Guns to work?

Gun rights vs. property rights; who wins? Read below.

  • Total voters
    56
G

grymster2007

New member
A few of us have been slogging through the issue of property rights vs. gun rights in the thread FL and bringing guns to work, but I find the general silence deafening. I think that on this board the general consensus would be that having the right to a gun in your car supercedes a property owner's rights to disallow it, but most know that such a stand is hypocritical so they stay out of it.

This poll will reveal the names of voters.

Be brave.
 
I have NO problem

telling you and anybody that reads this that I feel the legal gun owner (with a permit where required) should be permitted to keep a firearm in his or her vehicle. I also think that if a LEO can carry ANYWHERE when off duty I should be able to also.

I know several LEOs who only discharge a gun when doing the quals for their department. I try to get to the range at a minimum of every other week. I will admit that I have not taken "more" training than is required to obtain a CPL in Michigan but, I do "train" every chance I get.
 
Being In Florida

The law is being discussed in the Legislature right now.

My take is that the gun owner trumps the property owner, but the property owner wins also, since they are absorbed of all legal liability for failure to provide security.

Property owners who want to ban guns do not want to take legal responsibility for the lack of security.
 
The way this poll and the initial post is phrased is biased. Calling a person who votes against the business owner, or for the gun owner a hypocrite does not make for an unbiased poll.

It isn't about one person trumping another's rights. It is about a property owner VOLUNTARILY giving up certain rights in order to open to the public.

For example, I cannot force an employee to work for less than minimum wage. I cannot force a female employee to have sex with me. There are rights that you cede when you open to the public.

A person who keeps his property closed to the public (such as your home) is free to ban firearms, and to enforce all sorts of other restrictions. Even so, the property owner does not have exclusive plenipotentiary power.

The funny thing is that I see the businesses who scream the loudest in this state about their rights as property owners are also the ones that dodge responsibility for the results of their decisions, and try to use "third party intervention" when the predictable results occur.
 
If I don't want guns on my property then I won't allow guns on my property. If you're an employee of mine and you don't like the policy, get another job. I have no responsibility to provide security for my employees. If they don't feel safe without their guns and without me supplying a security force they can seek employment elsewhere.

For example, I cannot force an employee to work for less than minimum wage. I cannot force a female employee to have sex with me. There are rights that you cede when you open to the public.

A person who keeps his property closed to the public (such as your home) is free to ban firearms, and to enforce all sorts of other restrictions. Even so, the property owner does not have exclusive plenipotentiary power.
Click to expand...
Not all businesses are open to the public.
 
Can I vote for both? The poll does not leave room for personal decisions to protect oneself outside of the "law" or a businesses ability to protect their rights. I believe if the business and property are privately owned then it is their call. My family owns multiple buildings and a couple businesses and we allow people to carry if they are legal, we do ourselves as well as store guns on the premises in case the need arises (I, my father, and a couple of our employees have been threatened multiple times by ex-employees) and we inform people we trust how to get to them. We allow customers and employees to carry, BUT, that is our right as the property owners to decide, if another property owner does not allow it that is their perogative. I don't shop at stores that don't allow carrying unless I absolutely must, and that's my choice. If an employee doesn't like that we allow guns they can leave, if I want to work for someone but they don't allow carrying, I don't have to work there. Life's about choices, you are free to shop where you want, work where you want, carry where you want. I typically carry wherever I am even if they have a "gun free zone" sign (pocket pistol), all that happens if they see that you are carrying is they can ask you to leave and you leave, if you don't then there's trouble. That is a personal decision, I would rather be alive and in trouble than dead and in the clear
 
Last edited:
The way this poll and the initial post is phrased is biased. Calling a person who votes against the business owner, or for the gun owner a hypocrite does not make for an unbiased poll.

It isn't about one person trumping another's rights. It is about a property owner VOLUNTARILY giving up certain rights in order to open to the public.
Click to expand...

Well said, Divemedic.

There is NOTHING in the least bit hypocritical about being pro-gun, pro-rights in general and believing that with a business open to the public our elected officials can control the reasons that can be used to deny access to someone/what the public must be allowed to possess, etc.

There are a slough of such laws already. When it comes to private property, pariticularly private property open to the public, society has determined that for reasons of safety or whatever government can impose rules and restrictions.

Grymmy has been trying to sell the brady campaign snake oil that there is something inherently evil about a law forcing companies to allowed guns to be left locked in cars, while laws such as easements, ADA, union organization, etc. are still supported and legal. That dog just don't hunt. Disallow an employee from leaving a gun locked in his own vehicle, and you have disarmed him for pretty much the whole day; the drive in, the drive home, his lunch hour, his evening if he goes straight out from work, etc.

Again, the main point is open to the public. My house is not open to the public, and only invited friends are allowed in. I would not favor a law that restricted me as a PRIVATE property owner as to whom I could allow on my property. And as far as I know none have ever been proposed.

But once I turn my private property into a business, or a portion of it, the rules change dramatically. There are already MANY laws that affect how I can run that property and what I can allow to happen there, whom I have to accomodate, etc.

The "but it's a company's private property!" whine was severely beaten down in the thread linked to above. Read through the posts on that and see if you can still vote for the property owner.

Already the gun rights believers are winning above, though the heavily biased wording of the question and initial posts are going to garner a few knee-jerk reaction votes against us.
 
Again, the main point is open to the public. My house is not open to the public, and only invited friends are allowed in. I would not favor a law that restricted me as a PRIVATE property owner as to whom I could allow on my property. And as far as I know none have ever been proposed.

But once I turn my private property into a business, or a portion of it, the rules change dramatically. There are already MANY laws that affect how I can run that property and what I can allow to happen there, whom I have to accomodate, etc.
Click to expand...
Yeah but again, a place of business does not necessarily have to be open to the public. The home base for my landscape company is not open to the public. The warehouse I lease for a data recovery service is not open to the public.
 
Yeah but again, a place of business does not necessarily have to be open to the public. The home base for my landscape company is not open to the public. The warehouse I lease for a data recovery service is not open to the public.
Click to expand...

If you have people working for you, it's open to the public for the purposes of this debate. Depending on a few factors, such as number of employees, etc., you must still meet ADA requirements for access, cannot discriminate as to whom you hire based on sex or race (depends on state law, number of employees), you must provide a safe work place environment, meet osha requirements, etc.

And if you supply a parking lot and this law passes, you must also allow employees to leave guns locked up in their own vehicles. This law will be as binding and as "just" as any of the former.

And this law would certainly be no burden on you, because there is no effect on you or your business whatsoever if your employees have legally owned guns locked in their cars. It's not like those guns are going to scream insults at approaching customers or scare away business.

And if this law passes and you can't live with it, close your doors or quit providing parking. The same as you would do if you found the ADA or OSHA laws too burdensome.

The Brady Campaign is trying hard to sell this anti-gun argument. Don't help them with it.
 
If you have people working for you, it's open to the public for the purposes of this debate.
Click to expand...
See, that's what confused me. I thought "open to the public" meant actually open to the public.

Then again I tend to disagree with a number of other restrictions put on business owners save for safety regulations and such...

So again, while I understand that the law may say otherwise I believe a business owner should be allowed to ban firearms from his property - including the parking lot - if he desires. He should also be allowed to ban purple socks and chinchillas if it makes him happy.
 
See, that's what confused me. I thought "open to the public" meant actually open to the public.

Then again I tend to disagree with a number of other restrictions put on business owners save for safety regulations and such...

So again, while I understand that the law may say otherwise I believe a business owner should be allowed to ban firearms from his property - including the parking lot - if he desires. He should also be allowed to ban purple socks and chinchillas if it makes him happy.
Click to expand...

Are employees part of the "public?" I think for reasons of this discussion they are. It's certainly employees we are talking about, as it's employees that this law, and the others discussed, protect.

I don't necessarily disagree with all of your points, BTW. And I do respect your viewpoint.

But to me the bottom line is ... for right or wrong we have allowed government to put restrictions on private property owners who open their property to the public, including employees. Whether it's right or wrong is another subject, but the laws are going to stay in place for the forseeable future.

As such ... if we can convince our elected officials that keeping legal guns in our cars makes us safer, then it's as legitimate a law as any of the rest. And it is a safety issue.
 
I feel that if you have a parking lot for me to park my 4000+ pound vehicle in, within range of recklessly driving somebody over on the sidewalk, then it doesn't matter if I have a CCW and want to carry my pistol.

Cars, guns, chainsaws, halberds, maces... they're all property.

It's the nut behind the bolt that does anything with any of them.
 
Are employees part of the "public?" I think for reasons of this discussion they are. It's certainly employees we are talking about, as it's employees that this law, and the others discussed, protect.
Click to expand...
Well, I wouldn't consider them part of the public but I don't know what the law says in regards to that.


I do understand what you're saying though, it makes sense.
 
Ok. Then the business should be civilly liable, just the same as if the business did not have any fire extinguishers, and had a policy prohibiting an employee from having one of his own. If a fire starts, even one which the employer had no way of preventing, the employer is still liable for any damages or injuries to the employee.

Why not the same for guns?

It seems to me like businesses want to have it both ways- all of the authority, none of the responsibility. Three things must always go together- authority, responsibility, and accountability. How can you have authority to do something for which you are not held accountable, and have no responsibility?
 
RedWorm:

If I have a fender bender in the parking lot of a Wally World and call the LEO, what is there answer?

Privet Property, They don't even do breathalyzer or any other tools. Sorry all I can do is take a statement. :D

Problem becomes a Civil matter and needs to go to court as the same.

I have five acres, I chase any one on it off. Reason? If they step in a Pack Rat or Ground Rat hole , they can sue me. People drive there 4 wheelers across my property. If they hit my clothes line and decapitate them self there family can take all my toys and what little money I really don't have.

Private Property owners that allow the public to enter within really are open to potential problems.
 
Once again, I can't vote in a poll because I would vote YES for both.

If the question was whether a person should be able to have a gun in their car (and only in their car) on someone else's property, I would vote YES.

If the question was whether a person should be able to carry a gun around on someone else's property, I would vote YES for the property owner's right to say 'no' to that activity.
 
Once again, I can't vote in a poll because I would vote YES for both.

If the question was whether a person should be able to have a gun in their car (and only in their car) on someone else's property, I would vote YES.

If the question was whether a person should be able to carry a gun around on someone else's property, I would vote YES for the property owner's right to say 'no' to that activity.
Click to expand...

The above is actually totally my position. I just knew the nature of the debate cited on the other thread and assumed that the former question was what this was about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top