View Full Version : Guns or property rights?
Roguish Lawyer
06-17-2009, 16:42
Thought this article might stir up some good discussion here. I've been arguing with the author and some of his colleagues about it all day on Facebook.
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/140569
Gun rights shouldn't trump private property
Clark Neily, Commentary
June 16, 2009 - 2:58PM
The Arizona Legislature has been considering several bills that would trample property rights in a misguided attempt to promote gun ownership.
HB2474 would require businesses to allow employees and patrons to bring firearms into parking areas as long as the guns stayed locked in their vehicles and would allow lawsuits against businesses that violate the law if anyone is injured or killed because a gun owner could not access a weapon. SB1113 would require restaurants to allow people who are not drinking alcohol to bring their guns onto the premises, unless they post signs at every door to keep weapons out. Similar proposals have cropped up in other states, including Florida, where business owners are forced to allow customers and employees to keep guns locked in their cars in the parking lot of the business.
I am a firm believer in the constitutional right to own guns, and in fact I was one of the three lawyers who litigated District of Columbia v. Heller, the historic case in which the U.S. Supreme Court held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms. That case was an important victory not just for gun ownership but for liberty itself - something this country was founded on, but which is in increasingly short supply as the government continues its headlong rush down the road of good intentions.
That is why it is so dismaying to see the Heller decision being used to undermine another fundamental individual right: private property. An essential element of that right is the ability to decide who may come onto one's property, for what purposes, and under what conditions. My organization, the Institute for Justice, has been at the forefront of the battle for property rights for nearly two decades, having represented the homeowners in the infamous Kelo eminent domain case, as well as Mesa brake shop owner Randy Bailey, whose property we saved from eminent domain abuse in 2003.
Like every other constitutional right, the right to keep and bear arms is a restriction on government power, not private conduct. Gun rights advocates typically favor more freedom and less government, so it is particularly disappointing to see them supporting laws that would strip away business owners' right to decide who, if anyone, may bring guns onto their property. Legislators should not impose yet another government-mandated, one-size-fits-all solution on a "problem" that private individuals can and should work out among themselves. If gun owners feel unsafe without their weapons, or if customers feel more secure in "gun-friendly" establishments (as I certainly would), then they can choose to patronize businesses that cater to those preferences.
But it should be a matter of choice, not government fiat.
Of course, this is not an isolated example of government disregard for the property rights of business owners, which includes, for example, smoking bans in restaurants and bars. But two (or even two-dozen) wrongs do not make a right, and people who understand that to have liberty means freedom from government compunction - not the right to have your way in dealing with other private parties - should not support these bills.
Clark Neily is a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice in Washington, D.C.
I need a clarification, owners do not have the right to say "no guns" on their private property?
HB2474 would require businesses to allow employees and patrons to bring firearms into parking areas as long as the guns stayed locked in their vehicles
SB1113 would require restaurants to allow people who are not drinking alcohol to bring their guns onto the premises, unless they post signs at every door to keep weapons out. .
If in fact these bills are written in this fashion, these states will preserve both property and gun rights.
The owner of a parking lot by definition relinquishes some rights, in that the owner wants people on the property. They are invited.
The person that takes the owner up on the invite, does not lose their 2nd amendment right because they keep their weapon "on their property" (the car/truck), it is locked but accessible only when the owner is in the vehicle.
If the owner of an establishment is allowed to tell those entering their establishment that they do not allow weapons via posted signage, they have preserved their property rights.. and if they elect not to post signage, the patron preserves their 2nd amendment right to carry on their person.
I see it as win-win...
My $00.0002
greenberetTFS
06-17-2009, 17:32
If in fact these bills are written in this fashion, these states will preserve both property and gun rights.
The owner of a parking lot by definition relinquishes some rights, in that the owner wants people on the property. They are invited.
The person that takes the owner up on the invite, does not lose their 2nd amendment right because they keep their weapon "on their property" (the car/truck), it is locked but accessible only when the owner is in the vehicle.
If the owner of an establishment is allowed to tell those entering their establishment that they do not allow weapons via posted signage, they have preserved their property rights.. and if they elect not to post signage, the patron preserves their 2nd amendment right to carry on their person.
I see it as win-win...
My $00.0002
JJ,
You point is well taken,I too believe it's a win-win...................:)
GB TFS :munchin
Is a business owner required to maintain fire suppression equipment in structures on his property if they are open to the public, whether he wants the system or not?
Is a business owner required to maintain fire suppression equipment in structures on his property if they are open to the public, whether he wants the system or not?
Don't see how that's the same as allowing/denying weapons on your property. No shoes - no shirt - no service...my call...and no weapons if I don't want them on my property...my call, too. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Razor, The answer to your question is yes they are required to do so. Usually under the direction of the fire code to enforce public safety.
Richard, on reflection would it not, as a business owner be an astronomical insurance premium not to enforce a firearm free zone.
As a business owner I would not want to have weapons of any kind in my working environment.
edit to add: Unless they were mine.
dr. mabuse
06-17-2009, 19:22
That situation is similar to the sticky wicket here in Texas allowing how CHL guns in employee cars in employers parking lots is o.k. vis-a-vis business owner's rights to say who comes and goes and etc.
Maybe we'll finally get it passed during the special session.:D
A lot of bills during the last go around didn't get passed here due to a log jam over voter I.D. cards and such.
Isn't this really a discussion of Civil rights vs Civil liberties?
The second amendment secures us the right to bear and own fire arms. It is a right that is an "unalienable right", whereas, the right to bear arms on someone property is a civil right and a privilage.
longrange1947
06-17-2009, 20:13
Sorry my car, my property. You allowed me to bring my property onto your property and as long as my weapon is in my car, thus on my property, then I have not violated your right to not have weapons on your property. The weapon is on my property, the car.
As far as restaurants, without the sign, how would I know that I cannot bring weapons onto your property or are you saying that the law show read no weapons on any restaurant property thus relieving me of my right to permit it?
Litigation for permitting weapons, how about me suing you for not allowing me to have my weapon and some jacka** hurts or mugs me while I am defenseless due to your dislike of weapons?
Just some thoughts on the passing scene. :munchin :D
Peregrino
06-17-2009, 20:21
I think JJ_BPK hit the nail on the head. Firearms secured in POVs in parking lots are not the same as firearms on the person in the premises. I agree, the property owner can prohibit firearms on the person within the business establishment. I don't agree that the same applies to parking lots. I have a legitimate expectation of privacy in my vehicle. Even LEOs have to have probable cause before they can set aside my rights. I'm reasonably certain there's enough case law to support a contention that the owner gives up a portion of his property rights when he opens his property to the public. (Unfortunately, I don't have access to the Lexus-Nexus Law Library to prove my contention.) Fuel to the fire! :munchin
Surf n Turf
06-17-2009, 20:39
Sorry my car, my property. You allowed me to bring my property onto your property and as long as my weapon is in my car, thus on my property, then I have not violated your right to not have weapons on your property. The weapon is on my property, the car.
As far as restaurants, without the sign, how would I know that I cannot bring weapons onto your property or are you saying that the law show read no weapons on any restaurant property thus relieving me of my right to permit it?
Litigation for permitting weapons, how about me suing you for not allowing me to have my weapon and some jacka** hurts or mugs me while I am defenseless due to your dislike of weapons?
Just some thoughts on the passing scene. :munchin :D
I think LR1947 has it right
I believe that the appropriate approach here is that, under general contractual principles, no employer can rightfully extend its reach into your car without also assuming all duties and responsibilities of providing for your protection. There's a similar rationale behind making common carriers (buses, planes, etc.) responsible to "insure" the safety of their customers against accidents.
It also appears to me that this rule for the Company makes them MORE liable in the event of a worker or patron shooting up the place, not less. The workers have now been told that there are NO guns anywhere on the property, and that they are as a result "safe." So the company has now 100% assumed responsibility for protecting the workers or customers at any point on the company's property.
I'm sorry, when you invite me in, I do not give up my rights to defend myself
SnT
Property rights, at least where I live, are remarkably limited. Even a private home is subject to code compliance - and woe betide the homeowner who lets weeds grow in the yard. The degree of public control already in place makes me wonder whether are not straining at a gnat after downing an elephant.
I see the problem as two-fold. Those who wish to lawfully bring weapons onto private premises are, in essence, saying that those who control the premises are not providing a safe environment. On the other hand, those who control the location seem to be saying that the area is safer if lawful possession of a weapon is prevented.
So isn't the real issue about whether a private property owner can limit the degree to which customers can protect themselves?
The problem, as I see it, is that few businesses can really offer security to their patrons. Those who intend to commit a crime, particularly violent crime, seem unlikely to be deterred by a prohibition against possession of weapons - nor by the preferences of the owner. (Joke: unless the owner is a chef with really sharp knives! ;) ) So we must balance the absolutes of property rights and self-defense and come to some point between extremes.
I guess I would come down in favor of self-defense except in those cases where the owner could convince me of their ability and determination to provide that protection.
There is a clear distinction between the owner of property and their rights to allow access.. "no shoe, no shirt, no service"
and the government, at any level, implementing blanket law to block my constitutional rights to bear arms to protect myself and love ones..
That is exactly why the 2nd amendment was written. We will not have a government that takes away the peoples right to personal protection.
A few small points that I hope will contribute to the discussion.
First, a decently operated parking facility has signage crafted to limit greatly the liability of that facilities owners and operators. Such signage frequently limits the rights of the motorists. The municipal codes governing these signs would have to be revisited.
Second, the issue of 'access' has the potential to impact the 'functional design' of parking facilities. Presently, functional design centers around the best use of space at a given level of service (LOS) for motorists. The access requirement may change the mix of issues taken into consideration when a parking facility is being designed. For instance, the access requirement may force parking stalls to be wider and how parking facilities are lit (oh, the PowerPoint presentations on lighting I've seen ;)). These and other considerations could increase the costs of parking facilities which already drive up the costs of a development by about 40%. These costs are ultimately borne by those who use the land uses served by parking facilities.
Third, municipalities that do not like this legislation could easily bypass it by greatly changing existing parking requirements (i.e. reducing them). As reduced parking requirements would fit nicely with the urbanist agenda of the current president, there is a chance that expanding the rights of gun owners over property owners could work to the disadvantage of other interests.
The Reaper
06-17-2009, 21:10
I have a legitimate expectation of privacy in my vehicle. Even LEOs have to have probable cause before they can set aside my rights.
Not everywhere, I suspect.:D
TR
Once again the debate is over people who obey the law.
longrange1947
06-18-2009, 06:51
A point being missed is that if you restrict my having a weapon in the parking lot of my work place, then you are prventing me from having a weapon to protect myself anytime that I MAY go to said parking lot. I have no place to leave the weapon once I get on the property, thus I must go unarmed through out the whole day because of the restriction on MY personal property, the car. This restiction now impacts on my ability to defend myself in other locations outside of the "restricted parking lot".
As far as covenants, you do not have to buy there and they are given to you before you buy. Not the same in any form or fashion, IMHO.
A weapon locked in a car is not a threat to anyone. It is a tool of self defense outside of that parking lot and should not be infringed by a notion of property rights when the owner p[laced a parking lot on his premises and made it open to the "public", being his workers. It ceased to be "private property" at that point when he permitted the workers' private property, their cars, onto the parking lot. IF the worker gets out of the car with the weapon on his person, then that is another matter.
This is an anti gun issue cloaked in private property rights and is so announced by the anti-gunners.
Again my 2 cents.
Does Fort Bragg allow unrestricted carrying of weapons on post - e.g., a registered pistol (both in NC and on-post) in the glove box?
Also, if you're a teacher, public Pre-K -12 school grounds (here in TX) are 'weapons free' zones (with the exception of one small ISD).
Complicated issues, for sure.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Also, if you're a teacher, public Pre-K -12 school grounds (here in TX) are 'weapons free' zones (with the exception of one small ISD).
But according to the code, 46.035-f-3:
(3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a
building. The term does not include any public or private driveway,
street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other
parking area.
LINK (http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/pe.toc.htm)
So although, as you point out, it is illegal to carry on the premises, the parking lots are not, per the code, covered.
As you say, quite the complex issue.
We digress, a public school and its grounds are not private property.
the Arcelor Mittal Steel mill by my house has a no weapons or alcohol in vehicles on company property policy. The written policy allows for 100% vehicle searches and for a few years the guards opened every trunk and glove box of every car entering the mill. If you don't like it you don't have to work at that mill.
But then we have the following, this is why I love where I live.
Information Maintained by the Office of Code Revision Indiana Legislative Services Agency
IC 35-47-9
Chapter 9. Possession of Firearms on School Property and School Buses
IC 35-47-9-1
Exemptions from chapter
Sec. 1. This chapter does not apply to the following:
(1) A:
(A) federal;
(B) state; or
(C) local;
law enforcement officer.
(2) A person who has been employed or authorized by:
(A) a school; or
(B) another person who owns or operates property being used by a school for a school function;
to act as a security guard, perform or participate in a school function, or participate in any other activity authorized by a school.
(3) A person who:
(A) may legally possess a firearm; and
(B) possesses the firearm in a motor vehicle that is being operated by the person to transport another person to or from a school or a school function.
As added by P.L.140-1994, SEC.11.
IC 35-47-9-2
Possession of firearms on school property, at school function, or on school bus; felony
Sec. 2. A person who possesses a firearm:
(1) in or on school property;
(2) in or on property that is being used by a school for a school function; or
(3) on a school bus;
commits a Class D felony.
It would be so easy for us all to have common sense laws if we were not living in the age of idiocracy.
The Reaper
06-18-2009, 08:57
Does Fort Bragg allow unrestricted carrying of weapons on post - e.g., a registered pistol (both in NC and on-post) in the glove box?
Also, if you're a teacher, public Pre-K -12 school grounds (here in TX) are 'weapons free' zones (with the exception of one small ISD).
Complicated issues, for sure.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
NC does not register pistols.
Nor do most free states. Military installations may, if you live on post and store them there. A permit or CCW is required to purchase a handgun.
In NC, IIRC, the glove box must be locked if a weapon is carried there. It can legally be carried in a vehicle if it is in plain sight, or in a locked container (glove compartment, console, storage container, trunk). If you have a CCW permit, it should be concealed on you or carried in the manner above.
Military installations will permit you, in most cases, to transport weapons on the installation if in transit, en route to a range, for hunting, repair, etc. They should be unloaded and in a locked container like the trunk. A pick-up truck can muddy the issue.
If your point was that you cannot legally carry personal weapons on a Federal installation without a good reason, and are not necessarily free from a search without consent or probable cause being established, you may be correct.
TR
JMO....Whether it is gun, smoking or whatever (as long as it is legal), the property owner should have the right to decide as to whether or not it allowed on their property....not the State or the Feds.
Now if the State or the Feds make a law that requires that property owners to notify patrons of such things prior to entering the property that is acceptable in my line of thinking.
If I don't wish to patronize properties that allow fatty foods, firearms, cigars, alcohol, etc I can walk myself to a business that suits my preference.
In my mind Col. Moroney summed it up on a post to one of my topics.
Hell, for that matter, I don't know you well enough to know whether or not I want you around me with a firearm
Given the ruling discussed in this thread (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23573) and the ruling provided here (http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/O31FFV7A.pdf), states and municipalities can indeed regulate guns.
FWIW, municipal parking requirements are political instruments used to shape how neighborhood and communities develop both economically and socially.
IMO, planners, who tend to be left of center politically, and elected officials of local governments, who tend to be keenly sensitive to the vagaries of their constituents, will easily find ways to use parking requirements and building codes to bypass the proposed legislation.
Throw into this mix land developers and their economic backers, potential tenants and their shareholders, customers, patrons, and employees. These stakeholders will measure the costs and risks of doing business in communities that support such legislation. I augur that many will simply take their plans elsewhere. Those who stay will pass along the insurance costs to their employees, customers, and patrons.
So while some states will have citizens satisfied that they can keep their guns in their cars, those same citizens will wonder why so little economic development is taking place in their communities or, at best, why their parking permit fees are so high, or the cost of every item on the menu has gone up.
The Reaper
06-18-2009, 12:27
My understanding of the law is this. Police can not search your vehicle without a reason. In fact they need a warrent unless unusual conditions apply such as they believe there is a kidnapped kid in the trunk and waiting for a warrent may jeperdise the life of the kid. Another exception is if you are pulled over the cops can search your vehicle for weapons for officer safety, but they have to have a reason to pull you over.
When you enter a facility that has signs posted saying "All vehicle subject to search" You are giving permission for them to search your vehicle at any time. Basicly you have a choice, leave or concent to random searches, this goes for private as well as public facilites. Without those signs it is illegal for them to search your vehicle without concent, probabal cause (LE only) or a warrent.
This is my understanding, it would be intresting to have a lawyer chime in on this aspect.
If the officer (off-post) pulls you over for any violation, no matter how small, he has the right to ask you for permission to search your car. You have the right to refuse the search. If you consent, and he finds something, it should be chargable, and admissable, under the laws as I understand them. If he sees something suspicious, or has reason to believe that you are concelaing something illegal, then he can search under probable cause, which may have to withstand scrutiny in court. Basically, the search must be reasonable.
I am sure that law school will be in session soon.:munchin
TR
At the outset, and as the various comments before me suggest, this is a very complex issue requiring a number of simultaneous considerations (federal constitutional law, to employment law, to contract law, to property law, tort law, municipal ordinances, land use, etc., etc.). Many of the considerations can overlap. Change one fact and you have a different discussion. Having said that, this is a good topic for our consideration. It is undisputed that an individual has the natural right to self defense, and hence, in our country…the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. However, an employer does have a reasonable right to dictate what items someone may or may not bring on to his property. Herein lies the rub.
Some of my quick observations follow - hoping to contribute to this timely thread - timely because a number of states have proposed laws to ban otherwise lawfully transported firearms from being properly stored in a personal vehicle while an employee is at work. The proponents of such well intentioned proposed legislation always seem to suggest that there is some perceived abuse being imposed on the owners of parking lots and parking garages. Personally, I do not see this as being a big problem. But, I could be wrong. Moreover, I agree with and strongly support the right of employers to prohibit firearms in their buildings…but my locked personal vehicle? No.
Here’s why I disagree with a proposed law that would ban me from otherwise lawfully transporting and storing a firearm in a parking lot or garage…(again, I heartily agree with an owners restriction on my carrying on my person in HIS place of business)…
First, bad guys rarely, if ever, follow the rules so if the intent of the law is to stop a bad guy from doing bad things with yet another law…good luck.
In a number of states the personal vehicle is an extension of an individual’s home/castle. My employment may require me to travel through some dangerous areas either to or from work in that personal vehicle. As others have correctly pointed out, the liability sword cuts both ways. Moreover, the feds say I can lawful transport a firearm interstate while properly locked in my vehicle. And, if I have a concealed carry permit I can lawfully transport the firearm. So, why the fuss?
If it is about employer liability – statutory language can be crafted to minimize employer liability for employee actions. That is, if an employee witnesses a crime in the company parking lot and the employee pulls his firearm from his vehicle and shoots at, and misses the bad guy, but wounds an innocent passerby…the company should not be liable for the acts of the employee acting outside his scope of employment. And, again, the liability sword can work both ways (employers) - if you ban me from lawfully defending myself and something happens on the way to or from work…
If this is merely a johnson measuring contest between individual rights versus property rights, I’ve got to think that the individual (lawfully transporting and storing a firearm) in his own property (locked vehicle) should trump an employer’s right to keep my car out of the company parking lot or parking garage because, among other things, that individual is endowed by his Creator with the natural right to self defense. So long as that otherwise lawful firearm remains locked in my vehicle, the employer should not care nor be concerned. As I stated before, I do believe that under the various time, place and manner restrictions, police powers, health, safety, and welfare, restrictions etc. etc., the firearm can be banned from the building - but, generally, not from my locked private vehicle.
I hope that NMAP won’t mind that I borrow from one of his posts on another matter but it seems to apply quite well to the topic at hand.
“Sometimes, a passage in a work of fiction communicates an idea more effectively than any other choice of words. NMAP
”The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt.
Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." ('Atlas Shrugged' 1957)”
I leave with final thoughts, imagine if the objects that employers attempted to restrict from being located in your personal locked vehicle admittedly on their parking lot were not evils guns …but were cigarettes or a six pack. Imagine if they requested the power to search your personal vehicle for such items?!?
In a Utopian society, there are no terrorists, no criminals, no need for self defense. But, that is a dream. The reality is, law abiding citizens need a method to defend themselves. A properly stowed firearm provides that method. No one can predict when the firearm may be needed. So long as it is properly secured in a locked vehicle why should an employer care? Having a properly stored firearm in a locked personal vehicle may be the poster child for a “don’t ask don’t tell” policy for employees and employers.
Finally, I repeat, bad guys rarely, if ever, follow the rules so if the intent of the law is to stop a bad guy from doing bad things with yet another law…good luck.
Oh, and signs can put one on notice – “all vehicles subject to search” - but they are not the talisman one might think - for the right lawyer. True, no search / no parky …but I need not consent to a search merely because I drove on to the parking lot but, I need not have the opportunity to park there either and can be asked to leave for noncompliance. If signs did it all - we’d all have signs on our cars, homes, businesses, persons, etc., absolving ourselves of all liability.
Personally, I am more concerned with employers needlessly intruding into employee personal business in an employee’s private vehicle. Other than an interesting academic exercise (and a very slippery slope) I fail to see the big problem that banning lawful firearms in a locked private vehicle is actually solving - just my devalued 2 cents worth.
An LEO can and will always find probably cause. If they know the law and know the wiggle room, it's very easy. As mucht as attorneys can wiggle in the gray area of the law, so do LEO. It doesn't make it right but it happens all the time.
I cannot tell you how much "contraband" I found as an LEO just because I pulled over a vehicle that was going to low below the speed limit (thus impeding traffic and becoming a hazzard). Unfortunately, you only have a certain amount of expectation of privacy when out in public. K9s have often been "casually" walked past a stopped vehicle because the handler wanted the K9 to "do his business" and then "hit" on a scent coming from the vehicle. Early cases under this situation were upheld in court (if I can find them, I will post) and thus set a precedence.
As TR said, it will have to hold up under courtroom scrutiny.
I think this will be an issue that lawyers can and will argue to death, throw a ton of gray matter into (not talking about the gray matter above the shoulders) and some things will be ambiguous or overwhelmingly controlling. In the end, the law abiding citizen will lose out because we will adhere to the law as is expected.
What we really should be discussing is... Who willingly gives up their right to self defense in order to go onto this "private property"?
I don't.
I carry concealed, so, no one knows until the armed criminals come. Then, if they want to file some sort of lawsuit against me for carrying... I'll let a jury decide that one. The premis in longrange1947's first post that asked if the people posting the "no gun" signs are going to be then lible for the protection (or lack thereof) of the people entering on their premisis, assumes that you will survive the encounter to be able to file that lawsuit... I have the same problem with that premis as I have with a lot of anti-gun people that feel if my rights are violated, I can just sue. The same problem I had with all the lawsuits after Katrina. It's great that the Nation returned to normal, so those lawsuits could be filed... What would have happened if it didn't, and no regress was provided for people who's rights were already violated, and the violations continued?
The purpose of carrying a firearm is defense. If you are disallowed that right, and submit to someone else's demand that you not bring your firearm onto their property... what redress do you have when you are dead? Does that redress bring back your son, or daughter, you or your wife if they or you are killed because you were disarmed by a sign, or the wishes of a property owner? Nope. I'd rather go against the wishes or demands of a property owner than attend the funeral of my daughter because I chose to obey a sign rather than be armed. (See the Luby's massacre for more details on just this thing)
As far as those "gun free" zones, and businesses that advertise "No guns here" signs... I simply don't go in, or on, or around them if possible. If I have to, I carry concealed, because IMHO I feel my RIGHT of self preservation, and my right to protect my family trumps anyone else's property rights.
My .02c
Roguish Lawyer
06-18-2009, 18:34
I not only brought guns into my office a couple of times, I brought something much more lethal. An 18Z! :lifter ;)
dr. mabuse
06-18-2009, 21:08
In Texas, the "gun free, drug free, common sense free:p" zones aren't directed at the CHL folks. That signage allows for an automatic bumping-up of the charges for miscreants commiting a crime on school property. The "premises" on a school is when you enter through the doorway.
It's already implied in case law that a business owner is responsible (at some level) for the safety and well being (?) of the employees and patrons of said business. However, what if bubba has an accident while transitioning his weapon from trunk to cabin in the parking lot and drills a .45 slug through a coworker?
What is the liability of the owner now if he allows guns on premises? Easy to speculate about it on the web yet very different on the streets.
IIRC, Verizon used to have basically a don't ask/don't tell regarding weapons, yet would place no-gun signs at certain offices where they have "troublesome employees".
Once again, the written law vs. how it plays out on the street vs how the court will view it (remember? The Grand Jury and/or the trial jury that YOU don't get to pick????).
I fully plan to get home unharmed when something happens, yet this law is more complicated than many realize. :munchin
In general, the police may search your vehicle without a warrant in any of the following circumstances:
You voluntarily consent to the search.
The police have probable cause that your vehicle contains evidence of a crime.
The police have a reasonable suspicion (i.e. less evidence than probable cause) that you or someone else on the scene is dangerous and might be able to access the vehicle and pick up any weapons that might be in it.
The police impound your vehicle according to their standard operating procedures.
The police arrest you and conduct the search while you are unsecured and within reaching distance of your vehicle.
The police arrest you for something other than a minor traffic offense and there is reason to believe your car contains evidence relevant to that offense.
There is an emergency or some other exigent circumstances requiring police to access your vehicle.
You are crossing the border.
As for the thread’s original topic, I join the opposition to the parking lot storage provision. Property owners may have valid reasons for banning firearms on their premises, including liability concerns (which the proposed statute cannot completely ameliorate) and the safety, comfort, or preferences of the owners and their employees, customers, guests, and neighbors. Second Amendment supporters have made much progress of late in moving the culture away from irrational gun-phobia, but that progress may be halted or reversed if we are perceived to be imposing gun tolerance on private persons by force of law.
However, what if bubba has an accident while transitioning his weapon from trunk to cabin in the parking lot and drills a .45 slug through a coworker?
I'm curious...how many cases of injury or damage to property in a parking lot have resulted from Bubba having an ND while handling a firearm, versus the number caused by people negligently driving their vehicles in parking lots? From anecdotal evidence, it would appear that perhaps we should ban vehicles from parking lots to reduce property owner liability.
The Reaper
06-19-2009, 09:17
Accidental firearms injuries are statistically at an all-time low.
IMHO, if you expect to be able to transport your firearm in an otherwise prohibited area, you should not be handling or transferring it at all unless there is an immediate threat. Keep it in the trunk or locked up elsewhere till you are off the site.
Anyone who wrongfully displays a firearm on properly posted company property is liable for termination or other disciplinary action. Anyone who commits a crime with a firearm, to include NDs, gets appropriate legal action.
I do not think you should be able to stop me from transporting one otherwise legally in my vehicle, or storing it in my vehicle on company property. You should be able to post signs telling people that carrying firearms on company property is unauthorized, and punish anyone who openly violates that policy.
I do not think this is all that complicated.
Don't ask, don't tell.
TR
dr. mabuse
06-19-2009, 10:15
Razor, I'm just giving the legal side of things for a business owner to consider.
It's a damned if you do damned if you don't deal for them.
For example, a client of mine has a business and CHL's are welcome, even for employees, even in the office. He makes them sign a 2 page "hold harmless" agreement in case someone has an accident in the office or parking lot.
He says the workplace environment there is very polite and no one steals your lunch in the fridge. :D
The "bubba" was a fellow named Danny at a place called NEC on Walnut Hill Lane in Irving, TX back in the 90's.
Oh, there was the AD by a Tyler, Tx PD and his 1911 (I know, LEO situation) in the Winchell's Donuts across from Mother Francis Hospital at ~5:30 a.m. He sat down and the gun went off. No, they didn't let a 18 year old (me at the time) inspect the gun for some reason.
And, there was the AD at the Home Depot 4-5 years ago (IIRC) . A 32 KelTek.
I was there for all of the above festivities.
If one wishes to look at how the people that will judge us look at it (which was my point I failed to make), someone getting bumped by a car vs. accidentally shot is apples and oranges in my civilian world.
Like TR said, don't ask, don't tell works best. If someone screws up, it's on them:munchin.
I wasn't attacking you personally, just the odd logic. So of the 3 NDs you listed, was Denny the only one that actually caused someone physical harm? I would submit that even at 5mph (and who really drives at or below 5mph in a parking lot?), a vehicle "bumping" a pedestrian will cause more than simple inconvenience.
dr. mabuse
06-19-2009, 11:13
Razor, didn't take it personally. What I do for a living requires me to teach in a circuitous fashion and consider "all things" considering my classroom audience.
I was just kicking around "what if's" for discussion's sake based on experience. For much of this stuff, there is no logic.
The other 2 AD's didn't hurt anyone out of sheer luck. People were in very close proximity in those cases. The lady that got hit by Danny's idiocy got a hicky mark in the calf by a ricochete.
Just juxtaposing how a Grand Jury will view it. Guns=evil. Cars=parking lot accident.
This is the only time I can truly contribute to this forum because I've done this for a long,long time with personally over 17,000 students including criminal court judges, LE, politicians at the local, state and federal level and consulting businesses on how to handle the "gun issue". I just got a little excited.
Just juxtaposing how a Grand Jury will view it. Guns=evil. Cars=parking lot accident.
And - therefore - Guns + Cars = Evil parking lot accident? ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
dr. mabuse
06-19-2009, 11:40
Si senor. What the juries do never ceases to amaze. I've seen people that clearly broke the law get no-billed, and innocents that got billed.
Our legal fate in the hands of a group of people that typically no nothing of guns or gun laws or self defense. I love Dallas County!!!!:rolleyes: