Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

"Bring your gun to work movement" picks up support

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-03-11 11:52 PM
Original message
"Bring your gun to work movement" picks up support
It's every employer's nightmare. A year ago, Edgar Tillery was told by his supervisor at the Indiana Workforce Development Department that his performance as an auditor was subpar, and that he should shape up or consider resigning.

His response? He went outside to his parked car, grabbed a gun, and came back firing, court documents say.

-----

Barely two weeks after the shooting, however, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels signed into law a measure that does the opposite - bans employers from telling workers that they can't have guns in their cars.

Indiana is now one of 13 states that grant such rights to employees. The spread of "parking lot" or "bring your gun to work" laws stems in part from the landmark 2008 Supreme Court ruling that struck down the District of Columbia's handgun ban.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/0...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 12:01 AM
Response to Original message
1. The "getta gun" insanity movement -- !!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MyrnaLoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 12:11 AM
Response to Original message
2. The ban setting boundries
on your own private property movement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 05:59 AM
Response to Reply #2
11. Heaven forbid that corporations should be restricted in their power over their employees!
I tend to subscribe to the point of view expressed by Nadine Strossen, former president of the ACLU, in an interview with Reason in 1995 (http://reason.com/archives/1994/10/01/life-liberty-and-... ):
Strossen: 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.

And as I put it last year (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... ):
How far-reaching do you think the power employers have over their employees should be? If an employer prohibited employees from having objectionable (to the employer) political materials in or on their car while it was parked in the company parking lot, would that be okay with you?

Let's specify it a bit further: do you think an employer would be within his or her rights to prohibit employees from having pro-choice bumper stickers on their personal vehicles in the company parking lot? From an anti-choice perspective, abortion kills human beings, so the principle is much the same.

How do you feel about employers requiring their employees to attend morning prayer meetings at the start of the working day? Hey, it's the employer's property, so on the property, the employer can impose whatever he wants provided it doesn't violate criminal law, right?

Or does your support for corporate America's violation of its employees' civil liberties only extend to the right to keep and bear arms?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #2
25. The firearm in my car which is sitting in your parking lot while I am working for you ...
is in my private property.

If my car was your private property you could enter it without my permission. My private property just happens to be resting on yours. I can have anything in it that's legal including items that you could fire me for if I brought them into your workplace.

An individual has to drive to and from your workplace. Before I retired I often worked the graveyard shift and drove to work through some moderately dangerous areas. I often stopped at several stores on the 20 mile journey home and appreciated the fact that I could carry my concealed weapon with me as it had been in my car while I was at work.

In Florida you have to have a concealed weapons permit to have a gun in your car in your employer's parking lot. This requirement sounds reasonable to me.


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.
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/state/content/state/epaper...


So far we have had no major problems caused by the "Bring Your Gun to Work" law in Florida. The sky hasn't started to fall yet and so far there have been no "Wild West" shootouts in an employers parking lot.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starboard Tack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #25
58. So far. And how many times did you have to use your gun?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #58
59. Can you accurately predict the times when someone WILL need a gun?
If so, then you have a reasonable basis for restricting their actions at other times.

But unless you can prove your precognition to the world... you don't get to chose for others, and your opinion carries as much weight as a tuft of goose down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starboard Tack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #59
61. You do get to choose who comes on your property
and who parks in your lot. Personally, I wouldn't care if my employees brought guns to work and left them in their cars, but those are my employees. I wouldn't bring one myself, and that's my choice. Doesn't mean I want to restrict the actions of others. Also doesn't mean an individual has the right to decide who or what comes onto his property.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #58
69. Fortunately I have never had to use a firearm in self defense ...
and chances are I never will.

However, I don't own a crystal ball or have psychic abilities. I have tried to find a computer program that would produce a pop up message that would inform me that carrying a firearm would be necessary on a given day. None has been written and if one was and gave me that message, I would stay home on that day. I don't believe in looking for trouble because I believe that if you do, trouble will find you.

I, and many others like me, believe in being prepared. I have a NOAA weather radio, fire extinguishers and alarms and even a carbon monoxide detector. So far, a tornado hasn't hit my home nor have I had a fire. That doesn't mean that the devices I bought will never prove to be a worthwhile investment.

The fact remains that violent crime happens.


Violent Crime General

The odds of being a victim of a violent crime during adulthood are greater than 2 to 1. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Youth Violence Research Bulletin February 2002)

More than one in three (35 percent) of adults are estimated to fall victim to violent crime. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Youth Violence Research Bulletin February 2002)

***snip***

Estimates indicate that only 6 to 14 percent of chronic violent offenders are ever arrested for a serious violent crime. (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General, 2001)

In 2002, state courts convicted more than one million adults of a felony. Of those convicted felons, 28 percent were given probation with no jail or prison time, and approximately 20 percent of the total number of convicted felons were violent offenders. (U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Felony Sentences in State Courts, 2004 July 2007)
http://www.witnessjustice.org/news/stats.cfm


There is no requirement to live in fear of violent crime or to be excessively paranoid. There is also no necessity to be prepared for a violent attack but it is not necessarily a bad idea to do so. A gun is not a necessity self defense in case of a violent attack which might result in serious injury or death. Pepper spray often works. You can take classes in self defense or martial arts. Merely being alert to and aware of your surroundings is often enough to discourage an attacker, (situational awareness).

I don't advocate that everyone run out and buy a gun for self defense. Firearms are not for everybody. I happen to enjoy the hobby of shooting handguns and have done so responsibly for over 40 years. In my particular situation and with my mindset of being prepared for most eventualities, having a concealed weapons permit and carrying a firearm is a logical decision. For you and most other people it may not be.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #2
40. How about employers who decide
'I don't want no gays on my private property' or 'I don't want no Democrat(sic) bumper stickers on my private property'? They must be a-ok by you too, huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starboard Tack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 11:20 AM
Response to Reply #40
57. If they can ban smoking on their property they can ban guns
and cars that have guns on board.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sharesunited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 12:27 AM
Response to Original message
3. Guns as solution to guns in all its ridiculous splendor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
right2bfree Donating Member (383 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 05:38 AM
Response to Reply #3
10. More guns=More deaths. Simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 07:00 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. "Simple" does not equal "correct"
As has been pointed out ad nauseam in this forum, over the past twenty years, we've seen violent crime rates, including homicide, drop to half their previous levels, even as the stock of privately owned firearms and the number of CCW permits has steadily increased.

Tempting as it may be to resort to assertions based on "it stands to reason," when the evidence doesn't support that assertion, anyone possessed of critical thinking ability will understand that the assertion was incorrect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starboard Tack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #13
60. Why do you keep pointing out ad nauseum this bogus reasoning?
The "evidence" is tainted. Anyone with critical thinking ability would not draw conclusions from the unscientific NRA manipulated "data". Classic example of faulty causality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DonP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #60
62. Wow! The NRA manipulates the FBI and DoJ, who knew?
The only correlation gun owners have made is pointing out two facts that make gun control people slobber and spit all over themselves, since it doesn't fit into their little tiny narrow world view.

1. There are far more guns in private hands now then ever before

2. Crime has dropped to record lows. (But that's just those lying assholes at the FBI and DoJ that are under the control of the NRA)

None of us has ever claimed causality, but it still seems to really piss some people off.

The really scary part is that instead of rejoicing in a falling crime rate, it actually sounds like some folks are actually hoping for more violence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starboard Tack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #62
63. I fail to see how these facts are related
Everyone rejoices in a falling crime rate. If you are correlating this with the increase in gun ownership then you are implying causality, for which there is no basis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #63
65. But nobody is doing that..
"If you are correlating this with the increase in gun ownership then you are implying causality, for which there is no basis. " People are, in fact, saying just the opposite..the post which started this subthread says, "More guns=More deaths. Simple.". This statement is repeated "ad nauseum" here. It is demonstrably false. Why no comment to the poster who is actually claiming causality? The number of guns has and continues to increase every single year, yet there is a 20 year trend of reductions in violent crime. Nobody is saying it is because of the annual increase in the numbers of guns, but you would have to agree that the tired mantra, "More guns=More deaths. Simple." is completely erroneous, no?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starboard Tack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #65
66. Good point. It's erroneous both ways.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DonP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #63
67. Tainted evidence?
You claimed the drop in crime was somehow cooked numbers by the NRA? But you never got around to mentioning just how they have tainted the numbers?

Or are you claiming something no one here has ever claimed, that CCW has had any measurable impact on the crime rate?

All we have been saying is that the evidence from credible and neutral sources indicates that more guns do not equal more crime - as some dazed and confused types keep claiming.

All the gun owners around here celebrate the decreasing crime rate and the continued spread of practical concealed carry laws to more and more people in the hope that, totally coincidentally, the crime rate will continue to plummet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 07:01 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. Yeah, simple minded,
and completely contrary to nearly 2 decades of statistics, but carry on disregarding facts in favor of wishful thinking..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignoblesolid Donating Member (4 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 07:40 AM
Response to Reply #10
17. All guns in the hands of the State= Ruthless police State
Violence in europe was at its peak when guns were absent and started to decline when more and more people got access to guns. All of the violent authoritative police States in the world(Nazi germany, fascist italy, soviet union) all banned the use of guns from private citizens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #10
21. Too bad reality doesn't track with that statement.
The violent crime rate continues to drop, even as new firearms are sold at record paces.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Starboard Tack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #21
64. And your point is what? The music got better as the band played on?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #10
23. FALSE.
Aince 1994 over 100 million new guns have been purchased in the U.S. During that same time gun deaths have dropped dramatically. So we actually have a situation of more guns and fewer gun deaths.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #10
27. Your equation has been proven false...

USA Gun Owners Buy 14 Million Plus Guns In 2009 More Than 21 of the Worlds Standing Armies Combined

Washington, DC --(AmmoLand.com)- Data released by the FBIs National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) for the year reported 14,033,824 NICS Checks for the year of 2009, a 10 percent increase in gun purchases from the 12,709,023 reported in 2008.

So far that is roughly 14,000,000+ guns bought last year!
The total is probably more as many NICS background checks cover the purchase of more than one gun at a time by individuals.

To put it in perspective that is more guns than the combined active armies of the top 21 countries in the world.
http://www.ammoland.com/2010/01/13/gun-owners-buy-14-mi... /



FBI Says Violent Crime Rate Down Again
Murder, Robbery, Assault and Rape Cumulatively Decline 5.5% in 2009 Compared to Previous Year, Preliminary Data Show


(CBS/AP) The violent crime rate in the United States went down in 2009 for the third year in a row and the property crime rate fell for the seventh consecutive year, the FBI reported Monday.

The decline last year amounted to 5.5 percent for violent crime compared to 2008 and the rate for property crime was down 4.9 percent.

It's the third consecutive annual drop in violent crime and the largest percentage-wise, reports CBS News correspondent Bob Orr.

***snip***

According to the numbers, all four categories of violent crime declined compared to 2008 - robbery, murder, aggravated assault and forcible rape.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/24/national/main...




Note: The serious violent crimes included are rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and homicide.
(For related data about homicide trends, see Homicide Trends in the U.S.). The National Crime Victimization Survey redesign was implemented in 1993; the area with the lighter shading is before the redesign and the darker area after the redesign. The data before 1993 are adjusted to make them comparable with data collected since the redesign. The adjustment methods are described in Criminal Victimization 1973-95. Estimates for 1993 and beyond are based on collection year while earlier estimates are based on data year. For additional information about the methods used, see Criminal Victimization 2009.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/cv2.cfm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #10
32. It IS simple to make things up like that.
But reality differs greatly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #10
54. The statistics don't bear that conclusion out
More people = more deaths. That has a 100% correlation rate if you look at it for a long enough time period.

Ban people!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #3
20. If someone attacks you with a gun, what would you rather have as a counter?
A gun, or a tunafish sandwich?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #20
55. A sense of righteous superiority!
And a set of inaccurate statistics saying I'm safer disarmed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lefta Dissenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 12:53 AM
Response to Original message
4. makes me glad I'm self-employed
and work from home.

The only nut I have to deal with is myself, and I'm not armed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SheilaT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 01:10 AM
Response to Original message
5. If more guns actually made us safer,
then this would be the safest country in the world.

If the death penalty actually reduced capital crime, then we'd have the lowest murder rate in the world.

What am I missing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sherman A1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 02:59 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. Let us not confuse the issue
with the facts. :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #5
22. Switzerland is safer than the US, and has more guns. Fully automatic weapons even.
Explain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #5
33. You are missing where anyone but you, and other anti-gun folks, ever stated that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WatsonT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #5
56. If gun restrictions made us safer Detroit and DC would be paradises
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 01:44 AM
Response to Original message
6. I sure wouldn't want to be
middle management at any place that does this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 02:33 AM
Response to Original message
7. I oppose this. Treads upon property owner rights.
Simply unacceptable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sherman A1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 02:58 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Agreed & Well Said
This does have that effect doesn't it. One wonders where those who support 2nd Amendment rights will be on this little dilemma?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 07:07 AM
Response to Reply #7
15. What about property rights for the owner of the vehicle?
Edited on Mon Apr-04-11 07:37 AM by pipoman
Must this person's rights be sacrificed in favor of the corporate overlords? Or should a person's vehicle actually be an extension of their home? If not the latter, then why shouldn't police be allowed to search a vehicle at will? Why shouldn't the 1000 foot from a school rule for guns apply to people driving by on the street? No, property rights shouldn't trump civil rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. Vehicle owner can park somewhere else.
How about your right to keep 10 propane tanks in your car? Think the property owner might be able to ask you to leave?

Nobody is talking about vehicle searches. There are other ways things like this come to light. Someone sees it. Someone talks about it. Someone breaks into the car on that property and in the missing items list on the police report, the gun is mentioned. Etc.

If this is forced upon property owners, I see no logical disconnect to advancing to forcing ALL forms of carry on private property against the property owner's will.


Your car has SOME extension of 4th amendment protections, but not to the degree of your home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #19
31. There is nobody suggesting advancing to forcing ALL forms of carry
on private property. That is the fallacy of the "bring your gun to work", anti-rights moniker attached to this type of legislation. This is only to protect the owner of the vehicle from dismissal for exercising his/her rights to and from the work place, it has not a single thing with carrying a gun while at work. It is none of my employer's business what I have in my car whether on their parking lot or not...as long as I am not carrying illegal items. Should I be denied my rights simply because I am driving to work?

Who cares about propane tanks? Last I heard propane tanks weren't constitutionally protected. They aren't volatile anyway. When is the last time you heard of anyone's gas grill blowing up?

My state has this protection to rights in place. The state's largest employer, Boeing, had a no guns in cars policy. The truth of the policy was that it was in place as a limit of liability. When this law went into effect, it effectively created a 'hold harmless' for employers as they no longer can control whether employees have a gun in their car, thus no liability. Further there are some big businesses who opposed this legislation (oddly Boeing wasn't among them), when is the last time you remember big business losing out to employee's rights?

As for 4th amendment protections of vehicles, it depends on the state. In LA for instance a vehicle has exactly the same status as a residence.

These are good laws which go hand in hand with concealed carry or constitutional carry laws.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. Do you have a right to park a car at your employer at ALL?
I realize propane tanks are safe. But others may assess the risk differently, and require non-presence of volatile materials on premise. (Ignoring of course, the contents of the gas tank)

How about chained to a bike rack in a holster on my bicycle? How about in the same holster on my bike in my cubicle?

Once you cross the line of forcing a property owner to allow X on their premises, there really is no barrier left to exclude firearms from the interior of the building.

Scratch that, there is one solution: nationalize all parking lots, so they become public property. Now you've got a workable means to do this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. No, the workable means (at least in like 20 states) is to
Edited on Mon Apr-04-11 04:42 PM by pipoman
make a car an extension of a residence. In most, if not all, states with this type of law the weapon is required to be concealed from sight and the vehicle must be locked. There is a very distinct difference between the interior of a locked vehicle and a bike or the interior of the business. It is really not different than ccw and the cries of blood in the streets or the cries that 'stand your ground' or 'castle doctrine' laws would result in trick or treaters being routinely blown away..none of the scenarios you are suggesting have ever happened in any of the states which have adopted these laws. You are arguing against this very specific legislation based on an arguement that some other legislation, which would require more debate and passage, may at some time in the future, be proposed.

"Do you have a right to park a car at your employer at ALL?" If there is employer provides employee parking, yes you do have a right. A person should not be discriminated against for exercising a civil liberty while not on the clock.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #37
41. What scenarios?
I have envisioned no hands-in-the-air howling panic scenarios. I don't believe it's a safety issue at all. I am merely asserting that a private property owner can, should, and MUST be recognized as having some authority over allowed use of said property by the public.

I also still see no barrier between parking in the parking lot, and bringing a 'secured' and concealed weapon inside the building. In many cases, the parking garage is in fact, part of the building. If you can force a property owner to accept firearms in the parkinglot, what is to stop you from doing so for the rest of the building?

I could 'conceal' my firearm, locked inside a case permanently attached to the frame of my bike as well.

I do agree with your other post about the liability issue removing most employer's (and property owner's) interest in this issue, but some will still wish to prohibit.

When I plan on doing range time after work, I just park by the courthouse that day. They're ok with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. So are you suggesting that property owners apply this to all?
" I am merely asserting that a private property owner can, should, and MUST be recognized as having some authority over allowed use of said property by the public"

So business owners should be able to bar anyone in the public, not just employees from having firearms in their cars on the business property?

If I am traveling and have a firearm in my car, I can't stop for dinner or stop for the night at a hotel if those businesses have a no firearms on the property policy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. You can park on the street, presumably.
I've done it, simply due to capacity issues.

I don't see any scenarios where you would HAVE to park on private property.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. No street parking where I work, nor where my wife works either. N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #41
49. The scenarios
of the bike and the cubicle. This legislation is very specific. It isn't that not allowing ccw on work property has been found unconstitutional, it is simply a reasonable extension of the right to carry. The reasonableness being that prior to arriving at work and after work a person should not be deprived the right to defend themselves. Actually, there may be a cause for liability action if, for instance, an employer is surrounded by notorious crime areas and an employee who has a ccw is attacked coming to or from work if the employer doesn't allow that person to keep their weapon in the car while at work. To expand the right to carry into the business or to hang it on a bike would require a new bill, more debate, and ultimately passage..not likely. There is no legal mechanism or danger I can see of anyone prevailing in a suit brought trying to force an employer to allow ccw inside the premises..that is a completely different issue which I have heard nobody claim or attempt to argue.

The fact that some wish to prohibit doesn't make their wish come true. Some wish to prohibit gays from working for them, some wish to prohibit all sorts of things. This isn't a property rights issue at all, it employment law. In order to get an employer ID # it is required a person show proof of work comp insurance, withhold taxes, pay social security, provide a safe work environment, in some cases provide health insurance, get licenses, provide eye wash stations and a first aid kit, require and provide eye and ear protection, and a whole slew of other requirements. This is simply part of that commitment called workers rights, it really has nothing to do with property rights.

In another post you suggested the employee park off site. There are many, many places which would require a cab ride if one were to park off site. Boeing mentioned above sits on a parcel of around 7 square miles and employs some 30,000 people per shift. There are 12 parking lots in between like 40 hangers capable of housing multiple 767 aircraft. There is no street parking within 5 miles of the plants. Most industrial areas I've been to don't have street parking. Most downtown work places don't have parking on the street unless you move your car every 2 hours. No, many, if not most, people in the US can't simply park off site while at work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. Those scenarios are a logical extension of this type of legislation.
And, your 'what if' on liability is still a hazard, since property owners can forbid carry within the building. The liability still exists as the employee moves between the building and the car.

Consider:

No you can't have a firearm on my property, to the border.
No you can't have a firearm inside my building.

These two are logically consistent.

You can't stop me from having a firearm within the borders of your property.
You can't stop me from having a firearm within your building.

Also logically consistent (even if it is a violation of property rights).

What you are proposing (and what some states have done, for now, pending judicial review):

You can't stop me from having a firearm within the borders of your property.
You can stop me from having a firearm within your building.

See the disconnect? What is different between a legally licensed firearm carried upon your person, within the building, and a legally licensed firearm carried within your car, on private property, against the owner's wishes?

There is none. It is logically inconsistent. If you can justify, particularly upon your 'property owner liable for your self defense' theory, forcing a property owner to allow XYZ condition in a privately owned parking lot, nothing stops you from doing so within a privately owned building.

Again, you did not address secured parking lots WITHIN A BUILDING. Let alone the hole in your 'liability' scenario, from the door of the building, to the car. Same prohibition, based upon private property ownership.

It is simply inconsistent. It should not be allowed. It is a condition of employment. Like Boeing, my employment in this state is 'at will'. My employer can and would fire me for doing this. I can and do make arrangements to allow for my firearm to be available for after-work activities at Wades, etc. If I don't like it, or I can't make it work, I can find someplace else to work.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #50
52. If an employer wishes to restrict your right to self-defense while in their employ....
should they not have a duty to provide for that defense?

Or be liable if harm comes to you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 12:30 AM
Response to Reply #50
53. There is no inconsistancy at all
You are suggesting 'logically consistent'. I really don't share your logic on this, but for the sake of discussion let's say I am in agreement with your logic. Logic is completely immaterial in a court case..legally consistent with existing written law is all that matters. And again, I say you are making fallacious arguments no different that those who come here with, "it stands to reason" as an argument in favor of the 'more guns = more crime' fallacy.

Do you believe your employer should be able to fire you for sleeping with someone of the wrong sex? Or reading certain political literature? Or bringing that literature in your car for use before or after work?

It doesn't matter if the parking garage is enclosed or not. The car, extension of your home, is allowed in. There is nothing illegal in that car. The car is locked and the gun is hidden within. This is really simple. The rights of the owner of the car to secure their legally possessed property in the car supersede the rights of the owner of the concrete the car is setting on.

Now, my question which has gone unanswered. Should an employer be able to ban your car from the parking lot or garage because of an Obama bumper sticker?

As of now, there is no SCOTUS decision upholding a right to carry a gun publicly. It is a states rights issue. This law protects only one thing. It doesn't imply anything. There is absolutely no judicial argument which could possibly change or extend this law...it is stand alone legislation. It is not legislation in a gray area in attempt to abide by some determined constitutional right, as with proposals put forth by DC and Chicago for compliance with their respective SCOTUS loses.

And no, your employer wouldn't fire you if this law was enacted. It would violate state employment law to do so. It comes down to what other of your civil liberties are you willing to cede to your employer in return for their magnanimous generosity of allowing you to work for them? In states (again, like 20 of them) which have enacted these laws, it has become a non-issue the day after enactment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
S_B_Jackson Donating Member (564 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #34
48. Does my employer who does not own the property in which their offices reside
have ANY property rights to the building or to the open-to-the public parking lot?

My answer would be "NO"....luckily, that is the answer that the state legislature also arrived at.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #48
51. Where I work, in the buildings that are leased, the same rules apply to employees
on leased property (Or even at corporate sponsored functions elsewhere) as they do to the buildings the company owns. And I can be terminated for violating that rule, at any time, leased, event, or owned property.

This seems consistent and proper to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 06:03 AM
Response to Original message
12. "Bring your gun to work" is such obvious framing
As I commented in a similar thread last year (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... ), we all know this kind of law doesn't permit a private individual to carry a firearm into the workplace itself; it merely asserts that the contents of a privately owned motor vehicle are not subject to inspection by any non-governmental entity, such as a private corporate entity. I always find it incongruous how certain news/opinion media, and people on these boards, who are more than ready to bemoan and decry the freedoms/powers granted to corporations when it comes to just about anything, suddenly become staunch defenders of the "property rights" of those very same corporations when such an entity asserts that it can ban firearms from its property. Feel free to interpret my use of the word "incongruous" in this context to mean "blatantly hypocritical."

"Take your gun to work" is an example of "framing the debate," just like the Brady Campaign's use of the term "'shoot first' law" for are more commonly called "stand your ground" and "Castle Doctrine" laws. The term "shoot first" was obviously coined to invoke the association "and ask questions later" to falsely give the idea that it would permit injudicious use of lethal force.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 07:09 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. exactly...and well said
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #12
18. Oh, and this: "We might have shootouts in the parking lots like it's the OK Corral."
Like we haven't heard that one incessantly ever since Florida adopted "shall issue" legislation. The fact that it's never actually happened doesn't seem to stop the alarmists from uttering the same dire warnings every time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rrneck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
24. Every square inch of real estate in this country
belongs to somebody. Why would we give a corporation the right to tell us what to have in our property just because it happens to be sitting on their property. Allowing others to make that determination transfers tremendous power to those in this country who already have too much.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. The vast majority belongs to the public.
by FAR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rrneck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Good.
But I still like the image of some CEO looking out the window of his corner office at a sea of cars and wondering how many of them have guns in them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. At my company this is only a liability issue.
The company had no opinion on the matter until a guy chased his wife through the halls with a gun, once upon a time. (no one died)

After that, the company lawyers probably rubbed their heads together until they came up with the safest position form a litigious standpoint: No firearms allowed on company property at all, period.

A shooting may still occur, but nobody can sue the company for not forbidding firearms on company property. (I don't think anyone's ever been sued FOR forbidding guns, ie: Luby's, etc)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RamboLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #30
35. It wasn't that Luby's banned guns - at time of that famous shooting
Texas didn't have concealed carry law they do today.

Be an interesting case IMHO if an entity is sued because someone got killed or injured by a gunman because they obeyed a ban.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtheistCrusader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. Didn't TX have open carry then?
I thought there was some additional reason she left her gun in her vehicle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oneshooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #36
39.  Texas hasn't had legal open carry since Reconstruction. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #30
38. Exactly
In states without this type of law lawyers and insurance companies require a company policy forbidding guns in cars as a limit of liability. By the state enacting a law such as this, the company can no longer be liable for not having a policy because they cant have such a policy. Most employers are fine with this arrangement, the rest are just anti-ccw zealots or authoritarians.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Glassunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 12:37 PM
Response to Original message
26. A brief conversation.
P1... "Weapons aren't allowed on the property, not even in the parking lot."
P2... "Why?"
P1... "Because someone might get mad and go postal or something."
P2... "And the fact that, if allowed, I would carry, in case someone would go postal or something, makes me paranoid?"
P1... "Yes."
P2... "Thanks for clearing that up."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WheelWalker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #26
46. Well, if you're not a little paranoid, you're crazy. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Glassunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. And if I made more money I would graduate to eccentric.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GreenStormCloud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-04-11 06:44 PM
Response to Original message
45. Most companies that have the policy are actually DADT about it.
The company where I work and where my wife works both have that policy. I work for a huge national corporation and she works for a small business (but large enough to have a policy manual). Neither of them take any steps to enfore the ban and we ignore it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-05-11 03:45 PM
Response to Original message
68. Nice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Jul 25th 2014, 04:21 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC