A different approach would be to have automobiles declared as an extension of the home. Anything you could lawfully posses in your home would thereby be legal to possess in your vehicle, regardless of it's location.
P8riot wrote:
A different approach would be to have automobiles declared as an extension of the home. Anything you could lawfully posses in your home would thereby be legal to possess in your vehicle, regardless of it's location.
That is exactly the approach that will win in this issue.
Property rights vs Self-defense rights
Address:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1499080/posts " -- There's a good bit of case law establishing the principle that an automobile is a traveling property zone of its owner, not the entity who owns the roads and parking lots on which the vehicle rests.
The owner of a road may prohibit a vehicle from driving on the road, and the owner of a parking lot may insist that the vehicle be removed, but neither is justified in arbitrarily searching the vehicle or removing what it contains, insofar as the cargo is lawful.
Firearms carried properly in a vehicle are, of course, lawful. That means that their mere presence does not justify the road or parking lot owner violating the property rights of the vehicle owner. In effect, the firearm is not in the parking lot or roadway; it is in the vehicle. -- "