Louisiana's Jindal signs guns in cars at work law

paramedic70002 · July 5th, 2008, 01:10 PM

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.

Kerbouchard · July 5th, 2008, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paramedic70002

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.

Bob The Great · July 5th, 2008, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerbouchard

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?

ExactlyMyPoint · July 5th, 2008, 02:34 PM

This type of conflict is just ripe for a Supreme Court challenge.

kazzaerexys · July 5th, 2008, 02:38 PM

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.

cvhoss · July 5th, 2008, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kazzaerexys

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

goldshellback · July 5th, 2008, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kazzaerexys

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!

obxned · July 5th, 2008, 06:32 PM

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.

Kerbouchard · July 5th, 2008, 07:27 PM

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.

Bob The Great · July 5th, 2008, 08:52 PM

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.

July 5th, 2008, 01:10 PM	#1
paramedic70002 Distinguished Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Franklin, VA Posts: 1,782	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. __________________ Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But... Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

July 5th, 2008, 02:34 PM	#4
ExactlyMyPoint Distinguished Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 1,535	This type of conflict is just ripe for a Supreme Court challenge. __________________ - Let me explain. No. There is not time. Let me summarize. - Doing my part to create a huge carbon footprint - Be still, and know that I am God; Psalms 46:10 - You are God and that's just the way it is; You Are God Alone sung by Phillips Craig And Dean

July 5th, 2008, 02:38 PM	#5
kazzaerexys Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Maryland Posts: 919	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

July 5th, 2008, 06:32 PM	#8
obxned Distinguished Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: OBX, NC Posts: 1,736	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. __________________ http://www.obxammo.com/ There is only one gun law in this country, the 2nd Amendment. All else is bureaucratic nonsense that I choose to comply with or not at my discretion. When governments make laws, they must consider the unintended consequences.

July 5th, 2008, 07:27 PM	#9
Kerbouchard VIP Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 2,531	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. __________________ Money can be lost or stolen, health and strength may fail, but what you have committed to your mind is yours forever. http://miscmusings.townhall.com/ Who is John Galt?

July 5th, 2008, 08:52 PM	#10
Bob The Great Distinguished Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Slidell, LA Posts: 1,451	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?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode