NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Laws and Legislation => Topic started by: SHEP on January 21, 2013, 06:57:22 PM
-
"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 (http://www.1011now.com/nebraskacentralnews/home/headlines/Proposed-Law-Could-Allow-Guns-in-Workplace-Parking-Lots-187545061.html)
-
See also:
http://nebraskafirearms.org/forum/index.php/topic,7263.0/topicseen.html (http://nebraskafirearms.org/forum/index.php/topic,7263.0/topicseen.html)
-
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'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.
-
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 ?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
Amused that the discussion here is prolly more profound than in the unicameral :(
In particular property rights. It's got me pondering hehe.
-
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.
-
Here is how i look at it; my car is my property, what is inside my car is also my property.
+1
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (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.
-
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 ?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :(
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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"
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
I'll repeat, if your vehicle was an extension of your home, this would be cleared up in a heartbeat heh.
-
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.
-
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 (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.
-
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.
-
.
-
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?
Sure. Anti-discrimination laws violate the freedom of contract. That doesn't mean that I think people who discriminate on the basis of race or other such characteristics are nice, moral people. I think it is mean-spirited, immoral, and imprudent to run a business is such a manner, and I hope such folks go out of business. I don't think we need government punishing people for using their own stuff in stupid, mean ways.
-
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.
Are you a local LEO? The only reason I ask is because I don't think I've met one on here yet! It'd be nice to have the opinion of law enforcement available.
-
I think the question of whether or not a proprietor or employer should be on the hook for the injury or death of someone who, but for following the proprietor's policy, could have defended them-self or others, is an interesting one. Infringing on the proprietor's property right, is not the way to do it.
-
Sure. Anti-discrimination laws violate the freedom of contract. That doesn't mean that I think people who discriminate on the basis of race or other such characteristics are nice, moral people. I think it is mean-spirited, immoral, and imprudent to run a business is such a manner, and I hope such folks go out of business. I don't think we need government punishing people for using their own stuff in stupid, mean ways.
I couldn't agree more.
-
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.
-
Sure. Anti-discrimination laws violate the freedom of contract. That doesn't mean that I think people who discriminate on the basis of race or other such characteristics are nice, moral people. I think it is mean-spirited, immoral, and imprudent to run a business is such a manner, and I hope such folks go out of business. I don't think we need government punishing people for using their own stuff in stupid, mean ways.
That's where we part ways. I'm all for allowing the market to work various injustices out, but there comes a time when markets fail and regulation is needed. Like I said above, I see a big difference between immutable characteristics and those that we choose.
Of course, that's getting off topic for this thread, but I thought it might give a little insight into my thinking.
-
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?
My employer goes so far as to prohibit empty alcohol containers and empty shell casings from employee vehicles.
So if you are an enviromentally friendly sort, and pick up beer cans and brass casings and throw them in back of your vehicle, you could be subject to disiplinary action.
We are subject to search coming and going. I do not have a problem with this policy and I am always cooperative with the security people as they are just doing their jobs.
What I object to is the decision by my employer to disarm me during the hour of drive time I spend every shift, plus I tend to run errands before and after work.
I wish they had a secure locker area where employees could secure their weapons before work.
Greg58
-
Ain't it nice there are no laws prohibiting those of you who do not agree with your employers rights from going and getting another job? Just sayin.....
-
I have no problem disclosing my job. Although, I don't want say something i might regret in a future post and somehow associate myself in negative light to my work. Not disclosing specifics is considered, covering my ass. I'm a Corrections Corporal in the Omaha area. I personally do not consider myself LEO. Although I do work within the justice/law enforcement system. I do NOT have the powers to arrest.
-
Lets try to back this up a little to get some ... common ground.
2A = a right. We seem to agree.
Property rights = right of individual to do with their property as they see fit (within reason etc), we seem to agree.
Someone refusing armed persons on their own property. This was the action of the owner of the property and had nothing to do with the gov't. Gov't isn't involved until the property owner exercises their rights.... just as you would with any property rights complaint (trespassing, destruction of property, theft, etc).
LB 335 would now force property owners to give up some of their rights.
Now, lets approach this from a slightly different stand point.
Your vehicle is your property. The contents there-in are your property. Since NE doesn't have 'vehicle is extension of your home' law currently.... you might as well make the vehicle akin to a suitcase.
I take my vehicle/suitcase on to someone else's property. Do they have the right to refuse me to enter their property because they don't like the suitcase ? Yes.
Take this a step further. They are fine with me taking my vehicle/suitcase on to their property. After all, what's wrong with a suitcase ? There are other things that they don't like, and do NOT want on their property.
Do they have the right to search my vehicle/suitcase for things they don't like ? No. Concerning others here who do let people search their vehicle: you're allowing them to (and if you didn't, I imagine you'd get fired heh... was a stipulation of employment no doubt).
If someone happens to see you have unwanted items within your vehicle/suitcase (or a camera happens to be pointed your way etc)... shouldn't they have the right to ask you to leave ? It's their property.
Mostly outside of this discussion, I've heard people make mention that as long as it's kept locked up and out of sight, the weapon is fine and not a problem and none of the other person's business because the vehicle is your property etc. Where this falls apart is that what if you do get caught ? Someone walks by, a camera gets pointed your direction, whatever. You're now known to have something in your vehicle/suitcase which the property owner DOES NOT WANT on their land. Getting caught didn't make it all of the sudden 'wrong' (nor was it 'right' as long as you weren't getting caught).
Lets take this to something a little different. Free speech!
Let's say a 'free speech' version of 335 passed but was a bit broader in scope (just for simplicity).
How would you like for Sen. Ashford to be able to sit in your drive way for however long he wants. You can't ask him to leave just because you have a different political view. The Sen. has a right to free speech, you don't want him there because of his speech... but you are no longer allowed to ask him to leave.
As others have been pointing out -- your employer refusing to allow firearms on their property is their own action and have nothing to do with the gov't.
As others have been pointing out -- don't like employer conditions ? Nothing has required you to stay there in fear of punitive measures (outside of maybe breaking a contract).
So --- how is someone refusing to allow firearms on their property a violation of your own right to self defense ? How is a church asking an atheist to leave a violation of free speech or religion ?
You don't *have* to go there. You *can* go somewhere else.
Is it a major inconvenience to not keep the job ya want ? Darn tootin'.
-
How would you like for Sen. Ashford to be able to sit in your drive way for however long he wants. You can't ask him to leave just because you have a different political view. The Sen. has a right to free speech, you don't want him there because of his speech... but you are no longer allowed to ask him to leave.
As others have been pointing out -- your employer refusing to allow firearms on their property is their own action and have nothing to do with the gov't.
As others have been pointing out -- don't like employer conditions ? Nothing has required you to stay there in fear of punitive measures (outside of maybe breaking a contract).
So --- how is someone refusing to allow firearms on their property a violation of your own right to self defense ? How is a church asking an atheist to leave a violation of free speech or religion ?
You don't *have* to go there. You *can* go somewhere else.
Is it a major inconvenience to not keep the job ya want ? Darn tootin'.
There is a major difference between Senator Ashford or anyone else holding a free speech session in my drive way and my having a firearm in my vehicle at work. The free speech issue infringes upon my ability to use my driveway as I see fit, I want to park cars there play basketball etc. there, not hold political meetings. My having a firearm in my car does not take away from my employers use of his parking lot, it is being used for his intended purpose of me his employee parking there.
Also the .gov already infringes upon my use of my driveway, by blocking the street of and allowing block parties (licensed by the city) that spills into my yard and drive, by permitting construction (running underground water etc lines) for neighbors property and many other nuisances. An employer should be able to handle a the nuisance of me having a firearm inside the car that is parked in his parking lot by his authority.
-
Andy:
Nitpick the driveway ? easily rebutted as ok, my front yard, my porch, or willing to move around as i needed a particular space ... just like if employer asked me to move my vehicle, etc
A better retort would have been to go right-of-way stuff where the gov't can simply seize your land if someone pays enough money to have beaurocrats claim its in the best interest of the community.
The block party and construction that spills into your yard are also better arguments :). Blocking a driveway via public property is... weird though... and I'm unqualified to answer public / private property interaction.
But, two wrongs don't make a right.
Asking property owners to give up even more rights is bad.
I know I would be pissed if I couldn't insist that certain items couldn't be carried on to my land.
And just so this gets clarified - this has nothing to do with working at a bank or burger king, you're already able to store your weapon in the vehicle due to 'open to public' parking lot.
-
BTW, here's another thought.
Lets say this bill passes.
Boss finds out you concealed carry (or already knows), fires you on the spot so that he doesn't have to contend with *possibly* having a weapon on his premises.
-
So....UNFY. I can see that make many good points and are very knowledgeable on the subject. As you play "devils advocate" so much, its difficult for me to tell whether you're for or against LB 335. I, am for the bill. U?
-
Originally, I was very for it.
Now, I'm fairly against it.
My reasons for being against it are wholly idealogical.
One person's liberty ends the moment it encroaches on another's, and as far as '2a vs property' (which i see as a red herring anyway) ... property rights must come first.
I want to like the bill. I want people to be able to defend themselves and exercise self protection, but on fundamental grounds I can't support the bill.
I'll reiterate frustration at 'vehicle is not an extension of your home' in NE :(
-
Unfy here is the bottom line; the property owner is not being denied his use of his property, in fact that is being supported. He wants to allow his employees tha ability to park in his parking lot, nothing in the discussion/bill is taking that ability away. At the same time as allowing the property owner to have his property used as he wishes this bill recognizes that people may have another protected item inside their vehicle and asks (ok requires) the property owner to respect that.
There are limits to all rights including property rights, and when two rights come into conflict it must be detirmed which comes to more harm than the other as well as if there is some priority give one of the rights over another. In this instance 2A rights have legal priority, also the limit being placed upon the property owner is insignificant compared to the employee who may be placed in a life threatening situation when traveling outside of the parking lot.
Nobody has made an argument that says that the property owner in any way is being harmed by this bill. If the propety owner is being harmed in some way what is it?
-
Lets take a look at a similar item; Landowners have the right to say no hunting on their property, and that is legally enforceable. But if a hunter injures an animal and pursue it onto that landowners property for the purpose of humanly killing said animal, and recovering it; the landowner must by law allow that. Has the landowner had his rights limited, yes, but I don't hear anyone saying we should do away with fair pursuit laws.
-
Originally, I was very for it.
Now, I'm fairly against it.
My reasons for being against it are wholly idealogical.
One person's liberty ends the moment it encroaches on another's, and as far as '2a vs property' (which i see as a red herring anyway) ... property rights must come first.
I want to like the bill. I want people to be able to defend themselves and exercise self protection, but on fundamental grounds I can't support the bill.
I'll reiterate frustration at 'vehicle is not an extension of your home' in NE :(
I wonder if any of you folks defending the employers property rights have any "skin in the game"?
As someone directly effected by this restriction of my CHP rights of course I am for 335.
I have considered looking elsewhere for employment, but I have decided I like the work, pay, people, and skills I am learning where I am at.
So I go along with the rules and abide by them, but that cannot change the way I think about things.
I was self employed for 20+ years and employed several people over that time, believe me I had much more to worry about than what my employee had in his car. These rules seem overreaching and silly to me, if the State has checked my background and trusts me to walk around armed, what does my employer have to worry about if I have a firearm secured in "my" vehicle?
Greg58
-
And just so this gets clarified - this has nothing to do with working at a bank or burger king, you're already able to store your weapon in the vehicle due to 'open to public' parking lot.
But it does have to do with that; even though you or I as a member of the public with a CCP can park in those lots, leave our firearms in our cars (properly secured of course), the employees of that business can not. No they will not face criminal charges but they could and if caught would face termination, this is an attempt to give them some protection from that (very week protections with how Nebraska employment laws work).
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :)
-
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.
-
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' ?
-
Here's what happened in Oklahoma:
http://ehstoday.com/safety/ruling-guns-legal-lots-2761 (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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/05/05-7037.pdf)
Reading it myself right now :)
-
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.
-
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 (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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
My head hurts
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
Remind me to donate to NFOA again in February. Loving the discussion <3
-
I'm enjoying it too, if you couldn't tell.
-
I got a headache thinking about it ;D
Guess thats what i get for falling on my head :o
-
Loving the discussion <3
I was at work today, fixing cars with one hand an typing furiously with the other, and I can't type for ****
-
A healthy disagreement never killed anybody. I'm glad we've got a place where we can have discussions like this without the drama that other boards seem to have.
Besides, we can always go to a Fienstein thread where we will all likely agree.
-
(http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa61/LJUnaTIC/72934_333483543434468_1957481565_n.jpg)
-
I getting to like you more and more Super Dan :kiss:
-
I getting to like you more and more Super Dan :kiss:
I really should set a better example for the children
-
I really should set a better example for the children
WHAA....WHAA...WHAA....
-
I really should set a better example for the children
Some day, this might be a History Lesson.
-
Some day, this might be a History Lesson.
LOL as if :)
I've always been amazed at the level of conversations that occur in the NFOA forum. Even when people disagree, the arguments tend to be on firm foundations on both sides with respect and politeness given to opposing sides.
And.... to top it all off ... where else do you see / get involved in conversations about self defense vs property rights ?
<3
-
Lets take a look at a similar item; Landowners have the right to say no hunting on their property, and that is legally enforceable. But if a hunter injures an animal and pursue it onto that landowners property for the purpose of humanly killing said animal, and recovering it; the landowner must by law allow that. Has the landowner had his rights limited, yes, but I don't hear anyone saying we should do away with fair pursuit laws.
Just so you and everyone is aware because I used to believe this to be true as well but you are NOT allowed to retrieve that animal on other people's property. I have called and talked to a conservation officer about this. You must get the land owner's permission and he has no responsibility to allow you to retrieve. And if you do it without his permission you are trespassing. This is what he told me.
-
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.
Yep. And really, proponents should just read the bill. It is written not to prevent prosecution of innocent gun owners, but to penalize employers who make business decisions about the use of their own property and about whom they elect to employ. If this bill was merely about preventing folks from losing their permits to carry concealed, or about removing criminal penalties for folks tripped up by the ridiculous provisions of the state concealed carry law, I would be 100% in support of it. That isn't what this bill does.
Please, everyone who thinks this is about "gun freedom": read the bill. It is composed of a bundle of new restrictions on whom private employers may fire, and it creates new civil liabilities for employers. This is an attack on the freedom of contract and the right of entrepreneurs to direct their own enterprises and employees as they see fit.
-
Just so you and everyone is aware because I used to believe this to be true as well but you are NOT allowed to retrieve that animal on other people's property. I have called and talked to a conservation officer about this. You must get the land owner's permission and he has no responsibility to allow you to retrieve. And if you do it without his permission you are trespassing. This is what he told me.
You are absolutely correct.