VA - House Votes "Yes" To Guns On Employer's Property

[Kevlar]

http://www.richmondbizsense.com/2010/02/21/bring-your-gun-to-work-house-votes-yes/

The House of Delegates passed a bill last week ensuring that employees, customers, tenants and other Virginians can store their guns in a locked vehicle on a public parking lot.

House Bill 171, approved on a 72-27 vote, says, “No person, property owner, tenant,employer, or business entity shall maintain, establish, or enforce any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting a person who may lawfully possess a firearm from storing a firearm locked in or locked to a firearms rack in a motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking space, or other similar property set aside for motor vehicles.”

Currently, employers and property owners have the right to bar employees or other people from leaving a handgun in a car in their parking lot.

“Our Second Amendment rights should not be taken away because we decide to park in a parking lot to go to a business,” said the bill’s sponsor, Delegate Brenda Pogge, R-Yorktown.

However, some business owners raised issues involving safety and property rights.

“Business owners ought to regulate and determine the conduct of their employees and customers in a reasonable fashion,” said Keith Cheatham of the Virginia Chamber of Commerce.

Employers are also concerned that having guns on the premises raises the potential for workplace violence.

In 2007, Virginia had 15 shooting-related workplace fatalities, according to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics.

However, David Adams, president of the Virginia Shooting Sports Association, an affiliate of the National Rifle Association, said gun owners won’t cause problems by leaving their weapons in their cars.

“Most law-abiding gun owners are not going to do that, especially concealed gun owners that are already not committing crimes,” Adams said.

Virginia has not had a known case of an employee being fired for having a gun in his car while at work. However, firings have happened in other states.

As a result, Tennessee, Florida and Oklahoma have adopted laws similar to HB 171. The National Rifle Associations is pushing the legislation at statehouses nationwide.

The idea for such laws originated in Oklahoma, where eight employees of a company were fired for having handguns in their car while at work.

Oklahoma then passed a law to prevent such terminations. This year, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law as constitutional. A Florida court ruled the law there to be constitutional as well.

Some Virginia business owners fear HB 171 could cause headaches.

“From a loss prevention perspective to property rights, we’re living in difficult times,” said Laurie Aldrich, president of the Virginia Retail Merchants Association.

HB 171 would provide civil immunity to employers, property owners, business owners and others.

“No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall be liable in any civil action for any occurrence that results from or is connected to the use of a firearm that was lawfully stored” in a locked parked car, the bill says.

Cheatham from the chamber said HB 171 would infringe on business owners’ property rights.

“If I don’t want to have people with guns in their car come to my property, the General Assembly doesn’t have the business to tell me,” he said.

At least one business owner – Fahs Wood of Martin and Wood Construction in Richmond – doesn’t see it that way.

“I don’t see how this infringes on my rights as an employer,” Woof said. “It’s their car, not mine.”

The legislation would affect other Virginia employers such as Dominion, one of the nation’s largest energy producers. Dominion, like a majority of employers in the area, currently prohibits employees from keeping a gun in their car while at work, company spokesman Mark Lazenby said.

A bill similar to HB 171 was introduced in 2006 by Delegate L. Scott Lingamfelter, R-Woodbridge. It passed the House but was defeated in the Senate.

 

[RKG]

While it is easy -- and tempting -- to applaud legislation such as this in our particular circumstances, one thing should be understood: this statute is exactly the same -- and is equally valid or not -- as a statute that would say, "No person shall enact or enforce any prohibition against a solicitor for [MassPIRG/PETA/Insert the group you hate the most) from knocking on anyone's door and soliciting money."

 

[RobXD]

hehe,paul helmke is going to get diaria ....its not good for brady bunch lately...not good

 

[vicpinto]

Another example of the .gov overstepping it boundaries. What's the difference between telling me I have to do something on my own private property OR being forced to buy mandatory OBAMAcare insurance for instance? Nothing, that's what.

If I was an employer I'd turned the parking lot into a vegetable garden. Screw you.

 

[TomH]

Private businesses should be allowed to set their own rules. Sounds like government overstepping it's authority to me.

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

Private businesses should be allowed to set their own rules. Sounds like government overstepping it's authority to me.

Tom, I'm going to have to disagree. Forcing an owner to allow it in their facility would be overstepping. Allowing you to lock it in your car should be a basic right.

 

[vicpinto]

Allowing you to lock it in your car should be a basic right.

Really? What article and/or amendment in the Constitution did you find that? That car is still parked on private property and that owner can set his own rules. You can lock it in your car if you want to park on the street (public property).

I don't have an issue with, nor is this about cars or guns. This type of overstepping by the .gov applies to alot of things. It's about the slow erosion of all our liberties while some of us sit back and think that it's a great idea.

 

[Pete85]

I have a problem with the government overstepping their bounds in a situation like this. The law can be written much better to still respect property rights and the rights of the people to self defense. Allow companies to decide whether they allow employees to have guns or become 100% civilly and criminally responsible for employees' safety on company property. In other words any property owner must decide:
1. Allow the people who have a legal right to be on the property the right to defend themselves, and waive yourself/company etc of any responsibility for it. or
2. Deny the people their right to protect themselves, but the property owner/company now becomes fully responsible for their safety.

The rights of both sides are now respected.

 

[william_munny]

I hate to say it, but I have to agree with the nay-sayers here. This is another one of those things where just because it benefits you, it doesn't make it right.

 

[SecondAmdFirst]

Really? What article and/or amendment in the Constitution did you find that? That car is still parked on private property and that owner can set his own rules. You can lock it in your car if you want to park on the street (public property).

I don't have an issue with, nor is this about cars or guns. This type of overstepping by the .gov applies to alot of things. It's about the slow erosion of all our liberties while some of us sit back and think that it's a great idea.

Read the words.....I said SHOULD....not IS