Forget the wishlist, what do you think

[jlangton]

Currently, commercial property is heavily regulated and owners are told what they can, cannot, and must do. Telling them to keep their noses out of employees' cars has no impact on them whatsoever.



Chas.

Working in the construction trade,I totally agree with this. Business owners are told every day that it's "too bad" that they have to spend $50K+ for a new fire alarm system when their old one fails the annual inspection. They have 2 choices. Pay up,or close up. Guns locked up in an employee's car are the last things they should worry about.
JL

[srothstein]

I am saying that anyone who opposes a parking lot bill solely on the "private property" argument is doing so purely on a philosophical basis and not because of any impact on the employer's actual use of his property. There's nothing wrong with standing on principle, but contending that we should protect an employee's ability to defend himself on the way to and from work is also a principled argument.

I agree, Charles. When I oppose the parking lot bill, I am opposing it based on principle. I believe it is private property and the owner should get to say what goes on there. For the record, I am opposed to many of the laws regulating commercial property already, including the ADA, fire lanes, discrimination laws, etc. When I own property, I should say what happens on it, not the government. If I am so wrong about things (such as discrimination), allow the market to solve the problem by not supporting my business. This will really happen quickly in the case of the fire lanes.

I see the issue of firearms in cars as being the same as firearms in briefcases. On this, I agree with Mr72. It doesn't matter what the container is, if I don't want the item on my property I should be able to say so.

I see the best way to solve the problem to be address it so the owners do not necessarily want to ban firearms. Address the liability by making it clear that if a business does not allow its employees to have firearms on company property, they are responsible for the safety of the employee from the time he leaves his house until he gets back, as long as the trip is a direct non-stop trip.

TXFlyer, the reason the bills would not affect visitors is because the current laws already allow visitors to carry in the car in the parking lot. Remember that even if a 30.06 sign was posted for the parking lot, it only applies when you are carrying under the authority of your CHL. If the gun is concealed and in the car, you are not carrying under the CHL, but in fact not violating the law to need the CHL exception. The company can take no action against you. So, a visitor is safe, an employee is safe from arrest, but an employee can be fired for violating company rules when nothing can be done to the visitor.

Jim,

The problem with mentioning the use of force as it applies to cops in defending property is that Chapter 9 is not the defining point for them. A cop's use of force is also governed by the Fourth Amendment and court cases coming from it. Garner v Memphis already made it pretty much impossible for a cop to use deadly force in defense of property.

As for laws I would like to see:

I would like to see the term schools defined specifically as any public or private primary or secondary school. This would indirectly allow campus carry by excluding them from being schools. It also solves the question of daycare centers that call themselves Montessori Schools, driving schools, church Sunday schools, etc. We might even add that if the school is being used for a purpose other than school (such as rented out for a church to use on Sunday) then the school part does not apply.

I think the clarification of the term premises is important. We need to remove the part about the grounds where a school sponsored activity is taking place or make it clear that this is only school grounds that are actively being used.

I think we need to look at the costs for the CHL and make sure they are truly revenue neutral.

I would also support the lowering of the penalty for most of the CHL offenses and 30.06. 30.06 should have the same penalties as any other trespass without the upgrade for carrying a weapon. And we should remove the requirement to notify the police when ID requested. It no longer serves any real purpose.

[KBCraig]

Responding to no one in particular, but to the commonly expressed belief that "It's my car, I should be able to have whatever I want in it."

I have to ask: do you feel the same about your other property? Like, for instance, your parking lot? Why should the parking lot owner's property rights be subjugated to the car owner's property rights?

You cannot make a principled and logically consistent argument that the car is your property (and only you can say what is allowed inside), without acknowledging the parking lot owner has the exact same right.

[seamusTX]

When I own property, I should say what happens on it, not the government. If I am so wrong about things (such as discrimination), allow the market to solve the problem by not supporting my business.

This idea has almost never worked. The primary reason is that colored (as they used to be called), Jews, disabled people, and CHL holders have never been more than a few percent of the population. Business owners can afford to lose their patronage, and most of the majority population do not care.

I see the best way to solve the problem to be address it so the owners do not necessarily want to ban firearms. Address the liability by making it clear that if a business does not allow its employees to have firearms on company property, they are responsible for the safety of the employee from the time he leaves his house until he gets back, as long as the trip is a direct non-stop trip.

It's fun to argue about principles, but this kind of proposal would never see the light of day. The business lobby is too powerful. How much money do CHL holders contribute to members of the legislature, compared to businesses? (I'm pessimistic about parking lot bills for the same reason, though I believe we have to keep trying.)

The employer-employee relationship is asymmetric. Employers have more power, because people need jobs more than employers need workers.

For example, when I was offered my current job, I was presented with a take-it-or-leave-it employment agreement that allows the employer to search my person, effects, and vehicle at any time without probable cause. This issue was not negotiable. You can well imagine that if I said I would not submit to drug tests, the employer would see it as a good reason not to hire me.

We have also seen that employers can and will hire illegal immigrants or move jobs to countries where labor laws are less strict and wages are lower.

The problem with mentioning the use of force as it applies to cops in defending property is that Chapter 9 is not the defining point for them. A cop's use of force is also governed by the Fourth Amendment and court cases coming from it. Garner v Memphis already made it pretty much impossible for a cop to use deadly force in defense of property.

I was not aware of that. For anyone interested, it is styled TENNESSEE v. GARNER, 471 U.S. 1 (1985).

- Jim

[mr.72]

The employer-employee relationship is asymmetric. Employers have more power, because people need jobs more than employers need workers.

Wow. I think this is fundamentally opposed to the idea of free-market economics, and while it may feel this way to an individual, on the whole this is not true. Ideally, employers and employees have equal power provided the employee is working for a prevailing market wage and there is no intervention by a coercive third party (such as a labor union). The employer needs the employee exactly as much as the employee needs the job given the price.

However, this only works (even in the case of labor unions) when regarding the workforce as a whole, and not accounting for differences in individuals' assertion of their rights or privileges. So if far and away the majority of workers in your field are willing to submit to a search, then you are creating a special circumstance when you are unwilling to submit to a search. This circumstance reduces your value as an employee. I would imagine when you go in for that job and want to negotiate away the requirement for submission to a search, they might be far more willing to negotiate if you are also willing to work for less money and consider not being searched as a form of compensation. In reality, it is. It is a benefit, and you are paid both in money and intangibles such as this in any job.

I don't disagree that this is wrong for employers to demand to search employees' personal property. But I do disagree that the employer has more power in the relationship. The employee has just as much power. You can refuse the search and go find work somewhere else. If your refusal to search means you cannot find work, then you will find that it is an unreasonable price for employers to pay for your services just like if you demanded more money or refused to wear a shirt to work.

[seamusTX]

Tell that to the U.S. workers who used to earn $50,000 a year and up building cars, and now make minimum wage at Starbucks, while the cars are built in Mexico or Korea by people who are paid the equivalent of US$5 a day.

We could argue about it all day, but why bother?

- Jim

[Liberty]

Responding to no one in particular, but to the commonly expressed belief that "It's my car, I should be able to have whatever I want in it."

I have to ask: do you feel the same about your other property? Like, for instance, your parking lot? Why should the parking lot owner's property rights be subjugated to the car owner's property rights?

You cannot make a principled and logically consistent argument that the car is your property (and only you can say what is allowed inside), without acknowledging the parking lot owner has the exact same right.

If someone parks a car in my driveway, I don't believe I have a right to inspect the car or demand to know what is in his property. I do have a right to not let the person park there though.

[Charles L. Cotton]

On the issue of relative bargaining power in the employer v. employee setting, we must remember that CHLs comprise less than 3% of the Texas residents. 3% of the population cannot have any impact on employers policies, there are plenty of other people to hire.

Chas.

[KBCraig]

Responding to no one in particular, but to the commonly expressed belief that "It's my car, I should be able to have whatever I want in it."

I have to ask: do you feel the same about your other property? Like, for instance, your parking lot? Why should the parking lot owner's property rights be subjugated to the car owner's property rights?

You cannot make a principled and logically consistent argument that the car is your property (and only you can say what is allowed inside), without acknowledging the parking lot owner has the exact same right.

If someone parks a car in my driveway, I don't believe I have a right to inspect the car or demand to know what is in his property. I do have a right to not let the person park there though.

You absolutely have the right to demand to know what is in the car as a condition of letting him park in your driveway. If he says no, or if he has something you object to in or on his car (OU stickers, Yanni CDs, etc.), then you have every right to tell him he can't park there. You also have the right to terminate any mutual agreement between you -- like employment.

[CompVest]

I am personally discussing the right to keep my firearm in my car in a parking lot not someone's driveway. (As an aside I don't think the home owner - if I was invited onto his property - has the right to search my car anymore then the police do without PC.) I don't believe I should have to choose between my job and my right to protect myself with the most efficient means possible. I especially have issues with visitors that are not held to the same standard parking in the same lot. After all what is my employers going to do to them - fire them! No my job is used as a battering ram to force me to comply with a corporate policy that only puts me at risk and does not impact my work or work place in anyway.

Back to the homeowner's driveway, if I am asked if I have a gun in my car and I say yes. The homeowner can ask me to park elsewhere and I would. However, I don't think he has the right to search my car. He can certainly ask me to leave if I won't let him search. But, he no more has the right to search my car then he has the right to search my body.

[seamusTX]

You are correct from a legal point of view that employers do not have the power to search your vehicle or your person. They actually have less power than the police, who can search when they have probable cause.

An employer or other private entity can search you only with your consent, which you must give them as a condition of employment or doing business with them.

Arguing analogies between employers and homeowners makes no sense, IMO. Employers and operators of public accommodations (restaurants, etc.) are regulated by the state and federal government. These laws have been in effect and upheld by the courts for over a century. One can object to them on principle, but they are the current reality.

This discussion has gone into the same circle as every other such discussion: Property rights of the employer versus the employees' rights to privacy, self-defense, etc. The problem is going to be solved only we can agree on a viable legislative solution, as has been done in a number of states.

The alternative is the status quo.

- Jim