FL gun law upheld by courts

[divemedic]

According to some of the "property rights" people here, your employer should be able to place any restriction on an employee they wish without government interference. If this were true a business could refuse to have handicapped parking, or prohibit employees from having or possessing clothing on company property.

This whole idea of requiring an employee to pay a certain third party company to park in the parking lot as a condition of employment, while that company allowed anyone else to park in the lot for free, would be an illegal and unenforceable contract.

 

[Unregistered]

This whole idea of requiring an employee to pay a certain third party company to park in the parking lot as a condition of employment, while that company allowed anyone else to park in the lot for free, would be an illegal and unenforceable contract.

First, no one would be required to park in the lot. It would be an option available, if the employee chose to do so, but it would also be OK for him to take a taxi, have a relative drop him off, or walk. It is not a condition for employment that he park or drive.

Second, if it would be deemed illegal to charge employees but not customers, that is simple enough to bypass. The main company could just lease enough parking spaces for its customers to park, and then let them park there for free. This would then be an advertising expense to entice customers into the store. Since all the spaces would be leased, there would be no discrepancy. This would not cost the company any money really, since they would be indirectly getting money for employees to park.

Free parking has been a benefit that workers have taken for granted. Now they want to force the free parking to be given to them in a specific way. If you work in downtown manhattan and drive, your employer does not provide parking, and I see no reason why employers in other parts of the country should do so, if they are going to have to comply with government edicts.

 

[gc70]

Free parking has been a benefit that workers have taken for granted. Now they want to force the free parking to be given to them in a specific way.

Start a business, put your building in the middle of a thousand-acre property, don't provide parking, and see just how many employees you can hire who will "take a taxi, have a relative drop him off, or walk."

'Free' parking is provided because it is beneficial to employers. When access to a business is readily available without providing parking (i.e. Manhattan), it is not provided.

This issue is not about property rights, but employers trying to control employees in areas outside the workplace. More importantly, it is usually about employers trying to unilaterally change the terms of employment after the fact.

 

[Unregistered]

Start a business, put your building in the middle of a thousand-acre property, don't provide parking, and see just how many employees you can hire who will "take a taxi, have a relative drop him off, or walk."

You are exactly right, and you are making my point. How quickly do you think Disney would change its policies if its workforce refused to show up until they allowed guns in the parking lot?

We don't need to regulate everything. This is an example. If only 10% of Disney's workforce refused to work until the policy against guns was rescinded, I suspect they would change the policy immediately. You keep making reference to employers trying to control employees, but it works both ways. Employees bargaining collectively can change employer policy. It just takes an effort.

To paraphrase Reagan, government is best when it gets out of the way. The government has stuck its nose in a place it does not belong. This problem could have been handled privately. Now we will see a never ending stream of litigation, attempts to bypass the law such as what I have described, political bargaining, and worsening relationships between employees and employers.

 

[gc70]

You are exactly right, and you are making my point. How quickly do you think Disney would change its policies if its workforce refused to show up until they allowed guns in the parking lot?

If Disney had not provided parking when they first started, they would not have been able to attract a workforce. But Disney did provide parking when they first started and now, years later, they have unilaterally changed the terms of employment to require searches of employee's vehicles.

You advocate an employer's ability to invade an employee's property and privacy outside the workplace concerning something not related to job performance. How about an employer prohibition against eating high-cholesterol foods and mandatory home inspections to make sure employees are not cheating? Ridiculous, you say? But it is based on the same concept of employer control outside the workplace due to its potential impact (higher health and life insurance costs) on the business.

 

[JohnKSa]

First, no one would be required to park in the lot. It would be an option available, if the employee chose to do so, but it would also be OK for him to take a taxi, have a relative drop him off, or walk. It is not a condition for employment that he park or drive.

None of those "options" allow a person to carry to and from work (other than perhaps imposing on a relative to drive one back & forth).

Free parking has been a benefit that workers have taken for granted. Now they want to force the free parking to be given to them in a specific way.

This is a red herring. The law says nothing about forcing an employer to provide free parking, only that the employer can't control the legal contents of his employees' vehicles.

This problem could have been handled privately.

No, it could not.

There are enough large employers with similar policies that it's difficult to impossible (particularly in some fields) to find work with a company that doesn't have this type of policy. And there are always more employees who don't care about guns waiting to take positions emptied by those fired over this situation. In all of TX, there are about a quarter of a million CHL holders. That's a TINY fraction of the workforce--NOTHING like 10%.

If it could have been handled privately it would have. It would have been a lot easier than getting the legislature motivated sufficiently to get them to pass a law in the face of strong opposition from businesses. We've tried in TX to get a similar law passed several times and the business associations have won every time. They have a lot of money and a lot of leverage.

This is a perfect case where the government needed to step in. Employers have been infringing on the rights of a minority subgroup of their employees--now they're going to have to stop.

 

[Unregistered]

You advocate an employer's ability to invade an employee's property and privacy outside the workplace concerning something not related to job performance.

I am not really advocating that at all. In fact I am quite opposed to it. I own a business and have no such policy. What I advocate is handling the matter privately, without need for government regulation of parking lots.

If it could have been handled privately it would have.

I think you are incorrect. As far as I can tell, there was no attempt to handle it privately. There certainly was no significant effort made by employees to protest this policy. Everyone set by complacently while Disney created then policy, and no formal effort was made to change the policy.


Anyway, we seem to have an impasse. My mind on the subject isn't likely to change, nor is anyone elses. Big government wins this time, and private companies lose.

Now that companies are forced to allow guns on their property against their wishes, maybe now the government can step in and mandate paid time off each to pray.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

I think you are incorrect. As far as I can tell, there was no attempt to handle it privately.

I have worked for a city government for 24 years now. It has been their policy that an employee cannot have a firearm in their vehicle on city property. At various times we have tried to have this policy overturned. Other than politely asking and/or a petition requesting "May we" and getting the standard "no you may not" response, what other option did we have?

What I advocate is handling the matter privately, without need for government regulation of parking lots.

I advocate handling employment matters privately, without the need of a Union. Unfortunately, sometimes it takes that before an employer will listen to anything. Want your employees to unionize and start telling you how to run your business?

Now that companies are forced to allow guns on their property against their wishes, maybe now the government can step in and mandate paid time off each to pray.

Guns could be taken into the parking lot before this law. This does not change the legality of having a firearm in a vehicle in the State of Florida. It is even legal to have a firearm in a vehicle of school property. Nothing has changed. JohnKSa has stated it best. Try re-reading his posts.

 

[S832]

Private property owners should be able to control everything that happens on their land, they should be able to control who has access, where they park, how they park and who enters.

There should be NO government involvement.

Your rights only exist on government land, not private property.

 

[Unregistered]

what other option did we have?

Collective protest? Get the community on your side? Write editorials? Try to get your elected officials replaced? Work for someone else?

Why would you want to work for someone who thought no more of your rights than to abuse them?

 

[STAGE 2]

The owner of the property has a responsibility to 'invitees' to make the property safe. If you disarm people on your property, then it's a very small stretch to say that you are responsible for their safety. If some nut job opens up at Disney World, because he knows all the employees, and the guests are disarmed, then Disney deserves to be sued into bankruptcy for creating the situation that invites multiple deaths.

Completely incorrect. A property owner does have a special duty to 'invitees' other than the normal standard of care. Specifically, a property owner can only be liable if they (1)know, or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover, a dangerous condition that presents an unreasonable risk of harm to invitees (2) should expect that invitees will not discover or realize the danger or will fail to protect themselves against it and
(3) fail to exercise reasonable care to protect its invitees against the danger.

A business owner satisfies their duty by warning the invitee. Thats it. Furthermore, if the hazard is open and obvious, invitees are expected to protect themselves. Thats why the law states that property owners are not insurers of an invitees safety.

Therefore no business has even had a duty, absent an express agreement, to protect people, least of all from the intentional torts of third parties.

That is the irony of all this. I would much rather be around a group of armed employees, then be in a free fire zone like certain colleges, etc. that ban carrying firearms./quote]

Thats your opinion, and while I may personally agree with you, other people don't. They should be able to run their business how they see fit.

 

[STAGE 2]

Ok Batman, riddle me this. Does a parking lot owned by a city, open to the public and doubling as an employee parking lot for city employees meet the "private property" you regard so dearly? Can the city prohibit their employees from possessing a firearm on otherwise "public" property?

If its owned by the city then its not private property. Therefore the argument is moot and people should be able carry guns in theri cars if they like.

BTW, notice no one mentioned railroad property. Does not the railroad own all property on which they have tracks? As a property owner/supreme rights person, would you support a ban by the railroad against taking a firearm through any railroad crossing? Tis their property!

Thats not exactly the same issue. The argument before us here is whether a business can prohibit its employees from bringing weapons onto its property. As far as I know, railroads already do this. Whether passengers can do this isn't the same thing.

 

[STAGE 2]

Sure, we can.

A property owner can issue an edict prohibiting guns in cars parked on a parking lot. Two cars park on the lot - one an employee's car and the other a customer's car. The edit against guns is meaningless if the property owner can't search the cars for guns, so let's consider searches.

Whether it is meaningless or enforcable has no effect on whether the owner has the power to issue it or actually enforce it if the violation is found.

A property owner could set up a security perimeter around a parking lot and require a search of every car entering the lot as a condition of entrance. Such an approach would be based solely on property rights. However, such an approach is only used in high-security areas because it is both costly to the property owner and typically ticks off customers.

Your argument makes no sense. You've effectively said "the property owner has the right to do this, but because its not feasible they don't have the right". Either they have the right or they don't. Clearly they have this right.

A property owner could also allow unrestricted entry to the lot and selectively attempt to search certain cars after they were on the lot. No aspect of property ownership gives the owner power to compel a customer to permit a search of the customer's car. However, the contract of employment gives the owner the power to compel the employee to permit a search of the employee's car. The differentiating factor is not property rights, but the employment contract.

Again, you are arguing two separate issues. Because the power of a property owner may not include the power to search in all circumstances, does not mean that they somehow lose the power to exclude.

 

[STAGE 2]

This has been discussed as if it's a property rights issue but in reality it is NOT. Here's why.

1. A property owner can't go out and search cars in his lot just because the lot belongs to him. He can only search his employees' cars because if they don't comply he can fire them. It's not about property, it's about retaining the ability to force employees to knuckle under.

Not exactly correct. The property owner, by virtue of the fact that he owns the property can make consenting to searches a precondition to parking there. Again, thats the right to exclude and that stems directly from the private nature of the property. Furthermore, just becasue the owner can't search in every case, doesn't mean that this isn't a property issue. They can still tell you to leave their property without searching, without PC or any other level of suspicion.

2. The control affects far more than just what happens in the company owned parking lot, it affects employees from the time they walk out their door until the time they walk back into their home that evening. It actually begins to affect them while they're on their OWN private property as they walk to their driveway.

No it doesn't. If you choose not to carry a gun, thats your business. However there are many alternatives. Don't park on the property. Find a gun friendly business or at least one that doesn't have such restrictions regarding their parking lots.

The argument of "if I don't have it in my car then I cant ever have it" just doesn't wash.

3. Vehicles are private property, in fact, for many purposes they are considered to be an extension of the home.

No they aren't. Thats why we have the auto exception to the warrant requirement.

A vehicle does not become the company's property because it's parked in the company parking lot. If this were REALLY about property rights then the interior of private vehicles would clearly be off limits to the employer since the vehicles are someone else's private property.

Thats not the point. Because property rights don't give the property owner to search the private property of another doesn't mean that they lose their say as to what is allowed on their property any what isn't. As was said before, because you hide a prohibited item in your private property doesn't mean you haven't brought it onto someone elses private property.

In other words, they don't lose their right to exclude because you've hidden it.

The bottom line is that this law is all about what level of control is reasonable for an employer to exert on employees. It's NOT about property rights, that's just a smokescreen. If employers were really concerned about property rights, this whole issue would disappear since the issue is really about what goes on in employees' private property (i.e. their vehicles).

Fallacious argument that I've already addressed.

You should NOT, however, have the right to force him to leave his gun at home, essentially denying him the right to effective self-defense on the way to and from your business/home/etc.

Not allowing someone to being a gun onto your property is NOT the same as forcing them to leave it at home.

 

[JohnKSa]

The property owner, by virtue of the fact that he owns the property can make consenting to searches a precondition to parking there. Again, thats the right to exclude and that stems directly from the private nature of the property.

No, that stems from an agreement between the lot owner and the person using the lot. The ownership of the lot does not provide the right to search the vehicles parked in it.

Furthermore, the issue here is NOT exclusion. The issue is CONTROL. The companies are NOT saying: "We will exclude everyone with a gun from our parking lot." They are saying: "If you work for us then don't leave your gun in your vehicle in the employee parking lot or we'll fire you."

It's not a matter of excluding anyone from the lot--they're not even trying to do that. It's a matter of controlling employees.

An exclusion policy would go like this. If you want to enter our lot we require that you allow us to search your vehicle before entering because we don't want guns in our parking lots. If we find a gun in your vehicle then we will not allow you to park here.

They're NOT doing that because the goal is NOT exclusion.

The goal is to PUNISH those who violate company policy, not to exclude certain people or certain items from the lot.

The argument of "if I don't have it in my car then I cant ever have it" just doesn't wash.

If I can't carry in the business and can't have it in my car then I have to leave it at home. Unless, of course, you are aware of any "gun check" companies that do widespread business throughout the country. Parking off the property may be an option or it may not--my company does not allow it--more company policy. You can have someone bring you but if you drive you park in the company lot. If they catch you parking across the street (assuming you were willing to cross a highway and walk a mile or so to get to the door in the rain, cold or 100+ degree heat) you are in violation of company policy.

Find a gun friendly business or at least one that doesn't have such restrictions regarding their parking lots.

That is a massively oversimplified solution with an inherent contradiction built in.

1. The contradiction. If it's no big deal for an employee to change jobs then why is it so important for employers to be able to fire employees for having a gun in the car? CLEARLY there are severe penalties associated with having to change jobs or no one would be worried about this issue at all.

2. In my field it would be difficult or impossible to find work at a company with reasonable pay and benefits in a gun friendly area that did not have a similar policy.

3. Even if I were to find another company that had a more gun friendly policy there is no guarantee that policy would remain unchanged. The fact is that the company where I currently work CHANGED their policy to disallow guns in the parking lots AFTER I had worked there for years.

"Just find a different job" is a solution, but it's a massively oversimplified solution and essentially completely unrealistic for many, if not most situations.

Why would you want to work for someone who thought no more of your rights than to abuse them?

Another massive oversimplification. This only makes sense if every employee is so in demand that he can pick and choose until he finds an employer that perfectly suits him in every respect. Do I even need to explain why that's not true?

No they aren't. Thats why we have the auto exception to the warrant requirement.

Silliness. If they're not private property then what are they?

As was said before, because you hide a prohibited item in your private property doesn't mean you haven't brought it onto someone elses private property.

And to prove it's silliness, even you agree in your very next paragraph that they are, in fact, private property.

If you're going to argue a point and then contradict yourself by tacitly agreeing to the point you just attempted to refute then there's really no point in attempting to carry on a reasonable debate. It makes it clear that your goal is not to discover the truth but rather to prolong the argument.

In other words, they don't lose their right to exclude because you've hidden it.

First of all it's not a matter of hiding it, it's a matter of it being legally posessed in your vehicle which is your private property. You're trying to make concealed carry and a gun in the vehicle equivalent. They're not.

Secondly, even if we were to accept this argument (and the courts did NOT) it's purely a theoretical objection since there's no way to implement such a prohibition without violating the property rights of others.

Whether it is meaningless or enforcable has no effect on whether the owner has the power to issue it or actually enforce it if the violation is found.

Meaningless.

If it is enforceable then there is clearly an effect on whether the owner has the power to actually enforce it--likewise if it is not enforceable. I'm not even sure what you are trying to say. For what it's worth, under the current FL law a company can have a policy against guns in the parking lot, they just can't enforce it. If you're saying that property owners have the power to make unenforceable policies then I guess I would have to agree--I don't see how it's possible to disagree. On the other hand, the power to make unenforceable policies is about as pointless as pointless can be.

This is about employers discriminating against the legal activities of a minority group within their employees. Arguments that it is about property rights are contradictory or simply false.

 

[gc70]

The property owner, by virtue of the fact that he owns the property can make consenting to searches a precondition to parking there.

Property owners have the property right to search all vehicles before granting permission for entry. However, the vast majority of property owners are too cheap to pay the price to exercise that property right.

Property owners also have the property right to require an agreement concerning parking terms before granting permission for entry. That contractual agreement could require a consent to search after entry, but any power to search would stem from the contractual relationship and not from property rights.

Because property rights don't give the property owner to search the private property of another doesn't mean that they lose their say as to what is allowed on their property any what isn't.

Great, the property owner now has an unexercised, or unexercisable, right.

So, we are back to discretionary vehicle searches and that power does not arise from property rights, but from contractual relationships.

 

[STAGE 2]

No, that stems from an agreement between the lot owner and the person using the lot. The ownership of the lot does not provide the right to search.

I never said that ownership includes a right to search. Ownership includes the right to regulate who is on your property and under what conditions they enter. One of these conditition can be allowing a search. This is because of the property rights of the owner.

Furthermore, the issue here is NOT exclusion. The issue is CONTROL. The companies are NOT saying: "We will exclude everyone with a gun from our parking lot." They are saying: "If you work for us then don't leave your gun in your vehicle in the employee parking lot or we'll fire you."

Semantical argument and a ridiculous one at that. Exluding is controlling. So whether you want to look at it like them employer is excluding firearms or controlling those people on his property the difference is moot. You get to control when, how and for what purpose people enter into your property, whether they are employees or customers.

It's not a matter of excluding anyone from the lot--THEY CAN'T DO THAT and they're not even trying to do that. It's a matter of controlling employees.

Ok, so its a matter of excluding certian items from their lot. Same argument.

If I can't carry in the business and can't have it in my car then I have to leave it at home. Unless you are aware of any "gun check" companies that do widespread business throughout the companies. Parking off the property may not be an option--my company does not allow it--more company policy. You can have someone bring you but if you drive you park in the company lot. If they catch you parking across the street and walking, you are in violation of company policy.

Take the bus. Carpool. Park somewhere other than across the street. Have your significant other drop you off. Again, there are many ways around this.

1. If it's no big deal for an employee to change jobs then why is it so important for employers to be able to fire employees for having a gun in the car? CLEARLY there are severe penalties associated with having to change jobs or no one would be worried about this issue at all.

You are asking all the wrong questions. Whether it is no big deal isnt the issue. The issue is whether or not there are alternatives. As an individual its your decision whether being able to leave your gun in your car is worth the hassle. For some it is, for others it isn't. You don't have a right to "not be worried" about things in life.

2. In my field it would be difficult or impossible to find work at a company with reasonable pay and benefits in a gun friendly area that did not have a similar policy.

Thats fine. In my field, its just the opposite. Thats how the market (and life in general) works. Every decision has its pros and cons. You seem to be arguing that you should have the right between two choices both of which are equally great. Thats just not realistic.

3. Even if I were to find another company that had a more gun friendly policy there is no guarantee that policy would remain unchanged. The fact is that the company where I currently work CHANGED their policy to disallow guns in the parking lots AFTER I had worked there for years.

And? Where did I ever say there were guarantees? People get laid off as well. Thats business.

Silliness. If they're not private property then what are they?

Sure they are private property. However you said that they, "for many purposes they are considered to be an extension of the home". Thats not accurate at all.

And to prove it's silliness, even you agree in your very next paragraph that they are, in fact, private property.

If you're going to argue a point and then contradict yourself by tacitly agreeing to the point you just attempted to refute then there's really no point in attempting to carry on a reasonable debate. It makes it clear that your goal is not to discover the truth but rather to prolong the argument.

Again, John I never said cars were private property. What I said was that your statement that cars are an extension of the home was incorrect. There is no question that cars are private property. However the level of protection they recieve is clearly not the same as a home.

First of all it's not a matter of hiding it, it's a matter of it being legally posessed in your vehicle which is your private property. You're trying to make concealed carry and a gun in the vehicle equivalent. They're not.

Secondly, even if we were to accept this argument (and the courts did NOT) it's purely a theoretical objection since there's no way to implement such a prohibition without violating the property rights of others.

Sure it is. You are bringing an item onto the property of another person and concealing it in another piece of property. Thats the whole issue. You and others seem to think that because its in your car that its not really there. Thats baloney. If something is on someone's property its on their property whether its in a car or a basket or a jacket or anything else. To say otherwise is just a sham argument.

And so is this other notion that because the property owner cant search based on his property rights (which he can as a precondition) then he doesn't have any rights at all. Basically you are saying, "well since you can't feasibly do this we are going to just negate your entire right."

Thats baloney.

This is about employers discriminating against the legal activities of a minority group within their employees. Arguments that it is about property rights are contradictory or simply false.

"Because John says so" does not true something make. This is clearly a property rights issue. Even the courts have stated that. As far as discrimination thats ridiculous as well. Business discriminate against the rights of employees and customers all the time and they have the perfect right to do so. The constitution is a restraint on government. Private entities aren't bound by it.

 

[STAGE 2]

Property owners have the property right to search all vehicles before granting permission for entry. However, the vast majority of property owners are too cheap to pay the price to exercise that property right.

So what. Because they make a business decision doesn't mean that they no longer have this right.

Property owners also have the property right to require an agreement concerning parking terms before granting permission for entry. That contractual agreement could require a consent to search after entry, but any power to search would stem from the contractual relationship and not from property rights.

But the power to contract comes from their rights in the property. If they have no property rights then they could not enter into the contract.

 

[JohnKSa]

But the power to contract comes from their rights in the property. If they have no property rights then they could not enter into the contract.

Wrong. You and I could enter into an agreement by which I would have the right to search your vehicle even if you never park it on my property. All it would take is for me to have some means of convincing you to enter the agreement.

For example, if you were my employee I could tell you that you would be fired if you failed to enter the agreement. Or, perhaps if I made that agreement a condition of loaning you the money to purchase the vehicle. The issue is NOT private property, the issue is only that I have some means of convincing you to enter into the agreement. In this case the means of convincing the person to agree is the threat of termination.

It's NOT about private property, it's about control.

I never said that ownership includes a right to search. Ownership includes the right to regulate who is on your property and under what conditions they enter. One of these conditition can be allowing a search. This is because of the property rights of the owner.

Ok, so its a matter of excluding certian items from their lot.

Wrong and wrong. They're not trying to enforce conditions of entry--ANYONE can enter. They're not trying to exclude guns from the lot. TX law provides a means to prevent CHL holders from carrying into a parking lot and they're not doing it. This is not about excluding guns, it's not about their property rights, it's about them enforcing a company POLICY against employees.

Take the bus. Carpool. Park somewhere other than across the street. Have your significant other drop you off. Again, there are many ways around this.

Massively oversimplified.

There is no bus. The only carpool would be with another employee--still no way to carry to and from. My job is an 80 mile round trip from my home--turning it into TWO 80 mile round trips for my spouse is not an option. But all of that is still missing the point to which you tacitly agree. This policy affects me from the time I walk out my door--whether it forces me to leave my firearm at home or whether it forces me to try to arrange some means of alternate transportation--the alternative you suggest. It affects me LONG before I ever set foot on company property. AGAIN, NOT about property--about control.

Exluding is controlling. So whether you want to look at it like them employer is excluding firearms or controlling those people on his property the difference is moot.

Exclusion is not equivalent to control, it is one method of control. The difference is NOT moot. An exclusion policy would prevent me from entering with a gun. There is no such attempt being made nor is there any attempt to prevent non-employees from entering with handguns even though TX law provides a method for doing so.

The issue is whether or not there are alternatives.

No, that is not the issue, and if you read Heller, you would see that Scalia and the majority of the SCOTUS disagree with you. It's not enough for alternatives to exist if those alternatives are not effective, reasonable, commonly available and commonly used.

Sure it is. You are bringing an item onto the property of another person and concealing it in another piece of property. Thats the whole issue. You and others seem to think that because its in your car that its not really there.

The issue is that the LEGAL contents of my private property are nobody's business but mine.

More to the point it's contradictory and hypocritical for someone to violate my private property rights in the name of property rights.

However you said that they, "for many purposes they are considered to be an extension of the home". Thats not accurate at all.

In TX, much of the castle doctrine extends to vehicles. If that's not saying that a vehicle is an extension of the home I don't know what is.

You are asking all the wrong questions.

A convenient but ineffective method of answering an argument you can not address. If simply finding another job is not an issue then it's not reasonable to argue against the law because the only thing the law does is take employers right to force employees to find another job if they violate this particular policy.

Therefore telling someone to just find another job misses the whole point. If that were a solution then no one would have cared about the situation that led to the law being passed.

This is clearly a property rights issue.

The facts contradict that statement.

This is about controlling employees even while they're OFF company property commuting to and from work.
This is about controlling employees' private property and the legal contents of their private property.
This is about controlling the contents of ONLY employees' vehicles, not the contents of all vehicles on the lot.

The common theme is NOT property rights, the common theme is control of employees.

OR, do you have an example of a case where a parking lot owner tried to exclude a non-employee from his lot because the car contained a gun?

 

[gc70]

So what. Because they make a business decision doesn't mean that they no longer have this right.

The business owner fails to exercise the property right.

But the power to contract comes from their rights in the property. If they have no property rights then they could not enter into the contract.

If the business owner actually conditions parking on a contract to allow searches, that would be derived from, but still separate from, property rights.

However, business owners do not use their property rights; they use the employment contract by placing the restrictions as a policy in an employee manual.

This is clearly a property rights issue. Even the courts have stated that.

Woops! The Oklahoma court's decision was based on compliance with OSHA regulations - not property rights. Alas, I have not yet seen the Florida decision.