SUPPORT LB 335

[Husker_Fan]

Andy, the response to the idea that you don't like a term of employment, is to not accept employment under that term.

On a side note, if the NFOA wants to support the bill as an organization, that's fine with me. I'm just voicing my opinion. I don't expect to agree with any organization 100% of the time.

[unfy]

I drive up to, say, a bank.  No carry allowed.  I stow my weapon in my vehicle and go into the bank.


I drive up to my place of employment (lets say Bobaloo's BBQ Steakhouse).  Now, Bobaloo's has had a recent rash of parking lot accidents and now has a mandatory valet service.  Thus, the parking lot is not "open to the public" as per 69-2441.

No carry allowed, nor can I keep my weapon in my vehicle.

My brother drives up to Bobaloo's BBQ Steakhouse.  Valet parks his car.  Walks up to the door and notices the no-gun sign, calls the valet back over to retrieve his vehicle and then has to skip out on some of the best pig lips in town.


http://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=69-2441

(3) A permitholder carrying a concealed handgun in a vehicle or on his or her person while riding in or on a vehicle into or onto any parking area, which is open to the public, used by any location listed in subdivision (1)(a) of this section,


--- (1)(a) being the list of places you can't carry.


I think this is an important thing to note.  "Open to the public" means what ?  Not gated ?


Edit: this was for Andy, btw .  Clarification of what 'open to the public' will help isolate the "well, customers can do it" discussion.

[Phantom]

I drive up to, say, a bank.  No carry allowed.  I stow my weapon in my vehicle and go into the bank.

What about using the Drive up teller window at a bank ?

[unfy]

What about using the Drive up teller window at a bank ?

I'm not within the bank.

The better question to this is off topic and relates to 'what about a bank within a grocery store or walmart' etc.  But, that's straying way off topic.

[Phantom]

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.

took me a bit to think this through .....I can agree with you in part .... 

But if they set any conditions like this upon entry onto their property or persons or real property inside it's boundary's.
Then by doing so you fall under their protection and they should agree to protect anyone and any property on or in said property from any harm or loss caused by their actions of exclusion of others rights.

Just like as a homeowner can be held libel for injury of any person falling on the sidewalk in front of their home even if it maybe be part of the city right of way.

[unfy]

I'm leaning towards property rights on this discussion.  Property rights are core.

By storing my weapon in my vehicle, am I infringing on property rights ?

By being disallowed to store my weapon in my vehicle, is my employer infringing on my rights ?

Nasty discussion.

[Phantom]

Isn't the owner allready required by law to make the work place a safe environment?

So the question comes back to is the parking lot a part of the work place and if so.... is it Safe ?

 I'm seeing lots of Grey areas in this one ...on both sides of the argument. 

[Husker_Fan]

Unfy,
The problem is, as I pointed out, only the government can infringe your rights. You are free to contract them away by agreeing to an employment agreement.

The question isn't if you are infringing their property rights by bringing a gun in your vehicle, it's whether the government is infringing on those right by telling them they can't exclude people with guns in their vehicles.

[unfy]

Isn't the owner allready required by law to make the work place a safe environment?

So the question comes back to is the parking lot a part of the work place and if so.... is it Safe ?

 I'm seeing lots of Grey areas in this one ...on both sides of the argument. 

The acts of someone requiring you to draw a weapon is beyond the scope of the law for "making it safe".

Make it safe so that a 20 ton machine doesn't fall on you, yes.

A bad guy shooting you while you try to protect your fresh styrofoam box of pig lips during lunch hour at your desk .... is beyond that.  Similarly, the employer doesn't have to make sure the building is nuclear bomb / asteroid proof.

edit: note, the above aint about 'rights' either


Husker Fan: I'm inclined to agree. 

I'm gonna chew this over in head and see if I can come up with something more to add in the next few hours.

Now, liberals don't believe in property rights as far as I can tell... which is probably why we've not seen this argument from them.

IF your vehicle was an extension of your home in NE, then I could wholly support this bill.

[Dan W]

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.

So you are saying it is OK in your world for employers to discriminate based on sex, race, ethnicity or religious beliefs as well as firearm ownership?

[unfy]

So you are saying it is OK in your world for employers to discriminate based on sex, race, ethnicity or religious beliefs as well as firearm ownership?

Ownership and bringing it onto their property are two different things entirely.

[Dan W]

Ownership and bringing it onto their property are two different things entirely.

You ignored the rest of the question, change ownership to possession as the right is to "keep and bear"

[unfy]

You ignored the rest of the question, change ownership to possession as the right is to "keep and bear"

Is concealed carry covered by 2A ?

The rest of the question: sex/race/etc is unrelated.

[Husker_Fan]

Dan,
The pure Libertarian view might go as far as you suggest and allow any form of discrimination and rely on the market to punish bad actors. I don't agree with that position. There is a difference between an immutable characteristic and one that you can change.

Whether you possess a gun or not can obviously be changed. You, as an employee are free to contract with your employer and to agree to not have a gun on their property. That is not an infringement. Only the government can infringe your rights.

If you edit my post because I let some profanity fly, that is not a first amendment issue. You run the forum and I agreed to play by the rules when I signed up.

[Dan W]

 

Is concealed carry covered by 2A ?

The rest of the question: sex/race/etc is unrelated.

In my opinion , YES CCW is a 2a right as well as a Nebraska constitutional right

[unfy]

Sorry about that, was trying to leave work, coworker talking to me, and I quickly posted without fully thinking it through.

As such...

Dan: a person not wanting firearms on their property is up to them.  It has nothing to do with the Gov't.  Thus this actually isn't a 2A discussion and my question relating to 2A covering concealed carry was a red herring and more or less a knee jerk question/response - my bad.

This is about coercing property owners via law.

This bill instead forces property owners to yield their rights to disallow certain types of items on their premises by force of law.

For instance, this bill would be akin to forcing an employer to allow an employee to store all kinds of sex paraphernalia in their vehicle on CLOSED private property despite being a business/employer that has strong religious ties etc.

Similarly, it's not too different than disallowing "no shirt, no shoes, no service" signs.

[unfy]

I'll repeat, if your vehicle was an extension of your home, this would be cleared up in a heartbeat heh.

[SHEP]

My place of employment does not condone weapons, drugs or any illicit contraband on their property. We are subject to vehicle searches and disciplinary action/termination if any of the above is found in a vehicle upon a search. I'm OK with that. Abiding by the regulations set by my employer makes me a better employee and a better citizen. Work and my personal life are divided in the sense that to and from work (while able to CC) I am unarmed. This is directly related to work regulations. I will continue to follow these regulations because I am a good citizen and employee. We protect the community every day, but the second we're off duty in the community we're no longer assets, we're liabilities.

[AAllen]

I drive up to, say, a bank.  No carry allowed.  I stow my weapon in my vehicle and go into the bank.


I drive up to my place of employment (lets say Bobaloo's BBQ Steakhouse).  Now, Bobaloo's has had a recent rash of parking lot accidents and now has a mandatory valet service.  Thus, the parking lot is not "open to the public" as per 69-2441.

No carry allowed, nor can I keep my weapon in my vehicle.

My brother drives up to Bobaloo's BBQ Steakhouse.  Valet parks his car.  Walks up to the door and notices the no-gun sign, calls the valet back over to retrieve his vehicle and then has to skip out on some of the best pig lips in town.


http://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=69-2441

(3) A permitholder carrying a concealed handgun in a vehicle or on his or her person while riding in or on a vehicle into or onto any parking area, which is open to the public, used by any location listed in subdivision (1)(a) of this section,


--- (1)(a) being the list of places you can't carry.


I think this is an important thing to note.  "Open to the public" means what ?  Not gated ?


Edit: this was for Andy, btw .  Clarification of what 'open to the public' will help isolate the "well, customers can do it" discussion.

unfy, that is a big part of this discussion; what is a public parking lot.  Is Bobaloo's BBQ Steakhouse no longer a public parking lot under 69-2441 if they add mandatory Valet service, or are they still public since they allow customers to park there with their (Bobaloo's) assistance?  My opinion it would still be considered public under 69-2441 for the purpose of a CCW permit holder to store their locked firearm in the car while they enter the establishment.  So if I can go into that lot as a customer, why shouldn't you as a employee.

We talk a lot about private property rights vs. second amendment rights here.  When does private property rights get over ruled.  What other instances allow for property rights to be second to another?  From my research in American Law there are two instances that limit private property rights: 1) when the right is limited due to an international treaty (example you have property that abuts an international border).  2) When the right that is given priority is considered a Fundamental Natural Right of man (human) kind.  Don't we always discuss the Second Amendment as a Natural Right, didn't the Supreme Court just recently say it was a Fundamental Right?

I agree the balancing of rights is a difficult task when 2 rights that may be in opposition are involved as they are here.  But which right receives more harm, the property owners right to use his property by you having a hidden locked up firearm in your car that he allows you to park on his property, our your ability to defend yourself while traveling from your home to your workplace?  The slight discomfort that the property owner may have knowing that there may possibly be a firearm locked up in a car on his property is minor compared to the possible issues you would face if you were carjacked on the way home, or run into home invaders upon arriving home.

[CitizenClark]

took me a bit to think this through .....I can agree with you in part .... 

But if they set any conditions like this upon entry onto their property or persons or real property inside it's boundary's.
Then by doing so you fall under their protection and they should agree to protect anyone and any property on or in said property from any harm or loss caused by their actions of exclusion of others rights.

Just like as a homeowner can be held libel for injury of any person falling on the sidewalk in front of their home even if it maybe be part of the city right of way.

I am inclined to agree with you on that, actually. If a proprietor knows that people might carry guns for self-defense and puts up a sign prohibiting this, I think that proprietor might rightfully be considered to be assuming some liability, since he is disarming business invitees and leaving them in a potentially vulnerable position, knowing that at least some prudent people might otherwise have prepared to defend themselves. If some bad guy comes along and shoots an invitee who has left their firearm behind per a "no weapons" sign, it seems to me that there might be grounds for a negligence action, since the proprietor--knowing the risk of third-party criminality--put his invitees in a position of peril but failed to fulfill the positive duty he assumed thereby to protect them himself.