debate...

Click to expand...

+1 aye. brings back memories.....

Kevin

imported post

ProtectedBy9mm wrote:

ainokea wrote:

thoughtpolice wrote:

ScottyT wrote:

I think the ideal thing would be to let property owners prohibit whatever they want, but make them responsible for the safety of those on their property.

Click to expand...

I like that idea, good compromise. +1

Click to expand...

The only thing that hangs me up on this argument is that you have a choice to enter their property or not. You are not being forced to enter. Same with work you have a choice where you work.

Click to expand...

Well: its all Wording...

like, no one FORCES you to own a car. but you have to if you want to work. You are not FORCED to go to the supermarket, but i kinda need to in order to eat, well, feed my family at least. i am not FORCED to get a formal education, but if i want to get an 'OK; job, i better do it.
Same here, no one is FORCING us to go into these stores, but we HAVE to.

Maybe i should just stay inside my house with my gun on my hip so my 2A right does not infringed. OR, we can stand up and let ppl know what society has a right to protect themselves.

...this is such an old debate...

Click to expand...

I agree that this is an old debate...and not to call your points out but they don't hold water to me.

1. There are lots of people who walk, ride a bike, ride the bus, or get picked up to get to work etc.

2. You can find gun friendly food store, go through the dive-thru to get food, some grocery stores offer home delivery.

3. How is this an agruement if you want something of course you should have to be quailfied for it.

Have to, no! Does it make it convient, yes! It is a decision you wil have to make is the convience worth the potential risk to you. That is the point to me because you are not obligated to go there. BTW - I don't want to start a 10 page debate about this because we've already done that. (Kinda beating a dead horse already) I respect that you and I will disagree on this issue.

imported post

ainokea wrote:

ProtectedBy9mm wrote:

ainokea wrote:

thoughtpolice wrote:

ScottyT wrote:

I think the ideal thing would be to let property owners prohibit whatever they want, but make them responsible for the safety of those on their property.

Click to expand...

I like that idea, good compromise. +1

Click to expand...

The only thing that hangs me up on this argument is that you have a choice to enter their property or not. You are not being forced to enter. Same with work you have a choice where you work.

Click to expand...

Well: its all Wording...

like, no one FORCES you to own a car. but you have to if you want to work. You are not FORCED to go to the supermarket, but i kinda need to in order to eat, well, feed my family at least. i am not FORCED to get a formal education, but if i want to get an 'OK; job, i better do it.
Same here, no one is FORCING us to go into these stores, but we HAVE to.

Maybe i should just stay inside my house with my gun on my hip so my 2A right does not infringed. OR, we can stand up and let ppl know what society has a right to protect themselves.

...this is such an old debate...

Click to expand...

....BTW - I don't want to start a 10 page debate....

Click to expand...

Well your no fun!

imported post

ainokea wrote:

It is a decision you wil have to make is the convience worth the potential risk to you.

Click to expand...

imported post

ScottyT wrote:

Legislation like this tears me. On one hand, I believe in the rights of the property owner to do whatever he wants. On the other hand, people should be armed wherever they wish.

I think the ideal thing would be to let property owners prohibit whatever they want, but make them responsible for the safety of those on their property.

Remember that those prohibitions carry no legal weight. You might get fired by carrying to work (even leaving it in the car), but there wouldn't be any legal trouble. What someone doesn't know...

Click to expand...

Legislation like this USED to tear me until someone pointed out to me we are NOT pitting property rights against the mere right to carry some object.

We are talking about the right to LIFE, to defend LIFE and limb vs an irrational, counter-productive, and invasive policy.

Would anyone REALLY be "torn" if an employer wanted a policy banning asthma inhalers, insulin pumps, pace makers, or other life-saving and sustaining medications or equipment?

Anyone torn over legal requirements that commercial construction meet some minimum seismic code, have working fire detection and suppression systems (smoke detectors and sprinkler systems), and have clearly marked, fully operational emergency exit doors? I mean, nobody HAS to enter an office building, grocery store, or movie theater. So why not caveat emptor if you are foolish enough to hang out in a building that will collapse on itself at the first tremor, is a tinder box with no emergency exits, or has other serious health and safety issues.

Maybe there are a few pure libertarians who think such a world is desirable. But most of us see the fallacy right away. And even if such a world WOULD somehow be preferable to one with some minimum safety standards, that is NOT the world in which we live and I see no reason why gun owners should be the only group without some basic protections under the law.

It is one thing to give extreme deference to the desires of home owners and churches when it comes to what they do or do not allow into their property. But when it comes to commercial property I see no reason not to provide some protections to gun owners.

Besides, having been invited to park my car at a certain location, what I have IN my car is of nobody's business nor concern. THAT is the only property-rights vs property-rights question.

The real question is LIFE and limb vs mere property. The employer assumes ZERO responsibility for my safety during my commute, but presumes to disarm me. And that is even if I drive my own car. What of those who walk, ride a bike, or take mass transit?

LIFE trumps property.

Charles

imported post

buster0535 wrote:

thx!

Click to expand...

What!?

I like most here am torn.

Of course, I kept mine in my car at my last job.

imported post

thx997303 wrote:

buster0535 wrote:

thx!

Click to expand...

What!?

I like most here am torn.

Of course, I kept mine in my car at my last job.

Click to expand...

And YOU, you are suffering from XD-Separation-Anxiety, eh? :lol:

imported post

Yes I am! Dang, it doesn't feel right not having some sort of firearm on hand at all times.

Miss my XD

imported post

utbagpiper wrote:

ScottyT wrote:

Legislation like this tears me. On one hand, I believe in the rights of the property owner to do whatever he wants. On the other hand, people should be armed wherever they wish.

I think the ideal thing would be to let property owners prohibit whatever they want, but make them responsible for the safety of those on their property.

Remember that those prohibitions carry no legal weight. You might get fired by carrying to work (even leaving it in the car), but there wouldn't be any legal trouble. What someone doesn't know...

Click to expand...

Legislation like this USED to tear me until someone pointed out to me we are NOT pitting property rights against the mere right to carry some object.

We are talking about the right to LIFE, to defend LIFE and limb vs an irrational, counter-productive, and invasive policy.

Would anyone REALLY be "torn" if an employer wanted a policy banning asthma inhalers, insulin pumps, pace makers, or other life-saving and sustaining medications or equipment?

Anyone torn over legal requirements that commercial construction meet some minimum seismic code, have working fire detection and suppression systems (smoke detectors and sprinkler systems), and have clearly marked, fully operational emergency exit doors? I mean, nobody HAS to enter an office building, grocery store, or movie theater. So why not caveat emptor if you are foolish enough to hang out in a building that will collapse on itself at the first tremor, is a tinder box with no emergency exits, or has other serious health and safety issues.

Maybe there are a few pure libertarians who think such a world is desirable. But most of us see the fallacy right away. And even if such a world WOULD somehow be preferable to one with some minimum safety standards, that is NOT the world in which we live and I see no reason why gun owners should be the only group without some basic protections under the law.

It is one thing to give extreme deference to the desires of home owners and churches when it comes to what they do or do not allow into their property. But when it comes to commercial property I see no reason not to provide some protections to gun owners.

Besides, having been invited to park my car at a certain location, what I have IN my car is of nobody's business nor concern. THAT is the only property-rights vs property-rights question.

The real question is LIFE and limb vs mere property. The employer assumes ZERO responsibility for my safety during my commute, but presumes to disarm me. And that is even if I drive my own car. What of those who walk, ride a bike, or take mass transit?

LIFE trumps property.

Charles

Click to expand...

Yeah. I like this argument as well. We need some bulldog lawyers pushing with this concept to get our view across. I was just watching a show in the "E" Channel tonight called "Going postal - 15 most violent shootings" or something like that. I can't remember the exact title. Anyhow, one of the stories in the show was about a guy who crashed his pickup truck into a restaurant full of people and then got out and started killing everyone inside. There was a woman in there who lost both of her parents and narrowly escaped but could have stopped the gunman had she been carrying her gun on her person instead of having to leave it in her car to follow the law at the time. She later got into legislation and helped pass the Texas concealed carry laws so people could carry there.

Most of the other stories, like Virginia Tech, could have also had fewer casualties had students or faculty had a concealed handgun.

When are the politicians and the sheeple going to wake up and smell the gunpowder? The bad guys still have guns no matter how many laws they pass. The criminals will not go where they believe somebody might have the capability to unleash some lead of their own.

Kevin

imported post

Life Liberty Property. So first in line is life, second is liberty, third is property. Right to life trumps all others.One's right to life supersedes another's right to property.Like rock paper scissors, except rock would always win. Yet this is too hard for the boys up on the hill to get.

imported post

ainokea wrote:

I agree that this is an old debate...and not to call your points out but they don't hold water to me.

1. There are lots of people who walk, ride a bike, ride the bus, or get picked up to get to work etc.

2. You can find gun friendly food store, go through the dive-thru to get food, some grocery stores offer home delivery.

3. How is this an agruement if you want something of course you should have to be quailfied for it.

Have to, no! Does it make it convient, yes! It is a decision you wil have to make is the convience worth the potential risk to you. That is the point to me because you are not obligated to go there. BTW - I don't want to start a 10 page debate about this because we've already done that. (Kinda beating a dead horse already) I respect that you and I will disagree on this issue.

Click to expand...

And respectfully, these libertopian arguments no longer hold water with me.

As a society we have LONG since accepted that there will be certain limits on the use of private property where life and limb are at stake. We do NOT allow businesses to chain fire doors shut or disable sprinkler systems. Indeed, we don't even allow commercial buildings to be erected without such basic safety features. These requirements impose a MUCH higher burden on property owners than would preventing them from discriminating against law abiding gun owners.

And doubtless, you will voice your opposition to such laws and make some grand argument about the free market and contract law and right to put your own life at risk if you so choose.

That is not the world in which we live nor is it the world in which most of us wish to live. Indeed, if YOU wished to live in THAT world you could relocated to some 3rd world nation where either de jur or de facto that is the situation. That you choose to remain here suggests strongly that even are not really big on anarchy.

We also do not allow businesses to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, etc. I see no reason that gun owners be the only group without basic protections.

You also ignore the fact that the vast majority of businesses these days are corporations, figments of state law. They are created under authority of the state and the state has every right to place certain regulations on them in exchange for the protections the law offers to owners and operators of corporations.

It is interesting to note that one is hard pressed to find a mom & pop proprietorship that is antigun. It is pretty tough to find a corporation that is progun.

Simply put, we do not live in Libertopia and the vast majority of us would not like it if we did.

Charles

imported post

utbagpiper wrote:

And respectfully, these libertopian arguments no longer hold water with me.

As a society we have LONG since accepted that there will be certain limits on the use of private property where life and limb are at stake. We do NOT allow businesses to chain fire doors shut or disable sprinkler systems. Indeed, we don't even allow commercial buildings to be erected without such basic safety features. These requirements impose a MUCH higher burden on property owners than would preventing them from discriminating against law abiding gun owners.

And doubtless, you will voice your opposition to such laws and make some grand argument about the free market and contract law and right to put your own life at risk if you so choose.

That is not the world in which we live nor is it the world in which most of us wish to live. Indeed, if YOU wished to live in THAT world you could relocated to some 3rd world nation where either de jur or de facto that is the situation. That you choose to remain here suggests strongly that even are not really big on anarchy.

We also do not allow businesses to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, etc. I see no reason that gun owners be the only group without basic protections.

You also ignore the fact that the vast majority of businesses these days are corporations, figments of state law. They are created under authority of the state and the state has every right to place certain regulations on them in exchange for the protections the law offers to owners and operators of corporations.

It is interesting to note that one is hard pressed to find a mom & pop proprietorship that is antigun. It is pretty tough to find a corporation that is progun.

Simply put, we do not live in Libertopia and the vast majority of us would not like it if we did.

Charles

Click to expand...

I understand & respectyour point completely, however, there are laws in place that make life safety system,(firesprinklers, exits, water, etc)manditory for businesses. The same cannot be said for the right to carry a firearm into the business. As I am sure you are aware gun owners are not currently a protected class of people (like race orreligion). If this is a goalit maybe better to pressure law makers first. IANAL - from a liability stand point would the owner/operator of the business be held liable should they choose to allow firearms into their store and a customer accidently shoots an innocent bystander? I don't know but I see how the potential for a law suit would be there.

Corporations are a private business under the control of theirBoard/CEO's. It is unfortunate that the modern consumer is causing the small mom & pop shops to close while the big corporations continue to grow rapidly.

I am not suggesting that anyone break any laws but there are occasions when IMO it is better to CC.

We live in a democratic societywhere themajority rule andwithout a responsible government it is possible for the rights ofa minority(OCers/Gun owners)to be abused by the majority.

Respectfully,

Ainokea

imported post

ainokea wrote:

I understand & respectyour point completely, however, there are laws in place that make life safety system,(firesprinklers, exits, water, etc)manditory for businesses. The same cannot be said for the right to carry a firearm into the business. As I am sure you are aware gun owners are not currently a protected class of people (like race orreligion). If this is a goalit maybe better to pressure law makers first. IANAL - from a liability stand point would the owner/operator of the business be held liable should they choose to allow firearms into their store and a customer accidently shoots an innocent bystander? I don't know but I see how the potential for a law suit would be there.

Corporations are a private business under the control of theirBoard/CEO's. It is unfortunate that the modern consumer is causing the small mom & pop shops to close while the big corporations continue to grow rapidly.

I am not suggesting that anyone break any laws but there are occasions when IMO it is better to CC.

We live in a democratic societywhere themajority rule andwithout a responsible government it is possible for the rights ofa minority(OCers/Gun owners)to be abused by the majority.

Respectfully,

Ainokea

Click to expand...

You are correct that gun owners/carriers are not a protected class currently and that there are no laws preventing private employers or businesses from discriminating against law abiding gun owners/carriers.

My point is that such laws SHOULD exist to some degree. And that they should exist for exactly the same reason current laws mandating sprinklers and other safety features exist.

While corporations are privately owned businesses, the corporation itself is a legal fiction, a creation of the state that provides protections to the owners that is not available via other forms of doing business. Since the ability to incorporate is entirely a creation of the state it is perfectly within rights theory--even ignoring questions of hierarchy of rights--to impose certain conditions and limits on corporations.

And I note that here in Utah, with the exception of a private home or church that has given notice or an official secure area (always a state-run institution or sterile area of an airport) there are NO LAWS violated when legally CCing a gun in violation of some private policy. An employer is free to discipline or even fire an employee for violating a no-gun policy. But NO crime is committed. It is like showing up to work late or wearing too casual clothing to a big customer meeting.

Similarly, a business is free to refuse service and require you to leave if they discover a gun in violation of their policy. But short of refusing to leave when asked, NO crime is committed by ignoring their private policy. And while I'm not expert, I'm told that commercial trespass is a pretty tough case to make unless you are actually interfering with their business.

As for liability, if there is some liability for allowing law abiding citizens to carry guns what is the liability for refusing to do so when such a policy invites and/or exacerbates a criminal mass shooting such as we saw at Trolley Square?

It is wise to bear in mind the views of the majority. And in so doing, agitating too heavily is probably not in our best interest.

My posts on this topic are intended only to make the case to support laws to protect law abiding gun owners/carriers against arbitrary discrimination in the workplace (or at least the parking lot thereof) and in places of public accommodation. It is to demonstrate that our own concerns about violating others' rights are misplaced in this regard and even the most limited government gun owners can and should support minimal legal protections for the lawful protection of legally carrying a firearm.

Nobody should fear for loss of his job over a Bible, Book of Mormon, Koran, Bagagavida, Playboy, or handgun secured in his locked car in a company parking lot. It is one thing to limit what one brings into the office itself. It is quite another to presume to reach into the private property of an employee and dictate what lawful items he can or cannot have in his own glove box and to disarm him during his daily commute when the employer will assume ZERO liability for injury.

And thank you for the civil and reasoned dialogue.

Charles