Texas Senate OK's letting Texans keep guns in cars at work

[LeJaeger]

All very good points.  For some reason I just can't get over the fact that our 2nd amendment rights are treated differently than all others.  Can anyone think of another Constitutionally protected right that your employer can take away from you?

The constitution fundamentally only protects your rights from actions of government.  In the case of your employer, it is (technically) free association that can be terminated at any time.  Speech in the form of a soapbox tirade while on the job can certainly get you fired, as can proselytizing to other employees, but you can't be arrested for either.  At least in Florida this is also the case with guns.  You can't be charged with a criminal act for carrying a gun at work, but you are employed at the pleasure of your employer.  I've even seen people get shuffled off for dressing unprofessionally!

Corporate policy cannot override law, nor should it override your rights, which is why these parking lot laws are SO IMPORTANT to have in every state.

[Bob Mayne]

Actually an employer cannot terminate your employment by stating the reason to be race, religion or sexual orientation (legally.)  They also cannot terminate your employment based on a disability.  However, they CAN terminate you based on you keeping a gun in your car, which is your castle (in Texas.)  Is that  just?  There are employment laws that employers must follow.  So LaJaeger you are correct.  This type of gun in car in the parking lot legislation IS important because it needs to be part of employment law (in every state that recognizes CCW.)

I think some may have misinterpreted my comments on this forum and on the podcast.  I'm not against people disallowing carry in their homes because their home is their castle.  (Castle doctrine.)  I'm against EMPLOYERS stripping people of their rights to keep a gun in their castle (vehicle) thus stripping them of their second amendment right to keep and bear arms, which has just been recently affirmed by the Supreme Court.   I also made this point clear on the podcast.  A place of employment is a different ballgame.  Businesses are subject to employment regulations that they are not subject to in their home.

[Bob Mayne]

Just thought I would comment on the discussion after listening to Bob's take on it in the podcast.  Philosophically I agree with Chemsoldier.  From a standpoint of liberty one should have the ability to control their property as they wish.  If I don't want an anti-gun person on my property I have the right to disallow them access to my property or else they are trespassing.  I think this should apply for all private property (even where it doesn't now).  That being said if we consider Texas law your car is considered an extension of your home (under the castle doctrine).  So if your car is an extension of your premises the contents of your car should be able to be whatever you wish and private.  My house isn't subject to inspection of the contents without a warrant, and the same applies to my car, a police officer can't search it without a warrant or consent or probable cause (like contraband showing).

So I support this bill as it is the right balance, it allows me to control my premises (the contents of my car) while it allows the employer to control their property (for example by saying I can't take my arms out of my car and onto their property).  As long as your firearms remain in your car they are on your premises regardless of where the car is parked (under Texas law).  So I think this law makes sense and is the right balance of protecting my property rights vs someone else's property rights.  The law also exempts the company from liability if something goes wrong with a firearm in an employees car, which protects their rights, so they aren't incurring a legal risk with no recourse.

Well said.  I also think the next step needs to be constitutional carry.  That would probably end a lot of this nonesense.  Employers would quickly find out that being anti gun would not work to their advantage.

[ske1eter]

We need to get this thing on the calendar so it can be voted on. It passed the Senate two years ago in the previous session, along with this one, but the House didn't put it on their calendar so it died. I hope it doesn't see the same fate this time to. We need to put some pressure on these guys if possible.

[gitt1]

Bob, I especially agree that constitutional carry everywhere is needed, but why must you destroy personnal property rights to do it. This country did not rise to glory on the back of the 2nd amendment. It rose on capitalistic freedom via personal property rights. The 2nd amendment protects those rights among other things.

If you have no freedom to control activity on your property where do you draw the line? Is a drunk peeing on your roses ok? How about an anti-gun activist peeing on your tomatoes or a PETA member letting your horses run free?  Maybe a neighbor putting a meth lab on the back 40 so you can share prison time or a hazardous waste site just over the ridge. Why is an action ok outside your front door that is not ok inside your front door? Clearly, IT IS NOT!

Companies just want to make money. They don't want to be involved in the discussion at all (Starbucks). The liberal executive or lawyer using boilerplate is the problem generally and if customers/employees have enough backbone the people who can make decisions will have to act.

BTW, my employees bring children, dogs, wives/girlfriends. Guns would be wonderful if we could legally transport them. As it is, I'm the only one bold enough (local back roads).

Larry                                                                                                                                                             

[Bob Mayne]

As I've mentioned before, as this issue applies to a person's home, I completely agree.  A person has the right to regulate their own home as they see fit.  However, once a property owner chooses to employ people, I think it's a different ballgame.  It's not easy to find another job.  It's usually easier to find another place to live.  It seems as though this issue boils down to whether or not you believe the bill of rights are inalienble rights.  The founders of our country wrote in the declaration of independence, that certain rights are "endowed by our creator", that among those are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  I think that clearly shows their intent.  This law before the Texas legislature, simply extends a person's home to include their vehicle.  I completely disagree that an employer has the right to take away your second amendment right on your own property.  Your vehicle is your own property.  Just because you parked your vehicle on your employers property, does not give your employer the right to strip you of your rights protected by the Constitution.  As a reminder, below are the bill of rights as they are written in the U.S. Constitution.  I believe these are inalienable, do you?

• First Amendment - Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, Freedom of Religion, and of assembly; right to petition.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

• Second Amendment - Militia (United States), Sovereign state, Right to keep and bear arms.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

• Third Amendment - Protection from quartering of troops.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

• Fourth Amendment - Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

• Fifth Amendment - due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

• Sixth Amendment - Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

• Seventh Amendment - Civil trial by jury.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

• Eighth Amendment - Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

• Ninth Amendment - Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

• Tenth Amendment - Powers of States and people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_the_three_unalienable_rights_in_the_Constitution_or_Declaration_of_Independence#ixzz1IIEhZuv9

[Bob Mayne]

P.S., in 15 minutes I'm headed to the courthouse to honor a person's 6th and 7th amendment right, the right to trial by jury.  I've been selected for jury duty....

[haskovez]

P.S., in 15 minutes I'm headed to the courthouse to honor a person's 6th and 7th amendment right, the right to trial by jury.  I've been selected for jury duty....

I guess it is going around I have jury duty on Tuesday.

[gitt1]

Hope you fellas can pay attention and not start daydreaming over what to do with the cash windfall you will receive for jury duty.

Larry

[Bob Mayne]

The case was dismissed. Bummer, I was actually looking forward to doing my duty! 

[haskovez]

The case was dismissed. Bummer, I was actually looking forward to doing my duty! 

I never get picked for the panel, I usually spend the day there to be struck by the attorney eventually.  It is a shame, as I think I am very impartial on matters, but I don't think they really want engineers on a panel, I think they would rather have people they can sway with an emotional argument rather than someone who just wants to look at the facts and evidence.

[Damian]

Maybe I am just a simple minded when it comes to SB321.

My employer does not have the right to prevent my freedom of speech, religion or any of my rights as dictated by the Constitution.  So why is the 2nd amendment any different? 

It's not.  By Texas law I can carry a gun in my car legally without a license of any kind.  It's my Castle and protected by Texas law.  When you add the 2nd amendment to the mix it makes even more sense to prevent such polices at a place of employment.

My employer would not dare tell me that I don't have the right to free speech or religion if I worked for them and they should not have the right to prevent me from carrying a legal firearm in my car.

It's simple to me.  I dare an employer think that my personal protection is not something they value.  LIKE HELL...

[Goldenboy]

Damian,

Your employer doesn't put any limits on your 1st amendment rights at all?   So you are free to say anything you like to anyone at work?     You can use foul language with your boss/coworkers/customers?     I couldn't do that at work even if my father owned the company. 

[penguinofdoom]

As far as the personal property thing, I don't fully understand LLCs, Corporations, public ownership of companies and whatnot. What I do know is that if I turn my business into an LLC (limited liability company) if I get sued only what is the company's can be taken and not my own personal property or money. However, if I'm not an LLC, I can lose my personal stuff too if I get sued. It would seem to make sense to me that if I become an LLC to protect myself I also give up the right to consider the business space my own personally owned property as well since it is technically owned by the company. Thus it is no longer a personal property issue as to whether I want to disallow guns or not. Same argument can be made for companies that sell shares, no one person owns the property, many do or the company does depending on how you look at it. I just don't see that a parking lot at a business is the same thing as an individual's property.

Companies disallowing guns in cars would only make sense to me if it is a sole proprietorship and you haven't become an LLC or such. Even then I don't like it but I can't find a valid argument against it.

[flylow]

I just wonder what it is about guns in a vehicle at a place of employment? Why don't employers/employee handbooks specifically outline all the items deemed to be "dangerous" that should not be inside vehicles on their property. This is Texas, so shouldn't they say something about pressurized containers (specifically during the summer), flammable liquids, knitting needles, roach-stomper boots and the like? Seriously, a police officer can't search my car unless he has probable cause, the vehicle and the contents inside are my property regardless of where said vehicle is parked. Why can an employer dictate what I can or can't carry within the confines of my own property?

I was just imagining an employee handbook reading, "No floor mats shall be allowed in any vehicle on the premises. Employee vehicles are subject to search by Employer at any time. Anyone found protecting the original carpeting in their vehicle with floor mats will be subject to immediate termination." Sheesh, sounds just as stupid.   

[ske1eter]

Unfortunately, HB681 still isn't on the calendar for a vote. Still need to keep the pressure on.......

[Damian]

Damian,

Your employer doesn't put any limits on your 1st amendment rights at all?   So you are free to say anything you like to anyone at work?     You can use foul language with your boss/coworkers/customers?     I couldn't do that at work even if my father owned the company. 

My point is that employers don't dare to take away our other rights but they do with guns which is wrong.

[Damian]

We need to get this thing on the calendar so it can be voted on. It passed the Senate two years ago in the previous session, along with this one, but the House didn't put it on their calendar so it died. I hope it doesn't see the same fate this time to. We need to put some pressure on these guys if possible.

I am following this bill and get emails with every update.  It looks like it's moving fast through the process.  Here is a screen shot for your reference.

http://goo.gl/8XFzM

[Chemsoldier]

EDIT: I was being repetitive.

[ske1eter]

We need to get this thing on the calendar so it can be voted on. It passed the Senate two years ago in the previous session, along with this one, but the House didn't put it on their calendar so it died. I hope it doesn't see the same fate this time to. We need to put some pressure on these guys if possible.

I am following this bill and get emails with every update.  It looks like it's moving fast through the process.  Here is a screen shot for your reference.

http://goo.gl/8XFzM

Yipper, been sent to 'Calendars' but not *put* on the calendar for a vote. It's been sitting there for almost two weeks now according to the TSRA.