Guns in vehicles business/employer parking lot.

[utbagpiper]

I think that's an essential key element, without which, most corporate lawyers would strongly advise their corporate clients to fight it tooth and nail. I'll include this in my ongoing suggestions to my state legislator.

I advise also looking to the other exceptions in Utah law. The lefties will vote against anything pro-RKBA. The GOP will be split in their loyalties between RKBA and business interests. We know who donates more to campaigns. The question is whether the RKBA groups can turn out votes at election time.

So you have to minimize as many "legit" complaints as you can. If an employer has federal mandates, don't impose a contradictory State law on them. Maybe even let any employer ban guns from a regular parking lot as long as they provide an alternative. Cost prevents any from doing so, but the option reduces legit complaints.

Religious voices carry a lot of sway in Utah, and the 1st amendment must be respected just like the 2nd. So religious employers were exempted. That removed a huge, potential opponent from the fight here. Consider on the dynamics in your State.

The key, is to get something even if you have to do more next year. If you get enough, you may be able to live with it for a long time. Beware "helpful" voices who want all or nothing. You're more likely to get nothing than everything.

I wish Colorado would get its act in gear on this matter. There are many fronts where people "in charge" have way too much authority over private citizens, beginning with our own government, created to safeguard our rights, but who now deprive us of them every time we step foot on "federal" land which, according to the Constitution, does not legally belong to the feds in the first place.

I wish we could get some civil liability for government employees who abuse rights. For now, it is just against private employers.

I know all too well about "federal lands". Utah land is all but 70% federally controlled. East of Colorado, the feds eventually saw fit to turn most federal land over to the States. East of Colorado, most States have only about 5% federal land with only a couple exceeding 10% slightly. From Colorado west, we are held in perpetual economic and thus political servitude as the East coast controls our land.

I thank God our Founding Fathers weren't libertarians and instead created a Republic.

Amen. I observe our federal constitution has elements that are democratic, some that are very deliberately anti-democratic, some aspects might be seen as libertarian, some as downright authoritarian. It isn't a perfect form of government, but it is better then anything else I've seen among mortal men, and way better than what we are actually getting these days.

Agreed, and I would extend that to landlords of all types.

Absolutely. At least to any landlord subject to any other anti-discrimination provision.

Best of luck.

Charles

 

[countryclubjoe]

Hmm... That's simpler than I recall. Then again, as I mentioned, it's been five years or more since I was last there.

Regardless, it's a parking lot, and by Colorado State law, my vehicle is an extension of my own.

Countryclubjoe, while I'm not going to tell a business what they should do on their property, I'm sure as hell not going to allow them to tell me what I must or must not do in my own home (or extension of my home).

If your argument is that, your vehicle is an extension of your home, let me ask you this, are you required to wear a seat belt in the extension of your home (vehicle) if yes, and you fail to buckle up, you may in fact be issued a citation or ticket etc for violating some de facto regulation while traveling in an extension of your home.. If the state can regulate how your traveling in an extension of your home, surely your employer can regulate what items you transport onto their property..

Private entities have no obligation to follow the laws in the constitution, only the government must follow the rule of law ( constitution).. People have rights, not objects.

I enjoy opining with you Sir, and look forward to your discourse.

Regards
CCJ

 

[countryclubjoe]

I think that's an essential key element, without which, most corporate lawyers would strongly advise their corporate clients to fight it tooth and nail. I'll include this in my ongoing suggestions to my state legislator.



I wish Colorado would get its act in gear on this matter. There are many fronts where people "in charge" have way too much authority over private citizens, beginning with our own government, created to safeguard our rights, but who now deprive us of them every time we step foot on "federal" land which, according to the Constitution, does not legally belong to the feds in the first place.



I thank God our Founding Fathers weren't libertarians and instead created a Republic.



Agreed, and I would extend that to landlords of all types.

While the founders were not pure libertarians, they were in fact influenced by John Locke considered the "Father Of Liberalism".
No slave owner could ever be considered a libertarian, a libertarian believes in the doctrine of " free will".
My .02
Regards
CCJ

 

[utbagpiper]

While the founders were not pure libertarians, they were in fact influenced by John Locke considered the "Father Of Liberalism".
No slave owner could ever be considered a libertarian, a libertarian believes in the doctrine of " free will".
My .02

Modern liberalism bears virtually no resemblance to classic liberalism as espoused by Locke. Modern liberals have no regard for the individual right to self defense, to keep and bear arms, or to worship freely. Modern liberals oppose diversity of thought and shut down speech with which they disagree. Let us not forget that even as modern liberals are horrified at the Citizens' United SCOTUS decision, that decision was the result of liberals trying to impose criminal penalties on citizens for releasing a movie critical of Hillary Clinton a few weeks before the election. Criminal penalties for a movie with which they disagreed. Modern liberals have no regard for private property rights.

The Framers of our Constitution, (not to be confused with the Founding Fathers who signed the DoI, though there is important overlap between the two groups) were also greatly influenced by Classic Republics as well as Swiss direct democracy. They were also personally familiar with the English legal and political systems.

Being so well informed, and of necessity to craft compromises to gain required support, the Framers drew from the best of each of these systems, while working to minimize the problems inherent in each.

Charles

 

[OC for ME]

Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

Compromise is exactly why we do not have the constitutional republic that our founders envisioned...

The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

 

[countryclubjoe]

Our constitution will at some point in time become outdated and abused.. Only a few amendments will survive. Twenty first century America cannot support a constitution established 200 and some odd years ago.. Knowledge and technology will trump the believes and words of our founders..

' The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies." Man has no property in man', neither has one generation a property in the generations that are to follow".. Thomas Payne..

Hence Natural law today, and 150 years from now, will trump our constitution.. Laws established by our creator shall never go out of style, words espoused by a few intelligent people of their day, will eventually die with their memory..

My .02
CCJ

 

[countryclubjoe]

Compromise is exactly why we do not have the constitutional republic that our founders envisioned...

The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Yes and regarding said secrecy, Patrick Henry replied, " The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them"..
Hence lack of transparency by our Government erodes liberty... And our current government under the direction of one DJT, erodes said liberty.

My .02

 

[countryclubjoe]

People keep forgetting that a company exists at the pleasure of a state. Just because companies are persons and/or citizens, they are not human beings. They are not afforded all the rights human beings are afforded.

Yes indeed, however company's are NOT bound by the constitution, only government agency's are bound thereof..

In our founders time private property was more sacred then individual rights.. Hence slaves were considered property, and all but three founders'

Payne, Hamilton, John Q Adams did not own slaves..

The question is, where doth an employees rights begin and where doth they end, and where doth an employers rights begin and where doth they end?

Again this is a slippery slope that constitutional scholars love to opine thereon.. And reasonable minds will agree or disagree on both sides of the issue..

Think of your vehicle as an extension of your home.. You drive said vehicle to arrive at work, before entering your employers parking lot, you are asked to produce employee ID and asked to have your vehicle searched by company security.. Keep in mind that company security are NOT government agents, they are simply employees making 11$ per hour... however if you refuse to ID yourself and refuse a search of your vehicle, you will not gain access to the employee parking lot... Unlike the government where you can refuse to incriminate yourself or where the government need probable cause to detain you and ask you for ID and where a warrant is required in some cases to examine your vehicle, employers do not need a warrant, they do not need probable cause, if you refuse their request, they have the right to not allow you access onto their property.. On an employers property you have no 1st amendment rights, you have no 2nd amendment rights, you have no 4th or 5th or 14th amendment rights.. Your employer is not the government... If you don't agree with your employers rules, find a new employer..

If you wish to take your weapon onto your employers property, I suggest you do so with the utmost secrecy, keep in mind that on private property, you have no expectation of privacy from your non government employer.. We can invoke constitutional law, common law, contract law, property law etc..
The law favors the employer/ property owner in my humble opinion..

My .02
Regards
CCJ

 

[Brian D.]

As of today, one of these "parking lot protection acts" goes into effect here in Ohio. But the way it's written, it doesn't do a darn thing for law abiding gun owners. This is what happens when the statehouse rushes several bills through in the last couple weeks of their two year session. Our grassroots organizations also make the mistake of going to Columbus to speak with the elected officials, without bringing stacks of cash along. Make no mistake I support the effort and have made a few such trips to Columbus myself, but ultimately here in Ohio we're given short shrift.

 

[utbagpiper]

Our constitution will at some point in time become outdated and abused.. Only a few amendments will survive. Twenty first century America cannot support a constitution established 200 and some odd years ago.. Knowledge and technology will trump the believes and words of our founders..

' The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies." Man has no property in man', neither has one generation a property in the generations that are to follow".. Thomas Payne..

Hence Natural law today, and 150 years from now, will trump our constitution.. Laws established by our creator shall never go out of style, words espoused by a few intelligent people of their day, will eventually die with their memory..

I wonder what parts of the constitution you think will (or have) become outdated.

Is it the principle of government power being derived from the consent of the governed?

A government of strictly limited powers? Government where power is divided among various branches and between the feds and States, with checks and balances in place?

Is it the recognition that geography matters and so States have footing in our federal government (equal senators per State and the makeup of the Electoral College) along with individual citizens having footing?

Is it the notion of individual rights beyond the reach of government or majority votes that will become outdated?

The beauty and brilliance of our federal Constitution is that it puts into practice in practical ways, so much of natural law. Democracy, tempered by anti-democratic principles, resulting in a Republic with a government strong in essential functions, banned from other areas of our lives.

The amendment process permits necessary changes in form and function as times change. Slavery was ended, women's suffrage secured, and various administrative changes made via the process. Such changes are secure and well accepted by the citizenry.

These stand in stark contrast to the edicts imposed by judges adhering to the leftist notion of "living constitution" to be "interpreted" as black-robed lawyers see fit.

The problem today is not that the constitution is outdated, but that 40% of our nation detests the limits imposed by that constitution. They would erase it through judicial fiat, one measure at a time, with individual RKBA being one of the most hated specifics along with the general notion of government being limited in power. Indeed, I believe modern liberals hate RKBA precisely because it so poignantly and potentially practically imposes some limit on government power. You can kill an armed man, it is much harder to actually enslave him if he is determined to fight.

A proper respect for the constitution and the diversity of cultures among the States (ie federalism) that the constitutional form of federal government fully tolerates and expects, would dramatically reduce our current social problems. Modern travel and communication has made "voting with our feet" easier than ever before. And yet liberals seem intent to force every State and city to adopt the same culture as San Francisco and the Bos-Wash corridor.

Charles

 

[BB62]

I wonder what parts of the constitution you think will (or have) become outdated. ...

Well said!

 

[OC for ME]

Missouri is working, sort of, to implement such a protection. Yet, where LE has the authority, post Terry, to infringe upon the rights of any given citizen on a whim, individual liberty will remain subordinate to the self claimed interests of the state in the name of security and safety.

 

[Phoenix David]

As others have noted, Utah passed a "Parking Lot Preemption" law that prevents most employers from taking any negative employment action against an employee who keeps either religious material or a legally possessed firearm in their vehicle, while parked in a company parking lot. The gun must not be in plain view from outside the vehicle, and must be locked in some way (locked doors count according to my reading, a lock box attached to a motorcycle also works). The employer is provided protection from liability for the firearms stored in vehicles.

Arizona has a similar provision like Utah does for firearms, but I always viewed this as a red herring. I don't see how an employer can have liability for what I do with a firearm, just like they wouldn't have liability if I decide to run down someone in the parking lot with my car. To draw that out further I purchased the car with my paycheck from them.

 

[countryclubjoe]

I wonder what parts of the constitution you think will (or have) become outdated.

Is it the principle of government power being derived from the consent of the governed?

A government of strictly limited powers? Government where power is divided among various branches and between the feds and States, with checks and balances in place?

Is it the recognition that geography matters and so States have footing in our federal government (equal senators per State and the makeup of the Electoral College) along with individual citizens having footing?

Is it the notion of individual rights beyond the reach of government or majority votes that will become outdated?

The beauty and brilliance of our federal Constitution is that it puts into practice in practical ways, so much of natural law. Democracy, tempered by anti-democratic principles, resulting in a Republic with a government strong in essential functions, banned from other areas of our lives.

The amendment process permits necessary changes in form and function as times change. Slavery was ended, women's suffrage secured, and various administrative changes made via the process. Such changes are secure and well accepted by the citizenry.

These stand in stark contrast to the edicts imposed by judges adhering to the leftist notion of "living constitution" to be "interpreted" as black-robed lawyers see fit.

The problem today is not that the constitution is outdated, but that 40% of our nation detests the limits imposed by that constitution. They would erase it through judicial fiat, one measure at a time, with individual RKBA being one of the most hated specifics along with the general notion of government being limited in power. Indeed, I believe modern liberals hate RKBA precisely because it so poignantly and potentially practically imposes some limit on government power. You can kill an armed man, it is much harder to actually enslave him if he is determined to fight.

A proper respect for the constitution and the diversity of cultures among the States (ie federalism) that the constitutional form of federal government fully tolerates and expects, would dramatically reduce our current social problems. Modern travel and communication has made "voting with our feet" easier than ever before. And yet liberals seem intent to force every State and city to adopt the same culture as San Francisco and the Bos-Wash corridor.

Charles

Until lawyers start arguing the 9th amendment in their briefs and the justices start reading the 9th as the founders meant it to mean, individual rights will slowly become "granted government privileges"... If the government can tax and regulate a constitutional right, said right is now converted into a privilege.
My .02
Regards
CCJ

 

[since9]

If your argument is that, your vehicle is an extension of your home, let me ask you this, are you required to wear a seat belt in the extension of your home (vehicle) if yes, and you fail to buckle up, you may in fact be issued a citation or ticket etc for violating some de facto regulation while traveling in an extension of your home..

The state also regulates modifications you make to your own home, do they not? Indeed.

If the state can regulate how your traveling in an extension of your home, surely your employer can regulate what items you transport onto their property..

Non-sequitur, on at least two distinct and fault premises. First, is that the state does have the right to regulate certain aspects of a personal nature for the good of society as a whole. For example, all real estate sales must be writing. For another, certain professions (doctors) must be properly trained and licensed to minimize harm to the public. Second, while the state has the authority to regulate, employers do not. They can, within reason, create some rules (rowdy customers will be shown the door), but they must respect state law in other areas (anti-discrimination laws).

Since they must follow state and federal law, when the feds say "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and the state says "with respect to firearms a person's vehicle is an extension of their home," then yes, it is mandatory that the business respect that. They do NOT have a choice in the matter.

Private entities have no obligation to follow the laws in the constitution...

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Back to Law 101.

I enjoy opining with you Sir, and look forward to your discourse.

Well, I still hope you enjoy opining with me after the 5 w's I delivered, above!

 

[countryclubjoe]

The state also regulates modifications you make to your own home, do they not? Indeed.



Non-sequitur, on at least two distinct and fault premises. First, is that the state does have the right to regulate certain aspects of a personal nature for the good of society as a whole. For example, all real estate sales must be writing. For another, certain professions (doctors) must be properly trained and licensed to minimize harm to the public. Second, while the state has the authority to regulate, employers do not. They can, within reason, create some rules (rowdy customers will be shown the door), but they must respect state law in other areas (anti-discrimination laws).

Since they must follow state and federal law, when the feds say "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and the state says "with respect to firearms a person's vehicle is an extension of their home," then yes, it is mandatory that the business respect that. They do NOT have a choice in the matter.



Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Back to Law 101.



Well, I still hope you enjoy opining with me after the 5 w's I delivered, above!

Can you cite any case law, where a private entity was sued or convicted for Constitutional Rights Violations?

No problem with the 5 w's... I welcome an intelligent discourse on "Individual Liberty"...

Regards
CCJ

 

[utbagpiper]

Arizona has a similar provision like Utah does for firearms, but I always viewed this as a red herring. I don't see how an employer can have liability for what I do with a firearm, just like they wouldn't have liability if I decide to run down someone in the parking lot with my car. To draw that out further I purchased the car with my paycheck from them.

I agree completely. But adding the provision to provide liability protection costs me nothing and eliminates one of the opposing arguments against employment protection for employees who keep a lawful gun in their car, parked in the employee parking lot. So I don't oppose liability protection.

Indeed, on a non-RKBA front, I support a lot of liability protection. I'm sick and tired of ambulance chasing lawyers going after deep pockets rather than the individual criminal who happened to work for them but provided no indication he was about to go off the rails.

I think the (very flawed) argument from businesses/employers is that if they allow guns on their property then someone would the business liable when an employee uses that gun go on some workplace violence shooting rampage. Why this is any higher risk than being held liable for leaving employees defenseless, or not having meaningful security in parking lots is a bit beyond me. But that is the irrational, rationale they use. Liability protection moots and mutes it completely.

Charles

 

[utbagpiper]

Until lawyers start arguing the 9th amendment in their briefs and the justices start reading the 9th as the founders meant it to mean, individual rights will slowly become "granted government privileges"... If the government can tax and regulate a constitutional right, said right is now converted into a privilege.

Perhaps all true, but largely irrelevant to my post about many other parts of the constitution.

Charles

 

[OC for ME]

http://www.acc.com/legalresources/publications/topten/top-ten-regarding-guns-in-the-workplace.cfm

Some insights on this topic.