Oklahoma wins one in Fed court.

[wmenorr67]

The Federal Appeals court has upheld the guns in locked car law that Oklahoma passed a few years back but was held up due to a lawsuit filed by several companies, Conoco/Philips being the biggest one.

Glad to see that the courts, and a liberal one at that, the 10th Circut, has upheld people's rights to defend themselves at all times.

[digitalandanalog]

Wish Arkansas would get on that boat too.

[Perd Hapley]

You have no right to bring guns onto private property, against the owner's wishes.  How is this difficult to understand? 


But, yeah, keep praising this anti-freedom decision.  I need something to amp up my blood pressure. 

[Thylacine]

You have no right to bring guns onto private property, against the owner's wishes.  How is this difficult to understand? 


But, yeah, keep praising this anti-freedom decision.  I need something to amp up my blood pressure. 

How is this difficult to understand?  The car is my private property.
But, yeah, keep phrasing your anti-freedom rhetoric this way.  You don't want people to park on your property, then don't let them. What is or isn't in their car is not your concern.
You do not have to let them carry those scary guns into your property. You can Post it.

[Perd Hapley]

Post it?  You mean I can forbid guns on my (hypothetical) parking lot in Oklahoma?

You're not making much sense.  If I have a right to forbid guns on my property, then I have a right to forbid guns on my property.  If you can keep a gun in your car, on my "gun-free" property, then you also have a right to carry your gun into my place of business, in your personally-owned paper bag.  Or substitute a locked container, if that makes a difference.  And, by your reasoning, I have a right to bring my gun into another person's home or car, so long as I keep it in my privately owned container. 

The fact that the gun is in a privately-owned car doesn't change the fact that it is there in violation of the owner's right to govern his own property.  You and I certainly have the right to keep and bear arms, in our car or in any other way.  But that doesn't mean you can take your guns into someone else's "no gun zone," just because it happens to be in a car. 


Disclaimer:  I do not own a business, I don't live in Oklahoma, but if I did, it would be a very gun-friendly business indeed. 

[makattak]

Post it?  You mean I can forbid guns on my (hypothetical) parking lot in Oklahoma?

You're not making much sense.  If I have a right to forbid guns on my property, then I have a right to forbid guns on my property.  If you can keep a gun in your car, on my "gun-free" property, then you also have a right to carry your gun into my place of business, in your personally-owned paper bag.  Or substitute a locked container, if that makes a difference.  And, by your reasoning, I have a right to bring my gun into another person's home or car, so long as I keep it in my privately owned container. 

The fact that the gun is in a privately-owned car doesn't change the fact that it is there in violation of the owner's right to govern his own property.  You and I certainly have the right to keep and bear arms, in our car or in any other way.  But that doesn't mean you can take your guns into someone else's "no gun zone," just because it happens to be in a car. 


Disclaimer:  I do not own a business, I don't live in Oklahoma, but if I did, it would be a very gun-friendly business indeed. 

I have to disagree with you on this one.

I will agree that property owner's have a right to forbid whatever they wish on their property.

However, (please correct me if I'm wrong), a vehicle has been held to be an extension of one's home.

Given that is the case, allowing one to keep a firearm in their vehicle is a matter of the vehicle owner's property rights as well.

This is not a simple case of "My property, my rules" because there are competing property rights. I tend to fall on the side of the property rights of those who wish to be able to defend themselves while not at work.

I can understand people falling on the side of the parking lot owner's property rights as well, but please don't think those of us on the other side have rejected those rights: many have simply picked a competing property right to support.

[Thylacine]

Post it?  You mean I can forbid guns on my (hypothetical) parking lot in Oklahoma?

You're not making much sense.  If I have a right to forbid guns on my property, then I have a right to forbid guns on my property.  If you can keep a gun in your car, on my "gun-free" property, then you also have a right to carry your gun into my place of business, in your personally-owned paper bag.  Or substitute a locked container, if that makes a difference.  And, by your reasoning, I have a right to bring my gun into another person's home or car, so long as I keep it in my privately owned container. 

The fact that the gun is in a privately-owned car doesn't change the fact that it is there in violation of the owner's right to govern his own property.  You and I certainly have the right to keep and bear arms, in our car or in any other way.  But that doesn't mean you can take your guns into someone else's "no gun zone," just because it happens to be in a car. 


Disclaimer:  I do not own a business, I don't live in Oklahoma, but if I did, it would be a very gun-friendly business indeed. 

Wow, were you are being intentionally sarcastic? There is a huge difference between leaving a firearm in a car and CARRYING it. You know it, but are refusing to back down from an untenable position for whatever reason.

[Perd Hapley]

I don't have time to do this conversation again.  I've discussed this in more detail in other threads.  But to be brief:

makatak,

The notion of "competing rights" is unworkable.  If you forbid guns on your property, and I know it, I can easily respect your rights by avoiding your property.  To claim that my car is a magic zone is laughable at best.  I am aware that a car is regarded as an "extension of the home."  This was invoked as a Fourth Amendment search issue, correct?  It may apply there.  It does not work here.  The Fourth applies to "persons, houses, papers and effects."  In that light, a car is a bag is a holster is a pocket.

Thylacine,

The difference between car v. personal carry is not at issue, here.  If a property owner says he doesn't want your gun anywhere on his property, that is his right. 

[MechAg94]

If you forbid guns on your property, and I know it, I can easily respect your rights by avoiding your property. 

No, you can't easily avoid his property.  There are many examples of places where you can't avoid it. 

A corporate office where I used to work had parking in a parking garage.  They didn't own the parking garage.  It was owned by a shopping mall close by.  They still extended their "no guns" rule to that parking lot even though it wasn't their property. 
Most chemical plants I have seen have separate parking areas that are either outside security gates or could be set up that way.  Some don't.  My company has plants inside other companies' security gates with no parking at all outside.  I guess your solution is I should have to quit and find another job despite the fact that, as far as I know, 100% of chemical plant and industrial plant locations have similar gun rules. 

Your private property is one thing, but if you are running a business and hiring employees, you do not have absolute property rights regardless of this particular issue. 

[Thylacine]

I don't have time to do this conversation again.  I've discussed this in more detail in other threads.  But to be brief:

Thylacine,

The difference between car v. personal carry is not at issue, here.  If a property owner says he doesn't want your gun anywhere on his property, that is his right. 

I think it is the issue. 
I too have spent far too much time on this subject. 
I will agree to disagree on this one.

[Perd Hapley]

MechAg,

My solution would be for employers/property owners not to worry about guns in folks' cars.  But if they're going to do so, we must all recognize one another's rights to manage our own lives and properties as we see fit.  I don't want you to lose your job, but in a question of rights, there can be no serious question that you and your employer should have rights of property, and freedom of association.  If he doesn't like your guns (or anything else about you), he is under no obligation to hire you or continue to employ you, much less provide you a parking spot.  And you are under no obligation to work for such a moron. 

The situations you describe are simply scenarios where the parties involved must reach agreements about how to address one another's issues.  Regarding the no-gun rule in the mall-owned parking lot, that is unfortunate.  But regardless of whose property is in question, we all have rights to free association.  If one of my friends, or my employer, is bothered by what I do with my guns, and we can't resolve our differences, he has every right to sever our relationship.  By right, your employer should able to fire you, simply because he doesn't like the fact that you own guns or think about guns.  That is freedom. 

Your private property is one thing, but if you are running a business and hiring employees, you do not have absolute property rights regardless of this particular issue. 

This dogma is frequently expressed by those who disagree with me on such issues.  Where do we get the notion that "running a business and hiring employees" means one must forfeit one's property rights, or rights to association?  It is absurd. 

Disclaimer: 
In the above situations, employment contracts must of course be honored.  Someone will accuse me of a belief in "absolute rights."  Maybe I do believe in absolute rights.  I don't know what people mean by that terminology. 

[roo_ster]

You have no right to bring guns onto private property, against the owner's wishes.  How is this difficult to understand? 

Your logic allows those who own a toll road to forbid firearms from being transported on them while in folks' autos and has no accommodation whatsoever for rights of those who might drive on it.

Your position also allows a toll-road owner to enforce a "no blacks, poor white trash, or any other low-lifes" policy on their highway.

Considering that a goodly proportion (majority, maybe) of the federal highways in the early years of the Republic were privately-owned toll-roads, you think the founding fathers were all in line with your viewpoint of leaving one's natural rights at one's doorstep before going out for the day?

[Perd Hapley]

Um, how is a toll road going to make any money if you forbid common items like firearms, and how will it make money if you keep stopping vehicles for searches? 

Next. 

[Declaration Day]

Next. 

Guess I'm next.  I agree with Mr. Tactical Pants 100%. 

I'm a business owner who allows my employees to carry firearms, and / or to have them in their cars at my shop.

I have also cancelled some business relationships with companies that I know have a specific rule against their employees carrying firearms or leaving them in their cars while on company property.  Yes I tell them why and of course, this has cost my business some $$.

The price of freedom, and all that...

[ronnyreagan]

Your position also allows a toll-road owner to enforce a "no blacks, poor white trash, or any other low-lifes" policy on their highway.

So what? If that position isn't profitable then they go out of business. Isn't that the whole idea of the free market? It's private property. What difference does it make if it's a private retail store or a private parking lot or a private toll road?

[Perd Hapley]

This is not good. 

[Gewehr98]

So if I am to understand this correctly, an automobile is now a magic box that shields the driver from personal property law?

IOW, regardless of a privately-owned parking area, with an explicit "no firearms" rule as posted by the owner, it's ok to bring firearms into it via the magic box automobile clause?

Something doesn't sound right, there.   :|

[Perd Hapley]

That is much better. 

If my car is a magic "i can haz gunz" box, then so is my holster. 

I think I just switched sides.   

[digitalandanalog]

Oh boy...

My job requires me not to have any weapon on property...

I still carry...

Until my job will protect me from home to work and back again (and any other errands that need to be run in between) my right to carry a suitable weapon for defense trumps any property rights when the private owner allows the public to work or do business on his/her property.

Would you cease to carry if every gas station within 100 miles disallowed you to carry in any way?

I didn't think so.

[Gewehr98]

That's a choice you make, and is very much a conscious decision to break a given law.

It also means one cannot feign ignorance if they're busted for such behavior.

It's a good way to lose one's often hard-won CCW permit.

I know, I know, "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6..."   

[digitalandanalog]

That's a choice you make, and is very much a conscious decision to break a given law.

I am not breaking any laws. Just company policy. I cannot be punished beyond being fired.

It's a good way to lose one's often hard-won CCW permit.

See above...

[Gewehr98]

Having lived in many of the states comprising this great country of ours, I know for a fact that if a place I intend to visit has a posted "No Firearms" rule, then I make every effort to abide by that rule.

That's whether it's a courthouse, municipal building, tavern, store, parking lot, or gas station.

I've actually caught myself mid-stride to turn around and lock up my CCW piece in my vehicle's safe place.

We sure's hell may not like it, but it's the law of the land.

Some choose to ignore policy, for various reasons. 

Again, you choose to defy your employer's no-gun policy, and after the shootout you've so diligently prepared for, you're going to get fired, at best.

At worst, your CCW may be scrutinized, or your employer could sue you, etc.

It's your version of risk management.  Mine's a little different.  Just because I have a CCW permit does not make me large and in charge.  You pick your fights carefully, and if you feel you must violate your employer's property rights with your CCW, I'd suggest not advertising so on a very public internet forum. 

[Perd Hapley]

d and a,

I think Gewehr was talking about states where private postings are enforced by law.   

Until my job will protect me from home to work and back again (and any other errands that need to be run in between) my right to carry a suitable weapon for defense trumps any property rights when the private owner allows the public to work or do business on his/her property.

This is the problem.  When we take the view that a right can be "trumped," out-competed, or out-balanced, we surrender the concept of rights altogether.  One either has a right, or one does not.  The very concept of rights is that there are principles that can never be rightfully trumped.   

When you knowingly enter private property, where you KNOW guns are forbidden, you choose not to exercise your right to carry.  Carry to work all you want.  Just don't try to claim that you have a right to do so. 

Would you cease to carry if every gas station within 100 miles disallowed you to carry in any way?

I didn't think so.

Probably not, but I certainly wouldn't claim I had a right to carry on someone else's property.  Besides, as with the toll road above, no gas station is going to stay in business, if it frisks the customers or searches their cars.  Metal detectors won't work, either. 

[PTK]

It confuses me that any of you at all think that since you carry a gun you can outweigh private property rights.


"I'm just going to carry this vial of VX around, including to that dinner party you invited me to. It's my right, correct?"

 

[roo_ster]

It confuses me that any of you at all think that since you carry a gun you can outweigh private property rights.

"I'm just going to carry this vial of VX around, including to that dinner party you invited me to. It's my right, correct?"

 

Category error. 

The OP refers to property on which business transactions with the public take place, not your neighbor's dining room.

Um, how is a toll road going to make any money if you forbid common items like firearms, and how will it make money if you keep stopping vehicles for searches?

Next. 

You did not answer the question.  Put forth some effort and engage in a discussion.  The "Bombast and Gassy Edict* Forum" is found elsewhere.


* Example of BGE:
"You have no right to bring guns onto private property, against the owner's wishes.  How is this difficult to understand?"