SUPPORT LB 335

[SHEP]

"LB 335 is a new legislative bill that would allow lawful gun owners to keep firearms in their cars in the parking lot at work even if the employers gun policies forbid it". "If they are ever harmed because they weren't allowed to carry, then they have the right to file civil charges against them".

My place of employment forbids weapons of any sort to be stored/kept in personal vehicles when parked on the property. Because of my career, myself and my co-worker are considered targets to some of Omaha's most morally challenged citizens. Currently when we are off duty, we are "unarmed" when entering the community. I shouldn't have to say that leaving us "unarmed" in the community when we are able to carry concealed, is just wrong. It's pretty clear. This Bill is sponsored by District 44 State Sen. Mark Christensen of Imperial, Nebraska and should be supported by those willing to step forward.

Here's the link: http://www.1011now.com/nebraskacentralnews/home/headlines/Proposed-Law-Could-Allow-Guns-in-Workplace-Parking-Lots-187545061.html

[unfy]

See also:

http://nebraskafirearms.org/forum/index.php/topic,7263.0/topicseen.html

[Husker_Fan]

I'm still torn on this. I have the right to possess a gun, and an employer has the right to exclude guns from his property.

[HuskerXDM]

I'm still torn on this. I have the right to possess a gun, and an employer has the right to exclude guns from his property.

I can see your point, but I'm in the same boat as the OP.  An employer (and mine gets state and federal dollars) shouldn't be able to keep me defenseless on my way from home to work, or from work to home.  That's not ok.  Inside the building, if they've paid for it, fine.  But in a parking lot... I don't see the justification.  The gun will be properly stored in my vehicle.

[unfy]

I'm still torn on this. I have the right to possess a gun, and an employer has the right to exclude guns from his property.

I find the in-vehicle to be a very happy medium / compromise between the two.

Are there other things your employer can legally subjugate you on concerning the contents of your vehicle ?

[Waltherfan]

I don't view it as a property rights issue for the employer. The weapon is in my car which is my property.
Say you and I were friends and you were rabidly anti gun. When I would visit you at your house, you would have the right to tell me not to bring a firearm into your home. You would not have the right to tell me I couldn't leave it in my car.
Just my opinion.

[Dan W]

I don't view it as a property rights issue for the employer. The weapon is in my car which is my property.
Say you and I were friends and you were rabidly anti gun. When I would visit you at your house, you would have the right to tell me not to bring a firearm into your home. You would not have the right to tell me I couldn't leave it in my car.
Just my opinion.

Good point! And I would not have the power to have your car searched for contraband either

[unfy]

Say you and I were friends and you were rabidly anti gun. When I would visit you at your house, you would have the right to tell me not to bring a firearm into your home. You would not have the right to tell me I couldn't leave it in my car.
Just my opinion.

I agree with Dan's assessment.

I do visit some friends who prefer I leave the weapon in my vehicle.... and this seems to be a decent analogy.

[DanClrk51]

I don't view it as a property rights issue for the employer. The weapon is in my car which is my property.
Say you and I were friends and you were rabidly anti gun. When I would visit you at your house, you would have the right to tell me not to bring a firearm into your home. You would not have the right to tell me I couldn't leave it in my car.
Just my opinion.

Agree 100%. The building and the parking lot may be the employer's property but my vehicle and whatever is contained within it is MY property. Not only should this bill be passed but we need to pass a bill that makes your vehicle and extension of your home for all purposes (giving us the right to possess loaded concealed firearms within our vehicles without needing a permit).

[Husker_Fan]

Property rights are exclusionary in nature. I cant use my land to build something that would be a nuisance but I can exclude others from coming onto my land, even if it's because I don't like guns.

Also, rights are not violated by other citizens, only by the government. Another citizen telling you to stay off their property with your gun is not the same as the government telling you that you cannot possess a particular weapon.

This law is the government restricting a private property right. It looks to me like a lot of people are OK with "reasonable restrictions" on other people's property rights so long as it benefits them.

As for the analogy to a friends house, if they find you have a gun in your car, ask you to leave, and you don't, then you are trespassing. If an employer finds you are not complying with an employment agreement, they should be free to fire you.

Just my two cents.

[CitizenClark]

Property rights are exclusionary in nature. I cant use my land to build something that would be a nuisance but I can exclude others from coming onto my land, even if it's because I don't like guns.

Also, rights are not violated by other citizens, only by the government. Another citizen telling you to stay off their property with your gun is not the same as the government telling you that you cannot possess a particular weapon.

This law is the government restricting a private property right. It looks to me like a lot of people are OK with "reasonable restrictions" on other people's property rights so long as it benefits them.

As for the analogy to a friends house, if they find you have a gun in your car, ask you to leave, and you don't, then you are trespassing. If an employer finds you are not complying with an employment agreement, they should be free to fire you.

Just my two cents.

I totally agree. This proposal diminishes the liberty of private property owners. I support gun rights because I support property rights and individual liberty, not the other way around. Private property owners should be free to set any condition they like on entry onto their property, even if the condition is really stupid.

[greg58]

I am in full support of this bill.
I am employed where my employer effectively disarms me most of the time, as most of my driving is too and from work.
It is not fair to ask someone to choose between using their CHP, or keeping their job.

Greg58

[Husker_Fan]

It's also "not fair" to agree to terms of employment that include not bringing certain items onto their property if you don't intend to abide by them.

That said, I think the biggest issue is likely for government employees. I'd be fine with a bill that forbids state and local governments from enforcing such policies.

[greg58]

It's also "not fair" to agree to terms of employment that include not bringing certain items onto their property if you don't intend to abide by them.

That said, I think the biggest issue is likely for government employees. I'd be fine with a bill that forbids state and local governments from enforcing such policies.

Oh I abide by the rules, I am just not happy about it, and I work for a private company.
Greg58

[CitizenClark]

It's also "not fair" to agree to terms of employment that include not bringing certain items onto their property if you don't intend to abide by them.

Yep, agreeing to a condition of employment in bad faith is immoral, and trying to use government to forcibly overrule a bargained-for obligation that you have voluntarily assumed is unjust.

That said, I think the biggest issue is likely for government employees. I'd be fine with a bill that forbids state and local governments from enforcing such policies.

Agreed.

[unfy]

Amused that the discussion here is prolly more profound than in the unicameral

In particular property rights. It's got me pondering hehe.

[AAllen]

Here is how i look at it; my car is my property, what is inside my car is also my property.  If you as a benifit to my employment allow me to park my car on your property, what is inside my car (as long as not visable or illegal) should not be of your concern.  This is especially true if the parking lot my car is in is open to the public, were the public at large can have the same items in the car that you are restricting me your employee from being able to have.

[wallace11bravo]

Here is how i look at it; my car is my property, what is inside my car is also my property.

+1

[unfy]

Andy:

While taking your example to a silly extreme, what if I leave a locked suitcase in my office that has a firearm ?  Suitcase is my property, the contents are my property and invisible...

That said, there's always the false (or at best, grey) notion that your vehicle is an extension of your home.

I tend to strongly lean towards being libertarian, and CC's post does indeed cause a possible conflict of interest for me heh.

[CitizenClark]

Here is how i look at it; my car is my property, what is inside my car is also my property. 

Your body is also your property, and yet it would be perfectly legitimate for me as a property owner to say, "no one with any alcohol can come onto my property, even if that alcohol is inside of your body."

If you as a benifit to my employment allow me to park my car on your property, what is inside my car (as long as not visable or illegal) should not be of your concern. 

Part of what it means to be "free" is not having to have your use of your own property approved by strangers. If I want to say "only purple people with green eyes and twelve toes can park in my parking lot," that is my right as a property owner.

The market has a way of disciplining entrepreneurs who make stupid decisions. There is no reason to try to use government to bully these people. Just let the market discipline come to bear on them.

This is especially true if the parking lot my car is in is open to the public, were the public at large can have the same items in the car that you are restricting me your employee from being able to have.

Property owners should be free to prohibit employees and members of the public alike from carrying firearms onto their property. Employees and members of the public are free to avoid such gun-free zones, to actively boycott them, to ostracize people for setting such stupid rules, etc.