If the kompany doesn't want weapons in his vehicle, they should 1) pay for his car, 2) pay for his driving time and expenses to and from work, and 3) guarantee his security at work, and while driving to and from work.
Korporate anti-gun policies are simply another assault on our individual Rights. Since the gov't is unable (at least today) to ban guns, they simply get so-called "private" companies to do it. Many of these same "private" kompanies are staffed with former fed bureacrats, and many others receive some sort of federal subsidy. So they are able to get away with enacting these anti-gun edicts.
As for those that are going to post about "private property" here, I suspect that they would be the first in line to applaud the state kicking down my door for playing my music too loud or not paying my taxes on my "private property".
Doesn't matter. Private property is private property. You have no inherent right to park this employer's parking lot. The owner is entitled to make his/her own rules, and it doesn't matter of he/she was a former bureacrat or not.
The issue is not about nuisance laws and taxation of property, the issue is about government granting the exertion of individual rights on private property.
Contrary to what many people believe, the U.S. Constitution and State Constitution's have no jurisdiction on private property. And just because a business is owned by more than one person, stockholders, for example, does not make the private property "public" property. Public property is owned by the taxpayers.
If constitutions had jurisdiction on private property, then you, as a private property owner, homeowner for example, would have to allow anyone into your house, carrying a gun. (Amendments 14 and 2.)
The constitutions limit and constrict the actions and powers of government.
Government is restricted from implementing anti-discrimination laws against a private property owner by Amendment IX. The private property owner will decide who is hired, fired, served, and how much is paid.
Government is restricted from taking your property without just compensation by Amendment V. Wal-Mart is not going to get my property because of the unconstitutional use of eminent domain without just compensation for my property.
Government is restricted from ordering what a newspaper or blogger can print or say by Amendment I.
Government is restricted from searching and seizing airline passenger's property by Amendment IV. Only the private property owner, the airline, can search and seize property they do not want on their property. <> Granted too many citizens allow for these government intrusions and constitutional violations, but the original meaning, intent, and jurisdiction of constitution's are still valid.
No one is saying that an individual can't carry a gun in their vehicle...they just can't park it on another individual's private property because the property owner's right to set the conditions of access and use of his property begin at the property line.
Your entire argument has always been that someone other than the rightful owner of property can set rules and conditions on land that belongs to someone else.
Yours is not only a ridiculous argument, it's also circular, because it relies on the same property rights that you are arguing you should be able to violate.
Excellent post. While I do come down on the side of the property owners rights, these policies don't just affect employees while they are on company property. It affects their safety during much of the day.