Gun Rights vs. Freedom?

How "take your guns to work" laws violate property rights

Steve Chapman | August 25, 2008

Supporters of the right to keep and bear arms have long recognized the value of firearms for the defense of life, liberty, and property. But in Florida, a perverse conception of the 2nd Amendment has produced the opposite effect: The cause of gun rights is being used to attack property rights.

In 1987, Florida wisely affirmed personal freedom by letting law-abiding citizens get permits to carry concealed weapons. But this year, the legislature decided it was not enough to let licensees pack in public places. They also should be allowed to take their guns into private venues—even if the property owner objects.

The "take your guns to work" law says anyone with a conceal-carry permit has a legal right to keep his gun locked in his car in the company parking lot. Until recently, companies had the authority to make the rules on their own premises. But when it comes to guns, that freedom is defunct.

The National Rifle Association says any corporation that forbids firearms in its parking areas is violating the 2nd Amendment. That may sound like a promising argument, since the Supreme Court recently struck down a Washington, D.C., handgun ban as an infringement on the constitutional guarantee. It's not.

Robert Levy, the Cato Institute lawyer who participated in the successful challenge of the Washington ordinance, says the Florida law "has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment." The Constitution, he notes, is a limit on government power, not a constraint on what private individuals or corporations may do.

A municipal government may not forbid guns to everyone on the territory under its control. But, as far as the Constitution is concerned, a private property owner certainly can.

A federal court recently upheld the law, but not because of the Bill of Rights. It said that "the constitutional right to bear arms restricts the actions of only the federal or state governments or their subdivisions, not private actors," and noted that the NRA "has been unable to cite any authority for its position."

So the law doesn't uphold gun rights. What it does do is infringe on property rights. The Florida Chamber of Commerce makes the obvious argument that there is no right "to have a gun in your car on someone else's property" (my emphasis). But the law tells company owners they have no control over workers who insist on bringing deadly weapons onto their premises.

Conceal-carry licensees complain that if they can't keep their guns in their cars, they will have no protection on their way to and from work. That's true. But what about employees who walk, bike, or take the bus? Since the law doesn't give them the right to take their guns into the workplace, they have to leave them at home. Should the state force companies to let workers carry pistols into the factory, office, or day-care center?

This is not a place where the government should substitute its judgment for that of the property owners. One lawyer told The Bradenton Herald, "I have clients that have to carry out terminations. Sometimes that termination is volatile. A lot of places have a policy where they walk the terminated employee to his car. What if you walk the guy to his car that has a gun? I wouldn't want to be that supervisor."

Given that crimes by permit holders are exceedingly rare, the employers who want to ban guns may be running from shadows. But decisions about their safety, and that of their customers and employees, should be theirs to make.

For some people, being temporarily deprived of a firearm creates great anxiety. But for those with a strong aversion to guns, working at a company that allows weapons in cars has the same effect. In a free society, both sets of employees can solve the problem with a simple expedient: exercising their liberty to find a company whose policies suit their preferences.

For the NRA to demand that guns be allowed in every company lot is just as oppressive as it would be for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence to insist they be prohibited in every company lot. When gun-rights advocates oppose the use of government power to suppress firearms, they are advancing freedom. When they use government power to dictate to private companies, they are harming it.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Comments

Episiarch|8.25.08 @ 7:20AM|#

Chapman's article fails to raise the question of whether one might consider one's car to be a little mobile patch of private property. If I am flying in a plane over someone else's property, no one would think I am subject to the property owner's whims. So why with a car?

If my car is mobile private property, then I have every right to possess a gun within it, even when on someone else's land.

|8.25.08 @ 7:21AM|#

The "damages" caused to employers forced to allow guns on their property is morally significant (I don't like it) but practically, it's hardly an imposition.

I don't have any doubt, however, that the statute will pass constitutional muster.

Other Matt|8.25.08 @ 7:25AM|#

One lawyer told The Bradenton Herald....

It's always amazing to me that "anti gun" people are so violent. Since situations are so rare, it can only be their own projections.

I kind of agree with the first two comments. Further, as a practical matter, it's an issue.

|8.25.08 @ 7:35AM|#

I suppose from a libertarian (not an absolute propertarian standpoint), one could argue that the right to bear arms (as elucidated under Florida's CCW Law) would be exceptionally abrogated because it is not reasonable to:

A) Expect an individual who parks in a Target or Wal-Mart Parking Lot to know what Target's Gun Policy is, that is, unless Target explicitly states it in big, bold letters at the front of the lot and

B) It is exceptionally burdensome to the average gun owner to have to drop off and pick up his gun, depending on what shop he visits that day. It could be so burdensome that the right to carry in one's car is effectively null due to the extraordinary hoops the average gun carrier would have to go through to comply with each individual company policy

Finally, in cases where the local government owns and/or shares a burden in maintaining the parking lot of say, the local strip mall, there should be no dispute.

|8.25.08 @ 7:38AM|#

oh yeah and what Episiarch said. When I worked, my company stated cleanly that there was "no smoking permitted in areas other than the ones designated for smokers". I always wondered if that meant my car...!

Episiarch|8.25.08 @ 7:41AM|#

Another question: are you not, in fact, a little mobile island of private property? Would anyone think it reasonable for, say, a store to have a policy dictating whether you had to wear underwear, even if that store had nothing to do with clothing?

As a shameless goer-of-commando, this would affect me. And we can't have that.

But seriously, at what point does a property owner cease to have the right to dictate what you do with your property on their property?

|8.25.08 @ 7:47AM|#

Epi - interesting, but on the face of it, no one would consider rules such as:

1. Dress codes
2. "No pink hair"
3. Etc. you get the idea

I suppose from a formulaic libertarian, one could just reductively solve this problem by saying that property owners could subject you to an "underwear check", but that they have little incentive to do so because the invasion is so onerous it would drive away all of the talented peeps from working there and the business would fold.

Probably just one more reason it's lamentable that we've weakened the status of the contract through the "realist" approach to contracts.

However, I do so this as irony in one sense: it has generally been liberals who abrogate property rights (via the 1964 CRA, or non-discrimination codes, or by mandating union bargaining, or by raising the minimum wage)...I guess you could call this "conservative" vengeance for that. Hoisted by their own petard.

|8.25.08 @ 7:50AM|#

As a shameless goer-of-commando, this would affect me. And we can't have that.

Oh good, another data point for my PhD thesis; "On how 'Friends' further fucked up America"

Justen|8.25.08 @ 8:00AM|#

I strongly disagree with this article. Concealed carry and other gun carrying rights are useless if they deny a person entry into a common destination, and thereby frustrate the trip. This is exactly the same for all practical purposes as saying firearms may not leave the home except in transit to designated areas.

How many businesses, of the practical variety that a person is likely to travel to on a day to day basis or work for, are going to support gun rights by allowing them on the premises if they can chose not to, whether or not the risks are imaginary? If I live in Florida with a concealed weapon permit do I have to make up my mind between going to work, shopping, or recreating in a private property versus carrying protection the state has authorized?

There has to be a better middle ground here. A business owner who wishes to ensure gun safety on his property can establish strict rules, such as that the weapon be disarmed and secured by a safety lock and / or deposited in a secure place, and that employees who choose to carry weapons must register with the employer, or whatever other arbitrary restrictions they wish to levy. They can ensure a high level of safety and low risk without frustrating the purpose of the 2nd amendment.

When two fundamental rights come into conflict, a compromise that best satisfies the interest of both rights has to be found, and the compromise cannot justly result in total obliteration of one right in favor of the other.

Episiarch|8.25.08 @ 8:12AM|#

I suppose from a formulaic libertarian, one could just reductively solve this problem by saying that property owners could subject you to an "underwear check"

But this is sort of what I was getting at with the underwear analogy. It's something that is, like a weapon, concealed. Pink hair is not. It is, in essence, "private" on your person. Does a property owner have a right to violate your private property rights for your body by demanding the ability to see what you have concealed on your person?

Jbf|8.25.08 @ 8:20AM|#

Private companies can't stop their employees from bringing newspapers with articles that they don't like into the office, or jewelry with religious symbols, or even clothing that openly displays religious affiliation. Forget the car.

Concealed carry is just that: Concealed. If the gun ceases to be concealed, that's called brandishment, and the property owner has legal recourse.

A supervisor who has concerns should also be allowed to carry, as should other employees in the workplace. Legislation disproportionately removes guns from the people who are likely to deter misuse.

BakedPenguin|8.25.08 @ 8:25AM|#

Concealed carry and other gun carrying rights are useless if they deny a person entry into a common destination...

You don't have a "right" to work, shop, etc. at any given place (that you do not own). If your workplace, boss, school, whatever decides to disallow guns, you can find another or take your chances breaking the rules.

|8.25.08 @ 8:48AM|#

Through the 80's and 90's I came from the duck blind to work with my OU 12 gauge in the truck.I did own the company though.Here in the Marietta,Ohio - Parkersburg WV area there are many big plants{DuPont and GE are two}.Many work shift and hunt right after work..I don't know of a problem because of this.Of course most people here have a gun,their considered a tool,much like a saw or drill.I can't remember a home invasion happening here either.Break ins occur when people are away.Anything else would be suicide.I carried a Browning 9mm most times since I made large deposits late at night alone.Thankfully I never needed it.

Travis|8.25.08 @ 8:50AM|#

There's a difference between leaving a weapon in your car(your personal property) & carrying the weapon into a house or office building which is owned by someone else.

|8.25.08 @ 9:01AM|#

Private companies can't stop their employees from bringing newspapers with articles that they don't like into the office, or jewelry with religious symbols, or even clothing that openly displays religious affiliation.

Uh, yes they can. Most don't, but companies can and do restrict what you can wear at work, display at your cube and so on.

If I am flying in a plane over someone else's property, no one would think I am subject to the property owner's whims. So why with a car?

That's because your property rights have a ceiling to allow for free movement of air traffic. There is no similar exception for cars. I can't prevent your plane from flying over my property, but I have the right to prevent your car from coming on. As such, property owners can and should be able to prevent people from bringing things they disapprove of onto their property. Since when do libertarians views of property rights extend only to "things that I personally approve of"?

Other Matt|8.25.08 @ 9:05AM|#

What if, say, the Dulles Greenway came out with some rule that there could be no weapons. Given that it's a private road, would the same logic apply?

|8.25.08 @ 9:07AM|#

Misleading photo for the article...D-FENS didn't own those guns, and wasn't going to work...indeed that's the whole point of the movie.

Also, it amazes me that some libertarians think that nonsmokers should have to find another place to work, shop, or eat if they don't like breathing secondhand smoke, but those who wish to carry weapons must not be similarly inconvenienced.

|8.25.08 @ 9:11AM|#

whoops, Tulpa has invoked the "libertarian litmus test". Everybody get your pencils out; Tulpa's going to start lecturing.

I've already said I don't think this is all that great of a law, just that there could be libertarian objectives in precisely the argument Episiarch is delineating; that there is something inherently private about your concealed person.

We mock airports that throw out scantily-clad women; we mock businesses that drug test. Why can't we be similarly allowed to lampoon those chicken-littles who ban guns in the name of "workplace safety"?

|8.25.08 @ 9:12AM|#

clarification: "...those who wish to carry weapons contrary to the wishes of the property owner..."

|8.25.08 @ 9:14AM|#

I've already said I don't think this is all that great of a law, just that there could be libertarian objectives in precisely the argument Episiarch is delineating; that there is something inherently private about your concealed person.

How about your lungs? Are those considered your property as well? Don't get me wrong, I oppose smoking bans as much as the next libertarian, it just pisses me off when I see people cutting out exceptions to their principles when it comes to a pet issue like gun rights.

|8.25.08 @ 9:16AM|#

Tulpa, you haven't really established to anyone's satisfaction that the property you own (a car) suddenly becomes wholly owned by the property owner when you drive into his parking lot.

This whole debate is a tempest in a teapot: I cannot think of a business that isn't going to subject you to a full body and vehicle search before you buy clothes or appliances from them. And what's the business's recourse? A tort? For what damages?

|8.25.08 @ 9:18AM|#

You know, I just so sick of Steve Chapman, I don't even care anymore if he's right or wrong.

Episiarch|8.25.08 @ 9:21AM|#

you haven't really established to anyone's satisfaction that the property you own (a car) suddenly becomes wholly owned by the property owner when you drive into his parking lot

Exactly. That is the question I'd like to see answered. When you walk into a store, the owner does not have the right to, say, take your wallet because you are on their property. So why should they get to say what you can have in your car?

|8.25.08 @ 9:26AM|#

We mock airports that throw out scantily-clad women; we mock businesses that drug test. Why can't we be similarly allowed to lampoon those chicken-littles who ban guns in the name of "workplace safety"?

Mocking them is different than saying they don't have the right to do it. An airport has the right to kick out scantily clad women, but it's silly and worthy of mockery.

Dave W.|8.25.08 @ 9:27AM|#

Concealed carry is just that: Concealed. If the gun ceases to be concealed, that's called brandishment, and the property owner has legal recourse.

You mean like when Virginia Tech got indemnity from Seung-Hui Cho's estate?

The spokesperson for the employer's makes an excellent point about terminating employees. As it stands now, ex-employees already have a disturbing tendency to go home and come back with their guns. I can see why an employer would want to at least make sure the gun was not right in the car. At least if the ex-employee has to go home, then cooler heads might prevail.

Then there is the case where somebody breaks into the car and gets the gun and shoots people. Those victims are going to wonder why that parking lot wasn't more secure since it is known that lots of firearms are stored there.

The answer to all these questions is probably mandatory gun insurance so that the people who enjoy guns compensate for the damage that guns do when they fall into the wrong hands. Like we have now with cars.

A|8.25.08 @ 9:32AM|#

Impracticality does not make the argument wrong. Private property owners have a right to make no-gun rules on their property. It doesn't matter anyway, because they aren't going to search anyone's car. So you can just bring your gun and keep it in the glove. No one will know you have broken the rule unless you take it out.

sth11|8.25.08 @ 9:32AM|#

Other Matt:

On the subject of the Dulles Greenway - do you know waht kind of tortured logic justifies the enforcement of public traffic laws on private property?

I used to commute out there, and west past Tyson's it's pretty much a straight shot at 85-90 mph. I always wondered whether I had some sort of a case if I got pulled over. Probably not.

|8.25.08 @ 9:32AM|#

gun insurnace? Are you for real?

Gun injuries and fatalities are rarely, if ever, a true accident. Negligence can be demonstrated on the part of one or more parties. This is direct contradiction to the purpose of insurance, which is to provide a safety net for problems you could not reasonably foresee occurring, but are still your fault.

If the parking lot wasn't "properly secured" (to the point that you can demonstrate the owner of the lot neglected his duty), then the action lies on the owner.

your bias against gun owners is ridiculous: they should pay for insurance if someone else breaks into their car, or if someone else fails to properly secure their property.

geez.

|8.25.08 @ 9:34AM|#

can we all at least agree that private property owners have an obligation to make the rules and demands of the property known upfront, in a manner where any reasonable individual could not mistake the owner's intent?

shecky|8.25.08 @ 9:43AM|#

can we all at least agree that private property owners have an obligation to make the rules and demands of the property known upfront, in a manner where any reasonable individual could not mistake the owner's intent?

Can we? Don't I, as a property owner, have the right to make any arbitrary rule, at any time, and enforce it selectively, as I see fit?

T|8.25.08 @ 9:44AM|#

Exactly. That is the question I'd like to see answered. When you walk into a store, the owner does not have the right to, say, take your wallet because you are on their property. So why should they get to say what you can have in your car?

Exactly. Just because they assert some level of control of the property doesn't mean that control is absolute over me and my property. Would any of you think it was kosher of Best Buy to assert a right to strip search you when you leave? I always laugh at the signs retailers put up telling you they can search your bag when you leave. Not if I don't let you, monkey boy.

|8.25.08 @ 9:47AM|#

Can we? Don't I, as a property owner, have the right to make any arbitrary rule, at any time, and enforce it selectively, as I see fit?

alright, shecky, next time I graciously invite you to my house, welcome you, feed you, give you excellent company and wine, etc., my next step will be to impose an arbitrary rule that you have to sleep with me. Or you cannot leave.

after all, it's my property, and my rules...but on some level, we realize that the level of control property owners should be able to assert cannot be absolute, lest I blow you away next time you come to my door to sell me Girl Scout cookies.

|8.25.08 @ 9:48AM|#

In response to Episiarch's argument: yes, cars are your private property. And when you drive into a business, the business allows you to bring that property to work. The business could also prohibit you from bringing a car to work, but that would be rare. Perhaps your business requries you to drive a 4-wheeler, thereby prohibiting you from bringing your Ford Focus? I dunno. But if a business can allow you to bring property, they can prohibit you from bringing property such as guns, or drugs, or porn, or whatever. We may not agree with the ban, but they own the property. And yes, we are also little islands of property, and they allow us on their property. If they prohibit us from coming onto the property, and we come onto the property anyways, that's what we call trespassing.

"can we all at least agree that private property owners have an obligation to make the rules and demands of the property known upfront, in a manner where any reasonable individual could not mistake the owner's intent?"

yes.

Dave W.|8.25.08 @ 9:50AM|#

your bias against gun owners is ridiculous: they should pay for insurance if someone else breaks into their car, or if someone else fails to properly secure their property.

The responsibility to secure guns at all times falls on the gun owner. It is she who should pay the insurance premiums. If the gun owner's employer has a secure parking lot, then maybe the insurance company will see fit to give the owner a small break on her premiums. If the gun owner installs a gun safe in her car then she would get an even bigger break on premiums to reflect the decreased risk she is causing the rest of us.

|8.25.08 @ 9:53AM|#

My problem with gun-free zones is that they are a free ride for the property-owner. It seems to me that if you are going to deprive people of the means to self-defense, you have assumed responsibility for their personal security. If you fail to provide for their security, you should be liable.

There's also a difference between rules for employees (embodied in an emplyment agreement) and rules for visitors (embodied where, exactly?). Walmart could say that if I enter their store I cannot leave without buying $100 worth of merchandise, and we would all scoff at this "rule" imposed by the property owner on visitors. If this rule is transparently bogus, why is a rule against carrying a weapon also transparently bogus? How can we sort valid rules imposed by property owners from invalid ones?

|8.25.08 @ 9:54AM|#

alright, shecky, next time I graciously invite you to my house, welcome you, feed you, give you excellent company and wine, etc., my next step will be to impose an arbitrary rule that you have to sleep with me. Or you cannot leave.

Uhm no, that would be unlawful confinement. However, you do have a right to impose the arbitrary rule that either shecky gives it up or gets the hell off you property. Same idea with guns on private property, either the owner has to makes the rules absolutely clear upfront or can impose an arbitrary rule at another point in time and ask anyone who doesnt want to comply to get the hell of their property.

|8.25.08 @ 9:55AM|#

Oops. Crucial "not" omitted:

If this rule is transparently bogus, why is a rule against carrying a weapon not also transparently bogus?

LibertyMark|8.25.08 @ 9:57AM|#

I'm really surprised how many of you are missing the point.

One of the fundamental definitions of private property is the right to exclude. All of the discussion of whether a car is an island of private property or whether the pink hair or the underwear check are legitimate is utterly irrelevant.

A property owner in a free society can exclude you from his property for no reason at all. He could exclude only yellow cars from his parking lot. Or, he could demand that you be totally nude to enter his establishment. The fact that this doesn't normally happen is because of social and competitive pressures to not be an oddball. (And, more recently, 1st Amendment killing regulation).

This fight is actually much ado about nothing. Sure, let the property owner have his rules. But then, you could just take the risk and ignore them and have the gun in your car anyway. They would have to break into your car to get or find the gun, and I don't see that happening either.

SIV|8.25.08 @ 9:57AM|#

Like we have now with cars.....


The responsibility to secure guns at all times falls on the gun owner.

Dave W.

I don't have to purchase a theft policy for my car.My liability policy doesn't cover anyone I loan it to, much less car thieves.

|8.25.08 @ 9:57AM|#

If they prohibit us from coming onto the property, and we come onto the property anyways, that's what we call trespassing.

Alright...and if I come onto a property and hurt myself, how responsible do you think the property owner should be?

And if I am assaulted by knifepoint on another's property by a third-party (assuming that the third-party was given permission to enter the property), is the property owner liable in civil court for damages because the property owner deprived me of a reasonable form of self-defense?

|8.25.08 @ 10:01AM|#

However, you do have a right to impose the arbitrary rule that either shecky gives it up or gets the hell off you property.

Ha, no I don't. If shecky's drunk and I live in the country, she cannot reasonably be expected to either sleep in her car or drive home in her condition.

I realize I changed that hypothetical a little bit, but that's just to highlight the fact that I do not have an absolute right to do whatever I want to whomever I want on my property.

And you also highlighted my point that property owners should be required to make any "exceptional" rules known ahead of time.

|8.25.08 @ 10:04AM|#

as a final point, I think this issue reveals how exceptional to traditional points of law libertarianism really is. The duty to protect (and other such duties) have existed as a onus on the property owner for a looooong, long time; I'd say most libertarians don't think property owners have a duty to provide anything.

shecky|8.25.08 @ 10:10AM|#

I realize I changed that hypothetical a little bit, but that's just to highlight the fact that I do not have an absolute right to do whatever I want to whomever I want on my property.

I'd say you do have the absolute right to exclude anybody at any time. Isn't that the issue here?

robc|8.25.08 @ 10:10AM|#

This can be settled by acknowledging the property owners right to kick you off their property for any reason and acknowledging the business owners right to fire you for any reason.

I agree with Epi, both your car and your body is a personal bubble of private property. However, if you can be kicked out/fired for any reason, that would include would you do in your personal bubble.

Problem solved.

BTW, this is basically KY's concealed carry law. You can post "no guns" on your door all you want, I can still legally carry concealed onto your property. You can ask me to leave however, and if I dont, Im trespassing.

|8.25.08 @ 10:18AM|#

I can't believe people are confusing the right to exclude you from bringing certain items onto a owner's property and forcing you to use your property are different. I can say you can't come onto my property, I can make your entrance onto my property conditional on you not having firearms or doing some ritual (only the penitent man will pass) or I can allow anyone onto my property that wishes.

Somehow, people that believe that anti-discrimination laws are a major imposition onto property owners don't think that allowing property owners can prevent people from bringing guns on their property. On what planet is saying, "No black people" reasonable, but saying "No guns" is unreasonable?

|8.25.08 @ 10:20AM|#

My problem with gun-free zones is that they are a free ride for the property-owner. It seems to me that if you are going to deprive people of the means to self-defense, you have assumed responsibility for their personal security. If you fail to provide for their security, you should be liable.

No, they don't. If you don't want to be on a piece of property where you can't bring your gun, don't. No one if forcing you to go there. If you want to leave your firearm in your car, park somewhere else that is friendlier to your beliefs.

|8.25.08 @ 10:20AM|#

I'd say you do have the absolute right to exclude anybody at any time. Isn't that the issue here?

Sort of. The question is whether you (as a property owner) have the obligation to delineate what will and will not get you thrown off your property prior to my assent to enter.

After all, the tort of "false imprisonment" exists for a reason; we at least acknowledge that I cannot make an arbitrary rule that you aren't permitted to leave if you don't comply with my other arbitrary rules!

Does entering my property give me the right to restrain you? Is that a reasonable stipulation? Or should I maybe have to put that out up front?

|8.25.08 @ 10:21AM|#

This is just an insurance fig-leaf, just like "no alcohol on campus" policies. If someone does go out to the car and gets a gun, corporate can use this policy to wash their hands of it.

Other Matt|8.25.08 @ 10:21AM|#

I'd say most libertarians don't think property owners have a duty to provide anything.

Inherently, no. However, if you impose a rule such as "You come on my property, you take off your shoes", there is at least some form of obligation that you, as the property owner, make reasonable steps to ensure that foot penetrating articles are relatively free from the walkways. The obligation comes not from the ownership of property, but from the "rule" you applied. This assumes, of course, that you freely invite me on to your property as a necessary precedent.

As to privat property, look at this forfeiture action by the Govt. Not that it's any more prone to pass moral, if not constitutional, muster, but if you have drugs in your car, parked on your employer's property, do they attempt to take the employer's property? Not to my knowledge, though they wont' hesitate to go after the vehicle. They recognize there is some kind of line there.

The biggest problem I have with firearms regulations is that they regulate the potential for action, not action. If that is acceptable, then we all just need to be duct taped, because we could do anything at any time.

Gun regulators don't see it, because they're so caught up in their own internal violent tendencies which they project on others, so they just assume anyone with a firearm available will use it on others. There is no way they can stop themselves, as the gun regulators couldn't stop themselves apparantly.

However, the "potential" for action idea is quite the slippery slope when applied on a more general level.

On what planet is saying, "No black people" reasonable, but saying "No guns" is unreasonable?

Is there any employer allowed to do that? I don't believe so.

Other Matt|8.25.08 @ 10:22AM|#

This is just an insurance fig-leaf, just like "no alcohol on campus" policies. If someone does go out to the car and gets a gun, corporate can use this policy to wash their hands of it.

Precisely correct. Gotta love them lawyers.

|8.25.08 @ 10:23AM|#

I'm somewhat sympathetic to the private property argument, but I'd at least like to see a strict posting requirement for it, like many jurisdictions have for trespassing. If a business has a parking lot that's open to the public that they wish to be gun free, they should be required to post prominent notices at the entrances to and around the lot, not just on the doors of the building.

And, of course, we should probably mock and deride as silly ninnies most who do so.

|8.25.08 @ 10:24AM|#

No, they don't. If you don't want to be on a piece of property where you can't bring your gun, don't. No one if forcing you to go there.

Mo, I think you're missing RC's point, as illustrated by Other Matt. If I require that you disarm yourself and thereby deprive yourself of your ability to defend yourself, do I then I have a duty (and am I on the hook if I fail in this duty) to protect you?

Like the shoe example.

LibertyMark|8.25.08 @ 10:34AM|#

If I require that you disarm yourself and thereby deprive yourself of your ability to defend yourself, do I then I have a duty (and am I on the hook if I fail in this duty) to protect you?

No. You made the decision to enter the property in that vulnerable state, so the responsibility lies with you.


Is there any employer allowed to do that? I don't believe so.

By this statement, I assume you believe that it is legitimate for the government to regulate your right of association, thereby destroying your property rights. No wonder you think it's ok to force property owners to allow gun on their property.

I personally find it despicable that a property owner would deny a black person or a gun owner access to their property. I would happily join in the mockery and derision of those silly ninnies. But I am not willing to destroy property rights.

Lester Maddox|8.25.08 @ 10:34AM|#

The Federal Government told me I had to let anybody on the property.

|8.25.08 @ 10:40AM|#

No. You made the decision to enter the property in that vulnerable state, so the responsibility lies with you.

That's a pat answer, which is fine, but its corollary is that I have to reasonably be provided the opportunity to consent to that "vulnerable state" in the first place. You cannot arbitrarily and significantly reduce the level of protection I have halfway into the store.

Hence why I'm supportive of big, bold notifications of exceptional policies outside of property.

Neu Mejican|8.25.08 @ 10:41AM|#

If the property owner is required to make the no gun rule clear via a sign/announcement, then it seems the gun owner is required to carry openly.

If it is a matter of communication.

|8.25.08 @ 10:54AM|#

NM - if this was a case of "no Prince Alberts" allowed, would you require the Prince Albert owner to "carry openly"?

And what's the difference?

|8.25.08 @ 10:55AM|#

No. You made the decision to enter the property in that vulnerable state, so the responsibility lies with you.

Property owners are not relieved of responsibility for the foreseeable consequences of their actions. Its not an easy call (you assumed the risk v. the property owner is responsible for the foreseeable consequences of their actions), but I think where the property owner is requiring that you give up something as fundamental as the ability to defend yourself, they take on some responsibility.

Actually, I think there's quite a spread of legal opinion on whether and when a business owner has a duty to protect their customers; generally, it looks like (where it exists at all), its triggered by some kind of "need", such as a spate of violent crimes. It seems to me that depriving someone of their means of self-defense would also trigger the need/obligation to protect them.

Neu Mejican|8.25.08 @ 11:01AM|#

TAO,

If it is a matter of communication, then property rights require open communication. If I say no prince alberts and you conceal yours from me, you are the morally repugnant one.

The "they'll never know" crowd are ignoring the issue of how rights can conflict with each other. Your rights are your rights. They are not what you can get away with...if you don't have a right to defy the property owners wishes due to his right to exclude, then you don't have the right to conceal the ways in which you are undermining those wishes.

It seems.

♪|8.25.08 @ 11:04AM|#

Human beings should be allowed to keep guns off property they own. Corporations are another matter. In our corporatist system corporations should be held to the same standards of protecting people's rights.

Neu Mejican|8.25.08 @ 11:07AM|#

So the question becomes:

Do you have the right to deceive others in order to undermine their rights?

|8.25.08 @ 11:10AM|#

if you don't have a right to defy the property owners wishes due to his right to exclude, then you don't have the right to conceal the ways in which you are undermining those wishes.

But see, you do have the right to defy the property owner's wishes, and he has the right to A) not permit your entry, B) kick you off or C) initiate a lawsuit against you for damages.

I suppose what you're saying is that concealment of a gun against the wishes of the property owner puts you *morally* in the wrong, but its far from repugnance.

|8.25.08 @ 11:12AM|#

Do you have the right to deceive others in order to undermine their rights?

The "no guns allowed" policy implemented by the owner is enough to establish that someone who carries a weapon onto the property has broken that rule.

What you're getting at with the concealment angle, I have no idea. If you're saying you shouldn't be allowed to conceal a weapon, I don't read that here. If you're saying you shouldn't be allowed to conceal a weapon and carry it on to property where guns are allowed...well, yeah, but that puts us back where we started.

|8.25.08 @ 11:13AM|#

*where guns AREN'T allowed, is how that third sentence should read.

|8.25.08 @ 11:14AM|#

I've not read most of the comments, but I'll chime in with my bit:

I'm quite ardent about the Second Amendment. It's most assuredly my pet issue.

That said, I do disagree with the NRA in this case. I believe it to be within the right of a private property owner to forbid firearms on his/her property if they so desire.

I would simply opt to shop elsewhere and do what I could to bring public pressure to bear. I've seen examples of several companies who chose to reverse their "no guns" policies after being deluged with letters and phone calls from gun owners who opted to exercise their First Amendment rights in defense of their Second.

shecky|8.25.08 @ 11:14AM|#

Hence why I'm supportive of big, bold notifications of exceptional policies outside of property.

Big, bold notifications of exceptional policies are probably a good idea, but beside the point.

Human beings should be allowed to keep guns off property they own. Corporations are another matter. In our corporatist system corporations should be held to the same standards of protecting people's rights.

OK, I'll bite. Why should corporations be held to the same (presumably governmental) standards of protecting people's rights?

|8.25.08 @ 11:23AM|#

What a festival of paranoid fantasists.





The Trib responded to Heller with an editorial calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment. Trib lackey Chapman continues to suck.

|8.25.08 @ 11:27AM|#

Big, bold notifications of exceptional policies are probably a good idea, but beside the point.

They sort of are the point. Under what lens should we view the entering of a property? If it is viewed as a contract, then the terms of the contract should be stated up front ("By entering this property you agree to the following terms and conditions...")

Of course, it would be overburdensome to require that every modicum of standard behavior be delineated at every. single. property. Therefore, it seems to make good legal sense to require that any behavior required outside the norms and mores of the community be adequately communicated.

Neu Mejican|8.25.08 @ 11:33AM|#

TAO,

If you're saying you shouldn't be allowed to conceal a weapon and carry it on to property where guns are NOT allowed...well, yeah, but that puts us back where we started.

I was making an argument against the idea that the responsibility to communicate honestly fell solely on the property owner...

That is the moral/rights argument.
If trying to craft laws to avoid these conflicts, then the law can be written in a way that requires the property owners to post and requires gun owners to carry openly.

This would only make sense if it is the case that a large percentage of property owners want to exclude gun owners and are having a hard time policing this policy on their property due to the number of concealers.

When gun owners started pushing for concealed carry laws, it seemed to me they were responding to a pragmatic issue. Most people don't carry guns, and open carry resulted in a stigma that they didn't like. So they lobbied to change the laws to allow concealed carry.

This shifts the burden of communication to the property owners. If property owners who don't want guns on their property far out number those that wish to carry their gun everywhere, it seems impractical to shift the communication burden to the property owners while sanctioning concealment by those they wish to exclude.

Practical issues and rights typically dance around each other and create fuzzy boundaries.

♪|8.25.08 @ 11:35AM|#

OK, I'll bite. Why should corporations be held to the same (presumably governmental) standards of protecting people's rights?

First off, people have rights, property rights or otherwise. There should be no moral qualms about abridging a corporation's "rights," only practical considerations. When a person's rights and a corporation's "rights" collide, the corporation's rights should give way.

I'm all about private property anyway. I think things should be owned by people. If there is a parking lot in question, there should be a deed with a person (or person's) name on it. (And by "person" I am speaking colloquially.)

Neu Mejican|8.25.08 @ 11:38AM|#

BTW, it seems the original open carry required laws stemmed from a situation whereby large numbers of people carried guns with them on a daily basis and a large number of property owners wished to exclude that carry on their property. The property owners successfully lobbied to shift the communication burden to the carrier.

In New Mexico, the constitution makes it clear that the right to bear arms does not imply the right to conceal them. This constitution was written at a time and a place where gun violence was a serious issue.

Neu Mejican|8.25.08 @ 11:50AM|#

Therefore, it seems to make good legal sense to require that any behavior required outside the norms and mores of the community be adequately communicated.

This fits nicely within the point I was trying to make.

If the community standard includes a constitutional right to carry arms, then property owners who wish to exclude guns on their property should be required to post notice.

If the community standard of behavior includes the idea that it is rare and unusual behavior to take your gun into Burger King, then gun owners may be required to carry openly to communicate to others that they are exercising their constitutional right and give the owner of Burger King the option of verbally stating their wish to exclude those carrying guns.

If the community standard was that most people carried their gun and most people carried concealed, then the practical burden would shift back to the property owner, who could by default assume you had a gun and ask you when you entered to check it, leave it in your car, whatever.

Neu Mejican|8.25.08 @ 11:52AM|#

If the typical inference I make when I see an individual is that he does not have a gun, then I will not ask him to remove it when he enters my store. If the typical inference when I see an individual is that she is carrying a concealed weapon, then I will ask her to remove it when she enters.

Laws can help make explicit the expectations I as a property owner have.

Jordan|8.25.08 @ 11:53AM|#

When a person's rights and a corporation's "rights" collide, the corporation's rights should give way.

So the owner's of a corporation lose their property rights when they incorporate their business?

|8.25.08 @ 11:53AM|#

I suppose, NM, we're going to have to get back to the Second Amendment and whether "concealed" falls within the rubric of those words*. The unfortunate part is that the incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the move towards a strong, centralized, federal government have tossed community standards by the wayside.

Given all that, I'd make the argument that the "community standard" of the nation is to allow individuals to carry. Whether that means concealed is a different point.

Dave W.|8.25.08 @ 11:53AM|#

I don't have to purchase a theft policy for my car.My liability policy doesn't cover anyone I loan it to, much less car thieves.

In that sense mandatory gun insurance should be the opposite of car insurance. It really needs cover only users who are NOT the gun owner.

|8.25.08 @ 11:54AM|#

* - unless you're an "intent" kinda guy, in which case the words are not all you judge.

Neu Mejican|8.25.08 @ 12:01PM|#

* - unless you're an "intent" kinda guy, in which case the words are not all you judge.

I am not an "intent" kind of guy.
But, I also know enough about semantics to know that word are never all that you judge.

Jordan|8.25.08 @ 12:01PM|#

In that sense mandatory gun insurance should be the opposite of car insurance. It really needs cover only users who are NOT the gun owner.

Or we could, you know, make the person who actually misused the gun pay for his actions. If I leave my keys in my unlocked car, I don't have to pay if somebody steals it and plows into a group of pedestrians.

♪|8.25.08 @ 12:03PM|#

So the owner's of a corporation lose their property rights when they incorporate their business?

If they transfer owenership of a parking lot from themselves to a corporation, yes. They should not have the same rights regarding that parking lot than if they owned the lot outright.

They are "losing" liability from that parking lot also if they transfer ownership to a corporation. If someone sues the owner of that parking lot, they sue the company, don't they? That part is good as far as they are concerned.

BDB|8.25.08 @ 12:06PM|#

Why are entire threads being eaten?

|8.25.08 @ 12:12PM|#

If I require that you disarm yourself and thereby deprive yourself of your ability to defend yourself, do I then I have a duty (and am I on the hook if I fail in this duty) to protect you?

If I prohibit smoking on the premises of my business, does that mean I must provide nicotine substitutes to smokers entering my property, lest I be liable for the pain and suffering of their withdrawal symptoms?

There should be no moral qualms about abridging a corporation's "rights," only practical considerations. When a person's rights and a corporation's "rights" collide, the corporation's rights should give way.

Not all businesses are corporations. A practical difficulty of your position is that it would require me to research the organizational structure of every property I enter, to determine whether it's a family-owned enterprise (and thus they have private rights) or a corporate enterprise (and thus they don't).

|8.25.08 @ 12:15PM|#

Mr. Chapman strikes again. Why do you employ an editor who doesn't understand basic Libertarianism? Florida seemed to reach the perfect compromise in this case -- keep your gun in your car, if the owner of the space wants no guns on the premises. The Florida legislature is usually amazingly poor at liberty, so we should be complimenting them heavily, not attacking them like Steve.

|8.25.08 @ 12:16PM|#

If I prohibit smoking on the premises of my business, does that mean I must provide nicotine substitutes to smokers entering my property, lest I be liable for the pain and suffering of their withdrawal symptoms?

There's your goofy non-sequitur for the day.

|8.25.08 @ 12:30PM|#

If already mentioned, sorry.

Any person or entity may bar anything from his/its property. HOWEVER, said individual or entity MUST be held liable in the event criminal acts that may have been prevented by presence and use of firearms by those present occur.

In other words the states must enact GUN FREE ZONE LIABILITY law.

This liability would extend to both govt and private actors.

|8.25.08 @ 12:32PM|#

Many people are assuming that the rights of the real property owner include the right to restrict or exclude what an individual social or business invitee may wear or carry on his person. This, IMO, is not consistent with the property rights of the scoial or business invitee or libertarian philosophy.

|8.25.08 @ 12:36PM|#

In that sense mandatory gun insurance should be the opposite of car insurance. It really needs cover only users who are NOT the gun owner.

Then maybe only non-gun-owners should pay for it.

|8.25.08 @ 12:37PM|#

If the community standard of behavior includes the idea that it is rare and unusual behavior to take your gun . . . .

I would have thought the First Amendment obscenity cases taught us the folly of conditioning fundamental rights on local community standards.

For one thing, there is no good way to really identify, much less give notice of, what the local community standards might happen to be.

For another, the notion of a fundamental or Constitutional right is incompatible with allowing local communities to abrogate or limit that right just because of their inchoate local "standards."

First off, people have rights, property rights or otherwise.

Yes, and corporations are counted as persons for most legal purposes. So?

KipEsquire|8.25.08 @ 12:49PM|#

I've been wailing and gnashing my teeth on this subject for years, and encountering the same convoluted (i.e., dumb) anti-property "counterarguments" along the way.

A right does not cease to be a right merely because there are limits to enforcing that right (i.e., no private searches of vehicles). A right does not cease to be a right becuase some people might violate it with impunity (i.e., undetected concealed carry in defiance of rules).

Quibbling over proper remedies and enforcement is not a legitimate substitute for making the case that the right does not exist ex ante. (Because, of course, the right does indeed exist ex ante and no such case can be made.)

|8.25.08 @ 12:50PM|#

Dave W.:
The answer to all these questions is probably mandatory gun insurance so that the people who enjoy guns compensate for the damage that guns do when they fall into the wrong hands. Like we have now with cars.

See this study that argues that law abiding citizens who own guns deter and prevent crime more than criminals actually crimes with guns:
http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s223/s223c.html

In other words, you should be paying law abiding gun owners a small fee because they are carrying your weight by owning guns and deterring crime that may affect you.

|8.25.08 @ 12:50PM|#

Many people are assuming that the rights of the real property owner include the right to restrict or exclude what an individual social or business invitee may wear or carry on his person. This, IMO, is not consistent with the property rights of the scoial or business invitee or libertarian philosophy.

It is if said person comes onto someone else's property. If I dislike fruit hats, I can require the Chiquita banana girl to remove hers when she comes on my property. If she doesn't want to, she can stay off. Is the idea of property rights that alien to you?

Florida seemed to reach the perfect compromise in this case -- keep your gun in your car, if the owner of the space wants no guns on the premises.

How is that the perfect compromise if the owner owns the parking lot? You've still brought a gun onto someone else's property.

Paul|8.25.08 @ 12:50PM|#

It doesn't matter. Soon, you won't be able to carry your gun anywhere.

Let's face it, it's the state's world, we're just living in it.

♪|8.25.08 @ 12:57PM|#

Yes, and corporations are counted as persons for most legal purposes. So?

I said I was speaking of "person" colloquially.

|8.25.08 @ 12:57PM|#

So, say I'm offering 10,000 dollars to everyone who comes into a store I own. (For purposes of this example I do have enough for everyone and time is not an issue). The condition is that you leave your gun in your car. Ok fine. No one has a gun. So someone picks a fight or you pick a fight with someone (unrelated to the give away.. which is important.) You're a weak frail fuck (or he is doesn't matter) He's an ex mma guy. Beats the shit out of you. Now in this situation I'm responsible for you getting your (or his) ass handed to him because I denied you the means of self defense? (now this would be different in in face he actually had a gun then I would be liable for failing to institute my own policy and creating a disparity in power between people.)

Ok that was stupid and complicated. But the point mostly is that in the case of going to a store or Restaurant. No I don't owe you a thing. It's not a public place. This goes for all laws. Workplace is a different argument but similar to that, but since it keeps coming up as if this law is "I can't take my gun to wal mart dayum." grow up and don't go to wal-mart. Let's get back to differentiating privilege.

The second as far as I can see isn't there to "Give" you anything. In fact it doesn't even really pertain to you. The constitution is supposed to limit the power of our government to impose certain laws. It's there to prevernt the government from saying "you must allow or dissallow guns in your stores or workplaces etc." (which is exactly whats going on here.)

The government is not there to make us all feel cuddly wuddly safe all the time or fight our battles for us or make it so business allow guns. Sometimes we just have to fight our own battles and stop looking for the government to impose our will on businesses.

Neu Mejican|8.25.08 @ 1:02PM|#

I would have thought the First Amendment obscenity cases taught us the folly of conditioning fundamental rights on local community standards.

I think there is a distinction between laws and rights that is missed by this comment.

For one thing, there is no good way to really identify, much less give notice of, what the local community standards might happen to be.

This is what local laws do. They communicate what the community standards are.

For another, the notion of a fundamental or Constitutional right is incompatible with allowing local communities to abrogate or limit that right just because of their inchoate local "standards."

Local laws, however, can provide practical guidance for resolving conflicts that arise between the rights of individuals.

|8.25.08 @ 1:08PM|#

MO-

Says who?

Paul|8.25.08 @ 1:09PM|#

This is what local laws do. They communicate what the community standards are.

Community standards. There's snarky comment about first amendment rights in here somewhere, but I can't think of what it would be.

thoreau|8.25.08 @ 1:10PM|#

As a matter of principle, I share Mo's analysis: If they can say "Don't wear that hat if you want to enter" they can say "Don't carry your gun if you want to enter."

As a practical matter, though, whenever this issue comes up I wonder about the extent to which a company can actually enforce this rule. If you a locked box in your car, and your employer wants to search your car because he wonders if there's a gun in that locked box, what are his right?

Now, obviously, as good libertarians, we all agree that if you signed a contract specifically stating that the employer can search your car then he can, and as good libertarians we would never dare question the validity of a contract. And if the contract specifically stated that the employer can't search your car, then as good libertarians we (ever so reluctantly) take the side against the businessman (but with a tear in our eyes, of course).

But if the contract is silent on that matter, or vague on exactly how far the employer can go with a search (just a visual inspection through the windows? Opening locked compartments? Bolt-by-bolt disassembly?) then what are the standards for how that situation would be handled under the law?

What I'm getting at here is that if the employer's power to search your vehicle is severely limited, then in practice he cannot bar you from having a gun in your car, as long as you never tell anyone that it's there.

|8.25.08 @ 1:11PM|#

So, institute a parking pass system, and make getting a pass dependent on signing a contract that says you won't keep a gun in your car. Those who want to use the company lot can sign the right away, those who don't can take their chances with public parking.

Actually, those who don't want to carry a gun could do so anyway. That they don't is just an attempt by one group of lobbyists to force a lifestyle choice on people who want no part of it.

Neu Mejican|8.25.08 @ 1:22PM|#

This is what local laws do. They communicate what the community standards are.

Community standards. There's snarky comment about first amendment rights in here somewhere, but I can't think of what it would be.

I think RC Dean already made it.

But more to the point, a local law communicates the local community standards. It may, however, be deemed unconstitutional because it violates innate rights.

I happen to think that obscenity laws violate those rights.

This also brings up an twist on the concealment issue. Do you have the right to conceal yourself while exercising your free speech rights?

I would say, using the standard I mentioned above, that you do not have the right to conceal your identity to use speech that violates someone else's rights (slander/fraud) but do have a right to conceal your identity if your speech does not violate their rights.

Same seem like it should hold for concealed carry of weapons.

The trick is determining when a specific act violates someone else's rights.

Dave W.|8.25.08 @ 1:23PM|#

Then maybe only non-gun-owners should pay for it.

No they shouldn't. They didn't allow a mental patient or a theif or a mischeivous child access to a gun. besides the cost would be spread over many gun owners, so it is not like just one or two people would be paying for what happened at Columbine or Virginia Tech or wherever it is this week.

Neu Mejican|8.25.08 @ 1:25PM|#

What I'm getting at here is that if the employer's power to search your vehicle is severely limited, then in practice he cannot bar you from having a gun in your car, as long as you never tell anyone that it's there.

In other words, might makes right?

If I can get away with it, then I have a right to do it?

Clearly, the enforcement rights work like this.

I say, you can't come onto my property unless you let me look in your locked box.

No?

thoreau|8.25.08 @ 1:32PM|#

"Might makes right" is too strong of a formulation. More like, the only rules worth having are (usually) the ones that can be easily enforced in practice.

Yes, if searching a locked box is a condition of entry, then that solves that. However, employers will have to decide if they really want to start doing thorough searches of vehicles. There are all sorts of downsides there. And if the only effective means of enforcing a gun ban (detailed searches of vehicles) is something that they decide to forgo, then in practice they are forgoing a meaningful gun ban. Or at least they're replacing it with a "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding what you have in your car.

FWIW, "don't ask, don't tell" probably makes a lot of sense in regard to vehicle contents. There are all sorts of recreational and personal items that might be stuffed in glove compartments, duffel bags in trunks, etc., and some of these things don't need to be discussed at work. Nobody needs to know what's in the overnight bag that you keep in your trunk in case an evening date turns into an overnight visit. In fact, a lot of coworkers would rather not know. And if I had a gun in my vehicle, just the theft considerations alone would be enough to keep my mouth shut.

So unless an employer is willing to do detailed searches, "don't ask, don't tell" seems sensible on many levels.

J|8.25.08 @ 1:40PM|#

I think private property gives people the right to require certain things of people on it, or the ability to have them leave the property. You shouldn't be able to steal someone's gun because they bring it on your property, but it's certainly okay (if not great) to take it from them and give it to them when they leave.

I also think about the corporation exception, at times, because they are such a bizarre creation to me. I really don't know whats right with regards to them, though. I would lean toward them not existing, at least like they are now, with limited liability, etc, so I would be okay with them not having the same rights as more legitimate constructs - but I just don't know.

Probably in agreement with many of you, I prefer private groups or businesses to respect and grants more liberties on their premises or to their employees. I dislike businesses that don't. But it seems like it is their right to do so, really, since you have an option of not entering it.

|8.25.08 @ 2:06PM|#

In other words, might makes right?

If I can get away with it, then I have a right to do it?

What *actual harm* is done if I leave my pistol locked in my car while I am at work, because I plan to stop off at the range later? Shouldn't there be some consideration of this?

|8.25.08 @ 2:06PM|#

This is one of those times it's nice to be someone who is for gun rights and not a libertarian.

Just as I think private employers should be barred from requiring drug tests of employees or spying on employees (reading their email) I think this law is fine. It restricts the freedom of a small few (employers) in a small way for the weightier freedoms of a large number of people (employees). It maximizes liberty.

|8.25.08 @ 2:12PM|#

I fucking loathe beanie babies. They give me the willies. Can I (should I have the "right" to) forbid my employees from having beanie babies in their cars?

And don't try to tell me those things are different, because they're "harmless". A beanie baby is just a critter-shaped blackjack.

Neu Mejican|8.25.08 @ 2:17PM|#

P Brooks,

Actual harm = violate my control of my property.

No?

|8.25.08 @ 2:17PM|#

But if the contract is silent on that matter, or vague on exactly how far the employer can go with a search (just a visual inspection through the windows? Opening locked compartments? Bolt-by-bolt disassembly?) then what are the standards for how that situation would be handled under the law?

Then standard private property rules apply. The owner can of the property can request to search the car, and take action based on the car-owner's response. For example if the car owner agrees there is no problem. If the car owner refuses, then the property owner has any number of actions available. He can let the matter slide. Or alternatively he can ask the car owner to remove his vehicle from the property. Hell he can even fire the said employee, but would be liable for any severance, vacation, etc pay. But under no cicumstances would he have any kind of implied legal right to search the car without the car-owners concent. The car-owner does not give up his private property by entering another's private property. And the other does not give up his private property rights by letting others enter his. In the end one can ask the other to leave and if they refuse to pursue tresspassing charges.

|8.25.08 @ 2:21PM|#

I fucking loathe beanie babies. They give me the willies. Can I (should I have the "right" to) forbid my employees from having beanie babies in their cars?


Yes, as long as you own the parking lot where the employee parks.

Neu Mejican|8.25.08 @ 2:25PM|#

Yes, if searching a locked box is a condition of entry, then that solves that. However, employers will have to decide if they really want to start doing thorough searches of vehicles. There are all sorts of downsides there. And if the only effective means of enforcing a gun ban (detailed searches of vehicles) is something that they decide to forgo, then in practice they are forgoing a meaningful gun ban. Or at least they're replacing it with a "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding what you have in your car.

On a practical level, you would only require the search if you suspect someone is trying to get away with something. No?

So, for instance, you might require the search for the employee who has been known to violate the rules in the past. Or for those employees who have concealed carry licenses. Or using some other criteria.

The idea of an enforcable privilege being given to concealed carry license holders that nullifies the rights of others flies in the face of the main argument I have seen for allowing concealed carry, imho.

It is the concealment of the weapons that creates the problem of enforcement, no?

Other Matt|8.25.08 @ 2:28PM|#

Or we could, you know, make the person who actually misused the gun pay for his actions.

Um, I hope this was made with a snark tone. With the exception of someone who successfully commits suicide, I believe tort law has this covered well.

So unless an employer is willing to do detailed searches

That's the problem, there have been detailed searches using dogs specifically trained to sniff out firearms.

And if I had a gun in my vehicle, just the theft considerations alone would be enough to keep my mouth shut.

Or, if, for instance, you carried one in a briefcase which had a separate zipper with a holster inside while you worked for, oh, around 18 months for a company which prohibited such. Not that I'd know anything about that, so don't ask.

|8.25.08 @ 2:37PM|#

No they shouldn't. They didn't allow a mental patient or a theif or a mischeivous child access to a gun.

Funny... neither did I. So explain to me again why I should pay?

|8.25.08 @ 2:51PM|#

Yes, private property owners have the right to forbid guns from entering. But enforcing that right is another story. Do employers also have the right to check your car trunks? Pat downs before you enter an restaurant might be legal, but are douchey in the extreme. What about secret metal detectors? Rummaging through gym lockers?

A sign posted in the parking lot is not a contract. Sometimes propertarians take it too far. Any business owner who searches customer automobiles for guns is violating their rights if he does not get their explicit consent.

gmatts|8.25.08 @ 2:55PM|#

"But seriously, at what point does a property owner cease to have the right to dictate what you do with your property on their property?"

At the point when you bring your private property onto their property. Let's say that you purchase, or create, your own porno mag. Then, you take that porno mag to your neighbor's kid's b-day party and whip out the porno mag and read it alound and begin to show the pictures to everyone. Your "right" to do with what you want in regards to your private porno mag on your neighbor's property ceases to exist.

bubba|8.25.08 @ 2:57PM|#

Obviously there are competing rights at stake. The property rights of the owner, and the 2nd amendment rights of the worker, as he travels to and from work. It's often not practical for the worker to park off the premises.

It seems to be exceedingly unlikely that an ugly termination is going to result in a weapon being wielded by a CHL holder. And if the CHL holder is doing it right, there is no reason for the employer to ever know the gun is there.

More likely, I think, is for someone without a CHL to have a gun in the car. Texas recently made it clear that ANYONE can have a gun in the car. On the flip side, my employer has the right to ban guns on site.

Shops, etc, also have the right to ban guns. Many stores did this briefly. But, after a few months, the signs were largely replaced with those that explicitly banned unlicensed handguns.

Frankly, I think this is an unreconcilable conflict, and for all practical purposes will remain so. Employers will ban the presence of guns for reasons of legal liability. Gun owners who think it important to be armed on their commute will continue to do so.

Occasionally someone will get fired, but most often it will be someone who deserves it.

|8.25.08 @ 3:11PM|#

There aren't competing rights. The 2nd Amendment concerns the government and citizens, while this involves two private parties. Your employer can have a no swearing rule, your state can't. Same goes for a no guns rule. Employer = yes; government = no.

|8.25.08 @ 3:19PM|#

Actual harm = violate my control of my property.

No?

Depending how tightly you cling to your right to control your property, there may be some perceived harm. Other than TotalControl, what is really at issue here? If you do not even know there is a weapon in my car, there is no threat or intimidation.
As far as potential hazards are concerned, the gasoline in the tank is a potential hazard, as is the acid in the battery. The car itself is a hazard, if I decide to start running over people on the sidewalk.

I am perfectly willing to respect your right to keep your property, and your business as safe and comfortable as possible. I cannot help thinking the asolute ban on having a weapon on the premises is extreme and unnecessary. I can certainly appreciate the wish of a business owner to prevent an employee from intimidating his co-workers by having his Glock lying on the desk. My question is: Is there actual harm in the existence, or unknown presence, of a firearm?

I dislike pointless, unenforceable rules of any type.

|8.25.08 @ 3:23PM|#

It restricts the freedom of a small few (employers) in a small way for the weightier freedoms of a large number of people (employees). It maximizes liberty.

Mein Gott. Make sure you don't dare give anyone a job in Mr Nice Guy's world.

|8.25.08 @ 3:27PM|#

I fucking loathe beanie babies. They give me the willies. Can I (should I have the "right" to) forbid my employees from having beanie babies in their cars?

Absolutely.

If you choose this foolish action, good luck enforcing it without random searches...and good luck getting (or keeping) employees whose car you would randomly search.

How can the same libertarians who trust the market to punish employers who mistreat their employees with regard to race, smoking, etc, suddenly turn into bleeding heart labor advocates when it comes to guns?

|8.25.08 @ 3:31PM|#

Worrying about stuff like this is wasted energy. The likelihood that a disgruntled employee is going to get a gun out of his car and come to your office and shoot you is probably about equal to the likelihood that a plane will crash into your building and kill you as you eat your crab salad in the executive dining room.

Real, on some level, but not worth agonizing over. There are better ways to improve workforce productivity.

|8.25.08 @ 3:43PM|#

Just imagine how much fun it would be to be locked in a room over the weekend with the union representatives, hammering out the details of corporate beanie baby policy: how many, where placed, specific types or categories, color, cleanliness, proximity to machinery, ad nauseum.

What if your CFO had to endure the indignity of walking past his secretary's prominently displayed beanie baby bear every morning, as the corporation's stock price was wending its way inexorably toward "pink sheet" status?

Ravac|8.25.08 @ 3:53PM|#

Neu Mejican | August 25, 2008, 11:07am | #
So the question becomes:

Do you have the right to deceive others in order to undermine their rights?

I gave that right up by voting.

|8.25.08 @ 3:54PM|#

I'd like to ask a few questions:

1) Is a parking lot a public space, required by the State in proportion to the number of people occupying the building (it is in some circumstances, in some states I've lived in)?

2) Is there a difference between a general parking space and an employee only parking space?

3) Can the employer, legally, search the car of an employee? If so, under what circumstances?

4) What do you suppose an employer like Disney (which is fighting the Law in question, BTW) would do if somebody set up a business renting Gun Lockers just off their property?

It seems to me that if the Second Amendment's force is through a natural right to self defense, then an employer's right to not host nasty guns might reasonably be asked to take a back seat to the employee's right to carry the means of self defense to and from the employer's property. It seems, further, that IF an employer does not have the right to search an employee's car, then his 'right' to dictate what can be carried in that car is moot.

|8.25.08 @ 3:58PM|#

MO-

One does not cede all of his rights just because he is physically on the real estate of another. The owner of the real estate certainly has the right to determine how the real estate is to be used, how the property is titled, how the profits, if any, are to be distributed and the right to exclude other people from the property. This does not mean that the owner of the real estate owns the people whom he admits unto his realty. Nor does it mean that he has the absolute right to condition entrance to guests upon their agreement to say, enter nude, with a negro in chains or defecating upon themselves. Real property ownership is not superior to ownership of self.

Can the real property owner insist that a would be guest convert to communism and accept Karl Marx as his lord and saviour as a condition of entry? Not if the property is open to business invitees. So, even a communist organization like the Republican Party, can not condition entry unto its real property upon a guest's promise to convert to communism as to do so would necessarily impinge upon the rights of others to conduct business. How about the utility folks-cable, satellite tv, electric, plumbing, gas, oil, etc.? They would not be able to their job. How about folks looking to do business? Salespeople, entrpreneurs, bike messengers, pizza delivery, etc?

Furthermore, as some have suggested, enforcement would be a joke. On the serious side of it, I don't want my property taken from me in order to enforce some fetish that a real property owner has as to do so would deprive others of their property rights.

|8.25.08 @ 4:03PM|#

C.S.P.-

Last paragraph-bingo!

What many here do not see is that there are competing rights.

|8.25.08 @ 4:10PM|#

MNG- 2:06

How about a libertarian who is an absolutist on the 2nd but also recognizes that there are competing rights involved here?

|8.25.08 @ 4:15PM|#

On the serious side of it, I don't want my property taken from me in order to enforce some fetish that a real property owner has as to do so would deprive others of their property rights.

Your property is not taken from your and no one, but only you and willingly, deny yourself some right for the privellege of entering another's private property. If the right you are asked to give up, for example carrying guns, is more important to you than the entering another's property you are free to be on your way, no one is forcing you to enter and conduct business. Where as you are perfectly willing to make the owner tolerate your fetish on his own property.

Jordan|8.25.08 @ 4:16PM|#

Um, I hope this was made with a snark tone. With the exception of someone who successfully commits suicide, I believe tort law has this covered well.

Yes, that was my point. I was responding to Dave "guns are icky" W's suggestion that gun owners be forced to buy insurance to exercise their constitutional right.

|8.25.08 @ 4:22PM|#

C.S.P.-

Last paragraph-bingo!

What many here do not see is that there are competing rights

I dont see any competing rights here. Just like walmart can ask you not to curse in their store, or I can ask you to put away the porno mag at my kids bday party, a property owner can ask you to keep the gun off his property.

Also, when you walk to an entrance of disney world, and start reading the sign that says no guns are allowed, no conflict has taken place, you are on public property with your gun in your holster. Only after you specificaly chose to ignore the property owners right to exclude, and walked onto his property with your gun did a perceived conflict occur.

|8.25.08 @ 4:39PM|#

The issue here is more than property rights.
If you want to work for a company, do you have to give up your rights on the trip to and from work?
While you may be able to make an argument for a workplace ban, despite the fact that most workplace shootings are NOT carried out by an employee, can you limit personal freedom outside the workplace too?
While an employer may prohibit guns, drinking and smoking inside the work place, can they require you to comply outside of work?
We have already seen the start of this with companies forcing workers to quit smoking, what is next, body fat checks?
I am reminded of the company executive that banned Japanese cars from the factory parking lot several years ago. While perhaps understandable, his rational was that he still owned the money his employees earned and had a right to tell them how they may spend it.
Perhaps he yearns for a return to the old company store days...........

Neu Mejican|8.25.08 @ 4:55PM|#

Is this situation is the unintended consequence of the Concealed Carry Privilege laws?

By giving people a license to conceal and carry, have you created a class of citizens that think they have special rights? Do they want to use the power of government to enforce that special status, because the status is endowed to them by the state in the form of the concealed carry license?

BTW, I think that if the company is required to supply parking spaces for their employees by state decree, then the state has already exerted control over that space and it is consistent to have the state set other rules for how the space is used. Consistent does not mean appropriate, just consistent.

|8.25.08 @ 5:05PM|#

I think there is at least an implict recognition by concealed carry advocates that not everybody likes to see strangers in a public place packing heat.



the state has already exerted control over that space and it is consistent to have the state set other rules for how the space is used.

In the original context, this makes me think you believe the state is justified in overriding the private property owners' "right" to limit what may or may not be brought onto their property.

I'm not really arguing for or against the prohibition of weapons; I just think it's fundamentally a waste of time and energy to put out a rule which is virtually impossible to enforce. Most people will obey without protest, and some people will ignore it. How much is total compliance worth?

|8.25.08 @ 5:06PM|#

Although touched on (incorrectly) up above, I still have to wonder:

Can an employer declare the workplace to be a "No Jew Zone" or a "No Negro Zone"? And if not, why not?

If you're a Jew, or a Negro, you can just work someplace else, otherwise you are violating the rights of the property owner, right?

CB

Dave W.|8.25.08 @ 5:54PM|#

Funny... neither did I. So explain to me again why I should pay?

Because you might in the future and because the damages will be too big for you to pay all by yourself.

Dave W.|8.25.08 @ 5:57PM|#

and also because you can decline to pay for the externalities caused by gun posession by refusing to possess a gun, if you think your share of the externalities does not exceed the enjoyment and utility you feel that you get from your gun.

Dello|8.25.08 @ 6:12PM|#

Too many posts to read, but here's my thoughts: Instead of "If I don't like the property owners no-gun rule, I can shop somewhere else", how about "If the property owner doesn't like the fact that the laws of my state list very few places that I CAN'T carry a weapon (and his store isn't one of them), then he can move his business to state that is sympithetic to his cause"?

My .02.

|8.25.08 @ 6:30PM|#

Val-

No. My right to carry a weapon does not end once I walk onto the real estate of another. Real property ownership does not give one the right to pee on the rights of others.

As for enforcement, you do not have the right to take my money in order to give it to big daddy gvt so that it can send out some goons to oust business invitees who do not want to conform to the fetishes of the real property owner.

Most of the posters here may be unaware of the fact that in most jurisdictions each and every party to a contract is bound by the implied duty of good faith. Thus, even without a written employment contract, both employer and employee owe each other an implied duty of acting in good faith relative to their contractual situation. I would argue that any employer who seeks to ban firearms from the workplace up to and including a prohibition on employees from keeping their firearms in their car trunks, is, on its face, utterly absurd and antithetical to a free society.

Dave W.|8.25.08 @ 6:35PM|#

firearms in their car trunks

asking for theft -- grossly reckless

|8.25.08 @ 6:48PM|#

Dave W-

Who knows that the guns are in the car trunks? Are we assuming facts not in evidence?

|8.25.08 @ 6:56PM|#

I think the employer absolutely has the right to ban guns in the car. Most of the examples in the earlier posts (I got about halfway down before skipping ahead to comment) are referencing things like "You would think it absurd for best buy to check you for underwear". Yes, of course you would, that's why Best Buy would never do such a thing. If you have the ability to ban a person from your property, you have the ability to ban anything that person may carry onto your property. If they do not wish to conform to your rules, they do not have to enter your property.

Episarch brought up a good point about cars being possible sanctuaries of private property. Again, it is only because of the imposition of searching cars or persons deterring those people from coming into your property, whether as an employee or a customer, that private companies or businesses do not do such a thing. If they can ban you, or your car, from their property, they have a right to ban anything that may be inside the car as well. Whether it is wise, is a completely different question.

Neu Mejican|8.25.08 @ 7:08PM|#

In the original context, this makes me think you believe the state is justified in overriding the private property owners' "right" to limit what may or may not be brought onto their property.

I am not sure if I believe the state is justified in requiring specific uses for property, so I don't think I believe they can use that as a lever to limit their rights in this way.

FWIW, I find a more compelling argument can be made for prohibiting certain activities on private property than for requiring activities. Or for the ideas that certain activities imply certain conditions be met. But that, I suppose, is one of the reasons I ain't a libertarian.

Neu Mejican|8.25.08 @ 7:13PM|#

I think there is at least an implict recognition by concealed carry advocates that not everybody likes to see strangers in a public place packing heat.


Clearly...and at least part of the motivation for concealed carry laws seems to be that they are uncomfortable with the social consequences that flow from that discomfort on the part of strangers.

Use The Force|8.25.08 @ 9:03PM|#

O, T.! After all theese years, u can ask me to my face. They know. They know the only reason that I teach u so hard is bcs, deep down and despite yrself, you want to learn so hard. They know that it doesn't make us . . . you know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

|8.25.08 @ 9:13PM|#

The US Post Office has tried this whole "no weapons at work" thing forever. See how well that worked out?

If someone is going to be a bad guy with a gun, then it doesn't matter what laws you have in place. The best thing to do is not restrict honest citizens from carrying weapons, since most of them will not commit crimes, and they might be able to stop the bad guys who do.

|8.25.08 @ 9:43PM|#

About 9 years ago, I would have denied people the right to enter my store with a gun.

Unfortunately, your property rights don't make a damn bit of difference to a criminal psycho intent on robbing and killing you.

My daughter and I are still alive because a paying customer happened to be carrying a handgun. He didn't even have to pull the trigger.

|8.25.08 @ 9:55PM|#

This is Florida everyone is talking about, between HOA's, Zoning Ordnances, Environmental Regulations, Noise Ordnances and on and on and on. You have basically no say left in how you use your property anyway. The other problem with the property rights argument is that most of these properties are owned by corporations, not individuals. Most of the employees own shares through their retirement plans or profit sharing. The employees that want to lock a legal weapon inside of property they own (their cars) are part owners of the property that the MANAGEMENT of the property want to prohibit. The Management are not the sole owners of the property.

Gilbert Martin|8.25.08 @ 10:13PM|#

"In his latest column, Steve Chapman explains why "take your guns to work" laws violate property rights."

So do countless other laws, rules and regulations - such as smoking bans, etc.

Get back to me when all the rest of them get repealed on that basis.

You can't cherry pick the "property rights" principle to apply to guns and expect everbody else to go along with the notion that you get to be the one who selects where that applies and where it doesn't.

It's all or nothing.

|8.25.08 @ 10:20PM|#

In Florida, this has a legal basis in Castle Doctrine, which also covers a person's vehicle. While a person can allow your vehicle on the property they are also allowing any contents an driver sees fit. Should they remove it from the vehicle then they are then violating the property rights of the owner. Also the majority of parking lots are not owned by a single company but is being leased by many, in which one company would be violating the rights of others.
Disallowing what is concealed in a vehicle would be like a home owners association president announcing that no house in the neighborhood can have a queen sized mattress in it, or an owner stating that no V-6 cars may be in the parking lot.

|8.25.08 @ 10:27PM|#

Keeping in mind that I have no Law degree, here's what I think:

1) The Property owner has the right to ban guns on his property to the degree that his legal rights would allow him to find them. That is to say; if he has a right to search employees to a degree that would reveal guns carried in a concealed manner, then he can ban their being carried in that manner. This does not address whether he his Right or Wrong to do so. I think there should be SOME degree of consistency, however; if one class of employee is allowed to carry guns having nothing to do with their job description, then the property owner cannot ban others.

2) If the property owner does NOT have a right to search employee vehicles - or has very limited rights under limited circumstances - then he should NOT have the right to ban employees leaving guns in their cars, because their is no way for him to ascertain that that ban is being broken without violating the employees' rights.

2.5) Yes, I know, the State passes all kinds of laws bout things it has no right to know about, but it shouldn't.

3) If the property owner DOES have a right to search cars, then the employees should organize a gun drop close to, but not on, his property, and use it to embarrass his to the greatest possible extent.

Mike|8.26.08 @ 12:23AM|#

There is a difference between private property (your own home) and a place of business. As a homeowner, I can place unlimited restrictions on the use of my property, I could refuse your entry based on color, sex, religion or any other reason. It's my house, get the heck out.

As a business man, I would not be in business a day later if I did any of these things.

I am never happy to see people suggest limiting the freedom of many because of the concern about a few. Telling everyone that they cant leave a weapon in their vehicle because of the possibility that one of them might be unstable is not reasonable.

Jordan|8.26.08 @ 1:01AM|#

Dave W-

Who knows that the guns are in the car trunks? Are we assuming facts not in evidence?

He'd probably object to any gun that's not encased in concrete and buried in the Mariana Trench.

|8.26.08 @ 1:45AM|#

Someone who goes though the trouble to get a concealed carry permit has done so to help ensure their safety. Since the police are not required to provide for everyones protection. So if a private property owner wishes to ban weapons from their property they should take on the responsibility to protect the people on it. If I go to a mall and cannot bring my weapon and someone kills or injures me while I am there then the amll should be held responsible for not ensureing my safety.

|8.26.08 @ 1:55AM|#

While I agree that property owners should be allowed to ban guns from their property, it becomes a question of whether or not your car is a mobile place of private property, as Episarch said early in the thread. According to Scott, it is, so the issue should be pretty clear. You have the right to bar the car, but not the contents once you allow the car. Such protection of your private property contained in permanent fixtures such as an apartment or a car should be protected.

This article was interesting though, because people made it into a gun debate when really it was conflicting property rights of owners of cars vs owners of the property those cars are parked on.

Dave W.|8.26.08 @ 7:53AM|#

He'd probably object to any gun that's not encased in concrete and buried in the Mariana Trench.

If it turns out that no guns are stolen out of car trunks, then insurance companies would pass that info onto the customers and get them focussed on the way that guns really put into the hands of crooks and psychos.

That is the Coasian beuaty of a free market. C'mon guys, less gunnutty now.

|8.26.08 @ 8:22AM|#

Because you might in the future and because the damages will be too big for you to pay all by yourself.

Correct me if I'm wrong; you think I should pay for the crime I might commit in the future now. That's very forward-thinking of you. But what about all the people who don't own guns now, but might eventually get one and then negligently allow it to fall into the hands of criminals? Shouldn't they (and you) pay equally, since there's precisely as much evidence that they'll commit a crime as there is that I will?

Also, how do you square this idea with the "innocent until proven guilty" concept we've all heard so much about?

and also because you can decline to pay for the externalities caused by gun posession by refusing to possess a gun, if you think your share of the externalities does not exceed the enjoyment and utility you feel that you get from your gun.

Ah, there we go. You're talking about the externalities caused by gun misuse, but you call them externalities caused by gun possession. There's a big, big difference there, wouldn't you agree?

Jaydub|8.26.08 @ 9:19AM|#

That's a rich defense of a state that has rather far reaching employer's rights laws. For instance, a Florida employer may prohibit smoking as a condition of employment, and fire you if you light up - even in your own home.

http://ndsn.org/may95/workplac.html

Dave W.|8.26.08 @ 9:23AM|#

Ah, there we go. You're talking about the externalities caused by gun misuse, but you call them externalities caused by gun possession. There's a big, big difference there, wouldn't you agree?

I think it is fairer to make gun possessers as a class pay for the damages caused by the guns they give / sell / have stolen by nuts and crooks than to have victims pay for this or society at large pay for this. This is true whether the particular d00d whose gun was stolen was being careful or not.

Certainly, at the margin, insurance companies can encourage safe behavior, and if gun damages drop to zero, then so will premiums. If gun damages don't drop to zero no matter how careful all the sellers and possessors are
then it is especially fair to spread that cost because it is only avoidable by outlawing guns (which is something gun possessors and sellers don't want society to do). Those who insist upon imposing a risk upon society should pay for the externalities associated with the risky behavior.

IOW, an insurance scheme better incentivizes people to avoid the avoidable portion of the risk (in the most rational manner possible by its Invisible Hand) and also most fairly allocates the unavoidable portion of the risk. This means that there is no problem with not knowing, ab initio, the relative distribution of these two components, avoidable and unavoidable, of the risk.

|8.26.08 @ 9:31AM|#

the issue comes down to what is most important: the right of property owners or the right of gun owners to carry weapons on others property. if you lack the right to say no to guns on your property, then you have no property rights. and if you have no property rights, you have no rights. meaning, in the end you won't even have a right to carry a gun.

in this case, the NRA is fascism hiding behind the 2nd Amendment.

|8.26.08 @ 10:19AM|#

Without the right to gun ownership, all other rights are easily taken away and why the Founding Fathers created the 2nd Amendment. I wish they would have created an amendment protection for private property from the government(s), but I think it was assumed in their minds.

|8.26.08 @ 11:06AM|#

I think it is fairer to make gun possessers as a class pay for the damages caused by the guns they give / sell / have stolen by nuts and crooks than to have victims pay for this or society at large pay for this. This is true whether the particular d00d whose gun was stolen was being careful or not.

Once again you're ignoring the vast majority of people who don't misuse their guns or have their guns stolen. Why should the innocent gun owners pay to make you feel better?

If it's better for a smaller subset of innocent people to be forced to pay for crimes rather than "society" at large, then wouldn't it be best if we moved the costs to the smallest possible innocent subset?

I am, of course, proposing that you, Dave W., pay for all costs related to gun crime in the US.

This is far better than going after an entire class of innocents, because this way only one innocent person suffers. It should be you in particular because since you seem to think it's for the greater good, you'd probably suffer less than, say, I would, since I'd also be out the money, and I'd be fucking pissed off about it.

Dave W.|8.26.08 @ 11:25AM|#

Once again you're ignoring the vast majority of people who don't misuse their guns or have their guns stolen. Why should the innocent gun owners pay to make you feel better?

Innocent versus guilty is a criminal question and I am all for irresponsible gun owners going to jail and responsible ones staying out of jail.

What I am talking about is civil liability, and that is most efficiently and rationally handled with a mandatory insurance scheme rather than to blithely say no crime equals no liability. You don't buy auto insurance because you are guilty. You buy auto insurance because you engage regularly in a discretionary activity that carries certain recognized and serious risks, regardless of your exact placement on the infinitessimally gradated care spectrum. The specific risks are different with guns, but the analysis is similar.

|8.26.08 @ 11:31AM|#

This discussion is exhibit # 432,681 supporting the argument that even libertarians are so fond of telling people what they can and cannot do that "pure" libertarianism just might be hopeless.

|8.26.08 @ 12:01PM|#

You buy auto insurance because you engage regularly in a discretionary activity that carries certain recognized and serious risks [...]

I buy auto insurance because the government forces me to do so in order to earn a living.

How do you feel about mandatory knife insurance?

|8.26.08 @ 1:01PM|#

I take it that the property owner has the right to search employees' cars to ensure compliance.

To maintain the company gun-free zone customers, vendors, and representatives of other companies must also comply with the no-guns-on-the-property rule as well. Presumably their vehicles and persons would also have to submit to warrantless searches.

|8.26.08 @ 1:19PM|#

Sorry...I'm still reeling from Chapman's 'Drinking Age' article. It's difficult to give a shit what he's writing anymore.

|8.26.08 @ 1:21PM|#

Even though I am a member of the NRA, I would support the right of any company to deny any visitor their right to carry a gun, or to keep it in their car.

As with all other things, the person with a gun has a choice whether to be a patron, employee, or both of any business. Just because the employer who may pay the best in the area is no reason to force them to change their policy.

Take Disney for example. See this as an opportunity. Build a parking garage just outside the Disney facility, or one a short distance away and provide a tram service. I am sure, if there were enough people wanting to keep guns in their cars, you could make a nice living off the parking garage.

There is no conflict of rights. You have the right to bear the arm, and they have a right to stop you on their own property. If you chose to go onto their property, you are agreeing to be bound by their decision. You as a responsible adult need to decide whether the benefit is worth the risk.

Dave W.|8.26.08 @ 2:07PM|#

How do you feel about mandatory knife insurance?

There just ain't enough knife attacks to make it worthwhile. Maybe someday that will change, but for now . . .

|8.26.08 @ 2:22PM|#

There just ain't enough knife attacks to make it worthwhile.

So what's the magic number between "worthwhile" and "not worthwhile," and why? Or is it because you own knives, and realize that other people's knife crimes are not your fault?

Dave W.|8.26.08 @ 2:51PM|#

So what's the magic number between "worthwhile" and "not worthwhile," and why? Or is it because you own knives, and realize that other people's knife crimes are not your fault?

if there were enough knife attacks, I would be happy to pay knife insurance. just like I am thankful that there is mandatory auto insurance even though I have to pay it.

|8.26.08 @ 3:07PM|#

if there were enough knife attacks, I would be happy to pay knife insurance.

Would you be happy to pay knife insurance if you didn't own any knives?

|8.26.08 @ 3:11PM|#

I should add to the above:

If not, why not?

Dave W.|8.26.08 @ 3:48PM|#

If there were enough knife attacks I would be happy to pay knife insurance. Just like I am happy now to pay car insurance.

Side note: I am working on my first song since 2006. It is called "Fake Bigfoot Filled Up With Roadkill." Sort of a topical thing. Let Hexxie know.

|8.26.08 @ 4:25PM|#

I always wondered where the property rights wackos got their implied powers from.

I mean, is there a constitutional right enumerated? Or is this just an implied right.

I think that IF a public place wants to ban legal carry, it should 1) provide safe storage and 2) should search (or =) all visitors so those who DON'T obey the law are disarmed too.

Part 2) COncealed carry is a PRIVLEDGE, but open carry is a RIGHT. Alternately, there is no way for a person without a CCW to carry a weapon at all!

|8.26.08 @ 4:51PM|#

WRONG!!

This is not a question of the rights of the parking lot owners! It is a question of their right to dictate what I have in my own POV!
They have no right to dictate or to search for the presence or absence of legal materials or items.

Now if I take it out of my car and on to their grounds in my hands or into their building, that is a whole different kettle of fish.

Gilbert Martin|8.26.08 @ 5:01PM|#

"You buy auto insurance because you engage regularly in a discretionary activity that carries certain recognized and serious risks, regardless of your exact placement on the infinitessimally gradated care spectrum"

The auto insurance you buy is only insurance for liabiltity arising from YOUR OWN ACTIONS - not the actions of anyone else.

|8.26.08 @ 6:22PM|#

The gun insurance thing is stupid because you don't pay insurance based on everyone else that might get into an accident. You insure yourself against an accident. The likelihood of a gun accident happening is minimal. Just because someone might steal the gun, or someone else might have an accident, has absolutely nothing to do with you.

As for the searching of your car on private property, the property owner has every right to do so. Property owners may ask you to give up some rights in order to be on their property. If you refuse, they can opt to remove you from their property. They cannot force you to give up your rights, but if you do not agree to their terms, they have a right to remove you. For instance, some apartment buildings disallow pets. You have every right to own a pet, but the owner of the land said otherwise so you may not do it. In this case, the property owners would have to say outright they you may not have guns, and we will need to search your cars to enforce it. Once those two things are made known to the person who wishes to enter the property, they can either take the deal or leave it.

On a side note, I think banning guns from being kept in cars is pretty stupid. People seem to conflate stupid things with things that must be regulated. Your right to own a gun is important only to the government, the laws it makes, and the property it owns. The entire concept of contracts, which entering onto private property is a form of, involves both sides giving up some of their rights to come to an agreement that works for both parties. In the same sense that me offering to buy your gun for 200 bucks wouldn't be infringing on your 2nd amendment rights by disarming you, asking that you didn't bring your gun onto my property in exchange for entrance to my property does not affect your 2nd amendment rights either.

|8.26.08 @ 6:53PM|#

I seriously doubt that a private property owner has a right to search the vehicles of persons he allows onto his property. I especially doubt it in connection to an enterprise (as opposed to a domicile), and the vehicles of employees. I recall a fair amount of hoorah over employers searching employee LOCKERS (for drugs or shrink), without law enforcement presence, which (as I recall) turned on the issue of whether the employees were encouraged to put locks on the lockers. I can't imagine that the legal issues concerning personal vehicles, wholly owned by the employees, are any simpler.

Maybe a property owner has a right to refuse entry to vehicles whose owners decline to allow him to search them (which is another matter). Somehow I don't think a lot of employers are going to try to make that fly.

In any case, I think the real answer is the one I suggested before: let the Gun owners set up a gun-check business just off the property of the employer in question, and then use every chance to ridicule the employer for his nitwit policy. What they carry in their cars (if legal) is not any of his goddamned business, regardless of what the Law may say. There is such a thing as trying to get along.

|8.26.08 @ 7:13PM|#

I think the "formal notice" idea would fly just fine, as it has parallels in many other venues.

For example, attending a theatrical performance:

Prior to purchasing the tickets, I was notified and agreed to all of the terms and conditions the ticket seller required me to agree to in order to purchase the tickets. So far, so good.

It was only after I purchased the tickets and was able to read the terms and conditions printed on the physical units that I became aware of the theater owners' rules that included the ubiquitous "no cameras" condition for attending the show. While I was pretty sure this would be one of the rules, it would have been nice to have been informed of this prior to my purchase. Anyway ...

When I got to the show, I had a camera with me. At the entrance to the theater, I encountered a bank of "security" personnel who were placed behind signs instructing women to prepare their purses for inspection. No notice for guys' purses, but everyone knew they included fanny packs, backpacks, etc. Everyone who entered the theater through the main entrance was subject to a physical search (fingers and flashlights) through their purses, and to a "hands-over-head" metal-detecting wand procedure.

My camera was in my pocket, and was easily discovered. I was instructed to take it to the storage area to leave it with the attendant, and was given a claim ticket so I could retrieve my camera when I came out of the theater, after the show. All well-understood. They assumed responsibility for my property's safekeeping until I could retrieve it, or until "x" amount of time following the performance had passed ... like 24 hours, or something.

I could have refused to be searched, and they would have refused to let me in. Pretty simple.

Every individual in that line who had one was able to enter with their cell phone ... most of which had photo capability.

If the intent of the rule was to limit photos of the performance to those with explicit authority to take them, why not take all of those phones, too? Certainly everyone was bound by the same contract. Certainly everyone expected to be rather invasively searched. Certainly everyone who had one knew that their phone violated the contract they had printed on their ticket. Probably most of them also knew that the terms and conditions they agreed to prior to purchasing their tickets were those defined by the ticket seller, and NOT those printed on the ticket, and yet certainly everyone agreed to be bound to both sets of conditions in order to attend the performance.

So ... as long as the individual is notified of the restrictions being placed on them, the property owner can set up whatever search force they like to go crazy on that individual's car, underwear ... whatever they want. If the property owner decides not to set up a search barrage, that's fine ... it's on them to enforce their rules. If they are lax, and people slip through, then it must not have been that important. If they are totalitarian, then it must be important, and people will take the rule seriously and either not try to enter the parking lot with contraband in their cars, or they will be aware of and accept invasive searches as a condition of using the parking lot. Everyone will know that some rules will be enforced more strictly than others.

Because that's just the way it is. We don't need legislation to figure that out.

Sean W. Malone|8.27.08 @ 2:36AM|#

Haven't we already solved this problem 150 years ago??

Does anyone besides me seem to recall a thousand Westerns where people are required to leave their gun belts hanging on the rack before they enter a saloon? They pick them back up on their way out - property owners keep their bars gun free, they're not liable for fistfights that break out, gun owners are free to carry any public place and into any private place that allows them. I'm not sure why this is a complicated issue. Practically speaking, there really doesn't need to be a law period. It's immoral and wrong-headed to force guns into a workplace or other private area, it's equally immoral to deny people gun ownership. In reality - the compromise is simple and has already been tried successfully. Soooooo..... problem solved. Remove the force (on either side) and voluntary transactions based on the desire and need to trade, and the trading partners' desire for safety work this problem out perfectly. Shazam.

|8.27.08 @ 1:31PM|#

What most people seem to be missing here is that property rights work both ways.

My vehicle is MY property, not the property of whomever owns the land where it is parked!

You can tell me not to bring the gun into the building or even carry it around in the parking lot 'coz it's your property & you don't want it there & that's fine. Your property, your rules. But you have NO right to tell me that I may not keep my gun secured in my vehicle. MY property, MY rules.

If I remove the firearm from the vehicle whilst on company property then go ahead & bust me, I won't argue that point.

But so long as it is secured within MY vehicle, which is MY property, you have no standing to complain about it.

|8.27.08 @ 2:06PM|#

One other thing that seems to have people confused: this law doesn't force the employer to allow the employee to carry the gun inside the building, it only says the employer can't fire the employee for having a LEGAL firearm locked in his/her vehicle in the company parking lot.

There is a HUGE difference between allowing legally-owned & -carried firearms AT the workplace but secured inside your vehicle vs "forcing the employer to allow firearms IN the workplace", which some people have been erroneously stating.

|8.27.08 @ 7:51PM|#

kg9du, I can make you agree to let me violate your privacy rights as a term for entering my property. Enough said. Your car is absolutely your private property protected from search, just like your right to own a gun. If I say that I must search your car as a precondition for entering my property, I can absolutely do that. Whether or not you agree to it is your decision. If I can't violate your right to privacy by searching your car, why do you hold that I can violate your right to own or have a gun once you are out of your car? Both are giving up rights to come to an agreement so that you may enter private property.

|8.28.08 @ 12:35AM|#

if you are welcomed on someones private property and they insist you be disarmed, then they have become morally, socially, and legally responsible for your safety and furthermore anything that happens to you while there that could have theoretically been prevented by the retention of your concealed carry weapon becomes the responsibility of the property owner.

The Bloody McHun|8.28.08 @ 10:37AM|#

"This fight is actually much ado about nothing. Sure, let the property owner have his rules. But then, you could just take the risk and ignore them and have the gun in your car anyway. They would have to break into your car to get or find the gun, and I don't see that happening either."

It is hardly "much ado about nothing." A right is worthless if it so limited as to be useless. If you cannot take your firearm anywhere other than to a range, then the right 'to keep and BEAR arms' becomes merely the right to 'keep arms in one's home and transport them to a range and then back again.' In nearby Seattle, the collectivist mayor has issued an executive order (in defiance of the Washington State constitution) prohibiting concealed weapons license holders from carrying their pistols on or in ANY city property, including parks and any other public place. And as to the private employer being unlikely to search your vehicle, you are wrong. They don't have to do a physical search initially; trained dogs can easily detect firearms and ammunition in automobiles.

The Bloody McHun

|9.1.08 @ 10:48AM|#

"You don't have a "right" to work, shop, etc. at any given place (that you do not own). If your workplace, boss, school, whatever decides to disallow guns, you can find another or take your chances breaking the rules."

If that was true, then people could open a shop that refuses to service blacks, gays, or jews. This is illigal to do. You DO have a right to work, shot, etc.

|9.1.08 @ 11:41PM|#

So half of you are saying this:

It's ok with you if the state forces you to let someone on your property with a gun?

I think that's what you're saying.

rocky |9.5.08 @ 5:49PM|#

rocky says........

-----------------------

i am impressed.



http://www.CelebPoker.com