Parking Lot Bill Senate Bill 25

[feriil]

I just lost 30 mins of my life. Very good writing, very good points. Loved reading it. I commend you both, thanks for enlightening me a little.

 

[Bill of Rights]

...I personally would careless, but I worry more about the liability (if some of you argue I am liable for your safety, then it isn't a stretch for others to then argue I am also liable if your gun gets stolen from your car. This means hiring security to patrol the lot, security gates, etc..) and costs from such a law.

Or it means you could put some lockers in at your employee entrance and tell your people that the lockers are where they can store their guns. Only they hold the locker keys, but it's inside your building and the need to hire extra security for the lot is gone. You've bought lockers (one time expense) and if someone leaves a gun in his car, it's clearly not your fault. You went above and beyond the letter of the law and even let your people come in with their guns, at least as far as the lockers.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Indy317]

You can't strip rights that never existed. Being free from regulation is a "right" that businesses have never had.

Well, don't be surprised when you have to register and license all of your firearms. I don't believe a piece of paper and a small group of people, called judges, give human beings individual freedoms. I believe we are born with those. You want to write that if it isn't in the C, it doesn't exists?

What you are arguing is that the government controls _everything_ that is not specifically written in the C. This also means that one could argue that government actually owns everything, your property, your guns, etc.., as I see nothing in the C about private property _ownership_. I disagree with your line of thinking, as it means government can have lots of control. I have always thought the founders mostly want a live and let live type country, not one where the people have very, very few rights, as specified in the C, and the government is allowed to control everything else.

Yes, I can't ban a person based on religious beliefs, but then why should someone be allowed to ban me from going throughout their company passing out religious literature? You either believe in private property rights or you don't. Most folks don't care to much about private property rights, because they all have their pet cause which benefits them personally, so folks don't fight for property rights all that much. This leads us to imminent domain, frivolous lawsuits based on race, religion, etc., people wanting to bring arms onto the property, people wanting to be able to go and prostulize on the business, etc. etc..

Again, this is why if I owned a business, wait, I would _never_ own a business in this country, not unless I was going to make $100K/year. Anything less is nothing but a headache.

 

[Bill of Rights]

You have good points, but _where_ do it end? We are paying for all the above, in one way or another. Why is it that government gets to keep heaping on more and more costs/liabilities, but they never have to provide monetary assistance to those businesses? If this law passes, fine, but government should at least be providing some sort of monetary help. Government is forcing property owners to allow a known dangerous item onto their property, yet they give _one_, just _one_ sentence about businesses not be liable. That just isn't right. Why not a mandate to the AG to provide any and all legal services to any business facing _any_ sort of lawsuit based upon a gun that came from an employees car? Is that too much to ask?

Also, when you go down this path, you really can't complain when the various government restrictions start coming into play. You also can't complain when businesses have to raise prices or cut labor to off-set additional costs. Oh, and don't complain about the zero tolerance that is sure to get even more ridiculous in some cases. If it is discovered that a business owner gave some guy a couple passes over the years for getting in screaming matches and stuff, and that guy ends up retrieving that gun and kills someone, get ready for a lawsuit. The people suing will argue how the employer knew that his employee could have had a gun (will be even worse if there is proof the employer actually _knew_ the guy took a gun to work) and did nothing about the employees past behavior. Even if these incidents are just two guys blowing off steam, it won't surprise me to see immediate dismissals over the most trivial of offenses. Business owners just can't take the chance with certain folks running to their car one day, grabbing their gun, and causing harm. Oh, the braggers will be another story as well. We all know that as soon as this is law, the braggers will start non-stop, making sure _everyone_ knows they have a gun in their car. That will open up even more issues (theft of the gun, employees who know fear their co-worker, etc..), which is why I would mandate a zero talking about firearms policy. No reason to let employees go around the office or work area bragging about their guns in their cars. Then again, as soon as the first person gets fired for doing just that, we will need to run to government and beg them to "DO SOMETHING!!"

Again, if you beg government to strip someone's rights from them, don't be surprised if you lose that person's support when it is now _your_ rights being stripped away from _you_.

A "known dangerous item"? Really? Should I remind you that the gun is not dangerous at all, it's the person holding it that is, and that person is already bringing a "dangerous item"... his car... onto the employer's lot every day. Or don't you think that a pi**ed off employee could drive over a group of his co-workers as they leave the jobsite?

"Guy retrieves the gun from his car and kills someone"? Hmm. Sounds like the other employees shouldn't be disarmed... then maybe they could return fire and stop the "active shooter" early in his rampage.. Oh, wait, that would require trusting your other employees, huh?

The other arguments you make about employees just blowing off steam now having guns.. you DO realize the similarity to the whole "gunfights over parking spaces" and "blood running in the streets", right? Including how those things have not happened other than as anomolies?

Finally, "no reason to let them talk about guns"? Good luck with that one.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Indy317]

You've bought lockers (one time expense)...

And the hiring of off-duty cops when firing/notifing folks they no longer have a job, and additional insurance, about one million dollars or more, and additional money into the legal defense fund. Maybe I could actually turn this into a money maker to off-set the costs? Use those lockers which require quarters to be put into them. As long as I collected enough quarters to pay for the above, it would be good. I doubt the lockers would bring in that kind of cash (I would estimate $110K for the above), I would need this money ASAP, so my guess is that at least one or two folks would lose their jobs, at least temporarily, as I took the money from their wages and benefits and put that into various accounts to pay for the above.

 

[Bill of Rights]

This issue is just like any gun control issue. Gun laws don't affect the criminal, only the law abiding citizen. Finally we get a chance to the "good guy" to get some rights back, and we have gun owners that are against it?? Really??

David is making some great arguments here... and the ones I've made in the past couple of posts were made before I read his.

Speaking for myself, as I said a few days ago... I'm not arguing for this bill, but I'm also not arguing against it. Personally, I don't want gov't stepping in a la the smoking ban thing, and yes, I would support a change in the way food service is regulated: Let the inspector come in, paid for by the business (like Underwriter's Laboratories, as David pointed out) and either endorse the business or not, and the people decide if they want to eat there, knowing how the business does things. I'd also have them come in randomly, not with advance notice, so they actually see how the business does things when they're not expecting an inspector.

In short, remove their power to close the business, and people start wanting to see the most recent inspection posted on the front door. No post, no customer. That's my

As for the gun issue, the owner of the property does have the right to say what happens there... but to do so with some of the pseudo-logic I see Indy317 using is where it breaks down. I don't like it much, but I do agree that the business owner has that right... because none of us has a RIGHT to be on his property, whether as a customer, an employee, or a vendor. We are there at his invitation and pleasure... in other words, this is a privilege.

Again, my .

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Joe Williams]

I assume those of you willing to take an anti-gun stance in order to protect the right of business owners to control the contents of your private property also support the right of mall security guards and other stores to search your pockets, your wife's purse and pat her down, etc., to ensure you aren't bringing items they prohibit onto their property, right? I really don't see how you have a choice but to support such activities without being hypocritical. It's their property, they have the right to prohibit the items and conduct such searches to control what is brought onto their property, using your arguments.

 

[dross]

I assume those of you willing to take an anti-gun stance in order to protect the right of business owners to control the contents of your private property also support the right of mall security guards and other stores to search your pockets, your wife's purse and pat her down, etc., to ensure you aren't bringing items they prohibit onto their property, right? I really don't see how you have a choice but to support such activities without being hypocritical. It's their property, they have the right to prohibit the items and conduct such searches to control what is brought onto their property, using your arguments.

1. I'm anything but anti-gun.
2. While I agree with much of dburkhead's pragmatic argument, in principle I do not believe that one right can ever be in conflict with another, and that applies to this situation as well.
3. I find it difficult to understand how some folks who are absolutists when it comes to the right to be armed (as am I) are now willing to compromise when it comes to another set of rights. As a business owner, I'll quote someone on this site, "a right unexercised is a right lost."
4. Yes, I am fine with a mall instituting whatever stupid policy they want on their property. I just won't go there.

 

[dburkhead]

Well, don't be surprised when you have to register and license all of your firearms. I don't believe a piece of paper and a small group of people, called judges, give human beings individual freedoms. I believe we are born with those. You want to write that if it isn't in the C, it doesn't exists?

So are you arguing that each piece of private property is, or should be, sovereign unto itself with the owner as absolute monarch with complete and sole authority within that land even to life and death itself?

I'm not saying what isn't in the Constitution doesn't exist. I'm saying what is in the Constitution does exist. The power to regulate interstate commerce was explicitly granted to the Federal government. Power of the States to regulate commerce within the individual States was allowed to stand.

What you are arguing is that the government controls _everything_ that is not specifically written in the C.

Cut it out with the straw man. I am not arguing that. I am saying that the government actually has the powers granted to it by the Constitution.

This also means that one could argue that government actually owns everything, your property, your guns, etc.., as I see nothing in the C about private property _ownership_.

And apparently you don't see anything in the Constitution about the Government's power to regulated Congress "among the several states" and don't recognize the States power to regulate commerce within themselves.

You could "argue" that Invisible Pink Unicorns actually own everything and that would be about as valid as your argument.

I disagree with your line of thinking, as it means government can have lots of control.

Since you haven't actually addressed my line of thinking, you either don't know understand what it is or are deliberately misrepresenting it.

I have always thought the founders mostly want a live and let live type country, not one where the people have very, very few rights, as specified in the C, and the government is allowed to control everything else.

There you go with that absolutist, fallacious, either-or business. The founders granted considerable power to the Government. The more laissez faire approach that you seem to favor was tried in the Articles of Confederation and was found to be a disaster.

There is a broad middle ground between "no regulation whatsoever" and "people have very very few rights" that you are completely ignoring.

Yes, I can't ban a person based on religious beliefs, but then why should someone be allowed to ban me from going throughout their company passing out religious literature?

Because those two things are different. You're assuming a parity that isn't there. You're doing exactly the same thing that the antis do when they equate using lethal force in self defense with murder.

Not only can't you ban a person based on religious beliefs, but I suspect you'd find banning them based on having that religious literature in their car would also be dubious at best. And this latter is far closer to the idea of guns in cars than the various straw men you keep building.

You either believe in private property rights or you don't.

This false dichotomy continues to be false no matter how many times you repeat it. There is a large middle ground between no rights and unlimited "you are god on Earth one your own land" "rights". The latter has never existed in anything even approximating civilized society.

Here's one for you: do you have the right to ban police officers executing a lawful warrant from your property? If yes, then we're done. If no, then does lacking that particular right, by itself, mean that you have "no rights"?

In fact, let's just pause this right here. I want to hear your answer to this question. Can you actually give an answer to this question? I'll wait.

 

[Indy317]

Here's one for you: do you have the right to ban police officers executing a lawful warrant from your property? If yes, then we're done. If no, then does lacking that particular right, by itself, mean that you have "no rights"?

Actually, one does, however, unless they can fight off the cops, they will either end up dead or facing charges of interfering with LE. Using this argument though, you can't ban religious folks from coming into your business and pray, as it would be a violation of the 1st amendment. Your commerce argument is much stronger than using the 2nd amendment to back this. When you use the 2nd to support this control over business owners, then that _exact_ same privileges _must_ be extended to all the individual rights expressed in the Constitution. This means that if I want to drive a vehicle with a big Budda statue to my job at the Christian bookstore, they _must_ allow it. If it means I drive a car with any sort of Islamic symbols to my job, they _must_ allow it. I am personally against this, as I believe private business owners should have a right to say if dangerous weapons are taken upon their property, and also ban things that could turn away others.

Every individual has the right to make whatever choices they want, the only question is how much power do they have behind them to back up their choice? As soon as enough business owners get sick of government, then it wouldn't surprise me to see more folks saying "ENOUGH!" There is a balance, and I believe forcing property owners to allow guns upon their property crosses a line that I don't think should be crossed. If it is that big of an issue for you, park in a public area or quit. Of course individuals in this nation don't have as big of backbone as in the past. Lots of people out there who would rather be followers, not leaders. They would never save every dime and invest in their own business, putting it all on the line. These people would rather not take that risk, and work for someone who does take the risk. To me, those taking the risk, the owners, should have a say in the matter. More and more, government is controlling business like none other. As I have stated before, laws like this are why I would never even think of trying to open a business. Too many regulations, too much having to bow down to appease others. You get to gamble all your money, but you don't get to have the final say so. It started with safety, then moved to civil rights/protected classes, now it has come to banning legal products (smoking), and here we are forcing property owners to allow guns upon their property. That is all this bill does, forces property owners to allow guns upon their property.

 

[CarmelHP]

So, why should cops be trusted at work with guns? Why should cops be permitted on my property or business with their guns when no one else is? They don't even have to "run to their car." I know many police who think that they alone sprung forth from the mouth of Zeus and are greater than the mere mortals, but in the real world cops are no more tightly wrapped than anyone else and sometimes much less so.

Also, anyone who wants to "run to their car" to grab a gun and kill someone CAN do it now. All this law would do is say that those who handle their guns legally and responsibly can not be fired for leaving the gun in their car. I do not know why anyone would believe that this bill would make the responsible less responsible, or the lack of this law makes the irresponsible/criminal more responsible/law-abiding. You'd have to believe in elves and magic unicorns to think it makes the least bit of difference to the criminals' actions. The law-abiding, however, are empowered by this law.

As for businesses, I'm afraid I'm with dburkhead on this one. States have always had strong common law powers to regulate businesses and places of public accommodation. In addition, businesses never seem to resent government interference when they are forming LLCs and corporations or filing bankruptcy. These are creatures of the government giving their owners broad shields against personal liability to the detriment of the rights of creditors and the public. These legislative creatures didn't exist at common law, where's the outcry?

Finally, if there is any worry about liability for uses of the employees' guns, the solution is simple, the legislature can enact immunity for business in these cases, if it's not already in the bill. Most of the states passing similar legislation had built in immunity for businesses for misuse of guns left in employee cars on the business property.

 

[Roadie]

So I take it you support government healthcare? There are literally millions of people out there without any healthcare at all. Surely you don't expect them to be able to pay for healthcare costs in the tens of thousands in "this economy?"

That is apples and oranges. You are suggesting I get another job over my personal property rights. Comparing it to asking for a handout is sophistry at best.

 

[Roadie]

Is this issue really about "Government exerting more power" or is it about Legislation that restores 2nd Amendment rights to individuals while at the work place?

 

[Joe Williams]

Is this issue really about "Government exerting more power" or is it about Legislation that restores 2nd Amendment rights to individuals while at the work place?

It's not just about 2nd Amendment rights. It's about allowing employees to exercise their rights over THEIR private property, instead of requiring them to surrender their right to control their property in order to feed their family.

 

[Roadie]

I said it in the other thread, and I will say it here:

"We have created a shopping list for madmen," she said. "If guns are the problem, why don't we see things occurring at skeet and trap shoots, at gun shows, at NRA conventions? We only see it where guns aren't allowed. The sign of a gun with a slash through it is like a neon sign for gunmen, 'We're unarmed. Come kill us.' "

If employers really think that rules forbidding guns on their property protect them, they are fools. Someone who is lawless and angry enough to use a weapon in retaliation in the workplace:

A: Wouldn't obey the rule anyway, and have a gun in the car already
B: Could just go home, get the gun and return
C: Let his anger steep for days and weeks, then return with the gun

Forbidding guns protects the employer/employees from the above, how?

However, allowing law abiding citizens to have guns in their car, sure as heck could help stop A, B, or C from either happening at all, or being worse than it would be with no resistance.

 

[level.eleven]

I walk to work. Sometimes I ride my bike. Who is violating my rights?

 

[dburkhead]

Actually, one does

Thank you. Now that I know that I know that there's no point in even bothering to try any farther.

"Last word" is yours if you want it.

 

[sporter]

The way I look at it is: Employers property/parking is just that. Your vehicle is your property, what is in it is your business. If SB25 supports the rights of workers and their own property I am all for it.

 

[cce1302]

I said it in the other thread, and I will say it here:



If employers really think that rules forbidding guns on their property protect them, they are fools. Someone who is lawless and angry enough to use a weapon in retaliation in the workplace:

A: Wouldn't obey the rule anyway, and have a gun in the car already
B: Could just go home, get the gun and return
C: Let his anger steep for days and weeks, then return with the gun

Forbidding guns protects the employer/employees from the above, how?

However, allowing law abiding citizens to have guns in their car, sure as heck could help stop A, B, or C from either happening at all, or being worse than it would be with no resistance.

You haven't been listening to Indy317 at all. Don't you realize that if he just has a line in his employee handbook that says "firearms are not permitted on company property, and neither is talking about guns" then that is a magic force field that automatically protects his property from violence and from lawsuits.

 

[Roadie]

You haven't been listening to Indy317 at all. Don't you realize that if he just has a line in his employee handbook that says "firearms are not permitted on company property, and neither is talking about guns" then that is a magic force field that automatically protects his property from violence and from lawsuits.

Oh yeah, my bad