Skip to comments.Proposed Bill Allows Employees to Keep Guns in Cars at Work(ND)
Posted on 03/23/2011 4:58:55 AM PDT by marktwain
A bill in the legislature has taken an unlikely path, and a senate committee is taking the latest look. The bill would make it illegal for employers to forbid employees from keeping guns locked in their vehicles while at work.
The bill got a do not pass recommendation from the House committee that first looked at the bill, but passed overwhelmingly on the floor.
Basically the bill sets up a battle over property rights.
It`s no secret that many North Dakotans like to hunt, and the state constitution holds Second Amendment rights in high regard. But some gun owners say their rights are being violated when employers set rules not allowing employees to keep their guns locked in their vehicles at work.
"Somebody might want to go hunting before or after work. I have a friend in Aberdeen, S.D., who used to go over his lunch hour," explained Darin Goens of the National Rifle Association.
It`s not just hunting rifles, but also concealed weapons. Supporters of the legislation to block employers from prohibiting employees from keeping guns in their vehicles say gun owners should be allowed to protect themselves to and from work.
"The only thing that happens is we disarm the people who are using their guns for self defense against these guys. The bottom line is, the bad guys are going to ignore the signs," said Goens.
But businesses say this bill in turn violates their property rights.
"It should be the right of the company to enforce the firearm policy they deem appropriate," said Andy Peterson of the North Dakota Chamber of Commerce.
And at least one gun owner agrees.
Gun owner Mike Donahue said: "I think if somebody says, `I don`t want you bringing guns on my property,` he has the right to say that or do that. If a business owner says, `I don`t want any guns in my parking lot,` no guns in the parking lot."
Donahue says if gun owners want to have their guns locked in their vehicles at work. They should find somewhere else to park, like on the street.
Supporters of the legislation say, the owner of the vehicle also has property rights.
Similar legislation has passed in 13 other states, but failed in Montana and Wyoming. The bill does exempt certain workplaces like schools, correctional facilities and places with hazardous materials.
I would go just the other way. To protect private property rights, the slight (even illusory) infringment on gun rights to allow a much greater utilization of another right is acceptable. I should be able to dictate whether someone can carry on my property.
If the gun is in the person's vehicle, it's not being carried on YOUR property. There is no confusion on "property rights" on the question. the property boundary is the outer sheet metal of the vehicle. The interior of the vehicle is the vehicle owners property.
Now, if he pulls it out and walks around with it, you have a legitmate case......otherwise not.
That's not true at all. The parking lot is the owners property and he can ban any car carrying a firearm. It's his lot. If the employee doesn't like that he can go work elsewhere. That's the way the private property fee market economy works. IF enough people don't want to work under those conditions they will go somewhere else and the company will go out of business and those companies allowing firearms will thrive.
That incorrect perception is what the law is all about. But the LEGAL question is simple to answer. Do police have to get a warrant or permission to search a person's vehicle?? The answer is yes.
We are not talking about police here but private property owners. They would have every right to require that anyone wishing to use their parking lot and work in their business sign a consent to search such vehilce at any time, all are part of their efforts to enforce their no gun ban. Just as one’s right to free speech doesn’t prevent them from being fired if they mouth off to their employer.
In no other instance does a American’s civil rights end at anothers property line. Furthermore, an American’s vehicle being considered an extension of his “castle” is a well established legal doctrine.
What really is at issue here is the civil liability of an employer for torts committed on his property by a gun wielding employee.
Simply exempt the employer from civil liability for the employee’s firearm and the whole problem goes away.
I don't even know what that means. And it is not a "well established doctrine". Certainly a person has a privacy interest in a vehicle to be free from unreasonable search and seizure from agents of the state. The right is much less than with a home as demonstrated by the legalilty of a "Terry" stop and search. But any employer would have the right to require consent to search as a condition of using a parking lot. The employee can refuse and work, or park, somewhere else if that is his desire.
If you've ever been on a military base you may remember a sign at the gate stating that entry onto the base grants them permission to search your vehicle. What they don't tell you is that as a citizen you can withdraw that permission at any time. At that point all they can do is either get a warrant or ask you to leave.
Implied consent is subject to revocation.
Abslutely. This is exacly my point. Presence on another's property can be conditioned on them giving consent to search their vehicle at any time. If they revoke their consent they can be booted off the property, or in the case of an employer's parking lot, fired from their job.
If you invite the general public into your parking lot in Florida, anything that I may legally posses in my car comes with me (including my rights) and there is nothing you can do about it. If you want to post your property and deny entry to everyone except yourself than you can dictate all you want.
Can an employer require an employee to wave OSHA regs as a condition of employment?
And what the hell is a “terry” stop?
No, the OSHA statute itself prohibits this. A Terry stop is the type of warrantless searches, short of probable cause, authorized by the USSC in the seminal case of Terry v. Ohio.
Let's perfect that analogy. You need the permission of the state to drive that car on the public road (operator's license, state inspection certificate, mandatory insurance, etc.). That permission has to be applied for. The state has requirements that you have to meet in order to be granted permission. The state asks you questions and requires you to prove things to them. There is no reason I see that a private company can not require you to get similar permission from them before granting you access to their land. Nobody has an inalienable right to be on another person's land.
Do private property owners have the right to supercede a constitutionally enumerated right?
provide an example to demonstrate what you are asking.
“Nobody has an inalienable right to be on another person’s land.”
What is that, the 3rd amendment in the Bill of Rights? Because you are suggesting a property owner can violate the 4th on a whim.
* Fourth Amendment Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
And what is the OSHA statute predicated on?
This article explains what the 10th circuit court said about OSHA vs state law.
At least we have 1 court on our side.
Indiana passed this law last year and my employer immediately change the rules forcing the employee to pay for back round and security checks, give a list of all firearm serial numbers and permits ect.
If there are any Indiana Lawyers interested in showing their mis-implementation of the law please send me a private post.
Then if he doesn't open the property to the public he can deny access and/or set terms and conditions upon entry. The vast majority of non-retail businesses are not open to the public. Even many retail businesses are closed to the public. I am not a member of Sam's club or Costco, for instance. So, the owners says I can't come in.
There is no second amendement right to posess firearms on another's private property if the property owner prohibits it. The constitution also provides for freedom of the press but that doesn't give someone the right to set up a newspaper business in my basement or parking lot.
What about a restaurant that requires a reservation to dine? You can’t just walk in, take a seat and order up the special. If they don’t extend a reservation, they are in fact barring you from the property.
And I disagree. But let me ask precisely what you think such corporate policies accomplish?? If someone is going to "go postal", do you honestly think a company policy of "no firearms in your vehicle" is going to stop them?? When they're willing to commit multiple murders.
I have no idea what that means or what you are asking.
First off, private property owners don't have to justify the wisdom of any legal restrictions they put on the use of their property. I'm not arguing the wisdom or lack thereof of such policies, just the right of a property owner to restrict the presence of firearms on his personal property if he deems it right to do so. I personally support the second amendment, own several firearms and practice with them regularly. But I support personal property rights every bit as much.
Which is more important to you:
The Second Amendment rights of all Americans.
The property rights of anti-gun bigots?
Each are equally important. A free society could not stand without both.
A reservation is asked for. It may or may not be granted. Hip nightclubs are famous for this. If you showed up to Studio 54 wearing keds, hornrims and a pocket protector you didn't get past the fuzzy rope.
Are you also responsible for the physical safety of all people on your property while they are on you property? If so, wouldn't they require you to be armed?
See various “public” shoot outs where patrons have been injured/killed by criminals and ask your self about your property rights again. Yes, such events are low probability events but then so are hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and earth quakes. It is better to think things through to their end before it happens than to have regrets later.
I do too. However, my private vehicle property rights supercedes his parking lot property rights, imo. As long as my guns stay in my vehicle, I don't see where he has the right to violate my property rights.
Sam's club can require a handicapped person to apply for entry to the business. If entry is granted it comes with conditions.
BTW, the Whirlpool facility in question was not open to the public.
not necessarily. There are other ways to protect business invitess and employees available. But I've got an idea - you administer your personal property the way you want to and let others do the same. See how easy that is.
Besides ,the "legal" status is that only a very tiny number of people in the U.S. actually have absolute property rights through land grants;the rest of "private property" is rented from the government.Think not?Then don't pay your property taxes and see how long it remains "your" property.
If you as a private or public property owner or agency wish to ban firearms then YOU should be held fully and personally liable for any injury suffered by any person unable to defend theirself on your property,or who was unable to defend theirself while enroute to or from your property from their home.
I want a list of the other constitutional and natural rights you think property owners should be able to ignore at will.(REALLY want to hear how you plan to deny homosexuals,handicapped,blacks, or Democrats from your place in light of current law!)
Which is more important to you:
The Second Amendment rights of all Americans.
The property rights of anti-gun bigots?
That is nonsense. But if that's what you want than to be consistent a gun owner should be guilty of murder if they allow someone to steal their gun and kill someone else.
If you have permission to be there
As long as my guns stay in my vehicle, I don't see where he has the right to violate my property rights.
But he does have the right to deny you entry, set terms of entry or revoke permission after the fact. If he does, you and your vehicle have to go.
I understood the question, perhaps you didn’t understand the answer. Both are equally important. And a property owner’s invitation can be accompanied by any legal condition they want to put on that invitation, including no guns. That does not interfer and abridge anyone else’s rights. IF you don’t like it, take your business somewhere else. Why do you think you have a right to impose your absolutist concept of gun rights on others to the detriment of their property rights? Nobody is forcing you to visit anyone elses property so why should you be able to force your guns on their property?
I have not coerced anybody in that situation. They have no obligation to come onto my property - if they don't like my rules then go to another person's private property who allows guns. There is no coersion at all.
"Unless you can prove that the gunowner (who was a victim of theft) ASKED for his or her guns to be stolen, they bear NO responsibility."
Unless you can prove that a property owner asked a robber to come and shoot one of his customers or employees then the property owner should bear NO responsibility. Works both ways.