Re: "Take your guns to work" law is wrong.

Buck Mulligan wrote:
In talk.politics.guns Magus <nope@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Buck Mulligan wrote:
In talk.politics.guns Magus <nope@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Buck Mulligan wrote:
In talk.politics.guns "Scout"
<me4guns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"W. Maynard" <tawanda11@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:ohca04p0p8uiloafjorc8egt2edct7r8pv@xxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 18:32:03 -0400, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
<mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com> wrote:

Jim Yanik wrote:
Well,that IS the anti-gun lobby's goal;to make gun ownership and carriage
as difficult and onerous as possible. THEY don't care about your rights.
Oh, but they do. They don't want you to have any.
As a business owner it is my right to refuse firearms on my property
for any reason.
Wrong.
Bull***. I have a right to tell you not to bring a gun onto my
property. I can refuse service to you if I don't like the clothes
you're wearing. I can throw you off the property if you say something
I don't like.

YOU, on the other hand, have the right not to come onto my property if
you don't like my rules.
True, but incorporate yourself and many things change because you've invited the State into your affairs--things the State can and cannot dictate to you change.
And UNTIL THEY DO, you can do what I've described above. It doesn't
matter if you like it or not.
Just pointing out that many business have lost some self-determination in some areas because they're incorporated--they are no longer private ownership.

The original point of the thread was "businesses".

As someone said, "As a business owner it is my right to refuse firearms on my property for any reason." This is not necessarily true, it depends on the type of business--private owner, public ownership (stocks), private but incorporated, public and incorporated.


When people invite the government into their business, they shouldn't be surprised when the government starts giving orders.

Many people are equating a business' property rights with private property rights--which doesn't always hold true, depending on the type of business, how much public access it has, how much government regulation exists already, and many other factors I'm not aware of.

There are whole specialties in law practice dealing with exactly this area.

If I agree with it or not, or if I like it or not, is not an issue--it's how things currently are.

So out of the four entity types you mentioned, which ones are forced
to accept guns on the property? And- more importantly- do you agree
that they should be forced?

Depends on the state.

I'm just saying that when you must ask the state for permission to conduct business then the state can set the terms under which you conduct that business. As far as I know, every single state requires that a business have a business license.

Business property rights are not the same as private property rights--right or wrong, it's how it's treated by law. If a business' facilities or premises are open to the public then things are different than a private residence or restricted/employee only areas.

If a person or business opens its property to public access then that person or business loses some of its sovereignty in regards to that property. Want to regain it? Close the property to public access.

People that come to an individuals house are there at the sufferance of the property owner--it is a privilege granted by the property owner--who can revoke that privilege at any time for any reason. This is not true to the same degree with a business that is open to the public.

Then again, depending on the state, you might not have the private property rights you think you do. In Indiana for example, the health department can come onto your property (not into your house) to conduct a health inspection without a search warrant. That is coded in law. I looked it up once due to a video I saw on youtube. Again, right or wrong, it's not what rights we think we have, it's what the Law says that's going to be used.

I tend to agree with Kentucky's stance on weapons in the vehicle on a business' parking lot, 'In the vehicle, no problem as long as it's not removed or waved about.' Kentucky's law explicitly differentiates property/vehicles owned by the employer and employee.

Kentucky's CCDW statues "...shall be liberally construed to carry out the constitutional right to bear arms for self-defense."

I think that protecting my right to keep a firearm *within* my vehicle on the company parking lot strikes a fair balance between my rights and the business' rights.

I don't know of any state having a law saying I can have a firearm in my vehicle on the property of a private individual or non-commercial related property.

The pertinent section of Kentucky's concealed deadly weapon's law (open carry is a whole different topic) on business/guns/vehicles states:

[begin]
If the building or the premises are open to the public, the employer or business enterprise shall post signs on or about the premises if carrying concealed weapons is prohibited.

Possession of weapons, or ammunition, or both in a vehicle on the premises shall not be a criminal offense so long as the weapons, or ammunition, or both are not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises.

A private but not a public employer may prohibit employees or other persons holding a concealed deadly weapons license from carrying concealed deadly weapons, or ammunition, or both in vehicles owned by the employer, but may not prohibit employees or other persons holding a concealed deadly weapons license from carrying concealed deadly weapons, or ammunition, or both in vehicles owned by the employee, except that the Justice and Public Safety Cabinet may prohibit an employee from carrying any weapons, or ammunition, or both other than the weapons, or ammunition, or both issued or authorized to be used by the employee of the cabinet, in a vehicle while transporting persons under the employee's supervision or jurisdiction.

Carrying of a concealed weapon, or ammunition, or both in a location specified in this subsection by a license holder shall not be a criminal act but may subject the person to denial from the premises or removal from the premises, and, if an employee of an employer, disciplinary measures by the employer.
[end]
.

Loading