Employers banning guns in parking lots

[ScottDLS]

I have a sign saying no whiteys on my property, but being a joint owner, my wife gives me consent that overrides the sign. That's how I, a person of pallor, am allowed on my own property.

Racial tensions and what is going on is one big joke, aren't they?

Not everything had to come down to race. Unless of course, we want to continue stoking the fire.

It really hadn't been an issue until our race baiter in chief President started making it one. Now I feel the need to shame the racist left with sarcastic micro aggressions. Everybody seemed OK joking about the violence in the 'hood, until the thugs stopped just killing each other and started killing cops.

ETA: This link... http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/07/19 ... -get-worse

[n5wd]

I was just wanting to get y'all's take on laws prohibiting employers from banning guns in locked vehicles in their parking lots.
...I also feel that the employer's or parking lot owner's property rights be being violated. I feel that if someone owns property they should be able to set their own rules, whether we agree with them or not.

Let's say that an employer posts a sign at the parking lot entrance saying "No Methodists or Baptists allowed." Would you be in favor of that kind of property restriction?

How about "This company prohibits any person from espousing their beliefs with regards to politics, or any political candidate." How about that?

The problem with laws that restrict a property owner's ability to control their own property is that it usually winds up affecting someone else's rights.

[mojo84]

The Bill of Rights are protections against government infringement of a person's rights and liberties.

https://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/f ... of-rights/

[bblhd672]

The Bill of Rights are protections against government infringement of a person's rights and liberties.

https://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/f ... of-rights/

[ScottDLS]

The Bill of Rights are protections against government infringement of a person's rights and liberties.

https://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/f ... of-rights/

Right, so the GOVERNMENT doesn't have to send a cop to enforce our nonsensical restrictions on Baptists or Methodists or whites (gotta drag race into it right? )

There's no right to have the State enforce your rules on private property in the Constitution.

[mojo84]

The Bill of Rights are protections against government infringement of a person's rights and liberties.

https://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/f ... of-rights/

Right, so the GOVERNMENT doesn't have to send a cop to enforce our nonsensical restrictions on Baptists or Methodists or whites (gotta drag race into it right? )

There's no right to have the State enforce your rules on private property in the Constitution.

Not going to continue with the nonsensical race and religion junk. By law, those are not acceptable reasons to discriminate.

Once the rules of being on someone elses property are being violated and the person has been given notice of such, the person is trespassing. This is a crime in which the police are responsible to respond.

The rights of one person do not trump the rights of another. Carrying a gun on my property is a privelege, not a right. Controlling my property that I own, with certain limitations, is my right. As someone that is pro gun and a business owner, I see both sides. I agree with the employee parking lot law as it strikes a fair balance but I do not agree that customers or employees have the right to carry on their person inside a private business against the owners will whether the gun is concealed or openly carried.

Maybe this will help.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/43 ... -amendment

Pushing for one's privileges or rights to trump those of another is nothing but entitlement attitude.

[Glockster]

I could have pinned this as a response to one of several above posts, but thought I'd just leave it as a general reply. So where exactly in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does it enumerate what rights any property owner has other than from unlawful seizure by the government. I hear so many arguments about so-called property rights, but where exactly are those rights granted? And if they are not constitutionally protected, then why exactly should those rights usurp what is an enumerated constitutional right?

[mojo84]

I could have pinned this as a response to one of several above posts, but thought I'd just leave it as a general reply. So where exactly in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does it enumerate what rights any property owner has other than from unlawful seizure by the government. I hear so many arguments about so-called property rights, but where exactly are those rights granted? And if they are not constitutionally protected, then why exactly should those rights usurp what is an enumerated constitutional right?

They are natural God given rights. Just as the Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, they do not need to be enumerated. I would expect someone that has a Liberty avatar would understand that.

[mojo84]

While we are here arguing over one persons rights trumping another's, there are states out there aggressively trampling over their citizen's rights. Here are a couple of articles that may give you guys some perspective.

Massachusett's assault on rights
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016 ... rm+Blog%29

Colorada's assualt on individual's rights
http://www.healthcareexchange.com/blog/ ... ge+Feed%29

[ScottDLS]

I could have pinned this as a response to one of several above posts, but thought I'd just leave it as a general reply. So where exactly in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does it enumerate what rights any property owner has other than from unlawful seizure by the government. I hear so many arguments about so-called property rights, but where exactly are those rights granted? And if they are not constitutionally protected, then why exactly should those rights usurp what is an enumerated constitutional right?

They are natural God given rights. Just as the Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, they do not need to be enumerated. I would expect someone that has a Liberty avatar would understand that.

I'm actually agreeing with both of you. The RIGHTS that you talk about are statutorily enforceable by general trespass law in almost every state. I think the issue that some of us have is, Using State power to prospectively enforce those "rights" on conduct that you are neither aware of nor affected by.

-Wear green underwear (under my clothes where you can't see) after you have invited me on your property (by opening your business to the public). "Being" a Republican or a cop on your property, despite a sign saying no cops or republicans or green underwear wearers, but using the State to arrest me before you specifically ask me to leave....

[mojo84]

I could have pinned this as a response to one of several above posts, but thought I'd just leave it as a general reply. So where exactly in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does it enumerate what rights any property owner has other than from unlawful seizure by the government. I hear so many arguments about so-called property rights, but where exactly are those rights granted? And if they are not constitutionally protected, then why exactly should those rights usurp what is an enumerated constitutional right?

They are natural God given rights. Just as the Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, they do not need to be enumerated. I would expect someone that has a Liberty avatar would understand that.

I'm actually agreeing with both of you. The RIGHTS that you talk about are statutorily enforceable by general trespass law in almost every state. I think the issue that some of us have is, Using State power to prospectively enforce those "rights" on conduct that you are neither aware of nor affected by.

-Wear green underwear (under my clothes where you can't see) after you have invited me on your property (by opening your business to the public). "Being" a Republican or a cop on your property, despite a sign saying no cops or republicans or green underwear wearers, but using the State to arrest me before you specifically ask me to leave....

Why is it so important to require a personal confrontation when a sign can do the job? Here is another question, how is the state supposed to enforce something which the property owner is not aware?

It seems we are at the point of arguing just for the sake of arguing.

[Pig Renter]

I was just wanting to get y'all's take on laws prohibiting employers from banning guns in locked vehicles in their parking lots.
...I also feel that the employer's or parking lot owner's property rights be being violated. I feel that if someone owns property they should be able to set their own rules, whether we agree with them or not.

Let's say that an employer posts a sign at the parking lot entrance saying "No Methodists or Baptists allowed." Would you be in favor of that kind of property restriction?

How about "This company prohibits any person from espousing their beliefs with regards to politics, or any political candidate." How about that?

The problem with laws that restrict a property owner's ability to control their own property is that it usually winds up affecting someone else's rights.

"Let's say that an employer posts a sign at the parking lot entrance saying "No Methodists or Baptists allowed." Would you be in favor of that kind of property restriction?" - In favor of? No, not in a principled or logical sense. But in a legal sense, absolutely I would. Maybe I'm too far across the line on this viewpoint, but I've always felt that once someone steps onto another's property they are doing so because the owner allows them that privilege and must respect their rules, no matter how insane, ridiculous, immoral, or illogical those rules are. Forget Methodist or Baptist for a second. Suppose I come to a persons home and they tell me I can be in their yard but only if I'm left-handed, blond haired, and don't have any tattoos. And I must have my left nostril pierced. Should I be able to tell them they don't have that authority? I know that's a ridiculous analogy but I view it the same way.

Keep in mind, no where in the Constitution are our rights "granted" to us as some have stated. They are enumerated, or listed basically, and include rights in which the GOVERNMENT may not infringe (government, not private property owners).

[ScottDLS]

I could have pinned this as a response to one of several above posts, but thought I'd just leave it as a general reply. So where exactly in the Constitution or Bill of Rights does it enumerate what rights any property owner has other than from unlawful seizure by the government. I hear so many arguments about so-called property rights, but where exactly are those rights granted? And if they are not constitutionally protected, then why exactly should those rights usurp what is an enumerated constitutional right?

They are natural God given rights. Just as the Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, they do not need to be enumerated. I would expect someone that has a Liberty avatar would understand that.

I'm actually agreeing with both of you. The RIGHTS that you talk about are statutorily enforceable by general trespass law in almost every state. I think the issue that some of us have is, Using State power to prospectively enforce those "rights" on conduct that you are neither aware of nor affected by.

-Wear green underwear (under my clothes where you can't see) after you have invited me on your property (by opening your business to the public). "Being" a Republican or a cop on your property, despite a sign saying no cops or republicans or green underwear wearers, but using the State to arrest me before you specifically ask me to leave....

Why is it so important to require a personal confrontation when a sign can do the job? Here is another question, how is the state supposed to enforce something which the property owner is not aware?

It seems we are at the point of arguing just for the sake of arguing.

You are completely correct...if you put up a "no green underwear" sign and I come on your property there is really no way you can use the State to enforce your sign. And arguably I am not committing trespass, because it wasn't intended to enforce every whim of the property owner prospectively. In the case of a 30.06 sign I am breaking the law (class C) by walking past it concealed, but you are never going to get the State involved because you won't see it. I think it just bothers people that it is illegal, because they don't want to break the law. 30.06 also protects both the public and the property owner, by specifying very specifically how written (sign) notice must be conveyed. There is no comparable description in 30.05 to convey complex terms of entry (to public venues) IN ADVANCE via a sign, so my contention is that trespass law was never intended for enforcing such terms. I can't post a "no deadbeats" sign on my rental house and then call the Sheriff to arrest my late pay tenant for trespass...I have to follow the eviction process through the JP court.

[mojo84]

Just because there some restrictions such as your eviction analogy, which involved the process of terminating a contract between two private parties. Once you have completed the process of eviction and the former tenant remains on the premises, the state can and will effect the eviction and if the former tenant resists, they can be arrested.

Let's stop with using the non-related analogies. I only used the green underwear because someone else brought that up and I thought using it would help make my point. Apparently, some are having trouble applying an analogy.

If one doesn't want to break the law, don't violate the law by trespassing on someone's private property. If I see a 30.06 sign and I don't want to disarm to enter, I go somewhere else. Yeah, it may be an inconvenience but I believe both parties rights are being respected. It comes down to character, integrity and honesty. Each one of us has to chose for ourselves.

[joe817]

Where's my popcorn emoji?