• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

USA Today: States consider gun-access laws

Joined
Apr 7, 2007
Messages
543
Likes
4
Location
Douglas, MA
Feedback: 7 / 0 / 0
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-02-20-gunlaws_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip

Some companies in several states could be barred from telling their employees to keep their guns at home if lawmakers prevail in a battle that pits gun rights advocates against private businesses.
While no state allows workers to carry weapons into the workplace, at least six states — Alaska, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi and Oklahoma — have enacted legislation prohibiting some employers from barring their workers from leaving guns locked in their cars in employee parking lots.

Now, several more states are considering such laws. Supporters say licensed gun owners should have access to their weapons in case they need them for self-defense on the trek to and from home.

If employers can ban guns from workers' cars, "it would be a wrecking ball to the Second Amendment," which governs the right to bear arms, says Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association (NRA).

Many business organizations and gun-control advocates argue, however, that such laws clash with employers' responsibility to maintain safe workplaces and their right to determine what to allow on their private property.

These laws are "a systematic attempt to force guns into every nook and cranny in society and prohibit anyone, whether it's private employers (or) college campuses … from barring guns from their premises," says Brian Siebel, senior attorney for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

There were 516 workplace homicides — 417 of them caused by gunfire — in 2006, the most recent tally available, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. "There's certainly no need to allow guns in these parking lots," Siebel says. "The increased risks are obvious."

The moves to ensure that workers can have guns locked up in workplace parking lots come at a time of high-stakes debate over gun rights. The Supreme Court is likely to rule this year on whether Washington, D.C., can continue its 32-year-old ban on residents owning handguns.

States considering bills to expand workers' gun rights:

•Arizona. State Rep. Jonathan Paton, a Republican, says he sponsored his bill last month after a constituent told him he drives isolated roads to work but is not allowed to keep a handgun in his car. "It just comes down to the right of self-defense," Paton says.

•Tennessee. The proposed legislation, introduced in January, excludes correctional facilities and properties owned by the federal government. An amendment may be added to allow businesses that have secure parking areas that are less prone to crime to ban guns there.

"I respect property and business rights," says state Sen. Paul Stanley, a Republican sponsoring the bill. "But I also think that some issues need to overshadow this. … We have a right to keep and bear arms."

•Georgia. The legislature is considering a bill to allow licensed gun owners to leave their gun in a locked vehicle on their company's parking lot if the employer permits it.

The NRA and other gun rights advocates began pushing the parking lot legislation after Weyerhaeuser in 2002 fired several of its Oklahoma employees when guns were found in their vehicles, violating company policy.

Two years later, Oklahoma's Legislature passed a law prohibiting employersfrom banning guns locked inside parked cars. A federal judge in October issued a permanent injunction against the law, a decision being appealed.

The laws are being considered as the number of states that allow a law-abiding adult to carry a concealed gun in public has reached 40, legal experts say.

"It's part of the general movement to allow people to have guns for self-defense not only at home, but in public places where they're most likely needed," says Eugene Volokh, a professor at UCLA School of Law who specializes in gun policy. He says employers face more constraints than in the past.

LaPierre says laws that allow people holding proper permits to carry firearms for personal protection are largely nullified when employers can prohibit workers from locking a gun in their parked cars. "Saying you can protect yourself with a firearm when you get off work late at night is meaningless if you can't keep it in the trunk of your car when you're at work," he says.

Some constitutional law experts say the Second Amendment does not give gun owners a constitutionally protected right to carry their weapons onto somebody else's private property when the owner doesn't want them to.

"If I said to somebody, 'You can't bring your gun into my house,' that person's rights wouldn't be violated," says Mark Tushnet, a Harvard Law School professor.

The American Bar Association sides with business owners, supporting "the traditional property rights of private employers and other private property owners to exclude" people with firearms.

Steve Halverson, head of Jacksonville-based construction company Haskell, says business owners should be able to decide whether to allow weapons in their parking lots. "I object to anyone telling me that we can't … take steps necessary to protect our employees," says Halverson, who enforces safety measures ranging from banning guns to requiring workers to wear hard hats.

"The context is workplace safety, and that's why it's important," he says. "The larger issue is property rights, and whether you as a homeowner and I as a business owner ought to have the right to say what comes onto our property."
 
So they don't have a problem when the law says they cannot discrimiate against Black, Spanish or people with kids. They don't have a problem when the law says they must accomidate the handicapped. But gun rights is different?
 
So they don't have a problem when the law says they cannot discrimiate against Black, Spanish or people with kids. They don't have a problem when the law says they must accomidate the handicapped. But gun rights is different?

You make a good point Gene and I’m completely with you on it. Your right to defend yourself should trump just about anything else.

To play devil’s advocate though, it’s a tough call. I’m all for people rights on private property and I complain whenever I feel those rights are being peeled away me. For instance the better part of my property is useless because a few beavers decided to camp out and the tree huggers got laws passed that make it very difficult to do anything about it. I’m not even supposed to knock down the dam and that pisses me off a little.

I do see the difference between not being able to use my yard and have to watch it be destroyed buy rodents and something as harmless as locking your gun in your car. I want to stress I’m not defending the employers. I’m just pointing out its going to be a tough fight.

Just my 2 cents.
[grin]
 
If, a person wants a property completely "Gun Free", that is their right.

However, if you permit people to park on your property, I fail to see how you can dictate what that person can or can't have inside their personal vehicle. If a firearm stored properly is to be specifically prohibited, then what is to stop the prohibition of political stickers or religious items?

Imagine the outcry if a Ratheon decreed that all Masonic symbols had to be removed from the company premises.
 
The usual argument is "if you don't like the rules then don't work
there"

On the other hand, I think that people at least should have the right to protect themselves at least while on their own time. And last I knew most companies don't pay you for commuting, gas, etc... so until they do that, they should stay the hell away from their employee's cars.

The problem is if you extend this concept of "private property rights" to the nth degree, (eg, via binding signage, company rules, etc) it ends up becoming a de-facto gun ban. The antis can still win in the end game by getting away with this- not much different then the "next phase" of the anti gun agenda of shutting down outdoor shooting ranges/clubs. (If the antis lose big in Heller, or other related legislation, you can be sure the antis will go after the clubs next... I guarantee it. Hell, to some degree they already are... look at the lancaster/clinton thing for an example... the people pushing that might not be sponsored by brady, but they might as well be. ) It's a matter of them pulling "death by a thousand cuts" on the civil side as opposed to a criminal/legislative law side. The net effect in the end is the same, more or less.

The argument of "get a different job" also falls flat on its face if 85% of industry has the same rules. Generally speaking, a company is not going to change its policy to accommodate a 1% minority unless the law forces them to do so. (Edit: it might work, if you can find a different employer that at least has provisions to park your car outside of their lot... but in some areas this would increase the possibility of your gun/car getting stolen!)

I'm not saying we should strip away the right of the employer to dictate certain things, but a line has to be put
in the sand as to what is or isn't acceptable. I'd be one thing if this was an issue of someone wanting to
carry on the job or not, it's another for an employer to go poking around inside property that they don't even own. (your vehicle. ).


-Mike
 
Last edited:

No state has passed a law that lets the right to carry trump the private property interests of employers.

Wouldn't it be easier to pass a law that exempts employers from liability if someone brings a gun to work and starts offing his/her cow-orkers? I mean, sure, you're supposed to know that continually stealing Milton's stapler for your TPS reports is going to irritate him, but why make let everyone sue the company for his eventual rampage? [smile]
 
Steve Halverson, head of Jacksonville-based construction company Haskell, says business owners should be able to decide whether to allow weapons in their parking lots. "I object to anyone telling me that we can't … take steps necessary to protect our employees," says Halverson, who enforces safety measures ranging from banning guns to requiring workers to wear hard hats.

"The context is workplace safety, and that's why it's important," he says. "The larger issue is property rights, and whether you as a homeowner and I as a business owner ought to have the right to say what comes onto our property."
You're protecting them by disarming them? What classic double-speak. Tell me, Steve, exactly HOW that "protects" them. Are YOU out there with a gun? Yeah, I thought not.
If, a person wants a property completely "Gun Free", that is their right.
I'm trying to remember where in the Constititution it says that a publicly owned company is the same as a person...

Imagine the outcry if a Ratheon decreed that all Masonic symbols had to be removed from the company premises.
Imagine the outcry when so many Raytheon employees left en masse. But this is a case where they'd be infringing on FIRST Amendment rights, not Second... and Second Amendment is definitely the red-headed stepchild here. [frown]
 
There were 516 workplace homicides — 417 of them caused by gunfire — in 2006, the most recent tally available, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. "There's certainly no need to allow guns in these parking lots," Siebel says. "The increased risks are obvious."

Yea, that "gun free" zone worked so well. [thinking]
 
Back
Top Bottom