Texas Employees Right To Keep Guns In Parked Cars Bill To Be Heard

[X_Digger]

http://www.ammoland.com/2011/02/23/texas-employees-right-to-keep-guns-in-parked-cars-bill-to-be-heard/

Houston, Tx --(Ammoland.com)- HB 681 by Kleinschmidt to be heard in House Business and Industry Committee!

Background: HB 681 by Rep. Tim Kleinschmidt (R-Lexington) TSRA’s Parking Lot Bill

Everyday 400,000 Texas Concealed Handgun Licensees make a decision between their personal safety and their employer’s No-Gun employment policies. The courts have ruled that a person may give up certain rights to secure employment. Texans should not be forced to make such a decision.

HB 681 is limited to the legal possession of a firearm and ammunition when stored out of sight in a private vehicle parked on property controlled by the employer. It doesn’t include the UPS truck or a vehicle provided by that employer. The firearm must stay in the vehicle at all times.

Due to Texas's Motorist Protection Act (2009), Texans don't need a concealed handgun license to store their firearms in their cars. This law is an interesting intersection between the private property rights of two groups.

[RamboLiberal]

1. I'm in favor of such laws

I don't think an employer's no gun policy should strip my right of having that firearm available for self-defense (or even just to go target shooting or hunting after work) if the firearm is kept in my private vehicle.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[S_B_Jackson]

5. The issue is that most business do not own their building or lot in which they operate...

they lease from someone else. So their employee's possession, in their vehicle, of a firearm IS NOT the employer's call.

If they do own the property, and the entrance to the lot is not prominently posted with state-mandated 30.06 signs, the employer should not be able to assert or enforce a "no firearms" policy on their employees vehicles.

Too, there is the issue as to whether the lot in which their vehicle is parked is open to the public. If so, again, the employer should not be able to enforce a "no firearms" policy.

[Maine_Nurse]

21. The other issue is...

that your vehicle is legally considered an extension of your home, which is why an officer needs a search warrant for a vehicle search, just as they do for a home search. Employer has no rights to what is legally in your car or not. Either completely ban parking on owned property or get over it.

[S_B_Jackson]

41. Excellent point and I fully agree. n/t

[speltwon]

89. Except it is wrong under the law...

See my other post and see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_v._United_States

A case from 1925. Hardly new law.

[speltwon]

88. Not true under federal constitutional law standards. Wrong on the law

Under the "Carroll doctrine" and others, officers do NOT under federal guidelines need a search warrant for a car in many cases that they have probable cause, where they would for a house. There is a much higher expectation of privacy in a residence, as well as the fact that the vehicle is a movable conveyance, etc. This has been established case law for decades.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_v._United_States

Carroll was decided in 1925. Hardly noew law.
Many states, mine included, have much greater protections against vehicle searches than the federal standard, but that's due to state constitution not federal.

A vehicle is not considered an extension of the home under constitutional law.

However, I *do* support this bill and any other law that allows employees to keep a (legal) gun or for that matter political materials, political bumper stickers, medical marijuana, etc. in their car while on employer property.

[rrneck]

6. The Koch brothers wold love you. nt

[RamboLiberal]

13. Really - some like the Koch brothers speak out of both sides

Wouldn't surprise me some of their facilities would ban employee guns while hiring Wackenhut guards.

And I work for a bunch of RW'ers. Now they have never said anything about me keeping my gun in the car but they'd sure frown upon me carrying in the building.

[Horse with no Name]

4. I have NO problem with that as long as YOU

are willing to be 100% responsible for YOUR weapon...even if your car gets stolen and the person goes on a murderous spree using YOUR weapon.

I fully support YOU being responsible for YOUR gun.

With that caveat, I would absolutely support YOUR gun rights.

[GreenStormCloud]

7. Are you willing to be responsible for you car being stolen and used in crime?

The thief flees the police in a high-speed chase and rams into a van full of kids. By your standard you are responsible because it was your car.

[Horse with no Name]

11. No. It is apples and oranges.

But nice try.

Guns are, by design, made to kill things.

Cars are, by design, made to drive.

If you are not willing to be 100% responsible for YOUR deadly appendage, then you have no business owning one.

[Maine_Nurse]

17. Except vehicles are more deadly--apples to apples.

Vehicles have definitely been used as weapons and kill and injure far more people that firearms do no matter what their intended use.

[Horse with no Name]

20. If my car is stolen and used for it's intended use

Nobody gets hurt.

If your gun is stolen and used for it's intended use, someone will die or be injured.

Now, if I had a knife fetish and my machete was stolen, then yes, that is the same argument.

If I had heroin in my house and someone stole it and someone OD'd on it, then yes, it is the same argument.

But...intended use is the key.

My car wasn't made to kill people. Your gun was. It really is a simple argument.

But it tells me that MANY gun owners want their guns but are unwilling to be 100% responsible for that gun. That is quite disturbing.

[Maine_Nurse]

25. Faulty claims...

A machete is designed to hack brush/foliage, not kill people. Firearms aren't all designed to kill people either and don't you dare to go off about a handgun only being for killing people. You come on up to my house and I'll open up my septic tank so you can tell the last moose I shot (with my Ruger handgun) that he isn't really dead, digested, and excreted since my evil handgun is only designed to kill humans. And yes, that is the handgun that stays in my truck with me.

Intended use is the key, my intent isn't for anyone to use anything of mine, whether car, firearm, or kitchen steak knife to kill someone illegally. My intent is to be able to hunt, shoot for fun, and defend myself if necessary. When your car is stolen, there is a high chance that it will be used in a crime of some sort besides the theft itself. It might be used in a drive-by shooting, it might be chopped into pieces that are sold to others, it might even be used directly as a weapon. That makes its "intent" just as harmless as the intent of my firearm for the owner and all about the intent of the illegal possessor.

Get over your false "responsibility" crap. Either you be completely responsible for everything that you own or have ever owned, or leave it alone.

[Horse with no Name]

28. Don't you DARE put YOUR words in my mouth.

I said "the intention of a gun is to kill". It isn't the only USE, but it is the INTENTION of it.

I DID NOT say to kill humans.

It is used to kill. Period.

Get over yourself.

Be responsible for your gun or don't own it.

[Ken_Fish]

30. Thanks for your suggestion. It has been filed and noted

seriously I extend the same responsibility to a firearm that I would a schedule 2 narcotic. I will use common sense to secure it and keep it safe, because it is a pain in the ass to replace.

However if someone steals my car and takes an entire bottle of darvocet drops dead, still not my fault.

If they bring little timmy along and while stealing my car and he eats a pile of oxy well, still not my fault.

[Maine_Nurse]

31. Another faulty claim then. Not all firearms are intended to kill anything more than paper.

And yeah, I do often drive to work with a target firearm in my vehicle so that I can stop and shoot on my way home. Most of my firearms are specifically for killing, but not all of them. Even my "defensive" weapons are INTENDED only for LAWFUL killing, if the need ever arose. There is no intent for unlawful anything, just like you have no INTENT for your vehicle to be used for unlawful purposes.

I am responsible for my tools when they are under my possession and my control. When that control is illegally taken away from me, they are no longer my responsibility, no more than if you had a bottle of pain killers at home for a back injury and they were stolen resulting in someone overdosing and dying.

[Horse with no Name]

32. Interesting. You do know it is against federal law to have firearms on hospital property?

But I guess, you only want the "rights", not the "responsibilities" of gun ownership.

I getcha.

:hi:

[Maine_Nurse]

35. Not true, and I don't park on hospital property so I don't care.

My employment isn't at a facility that has its own parking. But it is also not against federal law to have a weapon in your vehicle on hospital property. Not sure where you came up with that. States are able to enact that, but many federal firearms provisions also defer to state law. Even though, broadly, it is federally unlawful to carry on school property, that is deferred to states which may have specific exceptions such as CCW holders being allowed or other situations.

[Glassunion]

36. And what federal law would that be?

With the exception of veteran's hospitals(government building) what federal law stipulates that you cannot legally carry in a hospital?

[S_B_Jackson]

43. No, Horse, it is not.

Most states with CCW laws allow the carry of firearms into hospitals UNLESS they post the property otherwise.

[X_Digger]

48. Cite the law. Go right ahead. I'll wait. n/t

[PavePusher]

73. Cite to evidence...

else you are badly misinformed, or lying.

[PavePusher]

72. "It is used to kill. Period."

Utter fucking bullshit.

You have made a fail-post.

[S_B_Jackson]

40. Strange.......

I have shot firearms for my entire life. My handguns have never once killed or injured anything. The rifles have never killed or injured ANYONE, though they have been used to kill game which has then graced my table.

A firearm is made to fire a projectile at a distant object. The intent is to hit what it is pointed at...but the gun doesn't care whether that target is animate or inanimate, or whether it is living or dead. You may intend well, but as the saying goes, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

[beevul]

45. The question was...

The question was:

"Are you willing to be responsible for you car being stolen and used in crime?"

Unless you believe that "used in a crime" is the intended use of a vehicle, you simply haven't made any point, nor have you refuted any point, nor have you answered the question.

"My car wasn't made to kill people. Your gun was. It really is a simple argument."

Both are made to be used legally.

The question, is if you're equally willing to be responsible for ILLEGAL use of your car if its stolen, as you ask others to be with their firearms if they are stolen.

Its a fair question.


Why don't you answer it.

[ileus]

47. Guns are made to save lives....not take them

[RSillsbee]

90. Using my gun for it's intended use

Outside of the military I have used my guns for their intended use for years and have yet to hurt or kill anyone.

[GreenStormCloud]

27. Same concept. You are responsible for your property after it is stolen - your rules.

What the property is intended for is irrelevant.

[rrneck]

29. Designed to kill WHO?

When you typed that post your computer functioned as designed. Any number underpaid chinese workers were probably injured in it's production and more will probably be injured in this disposal.

Exactly who was the gun designed to kill? That is an open question you cannot answer. Any gun may be used for offense or defense. The only person that can be held responsible for a crime committed with a gun is the person who pulled the trigger.

[rrneck]

10. Deal.

As soon as you are responsible for the production and responsible disposal and recycling of the computer upon which you typed that post.

[Horse with no Name]

12. Another convoluted argument. But nice try. n/t

[RamboLiberal]

14. And if I leave them at home they are equally likely to get stolen

I'll take my chances of them in my car. We've never had a vehicle stolen from our lot in the 20 years I've worked here.

[Horse with no Name]

16. I have no problem with it.

But I do feel that ALL gun owners should be held 100% accountable and responsible for their guns.

I'm not against gun rights.

I don't care if you own a thousand guns--if YOU are willing to be responsible for that many guns, then that is your choice. Of course, if it is stolen, the person that does the shooting should be held responsible--but the gun owner should to.

But I have EVERY right to be safe to choose NOT to carry a gun and if I get injured or killed from YOUR gun because you were irresponsible with it, then you should be held 100% responsible for what YOUR gun does.

The intended use of a gun is to kill things. When it does what it is designed to do, it isn't an accident. It is negligence by the owner.

[Ken_Fish]

23. Name one other legally owned product to that sillyness.

say someone steals my car and there is a fifth of jack in the front seat. (unopened) If they consume that alcohol (its intended purpose) then use my car to kill people am I responsible?

Really that is silly and why should gun owners make any compromise with the anti crowd. Its a post brown v board world. Heller changes the rules.

The law may pass but it will not carry this stipulation.

[Horse with no Name]

24. Another gunner unwilling to be 100% responsible for your weapon. n/t

[Ken_Fish]

26. Once an asshole steals it, not mine anymore. I call USAA they pay for the car and the weapon

I replace it. It is then stolen property, its user is solely controlled by its operator. not at all my problem. Care to discuss the bottle of jack? If they drink it and smash into a bud full of nuns, is that my problem?

You realize that gun control is going the way of jim crow on the platform. Sure some people here and there supported jim crow long after it was recognized as morally and economically wrong, but the world moved on.

[beevul]

46. Because you're asking for an additional layer of responsibility...

Because you're asking for an additional layer of responsibility on someone elses private property that you yourself are not willing to shoulder on your own private property.

Hypocritical much?

[X_Digger]

49. Why aren't you willing to be 100% responsible for your car? n/t

[PavePusher]

74. Horse shit.

A lawful gun owner who rightfully refuses to be responsible for the actions of criminals.

Note that you have dodged/denounced any attempt to get you to claim responsibility for YOUR stolen property.

[GreenStormCloud]

60. You are strongly against gun rights. We aren't fooled.

We get lots of posters down here who try to claim to be for gun rights and then stake out positions that are hostile to gun rights.

[Ken_Fish]

22. Sounds Great. Guess they will all belong to an LLC, like the one

that this message board operates under.

[jpak]

2. Hire at will - fire at will

yup

[rrneck]

9. The Koch brothers would love you.

Very progressive and labor friendly.

Authoritarian dupe fail.

[jpak]

8. Yet another stupid gun bill by asshole republics

yup

[RamboLiberal]

15. Good bill

Yep

[jpak]

19. Stupid republic gun bill

yup

[Maine_Nurse]

34. Too bad things of this nature are widely supported by many Democrats too...

Lets look at our home state. Not very conservative overall (see thread at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x506491), yet you know how much we like our firearms and hate ridiculous restrictions. Interestingly, we have very high rates of ownership and very lax firearms restrictions, yet have a very low rate of firearm crimes and deaths, much like Vermont which has even less firearms restriction than we do.

[S_B_Jackson]

44. Republics???????

Texas hasn't been a republic for 165 years. Apparently no one has informed you.......

[jpak]

52. Ummmm.... as long as the "republics" call the Democratic Party the "Democrat (sic) Party"

I will call them republics

yup

[rl6214]

67. Only you

aaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Hoopla Phil]

70. LMAO

that was funny!

[Euromutt]

105. Yeah, look, why don't you save that for the fora where you might actually run into some "republics"?

Nobody here is going to be bothered by your intended slight at Republicans, so the only effect of your using the word "republic" to indicate something it doesn't mean is to unnecessarily confuse the discussion. Call 'em "Rethugs" or "Repukes" if you must; at least then we'll have some inkling of what the fuck you're on about. Because that is frankly difficult enough as it is.

[krispos42]

107. I call them "Repubes"

Seems more appropriate, somehow. LOL

[rl6214]

53. More with the asshole republics

Which one?

20th Century and LaterPanama (est. 1903)
Portugal (est. 5 October 1910)
Azerbaijan (est. 18 May 1918, lost independence to Soviet Russia on 28 April 1920), first democratic parliamentary republic in the Muslim world
Commonwealth of the Philippines (1935–1946)
Second Spanish Republic (de jure: 1931–1939) (de facto: 1931-1975)
Fourth French Republic (1946–1958)
Republic of the Philippines (1946, fully independent from the United States of America, inaugurated on 4 July 1946)
Albania (est. 1946)
Ireland (est. 1949)
India (est. 1950)
Fifth French Republic (since 1958)
Algeria (est. 1962)
Singapore (est. 1965)
Afghanistan (est. 1973)
Nepal (est. 2008)
Zimbabwe

[spin]

18. For many years in Florida you could have a firearm in your employer's parking lot ...

because Florida law allowed you to carry a loaded firearm in your vehicle.

No body thought anything about it. Someone would buy a new firearm and we would all walk out to his car to check it out.

Then some people who were opposed to firearms suggested that companies should be held liable if an employee who had a firearm in his car while at work misused it.

Consequently, many companies ruled that you couldn't have a firearm in your car in their parking lot. Eventually, Florida passed a law that does allow people to bring a firearm with them to work and leave it in their locked vehicle. The big change was that in order to do this you have to have a concealed weapons permit. Some companies are exempt from this law.

So far the law has worked well (which isn't surprising at all).

Crist signs bring your gun to work bill
Tuesday, April 15, 2008

TALLAHASSEE — Employers and business owners can no longer bar workers and shoppers from bringing guns onto their property and leaving the weapons locked inside their vehicles under a bill signed into law today by Gov. Charlie Crist.

The new law allows employees and visitors who have concealed weapons licenses to leave their weapons locked in or to vehicles. But concealed weapons license records are not available for public inspection so businesses would have no way of verifying if employees actually have the licenses.

The business community objected to the bill, backed by the National Rifle Association, saying property owners should be able to have control over whether people can bring guns to work.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/state/content/state/epaper/2008/04/15/0415gunsatwork.html

To all those who always panic at such stories, RELAX! The sky is not falling.

[Hoyt]

33. God forbid the gun-obsessed can't leave their weapons in an employer's parking lot.

You guys always gave to have stats. Got any stats on how many people have been shot because they had to leave their guns at home? Probably pretty low, maybe zero.

Plenty of ways to protect yourself without a gun, so why always take the easy way out. Nothing is likely to happen anyway.

[Glassunion]

37. "Plenty of ways to protect yourself without a gun"

Such as?

[RamboLiberal]

38. You all like to say 1 is too many

I'd rather have the option just in case that I am not that 1 who may have survived if I just had my gun - which I didn't bring because some dumbass employer thought banning guns in employee's cars made everyone safer.

[Hoyt]

39. Hardly a dumbass. Sounds like a progressive employer to me.

I suspect most carriers ignore the employer's mandate. Public gun carriers just can't be without their gun(s), too much anxiety for em.

[RamboLiberal]

42. And some are so paranoid here they think that gun

will just jump out and shoot them by itself.

Yeah like killers obey gun laws! Or a policy would prevent a work place shooting.

[Hoyt]

50. No, I don't want my family exposed to people walking around with guns in public. It's that simple.

Plus, I don't want some weekend paper target shooter playing cowboy if an unlikely situation like Tuscon arises. If one is not in law enforcement, guns should be left at home. I might make an exception for someone walking down a long deserted road in the back woods of Mississippi. But in a public place where lots of folks are -- guns are simply not necessary, wise, or of benefit to society.

[slackmaster]

51. You don't have that option

Sorry.

[Hoyt]

61. Actually I do have that option, it' called my opinion. Gun toters are a blight on our society.

It is that simple. Carry if you want, no matter what the other 300 million non-toters think.

Just because you supposedly have the "right" to wear your gun proudly strapped to your leg in church or wherever, doesn't mean you ought to do it.

[Ken_Fish]

76. Right, you dont have the right to not see two dudes kiss in public..

the right to play on a jew free golf course, and you dont have the right to never see a gun in public.

That, my friend, is the reality you live in. Move on.

[Hoyt]

78. Guns in public are different. I think they can and should be highly regulated.

But, persist with your seriously flawed and ludicrous comparison to human/civil rights.

[X_Digger]

79. "Because I say so" only works on your kids. Try again. n/t

[Hoopla Phil]

80. "(Blacks) in public are different. I think they can and should be highly regulated."

Do yo see how that works yet? Civil rights are civil rights - weather you agree with them or not.

THAT is precisely why we have a republic rather than a strict democracy.

[Hoyt]

81. Guns are a choice, clearly. And a very bad one. Give me a break.

[Hoopla Phil]

96. I see you don't understand that whole "civil rights thing" yet.

I am hopeful though.

[Maine_Nurse]

55. Then you probably should keep your family at home. There are an awful lot...

of armed citizens out here, including many of us Democrats. I don't like little kids in restaurants, thus I don't go to restaurants that are likely to have kids there. Just the way it is. If I am somewhere where something that is completely legal bothers me, I leave. Pretty simple.

[Hoyt]

62. Proportionately, there really aren't that many and most are T-baggers trying to intimidate.

I'm not leaving because some fool likes to walk around with a gun strapped to their leg.

Plus, I enjoy asking them if they are in the FBI.

[RSillsbee]

91. How do you prove intent?

Unless you are a mind reader how do you know why a teabagger would carry a gun?

[rl6214]

56. "No, I don't want my family exposed to people walking around with guns in public."

Happening around you every day, you just don't know it.

Concealed means concealed.

[Hoyt]

63. Not everyone carries concealed. And many who do, don't hide it that well.

[rl6214]

83. The the state of Texas

Concealed means concealed and that means no printing either. If you brandish, display, do not conceal or print you risk having your lic revoked.

[beevul]

57. Maybe...

Maybe you should stick to walking down a long deserted road in the back woods of Mississippi, then.


You can't wish them away.

[Hoyt]

64. Don't have to like what it is doing to society.

[beevul]

58. What are you going to do, if your child grows up and wants to carry as an adult?

Disown the child?

[Hoyt]

65. Not hardly. But I teach em how to deal with situations without using a friggin gun.

Too bad you didn't learn that.

[beevul]

69. I don't carry a gun.

Too bad you didn't remember that.

[Hoyt]

82. Then convince those that do carry in public that it just isn't necessary or wise, and then

this section -- that some call the Ggeon -- can shut down. But, we are on that slippery slope to too many dang guns.

[beevul]

86. I support Concealed and open carry. N/T

[RamboLiberal]

59. Hoyt if you are in GA as your profile says

You and your family have people carrying guns near you many times. Any of those guns jumped out & shot you? GA is a carry friendly state. Heck if I ever visit GA my PA permit is good there.

[Hoyt]

66. Most toters in Ga are T-baggers and racists. And most I've known were psychologically deranged.

Come on down, but leave your guns at home or in your car.

[rl6214]

84. WOW, you just know everything don't you

you know how to paint everyone with a really broad brush because they don't agree with you. Very progressive of you. I'm glad I live in Texas and not GA because none of the people that conceal carry that I know are t-baggers, racists or psychologically deranged. Guess that must be a Georgia thing.

[RamboLiberal]

85. Sorry Hoyt but if I ever drive to GA it will be with my guns

And nice of you to paint gun carriers as Tea Baggers & racist.

Lot of Dems carry guns as well.

[Hoyt]

87. Rambo -- I really don't think you could part with your guns. U probably shower with them.

[RamboLiberal]

93. Shaking my head at your paranoia and irrational fear of lawful gun owners

Nah they'd rust. I'll have to post my location in DU if I ever drive to GA so you can get out of state.

Have to wonder what your reaction would be if you ever spotted someone legally carrying. Hysteria?

[Hoyt]

94. Why would I need to get out of state? I grew up around folks who can't go anywhere w/o their gun.

[RamboLiberal]

100. Then why are you telling me to leave my legal carry guns at

home if I should happen to drive in to your state? GA and PA says I'm perfectly legal to carry.

[Hoyt]

101. Being legal is not always being moral.

I always tell toters to leave em at home.

[X_Digger]

102. Ahh, more of this..

Keep trying to spread it around, I hear it drives off flies, too.

[RamboLiberal]

103. +1 - couldn't give a better answer

[Common Sense Party]

123. Well played.

That's a keeper.

[RamboLiberal]

104. Are you the moral sheriff of GA?

[PavePusher]

108. First it was "tacky", now it's not "moral". You really have issues with self-defense, don't you? n

[Hoyt]

109. Only issue I have with self-defense is folks carrying guns in public under the guise of SDefense.

[Ken_Fish]

110. So concealed is ok? Just not OC?(nt)

[PavePusher]

113. So, guns are not viable defensive tools? Or am I misconstruing your statement? n/t

[Hoyt]

114. The thing you are misconstruing is the need to turn to a friggin gun in a Self-Defense situation.

You can actually walk down the street without fear sans a gun in your pants. It's probably been a long time since you gave it a try.

[PavePusher]

115. Well, since you still haven't volunteered to provide security for me...

or made any worthwhile suggestions on what tools to use instead of a gun, I just have to do what I deem to be provident.

If you were willing to come to the discussion with some rationality and honesty, things might go better for you. Good luck with that.

[Hoyt]

118. Like you'd ever consider leaving your gun(s) at home.

You've been packing so long, it will be all but impossible to break the bad habit.

[PavePusher]

119. Get rid of crime, and I'll happily leave my firearms at home.

It's actually rather a real bother to carry a sidearm. Let's see your guarantees....

And by the way, you can stop making unfounded assumptions about my daily habits. Let me educate your ignorance...

I am in the USAF. I am not allowed to be in possesion of a firearm while on a military base, unless it is a government-issued one. I am, therefore, not carrying a gun for most of the day, most of the week. (That seems to have worked out real well at Ft. Hood and Fairchild AFB, didn't it?) And I've only been making a habit of carrying a firearm for the last three years, since I returned from my last tour in England. You know, that place that doesn't have crime? The country where I was mugged twice, suffered repeated property crimes (break-ins and thefts and vandalism), had numerous co-workers assaulted with deadly weapons, including three hospitalizations and one guy in a coma for a week?

Take your assertions, insinuations, allegations and vile bigotry, fold 'em up into sharp cornors, and stick 'em back up your ass where you spewed 'em from.

[Hoyt]

120. Such anger does not go well with guns.

[PavePusher]

121. Anger? No, reality. Quit dodging. n/t

[Hoyt]

122. What do you want me to say? Poor thing?

Nope. My father-in-law was retired USAF (25 years) and Deputy Sheriff (another 25* years), didn't carry retired. Stationed in Korea and England and worse. Still didn't carry after retiring, although he had the guns. Also, ripped a screwball in dual shoulder holsters in a family restaurant a new ahole when he was well into his sixties.

So what is your beach again?

If you are back in this country, you can go without a gun in public. I and 300+ million other citizens do it daily.

[cleanhippie]

97. Then don't leave your house.

Problem solved.

[Hoyt]

68. And many gun toters here are so paranoid, they think a mugger is going to jump out at em.

You daily carriers have little reason to talk "paranoia." Heck, you are more likely to get cancer than encounter a situation where you REALLY need a gun. I think you are the one that is irrational and paranoid.

[Ken_Fish]

77. I think January Jones is the best looking blonde

ever. I mean christ on a cracker. Seriously, who really gives a shit what I think. Not like I am trying to make January Jones policy or anything.

[RSillsbee]

92. And some of us "gun toter" HAVE had a mugger jump out at us

I guess in your world I would have been acceptable collateral damage

[Hoyt]

95. Not many, and not often -- I bet.

Shoot, I often go in an area where you guys would have three guns strapped to your extremeties and one tucked away for an emergency. No problems and I don't expect any.

[armueller2001]

98. Just takes once, right?

If you prefer to go into unsafe areas without taking the right precautions, then that's your MO. Best of luck to you.

[RSillsbee]

99. Once was enough for me

Again, I ask you directly, I would have been acceptable collateral damage in your world right

[rl6214]

54. Anti gun activist live in such fear

too much anxiety for them I guess.

[Hoopla Phil]

71. This is really very simple.

If an employer allows for employee parking. . .then any legal substance or item that is within that car must be allowed in that person's personal car.

What if the business owner said no Korans?

What if the business owner said no pornography?

What if the business owner said no smurf paraphernalia?

What if the business owner said no gay rights paraphernalia?

What if the business owner said no TEA party paraphernalia?

What if the business owner said no black lunch boxes?

What if the business owner said no. . .

What if the business owner said no. . .

What if the business owner said no. . .

I hope you get the idea.

[slackmaster]

75. I have often referred to pornography as an analogy. Every place I've worked explicitly prohibits it

...in the office.

I think most people would agree that a dog-eared copy of a classic issue of Penthouse stashed under the seat of your car when it's parked on the company lot would not be any of your employer's business.

[KansasVoter]

111. WOW, yes, because these are the same. Wow, are you something.

[Euromutt]

106. Ultimately, this isn't about guns or the RKBA; it's about the right to privacy

Frankly, I'm disgusted by the amount of meddling in their employees' lives private corporations are permitted to get away with. I subscribe to the view put forward by Nadine Strossen, then-president of the ACLU, in a 1994 interview with Reason magazine (http://reason.com/archives/1994/10/01/life-liberty-and-the-aclu):

Our view is that there are certain fundamental individual rights which may not be intruded upon or violated. When our Constitution was written, the state was the only entity in society that had sufficient power to deprive individuals of fundamental rights. Now we have corporate concerns with far more power over people's lives than the state ever had in the 18th century. The market-liberal response is that if the individual doesn't like what their employer is doing--for example, saying that you cannot smoke at your home--then the individual goes off and gets another job. Our view is that's unrealistic. And if people are not going to have fundamental freedoms at work, then they are not going to have them for all practical purposes, because that's where they're spending the vast majority of their time.

I don't see the "guns in private cars" issue as an RKBA issue per se. To my mind, it's about drawing limits on what employers can force on their employees. Regardless of where I park it, my privately owned car is not my employer's property, and it is therefore absolutely none of my employer's fucking business what I choose to keep in my car, just like it's none of my employer's fucking business what I do off the clock, provided it does not affect my ability to adequately perform my job.

And I'll go so far as to argue that that extends to illegal items and activities. If I choose to smoke marijuana or frequent prostitutes in my own time, and it doesn't affect my ability to do my job, it is not my employer's business. It is not the place of a private entity to act as ersatz law enforcement, while simultaneously claiming the restraints placed upon government don't apply to it because it's not a government entity. You don't get to police my behavior unless you're actually the police, which means you need a warrantt least probable cause to search my damn car or get a urine or blood sample.

Again, I will append the caveat that this applies as long as my behavior doesn't affect my work, or directly affect the work environment. It is my employer's business if I show up for work stoned, just as if I showed up for work hung over or drunk (though consumption of alcohol is, in itself, perfectly legal). Similarly, it becomes my employer's business if I have a dispute with a co-worker and make reference to the fact I have a gun in my car which is parked right outside.

[RamboLiberal]

124. +1

[Name removed]

112. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oneshooter]

116. Including the Democrats in Texas? n/t

[rl6214]

117. And I resemble that remark

Except for the "nuts" part. I am well educated, have been into target shooting and firearm collecting for 25 years, mostly collecting historical weapons but I do have modern as well. My wife and three sons enjoy the hobby with me, my wife is a teacher, my oldest son is a graduate or the US Naval Academy. I have a concealed carry license which I got after classroom, range time and testing, then fingerprinting and FBI checks. We are not all "nuts".