Still just the same old unsupported statements, eh? You've now made 40 posts arguing the same points (changing the minds of no one) that a court case that rules against property owners for a different right (1st amendment) is actually proof of property rights dominance, that the ruling in Okalahoma that ruled against property rights is a likewise a victory for property rights ... so I ask again: what is the color of the sky in your world?
If this
property right you dream of is so prevalent, where are all the clear victories where local laws, passed for public/employee safety, were overruled because owning property means you don't have to care about public/employee safety.
Answer: You have no such references, because it hasn't happened. Laws, particularly about public safety, ALWAYS trump property rights.
All you've done is list a bunch of things that are 1) not related to carrying a firearm and 2) not even logical. For example, you bring up smoking as if it supports your argument. An employer can prohibit smoking on his property completely if he wishes, for both patrons and employees.
LOL -- very true, as there is no law that forces a property owner to let people smoke. So he can ban it at will (as he can anything not protected by law). But in many states, an employer cannot ALLOW smoking on his property, at least within a building. So the state/local government has taking away the control of whether people smoke/don't smoke on that property. Just like it's about to take away the aiblity of the employer to ban firearms locked in cars on his property.
Let me just lay down the logic one more time. And if you can honestly respond to this, please do, as I would like to learn! (or just call me a liar/idiot again and claim a legal knowledge and experience that you have shown not one whit of support for).
Logical, True Statements
A law was passed prohibiting employers/property owners from allowing smoking in work areas/restarurant areas ... employers/property owners are no longer allowed to let people smoke.
A law was passed forcing employers/property owners to provide access to disabled americans ... employers now MUST install expensive elevators, ramps, etc. irregardless of whether those improvements will bring in more money (i.e. if I run a store selling pogo stocks, wheelchair access ramps will not provide me any income and are not a smart investment. But the law forces me to do them.)
A law is passed that workers at most job levels must be paid overtime for more than 40 hours per week, irregardless of any employment contract they signed to the contrary (california) ... law is enforced and people who never got overtime before get overtime.
New Law
A law is pass that employers/property owners must allow workers to have weapons locked up in their vehicles in their parking lots while at work ... employers can no longer prohibit employees from leaving guns locked in their card (though there is no law the employer must provide a parking lot, of course).
You see how all that works? You seem to this this is special because it involves evil
GUNS!!!. Are you truly a pro-gun guy? You don't seem like one.
But thats just it. This has nothing to do with good or bad and everything to do with legal or not. There are plenty of things that aren't good that are nonetheless legal, and things that are good that are nonetheless illegal.
An absolutely correct statement. And property rights might be a really good thing to absolutely legally protect (another thread altogether). But they aren't. Sorry.
... You list all sorts of restrictions on businesses and hold these as proof that the government can ride roughshod over private property. This is ridiculous for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, most of what you listed isn't even applicable here. Stuff like OSHA, the ADA, and other restrictions are restrictions on the business itself. If the business were operated on public property, they still would apply. They aren't really restrictions on private property as they are restrictions on the operation of a business. Read the cases that discuss these issues and this is all too clear.
This would also be a restriction on the employer. If the employer doesn't offer parking, it's not an issue. If the employer does provide parking, they cannot restrict the employee from leaving their chosen defense tool in their vehicle.
Your problem (other than your dishonesty) is that you cherry pick things and then distort them to something that they were never ever intended to be applicable to. Thats why most of what you have written defies both the current state of the law as well as logic. Thats why I can read the first several pages of this case and find direct contradictions to 99% of everything you've said.
The pot calls the kettle black. LOL!
I don't know if its because you are lazy, you have a beef against property owners, or you just think guns should trump everything. Whatever it is I'm content knowing there are enough people who still care about our constitutional rights (all of them) to withstand baseless kneejerk attacks such as this one.
Sure ... it's all baseless and you can disprove 99% of what I say ... and yet you never do. Are you too lazy to prove your case? You keep making these broad statements and do nothing to back them up.
The bottom line is ... the law passed in Okalahoma and ALREADY survived review based on property rights. That's a fact. So argue against this all you want, but the OK supreme court has spoken.
If the law survives the OSHA challenge (based on the guns-are-always-dangerous argument) then it will be the law. And it will be law in Florida and the other states. So argue everything you want ... but it will be law. And your "property rights" will have no effect (unless you can convince all those judges they are just liars for not trusting your internet posts).
Finally, this isn't "well within the rights of local government to subvert". First, local governments include things like cities and municipalities and NOT states. If you want people to think you know what you're talking about it would behoove you to use the proper terminology.
Yup -- I mean cities, counties, etc. ... I think I made that clear in previous posts. Both cities and counties can, and do, put limitation on property owners. Many have been listed ... there are more.
It would behoove you to understand the real issues here before blindly arguing the same argument that hasn't stood up on this forum and didn't stand up in the Okalahoma courts.
Have a nice day. Please feel free to post again and repeat the same stuff you have above. If I see any signs of an honest response I'll reply again. If history is any teacher, however, I'm done with this thread (again).