SUPPORT LB 335

[Husker_Fan]

In the past, I have been employed by companies with "no weapons" policies. I obeyed them. Now, I don't have to worry about it and carry at work.

Having "skin in the game" is irrelevant, though. It's about principle. If your principles change because you don't like the result in a personal situation, then they aren't really principles at all.

The position seems to be that this bill would be a "reasonable restriction" on property rights. Reasonable only because it has a result we like (and I do mean "we" since I think every employer should allow concealed carry). Other people think that restricting gun rights with "reasonable restrictions" such as capacity limits, AWB, registration etc. are reasonable because of some perceived idea of increased safety. How do the people here feel about those arguments?

[Dan W]

As Andy stated the " reasonable restriction" already exists for the majority of CHP permit holders in your parking lot right now, but the law does not equally protect the employees of the business.

 

[Husker_Fan]

Dan,
Here is what I said about that earlier.

Technically, the rule letting us store a gun locked in our cars at a prohibited place limits property rights as well. However, I see the parking lot rule for CHP holders, other than employees, as one of economy and efficiency. If I carry in my car, into the parking lot, then up to the door where I see a sign, I can go back to my car and lock up the gun without worrying about breaking the law. I can't necessarily know if a shop bans concealed carry unless I go up to the entrance. The rule allowing us to store a gun in the parked car on the property avoids an unknowing criminal violation (something usually avoided).

Employees, on the other hand, have full knowledge (or at least can be expected to know) of the their employer's policies.

ETA: The CHP exception for keeping a gun in your car is not an infringement of property rights, now that I think about it more. That is a situation where the government won't criminalize your behavior. However, there is nothing in the law that keeps a property owner from telling a patron to leave under penalty of trespass, even if the reason for such a demand is because the patron has a gun in their car.

I also note that it's not a criminal violation to carry a gun in your vehicle contrary to an employer's policy. In this way, patrons and employees are treated equally. Neither the patron or the employee is committing a crime and both can be told to leave.

[Dan W]

My point is the current law has created two unequal groups of permit holders, and fixing it would not pose an unreasonable burden on the property owner when one considers that the vast majority of legal concealed handguns can already enter and remain in the vehicle on that  same lot with impunity.

And Yes. Heller v DC held that reasonable restriction of the 2nd is allowed , though unspecified, and would have to be adjudicated in the normal course of legal process to determine just how "reasonable" a restriction can be, and what level of scrutiny to apply to the test ( I believe the said "strict scrutiny for 2A?)  That means that permits and licenses are probably Constitutional reasonable restrictions on the RKBA and that certain types of weapons  may be restricted, although the Supremes did say that commonly owned firearms like handguns and rifles are protected.

[unfy]

I think I've had about all of the input I can on the subject at the time being without beating a dead horse.

Seems to be an impasse - those who think property rights should take a back seat on this one versus those who don't.

Dan's equal protection of employees vs random blokes is also interesting, but I don't think has any legs on it. You don't have to be an employee... you *can* quit.

While hard to address due to unknown & random future actions, concealed carry employees getting fired on the spot is something to consider (being a no-cause state and all, which I happen to support as well heh).

As mentioned in the other thread concerning students - civil response to the public parking lot is an interesting note.  It ties into Dan's mention of bias against sex/race/religion/firearms as well.  For acadamia where there are laws regarding such things... simply 'expelling' a student is probably difficult... but firing someone is easy .

If the law does pass, I would expect property rights to be the primary vehicle for any court challenge... and I think you'd be hard pressed to win it.  I am not a lawyer, though .

If I happen to come up with any other new ideas concerning the topic, I'll be sure to pipe up.  Similar to if someone else has a new angle.

Gotta keep Andy flexing them lobbying muscles heheh

[Phantom]

In the past, I have been employed by companies with "no weapons" policies. I obeyed them. Now, I don't have to worry about it and carry at work.

Having "skin in the game" is irrelevant, though. It's about principle. If your principles change because you don't like the result in a personal situation, then they aren't really principles at all.

The position seems to be that this bill would be a "reasonable restriction" on property rights. Reasonable only because it has a result we like (and I do mean "we" since I think every employer should allow concealed carry). Other people think that restricting gun rights with "reasonable restrictions" such as capacity limits, AWB, registration etc. are reasonable because of some perceived idea of increased safety. How do the people here feel about those arguments?

But most Employees are hired before knowing the full scope of said company's " policies "

So I have to wonder a lot about this one.

Besides that we're talking about an Employer restricting what i can or can not have in my property even if it's parked on his property.

If we grant his right to have "reasonable restrictions" then shouldn't we also be granted "reasonable protections" such as armed guards, a fully monitored parking area, Fully fenced, fully lit, etc ?

Or do Employee rights not mater ?
To open another can of worms ......all of the property ultimately belongs to the state and he just pays a yearly least for the rights to use it.   

[unfy]

Random question, when does the presence of a firearm become "force" ?

I have a few coworkers who are anti-gun and for the first 3 months of my concealed carry they were uneasy.

Is bringing a weapon on to someone else's property considered an act of force ?  It's not being directed / pointed at anyone, not on your person, but by it's sheer presence is it considered 'force' ?

Lets go with a story. You're at [social spot] doing [social things].  There are people there who have a weapon in their vehicle.  They tend to be surly.  Knowing that, you purposely avoid any and all confrontation with them because you don't want them to go get it.  In this example, is the presence of the firearm in the vehicle considered 'force' ?

[DanClrk51]

Here's what happened in Oklahoma:

http://ehstoday.com/safety/ruling-guns-legal-lots-2761


I support LB335 because it is none of their business to dictate what items we have in our vehicles. Their policy not only affects us while we are parked at work but also on our way to and from work.
Some say its immoral to to accept a job and not honor the agreement that was made. I say its immoral to disarm another person on their way to and from work.
Also, I don't just sign my rights away when I sign a piece of paper. Rights cannot be waived. I don't give up my right to go to court if my employer is acting unlawfully. Just because I signed some waiver the employer made me sign to keep my job doesn't mean I give up my rights. Such an agreement holds no force of law.

Once again this is a property rights issue and its my property rights that are being violated as well as my right to keep and bear arms to and from work.

[Phantom]

when does the presence of a firearm become "force" ?

Humm interesting idea

I'd think it only becomes Force when the intent is there

If you don't Intend harm with it then there is no force

The Same Force argument could be applied to a Hammer, knife, Automobile or a baseball bat.
If any of these were brought on the property would they become Force ?

Or a pencil for that matter .....a small easily hidden wooden spike.
 

[unfy]

Dan: that's quite interesting.


For those wanting to skip the journalistic B.S. and just read the 10th's Opinion, it's here:

http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/05/05-7037.pdf

Reading it myself right now

[Husker_Fan]

Of course you can sign away your right to go to court. That's what binding arbitration is and I bet you've agreed to it numerous times, even if you didn't read the fine print. Look at a credit card agreement.

I also have a Constitutional right to interstate travel, though government need not provide the means. That doesn't mean my boss can't fire me for going to play slots at the boats in Council Bluffs instead of coming to work according to my employment agreement.

[unfy]

Reading the 10th's opinion above is confusing as all holy hell

Anyhoo, DanClark, DanW, Andy, Husker Fan, Citizen Clark, and Phantom should all read it.  Again the link is:

http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/05/05-7037.pdf

Starting around page -14- of the PDF (as the text says, not necessarily which 'page' of the pdf in raw form) begins the Court's opinion, skipping the background information (although the background is obviously important).

[Phantom]

confusing as all holy hell is an understatement

I read through a lot of it ...hard to tell if they were for the plaintiffs or the defendants haft the time

the geest i got was allowing public parking to coexist with employees was the deal breaker as well as not having a written gun policy (in their employee handbook) too boot.

Whew I think I'll go throw up now...reading that is TMI for sure.

[unfy]

Reading it... it seems to be....  well... weird.

2.  Restrictions on firearms in employee parking lot
While plaintiffs list this as a separate issue in their brief, it is essentially a
reiteration of their first issue discussed above.  We have concluded that § 1290.22
as written at the time of plaintiffs’ terminations, which authorizes Weyco to
restrict the bringing of firearms onto its property, including the employee parking
lot, is constitutional.  The fact that the public is permitted to use the parking lot
does not diminish its status as property belonging to Weyco.  Weyco did not
unlawfully infringe upon any right of plaintiffs in enforcing its no-firearms
policy.

1290.22 was:

The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his
home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when
thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing
herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the
carrying of weapons.

But there was an OK 'business rights' / property rights law:

Nothing contained in any provision of the Oklahoma Self
Defense Act . . . shall be construed to limit, restrict or prohibit in any
manner the existing rights of any person, property owner, tenant,
employer, or business entity to control the possession of weapons on
any property owned or controlled by the person or business entity.

..... This got further amended to allow storage of an unloaded weapon in a vehicle.

So.... in the 10th's opinion -- those that brought the case (the people fired) lost, because original law was favorable to property rights.

But the further amendments to the law makes things different for how the case would proceed now.... and that now, due to something like LB 335, employees could by law store weapons in their vehicles.  It continues to discuss 'reasonable regulation and stuff'.

As far as it stands now concerning property rights and self defense rights:

They further argue that this right
“trumps” any right of a business entity like Weyco to restrict the possession of
firearms on its property.  Moreover, they assert that the pre-amendment version of
§ 1289.22, which was in effect at the time plaintiffs were terminated, provides no
support for Weyco’s firearms policy because the statute, by its terms, only
protects the “existing rights . . . to control the possession of weapons” on its
property, and Weyco had no “existing right” to do something which interferes
with the fundamental and preeminent right to bear arms.
8
  We disagree

Without an LB 335, property rights won.

[unfy]

Conversely, the Court found that an LB 335 law was legal concerning property rights vs self defense rights stuff.  So if LB 335 passed, it would possibly stand against a court challenge.

This is all based off of OK Constitutional wording, for what it's worth as well.

So the decision here is if giving up property rights is fine compared to self defense rights .  My opinion is already quite clear hehehe.

[Phantom]

My head hurts

[Husker_Fan]

The employer won on every count in that case. As to the allegations of deprivations of 2nd and 4th Amendment rights, the court said that wasn't relevant because it was done by a private employer. Rights exist in relation to the State, not in relation to other people.

There really is no thorough discussion about a law like this because OK's law didn't exist yet. And even if a court says a deprivation of a private property right is legal, that doesn't make it right. Lot's of things that are wrong are legal.

[AAllen]

I am still trying to figure out what harm the property owner receives when a car is parked on his property, with his approval, that may have a locked and hidden weapon in it.  His property is being used for his intended purpose of having the car parked there.

Now if we were talking about my unregistered nuclear suitcase bomb it may be a different story, but since I would be a criminal anyway would I care if I trampled on his property rights?

[unfy]

The harm is that property owners are no longer allowed to restrict items that come on to their property by people who VOLUNTEER to come on to it.

Maybe I don't want bkoeing parking on my parking lot with one of his fully automatic triple barreled assault shotgun.

The fact that no one knows that the weapon is there doesn't change the fact the property owner doesn't want it there and has every right to insist it not be there.

I know that when I walk into someone's house for the first time, I declare that I concealed carry out of politeness to the house owner.  If they are unwilling to let me carry in their house I either leave or decide if I trust them with my safety and stow it in my vehicle.  I've had retired police officers suggest I don't do so and that I just concealed carry the entire time... but.... I respect another man's castle.

[Husker_Fan]

I am still trying to figure out what harm the property owner receives when a car is parked on his property, with his approval, that may have a locked and hidden weapon in it.  His property is being used for his intended purpose of having the car parked there.

Now if we were talking about my unregistered nuclear suitcase bomb it may be a different story, but since I would be a criminal anyway would I care if I trampled on his property rights?

That's just it. The car with a gun in it is not parked their "with his approval." The employer only approves of cars without guns.

Should an employer, say a church, be able to fire someone for having pornography in their car? After all, most porn is protected by the First Amendment.