Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Proposed Bill Allows Employees to Keep Guns in Cars at Work(ND)
kfyrtv.com ^ | 22 March, 2011 | Amanda Tetlak

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; US: North Dakota
KEYWORDS: banglist; gun; nd; property; workplace
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-118 next last
I understand that property rights must be respected. There are always arguments around the boundaries. For example, we grant eminent domain for utilities, and that infringes on property rights. I think this minor infringement, to allow a much greater utilization of another right, is acceptable.
1 posted on 03/23/2011 4:59:03 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

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.


2 posted on 03/23/2011 5:06:13 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
"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.

3 posted on 03/23/2011 5:21:00 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
"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."

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.

4 posted on 03/23/2011 5:25:15 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
"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."

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.

5 posted on 03/23/2011 5:30:33 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
We got this passed in Florida some time ago. It is a basically a "don't ask, don't tell" law. The law prohibits business owners from asking employees if they have the required concealed weapon permit. Even if a firearm is discovered in an employees car, the employer has no way to know if the employee has a CWP because it is not public record in Florida. Also the law provides civil and criminal immunity for the employer if that firearm is used on the property.
6 posted on 03/23/2011 5:30:47 AM PDT by bruoz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

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.


7 posted on 03/23/2011 5:43:18 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

Nonsense.

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.


8 posted on 03/23/2011 5:46:17 AM PDT by papertyger (Progressives: excusing hate by accusing hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
"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."

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.

9 posted on 03/23/2011 5:54:08 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
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 vehicle at any time, all are part of their efforts to enforce their no gun ban.

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.

10 posted on 03/23/2011 5:59:13 AM PDT by Retired COB (Still mad about Campaign Finance Reform)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Retired COB
"At that point all they can do is either get a warrant or ask you to leave."

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.

11 posted on 03/23/2011 6:03:10 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
The parking lot is the owners property and he can ban any car carrying a firearm. It's his lot.

REALLY?

Suppose a business owner wanted to ban handicapped people from his or her business. Should the business owner be able to also forgo placing handicapped signs on his or her lot?

When a business owner is open to the public, there are reasonable limits on what he or she cannot allow on their property.

If the employee doesn't like that he can go work elsewhere.

And if the business owner doesn't like Constitutional rights being exercised, he or she can always close down their business to the public. Nobody is FORCING business owners to stay open.

This argument is about what a business owner will allow in another persons car. What about the car owners rights?
12 posted on 03/23/2011 6:07:36 AM PDT by dbehsman (NRA Life member, and loving every minute of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
"... I should be able to dictate whether someone can carry on my property."

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.

13 posted on 03/23/2011 6:08:24 AM PDT by bruoz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
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.

As the Second Amendment goes, so goes the Fourth.
14 posted on 03/23/2011 6:09:19 AM PDT by dbehsman (NRA Life member, and loving every minute of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

Can an employer require an employee to wave OSHA regs as a condition of employment?

And what the hell is a “terry” stop?


15 posted on 03/23/2011 6:09:38 AM PDT by papertyger (Progressives: excusing hate by accusing hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
"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.

16 posted on 03/23/2011 6:15:43 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
Do police have to get a warrant or permission to search a person's vehicle?? The answer is yes.

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.

17 posted on 03/23/2011 6:16:15 AM PDT by Poison Pill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Poison Pill
Nobody has an inalienable right to be on another person's land.

Amen.

Until the property owner decides to open his property up to the public.
18 posted on 03/23/2011 6:24:01 AM PDT by dbehsman (NRA Life member, and loving every minute of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

Do private property owners have the right to supercede a constitutionally enumerated right?


19 posted on 03/23/2011 6:31:06 AM PDT by meyer (We will not sit down and shut up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: meyer
"Do private property owners have the right to supercede a constitutionally enumerated right?"

provide an example to demonstrate what you are asking.

20 posted on 03/23/2011 6:32:44 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: dbehsman

“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.


21 posted on 03/23/2011 6:36:06 AM PDT by TxDas (This above all, to thine ownself be true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
provide an example to demonstrate what you are asking.

When a private property owner opens up his or her property to the public (ex. to do business), does that private property owner then have the right to say that a person's Second Amendment rights are no longer valid in the person's car?
22 posted on 03/23/2011 6:39:23 AM PDT by dbehsman (NRA Life member, and loving every minute of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
No, the OSHA statute itself prohibits this.

And what is the OSHA statute predicated on?

23 posted on 03/23/2011 6:41:44 AM PDT by papertyger (Progressives: excusing hate by accusing hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
“Can an employer require an employee to wave OSHA regs as a condition of employment?”

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_20090220/ai_n31383050/ p>

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.

24 posted on 03/23/2011 6:44:59 AM PDT by hans56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: dbehsman
Until the property owner decides to open his property up to the public.

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.

25 posted on 03/23/2011 6:48:24 AM PDT by Poison Pill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: hans56
Thank you for the link to the article. From the article:

The initial law was passed after several Whirlpool employees were fired for storing firearms in their vehicles in company parking lots.

Well in the future when appliances in my home need to be replaced, my decision will be a little easier.

I will not do business with the anti-gun nazis at Whirlpool.
26 posted on 03/23/2011 6:52:50 AM PDT by dbehsman (NRA Life member, and loving every minute of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: dbehsman
"When a private property owner opens up his or her property to the public (ex. to do business), does that private property owner then have the right to say that a person's Second Amendment rights are no longer valid in the person's car?"

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.

27 posted on 03/23/2011 6:54:03 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: dbehsman

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.


28 posted on 03/23/2011 6:54:07 AM PDT by Poison Pill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
"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 vehile 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."

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.

29 posted on 03/23/2011 6:54:37 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
"And what is the OSHA statute predicated on?"

I have no idea what that means or what you are asking.

30 posted on 03/23/2011 6:55:16 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Poison Pill
The vast majority of non-retail businesses are not open to the public.

That must explain why the all seem to have "Visitor Only" parking spots.

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.

Sure, and if the business wants to discriminate against handicapped people, the business can ban them from the premise too. Right?
31 posted on 03/23/2011 6:57:18 AM PDT by dbehsman (NRA Life member, and loving every minute of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
"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."

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.

32 posted on 03/23/2011 6:59:53 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Poison Pill
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.

Not quite. The restaurant is open to the public. Any member of the public can make a reservation.
33 posted on 03/23/2011 6:59:53 AM PDT by dbehsman (NRA Life member, and loving every minute of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

Which is more important to you:

The Second Amendment rights of all Americans.

-Or-

The property rights of anti-gun bigots?


34 posted on 03/23/2011 7:05:16 AM PDT by dbehsman (NRA Life member, and loving every minute of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: dbehsman

Each are equally important. A free society could not stand without both.


35 posted on 03/23/2011 7:09:06 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: dbehsman
Not quite. The restaurant is open to the public. Any member of the public can make a reservation.

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.

36 posted on 03/23/2011 7:09:52 AM PDT by Poison Pill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
I have no problem with your concept of your ability to control what happens on your property as long as you go the whole nine yards.

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.

37 posted on 03/23/2011 7:10:29 AM PDT by Nip (TANSTAAFL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
I understand that property rights must be respected.

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.

38 posted on 03/23/2011 7:10:36 AM PDT by upsdriver (to undo the damage the "intellectual elites" have done. . . . . Sarah Palin for President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
If the gun is in the person's vehicle, it's not being carried on YOUR property.

Exactly!

39 posted on 03/23/2011 7:11:59 AM PDT by upsdriver (to undo the damage the "intellectual elites" have done. . . . . Sarah Palin for President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dbehsman
if the business wants to discriminate against handicapped people, the business can ban them from the premise too. Right?

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.

40 posted on 03/23/2011 7:15:10 AM PDT by Poison Pill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Nip
"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?"

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.

41 posted on 03/23/2011 7:16:41 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
The practical reality is that private (or public) parking lot bans on firearms in personal vehicles effectively limits firearms to the home (unless the landlord bars firearms).

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!)

42 posted on 03/23/2011 7:17:33 AM PDT by hoosierham (Waddaya mean Freedom isn't free ?;will you take a credit card?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
Oh, I'm sorry. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. Let me put it to you this way.

Which is more important to you:

The Second Amendment rights of all Americans.

-Or-

The property rights of anti-gun bigots?



The property rights absolutists are obsessing over a totally bogus question. They are concerned about their property rights (while ignoring the property rights of automobile owners parked on their property at the property owners invitation) above the Second Amendment rights of the public who they have invited onto their property.
43 posted on 03/23/2011 7:18:17 AM PDT by dbehsman (NRA Life member, and loving every minute of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Poison Pill

Which is more important to you:

The Second Amendment rights of all Americans.

-Or-

The property rights of anti-gun bigots?


44 posted on 03/23/2011 7:19:39 AM PDT by dbehsman (NRA Life member, and loving every minute of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: hoosierham
"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."

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.

45 posted on 03/23/2011 7:21:46 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Poison Pill
BTW, the Whirlpool facility in question was not open to the public.

No kidding? They didn't have a "Visitors Only" parking spot?
46 posted on 03/23/2011 7:22:58 AM PDT by dbehsman (NRA Life member, and loving every minute of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: upsdriver
my private vehicle property rights supercedes his parking lot property rights, imo.

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.

47 posted on 03/23/2011 7:25:40 AM PDT by Poison Pill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: dbehsman

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?


48 posted on 03/23/2011 7:28:25 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
That is nonsense.

It most certainly is NOT nonsense. As a business owner, you have conscientiously made the decision to disarm another person through coercion. You have also willfully made that person an easy target for a criminal. You have made a decision that will help a criminal perpetrate a crime against the person you have coerced into disarming themselves.

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.

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.
49 posted on 03/23/2011 7:29:34 AM PDT by dbehsman (NRA Life member, and loving every minute of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: dbehsman
A"s a business owner, you have conscientiously made the decision to disarm another person through coercion. You have also willfully made that person an easy target for a criminal. You have made a decision that will help a criminal perpetrate a crime against the person you have coerced into disarming themselves"

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.

50 posted on 03/23/2011 7:34:15 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-118 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson