Garand Illusion
New member
This has been a great thread. For those without the patience to read through the whole thing, I thought I'd just recap the highlights ... I do believe the debate has run its course and I won't post anything new, but rather just this summary.
The OP, as are most of us, was quite happy about a proposed Florida law which stands a good chance of passing that will allow CCW holders to leave a handgun locked in their car even if they are parked on private party open to the public (in this case the public means employees of the company that owns the property or the general public). It further does not allow the property owner/employer to prohibit guns locked in cars. This allows CCW holders to protect themselves while driving to/from work, going out in the evening from work, etc.
Several people brought up interesting arguments against the law, basically arguing for:
These points were quickly repudiated by an avalanche of facts and history. The major arguments against were:
Property Owners Rights:
This whole concept would appear to basically be a Libertarian fantasy. A property owner has certain specific rights to his land, never enumerated in the COTUS itself and therefore left to up to the courts, and for the last hundred years the courts of the US have limited these very greatly indeed. Some laws that have withstood the test of time/judicial review include:
Employers Rights (the employment contract)
It was also shown that while an employment contract can control any behavior or condition not covered by law, Federal/State/Country/City governments have retained rights to affect it. Some obvious proof of this given (and a few added on) were:
A secondary argument was the anti-gun argument that a gun locked in a vehicle is somehow dangerous and puts an insurance burden on the employer, but while this follows the Brady/VPC/etc. mantra of "all guns are dangerous" it gained little credibility in this forum. As was pointed out, many states have allowed guns in cars for years and even decades and accidental discharges are far too rare to affect insurance rates (and I do, personally, have sufficient insight into insurance laws to vouch for this).
So with the legal arguments against this law effectively dismissed (there is no violation of court protected property rights or the employment contract) and the idea that there is a burden on the employer by this law likewise dismssed by the simple fact that guns locked in cars are NOT dangerous ... the only question remaining is moral in nature.
i.e.: Is it moral to force property owners to allow guns locked in cars on their property?
As can be seen by the various polls ... the vast majority of us here believe that it is. With no burden on the employer, there is no reason not to support this law. And while the Brady campaign is against it because they know that the less worthwhile they make a CCW the less people will get it (for most of us, 90% of our driving is related to going to/from work) most of us recognize that except for a few hopeful Libertarians the real argument against this are more anti-gun than anti-rights.
Though many of us are still hopeful that libertarian principles will someday prevail.
Good debate all. And for those that sent me IM's and emails personally thanking me for my involvement ... I'm HAPPY to do it!
The OP, as are most of us, was quite happy about a proposed Florida law which stands a good chance of passing that will allow CCW holders to leave a handgun locked in their car even if they are parked on private party open to the public (in this case the public means employees of the company that owns the property or the general public). It further does not allow the property owner/employer to prohibit guns locked in cars. This allows CCW holders to protect themselves while driving to/from work, going out in the evening from work, etc.
Several people brought up interesting arguments against the law, basically arguing for:
- Property Owner's Rights (to control anything/everything on their property)
- Employers Rights (employment contracts -- to deny employment or fire for any reason)
These points were quickly repudiated by an avalanche of facts and history. The major arguments against were:
Property Owners Rights:
This whole concept would appear to basically be a Libertarian fantasy. A property owner has certain specific rights to his land, never enumerated in the COTUS itself and therefore left to up to the courts, and for the last hundred years the courts of the US have limited these very greatly indeed. Some laws that have withstood the test of time/judicial review include:
- Health Restrictions and safety restrictions
- Liquor laws (what you can/can't sell on your property)
- ADA restrictions
- Fire Code Laws
- Building Codes
- Zoning laws
- Easements
- Separation of Mineral Rights from Property Rights
- OSHA laws
- Racial equality laws
- And every other law passed (all the laws of the land apply to your property -- your property is a section that is part of a Nation/State/County/City, and every law passed by any of those entities is 100% enforceable on your land).
- And of course the generally despised "eminent domain" ruling that allows local government to seize private property for economic development.
Employers Rights (the employment contract)
It was also shown that while an employment contract can control any behavior or condition not covered by law, Federal/State/Country/City governments have retained rights to affect it. Some obvious proof of this given (and a few added on) were:
- Rules on hiring (race, religion, age, etc.)
- OSHA safety rules
- Union organizing rules
- Minimum wage laws
- Family leave laws
- Allowable work hours
- Various laws, many state specific, allowing the reasons an employee can/cannot be fired for.
A secondary argument was the anti-gun argument that a gun locked in a vehicle is somehow dangerous and puts an insurance burden on the employer, but while this follows the Brady/VPC/etc. mantra of "all guns are dangerous" it gained little credibility in this forum. As was pointed out, many states have allowed guns in cars for years and even decades and accidental discharges are far too rare to affect insurance rates (and I do, personally, have sufficient insight into insurance laws to vouch for this).
So with the legal arguments against this law effectively dismissed (there is no violation of court protected property rights or the employment contract) and the idea that there is a burden on the employer by this law likewise dismssed by the simple fact that guns locked in cars are NOT dangerous ... the only question remaining is moral in nature.
i.e.: Is it moral to force property owners to allow guns locked in cars on their property?
As can be seen by the various polls ... the vast majority of us here believe that it is. With no burden on the employer, there is no reason not to support this law. And while the Brady campaign is against it because they know that the less worthwhile they make a CCW the less people will get it (for most of us, 90% of our driving is related to going to/from work) most of us recognize that except for a few hopeful Libertarians the real argument against this are more anti-gun than anti-rights.
Though many of us are still hopeful that libertarian principles will someday prevail.
Good debate all. And for those that sent me IM's and emails personally thanking me for my involvement ... I'm HAPPY to do it!