OK Fed judge says no locked guns in the lot - Page 3

OK Fed judge says no locked guns in the lot

This is a discussion on OK Fed judge says no locked guns in the lot within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by The Fed Daddy - Regarding easements - parking lots are not easements. Employees do not have the right to leave firearms in ...

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 49

Thread: OK Fed judge says no locked guns in the lot

  1. #31
    VIP Member Array havegunjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,206

    The insurance angle may be true, but.....

    Quote Originally Posted by The Fed View Post
    Daddy - Regarding easements - parking lots are not easements.

    Employees do not have the right to leave firearms in employee-owned or controlled parking lots unless specially allowed by law.

    And you're all missing the point since you never owned a business. Many business liability insurance policies, especially the more reasonably-priced ones, prohibit firearms on company property by employees. Why do you think it's in employee handbooks?
    MN then for example makes employers pay a higher rate. By law they cannot bar CCW permit holders guns in their parking lot only in their buildings. I also find it hard to believe that an insurance company can ban guns on your property. Now they may charge you more and your company lawyer may recommend this but I don't think they can dictate such a policy. Maybe some state laws allow this I don't claim to know them all.
    DEMOCRACY IS TWO WOLVES AND A LAMB VOTING ON WHAT TO HAVE FOR LUNCH. LIBERTY IS A WELL ARMED LAMB CONtestING THE VOTE.

    Certified Instructor for Minnesota Carry Permit
    NRA Pistol and Personal Protection Insrtuctor
    Utah Permit Certified Instructor


  2. #32
    Ron
    Ron is offline
    Distinguished Member Array Ron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    West Linn, Oregon
    Posts
    1,629
    Quote Originally Posted by bobernet View Post
    For the sake of argument, let's say the anti's win the media war and every business (or most) has such a policy. We're getting close to that already.

    What happens when my ability to just "go work elsewhere" disappears. Should I have to sacrifice my right to life and the defense of it to earn a living and provide for my family? Right or wrong, that was the logic behind the protected statuses. If employer X doesn't want to hire you because you're too old, just go to employer Y. If restaurant X doesn't want blacks on his property, just eat at restaurant Y.

    "The issue is not whether the property owner has a right to search an employee..." actually, that is exactly what it's about. If your weapon is concealed, this is the only option they have to detect/enforce. And an employer demanding you consent to a search or be fired has been the topic of numerous threads here.
    I understand what you are saying. The difference is that we have laws protecting against discrimination, based upon age, sex, religion, etc. As someone who always carries where it is legal to do so, and who worked at a college where guns were prohibited I am not unsymphathetic to your argument, so please don't misintepret my posts. I am not in favor of businesses establishing no gun policies, or requiring, as a condition of employment, the right to search for weapons.

    But, until we are able to get laws enacted prohibiting employers from implementing no guns policies, I do believe that the property rights of the owner trump. So, yes, if it comes to that you might be faced with making that decision.

    Ron
    "It does not do to leave a dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him."

    J. R. R. Tolkien

  3. #33
    VIP Member Array havegunjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,206

    I believe there is a difference legally with your home and a busniess.

    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    Since the dawn of the USA.

    You believe you have a right to speak, assemble, petition for redress of grievances, be secure in your person and effects, possess and carry a firearm, and so on. As a citizen of the U.S., so you do. On your nickel, your time and your property, you absolutely do. Some other places, as well, such as public lands. Knock yourself out, at such a place.

    However, there are limits. In my own living room, my right to control that living room as I see fit (as owner) trumps your perceived rights while in my living room. In simple point of fact, you're there by my leave, as owner. Got a problem with that? You have the liberty to do what you please elsewhere, on your property, on your time, on your nickel. But not on mine, at my expense. That's property rights for you.

    When it comes down to it, I don't think we'd really prefer they be trumped by anything like what's being suggested, much as we all would dearly love to be armed everywhere up to and including places where owners have decided no such thing shall be allowed.
    I am not a lawyer so maybe someone else can address this better than I can. If I visit your home and you say as a guest in my home I am going to go search your car that is in my driveway I simply leave. But as a business open to the public and paying people to work there I just don't think that holds water. The excuse of making the other employees safer or my insurance will cost more I don't think holds water either. Just my opinion.
    DEMOCRACY IS TWO WOLVES AND A LAMB VOTING ON WHAT TO HAVE FOR LUNCH. LIBERTY IS A WELL ARMED LAMB CONtestING THE VOTE.

    Certified Instructor for Minnesota Carry Permit
    NRA Pistol and Personal Protection Insrtuctor
    Utah Permit Certified Instructor

  4. #34
    Ex Member Array FN1910's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,235
    No matter what our opinions are it looks like the SCOTUS will decide for us, which is what got this whole discussion started.

    http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.as...20071010b.html

  5. #35
    Member Array bobernet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    134
    If these trends continue, methinks the Smartcarry and Thunderwear folks are going to be selling a lot of gun panties.

  6. #36
    Ron
    Ron is offline
    Distinguished Member Array Ron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    West Linn, Oregon
    Posts
    1,629
    Well, I think that we have all made good arguments for what we believe to be correct on this issue, and, at this point, I think we should probably simply agree to disgree and leave it at that. As has been suggested, at some point I suppose that these issues will be decided by the Supreme Court.

    Ron
    "It does not do to leave a dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him."

    J. R. R. Tolkien

  7. #37
    Senior Member Array ronwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    816
    Unfortunately I must take the side that owners of private property, including employers, have the right to say no to guns. I don't believe the SCOTUS would even hear this argument because of previous decisions concerning private property. We don't want anyone telling us we can't have guns in our house so why should we demand that we can have guns in someone else's property?

  8. #38
    Member Array eyeCalypso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    (near) Estes Park, Colorado
    Posts
    21
    I work for a municipality, a city government. It is not under OSHA jurisdiction. The employee guidelines are ambiguous as to possesion of handguns by non-LEOs, but where I work (Boulder, CO) guns are generally considered 'evil', so I figure if they see mine, they will try to fire me.

    I don't carry in the workplace, but legally keep it secured in my vehicle parked on city property while at work.

    I've always wondered my standing as a public employee or if my employer, the City, could legally fire me for firearm possesion or conduct an unauthorized search of my vehicle.
    “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides...” (Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria)

  9. #39
    Member Array SCGunGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    Since the dawn of the USA.

    You believe you have a right to speak, assemble, petition for redress of grievances, be secure in your person and effects, possess and carry a firearm, and so on. As a citizen of the U.S., so you do. On your nickel, your time and your property, you absolutely do. Some other places, as well, such as public lands. Knock yourself out, at such a place.

    However, there are limits. In my own living room, my right to control that living room as I see fit (as owner) trumps your perceived rights while in my living room. In simple point of fact, you're there by my leave, as owner. Got a problem with that? You have the liberty to do what you please elsewhere, on your property, on your time, on your nickel. But not on mine, at my expense. That's property rights for you.

    When it comes down to it, I don't think we'd really prefer they be trumped by anything like what's being suggested, much as we all would dearly love to be armed everywhere up to and including places where owners have decided no such thing shall be allowed.
    But you don't have the right to demand that I only visit your house if I leave my gun at home and drive from my house or my place of business to your home.

    Yes, you may prohibit me from entering your house with my gun, but you can't deny me the right to protect myself when I am not on your property (which, by the way, is the most egregious aspect of "gun-free school zones" that prohibit guns from being brought onto school property--they deny citizens the right to self-defense in areas not under school control and not even near the school).

  10. #40
    Member Array SCGunGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    173
    Actually, national land "owned by the federal government" should technically be considered to be jointly owned by every U.S. citizen. No federal property should be off-limits to carry.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob99VMI04 View Post
    Okay what about National land owned by the federal government? US government is the owner, they say NO guns allowed. Well I guess that puts OBX off limits since its national sea shore.
    Every piece of property is owned by somebody whether its a city street or a compost pile.

    I am a firm believer in out site out of mind. I believe that an private land owner can ask anybody to get off his her property, but I don't believe a business that I work at has the right to dictate how I should feel safe. Expecially since we all know that gun free zones are target rich enviorments.

    Also, just because i'm carrying a gun dosn't mean I'm violating my bosses/owner rights.

  11. #41
    Senior Member Array ronwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    816
    Quote Originally Posted by SCGuy View Post
    But you don't have the right to demand that I only visit your house if I leave my gun at home and drive from my house or my place of business to your home.

    Yes, you may prohibit me from entering your house with my gun, but you can't deny me the right to protect myself when I am not on your property (which, by the way, is the most egregious aspect of "gun-free school zones" that prohibit guns from being brought onto school property--they deny citizens the right to self-defense in areas not under school control and not even near the school).
    Not that I agree with it but they have a right to ask that you park OFF of the property and walk in without a gun. You have the right not to visit, or work, where guns are not permitted. The right not to have a gun is just as great as the right to have a gun. The wrong comes in trying to force your belief on someone else.

  12. #42
    VIP Member Array edr9x23super's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,108

    I am Sick of hearing about everyones "rights"

    Just because they own some piece of property. If the NRA were smart, they would put their considerable political muscle into a campaign to remove this judge from the bench. It is obvious that he is simply a revisionist judge, not an objective one. Using the OSHA laws to justify his injunction is a cop-out. OSHA is about workplace safety; having a firearm locked in your car in the parking lot is not "in the workplace". People with firearms coming into the workplace to murder their co-workers are criminal acts, and should be treated as such. OSHA is about insuring safe practices on the job, and they should stay out of people's personal choices within the confines of their vehicles. What we have here is a classic example of a states' rights issues being interfered with by some liberal federal judge at the behest of corporate trial lawyers and their cronies. What really needs to happen now is for employees to band together and begin filing class-action lawsuits to force employers to provide parking lots for people to park in that are concerned with their own self-protection or rescind some of their ridiculous policies. I am sure that there have got to be some ladies out there that have abusive ex-husbands they are concerned about, like the teacher we heard about recently. But first, I think we ought to scrutinize that federal judge and begin a petition to have him removed from the bench.

    Just my .02
    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined". - Patrick Henry

  13. #43
    Senior Member Array ronwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    816
    Quote Originally Posted by edr9x23super View Post
    Just because they own some piece of property.
    Until it concerns the RKBA. Then I bet you'll be ready to talk rights.

  14. #44
    Member Array SCGunGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by ronwill View Post
    Not that I agree with it but they have a right to ask that you park OFF of the property and walk in without a gun. You have the right not to visit, or work, where guns are not permitted. The right not to have a gun is just as great as the right to have a gun. The wrong comes in trying to force your belief on someone else.
    Here's how I view it: The most fundamental of the "inalienable rights" that we have is the right to life. Other rights, such as property rights, are at a somewhat lesser level than the right to life, for no property owned, no happiness pursued is possible without one's life.

    No one has the right to deny another the right to self-defense in areas outside of the denier's immediate control. Therefore, while a property owner may rightfully bar guns from entering a building under his immediate control, he may not rightfully bar guns from entering his parking area, for in doing so he is extending the ban to areas beyond his immediate control, and is depriving the gun owner of the ability to defend his own life in areas where the denier is not going to be able to provide assistance even were he willing to do so.

    I find it incredible that people think this type of action is OK because of "property rights." Yes, private property rights are vital to a free society, but even they must yield to the right to life.

    I cannot conceive that any of the Founding Fathers, whether for or against the inclusion of the Bill of Rights, would have countenanced such behavior.

  15. #45
    Senior Member Array ronwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    816
    Quote Originally Posted by SCGuy View Post
    Here's how I view it: The most fundamental of the "inalienable rights" that we have is the right to life. Other rights, such as property rights, are at a somewhat lesser level than the right to life, for no property owned, no happiness pursued is possible without one's life.
    While I agree with you, care must be taken when stripping any right. Once it gets started it will be hard to stop. Just look at some of the gun control laws in the past years. An owner of private property may feel like his life is in danger if guns are brought onto their property.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

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

Similar Threads

  1. (GA) Fed judge busted for cocaine, guns. Dimed out by prostitute.
    By paramedic70002 in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: October 5th, 2010, 12:07 PM
  2. Judge won't block law banning guns in Ga. churches
    By foots402 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: August 25th, 2010, 09:19 PM
  3. Weird: Judge says man can't carry guns outside the home
    By paramedic70002 in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: April 8th, 2010, 09:46 AM
  4. N.J. judge says quadriplegic can have guns
    By rmilchman in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: November 15th, 2009, 03:58 AM
  5. Floridians: Federal judge upholds guns-at-work law: MERGED
    By CharlieMike in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: August 19th, 2008, 12:57 AM

Search tags for this page

constituational rights of employees

Click on a term to search for related topics.