Legally speaking, companies have every right to prohibit employees from bringing guns to the workplace. Prohibiting them from bringing guns to the parking lot of the workplace...well, that appears to be another matter entirely.
and
Not surprisingly, the laws have sparked a new round of debate between advocates of the right to bear arms and antigun groups. Backers of the bills say workers have a constitutional right to house weapons in their own vehicles. They also argue that the laws enable workers to protect themselves as they travel to and from work.
A fascinating legal concept, actually. I don't think anyone would argue the first point, that the workplace, be it office or factory or farm, is private property and the person in control thereof clearly has the right to prohibit guns and any number of other things. The question then is, why is the parking lot different?
Assuming by Constitutional protection or by validly issued state license/permit that you have the right to carry a firearm on your person, why is that right subordinate to an owner's private property rights at the owner's workplace but that very same right somehow supercedes the owner's property rights in the parking lot - how can that be argued legally? It seems to me that there are two possibilities, and the question is, is either one a sound argument?
1 - Your motor vehicle is an extension of your home. As such, your private property rights at home transfer to your motor vehicle and, therefore, are exactly equal to the property rights of the person upon whose land you park that motor vehicle, despite the fact that there is at least some kind of implicit grant of permission or licence to park there. The rights being equal, the prohibition is stalemated and must fail because the right to possess/carry the firearm at home either trumps a workplace situation or maybe it occurs first - the right starts inside the house before the worker gets to the parking lot so he simply carries it with him (no pun intended). Being first, it wins.
2 - The second argument I can think of is rather more interesting, convoluted, and less convincing legally. To me, anyway.
In order to work for the XYZ Company, a worker must, of necessity, enter its business premises. The employer hires the worker to work at its premises on condition that the worker acts on the premises as the owner wishes the worker to act. That is implicit in the employment contract, written or not. The owner has complete control of the "workplace". However, one could argue that even a controlled parking lot, with access cards, is not the "workplace" and a worker has the option to not park his vehicle there. He could park elsewhere, come in another's vehicle, take public transportation, or even a taxi. Therefore, if he elects to park his vehicle there, his rights to carry a firearm in his personal transportation, and they are acknowledged to be mobile and move about with the worker and his vehicle, his election to park in the employee parking lot should not cause his rights to be lost.
If I tried to "say" that I don't think I could say it twice and I think I could drive a truck through it.
***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.
