Should/can employers ban firearms in your car?

Discussion in 'Hunters Rights Forum' started by The Other David, Sep 30, 2005.

  1. geober

    geober Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    1,813
    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2003
    Location:
    Cameron Park, CA
    Former employer had a no guns policy for the parking lot. I found it to be limiting because the workplace was on the way home from the duck blind. If I wanted to hunt the early morning or late afternoon and work 1/2 day, it required me to drive an extra hour to drop off my gun at home.

    I don't think the policy makes anyone any safer and just infringes on my flexibility to live my life. Kind of like most all gun control.

    I'd like to see the policy be the gun needs to be cased and possibly locked or else you can be fired. That might be a good compromise. I said 'might'.
     
  2. The Other David

    The Other David Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    15,506
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2000
    IMO the problem arises when "public access property" restricts otherwise legal activity. Note the highlighted section. If this is legal, then restaraunts, malls, and 7-11s could legally stop you from parking or driving there with guns, alcohol, Playboy magazines, fishing equipment, or cigarettes in your car. In this case it involves guns, but once the principal is established then the owners of "public access property" can restrict anything they want. This could include pickup trucks, SUVs, vehicles pulling trailers, decoys, people dressed in cammo.

    I have no problem with property owners restricting all of the above on property that is not public access.

    David
     
  3. 'tween_fly_ways

    'tween_fly_ways Moderator Moderator

    Messages:
    5,448
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    South Tennessee via North Alabama
    I understand what you're saying, even without the bold text :p

    BTW, my "scared" comment was pointed at the company's position--not the NRA's.

    I still believe private property rights should prevail (even if they say they don't want blond hair, blue eye Scandinavians who drive Subaru's on their property).

    However, since these are constitutional rights, and most people assume they aren't an issue, perhaps such restrictions should be made to be posted--every 10 feet. :nutz Then let the public decide if they want to patronize such places.

    As to the actual legalities (convoluted as I'm sure they are), I've no idea. I realize ordinances and such restrict use of private property all the time, so I guess there is a legal argument for disallowing a restriction. . .
     
  4. The Other David

    The Other David Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    15,506
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2000
    TFW,

    Let the courts sort it out!

    David
     
  5. Triple BB

    Triple BB Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    2,597
    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2001
    Location:
    WY
    The NRA missed the boat on this one. If I own a business, and the property is mine, I have the right to decide whether employee's can bring firearm's on my property. If the emplyee wants to park out on a public street, they can come to work with whatever they want in their car.
     
  6. rossy

    rossy Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    112
    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Location:
    Troy, OH
    What about companies that do not have off street parking? Now the employee's right to armed self protection is lost from the time they leave their house to go to work to the time they return.

    Which other Constitutional right would you like to cancel out for your employees?
     
  7. lancej

    lancej Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    5,114
    Joined:
    May 16, 2002
    Location:
    Mt. Aukum, CA
    This was tried at a company I worked for in California. I refused to sign the policy as it restricted my right to engage in a legal activity (hunting). When others saw what I was doing, they refused. Eventually, the company backed down and rescinded the policy. All the arguments aired here were aired there. The most compelling was that banning the weapons would not enhance safety from a disgruntled employee. Most employees live close enough that if they are going to shoot up the place they can get their weapon and be back before the "rage" wears off. All this policy did was make life more miserable for the employees.

    Lance
     
  8. tule

    tule Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    2,965
    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2000
    Location:
    Livermore, CA
    We have a firearms ban at our work place and yes, i am torn between the rule.

    On one hand, i dont like the rule because if i go deer hunting after work, or im loaded to head out duck hunting, if i have my gun cased and locked, and hidden from prying eyes, then why cant i have my gun with me??? I do bring my gun to work if im going hunting after anyhow, but i also cover it with a blanket or sleeping bag and other items, and i dont tell anyone, to cover my butt and theirs.

    On the other hand, i like the rule because it is an effort to protect the employees/employer from harm due to a termination of and employee or just a plain ol' disgruntled employee. Guns dont kill people, people kill people, and i know this, but ive seen some terminations go bad enough that i hoped none of us were sitting in someones scope after the firing.

    But what stops a person from going home and getting a gun then going back to the place of previous employment and shooting someone? How about the drive home, the anger is rushing through the persons brain, but so are the conciquences of their actions. The drive home is the "cooldown" period, and although it may not work all the time, i bet it works most of the time, or there would be a lot more work place fatalities..........Jason
     
  9. The Other David

    The Other David Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    15,506
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2000
    tule,

    There are different aspects to this issue, as there are to all important issues.

    IMO...

    Private property with no public access is different than public access private property.

    There is no evidence that there is such a thing as a period in which 'cooling off' occurs among homicidal people. It certainly doesn't exist for gun purchases. And a review of workplace shootings will show that most involve a POed employee coming to work with the intention of doing bodily harm.

    Since you acknowledge that you ignore the rule, why do you think that a POed employee would obey it?

    Many questions, few clear answers!:nutz

    David
     
  10. ripline

    ripline Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    1,630
    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Location:
    Florence, WI
    Isn't the truck of your car also your own PRIVATE PROPERTY. I'll be damned if I would allow anybody from my company to look to see what I have in my trunk. That's invasion of privacy.
     

Share This Page