FL and bringing guns to work...

[STAGE 2]

I know it is inconvenient for your argument, STAGE2, but I am not blind:

Yes you apparently are. The court set it out in black and white WHY they ruled is was not an unconstitutional taking. The court WOULD HAVE accepted BS Brady statistics as evidence of economic impact. It didn't even have to be direct economic impact, merely a potential one. ANY sort of evidence and the court would have ruled the other way.

This crap about not lasting 10 minutes is just that, crap. Not only did the argument about property rights last 10 minutes, the court stated that it would have been viable and valid if the plaintiffs actually had finished it.

Both you and Garand Illusion seem to think that the final answer is determinative of the entire issue. Thats not how the law works. If this court decision is overruled and the law does stand, all thats going to happen is someone is going to sue and add the final piece of the puzzle and have it overturned, because property rights do in fact trump someones right to carry.

I will leave it to anyone else who cares to argue whether NO really means YES.

Sorry. Once again youre wrong. The court didn't say no. The court said because they werent able to change the test, and they weren't presented with any evidence of economic impact, they had no choice but to deny this ground. They DID NOT say that the plaintiffs had no property right, or not right to exclude firearms.

 

[gc70]

Once you get beyond the judge's whining, moaning bias about how dangerous guns are, the decision is written competently enough.

(17) the Court concludes: (1) the Amendments do not result in an unconstitutional taking of Plaintiffs’ private property rights or an unconstitutional deprivation of a “fundamental right”

The decision analyzes three approaches to takings: Loretto, Lucas, and Penn Central.

(36) In the Loretto context, the “evisceration” of the owner’s right to exclude is sufficient to constitute a taking, without regard to economic harm.

(44) Although it is a close question because the right to exclude (the most fundamental of all property interests) is impaired, the Court cannot conclude that the Amendments qualify for per se treatment. Instead, the invasion is more akin to the “temporary physical invasion” cases that courts have analyzed under the Penn Central balancing analysis.

(36) In the Lucas context, the complete elimination of a property’s value is the determinative factor.

(37) In this case, the Court easily concludes that the Amendments do not qualify as a per se “Lucas” taking because they do not deprive Plaintiffs of all economically beneficial uses of their property.

(36) In the Penn Central context, the inquiry is “cryptic,” but the ultimate question is whether the regulation has gone “too far.” Whether a regulation has gone “too far” turns in part on “the magnitude of a regulation’s economic impact and the degree to which it interferes with legitimate property interests.”

(45) Factors that must be considered in a Penn Central analysis include the character of the governmental intrusion; the degree of interference with the reasonable, investment-backed expectations of the property owner; and the economic impact of the action.

(51) On balance, the Court concludes that the “character of the government intrusion” weighs strongly in favor of Plaintiffs.

(53) Thus, although the Court has significant concerns about the character of the governmental intrusion, the Court cannot conclude that the Amendments result in a Penn Central taking because Plaintiffs do not allege the Amendments have lowered their property value, hindered their ability to make profits, or otherwise caused them any economic harm.

No joy for the property owners under the takings arguments, even though the judge repeatedly made it clear that he desperately wanted to rule in their favor.

BTW - the Plaintiffs' lawyers were too smart to waste time trying to prove economic harm from a law that provided a liability shield from that same economic harm.

The decision also deals with a substantive due process claim.

(55) Plaintiffs also challenge the Amendments as a violation of their substantive due process rights. Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that the right to exclude others from private property is a “fundamental right,” that the Amendments must be subjected to strict scrutiny, and that the Amendments cannot survive a strict scrutiny analysis because they are not narrowly tailored to meet their objectives.

(55) Plaintiffs did not cite any authority holding that the right to exclude others from private property qualifies as a “fundamental right” for purposes of a substantive due process analysis.

(56) The Amendments do not affect a “fundamental right” for purposes of substantive due process analysis, and the Amendments are subject only to rational basis review.

(57) To satisfy the rational basis test, the Amendments need only be rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.

(62) Based on Defendants’ limited evidence in support of rationality, which includes statements by Oklahoma legislators at the time of passage of the 2005 Amendments and statistical studies provided by the NRA, it is at least conceivable that the Oklahoma Legislature made a determination that the forced invasion of guns on private property increases safety for the community because such guns may be used by the vehicle owner for defensive purposes. Although it is a close case and the rationality of the Amendments is questionable, the Court cannot conclude the Amendments are “wholly irrational” or “arbitrary” methods of accomplishing the objectives identified by the OCCA.

As much as the judge wanted to apply strict scrutiny to this case, he followed the law to properly apply the rational basis test, which the Oklahoma law passed.

STAGE2:
EVERYTHING regarding property rights was decided in the favor of the property owner.

I missed how the "denies" part of the decision (as in the Court's conclusion #1 on page 17) is "in the favor of" the property owner.

STAGE2:
You holding this up as an example of how property owners have no rights is dishonest

Not a single poster has claimed that property owners have no rights. You are the only one pursuing that red herring.

STAGE2:
property rights do in fact trump someones right to carry.

Thanks for your opinion, even if Judge Kern (as much as he wanted to) could not stretch the Oklahoma case far enough to join you in your opinion.

For the record, property rights are far from absolute and it is my -opinion- that the right to carry will prevail over business property rights.

 

[Garand Illusion]

Some people think if they say the same thing enough times and with conviction, people will think it is the truth. I tend to think it is more like wrestling with pigs....


One would think the SCOTUS rulings on eminent domain would show the courts don't think squat of private property rights.

Too true on both (even as much as I am shocked and sicked by the eminent domain ruling).

Kinda of reminds me when we finally had to convince my cousin there is no Santa Clause. He cried and cried and tried to hold on to that belief forever ...

 

[STAGE 2]

No joy for the property owners under the takings arguments, even though the judge repeatedly made it clear that he desperately wanted to rule in their favor.

And why do you think that is. Do you think the judge just flipped a coin and decided that today he was going to be sympathetic to property owners? Or maybe its because protection of property rights is something deeply ingrained in american jurisprudence.

BTW - the Plaintiffs' lawyers were too smart to waste time trying to prove economic harm from a law that provided a liability shield from that same economic harm.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You are going to sit there and tell me that the plaintiffs took the time to bring this case, and successfully make the argument that this law is of the character of governmental intrusion that is an improper taking but then intentionally not prove up the economic damage factor? Thats just absurd. Not only does it defy logic, but it cuts against competent lawyering.

In cases that involve injunctions and TRO's a "kitchen sink" approach is what is used. Generally, courts have a pretty good idea of what they going to do given the facts, however they need a reason to hang their proverbial legal hat on. This means, the more legal theories, the better. Thats why OSHA was brought into this. It wasn't the plaintiffs first or even second argument. It was stuck in there in case something happened to the first two. So to suggest that leaving out the economic impact was intentional is just ridiculous.

As far as the plaintiffs not being able to prove economic impact, I notice you neglected to discuss footnote 42 where the court stated that for the purposes of the Penn central analysis, economic impact could be proven by indirect data. You see, the economic harm element is not limited to legal liability. It can be shown in any way that demonstrates an interference with the companys investment backed expectations. Thats why indirect proof is acceptable here. The OK law only limits a single type of liability. There are other economic impacts that a company can face because they allow firearms on their property.

The bottom line is that the argument for property rights in this case was not decided on a matter of law but on a matter of evidence. The plaintiffs neglected to provide ANYTHING to the court. Because of this, the court made the proper decision to deny relief on this ground. At the end of the day it is not the job of the court to make up for the mistakes of a party.

That said, it is BEYOND clear how the court would have ruled had the plaintiff provided evidence of economic impact. Stating otherwise is just a distortion of the decision.

 

[STAGE 2]

Too true on both (even as much as I am shocked and sicked by the eminent domain ruling).

I may be repetitive, however if I am it is only to correct incorrect statements such as those that insist Pruneyard is binding precedent, and that property rights are always subservient to the will of the legislature.

 

[Garand Illusion]

I may be repetitive, however if I am it is only to correct incorrect statements such as those that insist Pruneyard is binding precedent, and that property rights are always subservient to the will of the legislature.

Just keep on believing, my friend ... just keep on believing. The human spirit is sustained by pointless battles.

Don Quixote battled windmills ... the Flat Earth society a thousand years of science and observation ... and "property rights are supreme" believers are pitted against some 200 years of legal precedent and successful legislation.

What color is the sky in the world that the pruneyard decison is in FAVOR of property rights. ROFLMAO. It stomped on property rights. That's just a fact, and arguing it repeatedly and pretending it's not makes it no less so. Sorry.

 

[STAGE 2]

"property rights are supreme" believers are pitted against some 200 years of legal precedent and successful legislation.

Ummm, no one said that property rights are absolute. Certianly not me. They do however trump in this case. And do us a favor and quit with the 200 years of precedent line. Both you and I know its not true. I already listed at least 10 states that have tried and failed to enact a law like this so you ain't exactly racking up numbers in the win column.

What color is the sky in the world that the pruneyard decison is in FAVOR of property rights. ROFLMAO. It stomped on property rights. That's just a fact, and arguing it repeatedly and pretending it's not makes it no less so. Sorry.

Who is tilting at windmills?

You just got caught. Its really that simple. Either you didn't read the case, or you are just intentionally trying to push BS on the rest of us.

I told you at the beginning that Pruneyard wasn't applicable to firearms on private property. First in a PM, and then here in the thread. You told me that I was full of it. Well surprise surprise, the court in this case expressly stated that Pruneyard is NOT controlling and is NOT applicable to the issue of firearms on private property.

Why do you insist on continuing the dishonesty?

 

[gc70]

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You are going to sit there and tell me that the plaintiffs took the time to bring this case, and successfully make the argument that this law is of the character of governmental intrusion that is an improper taking but then intentionally not prove up the economic damage factor? Thats just absurd. Not only does it defy logic, but it cuts against competent lawyering.

The bottom line is that the argument for property rights in this case was not decided on a matter of law but on a matter of evidence. The plaintiffs neglected to provide ANYTHING to the court.

So you think the plaintiff's lawyers made claims that depended on economic harm and were then so negligent that they forgot to provide any proof? Or maybe you think it was part of the legal strategy to make a "winning" claim and then purposefully not support the claim? If that is how you perceive "competent lawyering" I shudder to think what would be incompetent. It may be beyond your exposure, but my experience with top-notch law firms representing global companies is that they do not make a claim core to their case and then simply not provide available proof supporting their claim.

You choose - were the plaintiff's lawyers:

• actionably negligent for failing to provide proof of harm to support the property rights claim as you believe;
• wise to not try to prove economic harm that the OK law would moot as I believe, or;
• throwing in a weak property rights claim as part of the "kitchen sink" approach to claims.

Or maybe you can describe some other brilliant legal strategy that the plaintiff's lawyers were persuing by not providing economic harm support for their property rights claim.

That said, it is BEYOND clear how the court would have ruled had the plaintiff provided evidence of economic impact. Stating otherwise is just a distortion of the decision.

Here is something that we agree on, although you again misunderstand or distort what was said. If the plaintiffs could have proven economic harm (and they would have tried if they thought they could), they would have probably prevailed under the Penn Central test. And pigs could fly if they had wings. You can speculate on how the case would have been decided under other circumstances, but the facts are what they are.

 

[STAGE 2]

So you think the plaintiff's lawyers made claims that depended on economic harm and were then so negligent that they forgot to provide any proof?

No. I don't think that they believed the Penn central analysis was going to be used. I think that the plaintiffs believed that the case was going to be analized under the Loretto framework, which requires absolutely NO showing of economic harm whatsoever.

The Penn central test is by far the most difficult of the 3 frameworks to use. The court itself notes this when it states that, "the Penn central inquiry is cryptic". This is much more of a reasonable explanation of why the plaintiffs didn't present ANY evidence of economic harm. I can guarantee you that after reading this decision they most certianly would have had they known that Penn central was the controlling test. However given the 3, I don't think there was any way they would have known, and arguing Loretto is certianly a viable legal strategy.

You have to remember that case law regarding gun rights isn't deep at all. Stuff like this is largely uncharted legal waters, so lawyers don't have the same rubrick that other areas of the law have. That said, I still would have presented SOME evidence of economic impact because both Penn central and Lucas require this, and that (as we saw) could have been the difference. Like I said, the court knew what it was going to do, it just needed somewhere to hang its hat.

Here is something that we agree on, although you again misunderstand or distort what was said. If the plaintiffs could have proven economic harm (and they would have tried if they thought they could), they would have probably prevailed under the Penn Central test. And pigs could fly if they had wings. You can speculate on how the case would have been decided under other circumstances, but the facts are what they are.

So then we agree that had the plaintiff actually finished their case, and provided economic harm (not direct mind you) then they would have won the case on both property rights an OSHA grounds.

This of course means that property rights do in fact trump an employees right to carry on company property, which is the crux of this whole argument.

This case isn't an example of how property rights are limited, its an example of what happens when you fail to present sufficient evidence or "guess wrong" as to what the applicable test will be.

Both you and I know that the court would have invalidated the law in a New York Minute had the plaintiffs presented even a mere scintilla of evidence regarding economic harm. And it would have done so on the basis of property rights. OSHA would just have been icing on the cake.

 

[gc70]

I don't think that they believed the Penn central analysis was going to be used. I think that the plaintiffs believed that the case was going to be analized under the Loretto framework, which requires absolutely NO showing of economic harm whatsoever.

Agreed. Nevertheless, not supporting claims based on assumptions of how the court will view the case is lazy and inexcusable.

That said, I still would have presented SOME evidence of economic impact because both Penn central and Lucas require this, and that (as we saw) could have been the difference.

We are also apparently in agreement about the adage that preparation wins cases.

So then we agree that had the plaintiff actually finished their case, and provided economic harm (not direct mind you) then they would have won the case on both property rights an OSHA grounds.

Of course - IF they had proven economic harm (and flying pigs, etc.). But we will have to agree to disagree on the viability of proving economic harm.

This of course means that property rights do in fact trump an employees right to carry on company property, which is the crux of this whole argument.

Property rights trump employees right to carry - today - only because case law IS limited regarding gun rights in relation to property rights. Although you may disagree, my point is, and has been, that the absence of definitive case law supporting property rights over gun rights leaves this area ripe for gun rights to potentially prevail.

BTW - a 'parking lot' law was passed in Georgia a couple of days ago, ensuring us of more fun to come.

 

[STAGE 2]

Agreed. Nevertheless, not supporting claims based on assumptions of how the court will view the case is lazy and inexcusable.

Well, I don't know that I'd call it lazy. After all they did win their case. Like I said, this area of the law isn't anywhere near being settled, so I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt even though I might have done things different.

We are also apparently in agreement about the adage that preparation wins cases.

Proper prior planning prevents a piss poor performance.

Of course - IF they had proven economic harm (and flying pigs, etc.). But we will have to agree to disagree on the viability of proving economic harm.

Not really. In the footnote the court lays out what would have been acceptable evidence to show economic harm. It also made no bones about what result it wanted to see in this case.

Property rights trump employees right to carry - today - only because case law IS limited regarding gun rights in relation to property rights. Although you may disagree, my point is, and has been, that the absence of definitive case law supporting property rights over gun rights leaves this area ripe for gun rights to potentially prevail.

I fully agree that this isn't a settled issue. However I havent been arguing that it is. This entire time my argument has been addressing Garand Illusions statement that the legislature can simply legislate the rights of property owners away if it wants to. Thats so far from the truth I can't even begin to comprehend it.

Employers and property owners have a legitimate right to exclude, and the government cant just come in and eliminate this if it wants to. Anyone with half a brain can just look at the various tests that are applicable to this issue and see this.

However, instead of conducting an intelligent discussion using the law, others here just make blatantly incorrect conclusory statements out a sheer bias for guns. Not only is that ignorant, but its dishonest because its the EXACT same method that has been used against us gun owners to deprive us of our rights.

 

[allenomics]

I hope that cooler heads will prevail and that Governor Crist will not sign the "Gun in Your Car" bill into law.

One incident involving a crazy person, with a concealed carry permit who harms others could sway public opinion and end up restricting our gun rights.

I am in the minority here, but private property rights should prevail. Think about it.

If your employer says no guns one his/her property, that should mean that guns are prohibited, period.

In my opinion, it's important that everyone understand all sides of this issue and not to go off half-cocked pressing for gun rights, no matter what. I believe that I have the moderate, mainstream, common sense view.

Politically, pushing for this measure reduces the power and influence the gun lobby will have going forward because it seems so unreasonable to so many, especially to busines owners.

Let's open our eyes here and see the big picture!

 

[Yellowfin]

Uhm, this isn't about what happens on business owner's property. It's about being able to be armed before and after work. Anyone who works for tips or otherwise carries cash after work has a right to not be a walking ATM for nearby muggers. When I was in the cellphone business I had lots of days where I was leaving the mall at 9pm with lots of cash in my posession, as well as my years working as a caddy. Sure employers have a right to say what the customers have in front of them and what might be rubbing up next to them while they work on their property, but they have no right to tack a sign on employees' (and customers') backs that says in big bold letters ROB ME immediately upon walking out the door.

 

[grymster2007]

How did I know that this thread would live again?

Ya know; I'm kinda happy people can carry their guns to work now and I can blame the injustice to property owners on the FL legislature.

 

[divemedic]

This law does not allow gun owners to do anything they couldn't do already. All it does is prevent your employer from firing you for it.

In Florida, placing a sign or having a policy prohibiting guns does not carry the weight of law. That is and always has been the case.

 

[Garand Illusion]

I was hoping this would die too. But since it hasn't ...

This entire time my argument has been addressing Garand Illusions statement that the legislature can simply legislate the rights of property owners away if it wants to. Thats so far from the truth I can't even begin to comprehend it.

So far from the truth that you can't comprehend it ... and yet you can't counter ANY of my points. Not going to repeat everything, but if OSHA rules, smoking rules, ADA rules, UNION organization rules, landscaping limitations, zoning ordinances, .... yada yada yada pass legal muster, so can this. Period.

This history of these laws leaves no room for doubt. There's no property right infringement. This law will just be one of many (and if all of these laws are wrong then so be it -- but let's not start out by punishing gun owners, eh?).

If you continue to insist there is a property right that *snort* *chuckle* would keep this from being put in place, please look through my previous posts and tell me WHY this rule is bad and the others are good. This is a public safety issue, like it or not and well within the rights of local government to subvert property rights. And don't just repeat that but there are private property rights and I'm smart and you're stupid for disagreeing with me because I started (mostly) ignoring those posts about 500 words ago.

If your employer says no guns one his/her property, that should mean that guns are prohibited, period.

In my opinion, it's important that everyone understand all sides of this issue and not to go off half-cocked pressing for gun rights, no matter what. I believe that I have the moderate, mainstream, common sense view.

Politically, pushing for this measure reduces the power and influence the gun lobby will have going forward because it seems so unreasonable to so many, especially to busines owners.

Let's open our eyes here and see the big picture!

IMHO opinion the big picture is that this is a critical pro-gun/pro-ccw bill.

The anti's know that the more than can prohit and limit CCW the less people will get a CCW (look at Nebraska's crappy law, that limits carry about everywhere, and look at the low level of participation). And the anti's know that if they're going to take CCW away they have to limit how many people get it.

Most people do the majority of their travelling to/from work. If they can't carry to/from work, there's not a lot of point getting a CCW. And quite often that is the drive you can't control the route/destination, and may be in parts of town you would normally avoid.

I understand your concern, but I think this is necessary.

And if we can inflict every other limitation on property owners somebody else wants (i.e. smoking laws) we can dang sure inflict a pro gun law on them.

I think the mods should lock this thread for about a year. By then the OSHA case will probably be resolved, and we will have seen more challenges/attempts at challenges with some of the other states that already have a law like this in place and in enforcement.

 

[STAGE 2]

It's about being able to be armed before and after work.

So an employer can fire you for being armed when not on their property and off work? (assuming you didn't agree to this in your employment contract) I don't think so.

Anyone who works for tips or otherwise carries cash after work has a right to not be a walking ATM for nearby muggers.

Poppycock. There is no such "right".

but they have no right to tack a sign on employees' (and customers') backs that says in big bold letters ROB ME immediately upon walking out the door.

So you can walk up to a random business office and tell me which companies have no weapons policies and which ones dont? I doubt it.

 

[STAGE 2]

This law does not allow gun owners to do anything they couldn't do already.

Sure it does. It prevents a property owner from asking someone to leave because they have brought weapons onto their property.

In Florida, placing a sign or having a policy prohibiting guns does not carry the weight of law. That is and always has been the case.

It may not be a crime, but it does have legal implications because they can boot you from their premises.

 

[STAGE 2]

So far from the truth that you can't comprehend it ... and yet you can't counter ANY of my points. Not going to repeat everything, but if OSHA rules, smoking rules, ADA rules, UNION organization rules, landscaping limitations, zoning ordinances, .... yada yada yada pass legal muster, so can this. Period.

Spoken like someone with no legal education or experience, or even someone who has bothered to read the case they claim supports their position.

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.

As far as the rest, they are directly related to the nature of running a business. Firearms have nothing to do with the running of a business.

This history of these laws leaves no room for doubt. There's no property right infringement.

You continue to lie. SCOTUS has said there are property right infringements. Appeals courts have said there are property right infringements. State courts have said there are property right infringements. The OK court EXPLICITLY STATED that this law infringes on a property right. It did not reach the ultimate question of whether the infringement was impermissible because it was not provided with any evidence.

Like I said before, you keep blatantly distorting the law for your own agenda. You do so in the face of hundreds of cases that are in direct contradiction.

If you continue to insist there is a property right that *snort* *chuckle* would keep this from being put in place, please look through my previous posts and tell me WHY this rule is bad and the others are good.

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.

This is a public safety issue, like it or not and well within the rights of local government to subvert property rights. And don't just repeat that but there are private property rights and I'm smart and you're stupid for disagreeing with me because I started (mostly) ignoring those posts about 500 words ago.

Well I can't help ignore your intelligence when you keep saying things like "because we limit property rights in some cases we can do it here" or that "this is a public safety issue". If this issue was about public safety then there wouldn't be any argument as the govt could pass all the laws it wants. This isn't a public safety issue, its a government intrusion into private property issue. Its a takings issue.

You like to frame the argument in the absurd. 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.

Secondly, if you had bothered to read ANY of the cases concerning firearms on private property, the courts all say the same thing. Namely that this is an issue of first impression. Prior frameworks that discuss exerting other rights on private property aren't binding, controlling, or even applicable. If these aren't applicable, things like OSHA and the ADA and all the other crap you listed isn't anywhere close to the mark.

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.

Secondly, if this were well within the rights of government, then we wouldn't be fighting it out in court. It wouldn't have been defeated in several other states. We wouldn't have SEVERAL legal frameworks to determine if this WAS in fact within the power of government.

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.

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.

Most people do the majority of their travelling to/from work. If they can't carry to/from work, there's not a lot of point getting a CCW. And quite often that is the drive you can't control the route/destination, and may be in parts of town you would normally avoid.

So park on the friggin street. It might be an inconvenience, but we aren't going to destroy someone elses rights because you have to walk an extra block.

 

[Garand Illusion]

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).