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.
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.
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.
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.