Yet another pro v. con thread on parking lot carry

[Tamie]

My intent is not to hijack this thread, but to ask an honest question regarding this discussion of parking lot legislation.

I've pondered all that has been said, and I guess that I'm missing something. I understand there is a desire by some to leave their gun in the parking lot, but I just don't see the appeal. IMHO, I view it as a strategic and tactical disadvantage, and if we were allowed to leave our guns in the parking lot in Texas today, I would still carry mine.

Could someone please explain what makes leaving a gun in a parking lot so attractive to them?

I believe if the majority of pistol -packin' people in Texas (and the TSRA) shared the passion of the OP on this subject, then the law would be passed already. However, I don't feel that enough folks "feel the love" for the legislation as much as the OP. I feel that most honest people support the rights of property owners to exercise their property rights, and I agree with the tactic of budgeting our political capital to address the issues which don't infringe other peoples rights.

[joe817]

IMO, the appeal is the God given right for an employee to travel from his or her residence with the ability to defend him or herself while en route to his/her place of employment. It is secondary in fact that the gun must be left in the car after the employee arrives at the work place.

Note: the above merely expresses my opinion, and my opinion alone which may or may not reflect the view of other forum members.

[Mike1951]

If this is another case of a snippet of an existing thread being transplanted to start a new thread, I would offer some suggestions.

1. Could the moderator doing the transplanting offer a brief explanation and possibly include the orignal link?

2. Please don't attack Tamie, who makes reference to the OP several times. In the context of the original thread, I'm sure it made sense. However, someone will no doubt correct Tamie and point out that he is the OP (or so it appears in this thread).

[jimlongley]

My intent is not to hijack this thread, but to ask an honest question regarding this discussion of parking lot legislation.

I've pondered all that has been said, and I guess that I'm missing something. I understand there is a desire by some to leave their gun in the parking lot, but I just don't see the appeal. IMHO, I view it as a strategic and tactical disadvantage, and if we were allowed to leave our guns in the parking lot in Texas today, I would still carry mine.

Could someone please explain what makes leaving a gun in a parking lot so attractive to them?

I believe if the majority of pistol -packin' people in Texas (and the TSRA) shared the passion of the OP on this subject, then the law would be passed already. However, I don't feel that enough folks "feel the love" for the legislation as much as the OP. I feel that most honest people support the rights of property owners to exercise their property rights, and I agree with the tactic of budgeting our political capital to address the issues which don't infringe other peoples rights.

My workplace bans CHLs from carrying in the workplace or the parking lot, meaning I have to park off the company lot, or leave my gun at home. Thus I see a parking lot bill as imperative.

[Keith B]

My intent is not to hijack this thread, but to ask an honest question regarding this discussion of parking lot legislation.

I've pondered all that has been said, and I guess that I'm missing something. I understand there is a desire by some to leave their gun in the parking lot, but I just don't see the appeal. IMHO, I view it as a strategic and tactical disadvantage, and if we were allowed to leave our guns in the parking lot in Texas today, I would still carry mine.

Could someone please explain what makes leaving a gun in a parking lot so attractive to them?

I believe if the majority of pistol -packin' people in Texas (and the TSRA) shared the passion of the OP on this subject, then the law would be passed already. However, I don't feel that enough folks "feel the love" for the legislation as much as the OP. I feel that most honest people support the rights of property owners to exercise their property rights, and I agree with the tactic of budgeting our political capital to address the issues which don't infringe other peoples rights.

My workplace bans CHLs from carrying in the workplace or the parking lot, meaning I have to park off the company lot, or leave my gun at home. Thus I see a parking lot bill as imperative.

Same issue for me as Jim on the workplace. And, the I believe the legislation would have passed last year had it not been for the Democrats holding their major chubbing party which kept a lot of bills from making it to the floor. Parking lot carry had already passed in the Senate, it just needed the House vote. Perry would have signed it.

[Liberty]

Tamie. you are indeed fortunate to able to carry on the job. Many do not have that right, Some are even subject to search.
Some employers have banned guns not only from the workplace, but from the parking lots. Some company's even posted 30.06 signs in the parking lots. Some folks could argue that the particular workplaces are safe, and that the employee assumes the liability to protect us, while we are on their property. The problem is if we aren't allowed to carry into the workplace, and we are not allowed to keep our guns locked into our cars. How can the employee protect himself on the way to and from his job? While a property owner does have lots of rights how, much should these rights supersede the right property rights of the automobile owner?

To a lot of people if they have no right to carry back and forth to work, they have practically lost any usefulness to their right to carry at all. Alternate solutions to employees being able to keep a gun in their car, would be to not park their car in the provided lots. Of course this exposes the employee to perhaps long walks unarmed in potentially dangerous neighborhoods.

Employees do have certain property rights, but do they have the right to expose their employees to unreasonable danger.

HTH

[jimlongley]

Some folks could argue that the particular workplaces are safe, and that the employee assumes the liability to protect us, while we are on their property. The problem is if we aren't allowed to carry into the workplace, and we are not allowed to keep our guns locked into our cars. How can the employee protect himself on the way to and from his job? While a property owner does have lots of rights how, much should these rights supersede the right property rights of the automobile owner?

To a lot of people if they have no right to carry back and forth to work, they have practically lost any usefulness to their right to carry at all. Alternate solutions to employees being able to keep a gun in their car, would be to not park their car in the provided lots. Of course this exposes the employee to perhaps long walks unarmed in potentially dangerous neighborhoods.

Employees do have certain property rights, but do they have the right to expose their employees to unreasonable danger.

HTH

Our lot is known not to be safe, besides breakins on vehicles, particularly employee ones, there are frequently fleeing thieves, and a couple of them have come close to hitting LP persons or managers following them to get identifying information. If all that is going on, then there is ample reason to assume that assaults can't be out of the question.

[chartreuse]

My intent is not to hijack this thread, but to ask an honest question regarding this discussion of parking lot legislation.

I've pondered all that has been said, and I guess that I'm missing something. I understand there is a desire by some to leave their gun in the parking lot, but I just don't see the appeal. IMHO, I view it as a strategic and tactical disadvantage, and if we were allowed to leave our guns in the parking lot in Texas today, I would still carry mine.

Could someone please explain what makes leaving a gun in a parking lot so attractive to them?

I believe if the majority of pistol -packin' people in Texas (and the TSRA) shared the passion of the OP on this subject, then the law would be passed already. However, I don't feel that enough folks "feel the love" for the legislation as much as the OP. I feel that most honest people support the rights of property owners to exercise their property rights, and I agree with the tactic of budgeting our political capital to address the issues which don't infringe other peoples rights.

My workplace bans CHLs from carrying in the workplace or the parking lot, meaning I have to park off the company lot, or leave my gun at home. Thus I see a parking lot bill as imperative.

Same issue for me as Jim on the workplace. And, the I believe the legislation would have passed last year had it not been for the Democrats holding their major chubbing party which kept a lot of bills from making it to the floor. Parking lot carry had already passed in the Senate, it just needed the House vote. Perry would have signed it.

Likewise, at my place of work we're prohibited from carrying (the language in the handbook is not 30.06 compliant, but we're subject to search, so it's a question of whether we want to keep our jobs or not). Fortunately for me, my employer doesn't own the parking lot, so I can leave it in my vehicle. I have every sympathy for folks who can't and fully support parking lot carry legislation.

I can understand the property rights argument too, of course, but surely the difference between "on your person inside your employer's building" and "in your truck in a parking lot" is a sufficient bright line to satisfy those concerns?

[The Annoyed Man]

I believe if the majority of pistol -packin' people in Texas (and the TSRA) shared the passion of the OP on this subject, then the law would be passed already. However, I don't feel that enough folks "feel the love" for the legislation as much as the OP. I feel that most honest people support the rights of property owners to exercise their property rights, and I agree with the tactic of budgeting our political capital to address the issues which don't infringe other peoples rights.

Tamie, you may not be aware that a parking lot bill got derailed in the last legislative session because democrats in the legislature, incensed over a proposed voter ID bill, used a calendaring maneuver to stall all pending bills which were on the calendared for after the voter ID bill. So the parking lot bill, and some others, including campus carry if I recall correctly, did not get an up or down vote because the legislative session ended before those items which were calendared behind the voter ID bill could be voted on.

Quoting Alice Tripp at TSRA.com:

A group of hunters in Oklahoma were fired by their employer the opening day of hunting season when their rifles were discovered in their vehicles. The Oklahoma Legislature was in session and immediately passed legislation to protect the legal contents of an employee's vehicle when parked on the employer's property. Texas Rep. David Farabee, a pro-gun Democrat from Wichita Falls, filed a bill that same year to protect Texas employees, filing is a long way from passing. The first time the bill was filed, Rep. Suzanna Hupp had a problem forcing change on employers, citing "property rights". This has been a work-in-progress for the past three legislative sessions and the opposition is the high-dollar, big business lobby. 2009 TSRA Doc Brown Legislator of the Year winner, Senator Glenn Hegar (R-Katy). passed the employer parking lot bill in the Texas Senate. He's patient and hard working. His bill moved to the Texas House in good shape and moved through House Public Safety Committee with Rep. Stephen Frost as sponsor; but gate-keepers in the House Calendars Committee kept the bill from moving to the House floor. This is the most important personal safety issue facing gun owners in Texas. We won't go away.

That sounds like TSRA support to me, so your points don't quite hold up.

I note that Suzanna Hupp was not in favor of the bill, at least not in its current form, and I am a great admirer of hers. On this particular item, I think I simply disagree with her. I am a proponent of private property rights, but I also don't think employers ought to have the power to reach into and control the behavior of employees in their off-duty hours, so long as that behavior does not compromise their job performance. For instance, I think drug testing of employees is perfectly acceptable. If you're going to be handling my books, I want you clear headed, and unencumbered by the effects of intoxicants. And although I think it is stupid, I can accept an employer's decision to bar its employees from entering the building with a firearm. But I don't agree that an employer, particularly since many are located in high-crime areas, should deny to an employee the most effective available means of protecting themselves in transit to and from work (when they are not on the company's time) and during whatever other personal business they conduct before or after work — and that is what happens when you bar employees from having a gun secured in their car during work hours.

[tacticool]

I am a proponent of private property rights, but I also don't think employers ought to have the power to reach into and control the behavior of employees in their off-duty hours, so long as that behavior does not compromise their job performance. For instance, I think drug testing of employees is perfectly acceptable.

I think you have it backwards. Having metabolites in blood or urine or hair does not mean they're impaired NOW. Someone can smoke a cigar and drink scotch on Friday night and have no impairment Monday morning, but still have telltale signs in their body. Anyway, if their job performance is affected, you don't need an invasive test of bodily fluids to detect that; You just need to be a competent manager.

Parking lot bans, on the other hand, only limit behavior on the company's private property. It does not prevent employees from carrying a gun during their free time on Friday night. It has no effect on "behavior of employees in their off-duty hours" unless the employee is on company property during off-duty hours. It does not prevent employees from having a gun in their car, as long as they park on the street or in a third party parking lot.

[tacticool]

IMO, the appeal is the God given right for an employee to travel from his or her residence with the ability to defend him or herself while en route to his/her place of employment. It is secondary in fact that the gun must be left in the car after the employee arrives at the work place.

Note: the above merely expresses my opinion, and my opinion alone which may or may not reflect the view of other forum members.

If you have "the God given right" to carry on their property without their permission, you have the right to carry inside buildings in addition to parking lots. So no parking lot bill is needed.

However, if the property owners have "the God given right" to prohibit guns on their property, that applies to buildings and parking areas, if both are their property. If you don't like it you can shop or work somewhere else. Or you can park somewhere else if you really want to do business with antis.

[C-dub]

Unfortunately, I chose my profession before CHL came along. As a conservative, I am a minority in my profession. I could change employers, but it won't matter. Most all of them are paranoid liberals.

Many of the businesses that fought against a parking lot bill in the past have used OSHA as an excuse. They would claim that guns in the work place or even accessible in the parking lot created a dangerous work environment. Since then, OSHA has come out and said their regulations have nothing to do with firearms carried by a person or in a person's vehicle. And then Oklahoma passed their parking lot bill. I think some other states have also passed parking lot bills since then.

[The Annoyed Man]

I am a proponent of private property rights, but I also don't think employers ought to have the power to reach into and control the behavior of employees in their off-duty hours, so long as that behavior does not compromise their job performance. For instance, I think drug testing of employees is perfectly acceptable.

I think you have it backwards. Having metabolites in blood or urine or hair does not mean they're impaired NOW.

Bunk. If someone is smoking a joint on the way to work, I don't want them to clock in that day. They're smoking off company time, but working while high. That is a legitimate concern for an employer, particularly one who has a potentially dangerous work environment... ...like a machine shop or a foundry or something. Your response is based on the premise that drug abusers are always sober when they get to work. The opposite argument is based on the real world truth that a significantly large enough majority of drug abusers and impaired And without the evidence of drug use, an employer has employment law liabilities for dismissing an employee based on an unfounded belief by a manager that said employee is a drug user. An employee might have a right to not be subjected to a drug test, but an employer has an equal right to refuse employment to someone who refused to submit to the test. So the "competent manager" comment is irrelevant.

If you're going to use the "employment at will" and "private property rights" argument for disallowing an employee to secure a weapon in their vehicle, then the same argument can be used to assert an employer's right to insist on an "invasive test of bodily fluids" as you put it to ensure that its employees are not under the influence of an illegal drug.

Parking lot bans, on the other hand, only limit behavior on the company's private property.

False. If there is no place to park off company property - and this is a common occurrence - then the employee's behavior is necessarily controlled when they are not on the company clock. You can't have it both ways.

[¿Qué?]

Our lot is known not to be safe, besides breakins on vehicles, particularly employee ones

That's a great argument against parking lot carry. Take the gun into work with you or lock it up someplace safe.

[SQLGeek]

Our lot is known not to be safe, besides breakins on vehicles, particularly employee ones

That's a great argument against parking lot carry. Take the gun into work with you or lock it up someplace safe.

Not so easy when your work place is posted. My employer's buildings and parking lots are all posted. There is no nearby parking lot off property where I can park. This is the case for a lot of people, especially those that work in the big cities. So, by proxy, my employer is keeping me from carrying a gun secured in my car to and from work.

It's really easy to say get another job and quite the opposite in practice, especially in this job market. Also why I don't want to ignore the 30.06 posting, because I value my livelihood and my freedom.