Employers banning guns in parking lots

[Keith B]

Then why bring up an AR15 when I mention 30.07?

Does my measured level of experience only begin with my registration here?

You didn't mention 30.07, you said 'open carry' which constitutes any openly carried firearm. You were implying you want to restrict some forms of carry and not others, and that it was not all inclusive in the 2A.

Then you came back and challenged my knowledge of 30.07, which I was following WAY before it was ever even introduced to the legislature. I am probably as familiar or more familiar with the laws and restrictions on ownership and possession of firearms than 99.99% of the general population.

So, this all started with your original statement of comparing a commercial business owner banning a protected class (race) with them banning the possession of a firearm, your professed knowledge of retail, and 2A. Trying to work them into your view of what they are is your prerogative. I have my views as well, but the law is the law and there are things you can and can't legally restrict. Like it or not case law, court rulings and general past history dictates what you can and can't get away with when dealing with the public and your business. Otherwise you are going to get yourself into a major lawsuit.

[thetexan]

The "right" that matters here is not your right to carry your gun in your vehicular property. It is not the "right" you have to not be prohibited by the employer.

The "right" that is all important here is the "right" the employer has here in the Great Lone Star State of Texas to fire your gun storing butt for not obeying his instructions to not store in the parking lot. Notwithstanding the seven deadly Federal prohibited employment practices, you have no "right" to be employed by your employer. And he has every "right" to terminate your relationship with him because you will not abide by his desire for his employees to not store guns in their cars. (Texas is an employ at will state).

You won't be violating any state statute. The employer won't be violating any state statute by prohibiting you from storing in your vehicle. But you will still be unemployed none the less because there are another set of rules at play here, and they all favor the employer.

Will you have a viable law suit? Possibly. And if you sue you will spend your last cent of unemployment going after him.

tex

[TVGuy]

The journey to and from work is probably the most common travel each of us make. If the business was allowed to prohibit carry in your vehicle in the parking lot, you're effectively preventing that person from their right to carry much of the time even when not on their property. You're preventing someone to protect themselves on their most traveled route.

[Keith B]

Dress code requirements are only legally enforceable in the manner that it violates health codes, so your logic doesn't stand. Sorry.

I believe this is incorrect. An establishment can ask a person to leave for any reason that is not because they are a member of a protected class. Attire is not protected. Refuse to leave....criminal trespass. So, dress codes are enforceable. Try wearing a swimsuit to a fine dining establishment and see what happens.

I'll agree there are dress codes for many establishments, and they can deny to seat you. However it comes back to reasonable similarities (coat and tie, slacks, sport shirt, etc.) with all clientele vs. one brand of jeans vs. another, etc.

[TXBO]

You didn't mention 30.07, you said 'open carry' which constitutes any openly carried firearm. You were implying you want to restrict some forms of carry and not others, and that it was not all inclusive in the 2A.

......

Here's the exact post:

I know exactly what a protected class is and how it's justified. The Civil Rights Act said that private property rights don't trump the Constitution. In this case equal protection of law under the 14th Amendment prohibits discrimination in the workplace or facilities of public accomodation.

That's no different that suggesting that private property rights shouldn't trump 2nd Amendment rights in matters of public accomodation and the work place.

I see 30.07 as different. That's merely a dress code as long as there is no 30.06 hanging beside it.

[/quote]

[Keith B]

BTW, let's get back to the original topic of employer's banning employee firearms in the parking lot.

[Keith B]

You didn't mention 30.07, you said 'open carry' which constitutes any openly carried firearm. You were implying you want to restrict some forms of carry and not others, and that it was not all inclusive in the 2A.

......

Here's the exact post:

I know exactly what a protected class is and how it's justified. The Civil Rights Act said that private property rights don't trump the Constitution. In this case equal protection of law under the 14th Amendment prohibits discrimination in the workplace or facilities of public accomodation.

That's no different that suggesting that private property rights shouldn't trump 2nd Amendment rights in matters of public accomodation and the work place.

I see 30.07 as different. That's merely a dress code as long as there is no 30.06 hanging beside it.

OK, my bad. Still, it is a restriction of my 2A right if you believe it shall not be infringed. Open carry of pistol or long gun should all be included in the 2A. Let's get back to the original topic.

[TXBO]

Then you came back and challenged my knowledge of 30.07, which I was following WAY before it was ever even introduced to the legislature. I am probably as familiar or more familiar with the laws and restrictions on ownership and possession of firearms than 99.99% of the general population.

.....

You certainly appear to be extremely knowledgeable thus my surprise when you mention that a 30.07 would infringe on your right to carry an AR15.

I see 30.07 as different. That's merely a dress code as long as there is no 30.06 hanging beside it.

I'm sorry, how is that different? If you are a true follower of the 2nd amendment, it states the right 'shall not be infringed'. How can you infringe on my right to bear arms in any method I choose? Sounds like you want it to be the way you want it, not per the constitution?

Not at all. Requiring concealment denies neither the right to "keep" or "bear" arms.

But trying to dictate my method of carry DOES infringe on my right. The 2nd amendment doesn't state 'licensed' individuals, so if I don't have a license I can't carry a pistol per state law. But I am allowed to carry my AR-15 without a license, so are you going to prohibit me carrying that on your porperty? That would infringe on my 2A right if you do. Dress code requirements are only legally enforceable in the manner that it violates health codes, so your logic doesn't stand. Sorry.

[TXBO]

...
... Trying to work them into your view of what they are is your prerogative. I have my views as well, but the law is the law and there are things you can and can't legally restrict. Like it or not case law, court rulings and general past history dictates what you can and can't get away with when dealing with the public and your business. Otherwise you are going to get yourself into a major lawsuit.

There certainly is a difference between case law/precedence and my views. I do believe that the OP asked for our "views" in a manner of speaking. If I'm wrong, I offer my most sincere apology.

BTW... There is a long list of settled law that I don't agree with.

[TXBO]

I see 30.07 as different. That's merely a dress code as long as there is no 30.06 hanging beside it.

I'm sorry, how is that different? If you are a true follower of the 2nd amendment, it states the right 'shall not be infringed'. How can you infringe on my right to bear arms in any method I choose? Sounds like you want it to be the way you want it, not per the constitution?

Not at all. Requiring concealment denies neither the right to "keep" or "bear" arms.

But trying to dictate my method of carry DOES infringe on my right. The 2nd amendment doesn't state 'licensed' individuals, so if I don't have a license I can't carry a pistol per state law. But I am allowed to carry my AR-15 without a license, so are you going to prohibit me carrying that on your porperty? That would infringe on my 2A right if you do. Dress code requirements are only legally enforceable in the manner that it violates health codes, so your logic doesn't stand. Sorry.

So if the TX legislature proposed a bill that forbid commercial businesses from posting 30.06 but still allowed 30.07, would you support it?

[Keith B]

So if the TX legislature proposed a bill that forbid commercial businesses from posting 30.06 but still allowed 30.07, would you support it?

It would depend on the background, how the law was actually written, and the recommendation of those who were working with the legislature to restore our 2A rights. If it was another law that helped chip away at getting more rights back, then probably so. In our case we can't eat the elephant all in one bite, we must eat it a little at a time.

[TXBO]

So if the TX legislature proposed a bill that forbid commercial businesses from posting 30.06 but still allowed 30.07, would you support it?

It would depend on the background, how the law was actually written, and the recommendation of those who were working with the legislature to restore our 2A rights. If it was another law that helped chip away at getting more rights back, then probably so. In our case we can't eat the elephant all in one bite, we must eat it a little at a time.

I guess we're not so different then. My practicality and idealism seldom meet.

[Soccerdad1995]

A person's right to free speech, privacy, clean water, clean air, etc.,

I must have missed in the constitution the rights to clean air and water.

You didn't miss it. These rights are not in the constitution and, IMHO at least, they are much less important than the RKBA. But we should note that there are rights which are not listed in the constitution.

[bblhd672]

A person's right to free speech, privacy, clean water, clean air, etc.,

I must have missed in the constitution the rights to clean air and water.

You didn't miss it. These rights are not in the constitution and, IMHO at least, they are much less important than the RKBA. But we should note that there are rights which are not listed in the constitution.

Which rights would those be? And under what authority do you claim those rights?

[KLB]

The parking lot belongs to the employer, while the car belongs to you. So we have two sets of rights in conflict. The law had to provide for whose rights would trump whose under what circumstances.

The legislature struck a trade off. I'm personally happy with the trade off, and most others here probably are as well. But even if you have misgivings about what the legislature did, realize that someone's rights had to be abridged to some extent. The legislature had the legal power (though probably not the political will) to prevent employers from banning guns altogether. Compared to that, what the legislature did seems pretty reasonable.