[Luis Gonzalez]

"If a homeowner gun owner wanted a guarantee that the hill would remain as is to keep his gun in the car, and park his car on the parking lot adjacent to his place of work, he could have bought the hill parking lot. That way he would be paying for what he wanted, rather than expecting the government to deprive someone else for his benefit."

[aragorn]

Luis,

After several days of introspection and reflection (not necessarily of your arguments, but) of your bottom line, and of what *I* believe, I find that integrity forces me to post this publicly (since my other arguments have been posted thusly):

You are correct. I have no rights on your property.

Therefor, I must also conclude that the Oklahoma law we have been sparring about is indeed a misguided piece of legislation.

FRegards,

aragorn

[jonestown]

"If a gun owner wanted to keep his gun in the car, and park his car on the parking lot adjacent to his place of work, he could have bought the parking lot.
That way he would be paying for what he wanted, rather than expecting the government to deprive someone else for his benefit."

41 Luis Gonzalez

---

Who is being "deprived" of what; --
-- when an employer is told that he can't infringe on his employees right to carry arm's in their parked vehicles?