Louisiana's Jindal signs guns in cars at work law

This is a discussion on Louisiana's Jindal signs guns in cars at work law within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; 2 states down, 48 to go. KLFY TV 10 - Acadiana's Local News, Weather and Sports Leader | Jindal signs gill governing guns at workplace ...

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 31

Thread: Louisiana's Jindal signs guns in cars at work law

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA
    Posts
    5,119

    Louisiana's Jindal signs guns in cars at work law

    2 states down, 48 to go.

    KLFY TV 10 - Acadiana's Local News, Weather and Sports Leader | Jindal signs gill governing guns at workplace

    Jindal signs gill governing guns at workplace

    Associated Press - July 4, 2008 11:24 AM ET

    BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) - Over the objections of 5 powerful trade associations, Governor Bobby Jindal has signed into law a bill that gives employees more freedom to take guns to work.

    The Legislature's Web site says the bill was signed Wednesday.

    The bill, backed by the National Rifle Association, gives an employee the right to keep a legally owned firearm locked in a car in a parking lot at the workplace, with some exceptions.

    The bill's sponsor says the legislation backs employees who are fired for unwittingly carrying a firearm in their personal vehicle because they went hunting before or after work.

    The trade associations say the bill interferes with employers' right to decide whether to allow firearms on their property.
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    Quote Originally Posted by paramedic70002 View Post
    The trade associations say the bill interferes with employers' right to decide whether to allow firearms on their property.
    I agree with the trade association.
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

  4. #3
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerbouchard View Post
    I agree with the trade association.
    I don't. Property rights only extend until they damage someone else's property rights.

    In this case, an employer forbidding me from possessing the means to defend my life while on their property also precludes me possessing that means on my trip to and from my home. This is outside of their property, and they have no right to forbid their employees from defending themselves if attacked on the way home from work.

    If there were a way to make a gun vanish the moment you pulled into their parking lot and re-materialize the instant you left, that would be the ideal way to protect both parties' property rights. But in the absense of that ability, the parking lot is a natural middle-ground for employers who wish to disarm their employees. It allows them free reign over their conditions of employment without extending to situations off of their property.

    Anyway, JMO. I'm looking for the text of this bill (now law) and date of applicability. Does anyone have a link to it?
    "A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the continuance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
    Is this hard to understand? Then why does it get unintelligible to some people when 5 little words are changed?

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array ExactlyMyPoint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    2,949
    This type of conflict is just ripe for a Supreme Court challenge.
    Preparing for the Zombie Apocalypse or Rapture....whichever comes first.

  6. #5
    Distinguished Member Array kazzaerexys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    1,838
    I also agree with the trade association---it does affect their private property rights. I just don't happen to think their private property rights are any more important than their employees' rights to self-defense...

    Looked at another way, the inside of my car is my property. I don't see how they have a whole lot more right to say what can and can't be in my glove compartment than they can say whether I have 87 or 89 octane in my gas tank. It's just none of their flippin' business.

    Now, the moment the gun comes out of the car and onto their property, well, then I think their private property rights trump the employees' rights.
    “What is a moderate interpretation of [the Constitution]? Halfway between what it says and [...] what you want it to say?” —Justice Antonin Scalia

    SIG: P220R SS Elite SAO, P220R SAO, P220R Carry, P226R Navy, P226, P239/.40S&W, P2022/.40S&W; GSR 5", P6.

  7. #6
    VIP Member Array cvhoss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    2,045
    Quote Originally Posted by kazzaerexys View Post
    I also agree with the trade association---it does affect their private property rights. I just don't happen to think their private property rights are any more important than their employees' rights to self-defense...

    Looked at another way, the inside of my car is my property. I don't see how they have a whole lot more right to say what can and can't be in my glove compartment than they can say whether I have 87 or 89 octane in my gas tank. It's just none of their flippin' business.

    Now, the moment the gun comes out of the car and onto their property, well, then I think their private property rights trump the employees' rights.
    Couldn't have said it much better. Unless the company is going to provide each employee with an armed escort to and from work, they should not be allowed to prevent an employee from protecting themselves on those journeys.

    But, there aren't 48 to go. Don't know how many there are for sure, but Florida and now Louisiana have been in the news lately. I do know Oklahoma has such a law but in a lawsuit by ConocoPhillips, a U.S. District Judge granted a permanent injunction against the law. Last I heard, the state was appealing. Kansas is relatively new to the CCH business having passed their CCH law in 2006 and taking effect on January 3, 2007. It became quickly apparent that there were loopholes in the law as cities started passing local ordinances against CCH so the legislature introduced and passed, and then over-rode the Governors veto, HB2528. Among other clarifications, one of the parts of HB2528 is (from the AG's web page):
    Also changed with HB 2528, business owners (both public and private) may continue to post their buildings to restrict the concealed carry of firearms, but parking lots are no longer allowed to be posted.

    Employers, both public and private, may continue to restrict a licensed
    employee’s ability to carry concealed while they are performing the duties of their employ, but licensed employees are allowed to store their firearm in their private means of conveyance, even if parked on company property.
    So far, I've heard of no challenges to the law and hope there are none but if there are, I hope the AG fights the challenge all the way.

    Hoss
    Sig 239 SAS 40 S&W / Sig 239 9mm / Kahr PM-9 / Walther PPS .40 / Sig P-245 / Ruger LCP
    Beretta Tomcat / Walther PPK / BDA 380 / Taurus 85 / Kel-Tec PF-9 / Am. Derringer 357

    NRA Life Member
    My Web Site

  8. #7
    VIP Member Array goldshellback's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    OKC; by way of St. Mayberry, GA
    Posts
    4,750
    Quote Originally Posted by kazzaerexys View Post
    I also agree with the trade association---it does affect their private property rights. I just don't happen to think their private property rights are any more important than their employees' rights to self-defense...

    Looked at another way, the inside of my car is my property. I don't see how they have a whole lot more right to say what can and can't be in my glove compartment than they can say whether I have 87 or 89 octane in my gas tank. It's just none of their flippin' business.

    Now, the moment the gun comes out of the car and onto their property, well, then I think their private property rights trump the employees' rights.
    Well said!

  9. #8
    VIP Member Array obxned's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    OBX, NC
    Posts
    2,655
    Yes, this is about private property - and my car is MY property.

    What makes this objection to people having a firearm in their car in the employee parking lot so stupid is that anyone who is planning on doing evil will not give a rodent's hind end about company policy. Chances are they will lose their job anyway after shooting up the office.
    "If we loose Freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the Last Place on Earth!" Ronald Reagan

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    There is company policy, and there is law. It is not against the law to walk around in public with sagging jeans and a wife beater t-shirt(even if I wish it was). It is, however against most companies policy. It is not illegal to be rude or disrespectful. It is, however against most companies policy. If company policy was the law, I could see where your rights would be protected, however it is not.

    This isn't about the Federal or State government telling you what you can and can't do. This is about a mutual agreement between YOU and YOUR employer. If it is not mutual, then you should find a new place to work, rather than force an employer to change his policy based on what YOU want. You are under no obligation to park in his parking lot or work for that employer.

    The employees 'rights' do not trump that of the employer. I am glad I live in a state with 'at will' employment.
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

  11. #10
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    As much as I dislike it, I agree that employers have the right to say "I don't want any of my employees armed." It's their property and they make the rules. But, I think the question here is whether that extends to making rules about what their employees can do when not on company property.

    Let's turn it around and draw a little analogy.

    What if an employer decided to require all employees to wear an audio/video recording device and GPS tracker at all times while on company property, even while walking to and from their cars and while driving in the company parking lot. No exceptions, and if you are caught without one, you'll be fired on the spot. Clearly, employers have the right to monitor their employees while on company property, so this would be perfectly acceptable under the employer's property rights.

    But now, let's say that there is no place to leave these devices once the employees leave the company parking lot, and they cannot be turned off or disabled in any way. The only way to comply with the policy is to leave the device in your car on your drive home and on your drive to work the next day, and allow it to record and track you the whole way.

    This would be an invasion of the employee's property rights by requiring that he allow this device to monitor him even while not on company property. By not providing a drop-box at the gate or allowing the employees to walk to their cars unmonitored, the businees is creating a situation that give it control over its employee's lives even after they leave the property. It is extending the company's property rights too far, and damaging the property rights of its employees.

    So, if we turn this analogy around, where the business is prohibiting an object rather than requiring one, what's the difference? In either case, the business is extending its control outside of its own property, which it has no authority to do.

    It's no different than an employer saying "I don't want any of my employees to own cats." He can set standards for hiring or job retention so long as they are relevant to the job, but he cannot require things of his employees that have nothing to do with their job, and threaten them with termination is they don't comply. That's employee abuse, at-will employment or not.

    Like I said before, the "perfect" solution is to have employee's guns vanish when they get to work and re-appear when they leave, but that's not realistic. The next best thing is to have an area where employees can disarm prior to starting work. Their own cars make a very convenient place to do this, even if they are parked in a company parking lot.
    "A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the continuance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
    Is this hard to understand? Then why does it get unintelligible to some people when 5 little words are changed?

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    Bob, the difference is, you are under no obligation to park in the employers parking lot. The employer provides it as a convenience to the employee. There are many employers who simply do not have parking for employees.

    As far as your analogy of an employer not being able to mandate what an employee does on his off time, it falls far short. Many employers do, indeed, regulate what their employees do off company time. Anything from firing somebody for unethical behavior, to enforcing a drug-free policy. Employers can and do, fire people for drug use during their off time, criminal behavior during their off time, and even smoking on their off time.

    Pavestone is one employer who comes to mind that will not hire smokers, and as a term of employment, employees are required to be non-smokers. That doesn't just mean on company property. That's anywhere and everywhere. I turned down a chief engineer position from them for just that reason. If I want to smoke a cigar when I have a kid or any other time, I don't feel like they have the right to tell me what to do...so they made their choice. I made my choice and went with a different company.

    Just as I would turn down a job with somebody who required me to be unarmed, but to think I, as an employee, have the right to tell them how to run their business, is ludicrous. I'll make suggestions where I find they are warranted, but other than that, if the disagreement is so severe that neither will compromise, I will find employment elsewhere.
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

  13. #12
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerbouchard View Post
    Bob, the difference is, you are under no obligation to park in the employers parking lot. The employer provides it as a convenience to the employee. There are many employers who simply do not have parking for employees.
    Well if they don't provide parking for employees, then they have no basis at all to object to anything in their cars.

    For a lot of businesses, people really have nowhere else to park except in the company lot. If they park in another business' parking lot, and it becomes obvious they are not patronizing that business, they'll be towed. Parking on the street is not always an option either - in many places it's either illegal or so hard to find a spot as to be impossible.

    I might as well say an employee of this fictional company in my analogy could always go rent a lockbox at a nearby bank and leave his tracking device there. It's not a reasonable solution, and not a reasonable job-related problem for the employer to create.
    "A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the continuance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
    Is this hard to understand? Then why does it get unintelligible to some people when 5 little words are changed?

  14. #13
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob The Great View Post
    Well if they don't provide parking for employees, then they have no basis at all to object to anything in their cars.
    I agree, and if people keep pushing stuff like this, that is exactly how it will end up. If I was a rabid anti-gun person, before I let somebody lawfully bring a firearm onto my property, I would just close the parking lot.

    I think a lot of people should just be grateful their employer is providing them free parking. There are many, many employers who do not.

    And I have another question, if the basis for this is to provide people a way to protect themselves(or come back from hunting trips) on the way to work, or on the way home, how about the millions of people who use public transportation.

    The entire argument is contradictory. If you acknowledge the right of an employer to prevent his on-clock employees from being armed, then it seems that the 'take your gun to work' law, completely ignores those people who do not have a car, or choose to use public transportation.

    It seems to me, for the argument to stand up, you would have to take the position that employers must allow firearms on property at all times, or must provide a secure area for employees to disarm.

    Even if an employer is not a rabid-anti gun, it makes sense for an employer to not want firearms left in vehicles on his property. In most cases, the employer is responsible for damages to employee vehicles. Having a parking lot, that to public knowledge, has unattended guns in it, is not exactly the best risk-management strategy.

    And I seriously doubt that even 10% of the vehicles with unattended guns have any sort of a safe, unless you count the glove compartment as a safe.
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

  15. #14
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    If they choose to use public transportation, that is a choice they must make knowing that they may have nowhere to disarm when they reach their destination. That is squarely in the realm of personal choice with consequences.

    The people who do not own a car, but do own a gun and a license to carry it is a good point, but that doesn't mean that allowing the people who do have cars to store their guns in them is bad.

    It's not the employer's responsibility to provide for every possible way his employees may arrive armed, but he should not be able to prohibit them from being armed off-site.
    "A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the continuance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
    Is this hard to understand? Then why does it get unintelligible to some people when 5 little words are changed?

  16. #15
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    Look, I think we should be able to carry firearms anywhere and everywhere. If I want to drive down main street in an armored tank with live ammo, I think I should be able to. If I shoot something I shouldn't or run over something I shouldn't, then I should be held responsible, but I don't think they should be able to take away my ability to do it.

    But that's on Main St. If you don't want me to park my tank in your driveway when I come to visit, I think that you should have the right to say no tanks allowed.

    I'm all for gun rights, and even tank rights, but not when it weakens property rights. IMO, property rights have gotten about as weak as I can stomach them to begin with. My home, My Castle. What I say goes. If you don't like it, your more than welcome to not visit. I think it should be the same for employers who privately own their property. Their property, they are the ones paying the pay checks, they pay the property tax, they pay the insurance, and they provide you a job. I think they should be able to run their business the way they want.

    While I might like to go on a fishing trip after work, I would not bring my boat with me to work without getting permission first. This bill was announced as something to prevent employees from getting fired over forgetting that their gun was in their car after a hunting trip.
    Quote Originally Posted by bill sponsor
    The bill's sponsor says the legislation backs employees who are fired for unwittingly carrying a firearm in their personal vehicle because they went hunting before or after work.
    He's not even arguing self defense...he's arguing that sometimes people forget they have guns...well, if I am coming back from the bay, I may forget that I have a 60 foot yacht hooked onto my truck, so I should be able to bring it to work, right?

    (disclaimer:I don't have a 60 foot yacht or a tank..maybe someday)
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

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. If guns were treated like cars
    By alelks in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: March 30th, 2010, 05:38 PM
  2. Hot cars and guns
    By Pro2A in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: June 9th, 2009, 05:44 PM
  3. Florida: Gov. Crist Signs Guns At Work Bill
    By Miggy in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: April 16th, 2008, 05:24 PM
  4. Comparing guns to cars.
    By Daddy Warcrimes in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: August 17th, 2007, 04:47 PM
  5. Cars = Guns
    By Pete in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: March 22nd, 2007, 12:18 AM

Search tags for this page

can i carry a gun in my car in louisiana
,
guns in autos in louisiana
,
la gun laws in car
,
louisiana firearms at work
,
louisiana gun at work law
,

louisiana gun in car law

,
louisiana gun law car
,

louisiana gun laws in car

,

louisiana gun laws vehicle

,
louisiana guns at work
,

louisiana guns at work law

,
louisiana law gun in car
Click on a term to search for related topics.