Sure you could, but thats not the point. The issue here is what is on the property. Thats the touchstone. If I didn't sign you contract, you couldn't do anything to me. However without the contract, I can still deny you entry onto my property, or kick you out once you're there.
I specifically said that this hypothetical agreement would give me the right to search your vehicle even if you never parked on my property and you agreed that it would. If you've never put the car on my property then how could "what is on the property" possibly be the issue?
The point is a parking lot owner doesn't have the right to search vehicles in the absence of an agreement. There must be an agreement in place to allow him to search.
Furthermore a person who legally coerces another to enter into an agreement that allows him to search the other's vehicle at will, will have the right to search that vehicle regardless of where it is. Again the agreement is the key.
No matter how you look at this the agreement is what makes the policy enactment and enforcement possible. There MUST be an agreement between the two parties before one private party can search another's vehicle and that is what sets up the scenario we're discussing. Property rights don't enter into it.
Look at it this way. Let's say I worked for a company that did not own a parking lot and yet, as a condition of employment requires that I must submit to having my vehicle searched at random. They could show up at my house and search my vehicle and if I refused they could fire me. They could walk across the street and search my vehicle. Again, if I refused they could fire me. Now, where do property rights come into the situation? The fact is that they can, if they choose, enact and enforce such an agreement and fire me if I refuse to agree or comply. REGARDLESS OF WHERE I PARK.
IF they were truly excluding guns from their parking lots then they could pretend that this is about keeping their facility gun free. BUT THEY DON'T TRY TO EXCLUDE GUNS, they only enforce their policy against employees.
Any way you cut this, the idea that this revolves around property rights leads to contradictions.
If it wasn't private property then there would be no control.
If you're fired, you're fired, that's what you seem to be missing. The only reason they enforce the policy on company property is because that's how it's written. There's nothing special about their parking lot that makes it possible for them to search my vehicle, they can search my vehicle anywhere the policy wording allows because if I say no they'll fire me. The agreement wording and their ability to wield a sufficient penalty is what creates their right to search, not the location of my vehicle.
You can phrase it any way you like, but the bottom line is that they are excluding firearms from their property because of the extreme liability they pose.
Absolutely incorrect!
As already pointed out multiple times, they are not truly excluding firearms from their property, they are trying to maintain the right to search employee vehicles (ONLY employee vehicles) at will. They have made no attempt to create a firearms free zone because there is no attempt to exclude firearms in vehicles not owned by employees--EVEN THOUGH TX law contains provisions for doing so.
But more importantly, the TX law proposed specifically stated that the employer COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE for issues resulting from employee firearms in private vehicles. Yet the companies STILL fought the law and defeated it. The issue was CLEARLY not liability--that had been taken out of consideration and the opposition continued unabated. It's about control.
So what? Its not the problem of the business that you decided to live so far away. That was your choice and it should have been painfully obvious that such a distance would pose a variety of problems, not just with firearms.
Of course the policy affects you.
Still missing the point. And it's pretty obvious that now it's intentional.
Of course it affects me, what a silly comment. It's not THAT it affects me or how far away I live from the company. The point is WHEN it affects me. You claim that this is about the company controlling its property but this policy affects me before I ever set foot on company property and after I leave the company premises. It even affects me while I'm on my own property. AGAIN, it's NOT about property--it's about control.
Actually the standard is whether the alternatives are so restricted as to render them useless. In an overwhelming majority of these cases parking off site is going to solve the problem, so the law is satisfied.
Wrong, it's not enough that the problem is solved for the majority, rights are rights, even when only a minority is affected. What percentage of the U.S. population resides in DC? What if the SCOTUS had said to Heller. Well, the overwhelming majority of Americans can own handguns so the law is satisfied. Talk about grasping at straws...
So I can bring a bag of dope onto your property and as long as it stays in my pocket, its none of your business.
Did you, perhaps, note that the sentence you quoted from my post included, in ALL CAPS the word "legal"? Do you really equate drug possession with legally carrying a firearm in one's vehicle? Come on...
No one is violating your property rights. I haven't said that employers should be able to search your car without your consent.
The idea that my compliance is voluntary is flawed. It discounts/ignores the negative incentive of termination used to force compliance and is simply another way to imply that changing jobs is trivial and not worthy of consideration. I've already addressed that argument several times.
And? Is the castle doctrine the end all and be all of property characterization?
You said that it was not true that a vehicle can be legally considered an extension of the home. I proved it was considered an extension of the home for some legal purposes. I never said anything about "end all"s and "be all"s, if anyone was making sweeping statements, it was your categorical statement that my comment was "not accurate at all".
I'll give you a debating tip for free. If you make a sweeping statement in a debate it's only necessary for your opponent to provide a single counterexample to prove it is false. Of course, on the other hand, carefully tempered statements don't provide the same level of dramatic effect...
I guess it comes down to whether you're more concerned with accuracy or dramatic effect.
Because something is an inconvenience does not mean it is not an alternative. I've no doubt that people wouldn't want to go through the hassle of finding other work.
That does not address the gist of my comments, again it's obviously intentional. I never said it wasn't an alternative, I said it wasn't a SOLUTION.
That's not even debatable. If it
were a solution then there would have been no law passed and we wouldn't be having this debate.
First, there is nothing in any of these agreements that regulates what employees do off company property. The tangential effects that you are talking about can be easily remedied for most people. Because you need to make other arrangements outside of work for your firearm doesn't mean that a property owner is regulating your conduct outside of work.
I inserted the clause
outside of work to point out the hidden contradiction in your statement.
Clearly the idea that MOST people can remedy the tangential effects does not mean they don't exist. And clearly, forcing a person to make other arrangements for their firearms (off company property during their commute) does, in fact, regulate conduct outside of work. Even if that regulation is simply forcing a person to make alternative commute arrangements it is STILL regulating conduct outside of work.
I'm sorry, but your "debating" techniques leave something to be desired. There's little point in my spending time to refute your "arguments" if you believe that creating strawmen, deliberately ignoring clear points, and carefully constructing sentences to try to hide contradictions constitute a constructive debate.
Those "strategies" make it painfully obvious that you are not interested in debate as a method for discovering or disclosing truth and therefore it's a waste of time for me to continue this exchange.
My points are clear, accurate and stand as made. I've repeated and restated them sufficient times that there should be no issue with understanding them. That's good enough for me.
You have fun now.
DC is a government. State action infringing on one of your rights is not the same as a private company doing so. Therefore your comparison is completely wrong. The standard is exactly as I said. Because you are inconvenienced in some way doesn't mean that you've lost your right. Especially when this convenience is because of someone elses rights.