Skip to main content

NRA-backed Lt. Col (Ret) Courtney Rogers beat Republican Caucus Chairwoman Debra Maggart in the Republican primary in Sumner County Tennessee.  The NRA went after Maggart because she did not support a bill in the Tennessee Legislature that would allow employees to keep guns in their cars at work as long as the cars were locked.  Having owned a business and the property upon which it sat I find it very difficult to view the NRA’s stance on this issue as anything other than taking away the right of property owners to control what is brought onto their property.  It is my opinion that the so-called “Safe Commute” laws infringe on property rights which are central to our safety.  Locked in a car or not, the availability of guns at the workplace site makes it easier to use deadly force to settle a dispute.

Originally posted to Old Gray Dog on Fri Aug 03, 2012 at 06:18 AM PDT.

Also republished by Three Star Kossacks.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (11+ / 0-)

    Any Jackass can kick down a barn. It takes a carpenter to build one. - Sam Rayburn

    by Old Gray Dog on Fri Aug 03, 2012 at 06:18:12 AM PDT

  •  Two things are the most dangerous (7+ / 0-)

    to American society as a whole.  One is Grover Norquist and the other is the NRA.  They are both after one thing, the downfall of America.  I am not against paying taxes and I have been a hunter most of my life, so I am involved with both.  These two though, to me,  are both a clear and present danger.

  •  GOP doofuses (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wilderness voice

    Leave it to these assclowns to put themselves between a rock and a hard place. If they favor the businesse's right to not have people bring guns on their premises (humm, why wouldn't someone want a disgruntled employee with a loaded gun at their place of business?), then they piss off the gun nut constituents. If they force private property owners to allow guns at their place of business, that pisses off the chamber of commerce types. Way to go!

    Just another day in Oceania.

    by drshatterhand on Fri Aug 03, 2012 at 06:32:18 AM PDT

  •  Teach your children well. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    enhydra lutris

    We've come to this point in our society because we've allowed the propagation of ignorance. We've got a lot of work to do, and it will be done one day at a time.

    We can't afford this level of ignorance anymore.

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Fri Aug 03, 2012 at 06:46:17 AM PDT

  •  You are completely wrong. (11+ / 0-)

    Employers can ban cars from their property, but if they don't, their property rights do not magically extend inside a locked vehicle.  To argue otherwise is asinine.

    The NRA position is the right position; what I legally keep in my locked car is of no concern to my employer, whether it is a firearm or some other legal item(s).

    •  Why is that asinine? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HiBob, tgrshark13, wilderness voice

      You're saying there can't be conditional grants of permission to do something on private property. That flies in the face of centuries of property law.

      "Speaking for myself only" - Armando

      by JR on Fri Aug 03, 2012 at 07:28:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The inside of your own car (10+ / 0-)

        is your private property, no matter where it is.
        If it wasn't, police wouldn't need your consent to search your car on the side of a public highway.
        Hate to have to agree with

        The NRA position is the right position
        but I find that I must on this occasion.

        "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

        by kestrel9000 on Fri Aug 03, 2012 at 07:33:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, they need your consent... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wilderness voice

          ...because the 4th Amendment applies to the state. But we're not talking about state-citizens relationships. Private property rights between private individuals are subject to any number of gradations based on agreements between the parties. Easements and covenants are based on this principle.

          "Speaking for myself only" - Armando

          by JR on Fri Aug 03, 2012 at 08:20:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're right (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Tom Seaview, PavePusher

            about easements and covenants, but that has nothing to do with the inside of a vehicle, which is itself an article of private property.

            "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

            by kestrel9000 on Fri Aug 03, 2012 at 01:07:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  ...that is itself on another's private property! (0+ / 0-)

              My private property carried onto your private property creates a conflict of rights. Whose trump?

              Say I have a hunting cabin out in some woodland, and I decide one day that I don't need all that acreage. I sell the land to a mining company. The deal is that I am allowed to keep the cabin and hunt the land, but they own all the land itself. They say that, as a condition, I can't use the cabin's fireplace for fear I might cause a forest fire. The cabin may still be my private property--at the very least, I still maintain a property interest in it--but my property rights are curtailed by virtue of my arrangement with the mining company.

              The same thing happens when you have a car on someone else's private property. The extent of your property rights are going to be lessened to some degree. So for instance, suppose I run a private parking lot. Should I not be able to have a rule that hazardous or flammable materials may not be left in cars using my property? You may have a right to own and possess a hydrogen tank or a propane tank, but should I as a property owner have to worry that one left in your car unattended might explode, or bear the risk of liability if it does? Or let's say that I just happen to know my buddy is driving around some hydrogen tanks: am I not within my rights to ask him to park away from my house if he comes to visit? Why am I required to put faith in his ability to adhere to reasonable standards of safety?

              To say "a car is private property" is one thing, but to then say "and that trumps anyone else's property rights!" is a completely different claim. It's a claim that can be settled by legislation, but it's not a clear-cut matter, as was being asserted.

              "Speaking for myself only" - Armando

              by JR on Fri Aug 03, 2012 at 03:58:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  The car is also private property (9+ / 0-)

        The question is, when my private property (or person) is temporarily and lawfully located on someone else's private property, how far does their property rights intrude into my private property (or person). For example: does an employer have the right to search a person's car, merely because it's in a parking lot?

        It's well established that private property owners can exclude guns from the persons of those on their premises. That's fine. But it gets thornier when it's a car in a parking lot.

        For example, if a state provides for lawful carry, and the owner exercises his right to exclude carry on his premises, but does not make provision for a place to secure the weapon, the owner has effectively extended his prohibition, for his employees, all the way back to the employee's home's doorstep.

        I am with KVoimakas; I would not want ever to leave a gun unattended in a parking lot, especially on a regular basis.

        But as a compromise between the interests of property owners and their right to exclude armed persons from their premises, and lawful carriers, who - should they choose to carry - need a place they can secure their weapon whenever they have need to go where their weapon is prohibited, this is a pretty reasonable one. The bill would require that the weapon be out of sight, and securely locked.

        Bill Summary
        With certain exceptions discussed below, this bill prohibits a business entity or owner, manager or legal possessor of real property, or public or private employer from establishing, maintaining, or enforcing a policy or rule that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting a person's transportation or storage of a firearm or ammunition when:

        (1) The firearm or ammunition: is kept from ordinary observation within the person's attended, privately-owned motor vehicle; or is kept from ordinary observation and locked within the trunk, glove box, or interior of the person's privately owned motor vehicle or a container securely affixed to such vehicle; and
        (2) The vehicle is operated or parked in a location where it is otherwise permitted to be.

        It's certainly less onerous than, say, mandating that every owner of a public accommodation that prohibits firearms provide lawful carriers a weapons check and/or locker.

        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

        by Robobagpiper on Fri Aug 03, 2012 at 07:50:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  What I am saying is (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tom Seaview, PavePusher

        that there is a difference between publicly accessible private property and private property which is not publicly accessible.

        But, having studiously researched centuries of property law, you knew that and were simply testing me.

    •  Wrong. I can say "do not bring 'x' on to (3+ / 0-)

      my property and that is my right. It doesn't matter if you have it in your pocket or in your car. There are exceptions for public accomodations and religious gimmickry, within reason, but that is about it.

      That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

      by enhydra lutris on Fri Aug 03, 2012 at 07:57:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  At your house, yes. That's not at issue. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tom Seaview, PavePusher

        You have no right to ban anything that is not illegal from publicly accessible private property.  This may include your front and/or back yards if unfenced/gated, common areas, easements, right-of-ways, and/or any part of your property which is necessary to access to service public utilities.  It definitely does include a publicly accessible parking lot adjacent to your private property which you use for a commercial purpose.

        In truth, this works both ways.  In California, handgun open carry is against the law in public.  That doesn't mean public property, that means in publicly accessible areas.  I could be arrested and go to jail for violating this (ridiculous) law for simply wearing my pistol on my hip while mowing my front lawn.  Why? I have neither a fence nor a securable gate, so my front yard is publicly accessible.

        My advice, whether you wish to open carry on your property or stop any question of others doing so, to is to fence it off and make it non-publicly accessible.

        Of course, that would make it a piss-poor parking lot.......

        •  Completely false. (0+ / 0-)
          You have no right to ban anything that is not illegal from publicly accessible private property.
          My house, like most single family dwellings not behing a locked gate is publicly accessible, and I can ban damn near anything I want on my yard as wekll as my house.

          Your understnding of the relevant law is a mismosh of near truth and fantasy mangled together as if in a blender. If I own a retail paint store, I can ban just about anything I want in my store, including guns unless specific local law dictates otherwise, and I doubt if such a law would survive legal challenge to the supreme court.

          That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

          by enhydra lutris on Fri Aug 03, 2012 at 01:56:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Actually, you can't. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Tom Seaview, PavePusher

            The retail paint store hypothetical, that is.  You can refuse service and require someone to leave, but simply having a policy or posting a sign that no guns are allowed does not a law make.  Let us say that in your retail paint store you have such a policy and sign.  Let us further say that I am lawfully carrying a concealed weapon.  I walk into your store.  I have violated no laws.  If you notice my concealed weapon, if, for example, I was reaching up to a high shelf or something similar, you could not have me arrested for I have broken no law.  You could tell me that you are refusing service and require me to leave.  If I do not, in most cases that would be trespassing and I could be arrested.  I might be able to file some sort of discrimination claim, but 'citizen' is neither heightened nor strict scrutiny in terms of category.

            The situation is similar in your unfenced front yard.  Let us say I walk across it. You would be well within your rights to tell me to stop, point out your property line, and require me to leave.  If I do so, I have broken no law.  If I refuse, then I am trespassing.

            Now to leave the realm of the hypothetical and rejoin the real world, the question at hand is whether or not businesses and their owners should have a legal right to enforce against their employees a policy that covers the disposition of legally owned private property safely and securely locked away in a vehicle that resides in a publicly accessible forum, i.e. a gun locked in the trunk of a car.  The NRA fought for a specific law in favor of protecting the employee in this instance, and opposed a politician who disagreed.

            Is it your position that said business should be able to take action against an employee who does just such a thing?  How about customers of this business, what consequences are there for them for doing such a thing?  What if, instead of "Enhydra's Paint Emporium and No-Gun Zone" banning firearms from employee's cars, it is Chick-Fil-A banning any literature which might promote gay/ lesbian equality, abortion, equal pay and opportunity for women, concern for the environment, the Occupy Movement, etc.  Are you still so ready to accept that businesses have a right to go into the locked trunk of employee's vehicles?

            Such an extreme defense of private property rights is reminiscent of the appellant's argument in Heart of Atlanta.

            •  If I have it posted, you are trespassing the (0+ / 0-)

              second you enter and I can have you removed, possibly arrested. You have no civil rights complaint, you hve no right to sneak, smuggle, bring or carry weapons onto another's property.

              The rest is simple silliness. (The phrase) "publicly accessible forum" highlights the confusion. Packing heat is not speech, race or religion. No disgruntled empoyee or customer has ever retrieved a pamphlet from their car and used it to murder his or her manager, coworkers, or those working or shopping at the facility , while it happens with regularity with guns, a distinction that is quite important.

               Are you still so ready to accept that businesses have a right to go into the locked trunk of employee's vehicles?
              Straw man - quote me.
              Such an extreme defense of private property rights is reminiscent of the appellant's argument in Heart of Atlanta.
              Only to those who deny that people have any private property rights whatsoever.

              That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

              by enhydra lutris on Sat Aug 04, 2012 at 10:20:51 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  But hey, at least you agree it has to be posted. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                enhydra lutris

                Some people here just don't get that.

                Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

                by KVoimakas on Sat Aug 04, 2012 at 04:21:24 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Let's say one's case is much stronger if it is (0+ / 0-)

                  posted, no less than 3 signs per mile of perimeter.

                  Even if it isn't posted

                  That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

                  by enhydra lutris on Sun Aug 05, 2012 at 01:09:18 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Where is the sign? On a FENCE? (0+ / 0-)

                I'm really not going to waste any more time, this is the last explanation.  If your yard is not fenced off, it is publicly accessible and is treated differently than the inside of your house or any fenced in area.

                If you don't believe me, fine.  I'm OK with that.  Just please don't go around trying to prove the point by carrying a pistol in your unfenced front yard in an area where unlicensed open carry is illegal.  I don't know where you live, but in California you would be breaking the law.

                As for your cavalier attitude against our right to privacy and your pro-segregation extreme variant of property rights, I suppose that is your bed to lie in.

                •  asdf (0+ / 0-)
                  As for your cavalier attitude against our right to privacy and your pro-segregation extreme variant of property rights, I suppose that is your bed to lie in.
                  No, it is yours, because it is a fiction of your imagination.

                  That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

                  by enhydra lutris on Sun Aug 05, 2012 at 12:17:16 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  There are exceptions for whatever statute exempts. (0+ / 0-)

        Including this one.

        I don't think JR didn't finish his thought regarding competing property interests in common law regarding public accommodations.  Specifically, which trumps when and where.

  •  I can't stand leaving a firearm in a car. (10+ / 0-)

    Much easier to steal, unless you have a specific vault built for housing a firearm.

    Bleck. No thanks.

    (It doesn't help that most of the time I'm on two wheels so there's no place to lock it up anyway.)

    I'd much rather have it on my hip then someplace where it's easily stolen.

    Republicans cause more damage than guns ever will. Share Our Wealth

    by KVoimakas on Fri Aug 03, 2012 at 07:32:20 AM PDT

  •  I agree completely (9+ / 0-)

    I own a small business, and I demand the right to prohibit my employees to have birth control pills, leftist propaganda (like the New York Times) and lipstick in their vehicles.
    Those painted Commie sluts are a danger to themselves and others.

    [/snark]

    What people possess legally in their vehicles is none of your business. I am glad you closed your business, since your enmployees' Second Amendment rights bother you so terribly much.

    "She's petite, extremely beautiful, and heavily armed." -1995 Michael Moore documentary Canadian Bacon

    by Tom Seaview on Fri Aug 03, 2012 at 07:37:28 AM PDT

  •  Taking the argument that the vehicle's interior (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tgrshark13

    is private property argument to the extreme would mean that someone could drive an armored assault vehicle with  a locked and loaded weapon pointed at the business building and the business owner could not prohibit it; wrong!  

    Someone coming to another's property with a loaded gun in their car can park the car off property and walk on to the property; easy enough.  

    The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation--HDT

    by cazcee on Fri Aug 03, 2012 at 07:50:54 AM PDT

  •  I work three jobs. (7+ / 0-)

    One's a rather rural occupation, where firearms are just another tool.  

    One takes me into town and city downtown districts, where leaving a firearm in a vehicle is not a bright idea  I've had a camera taken from a console, I'm thinking a pistol would be a far greater "score".  

    Plan B is to wear a gun into the businesses I transact with, and as personnel in those establishments change, not everyone is "on plan B".

    Plan C is to carry cash and no gun.  
    I'm home @ 11pm or later from a day's 300 mile round-trip.

    The third is an HR/Labor compliance/Tech sort of thing.

    Fair Labor Association, various State and Federal agency regs, NRA sponsored State laws, etc... all pale to what your insurance company requires.

    "Put this in writing, display it on a 14x17 inch or larger poster in the break room, in all languages spoken at your place of business.
    Placement must be as follows: at the time clock, and at the entrance to the building.  Have every employee sign a form acknowledging the company policy:  
    a) at hiring
    b) at semi-annual safety training
    c) at annual employee review

    THIS IS A VIOLENCE AND FIREARM-FREE WORKPLACE.  ALL WEAPONS ARE PROHIBITED FROM COMPANY PROPERTY.

    We'd like it on an 18x22 reflective aluminum 'road sign' placed at all parking lot access points, but that's not a requirement.

    We'll be doing an un-announced inspection and audit of your records.  Non-compliance will result in cancellation-for-cause, and obtaining future coverage may prove expensive to impossible.  We appreciate your undertaking this endeavor with the maximum urgency possible."

    What do you think the company management chose to follow?

    State Law, sponsored by the NRA?  Federal law?
    Fair Labor Association standards?
    The Insurance company requirements to pass audit?

    a)All of the above,
    b)the first two,
    c) or the last two?

    Answer:  C - as that effects business TODAY, not after some protracted lawsuit with "Friends of the Court" filings.

    Now if someone enters the property, with a firearm to settle a personal, business or domestic dispute?  The insurance company is in a position to not pay any claims for wrongful death at an employee's hand.

    No claims by the aggressor, nor his/her family.  No claims from a employee injured in 'mutual combat'.  IF an employee is killed, that's on someone else.
    "They" will have to prove how our lack of armed response added to the danger present, and the insurance company is ready-willing-able to cite how employees with firearms have done this-this-this, in rebuttal.

    Sue the cops.  Not our insurance company.

    •  I suppose that's part of the argument... (0+ / 0-)

      ...for these kind of laws, is to take things out of the hands of the insurance company.

      I'm kind of confused why the insurance company would care, though, as general liability coverage excludes workplace violence of any kind, whether you ban guns or not.

      Many business avoid the issue be either not carrying insurance or using a captive insurer.

      •  We employ Highway Patrolmen to enforce (7+ / 0-)

        driving laws, yet you see:  

        HOW IS MY DRIVING?

        CALL 1-800-438-2368 and report unit W-7981

        Shouldn't I call 9-1-1 instead?

        No.  That might cost the company money, where calling the 800 number operated by my insurer, and reporting Tom-the-Driver will get Tom put on notice.
        Scheduled for a driver safety class.  
        Letter, signed by him in his personnel file.

        Tuesday, the dispatcher will again give him 45 minutes to travel 67 miles on 55 MPH roads, or be cited for not adhering to schedule.

        "29 minutes late" and not the circumstances will be yet another letter, signed-for, and put in Tom's file.

        One more... and he's G.O.N.E..

        Fired for-cause, thus no appeal to the unemployment board.

        Thankfully we have NO FIREARMS posted on the door, so we're under no threat of violence once Tom's fired, without unemployment coverage.

        Kids?  NO vacation.  Wife?  No house payment.
        What?  You're leaving?

        Those sons of a bitches...

        Now HOLD ON a moment there Tom... SEE THE SIGN?
        We're "VIOLENCE FREE" here.
        My question is who's the victim of workplace violence?
        •  I cover up that sticker. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gerrilea, PavePusher, 43north

          Nobody can call in on me, not anymore. Complain because I'm going too fast, complain because I'm going to slow, complain because I let someone in at a merge, complain because I didn't let them in at a merge. complain because I slowed down to avoid deer, and I swear - complain because I stopped at a red light. Seriously.

          Fuck that. White duct tape over the sticker means people can't fuck up my day anymore.

          Speaking of, I just got a new unit back from the maintenance bay, I'll have to remember to apply some new duct tape this weekend.

          •  Hey, you missed my complaint- you waited (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PavePusher, 43north

            until I was almost passed you to change lanes and pass the slower trucker, making me drive behind you and the other trucker for 15 freaking miles before you actually passed the bastard!

            Seriously, that has happened to me sooo many times I swear you guys are doing it for fun.

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Fri Aug 03, 2012 at 07:05:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I had a pilot car (0+ / 0-)

              speed up to 65 when the oversize load he was escorting was doing 30, just to stop me from passing in the first spot in twenty miles I could pass safely.  AND I HAD ALREADY PASSED THE OVERSIZED TRUCK.  So I was stuck between the truck and the pilot car for another ten miles.

              Medic Alert: Do not resuscitate under a Republican administration.

              by happymisanthropy on Mon Aug 06, 2012 at 02:49:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  If the company that wants to ban guns in the cars (0+ / 0-)

    of their employees will provide effective armed security at the workplace, and an armed escort to-and-from work for any employee that requests one... no problem.  

    If they don't provide that, but accept full liability for any harm that comes to an employee from crime while going to/from or at work.... no problem.

    Otherwise... we got a problem.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site