Whose rights are right?

[Al Norris]

I needed to go back to my notes in Real Estate theory (circa 1972 - but hasn't changed). I think that half problem most of us have with property rights and property laws, stems from the fact that almost all land in the US is fee simple land and not allodial land.

This can be deduced by the fact that the States and to a lessor extent, the Federal Government can exercise eminent domain over your property. This is also where property taxation comes into play.

Allodial land cannot be taxed nor can eminent domain be exercised upon it.

The other half of the problem is that the State can exercise, through its general welfare powers, regulations to affect how you may be entitled to use your land.

Taken together then, the state can mandate that while you have the right to keep guns (or other personal items) off your property, if you allow your employees (or "guests") to park their vehicles on that property, you forfeit the right to disallow what might be contained within that private vehicle.

 

[kennybs plbg]

Lets take it to the next level, do you really own the property or does the bank or mortgage holder. There're many here who feel the rightful property owner controls all rights, do you move the line again.

kenny b

 

[JohnKSa]

Lets take it to the next level, do you really own the property or does the bank or mortgage holder.

Here's a real tangle...

The company I work for resides on land leased from the city in which the facility is built. The buildings are paid for by the company, but the land belongs to the city.

So that means that the actual owner of the parking lot land is a TX municipality. By law, a TX municipality may not restrict handgun carry by permit holders on city property unless it's a courthouse (actually within the building), etc. Not only that, but TX law allows a citizen to carry a handgun in the car without a permit--since that is not a 30.06 law, not even a 30.06 posting can prevent a non-CHL holding citizen from having a pistol in his car in a parking lot.

So, the city, who owns the land on which I park, can't legally tell me to leave my handgun at home. The company who leases the land could 30.06 post the parking lot to legally keep out CHL holders' firearms but has no legal way to prevent non-CHL holders from keeping a firearm in their vehicle. So non-employees are free to legally have a pistol in their vehicles, even if they park in the same lot I do. In fact, if they're not CHL holders there's absolutely no legal way to prevent them from doing so.

The company says they'll fire me if I park on "their" parking lot with a handgun in my vehicle. The vehicle and the hypothetical firearm** are mine.

So, whose rights are being violated here? The land owner can't legally tell anyone that they can't have a pistol in their car. The entity leasing the land can't legally restrict non-CHL holders and chooses not to restrict CHL holders so non-employees are free to park in the lot even if they have a gun in the car. The entity leasing the land can't prosecute me but they say they will fire me if I have a firearm in the car.*** They also can't legally search it, but they can ask me to open it for them to search and fire me if I refuse.*** I own the vehicle and the hypothetical firearm but apparrently any rights that follow from that ownership are of precious little use to me...

**Hypothetical because I can't afford to lose my job so they have me over a barrel and therefore I make the 2 hour round trip across 2 county lines unarmed in spite of the fact that the state of TX says I can carry in my vehicle or on my person AND in spite of the fact that the background check run for my employment is FAR more restrictive and far-reaching than the TX CHL background check.

***The policy has changed since I began working there 2 decades ago.

 

[divemedic]

Lets take it to the next level, do you really own the property or does the bank or mortgage holder.

That is easy. You still own the property, the bank just retains a security interest in the property.

So non-employees are free to legally have a pistol in their vehicles, even if they park in the same lot I do. In fact, if they're not CHL holders there's absolutely no legal way to prevent them from doing so.

You may also legally have a weapon in your vehicle. Their policy is not law. There is also no legal way for your employer to prevent you from doing so. Sure your employer can fire you if you have a gun in your car- here is one even better- your employer can fire you if you have a gun in your house, if they so choose.

There are businesses here in my area that are firing people who smoke, even if they only smoke on their own time.

 

[Slugthrower]

It basically comes down to wether or not there is a code/law that covers what particular legal problem has been encountered. If there is no code then government has to use it's best discretion to solve the matter.

VA. code grants particular rights to the renter of a private property. Under the renters rights code the landlord cannot deny the renter the right to own and keep firearms inside and/or on the landlords property so long as they are the resident.

If the property in question is to be used for commercial use then another set of codes apply. That property which is going to be used for commercial use must of course be zoned commercial as well. It will vary from state to state, just as it should, as to wether or not one can have a firearm in their vehicle.

In the case of VA. unless you are an employee of the company they cannot force you to leave it home, or for that matter even if you are an employee they cannot make you leave the firearm at home, however they can fire you and require you to leave the property. The question then becomes, is it worth your job?

In VA. a private citizen can drive onto public property( public schools ) with a firearm and leave it in their privately owned vehicle. The catch is if you exit the vehicle with that firearm. Once you set foot on the ground with the firearm on your person you are in violation of the "no gun zone" codes, even if it is for the purpose of securing their firearm inside the trunk of your vehicle. The state code also says that the firearm must be secured properly, that proper securing is considered to be in a lockable container, IE the trunk or glove box in a vehicle.

It makes me wonder how the law would be applied to a person riding a motorcycle. I guess that is a legal problem waiting to happen for those of us riding bikes.

It is interesting to note that a resident on his property, wether rented or owned has the right to carry a concealed weapon upon their property without a permit from the state government, here in VA.

If one has has a question as to the legality of what they are about to do they would be best advised to consult a lawyer. Unless they think that they are able to interpet the law properly in relation to what that law applies to. Weigh the risks and decide, also be willing to pay the consequences for those decisions as well, especially if you interpet that law incorrectly.