TexasCHLforum.com

Ok, so I am probably going to offend quite a number of people with this question, but I ask in all sincerity.

How do you square a parking lot bill with property rights? On the one hand, the car is MY personal property, on the other the parking lot is my employers personal property. Seems to me that since I'm placing my property on his property, that his right trumps mine.

I'm just asking a question.

I figure it's a case of "don't ask, don't tell". Kind of like "concealed means concealed"

I'm just having a hard time with "our" logic. We fight for the rights of our property being our "castle" with no duty to retreat, because it's OUR PROPERTY, yet, on the other hand we are going to force another property owner to allow something they don't want to.

I'm just asking, because I really do need some help with making this work out in my head.

I agree with you, but have enjoyed reading the pro parking lot posts, I always learn somthing

At the end of the day, if it's an open lot and customers and employees park together with every Tom dick and Harry who wish to park as well,,, the land owner gives up his right to keep guns out

However, if as a land owner, I have a controled lot, and I limit access to who I see fit, I should be able to keep guns out. Just like I support a business owners right to put up a 30.06

Does it stink for the employee? Yep, but they are not required to work there or park in said lot

Not the states place.

Yea, to me it's a government intrusion into a private business decision. Exactly the same as a "smoking ban" If I own a restaurant and I want to have a smoking section, then it's my choice. If you don't want to eat there, then go elsewhere. It ain't none of the governments business.

Now, I didn't think about the publicly accessible part. That makes sense.

I'm all for the rights of a property owner to control his property.

I think the issue is that not allowing employees to store guns in their cars effectively disarms them on their commute to and from work. Since many of us take care of most of our errands on that commute (rather than going home and arming to go to the grocery store, we stop at the store on the way home from work), we end up being unarmed nearly every time we leave home. Went through all that trouble to get a CHL and then find that it's next to useless.

So the thinking is that your right to carry oustside of work trumps your employer's right to keep you from having a gun in your car in his parking lot. (Somewhat convoluted logic, I know, but I agree with it after giving it some thought.)

If jobs weren't so hard to come by and there were more employers who welcomed CHLs, then I'd say that no one is forcing you to work there and if you don't like your company's policies, find other employment. But most of us don't have the luxury of only choosing to work for companies that will willingly allow this.

You have multiple classes of property in reality, in this case we will consider three: Private Property, Public Property, Commercial Property (Privately owned, publicly accessible). All property is subject to some regulation, zoning laws are one good example, while public property is perhaps the most regulated seeing as how it is government controlled. Private property is not subject to much regulation, and is often considered by the public to be unregulated. Finally the commercial property is a hybrid of private and public property and is subject to quite a bit of regulation. Commercial property owners can't bar customers based on race, they have to ensure that their buildings and parking lots have sufficient access for disabled customers, They can not force employees to vote for one candidate over another, and so on. The Parking lot legislation is actually a minor regulation that does not cost employers anything to implement and helps protect the rights of the employees. I'm afraid that this is the best explanation I can come up with at nearly 2am. maybe when I am more awake I can come up with something better.

Thanks for the comparison. This is starting to make a little better sense now.

I have the same personal frustration with the situation. I believe we are dealing with two rights here: 2nd Amendment, and Property rights (both very dear to me). IMHO, I believe that's the fundamental reason for rules of representative government, to decide between competing rights (competing interests and wants, well, that's another matter entirely). The specific form of representation used is, in turn, decided by popular opinion (what we call "political power").

ETA: OK, my wording was a bit confusing. Read that as "rule of representative government" or "rules enacted by representative government." I was thinking of both when I wrote it, and so....

I think my biggest heartburn with the company property rights issue versus parking lot carry is that I don't believe that most companies really think about it. Most company policy manuals are cookie cutter documents that contain various rules and policies about weapons, drugs, smoking, sick leave, vacation, etc. I don't think that much discussion or thought goes into approving the documents. Too much emphasis is given to avoiding getting sued and CYA policies rather than doing what is best for the company and employee.

G.A. Heath wrote:You have multiple classes of property in reality, in this case we will consider three: Private Property, Public Property, Commercial Property (Privately owned, publicly accessible). All property is subject to some regulation, zoning laws are one good example, while public property is perhaps the most regulated seeing as how it is government controlled. Private property is not subject to much regulation, and is often considered by the public to be unregulated. Finally the commercial property is a hybrid of private and public property and is subject to quite a bit of regulation. Commercial property owners can't bar customers based on race, they have to ensure that their buildings and parking lots have sufficient access for disabled customers, They can not force employees to vote for one candidate over another, and so on. The Parking lot legislation is actually a minor regulation that does not cost employers anything to implement and helps protect the rights of the employees. I'm afraid that this is the best explanation I can come up with at nearly 2am. maybe when I am more awake I can come up with something better.

This is the best explanation yet for why I support the Parking Lot Bill.

I am a property owner myself, and I appreciate private property rights as much as anyone else. But I have pointed out zoning requirements and mandated handicapped access for commercial property before as reason for why the Parking Lot Bill is not really a huge infringement on the rights of commercial property owners. And even though Texas is an "at will" state with regard to employment, without the parking lot legislation, employers currently enjoy a situation in which they are permitted to reach outside the the boundaries of their publicly accessible commercial property in order to infringe upon the free exercise of an employee's constitutional rights when they are off the clock. Since when is an employee required to surrender control over their constitutionally protected off the job activities to their employer as a condition of employment? We are not yet an oligarchy. The Parking Lot Bill satisfies both A) the need of the employer to control the carrying of firearms onto their commercial property by requiring lawfully armed employees to secure their weapons in their cars prior to entering the "premises"; and B) the need of individual citizens to be armed with a handgun according to their choice when they are off the clock and between their jobs and their homes.

Sec. 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER. (f) 3) "Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.

Now, this applies to CHLs only, but the principle ought to mean the same for MPA.... someone correct me if I'm wrong.... and it seems to me that all a parking lot bill does is to extend the protections of 46.035 (f) 3) to employer parking lots for employees to choose to travel in their vehicles with a firearm.

OldSchool wrote:IMHO, I believe that's the fundamental reason for rules of representative government, to decide between competing rights (competing interests and wants, well, that's another matter entirely).

I had a junior high history teacher who explained that you have the right to swing your arms around all day, but your right to swing your fist stops at my nose.
You can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's right to do whatever they want. Determining where to draw that line is one of the main functions of government.

I believe that the interior of one's vehicle should be an extension of one's home and thus should be considered a "bubble" of the vehicle owner's private/personal space. If his "bubble" (vehicle) happens to be inside his employer's "bubble (parking lot), it still does not diminish the importance of the vehicle owner's personal/private space.

But, I don't make the rules.


surv

mr surveyor wrote:I believe that the interior of one's vehicle should be an extension of one's home and thus should be considered a "bubble" of the vehicle owner's private/personal space. If his "bubble" (vehicle) happens to be inside his employer's "bubble (parking lot), it still does not diminish the importance of the vehicle owner's personal/private space.
surv

I don't want an employer to be searching inside my car any more than I want them looking inside my home.

WildBill wrote:

mr surveyor wrote:I believe that the interior of one's vehicle should be an extension of one's home and thus should be considered a "bubble" of the vehicle owner's private/personal space. If his "bubble" (vehicle) happens to be inside his employer's "bubble (parking lot), it still does not diminish the importance of the vehicle owner's personal/private space.
surv

I don't want an employer to be searching inside my car any more than I want them looking inside my home.

Or inside your pockets or briefcase. Unfortunately, employee rules "require" that ability as well.

An employers property rights is secondary to providing the employees with a safe environment. Restricting an employees right to protect themselves for no rational reason is putting an employee in danger.

Winchster wrote:Ok, so I am probably going to offend quite a number of people with this question, but I ask in all sincerity.

How do you square a parking lot bill with property rights? On the one hand, the car is MY personal property, on the other the parking lot is my employers personal property. Seems to me that since I'm placing my property on his property, that his right trumps mine.

If an employer can't fire an employee for a religious or political bumper sticker displayed openly on a car (1A) then they definitely shouldn't be able to fire employees for a gun hidden in a car (2A) in the same parking lot.

Also, if you believe in property rights, then the employer has no right to search inside the employees' cars, although they would still have the right to observe bumper stickers and other displays that are in plain view.