Guns in vehicles while at work

[grimor]

Including illegal search and seizure? It is your property but a locked compartment of my vehicle is very much mine. Somebody mentioned entering your property is immediate consent for search but no case law was cited. If this is true however it seems a bit asinine. That is all I am getting at nothing more nothing less, I simply do not understand the laws regarding all this. To apply this to work case scenario, by choosing to work I give up some of my rights. I shouldn't have to give up any of my rights because I choose not to take a hand out, but instead choose to work and take care of my responsibilities.

So I guess the most simple question I have is am I giving consent for search when entering any private parking lot (referring strictly to a business as that is what the law is applying to) until the new law goes in to effect? If this only applies to employees what about customers of the business? So if those two could be cleared up I am done making myself look a fool.

Many lots (like schools and factories) have signs that say parking there gives consent to search. Other businesses have employees sign consent to search vehicles as part of being hired.
If it's not posted and you haven't signed an agreement to consent to search, you are not automatically consenting to a search. You can consent to one when asked, or you can be asked to leave(or they could just say ok and go about their day)

This isn't about an employers right to search your vehicle though, this is about a property owners right to choose how their property is used and by who. Enforcement of that is something completely different.

 

[Bummer]

If the company is incorporated the original owner no longer has property rights over the incorporated property. He traded them for freedom from liability.

Companies do not have Natural Rights, only Legal Rights. Government grants Legal Rights and therefore may modify them. Government has modified corporate property rights to acknowledge the Natural Right to Life of the individual.

You have Property Rights over your property, but not property you have sold, traded, or given away. Want to keep your Property Rights over your company? Don't incorporate.

If a business owner does not incorporate, this law is arguably a violation of his Natural Right to Property. If a business owner does incorporate, it is not.

 

[nascar6829]

It is said that if an employee refuses to allow the company to search his vehicle where I work he is immediately terminated. That's where a lawyer comes in but you can plan on it being drug out in court for a couple of years.

 

[grimor]

It is said that if an employee refuses to allow the company to search his vehicle where I work he is immediately terminated. That's where a lawyer comes in but you can plan on it being drug out in court for a couple of years.

Do you work in Indiana? If so, I doubt it would even make it to court, Indiana is a right to work state.

 

[Ltemfly4]

I think that since this
Law is so new
In the books that it will take a while for companies to actually review the extent of what the law states, and to put this in place. Just my thought.

 

[nascar6829]

Do you work in Indiana? If so, I doubt it would even make it to court, Indiana is a right to work state.

Yes

 

[snowman46919]

Yes

Problem solved.

 

[n9vmo]

Before July 2010, my company had it in the employee handbook that firearms were not permitted on their property or property that they used/leased.

As this law was being debated, I brought it to the attention of my supervisors letting them know that it looked like it was going to pass and be signed into law. When it was signed by the Gov., I again brought it to the attention of my supervisors and asked what the company was going to do about it. I was not obnoxious about it, but polite and even gave them a draft of the law. I was not given an answer but on July 3rd 2010, the company came out with a new handbook and they completely reversed their stance with regards to firearms on their property.

Their stance follows Indiana law to the letter and I can keep my M1911 locked in my vehicle. I still can't bring it in the office, but I am fine with that.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

First of all, I don't support any employer making stupid rules. I just support their RIGHT to make stupid rules.

There is NO conflict of rights here. The only rights involved here are the employer's property rights. They are being violated by the government. Since you have NO RIGHTS to remain on someone else's property, yours aren't being violated.

As to employers being able to regulate bumper stickers on their property, I absolutely support their right.

When I was in Kokomo when I lived in IN, I rembember seeing a sign at a union's office that threatened to two vehicles not made by union workers. How is that any different?

We're obviously not going to agree on this because everybody is repeating the same basic arguements over and over again. I've read most or all of your counter arguements (Dross) to mine and the other posters.

One option an employer has....don't provide any parking for their employees. Then he/she doesn't have to worry about "guns on their property". He doesn't have to require anybody submit to a search, provide special parking areas, etc. He could save money on insurance, parking lot maintenance, snow removal, etc. There's nothing in the US constitution, probably not any state law either, that says an employer must provide parking for their employees.

Then as you said earlier, let the market sort it out. If I don't like working for somebody that doesn't provide a parking spot for me, I can go find a job somewhere else.

 

[snowman46919]

We're obviously not going to agree on this because everybody is repeating the same basic arguements over and over again. I've read most or all of your counter arguements (Dross) to mine and the other posters.

One option an employer has....don't provide any parking for their employees. Then he/she doesn't have to worry about "guns on their property". He doesn't have to require anybody submit to a search, provide special parking areas, etc. He could save money on insurance, parking lot maintenance, snow removal, etc. There's nothing in the US constitution, probably not any state law either, that says an employer must provide parking for their employees.

Then as you said earlier, let the market sort it out. If I don't like working for somebody that doesn't provide a parking spot for me, I can go find a job somewhere else.

That is kind of a silly argument as I don't know of many to any business that could maintain employees in that situation. Most people that work at my place of employment drive at least 10 miles to work, and I doubt they are going to park down the highway at wal mart and hoof it the rest of the way.

 

[nascar6829]

Problem solved.

Whats that supposed to mean pal?

 

[snowman46919]

Whats that supposed to mean pal?

Indiana they don't need a reason to fire you

 

[nascar6829]

Sorry I just saw the ya jack wagon part.

 

[ATM]

Sorry I just saw the ya jack wagon part.

He says that to everybody.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

That is kind of a silly argument as I don't know of many to any business that could maintain employees in that situation. Most people that work at my place of employment drive at least 10 miles to work, and I doubt they are going to park down the highway at wal mart and hoof it the rest of the way.

Sure it's silly. But logically, it is an option. As I said, there's nothing that says the employer HAS to provide a place to park. Just as they don't have to supply you with coffee or medical insurance. This was more of a rhetorical instrument to further illustrate what a property owner can do with his property.

 

[Bummer]

... My property (parking lot) my rules.

But if you've incorporated, the parking lot is no longer your property.

 

[JennyO]

I think I would have a big prob being I work at a school.

 

[SmileDocHill]

But if you've incorporated, the parking lot is no longer your property.

It is not owned by the government just because you are incorporated. The corporation is treated as an entity (like a person) the decisions are made by the owner if singly owned, or by the CEO/Board of directors if it is owned by several people or publicly traded. It is a little more elaborate than just a guy that owns property but it still has a property owner that has rights to manage their own property how they see fit.
I get the impression most people have not thought of this from the other perspective....Think to yourself, you start a business and as soon as it is a "business" I'll show up and tell you what you can and cannot do. Sound about right? It shouldn't matter if it is baking cookies in your kitchen or a business that involves property with buildings and heavy people traffic, if it is not Government owned property it is owned by citizens or groups of citizens that should have the right to decide what and who is allowed on their property and for what reason.

 

[Bummer]

It is not owned by the government just because you are incorporated. The corporation is treated as an entity (like a person) the decisions are made by the owner if singly owned, or by the CEO/Board of directors if it is owned by several people or publicly traded. It is a little more elaborate than just a guy that owns property but it still has a property owner that has rights to manage their own property how they see fit.
I get the impression most people have not thought of this from the other perspective....Think to yourself, you start a business and as soon as it is a "business" I'll show up and tell you what you can and cannot do. Sound about right? It shouldn't matter if it is baking cookies in your kitchen or a business that involves property with buildings and heavy people traffic, if it is not Government owned property it is owned by citizens or groups of citizens that should have the right to decide what and who is allowed on their property and for what reason.

Certainly the government does not own the property. But neither does the original business owner. The business owner gives his rights over the property to the corporation. He trades those rights for protection from liability. In fact, transfer of the property is a major part of incorporation.

The corporation does not have Natural rights. Only Legal rights. The corporation was not born. Its creator is government through an agreement freely entered into by the owner. As such the corporation only has Legal rights.

The people who run the corporation can tell the corporation what to do, but the corporation may only do what it is allowed to do within the context of Legal rights. Since the government is creator of legal rights it may change the details of them at will.

The business owner has every right to not incorporate, and thereby retain his Natural rights over the property. It was his choice. He chose to trade his rights for safety. Since he made the trade, he lost the rights. Your argument is the same as saying that you hold Natural Property Rights to property you've sold or given away.

 

[grimor]

Certainly the government does not own the property. But neither does the original business owner. The business owner gives his rights over the property to the corporation. He trades those rights for protection from liability. In fact, transfer of the property is a major part of incorporation.

The corporation does not have Natural rights. Only Legal rights. The corporation was not born. Its creator is government through an agreement freely entered into by the owner. As such the corporation only has Legal rights.

The people who run the corporation can tell the corporation what to do, but the corporation may only do what it is allowed to do within the context of Legal rights. Since the government is creator of legal rights it may change the details of them at will.

The business owner has every right to not incorporate, and thereby retain his Natural rights over the property. It was his choice. He chose to trade his rights for safety. Since he made the trade, he lost the rights. Your argument is the same as saying that you hold Natural Property Rights to property you've sold or given away.

No, his argument is that the corporation is the same as a person in that they can choose how their property is being used. Your argument is meaningless because, while you're trying to make it sound like the corporation has no right to choose how they use their property, they do.