It seems to me that this is one of those cases where two rights are in
conflict. On the one hand, there are private property and contract rights
and on the other hand, self-defense rights. Both important, both
emotional, both deeply felt by some people. There are all kinds of issues
in society where we have this sort of conflict between different
rights. The right to protest vs. the right to be left in peace and
sometimes, the right to privacy. The right to free speech vs. the right to
not be damaged by it.
The question I have is: what is the best way to resolve these kinds of
conflicts? Is it in the courts (which the conversations below would seem
to indicate) or is it in the legislature? If the courts could decide that
private property and contract rights should trump self-defense rights, why
could not a later court decide that the first decision is in error and that
self-defense rights trump property and contract rights and therefore people
can bring guns into the parking lot even in states that allow companies to
ban firearms?
But frankly, I think that a superior legislative solution would be to allow
companies to have whatever policy they wish, but create a civil court
safe-haven for those companies that follow a particular course. So, take
Utah for instance. It might say that if company policy allows workers to
carry guns on the job--provided that they are acting within the law (i.e.
properly licensed)--then the company is not responsible for any damages
should that employee harm someone else with their weapon. But conversely,
if the employer bans weapons, then should an employee be harmed (on the job
or traveling to or from), the employer will have the burden of proof to
show that even if the employee (or a fellow employee) had been armed, the
harm would still have occurred.
While this still impacts property and contract rights (which, as Kelo, and
numerous contract-override provisions in various state and federal laws
have shown, are not absolute) it does so far less than the
one-size-fits-all approach of "thou shalt not" current laws. Also, it
becomes just one more of several issues a company must consider in
developing its workplace rules.
Lowell
Guy Smith wrote, in part:
Grag wrote:
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.
I'm not convinced on this approach. Let's assume for the moment the
destination is not a workplace, but another person's home. Is the right of
this homeowner secondary? If Maggie doesn't like guns, and doesn't want John
to bring his gun onto her property, she can keep him from doing so.
Ignoring for the moment the lacking of individual standing that a
corporation has, why would their property rights have a secondary status?
Taking this one step further: Public parking lots are just that --
available to the public by an implied invitation ("Please come shop and the
Mega Mall of Memphis!"). A corporate parking lot is by specific invitation,
and indeed by employment contract. Property and contract rights would have
a superior standing (this gets messy when we also consider that corporations
invite a subset of the non-employee public onto corporate grounds for
visiting -- vendors, potential employees, customer representatives, etc.).
Lowell Savage
It's the freedom, stupid!
Gun Control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly.
_______________________________________________
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.
