Note that in these cases the property owner WANTS the person on their
> property but objects to what is discretely secured in their POV (which the
> property owner INVITES to park in his lot).
The person and, by implication, the vehicle are invited. The implication stops there.
>
> Here's an analogy. A gun (carried for securitry) is like a seeing-eye dog.
> A piece of special purpose safety equipment. The carry permit holder could
> choose a gun or a cell phone. A blind person can choose a dog or a cane.
> In either situation the property owner has to allow the item on his
> property. It doesn't matter of the property owner is allergic to dog hair,
> hates dogs because he was bitten as a child, fears others will be bitten, or
> fears his carpet will be defaced - the state can make him allow the dog. If
> they can do one, they can do the other. Same thing with requiring 5% of
> parking to be set aside for handicapped persons (it doesn't matter if the
> property owner has 20 years of records showing 1% is sufficient in his
> lot).
>
My disagreement with that is that the group described, to wit, persons handicapped in some way, has been given special exceptions or protections under the law that cell phone users and gun carriers do not have. In an argument of logic the foregoing makes sense; logic is not being used to write these rules.
Another analogy: A gun is like a copy of the Koran or Libertarian
Party platform (each protected by the IInd Amdnt and different parts
of the Ist Amdnt, respectively). Can the state pass a law requiring
that the employer permit any of the three?
As a mental exercise, take every argument that will be made on both
sides of the Oklahoma case, and apply it to the Koran and LP platform.
When one balances religious freedom or political freedom of speech with private property rights one begins to tread a very interesting line. If a private property owner has the right to forbid the carrying of firearms on his/her/its private property, the analogy should hold that the owner could forbid the carrying of religious books thereon as well or political pamphlets. In the case of a place of employment, to stick to the case at hand, so long as the prohibition is applied universally, in order to avoid single group discrimination, why would an employer have to permit an employee to bring a Koran, Pentateuch, New Testament, Bhagavad Gita, Yengishiki, or any other religious text, or the Republican Party Platform, onto ITS private property? Maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me that private property rights trump all the other rights under discussion. The Oklahoma statute would seem to intrude quite severely on private property rights.
That doesn't mean I don't like the idea behind statute, I do - I think what happened to those employees in Oklahoma was a national disgrace. It's just that my sense of right with respect to private property ownership supersedes my belief in certain civil liberties and the exercise thereof.
Let me think - without looking it up, didn't airline terminals or shopping centers win a case or two which stated that they had the right to prevent Hare Krishna adherents from handing out leaflets, etc?
With respect to Texas and its current statute regarding concealed carry of guns:
"But, a few private property owners still have prohibitions in effect, regardless of whether they
post a sign or provide written notice."
Posting no sign, as required by the statute, makes the prohibition unenforceable as a general rule. For employers and employees, yes, the rule can be enforced as rules of the office but to forbid a non-employee from carrying a concealed handgun onto one's private property one MUST post the statutory sign.
***GRJ***
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
