Thursday, March 26, 2009

From Comments

I decided to post the comments from a previous post, and discuss them here. Please, everyone is invited to join in and tell me why I'm wrong.

First, the entire comment by Randy, from my post "Going to the State Capital:

first let me quantify this by telling you that I am a gun owner. I own AK's AR15 have a CHL and carry at least one pistol on my person every day most times two. I enjoy having these personal freedoms and that is why I CANNOT support this bill. Business's are owned by people the same as your house is owned by you and this bill is tantamount to saying because I choose to be a guest in your house you have to let me keep a gun on your property. This bill is a gross violation of private property rights. I believe in freedom not just for me but for everybody. Im sure some of you will spout off that its "NOT the same, that you NEED your job" well your NEED does not give you the right to stomp on somebody's rights. you CHOOSE to work there.

First, let me say that I respect your opinion, but I think you are wrong. But your not wrong in the way most might expect me to say so.

You say you are a gun owner, and CHL holder. Good for you, but those are not relevant to the issue.

Second, you equate being a homeowner and the private property rights you enjoy as such to being a business owner and declare that the same private property rights are in effect. That is so wrong!

When you open a business, that property and building itself automatically falls under much more regulation than a home or other "private" property. The term "private property" as correctly applied to a home indicates that the property is in fact not open to the public, that they must be invited each time. A business on the other hand is built for the purpose of interacting with the public. A business by definition expects to have people,who are not the owners, enter the property as a normal course of doing business or operating in the case of employees. So right off the bat we are not dealing with the same property rights.

Even more, your business will have to comply with zoning laws, which are different for a business versus a home. Your business will have to adhere to the local fire code which has much more regulations for a business property than a home property in the same city. Your business will have to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which your home will not. The ADA will go so far as to mandate design features of your business; the size of your hallways, number of bathrooms, number and location of exits, etc.. Don't believe that a home and a business fall under a different set of property rules? Go build a new house, and then turn that into a business such as an insurance office. Then come back and tell me how much money it cost for the renovations you have to make to the house BEFORE you can open it as a business.

But, let me say that I do agree with the idea that a property owner can limit items on his or her property. For instance; I think it is perfectly fine for a business to say that you can not carry a gun in the business. I think is fine that a business has a dress code and bars access to those who show up naked, or scantily clad. Telling people with offensive slogans printed on a t-shirt they are not welcome is okie dokie with me. And the classic and possibly best example is telling people they can not smoke in your business.

But who gives the owner the power to not allow cigarettes in your car? Or if you meet the dress code, are you bared from having a bathing suit or lingerie in your vehicle? What if you show up in an offensive t-shirt, and take it off and leave it in your van? Have you met the dress code then, or are you held liable for the clothes your not wearing?

At what point does your "private property" owner take control of my vehicle which is MY private property? I don't surrender title to my car just because I park it on in your parking lot, do I? And although you, as a business owner, have control of the property inside the building, and the open air of the parking lot, your control ends at the property line. How then do you reconcile having control of my private property (vehicle) while on your property, as well as on my commute to and from your property? When did your rights extend to controlling what I do traveling to your property? Do you have control to tell me I can't smoke in my car on the way to work? What about listening to music you don't approve of as I drive in?

Understand that this bill, only applies to keeping a firearm inside your vehicle. The very second you take that firearm out of the vehicle for any reason you are not protected by this (prospective) law.

Randy, tell me how now do we reconcile your real estate property rights with my private vehicle property rights?

And everyone else, please tell me what you think.

Mr Fixit

18 comments:

Randy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Randy said...

well let me start out by saying that the reason I wrote about my guns and CHL where not because I felt that it was relevant to the issue. The mention was solely for the purpose of elevating me above those evil gun grabbers that you find spouting inept bromides in the name of the Brady campaign, and make no mistake I do believe those people are evil. Of course the vileness of those men is another subject entirely.

Now in your first argument you state (and I'm of course writing what I got out of it, not necessarily what you meant, if there is an error in my understanding please correct me.) that as soon as a person decides to open a business they immediately give up a large amount of rights, that they must then submit to whatever amount of control you deem reasonable and I must say that your restrictions seem rather arbitrary.

you say that right off the bat a business doesn't have the same property rights as your home and it gives you the right to dictate what should and should not be aloud on another mans property. I believe the property restrictions they have now are wrong and they certainly don't give you the right to continued interference. Its not that I don't believe a home and a business fall under different property laws, I know they do. I do believe however that they shouldn't.

you talk about control. You ask what if a business told you you couldn't smoke in your car on the way there or what if you couldn't have sexy undies in your vehicle. Well ask your self what would you do. I for one would stop shopping there, I would go across the street to the competition. of course you will probably ask "what if its a monopoly, what if there is nowhere else to go" Well then I would say it is a golden opportunity to open a business because I know that while some people may enjoy his restrictions, most will leap at the chance not to have to visit that assholes store anymore.
oh and having to give your car to somebody as soon as you drive onto the property? Nobody would ever go there. The very idea is ludicrous and I can only hope that you exaggerate to clarify. In any case I don't think they would be in business very long.

This is how a free society works risk reward judgments, in reality this is how life works on a personal level every day. Ask yourself why did you get out of bed this morning?

But the long and short is this, if a man attempted the types of controls you mentioned then people simply wouldn't go and the business would fail. There are social consequences to decisions like those and he or she would feel that bite very quickly. We are free to Choose where We shop, We are free to Choose where we work, And they should be free to Choose how to run their property business or otherwise.
we live in what is supposed to be a free country. That doesn't me you are free to do whatever you want regardless of whose rights you stomp on. I apologize if I'm not good at explaining these things I have never been a good writer.

Mr. Fixit said...

Let me just say that I don't believe a business owner has the right or the legal or moral authority to control what I have INSIDE my own vehicle. That inside area of the vehicle is mine, to have in it what I want, the type of music, the air freshener, the books, the seat covers, the dashboard art, cigeretts, cigars, whatever legal product I desire.

If, as you desire, they have the authority to control having a legal firearm in my car, then they must also have the authority to control what type of music CD's I have, the color of my seat covers (we find flames offensive), and everything else in my car!

Now, either my boss can tell me what I can and cannot have in my car or he can't. We can't pick and choose.

My entire point is that my car is my personal property. I Control what is in it.

Can my boss control what is brought INTO his business? Absolutely!
Can he control what is in and part of the parking lot (trees, bike stands, curbs)? Sure he can.
Can he control what is permanently added to the parking lot (paint, asphalt, concrete)? You bet!
Can he control what is out in the open air of his parking lot? Buy all means he can.

But he has no business controlling what is within the confines of my personal space and property, so long as it remains inside those confines.

Mr Fixit

Randy said...

A business owner is a property owner like any other and your right he has no right to tell you what you can have in your car. He does however have the right to decide what to allow on his property, so if your weapon is in your vehicle and it is on his property then he has a right to say he doesn't want it there. there isn't some magic bubble around your vehicle that suddenly transports anything inside it outside of his property line. your right we cant pick and choose and I don't as far as I'm concerned your employer could forbid your jack in the crack antenna ball if he so chooses once again its on his property which you Choose to enter. Remember nobody forces you to work there you are free to find employment elsewhere and your need of a job doesn't give you the right to infringe on his property rights.

Mr. Fixit said...

Randy,
The employer provided a parking lot. He provided a spot for you (or me or another) to use. That was provided as part of an unspoken perk if you will. (If you work here you can park here and not have to walk to work or take the bus). If he wants no cars on his property, then he doesn't have to provide that lot. But if he does, he has to realize that he has given away some control of his lot, since he has allowed you to use his space.

I curious Randy, if you don't mind me asking; What type of work do you do? Are you an employee or employer?

Randy said...

ok so lets review. First you contend that because he opened a business to the public he gives up rights. Now you say that because he was nice enough to allow you a store your vehicle on his property while at work your going to be nice enough and demand he allow you to bring whatever else you want on the property regardless of his feelings on the matter. Did I get that right ? Of course hes not really being nice allowing you to park there he simply understand on some level that allowing his employees the best method of transportation to work he is more likely to get good employees or at the very least a larger candidate pool to search in.

Also in answer to your question I am an employee. I wouldn't even consider opening a business in today's world. Not with our taxing system punishing the successful for being successful and certainly not with people like you running around screaming that because I started a business you get to violate my property rights ;). Currently I work as a millwright(think industrial mechanic specializing in rotating equipment). In the past though I have worked for TDCJ and as a computer technician.

Randy said...

Oh as a millwright I travel to many different facilities only one of which has ever allowed guns to be locked in your personal vehicle. It was the South Texas Nuclear Project.
On a side note if I did own a business personally, I wouldn't give a damn if you had a howitzer at work with you as long as it didn't create a disturbance.

And as I said the bill as proposed is horribly wrong. The only bill that I could support would be one that gave the individual sole responsibility for the weapon locked in the personal vehicle without requiring that the employer allow it. Simply stating that if they do then the employee who chooses to have one is liable for its use and storage. I would generally take this as self evident but personal responsibility seems to have been lost somewhere. Have you seen it ?

Harry Steele said...

Well, I side with Mr. Fixit 100%...
The business owners rights are just as important as the employee's rights. The business owner DOES NOT OWN THE EMPLOYEE'S CAR!!!!!!!!!! The business owner's property ENDS at the point my tires sit on his property!!!!

Randy, does the business owner have the right to tell you that you can't wear pink undies? (unless of course, you would happen to dance around a pole or something like that for work)?

Randy said...

Well no I don't dance around a poll for work though, I wish I did. Do you have any idea how much money those girls make ? Of course your right though your employer does not own your car. I never said he did. I simply state anything in your car when you pull into the parking lot you are effectively bringing onto the employers property. Contrary to popular belief there is not some magic bubble around your vehicle that transports anything inside of it off of the employers property. You sir are like a child whining because you cant get what you want . Once again your employer is free to decide what is allowed on his property just like you are free to seek employment elsewhere or, if you cant get what you want working for somebody else, then to start a business of your own. I know this may seem like a foreign concept in today's entitlement world but, you do not in fact have a right to a job. Nor do you have the right to subjugate others rights for your own wants.

Harry Steele said...

Randy........ Do you not know how to read? The property owners rights end at my tires, where MY property rights begin. By your thinking, ALL my human/civil/constitutional rights are gone once I get onto his property? I cannot worship the God of my choice once I get on his property? I cannot voice my opinion, or even write a friend a letter at breaktime or lunch if I use language prohibited by that employer in a personal letter?????? ? I can't talk to a buddy on the phone if I use the wrong words on my own time on his property? Answer me this, going back to my pink undies.... are those panties mine? As long as he and / or the public don't see them, does he have any right to say I can't wear them???? Pink panties and firearms are the same, in as far as they are both inanimate objects, they are just things, not evil, not sentient, just things.

Yes, I agree fully that he has the right to tell me not in his buildings, then it is my choice to not work for him, no problem. But my car is my property, not his, he has NO say in what is in it.

Randy said...

So your contention is then that when your on your time you may say or do as you like without regard to the property owners wishes. So tell me if I came to your house would you let me call your wife a whore? your children retarded? and not ask me to leave at the very least ? If I was to travel to an airport(not saying I would or have any plans to, this is purely hypothetical to demonstrate a point) with something dangerous say a bomb or some type of biological weapon would it suddenly be ok because its in my vehicle. Would that mean that its not on their property because its in my vehicle. Of course not you are still choosing to bring those items onto the property the manner in which you transport them is of no importance. Your right though a firearm is an inanimate object and we could just as easily be talking about pink panties. Of course if you bring those pink panties onto somebody's property and they don't want them there they are perfectly within their rights to ask you to remove them from the premises. This is a matter of freedom. I support freedom for all and that means those among us who choose to open a business. If we allow people to gang up and dictate what others have to do or allow on their property then we have allowed tyranny in this country and I cant support it. Its not that I cant read Mr. steel I simply believe that a man who owns property has every right to dictate what happens on his property and you can make no claim to freedom whilst stealing it from others.

JimB said...

If the employer has the right to prohibit certain items in a car brought into the employees parking lot does he then have the right to search these cars for contraband without the owners permission?? Seems to me if you have a gun in the glove compartment or console or under the seat if it isn't visible there is no way to tell there is a firearm is in the car. So tell me, they going to search every car or just the ones w/NRA stickers??

Randy said...

Well most of the places that I work at operate under implied consent regarding vehicle searches. They post sign and give notice that anybody who chooses to enter the property is giving consent to have their vehicles searched. More often then not they simply use dogs that can smell gun powder. I have seen more than one man fired for having some shotgun shells in their vehicle from a weekend hunting trip. You do however bring up an interesting point which makes this debate all together moot. If one were to have a firearm in their vehicle how would an employer know? unless they posted those signs then the owner of said vehicle would be perfectly in their rights to refuse to consent to any search. The property owner may then ask the person to leave but can in no way force a search. The end result would likely be the same though.

Randy said...

Well most of the places that I work at operate under implied consent regarding vehicle searches. They post sign and give notice that anybody who chooses to enter the property is giving consent to have their vehicles searched. More often then not they simply use dogs that can smell gun powder. I have seen more than one man fired for having some shotgun shells in their vehicle from a weekend hunting trip. You do however bring up an interesting point which makes this debate all together moot. If one were to have a firearm in their vehicle how would an employer know? unless they posted those signs then the owner of said vehicle would be perfectly in their rights to refuse to consent to any search. The property owner may then ask the person to leave but can in no way force a search. The end result would likely be the same though.

Anonymous said...

I really should register an account on here, but here is my anonymous post.

I actually see the points in both sides of the argument here.

My employer has 30.06 signs posted and I am pretty sure its against company policy to have a firearm on company property, including the parking lot. I'd prefer to be able to carry at work, but I have a great job and in my field I doubt I could find an employer that would allow carry.

I am all for business owners being able to set policy for what they allow on their property. It's their property and they pay the bills.

The place this falls flat for me is that by keeping employees from keeping legally owned firearms in their car, they are infringing upon a second amendment right. What people have in their own cars legally should not be the employers concern. Period.

The second it leaves the car, or becomes visable, thats another story. If it is fired while in the car, then you get into other legal ramifications and it becomes a different issue.

That's my take on it anyway.

Mike

Anonymous said...

"If I was to travel to an airport(not saying I would or have any plans to, this is purely hypothetical to demonstrate a point) with something dangerous say a bomb or some type of biological weapon would it suddenly be ok because its in my vehicle. Would that mean that its not on their property because its in my vehicle. "

You are comparing an illegal activity with something that is perfectly legal. As a CHL holder I can legally carry my gun not only into the parking lot of an airport, but into any non-secured area of the airport (ticket counters, baggage claim.)

I want to thank everyone for writing about this. I really enjoy having conversations with valid points on both sides.

Anyone that takes a stand on something without trying to be informed about both sides of the argument probably shouldn't be making any decisions. :)

Mike

Randy said...

It seems that everybody is of the opinion that the employer is infringing on their rights as a vehicle owner by dictating to them what they can and cannot have in their locked motor vehicle. This is not the case the property owner is merely setting conditions on which somebody may enter their property, in this case it is the absence of firearms. The business owner (for the sake of argument) has not set any conditions as to whats in your vehicle while its off of his property. My earlier reference to something so extreme as a bomb or some other type of wmd was merely an attempt however poor to illustrate the fact that the general consensus supporting the gun bill is based upon a flawed understanding of personal property rights based on the arbitrary whims of a group of gun advocates in an attempt to subjugate others to their will.

Randy said...

On a side note Mr. Fixit it seems we must agree to disagree. I have greatly enjoyed our debate though and hope we have occasion to do it again.

Randy