Gun in parking lots

Of those of you that like me have an employer that bans employees from having weapons on property/in vehicle, how many allow customers/clients to carry and how many have a complete ban with posted signs? My employer ONLY has a policy against employees possessing weapons or having them in car. Customers can OC if they wish. As far as I am concerned they wouldn't have a leg to stand on with the property rights issue unless they went for a total ban and posted signs at the edge of the parking lot.

Well, the full court press against this is starting. NewsChannel 5 referred to it last night as the "Guns in the Workplace" law.

Originally Posted by mosinon

...So this seems like a battle of rights, who has the right on private property? I would generally side with the owner of private property. It is, after all, their property. Just because it is my right doesn't mean I get to infringe on their right. You have the option not to work there so it isn't like your right is actually being taken away...

I agree with your premise, as it is, but I don't think it's fully developed. When I delve deeper into it, I find the employer isn't on such solid ground.
You said "I would generally side with the owner of private property. It is, after all, their property."
Whose private property? Let's not forget, our vehicles are our private property. Do you believe your employer has the right to ban you from having a tire iron in your vehicle? Tire irons have often been used as weapons of destruction but, not having one could put you in harms way as you travel to and from work. Get a flat tire without one and you could be stranded in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's true that a tire irons primary purpose isn't as a weapon of destruction, however a firearms primary purpose, in the possesion of an HCP holder, is for defense, not offense.
How about banning other items such as gangsta rap cd's if they think that the music incites violence? At what point do their rights infringe on yours too much.
Employers provide employee parking as a convenience to themselves, as well as to you. If employees can't find a place to park, the employer will find it hard to keep decent workers and may end up out of business.
While it's somewhat true that you could work somewhere else, many times the choice is to work for a company that bans firearms in your vehicle or be unable to feed, clothe and shelter your family. Not much of a choice for a responsible individual like an HCP holder IMHO.
I think the best compromise is to require firearms be locked in a secure container in the vehicle. A glove compartment would't qualify since most have a cardboard bottom that's not difficult to cut through. A locking console would work as would many gun safes built for attaching to the inside of a vehicle.
Just my worth.

Actually, if the legislature would fully recognize and grant private property rights concerning vehicles, that might solve several issues...

To a previous question: my employer has an employee policy barring us from possessing a firearm on "company property". The facility I work at has two parking lots - one immediately adjacent to the facility, and one across the street. The only signage to be found anywhere is on the entrance to the lot across the street, and is not specific to employees. There is no "active" enforcement of the policy - in fact, one of the major players in HR mgmt indicated to me (with a wink) that he locks his carry piece in his car every day in that lot...kinda like the stuation Mr. Cooper described in yesterday's House session with the FedEx facility.

This really puts a "collective" right up against an individual's right. Most of the businesses putting these signs up are not owned by an individual, but by shareholders, thus making their imposing their will a collective right. Not much better than the government thinking they know what's best for you. In this case the HR and legal departments get together to decide how best to limit their possible liability exposure.

They couldn't care less if you get carjacked or robbed at a gas station on the way home.

As far as rights are concerned, let me point out that you have the right to freedom of speach: however, that right has its limits. You do not have the right to put others at risk with said freedom. You cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, for instance.

Originally Posted by PapaB

You said "I would generally side with the owner of private property. It is, after all, their property."
Whose private property? Let's not forget, our vehicles are our private property. Do you believe your employer has the right to ban you from having a tire iron in your vehicle? Tire irons have often been used as weapons of destruction but, not having one could put you in harms way as you travel to and from work. Get a flat tire without one and you could be stranded in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's true that a tire irons primary purpose isn't as a weapon of destruction, however a firearms primary purpose, in the possesion of an HCP holder, is for defense, not offense.
How about banning other items such as gangsta rap cd's if they think that the music incites violence? At what point do their rights infringe on yours too much.

I see what you're saying but I would argue that sure enough if they wanted to ban tire irons they could. If they wanted to ban gangsta rap they could. I would imagine that an employer could ban you from driving to work and require you to take some form of employer sponsored mass transit or something.

Originally Posted by PapaB

Employers provide employee parking as a convenience to themselves, as well as to you. If employees can't find a place to park, the employer will find it hard to keep decent workers and may end up out of business.

I agree but that's the price they pay for making whacky rules. If a business bans so much stuff that iti is intolerable to the employees they've banned themselves out of business. That's the price they pay.

Originally Posted by PapaB

While it's somewhat true that you could work somewhere else, many times the choice is to work for a company that bans firearms in your vehicle or be unable to feed, clothe and shelter your family. Not much of a choice for a responsible individual like an HCP holder IMHO.

The option is, of course, to not take your gun on their property. Secure parking elsewhere or find a different job. Or realize the chances of them going through your car looking for your gun is about zero and call it a day.

Originally Posted by PapaB

I think the best compromise is to require firearms be locked in a secure container in the vehicle. A glove compartment would't qualify since most have a cardboard bottom that's not difficult to cut through. A locking console would work as would many gun safes built for attaching to the inside of a vehicle.
Just my worth.

That's a practical solution to an impractical situation. Sure it solves the problem but it doesn't really answer the question. The question is one of rights and whose right is supreme in this instance. Since it is the employer's property I'll side with the employer in this case.

But let me put a different spin on it. I once, many years ago, created a webpage that everyone loved. Everyone but one person. That one person was the owner of the company. After he saw it I got called in the office and they told me that I had to take it down. I was miffed. I thought about free speech and all but then I realized that while I had the right to put up the web page my employer had the right to can my sorry ass for leaving it up. Tennessee is an at will state after all.

This is certainly a more serious case than that, I mean what if you live in a really dangerous area or something? Still the same premise holds true.

I used to work at Government plant in Oak Ridge and the "blue line" starts quite a distance beyond the parking lot so, they enforce strictly "no firearms in vehicles".
After I got to know some of the security people, I kindly let them know that if I ever got acosted to or from work that I was going to drag them "kicking and screaming" into court because they contributed to my ill fate.
They kindly acknowledged. That was a number of years ago.

Originally Posted by mosinon

So this seems like a battle of rights, who has the right on private property? I would generally side with the owner of private property. It is, after all, their property. Just because it is my right doesn't mean I get to infringe on their right. You have the option not to work there so it isn't like your right is actually being taken away.

I would agree in principle but states already force laws on property owners. A recent example is outlawing smoking in restaurants unless it is a 21 or older place of business. They didn't allow the owner chose if he wanted to make it smoking or non-smoking.

I don't smoke but I don't agree with the mandate. As a customer if I don't want to be around smoke, I can chose to go a non-smoking establishment.

Originally Posted by Trekbike

I would agree in principle but states already force laws on property owners. A recent example is outlawing smoking in restaurants unless it is a 21 or older place of business. They didn't allow the owner chose if he wanted to make it smoking or non-smoking.

I don't smoke but I don't agree with the mandate. As a customer if I don't want to be around smoke, I can chose to go a non-smoking establishment.

I agree completely. Decisions about smoking and such should be left up to the business. I was and am troubled by the smoking ban.