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.
Exactly. The bar close to my house doesn't allow hats. My favorite restaurant makes me wear a tie. Things that would be a sure violation of my 1st Amendment rights in public, but on private property, it's absolutely up to them.
You lost it right there when you attempted to qualify a right with ideology. The property rights of an anti-gun bigot is no less sacrosanct than the property rights of a staunch 2nd Amendment advocate.
You couldn't be more wrong. A good example of this is that you can legally smoke tobacco on your property, it's yours. Baylor Police here in Texas can and will issue tickets for smoking in your vehicle if it happens to be in a Baylor parking lot. Their parking lot, their rules. If you don't like it, you don't have to enter the parking the lot.
It's your solution that I believe is in err, not your reasoning. Indeed, I believe that your right to defend your life is paramount, but I would conclude from that, that you should avoid entering another's property that places unreasonable restrictions on that right. I can think of very few circumstances where you absolutely have to have access to someone else's property.
Some of us have this ethical hangup about being honest AND forthright. Your solution wouldn't work for us.
I probably have a much different view on the US Constitution than you do. I believe what it says, not what some politician decides will float. He’s interested in getting re-elected. Not my primary concern.
Did you actually read this?
>>If I was the gun owner who wanted to carry, I’d do so and take my chances knowing that it might cost me my job.<<
If I determined that for whatever reason, it was a smart decision to be armed, then I am going to be armed or I am not going to be in that location.
I am not a subject or a slave to any law, bureaucratic ruling or judicial decision. I am a free man. I will bow my head and kneel to Him only.
I don't disagree. I'm saying that I ethically, I'd have to be forthright with my employer about my refusal to abide by his policy.
No as I said above I own several guns and practice with them regularly. But I consider anyone who thinks they have the right to force their guns on my private property a dangerous, disturbed self-absorbed individual and I wouldn't want them on my premises.
Sorry. I disagree. My (and anybody's) right to defend their lives and the use of any and all tools to do that supersedes ANY other "right". "Property rights" don't even begin to override that. If you don't understand that basic fundamental priority ranking, you'll never "get it".
And I consider anybody who thinks "property" as more important than "life" is an idiot. But once the law is changed, YOU won't have a choice, just as, currently, those who wish to exercise their right to have available the means to defend themselves cannot. "I" obey the law as currently written. When it gets changed, I expect you to do the same.
Personal freedom is unheard of by these people
Followed by no smoking any place such as in NY via Mayor Bloombergs facist order.
Little bits here and there is always a restriction on personal liberty..
Here's how it has been handled in a few places I have direct experience with:
1) Washington State. Allows CCW, prohibits guns inside government buildings (all entrants go through a metal detector). How handled....when you enter the building and are in line for the detector, hold up your CCW license. The detector operator will walk over. You hand him/her your firearm and she locks it in a box immediately behind the entrance. You see her do this. She hands you a ticket to reclaim it on the way out.
2) Louisiana. Major chemical company. LOTS of people hunt after work and on weekends. Two possibilities... a) there is "outside the fence" parking available (but it is NOT secure from outside acess), b) as you drive up to the security post, you hand the gate guard your rifle (or CCW), and he secures it. You pick it up after work.
3) Texas. Small contracting company. Company owner encouraged employees to have weapons. Most kept them in their desk drawers.
A reasonable alternative pretty much anywhere. Immediately off any employee entrances, a series of lock boxes on the wall (like luggage check boxes at airport, except smaller). When you enter, you place your weapon in the box, lock the box, and take the key. At the end of the day, you unlock the box, take your weapon, and go on your way. Heck, the owner could actually make a bit of money that way (i.e. you have to drop in a quarter to extract the key).
The law won’t be changed in my State. It protects property owners from dangerous nutburgers like you. Thank goodness.
LOL. Now, I'm more convinced than ever that you ARE an idiot.
There ARE reasonable approaches that satisfy the real NEEDS of both parties. See the post immediately above your last one for a few real-world examples.
My concern isn't for myself...I'm a big guy and not likely to be bothered (though there ARE places where even "I" would want a firearm...every city has them), but some waitress who works late hours at a burger joint in that same bad section of town where secure parking is NOT available, and similar folks. Your attitude is simply unreasonable.
And don't look behind you, but "gun rights" may be catching up, even in YOUR state. Heck, even Illinois is considering CCW.
If you are that worried about it, you are perfectly free to prohibit anyone from parking on your property at all. But if you are going to invite people to park their vehicles there, the minutiae of what's inside those cars is really none of your concern.
“all the employees gave Raytheon permission as a condition of their employment.”
I am not sure I would equate gaining access to a defense department facility with not being able to keep a gun in your car in a parking lot at Disney World or a Medical School.
For example, I never signed squat about searches or anything else except how to divvy up the money I earned and they were going to steal.
If you by DELIBERATE action ,prevent someone from defending themself you ought to be held responsible.
YOU are the one who wants to restrict other peoples' rights.
And your example is nonsense.Certainly if I give a gun to someone knowing they intend to commit a crime then I should be held liable;but if someone STEALS any item from me,they have committed first a crime of theft and it is beyond ridiculous to suggest I should be responsible for that which was taken without my permission.
Name-calling,the last resort of someone losing a logical argument.
Admit it,despite supposedly owning a gun,deep down you are really very afraid that guns cause ordinary people to go on murderous rampages.That this is patently false never deters the anti-self-defense crowd from predicting dire consequences .
Passive cooperation with those wanting to do you harm might indicate a need to re-evaluate your standards.
I don't see how that's even remotely equivocal to anything that we're discussing.
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.