Employers can forbid guns, a judge rules, issues an injunction against OK law.

[henschman]

So how far should a property owners right extend? What else can they prevent me from having in my locked car in their parking lot? If they are some type of environmental freak can they have a rule against aerosol cans in my locked car? If they are an atheist can they forbid my carrying a Bible in my locked car? How about limiting what bumper stickers on my car might say since it is parked in their lot? Where is the limit?

Second if you can cite an example of my keeping any legal item locked in my car causes any harm to the owner of a business that I might park my car on then I might have something to discuss.

Guys, the point is that its not your property... so who are you to demand that the owner not set certain rules for it, or that they must allow you to bring certain property on it?

As the owner of a piece of property, you have the right to kick anybody off for any reason or no reason, so yes, you have every right to kick people off for having aerosol cans, bibles, bumper stickers, or anything else. Or nothing. If you just don't like the way they look, you can tell them to scram.

The property owner owes no duty to you to justify their rule. It could be completely irrational, and it could be a rule against something that does him absolutely no harm... but that doesn't in any way diminish his property rights.

Lack of respect for the property rights of others is one of the biggest reasons our country is in such sorry shape.

And to answer the question about how far your property rights should extend -- they are like all your other liberties; they extend to the point that they do not infringe on anyone else's equal amount of liberty.

 

[ExSniper]

TITLE 21 § 1289.7a. Transporting or storing firearms in locked vehicle on
private premises—Prohibition proscribed
TRANSPORTING OR STORING FIREARMS IN LOCKED VEHICLE ON PRIVATE PREMISES—PROHIBITION PROSCRIBED
A. No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall maintain, establish, or enforce any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting any person, except a convicted felon, from transporting and storing firearms in a locked motor vehicle, or from transporting and storing firearms locked in or locked to a motor vehicle on any property set aside for any motor vehicle.
B. No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall be liable in any civil action for occurrences which result from the storing of firearms in a locked motor vehicle on any property set aside for any motor vehicle, unless the person, property owner, tenant, employer, or owner of the business entity
commits a criminal act involving the use of the firearms. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to claims pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Act.
C. An individual may bring a civil action to enforce this section. If a plaintiff prevails in a civil action related to the personnel manual against a person, property owner, tenant, employer or business for a violation of this section, the court shall award actual damages, enjoin further violations of this section, and award court costs and attorney fees to the prevailing plaintiff.
D. As used in this section, “motor vehicle” means any automobile, truck, minivan, sports utility vehicle, motorcycle, motor scooter, and any other vehicle required to be registered under the Oklahoma Vehicle License and Registration Act.

 

[Biggsly]

TITLE 21 § 1289.7a. Transporting or storing firearms in locked vehicle on
private premises—Prohibition proscribed
TRANSPORTING OR STORING FIREARMS IN LOCKED VEHICLE ON PRIVATE PREMISES—PROHIBITION PROSCRIBED
A. No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall maintain, establish, or enforce any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting any person, except a convicted felon, from transporting and storing firearms in a locked motor vehicle, or from transporting and storing firearms locked in or locked to a motor vehicle on any property set aside for any motor vehicle.
B. No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall be liable in any civil action for occurrences which result from the storing of firearms in a locked motor vehicle on any property set aside for any motor vehicle, unless the person, property owner, tenant, employer, or owner of the business entity
commits a criminal act involving the use of the firearms. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to claims pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Act.
C. An individual may bring a civil action to enforce this section. If a plaintiff prevails in a civil action related to the personnel manual against a person, property owner, tenant, employer or business for a violation of this section, the court shall award actual damages, enjoin further violations of this section, and award court costs and attorney fees to the prevailing plaintiff.
D. As used in this section, “motor vehicle” means any automobile, truck, minivan, sports utility vehicle, motorcycle, motor scooter, and any other vehicle required to be registered under the Oklahoma Vehicle License and Registration Act.

Yes. That is what my book says that I keep in my truck. I keep it with my gun incase it ever gets brought up. When I owned my BBQ place, I let all the people who worked for me keep guns in their cars. I had more girls who had guns then guys. Made me feel good knowing that they had away to protect themselves on their way home. My wife is a nurse and she keeps one with her. That also makes me feel safer for her.

 

[Rick-OShay]

Guys, the point is that its not your property... so who are you to demand that the owner not set certain rules for it, or that they must allow you to bring certain property on it?

As the owner of a piece of property, you have the right to kick anybody off for any reason or no reason, so yes, you have every right to kick people off for having aerosol cans, bibles, bumper stickers, or anything else. Or nothing. If you just don't like the way they look, you can tell them to scram.

The property owner owes no duty to you to justify their rule. It could be completely irrational, and it could be a rule against something that does him absolutely no harm... but that doesn't in any way diminish his property rights.

Lack of respect for the property rights of others is one of the biggest reasons our country is in such sorry shape.

And to answer the question about how far your property rights should extend -- they are like all your other liberties; they extend to the point that they do not infringe on anyone else's equal amount of liberty.

Actually, your "right to kick anyone off" is already limited. Utility workers, fire, police, survey, Postal carriers, just to name a few. When society has a clear and compelling interest, it can indeed limit property rights. Mainting the ability of unorganized milita members to be able to respond toi a sudden and urgent contingency is clearly one of these. Some of the original colonies on the East coast had laws mandating the carrying of firearms to church.

 

[Joe S]

Guys, the point is that its not your property... so who are you to demand that the owner not set certain rules for it, or that they must allow you to bring certain property on it?

As the owner of a piece of property, you have the right to kick anybody off for any reason or no reason, so yes, you have every right to kick people off for having aerosol cans, bibles, bumper stickers, or anything else. Or nothing. If you just don't like the way they look, you can tell them to scram.

The property owner owes no duty to you to justify their rule. It could be completely irrational, and it could be a rule against something that does him absolutely no harm... but that doesn't in any way diminish his property rights.

Lack of respect for the property rights of others is one of the biggest reasons our country is in such sorry shape.

And to answer the question about how far your property rights should extend -- they are like all your other liberties; they extend to the point that they do not infringe on anyone else's equal amount of liberty.

So you are saying that the rights of a property owner to set the rules on his property trump a person's right to have the means available to protect their life? Just curious.

 

[henschman]

Actually, your "right to kick anyone off" is already limited. Utility workers, fire, police, survey, Postal carriers, just to name a few. When society has a clear and compelling interest, it can indeed limit property rights. Mainting the ability of unorganized milita members to be able to respond toi a sudden and urgent contingency is clearly one of these. Some of the original colonies on the East coast had laws mandating the carrying of firearms to church.

That's what judges and governments have done to our natural liberty over the years, but no, they have no RIGHT to do that. The fact that our rights are commonly violated do not in any way diminish the fact that we have those rights. "society" has no rights or interests. Only individuals do. Society is just a collection of individuals, and has no more rights than any individual people do. There's nothing magical about organizing people together into a mob and calling it "society" that gives you the right to violate anybody's liberty. Notions like "society's clear and compelling interest" are pure collectivism and are antithetical to individual liberty.

So you are saying that the rights of a property owner to set the rules on his property trump a person's right to have the means available to protect their life? Just curious.

Property rights and the right to live, like all true rights, do not conflict with each other, so there's no need to decide which trumps which. You have an absolute right to protect your life whenever it is threatened. That doesn't mean you have the right to trespass on other people's property by carrying weapons when the owner prohibits it. If you feel it would be an unacceptable threat to your life to go without being armed, you have the choice of not going on that person's property.

 

[ExSniper]

Property rights and the right to live, like all true rights, do not conflict with each other, so there's no need to decide which trumps which. You have an absolute right to protect your life whenever it is threatened. That doesn't mean you have the right to trespass on other people's property by carrying weapons when the owner prohibits it. If you feel it would be an unacceptable threat to your life to go without being armed, you have the choice of not going on that person's property.

Many, if not most of us, are limited as to where we can work. Feeding our families and paying the bills trump "choosing" not to go on someone's property. It would be very nice to be able to choose to walk away from a job because of an irrational policy.
The laws usually recognize that we are to be secure in, have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and are free from illegal search and seizure in our vehicles. So why do my "property" rights end when I park said vehicle in a parking lot on your property?
The main problem is not that I cannot have it in your parking lot, it is that you are denying me protection coming and going to work. Would you, the employer, not then be responsible for my safety from the time I leave for work until the time I return home?
Our legislators need to understand this, as they are denying teachers and many government employees, including military personnel, from carrying the means to protect themselves.

 

[Joe S]

Many, if not most of us, are limited as to where we can work. Feeding our families and paying the bills trump "choosing" not to go on someone's property. It would be very nice to be able to choose to walk away from a job because of an irrational policy.
The laws usually recognize that we are to be secure in, have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and are free from illegal search and seizure in our vehicles. So why do my "property" rights end when I park said vehicle in a parking lot on your property?
The main problem is not that I cannot have it in your parking lot, it is that you are denying me protection coming and going to work. Would you, the employer, not then be responsible for my safety from the time I leave for work until the time I return home?
Our legislators need to understand this, as they are denying teachers and many government employees, including military personnel, from carrying the means to protect themselves.

I have been trying to come up with another way of saying this. But you said it very well, so I'm just going to agree with you.

 

[Roadking Larry]

That's what judges and governments have done to our natural liberty over the years, but no, they have no RIGHT to do that. The fact that our rights are commonly violated do not in any way diminish the fact that we have those rights. "society" has no rights or interests. Only individuals do. Society is just a collection of individuals, and has no more rights than any individual people do. There's nothing magical about organizing people together into a mob and calling it "society" that gives you the right to violate anybody's liberty. Notions like "society's clear and compelling interest" are pure collectivism and are antithetical to individual liberty.


Property rights and the right to live, like all true rights, do not conflict with each other, so there's no need to decide which trumps which. You have an absolute right to protect your life whenever it is threatened. That doesn't mean you have the right to trespass on other people's property by carrying weapons when the owner prohibits it. If you feel it would be an unacceptable threat to your life to go without being armed, you have the choice of not going on that person's property.

The property rights of businesses are not unlimited. As a business owner you cannot forbid someone to be on your property because of skin color, religion handicaps or any number of other reasons.
I'm right.
You are wrong
We have already beaten this dead horse may times here so I'm done.

 

[Old Fart]

Our legislators need to understand this, as they are denying teachers and many government employees, including military personnel, from carrying the means to protect themselves.

This. It is just not right.
Because many of these individuals end up working where there might very well be a higher expectation for the need.

Require that they have a lock box. OK.
Require that they have additional training. OK.
Require that they have additional background check. OK.

But to leave them out there hanging seems unfair.