Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 33

Thread: is there pending legislation????

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post

    So is there any pending legislation in WA that would require employers to allow employees to store a sidearms in there car while at work? I work for an employer that says no firearms on company property, and they have said they wouldnt change it until state law required them to. I know other states have a similar law, anything in the works for WA???

  2. #2
    Regular Member j2l3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    871

    Post imported post

    Anything is possible, but I am not aware of any legislation in this state that addresses this problem.
    CZ 75B 9mm, Ruger P94 .40 S&W, Bersa Thunder .380, AR-15 Homebuild

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Chandler, AZ/Federal Way, WA, ,
    Posts
    536

    Post imported post

    None that I've heard of. Arizona just signed one into law though.

    I want to take devils advocate position on this.

    I'm not sure where people get this thinking that they have a right to carry a firearm on someone elses private property without their permission. Do property rights not trump?

  4. #4
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    Kildars wrote:
    None that I've heard of. Arizona just signed one into law though.

    I want to take devils advocate position on this.

    I'm not sure where people get this thinking that they have a right to carry a firearm on someone elses private property without their permission. Do property rights not trump?
    Many, including myself, might argue that "carrying" a firearm on private property and "storing it in a private vehicle in a lawful manner" are quite different things.

    If you, as a private property owner, allow me or my vehicle on to your property for the purpose of business or whatever reason, then its none of your concern whats inside my car or on my person as long as it does not cause you direct liability or contradict a posted or verbal request not to carry.

    Besides, even if a business posted a sign that weapons were not allowed in cars on the premises...how would you propose to enforce this? You cant search customers vehicles for obvious reasons, and the law already states that any firearm left in a vehicle be hidden from sight.

    On the carry side, you could set up metal detectors, but what kind of public business would stay in business long with that kind of PR nightmare?

    A business might get away with it in Illinois, but not Washington. :?







  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Chandler, AZ/Federal Way, WA, ,
    Posts
    536

    Post imported post

    FMCDH wrote:
    Many, including myself, might argue that "carrying" a firearm on private property and "storing it in a private vehicle in a lawful manner" are quite different things.

    If you, as a private property owner, allow me or my vehicle on to your property for the purpose of business or whatever reason, then its none of your concern whats inside my car or on my person as long as it does not cause you direct liability or contradict a posted or verbal request not to carry.

    Besides, even if a business posted a sign that weapons were not allowed in cars on the premises...how would you propose to enforce this? You cant search customers vehicles for obvious reasons, and the law already states that any firearm left in a vehicle be hidden from sight.

    On the carry side, you could set up metal detectors, but what kind of public business would stay in business long with that kind of PR nightmare?

    A business might get away with it in Illinois, but not Washington. :?





    Whether or not it is enforceable is really irrelevant, there are many laws on the books regarding firearms that are unenforceable, i.e. carrying into a bar. If there is a posted sign that they do not want firearms on the property. It is their right for them to post that as it is private property. Now, of course, you could violate their rights and lock your firearm in the car anyways as I'm sure many do. However, does this make it okay? Should the government A-OK this? The constitution applies to government which is why you do not have a freedom of speech on private property, the right to peacefully assemble, etc..

    Why are the private property owners not allowed to regulate what comes on their property (whether known or unknown). I'm sure if you were anti-gun (which obviously you're not) you would not appreciate someone bringing firearms on your property if you specifically asked them not to.



  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran OlGutshotWilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Snohomish, WA, ,
    Posts
    435

    Post imported post

    Kildars wrote:
    FMCDH wrote:
    Many, including myself, might argue that "carrying" a firearm on private property and "storing it in a private vehicle in a lawful manner" are quite different things.

    If you, as a private property owner, allow me or my vehicle on to your property for the purpose of business or whatever reason, then its none of your concern whats inside my car or on my person as long as it does not cause you direct liability or contradict a posted or verbal request not to carry.

    Besides, even if a business posted a sign that weapons were not allowed in cars on the premises...how would you propose to enforce this? You cant search customers vehicles for obvious reasons, and the law already states that any firearm left in a vehicle be hidden from sight.

    On the carry side, you could set up metal detectors, but what kind of public business would stay in business long with that kind of PR nightmare?

    A business might get away with it in Illinois, but not Washington. :?





    Whether or not it is enforceable is really irrelevant, there are many laws on the books regarding firearms that are unenforceable, i.e. carrying into a bar. If there is a posted sign that they do not want firearms on the property. It is their right for them to post that as it is private property. Now, of course, you could violate their rights and lock your firearm in the car anyways as I'm sure many do. However, does this make it okay? Should the government A-OK this? The constitution applies to government which is why you do not have a freedom of speech on private property, the right to peacefully assemble, etc..

    Why are the private property owners not allowed to regulate what comes on their property (whether known or unknown). I'm sure if you were anti-gun (which obviously you're not) you would not appreciate someone bringing firearms on your property if you specifically asked them not to.

    Either I have misread your statement or I'm confused. The constitution applies to "we the people", not to the government. It gives us the right to free speech and the right to bear arms.

    It does not give the government those rights.

    My apologies if I have misunderstood your statement.

    We have the RIGHT to defend ourselves going to said private property and leaving said private property. If it is a business we are patronizing we have a choice not to enter that said property.
    However, many of us just don't have the luxury of picking and choosing who we work for. Yes, they have the right not to have firearms on the property, but they can't negate our rights off of their property by negating the law that says our firearms can be locked inside our car out of site.

    The legislation would require them, if they didn't want guns in the business, to honor the state law allowing us to store and lock our guns in our cars when working.

    You are stating that if we want to make a living, our employer is able to force us to gamble with our lives because they don't like guns anywhere on their property, thus disarming us off their property.

    Cheers,
    Bill
    THE SECOND AMENDMENT: Washington didn't use his right to free speech to defeat the British, he shot them.
    ---------------------------------------------
    Government is not reason; it is not eloquent -- it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
    --George Washington,
    first U.S. president

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Chandler, AZ/Federal Way, WA, ,
    Posts
    536

    Post imported post

    double post.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Chandler, AZ/Federal Way, WA, ,
    Posts
    536

    Post imported post

    n15wb wrote:
    Kildars wrote:
    FMCDH wrote:
    Many, including myself, might argue that "carrying" a firearm on private property and "storing it in a private vehicle in a lawful manner" are quite different things.

    If you, as a private property owner, allow me or my vehicle on to your property for the purpose of business or whatever reason, then its none of your concern whats inside my car or on my person as long as it does not cause you direct liability or contradict a posted or verbal request not to carry.

    Besides, even if a business posted a sign that weapons were not allowed in cars on the premises...how would you propose to enforce this? You cant search customers vehicles for obvious reasons, and the law already states that any firearm left in a vehicle be hidden from sight.

    On the carry side, you could set up metal detectors, but what kind of public business would stay in business long with that kind of PR nightmare?

    A business might get away with it in Illinois, but not Washington. :?





    Whether or not it is enforceable is really irrelevant, there are many laws on the books regarding firearms that are unenforceable, i.e. carrying into a bar. If there is a posted sign that they do not want firearms on the property. It is their right for them to post that as it is private property. Now, of course, you could violate their rights and lock your firearm in the car anyways as I'm sure many do. However, does this make it okay? Should the government A-OK this? The constitution applies to government which is why you do not have a freedom of speech on private property, the right to peacefully assemble, etc..

    Why are the private property owners not allowed to regulate what comes on their property (whether known or unknown). I'm sure if you were anti-gun (which obviously you're not) you would not appreciate someone bringing firearms on your property if you specifically asked them not to.

    Either I have misread your statement or I'm confused. The constitution applies to "we the people", not to the government. It gives us the right to free speech and the right to bear arms.

    It does not give the government those rights.

    My apologies if I have misunderstood your statement.

    We have the RIGHT to defend ourselves going to said private property and leaving said private property. If it is a business we are patronizing we have a choice not to enter that said property.
    However, many of us just don't have the luxury of picking and choosing who we work for. Yes, they have the right not to have firearms on the property, but they can't negate our rights off of their property by negating the law that says our firearms can be locked inside our car out of site.

    The legislation would require them, if they didn't want guns in the business, to honor the state law allowing us to store and lock our guns in our cars when working.

    You are stating that if we want to make a living, our employer is able to force us to gamble with our lives because they don't like guns anywhere on their property, thus disarming us off their property.

    Cheers,
    Bill

    I think you misread, or I mistyped. I meant that the constitution puts limitations on government and attempts to hold back government encroaching on liberty. It does not apply to private parties. It was first meant only for federal government but over the years, with judicial precedent, it has been applied to the states.

    No one is saying that your rights off the property should be negated. The point is, you choose who you work for, you understand and agree to their policies by accepting voluntary employment. They have a right to that property to manage it as they please as they own it, pay taxes on it, up keep it. Your right to do as you wish ends when you encroach onto their property.

    I am stating that property rights, in my opinion, is one of the most fundamental rights we have and when that right is undermined either drastically or slightly it is a slap in the face. You can park off property, you can lobby your company to change it's rules, or you can change employers that is more gun friendly much like we patronize gun friendly businesses. You also have the option to do this under the radar, and because your company can not legally search your car you would probably get away with it. The question becomes why can the government legislate what you can or can not do on your property.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    736

    Post imported post

    FMCDH wrote:
    If you, as a private property owner, allow me or my vehicle on to your property for the purpose of business or whatever reason,
    Then I can disallow you for business or whatever reason, including carrying a firearm.

    Besides, even if a business posted a sign that weapons were not allowed in cars on the premises...how would you propose to enforce this? You cant search customers vehicles for obvious reasons, and the law already states that any firearm left in a vehicle be hidden from sight.
    You would probably make submission to searches a condition of entry.

    As far as on your person, most business don't do this, for obvious reasons, but some night clubs, bars, and other places that deal with "rowdies," for example, do, for equally obvious reasons.

    As for searching a car before allowing it in the parking lot... You'd probably alienate a lot of your customers, and wouldn't be in business very long. But if that's the decision you make for your business, you ought to be allowed to live (or die) by it, without interference from the government.

    As for searching employee cars, you'd make it a condition of employment. Refuse a search = get fired or face other disciplinary action as outlined in your employment agreement.

  10. #10
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    grishnav wrote:
    FMCDH wrote:
    If you, as a private property owner, allow me or my vehicle on to your property for the purpose of business or whatever reason,
    Then I can disallow you for business or whatever reason, including carrying a firearm.

    Besides, even if a business posted a sign that weapons were not allowed in cars on the premises...how would you propose to enforce this? You cant search customers vehicles for obvious reasons, and the law already states that any firearm left in a vehicle be hidden from sight.
    You would probably make submission to searches a condition of entry.

    As far as on your person, most business don't do this, for obvious reasons, but some night clubs, bars, and other places that deal with "rowdies," for example, do, for equally obvious reasons.

    As for searching a car before allowing it in the parking lot... You'd probably alienate a lot of your customers, and wouldn't be in business very long. But if that's the decision you make for your business, you ought to be allowed to live (or die) by it, without interference from the government.

    As for searching employee cars, you'd make it a condition of employment. Refuse a search = get fired or face other disciplinary action as outlined in your employment agreement.
    Exactly... and as I stated before, you might get away with that in the police state of Illinois, but not here in Washington, or for that matter, in most states. Your business wouldn't survive.

    Businesses can make any rules they like, but they can only do so much to enforce them before they become illegal in an of themselves.

    I always obey posted or verbal requests not to carry, but then, I also vote and shop with my feet, and let the business know it. This is exactly what keeps most businesses from making such rules in the first place. Its as it should be.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    FMCDH wrote:
    grishnav wrote:
    FMCDH wrote:
    If you, as a private property owner, allow me or my vehicle on to your property for the purpose of business or whatever reason,
    Then I can disallow you for business or whatever reason, including carrying a firearm.

    Besides, even if a business posted a sign that weapons were not allowed in cars on the premises...how would you propose to enforce this? You cant search customers vehicles for obvious reasons, and the law already states that any firearm left in a vehicle be hidden from sight.
    You would probably make submission to searches a condition of entry.

    As far as on your person, most business don't do this, for obvious reasons, but some night clubs, bars, and other places that deal with "rowdies," for example, do, for equally obvious reasons.

    As for searching a car before allowing it in the parking lot... You'd probably alienate a lot of your customers, and wouldn't be in business very long. But if that's the decision you make for your business, you ought to be allowed to live (or die) by it, without interference from the government.

    As for searching employee cars, you'd make it a condition of employment. Refuse a search = get fired or face other disciplinary action as outlined in your employment agreement.
    Exactly... and as I stated before, you might get away with that in the police state of Illinois, but not here in Washington, or for that matter, in most states. Your business wouldn't survive.

    Businesses can make any rules they like, but they can only do so much to enforce them before they become illegal in an of themselves.

    I always obey posted or verbal requests not to carry, but then, I also vote and shop with my feet, and let the business know it. This is exactly what keeps most businesses from making such rules in the first place. Its as it should be.
    Is it unlawful for a business to allow you entry because you refuse to submit to a visual or wand search?

    Most arenas and nightclubs do this but they technically are not open to the public like wal-mart as the club charges an entry fee.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  12. #12
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    Is it unlawful for a business to allow you entry because you refuse to submit to a visual or wand search?

    Most arenas and nightclubs do this but they technically are not open to the public like wal-mart as the club charges an entry fee.
    No, there is nostatute stating that business like Wal-mart cant wand or search their customers. There is only public opinion and bad PR that prevents such "family" businesses from doing those kinds of things.

    Most large retail chains already have merchandise loss prevention equipment installed. Some will actually request to see your receipt and compare it with what is in your cart (such as Costco, and some Best Buys) but these practices are considered"acceptable" in most marketsas they are primarily consensual and non-invasive. Its what is called in loss prevention circles as the "5 second rule".

    Now, install security guardswith wands or metal detectors at the doors of a Wal-Mart, and make bag checks and pat downs mandatory, and see how long that store lasts.

    There is already a law that deals with these types of practices, and its called the law of free market. It workswell, and does not require further legislation for either side.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Ajetpilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,410

    Post imported post

    n15wb wrote:
    The constitution applies to "we the people", not to the government. It gives us the right to free speech and the right to bear arms.

    Wrong. The Constitution does NOT give us rights. We are endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights. The Constitution, written by We the People, guarantees those rights. The Constitution restricts government from infringing upon those rights.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    FMCDH wrote:
    joeroket wrote:
    Is it unlawful for a business to allow you entry because you refuse to submit to a visual or wand search?

    Most arenas and nightclubs do this but they technically are not open to the public like wal-mart as the club charges an entry fee.
    No, there is nostatute stating that business like Wal-mart cant wand or search their customers. There is only public opinion and bad PR that prevents such "family" businesses from doing those kinds of things.

    Most large retail chains already have merchandise loss prevention equipment installed. Some will actually request to see your receipt and compare it with what is in your cart (such as Costco, and some Best Buys) but these practices are considered"acceptable" in most marketsas they are primarily consensual and non-invasive. Its what is called in loss prevention circles as the "5 second rule".

    Now, install security guardswith wands or metal detectors at the doors of a Wal-Mart, and make bag checks and pat downs mandatory, and see how long that store lasts.

    There is already a law that deals with these types of practices, and its called the law of free market. It workswell, and does not require further legislation for either side.
    Ahh. That makes sense.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    736

    Post imported post

    FMCDH wrote:
    There is already a law that deals with these types of practices, and its called the law of free market. It workswell, and does not require further legislation for either side.
    Couldn't have said it better myself.

    Now if only people would trust the law of the free market to deal with drugs, prostitution, gambling, and other "vices," healthcare, food safety, product safety, etc., we'd be soooo much better off.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,048

    Post imported post

    My question is, how would any employer know if you were to store your pistol inside of your glove box, or otherwise locked compartment in your vehicle? Or is it the law that prohibits you from leaving a firearm with ammunition alone in your vehicle?

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    Aaron1124 wrote:
    My question is, how would any employer know if you were to store your pistol inside of your glove box, or otherwise locked compartment in your vehicle? Or is it the law that prohibits you from leaving a firearm with ammunition alone in your vehicle?
    With a CPL the firearm can be left loaded in an unattended vehicle as long as the vehicle is locked and the firearm is out of sight.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post

    Aaron1124 wrote:
    My question is, how would any employer know if you were to store your pistol inside of your glove box, or otherwise locked compartment in your vehicle? Or is it the law that prohibits you from leaving a firearm with ammunition alone in your vehicle?
    thats just it, they wouldnt.....unless the 1 in a million chance of something warranting a search of my vehicle on company property happens. needless to say i could be fired over the subject if it ever came up, and i would like to keep this job.

    someone else put it good on this forum before..............just as i expect people to respect my rights as a gun owner, i respect their right to ban guns from their property. though i dont completely agree with it.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Chandler, AZ/Federal Way, WA, ,
    Posts
    536

    Post imported post

    Aaron1124 wrote:
    My question is, how would any employer know if you were to store your pistol inside of your glove box, or otherwise locked compartment in your vehicle? Or is it the law that prohibits you from leaving a firearm with ammunition alone in your vehicle?
    That's not the point.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran OlGutshotWilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Snohomish, WA, ,
    Posts
    435

    Post imported post

    Ajetpilot wrote:
    n15wb wrote:
    The constitution applies to "we the people", not to the government. It gives us the right to free speech and the right to bear arms.
    *

    Wrong.* The Constitution does NOT give us rights.* We are endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights.* The Constitution, written by We the People, guarantees those rights.* The Constitution restricts government from infringing upon those rights.
    True, you stated it better than I did.

    Kildar said

    I am stating that property rights, in my opinion, is one of the most fundamental rights we have and when that right is undermined either drastically or slightly it is a slap in the face. You can park off property, you can lobby your company to change it's rules, or you can change employers that is more gun friendly much like we patronize gun friendly businesses. You also have the option to do this under the radar, and because your company can not legally search your car you would probably get away with it. The question becomes why can the government legislate what you can or can not do on your property.
    On the surface what you write is true. However, changing employers is not so easy. When ones education and line of work puts you in a sector that is limited, and puts you in the employ of a government agency on top of it, changing jobs can turn into starting from scratch all over again. Giving up years of education, seniority, retirement etc. You are correct in that you could park off property or fly under the radar. My point is that using the guise of property rights to disarm me off the property does not set well with me. I tend to agree with FMCDH's comment:

    "Many, including myself, might argue that "carrying" a firearm on private property and "storing it in a private vehicle in a lawful manner" are quite different things."

    I do believe in property rights, and would not carry into ones house without their permission, nor would I carry/trespass on ones property (ie hunting) without their permission.

    I do routinely store my firearm in my private vehicle in a lawful manner when visiting people and places so that I might be armed when not on that property.

    Cheers,
    Bill
    THE SECOND AMENDMENT: Washington didn't use his right to free speech to defeat the British, he shot them.
    ---------------------------------------------
    Government is not reason; it is not eloquent -- it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
    --George Washington,
    first U.S. president

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Chandler, AZ/Federal Way, WA, ,
    Posts
    536

    Post imported post

    n15wb wrote
    On the surface what you write is true. However, changing employers is not so easy. When ones education and line of work puts you in a sector that is limited, and puts you in the employ of a government agency on top of it, changing jobs can turn into starting from scratch all over again. Giving up years of education, seniority, retirement etc. You are correct in that you could park off property or fly under the radar. My point is that using the guise of property rights to disarm me off the property does not set well with me. I tend to agree with FMCDH's comment:

    "Many, including myself, might argue that "carrying" a firearm on private property and "storing it in a private vehicle in a lawful manner" are quite different things."

    I do believe in property rights, and would not carry into ones house without their permission, nor would I carry/trespass on ones property (ie hunting) without their permission.

    I do routinely store my firearm in my private vehicle in a lawful manner when visiting people and places so that I might be armed when not on that property.

    Cheers,
    Bill
    I agree that it would be difficult but life is full of difficult decisions. You need to make that choice to find out what is important to you. Is carrying your firearm to/from work that important to you where you would need to find a job that allows it? You would not appreciate if someone did it to you (well maybe you wouldn't care because of your stance on guns, but if you were anti-gun). So why is it okay for the government to force employers to allow something on their property that they clearly do not want.



  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Aberdeen, Washington, USA
    Posts
    49

    Post imported post


    Why are the private property owners not allowed to regulate what comes on their property (whether known or unknown). I'm sure if you were anti-gun (which obviously you're not) you would not appreciate someone bringing firearms on your property if you specifically asked them not to.

    Business owners will sometimes post signs that say, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." This is reasonable as there are many reasons why someone is not a desirable customer, however, some business used to use this to exclude ethnic minorities. The courts have ruled that there are limitations on this right, specifically in the public access areas of the business. It can therefore be argued that anything one has in their vehicle that does not create a public hazard is of no concern to the property owner.

    When an employer prohibits an employee from having a self defense firearm in his vehicle or on company property, the employer also restricts the employees ability to defend himself while en route to and from the place of employment. Perhaps a better way to resolve the issue is to pass a law to make the employer (property owner) financially liable for the protection of the employees while traveling to and from the place of employment whenever the employer has a policy that restricts the ability of any employee to defend himself. This liability would include full financial liability for loss of property and the medical treatment of all injuries the employee incurs as a result of that policy.

    If such a law was enacted, employers would quickly realize that is is more cost effective to allow firearms on their property than to accept the liability.



  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Chandler, AZ/Federal Way, WA, ,
    Posts
    536

    Post imported post

    bobestes wrote:

    Why are the private property owners not allowed to regulate what comes on their property (whether known or unknown). I'm sure if you were anti-gun (which obviously you're not) you would not appreciate someone bringing firearms on your property if you specifically asked them not to.

    Business owners will sometimes post signs that say, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." This is reasonable as there are many reasons why someone is not a desirable customer, however, some business used to use this to exclude ethnic minorities. The courts have ruled that there are limitations on this right, specifically in the public access areas of the business. It can therefore be argued that anything one has in their vehicle that does not create a public hazard is of no concern to the property owner.

    When an employer prohibits an employee from having a self defense firearm in his vehicle or on company property, the employer also restricts the employees ability to defend himself while en route to and from the place of employment. Perhaps a better way to resolve the issue is to pass a law to make the employer (property owner) financially liable for the protection of the employees while traveling to and from the place of employment whenever the employer has a policy that restricts the ability of any employee to defend himself. This liability would include full financial liability for loss of property and the medical treatment of all injuries the employee incurs as a result of that policy.

    If such a law was enacted, employers would quickly realize that is is more cost effective to allow firearms on their property than to accept the liability.

    I don't think you can equate these two scenarios. It's not like the employer is saying "only whites can keep firearms in their car" and it's also not true that only blacks carry guns so they're not even indirectly preventing blacks from coming onto their property. This is a universal rule that applies to anyone. Whether or not something creates liability for the owner is not the determining factor in whether you can set aside their right to private property and what they allow on it, if you can show a legal precedent that has that then I guess it could be argued but of all the case law I've read I do not see that.




  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Aberdeen, Washington, USA
    Posts
    49

    Post imported post

    Kildars wrote:
    bobestes wrote:

    Why are the private property owners not allowed to regulate what comes on their property (whether known or unknown). I'm sure if you were anti-gun (which obviously you're not) you would not appreciate someone bringing firearms on your property if you specifically asked them not to.

    Business owners will sometimes post signs that say, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." This is reasonable as there are many reasons why someone is not a desirable customer, however, some business used to use this to exclude ethnic minorities. The courts have ruled that there are limitations on this right, specifically in the public access areas of the business. It can therefore be argued that anything one has in their vehicle that does not create a public hazard is of no concern to the property owner.

    When an employer prohibits an employee from having a self defense firearm in his vehicle or on company property, the employer also restricts the employees ability to defend himself while en route to and from the place of employment. Perhaps a better way to resolve the issue is to pass a law to make the employer (property owner) financially liable for the protection of the employees while traveling to and from the place of employment whenever the employer has a policy that restricts the ability of any employee to defend himself. This liability would include full financial liability for loss of property and the medical treatment of all injuries the employee incurs as a result of that policy.

    If such a law was enacted, employers would quickly realize that is is more cost effective to allow firearms on their property than to accept the liability.

    I don't think you can equate these two scenarios. It's not like the employer is saying "only whites can keep firearms in their car" and it's also not true that only blacks carry guns so they're not even indirectly preventing blacks from coming onto their property. This is a universal rule that applies to anyone. Whether or not something creates liability for the owner is not the determining factor in whether you can set aside their right to private property and what they allow on it, if you can show a legal precedent that has that then I guess it could be argued but of all the case law I've read I do not see that.


    What I was trying to say was that since property rights have been restricted in the past, they could, rightly or wrongly, be restricted in this case.

    I think a better solution would be to give employers the option to either allow firearms or accept the financial liability for not allowing them. This would preserve the private property rights while ensuring that the employees would be made financially whole for any loss they incure because because of their employers' policy. Also, if they are killed, their estate would have a large financial claim against the employer. If such a law was enacted, I think that most employers would choose to allow firearms.



  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Chandler, AZ/Federal Way, WA, ,
    Posts
    536

    Post imported post

    bobestes wrote:
    Kildars wrote:
    bobestes wrote:

    Why are the private property owners not allowed to regulate what comes on their property (whether known or unknown). I'm sure if you were anti-gun (which obviously you're not) you would not appreciate someone bringing firearms on your property if you specifically asked them not to.

    Business owners will sometimes post signs that say, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." This is reasonable as there are many reasons why someone is not a desirable customer, however, some business used to use this to exclude ethnic minorities. The courts have ruled that there are limitations on this right, specifically in the public access areas of the business. It can therefore be argued that anything one has in their vehicle that does not create a public hazard is of no concern to the property owner.

    When an employer prohibits an employee from having a self defense firearm in his vehicle or on company property, the employer also restricts the employees ability to defend himself while en route to and from the place of employment. Perhaps a better way to resolve the issue is to pass a law to make the employer (property owner) financially liable for the protection of the employees while traveling to and from the place of employment whenever the employer has a policy that restricts the ability of any employee to defend himself. This liability would include full financial liability for loss of property and the medical treatment of all injuries the employee incurs as a result of that policy.

    If such a law was enacted, employers would quickly realize that is is more cost effective to allow firearms on their property than to accept the liability.

    I don't think you can equate these two scenarios. It's not like the employer is saying "only whites can keep firearms in their car" and it's also not true that only blacks carry guns so they're not even indirectly preventing blacks from coming onto their property. This is a universal rule that applies to anyone. Whether or not something creates liability for the owner is not the determining factor in whether you can set aside their right to private property and what they allow on it, if you can show a legal precedent that has that then I guess it could be argued but of all the case law I've read I do not see that.


    What I was trying to say was that since property rights have been restricted in the past, they could, rightly or wrongly, be restricted in this case.

    I think a better solution would be to give employers the option to either allow firearms or accept the financial liability for not allowing them. This would preserve the private property rights while ensuring that the employees would be made financially whole for any loss they incure because because of their employers' policy. Also, if they are killed, their estate would have a large financial claim against the employer. If such a law was enacted, I think that most employers would choose to allow firearms.

    Do you think that is an okay argument? Because government has encroached too far in the past they should be allowed to encroach even farther? Would you agree that because government has banned assault weapons in the past, they should be able to do it again? I think you would agree the government was wrong for doing that, and that would not give them precedent to do it again, or make a more restrictive ban on firearms.

    Again, directly or indirectly, forcing employers to allow firearms on their property goes against our constitution, the founding fathers view of property rights, and the very liberty we enjoy in this country. Scaring employers [by threatening significant financial hardship if they don't comply] is no different than forcing them to do it by legislation.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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