A private property owner is not responsible for you traveling to and from their business.
I never said business owners were responsible for customers while in transit.
I said business owners were denying a right to a person going to or from their business. And yes there is supporting case-law as this is how guns-in-cars laws have been passed, and held up in court.
Customer or employee when you open your business to the public you are already bound by numerous restrictions as a condition of your voluntary business license.
For example:
State high court says gun in car is legal at University of Kentucky
A University of Kentucky graduate student and employee was wrongfully fired for having a gun in his car, the Supreme Court of Kentucky has ruled.
~snip~
Mitchell filed suit, saying his firing violated the state and federal right to bear arms. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of UK, and Mitchell appealed the case to the Supreme Court.
The justices said the case presented two conflicting issues: the right to bear arms versus UK's right to prevent them on campus. In the end, a majority of justices concluded that the conflict had to be resolved in favor of the intent of the Kentucky General Assembly.
"
We base this on the General Assembly's explicit statement that the concealed-carry licensing statute is to be liberally construed in favor of the right to bear arms, as well as the legislature's clearly expressed policy of exempting a person's vehicle from firearms regulation," the decision said.
Justice Wil Schroder, writing for the court, said the law is "
clear and unambiguous."
"
It forbids a public organization, such as a university, from prohibiting the possession of a firearm in the glove compartment of a vehicle," Schroeder wrote. "
There can be no other reasonable interpretation of the statutory language."
Another state allows guns in employees’ cars at work.
July 27, 2011 by Fred Hosier
About a month from now, a 14th state will allow employees to store legally owned firearms in their locked, privately owned vehicles while at work.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) signed the bill into law. It takes effect Sept. 1, 2011.
“
A worker’s individual and constitutional right to self-defense does not end when they drive onto their employer’s property,” said State Senator Glenn Hegar (R), the bill’s sponsor. Hegar calls the measure “
good policy that provides workers with a means of viable self defense while commuting between their homes, their workplace and anywhere in between.”
Hegar says he sponsored the bill in response to a number of instances in which employees had been denied the right to protect themselves while traveling to and from work because their employers adopted “
overly restrictive policies.”
“
When an employer bars firearms on company property … they rob their employees … of their right to safety,” Hegar said.[/COLOR]
Maine Moves To Allow State Workers To Bring Guns To Work
By David Schepp
Posted Mar 14th 2012 @ 9:55AM
Legislation passed by Maine lawmakers that permits state employees to bring concealed weapons to work has raised concern among state gun-control advocates, while backers of the bill say it merely puts the state's workers on parity with those privately employed.
The Maine House of Representatives passed the bill handily Monday -- 84-55. It would allow a state worker to bring a gun to work, provided that the worker has a permit to carry a concealed weapon and keeps the firearm in his or her car, the Bangor Daily News reports.
"
All it does is reaffirm rights under the Second Amendment. This actually restricts it a little bit by saying you need a permit and saying you need to lock your car," Rep. David Burns, a Republican, told the newspaper. "
I don't give up constitutional rights just because I become a state employee."
NRA says FedEx opposition 'reason' to pass Tennessee gun bills
By Richard Locker
Posted April 17, 2012 at 10:28 a.m., updated April 17, 2012 at 11:52 p.m.
NASHVILLE -- Two guns-in-parking-lots bills sailed out of a House committee Tuesday after a National Rifle Association lobbyist declared that FedEx's opposition is "
the reason this bill needs to pass."
One of the bills allows handgun-carry permit holders to keep guns in their locked vehicles on most parking lots in the state -- including public and private schools, colleges and universities -- and forbids most employers and business property owners from banning them.
The second forbids employers from asking current and potential employees questions about their gun ownership, gun-carry licensure and carry habits, and gives employees and job candidates who are asked such questions a right to sue.
..so it doesn't matter that someone isn't being forced to work or shop at a given place. It doesn't matter at all.
It is your choice to take a bus, ride a bike, walk and so on the Government did not force you to it is a choice.
That doesn't matter.
I'm not forced to be a certain religion but an employer still can't discriminate against me. I'm not forced to work for any given employer but my employer still can't stop me from storing a gun in my car on his property. Choice is irrelevant here.
Again, customer or employee when you open your business to the public you are already bound by numerous restrictions as a condition of your voluntary business license, for example:
If you fire an
employee just because they have brown eyes, is a woman, or is a Muslim, they are going to win a wrongful-termination claim against you and draw unemployment off of you:
Wrongful Termination of At Will Employment
The Civil Rights Act in 1964 extended anti-discrimination protections to employees, whose employment could no longer be terminated for reasons such as their race, gender, skin color, religion, or national origin. Additional legal protections now exist to deter certain forms of age discrimination. Following the creation of these anti-discrimination laws, it became possible for employees to argue that their terminations were "
pretextual" - that is, although their employers were citing lawful reasons to terminate their employment, their employers were actually motivated by unlawful discriminatory motives.
~snip~
Some states will permit an "
at will" employee to bring a lawsuit on the basis that the employer violated an implied covenant of "
good faith and fair dealing" in association with the termination decision. In such states, even with an at-will employee, the employer must extend some degree of fairness in the decision to terminate employment.
I argue that 'lawful possession of a firearm' be added to the list because laws supporting preferences of private business owners to arbitrarily ban a right do not meet SCOTUS "
Strict Scrutiny" standards. The typical employee has a need to carry, whereas the typical employer does not have a need to ban.
******
If you remove a
customer just because they have brown eyes, is a woman, or is a Muslim, you will be cited by the State for braking Public Accommodation codes.
For example:
South Dakota Code 20-13-23
20-13-23. Public accommodations--Unfair or discriminatory practices. It shall be an unfair or discriminatory practice for any person engaged in the provision of public accommodations because of race, color, creed, religion, sex, ancestry, disability, or national origin, to fail or refuse to provide to any person access to the use of and benefit from the services and facilities of such public accommodations; or to accord adverse, unlawful, or unequal treatment to any person with respect to the availability of such services and facilities, the price or other consideration therefor, the scope and equality thereof, or the terms and conditions under which the same are made available, including terms and conditions relating to credit, payment, warranties, delivery, installation, and repair.
When you open your business to the public, you
have to conduct 'fair and equal treatment' to each person who
voluntarily walks through your door. You
cannot deny access to your business just because a customer is one of these protected classes. You
cannot refuse to sell to a customer just because the customer belongs to one of these classes. You can't do that now, you wouldn't be able to do that if 'lawfully carrying a firearm' were added to the list.
I want to add 'lawfully carrying a firearm' as a protected class because I have a need to carry whereas the business does not have a need to deny.
*****
The way you win this argument is to demonstrate a 'need' to keep firearms off your property. 'My property, my rules' fails the SCOTUS "
Strict Scrutiny" standard because a right always supersedes preference.