TexasCHLforum.com

It's ok for an employer to ban guns inside the workplace. An employee can always choose to work elsewhere. However, when striking a balance between property rights and Constitutionally enumerated natural rights, it is unreasonable to force an employee to leave their gun at home in order to go to work. An employer should not have the "right" to deny any employee access to self defense weapons while on their way to and from work, or force an employee to endure the inconvenience of having to go home for the gun before going out for groceries after work or out to lunch in the middle of the day. There must be some buffer between the rights of employers and the natural rights of employees. The parking lot is a completely reasonable buffer.

Keith B wrote:
Well, that's kind of apples and oranges. Race is a protected class, so you can't prohibit it. Concealed/Open carriers are not.

.....

You don't think the RKBA is protected? How is that different?

TXBO wrote:

Keith B wrote:
Well, that's kind of apples and oranges. Race is a protected class, so you can't prohibit it. Concealed/Open carriers are not.

.....

You don't think the RKBA is protected? How is that different?

If you have been a retailer for over 30 years, then you know exactly what a protected class is. The 2nd amendment is protected by the constitution, however, it does not trump 'private property' rights, even for those locations open to the public. It maybe should, but currently there is no court ruling that says it does, so try passing a 30.07 sign while open carrying and see what you get.

You cannot have a firearm in your personal vehicle at Texas Eastman but they do provide storage for employees who have a LTC. School districts also have the authority to ban carry on their parking lots. When it comes to firearm laws, very few apply to everyone. There is always a list of exemptions. The parking lot law is no different.

The issue is a matter of natural law and man's law.

Self defense is a right under both natural & man's law. Property rights superseding self defense is illogical.

loscar141 wrote:I'm more of a "don't tell" kind of guy. So I won't tell anyone what I have in my car. If an employer wants to search my car to make sure I'm not breaking any rules I would tell them the same thing I would tell a cop, "get a warrant".
If I get fired for that, I'll be in the unemployment line the next day.

Yea I always thought that was an interesting thing to have in an employee handbook. "We can search you or your vehicle if we have reasonable cause while on the company property". I just started parking at the business next door and that statement no longer applies.....not that I would ever allow that to happen anyway.

I agree with those saying that we need to balance two potentially conflicting rights. A property owner's right to have absolute control over everything that happens on their property will frequently be in conflict with the rights of others. A person's right to free speech, privacy, clean water, clean air, etc., could all be in conflict with property owner's rights. Where we have these conflicts, wise men and women should establish laws and regulations that strike an appropriate balance or compromise. Sometimes, they err, in my personal opinion, but I do understand the need for such compromise.

But I disagree that the carrying of a gun, in a locked vehicle, which is sitting in a parking lot, infringes in any material way on the parking lot owners property rights. How is the mere presence of this gun negatively impacting the parking lot owner's ability to enjoy and profit from the ownership of their property? An unseen, and completely harmless item, inside a locked vehicle, is about the most extreme example of something that does not harm anyone or infringe on anyone's rights. I think the idea that I should be able to ban such items, from such places, is taking "property rights" to an illogical extreme. I don't like Hillary Clinton, but I also don't think I should be able to ban Hillary for President signs from people's cars if they keep them locked up and unseen. It is illogical to think that the mere presence of something I personally dislike harms me somehow.

I think this is just an example of some people trying to have control over the personal decisions and behavior of other people. If those decisions and behaviors do not harm you in some real way, then I'm sorry, but you should just mind your own business, IMHO.

nightmare69 wrote:You cannot have a firearm in your personal vehicle at Texas Eastman but they do provide storage for employees who have a LTC. School districts also have the authority to ban carry on their parking lots. When it comes to firearm laws, very few apply to everyone. There is always a list of exemptions. The parking lot law is no different.

Per my instructor, I was under the impression that as long as I don't enter the premises, meaning any part of entering the school building I was protected to carry under my LTC? Am I wrong in that?

RoyGBiv wrote:It's ok for an employer to ban guns inside the workplace. An employee can always choose to work elsewhere. However, when striking a balance between property rights and Constitutionally enumerated natural rights, it is unreasonable to force an employee to leave their gun at home in order to go to work. An employer should not have the "right" to deny any employee access to self defense weapons while on their way to and from work, or force an employee to endure the inconvenience of having to go home for the gun before going out for groceries after work or out to lunch in the middle of the day. There must be some buffer between the rights of employers and the natural rights of employees. The parking lot is a completely reasonable buffer.

But regretfully, the employees agree to exchange freedoms for other benefits.

vjallen75 wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:You cannot have a firearm in your personal vehicle at Texas Eastman but they do provide storage for employees who have a LTC. School districts also have the authority to ban carry on their parking lots. When it comes to firearm laws, very few apply to everyone. There is always a list of exemptions. The parking lot law is no different.

Per my instructor, I was under the impression that as long as I don't enter the premises, meaning any part of entering the school building I was protected to carry under my LTC? Am I wrong in that?

Public schools can ban an employee from having it in their vehicles or carrying on school property, but for a public school only the buildings or location where a school sponsored event is taking place is off-limits.

Keith B wrote:

vjallen75 wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:You cannot have a firearm in your personal vehicle at Texas Eastman but they do provide storage for employees who have a LTC. School districts also have the authority to ban carry on their parking lots. When it comes to firearm laws, very few apply to everyone. There is always a list of exemptions. The parking lot law is no different.

Per my instructor, I was under the impression that as long as I don't enter the premises, meaning any part of entering the school building I was protected to carry under my LTC? Am I wrong in that?

Public schools can ban an employee from having it in their vehicles or carrying on school property, but for a public school only the buildings or location where a school sponsored event is taking place is off-limits.

Thanks for the clarification,

Look at it this way, in a very real sense, including in the eyes of the law, your vehicle is part of your "castle", just as his parking lot is part of the estate of his castle. That is why, absent a justifiable reason, law enforcement needs your permission to search your vehicle. Now, he can regulate whether or not you have access to the land surrounding his castle, but (unless he is an LEO with a legal justification) he cannot search your vehicle to determine if the "inside of your castle" is compliant with the "outside of his castle".......unless you give your consent.

I don't give my consent. You shouldn't either. My deal is this, "I promise I will leave my gun in the car and not walk around the parking lot with it, and you promise to let me park there so long as I honor my promise". That is what's called a "compromise"......in which both parties to the transaction get what they want. He gets to keep your gun from being anywhere except secured in your car, and you get to be armed when you're NOT on his property. Anything else is simply unreasonable, because the employer's decision to ban secured LTC-owned firearms from cars parked in the lot has the effect of disarming the employee for the entire time spent between home and work, and between work and home......and THIS is why the legislature passed the parking lot bill.

Texas is a state that has often put the interests of business owners ahead of the interests of its residents, so for the state to pass the parking lot bill means that the lege understood exactly how unfair the previous law was to a large part of the people who pay for everything in this state through their property taxes..........and they acted to change it.

What we have now is a fair and equitable compromise. What you're proposing is a return to the status ante, which effectively robs good citizens of their right to be armed outside of the home.

Keith B wrote:

TXBO wrote:

Keith B wrote:
Well, that's kind of apples and oranges. Race is a protected class, so you can't prohibit it. Concealed/Open carriers are not.

.....

You don't think the RKBA is protected? How is that different?

If you have been a retailer for over 30 years, then you know exactly what a protected class is. The 2nd amendment is protected by the constitution, however, it does not trump 'private property' rights, even for those locations open to the public. It maybe should, but currently there is no court ruling that says it does, so try passing a 30.07 sign while open carrying and see what you get.

Protected classes are protected classes because the law defines them as such. The law could just as easily define licensed carriers to be a protected class; it just doesn't at the moment. The point, to me anyway, is that anybody who claims that private property owners have absolute authority over their property - especially commercial property which is what we always specify in these discussions - is already starting from an incorrect position. And the infringements don't end at protected classes.

The parking lot bill most certainly does infringe on private property rights. Whether that's acceptable or not is a fair topic up for debate, but it absolutely is an infringement. So again, we have an example where one already does not have absolute control over their own private commercial property. So again, I don't understand the argument that private property rights must always trump gun rights, because they already don't.

And I also don't understand why we can't extend the same priniciples that we rely on to infringe on parking lots (that your car is an extension of your castle, and it does no harm to the parking lot owner since no one knows the gun is there) to allow at least concealed carry on your person. Why isn't your person an extension of your castle? If it's concealed, how is anybody going to know it's there? It's the same argument.

Look at it this way. You as an employer have the "moral" authority to tell employees not to take firearms on your property, but nothing says the state has to help you by using their criminal power to force people to comply, by making it a crime. Additionally the lege says you can't use this as a reason to fire someone in a commercial (employer/employee) relationship.

So sure, put up a sign saying no concealed carry in cars on your commercial property, but don't expect the police to come and help you enforce it. There's no Constitutional right to force people to "do whatever you want" because you allowed them on your property. So the legislature and Congress are free to regulate what you can and can't do to/with people on your own property to the extent that it doesn't violate other Constitutional protections.

Keith B wrote:

TXBO wrote:

Keith B wrote:
Well, that's kind of apples and oranges. Race is a protected class, so you can't prohibit it. Concealed/Open carriers are not.

.....

You don't think the RKBA is protected? How is that different?

If you have been a retailer for over 30 years, then you know exactly what a protected class is. The 2nd amendment is protected by the constitution, however, it does not trump 'private property' rights, even for those locations open to the public. It maybe should, but currently there is no court ruling that says it does, so try passing a 30.07 sign while open carrying and see what you get.

I know exactly what a protected class is and how it's justified. The Civil Rights Act said that private property rights don't trump the Constitution. In this case equal protection of law under the 14th Amendment prohibits discrimination in the workplace or facilities of public accomodation.

That's no different that suggesting that private property rights shouldn't trump 2nd Amendment rights in matters of public accomodation and the work place.

I see 30.07 as different. That's merely a dress code as long as there is no 30.06 hanging beside it.