TexasCHLforum.com

OldSchool wrote:IMHO, I believe that's the fundamental reason for rules of representative government, to decide between competing rights (competing interests and wants, well, that's another matter entirely).

I had a junior high history teacher who explained that you have the right to swing your arms around all day, but your right to swing your fist stops at my nose.
You can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's right to do whatever they want. Determining where to draw that line is one of the main functions of government.

I'm all for the rights of a property owner to control his property.

I think the issue is that not allowing employees to store guns in their cars effectively disarms them on their commute to and from work. Since many of us take care of most of our errands on that commute (rather than going home and arming to go to the grocery store, we stop at the store on the way home from work), we end up being unarmed nearly every time we leave home. Went through all that trouble to get a CHL and then find that it's next to useless.

So the thinking is that your right to carry oustside of work trumps your employer's right to keep you from having a gun in your car in his parking lot. (Somewhat convoluted logic, I know, but I agree with it after giving it some thought.)

If jobs weren't so hard to come by and there were more employers who welcomed CHLs, then I'd say that no one is forcing you to work there and if you don't like your company's policies, find other employment. But most of us don't have the luxury of only choosing to work for companies that will willingly allow this.