Lex:
And if he conditions that permission on what is in your car?
Your employers 'conditions' cannot deprive his employees of their constitutional rights.
Let's take guns out of the equation.
Lets not. Guns are beyond question an enumerated right.
Say an employer makes a rule that you cannot leave valuables in your car in his lot, because he believes that would attract thieves. You agree, but decide to leave some jewelry in the car, because your work precludes its wearing during work. Your boss discovers that, and terminates your employment for violating his rules that you agreed to.
Your boss made an unreasonable 'rule', coerced your agreement to it, then violated your property [your vehicle] searching to find his 'contraband'. A jury will laugh him out of court.
Valid or invalid? Is your fundamental right to own property superior to his fundamental right to decide what is allowed on his property?
Property owners who do business in the USA are obligated to obey our "Law of the Land". [just as all of us are] -- Our supreme law says we have a right to own & carry arms, which shall not be infringed.
Trying to restrict the carrying of arms to & from work is an infringement, no matter who initiates the 'ban'.
Where does the constitution guarantee you a parking spot? Or a job?
Lets not. Guns are beyond question an enumerated right.
So are property rights. Rather than address the real issue, which is a conflict between two rights of two people, you would rather continue to demagogue.
Your boss made an unreasonable 'rule', coerced your agreement to it, then violated your property [your vehicle] searching to find his 'contraband'. A jury will laugh him out of court.
No, he made a reasonable rule based on local robberies, the worker voluntarily agreed in order to have a convenient parking spot, and left the evidence of noncompliance in plain sight hanging around the rear view mirror. Now that I've stripped away your straw man interpretations of my hypothetical scenario, what should the jury say?
Our supreme law says we have a right to own & carry arms, which shall not be infringed.
It also says that we are to be secure in our property. Your car and all its contents are only on that property by sufferance. If you don't like that, you are free to work or park elsewhere. Secondly, if your gun is in your car and you are not, you cannot be said to truly be "carrying" it. At that time, it is not a defense, it is just another possession. That's why I posed the question in terms of conflicting property rights.