Ask to see if the boss is in, we need to talk
ProfessorBainbridge.com: Guns and Private Property Rights
In several states across the country, recent laws have made it illegal for companies to prohibit guns in their parking lots. More states are considering these bills. That’s made some employers worried about workplace safety — and liability.
So now the government is telling companies who they can and cannot fire for violating company policies. More big brother, big government instituted by the so-called Republicans who should be against this sort of thing.
found by Ima FIsh via Prof. Bainbridge blog.
What’s happening with the Right? They’re definitely WAY out of touch
with the mainstream. Forcing employers to give up their property
rights (i.e., the right to chose what occurs on their property) seems
to be more of a Leftist tactic.
It’s my approximation that the Right is about as out of touch with the
mainstream as the Left was in the late 70s early 80s. If the Left could find their Reagan the tide might began to turn in their favor.
This has nothing to do with big brother or big government.
What it is saying is that companies can not micro-regulate an employee’s LEGAL behavior.
Of course, companies should NOT be liable for employee’s safety beyond reasonableness. If an employee wants to shoot their coworkers, the availablity of a gun in the parking lot vs. at their home is probably a meaningless distinction.
Yes, there is a theoretical distinction between the availability of parking lot vs. home, but before we allow companies to regulate LEGAL behavior, it is up to them to prove that their regulations will save REAL (not theoretical) lives.
Ooh, John. Is that gun what I think it is? .50-caliber and all?
“What it is saying is that companies can not micro-regulate an employee’s LEGAL behavior.”
That’s preposterous. Companies regulate the legal behavior of employees every single day. You can’t smoke in most public buildings, as a company policy not just regional laws. And I’d dare say that a company would fire two employees having sex in the middle of the parking lot, even though sex is (for now) a legal behavior.
It’s a real delemma for the right. On the one hand, you have to cowtow to corporations and their opposition to regulation of any kind, but on the other hand, you have to cowtow to gun owners and their opposition to regulation of any kind. It’s like watching your wife fight with your mother and having to pick which one to defend.
Lou, it is NOT legal to carry a gun on private property AGAINST the owner’s permission. I have no idea why you think it is. The fact that it’s in a trunk is irrelevant. Thus, this law IS a big brother/big government intrusion onto property rights.
I disagree with Lou. Companies can absolutely regulate legal behavior that happens on their property. They can’t for example say “we won’t hire anybody that owns guns” but they can say “you can’t bring your guns onto our property”. As long as it’s non-discriminatory and not completely unreasonable they can do things like this as long as the parking lot is their private property. Since “leave your gun at home” is not an unreasonable burden and there are liability issues (whether there *should* be or not is beside the point) they should be able to set this policy if they deem it appropriate.
Uhhhhh well there is a reason these states are doing this…..
If a LEGALLY PERMITTED (by the state) concelaed firearm holder is not able to have his firearm in the company parking lot, then he is being denied his right of safe passage…ie he cannot carry his LEGALLY PERMITTED firearm TO – FROM work….
Something to think about…
I wasn’t really clear as to my words. When I said:
“companies can not micro-regulate an employee’s LEGAL behavior”, I was indicating the intensions of the lawmakers. And I would replace “can” not with “should not”.
Companies SHOULD only regulate legal behavior when they prove that the behavior directly affects them. Let the courts decide this, but I would always lean in the direction of “more rights” for the individual when it comes into conflict with othe rights.
A couple of responses:
Ima Fish: “The fact that it’s in a trunk is irrelevant.” That is not true. There have definitely been court decisions where “cars” are thought of as extensions of the person/house. Something like a parking lot, although it may be private property, is more of a gray area than the actual working “building”.
And as to “it is NOT legal to carry a gun on private property AGAINST the owner’s permission”, that depends upon where you are. Some jurisdictions allow it. Circumstances may vary, but it is clearly up to the legislators in that jurisdiction, as it is clearly not true via the US Constitutional law as currently decided.
It is clear that “business entities” have less “rights” than individuals… people can discriminate in their associations based upon lots of factors (race, etc) that businesses can not. In this case, I feel that a person’s right to self defense on their commute to work trumps the employer’s right for a gun-free parking lot. In the “building” where the company should/would provide reasonable security, I have less of a problem with the no-gun rule.
Just some thoughts from this libertarian.
Parking lots are not completely private property. Several years back New Jersey cops were towing/tivekting cars out of driveways because of emissions issues.
About 5 years ago, AOL fired 4 employees that were transferring rifles from their cars into another. They were planning on going target shooting after work. That parking lot is shared by a fast food joint, a theater, and borders a shopping mall. I could have walked up and down “their” sidewalk carrying a rifle and they could do nothing to me,
The employees lost their lawsuit against AOL, which royally pissed off the majority of gun owners (i.e. most home owners) in this state. I suspect it was this incident that triggered the legislation mentioned above.
The behavior of those employees wasn’t unusual at all. It was the actions of AOL that we found bizarre. My company forbids firearms within its fenced premises, but it isn’t so foolish as to ban weapons in the parking lot.
Every day companies regulate their employees ‘Legal” behavior. Included is Constitutionally protected free speech. Less protected are policies covering employee apparel and appearance. Possession of cameras, cell phones, portable music devices, and other recording machines are usually prohibited. Weapons are also an area in which most companies associate in the same class as alcohol and illegal (and sometimes even legal) drugs.
The Supreme Court has often ruled that the state may only regulate behavior on private property when it is in the interest of society. Unless the state could show that the citizen’s right to have weapons on private property is greater then the loss of the right to have those weapons, the law would fail. (ie, imminent harm vs perceived threat) If these laws were to prevail, then it could open up such other commercial property rights as trespassing in Malls as a way to restrict gangs, or “no shirt, no shoes, no service” in restaurants.
I have a 50 acre farm, can I discharge a gun on my own property and how close to ajoining property thanx