HB 4027 Store firearm and Ammo in vehicle

[Tallbear]

HB 4027 of 2013 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2013-HB-4027)
Weapons; other; right to transportation and storage of firearms under certain circumstances; allow. Amends title of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.421 - 28.435) & adds secs. 1b & 16.
Last Action: 1/22/2013 referred to Committee on Judiciary

[MJ0865]

I like it, I don't my boss will though

[Cackler]

No taking the quad to work...

[gryphon]

I have been in communication with the legislature trying to get HB 5064 (Employee Firearms Parking Lot Law-not its official title) reintroduced. This will do it!

Hope this passes this session. We need it!

Except this got sent to the Judiciary Committee again, just like its predecessor last time, where it languished and died! :sad:

[zigziggityzoo]

We need to make sure the universities are also included in this.

[Quaamik]

I like it.

It strikes a resonable balance between property rights of who owns the parking lot and property and RKBA rights of those who are forced due to circumstances of employment to park there.

[BOSS302]

We need to make sure the universities are also included in this.

Yes, please!

[appliancebrad]

Michigan Chamber of Commerce, Michigan Manufactuers Association and the Utility Companys opposed this last session. Expect them to do so again this year.

[gryphon]

The following Representatives are on the House Judiciary Committee. I strongly urge all of you to contact them and encourage them to support HB 4027 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28e5x1hc45ykfacu55lzzpgwab%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2013-HB-4027&query=on) and send it out of committee.

HB 4027 gives Michigan workers the right to store a firearm in their car on private property, i.e., their employer’s parking lot or garage.

This is STRONGLY needed legislation. Other states have this, so should Michigan.

Kevin Cotter (Chair) KevinCotter@house.mi.gov
Klint Kesto (Vice Chair) KlintKesto@house.mi.gov
Kurt Heise KurtHeise@house.mi.gov
Amanda Price AmandaPrice@house.mi.gov
Brad Jacobsen BradJacobsen@house.mi.gov
Joel Johnson JoelJohnson@house.mi.gov
Tom Leonard TomLeonard@house.mi.gov
Ellen Lipton ellenlipton@house.mi.gov
Jeff Irwin jeffirwin@house.mi.gov
Paul Clemente paulclemente@house.mi.gov
Robert Kosowski RobertKosowski@house.mi.gov

Employees should have the legal right to store their personal protection firearm in their car while at work. Otherwise an employee is effectively disarmed while going to and from work—and associated activities until he or she gets home—and often it is not practical to park off-site. It also may not be safe to park off-site, both for you and the security of your firearm.

Many other states have this law, including our neighbor to the south Indiana, without problems.

[SteveS]

Michigan Chamber of Commerce, Michigan Manufactuers Association and the Utility Companys opposed this last session. Expect them to do so again this year.

These groups have a great deal of influence. This is not good.

[achalmers]

I contacted the members of the committee as well as my representative -- letting them all know the citizens of Michigan are watching how they vote on HB4027. We have to keep the pressure on them!

[Cackler]

These groups have a great deal of influence. This is not good.


Studley may be preoccupied with the fact that his daughter could be looking at prison.

http://www.themorningsun.com/article/20130124/NEWS01/130129861/0/SEARCH/hedrick-ordered-to-stand-trial-in-medical-child-abuse-case

[ltdave]

I have been in communication with the legislature trying to get HB 5064 (Employee Firearms Parking Lot Law-not its official title) reintroduced. This will do it!

Hope this passes this session. We need it!

Except this got sent to the Judiciary Committee again, just like its predecessor last time, where it languished and died! :sad:

thank you for posting this information (bold)...


Amends title of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.421 - 28.435) & adds secs. 1b & 16.

this and the link to basically nothing, told me well.... nothing

[MSGT]

Won't help me any, working for the DoD.

[gryphon]

thank you for posting this information (bold)...this and the link to basically nothing, told me well.... nothing
Do you understand how to read amended legislation? Old parts are stuck out, new parts are bolded.

Did you read the legislation? What confused you? You didn't understand my post number nine? (http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showpost.php?p=1907236&postcount=9)

[Leader]

Considering we are being given a choice between a sales tax hike & vehicle registration hike, why not write a bill that gives a choice of allowing guns in the parking lot with no liability and 100% liability from home to home again if someone gets hurt or robbed or anything happens where a gun MIGHT have been used to protect anyone that is prohibited in any way from being armed where they are?

[Quaamik]

E-mails sent

[Walther]

I work in a place that specifically restricts having any firearm on the property. The employee's handbook gives them the right to search your vehicle at will, although it's never happened. Penalty is instant discharge.

If this passes, upper management will be pulling out their collective liberal hair.

[Quaamik]

I got several responses to my e-mails. All supportive. This just may have a chance of at least getting out of committee.

For those writing / speaking to the legislatures on it, if I may I'd like to suggest a tact on this subject:

We as gun owners tend to focus on the "gun" issue here. RKBA as listed in the State constitution and the Federal constitution. We often grumble or become combative when confronted with property rights arguements against it, falling back on RKBA rights as the "higher" right. That is a mistake.

Property rights all have limits. Namely property lines. Definitions of where one persons property ends and anothers starts. We should push that all we want is to define that the owner of a parking lot owns the lot, not the cars they give permission to park there and they definately cannot control what is in those cars.

Many years ago, the big three tried to prohibit employees from driving competitors cars onto company lots. They lost that fight. No one with any sense would attempt to argue that a company had the right to prevent someone from haveing a given brand of newspaper, or type of book, or even a religous book in thier glove box. A company that tried to force employees to show them all the pictures on thier private phone would find themselves in all kinds of hot water over privacy issues (unless they were trying to prove the employee was stealing secrets, and even then they'd have a hard time).

Gun in cars should be the same thing. What you have in your trunk is your business and the company should not have the legal right to even ask to search it. They can't ask to search your house. Their "property" is the parking lot. It stops at your tires. they can allow you to park there or forbid it, but thats the limit of what they can do. Then can't say "only republicans can park here". They can't say you cannot have a copy of the bible in your car. They can't tell you that you cannot have a cell phone in your car. Why can they tell you you can't have a gun?

[gryphon]

Good post, Quaamik!

[achalmers]

I got a reply from a few people. The typical non-committal B.S. about how they'll take my thoughts in mind. Here's a particularly interesting email I received from Rep. Kurt Heise. He claims he cannot control or determine what the federal government does in regards to gun control laws. I agree he can't determine, but he (and the rest of the Michigan house and senate) can control what the federal government can do through nullification and the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Here was his email response to me:

Thank you for your email regarding gun regulations in Michigan.

On December 18, the Governor vetoed Senate Bill 59, regarding requirements for licensing and concealed weapons permitting in Michigan, sending it back to the legislature for further review. The bill will likely be re-introduced this year with additional changes as recommended by the Governor. The Obama Administration and Congress are also coming out with gun control regulations, which I as a State Legislator cannot control or determine. This of course is the responsibility of our U.S. Senators and our Congressman.

In light of the recent tragedy in Connecticut, the Governor has directed the Department of Community Health (DCH) to partner with the departments of Human Services and Education, as well as the State Court Administrative Office and law enforcement, to evaluate systems of care for at-risk children, and identify gaps and create a comprehensive plan to bolster early intervention efforts to address behavioral, emotional and mental health issues; Tasked the DCH to work with law enforcement and the courts to facilitate regional training to better identify tools that can be used for identifying high-risk youth and collaborate with partners to increase mental health awareness efforts, which will include promoting resources available to people in need of assistance; Directed DCH and DHS to explore ways to incorporate community mental health workers into the Pathways to Potential model that is underway in schools; Requested that the Department of State Police and Department of Education review best practices and policies of safe school plans across Michigan and help develop a means of greater access to strategies for students to find ways of resolving conflicts peacefully; asked local school districts to offer practical ways to help prevent the introduction of weapons on school property to maintain the sanctity of a safe educational environment for students and educators.

While the Governor's concerns on this bill were an issue before the recent tragedy in Connecticut, I will certainly join with him in reviewing the results of his recent directives, in the hopes that we can craft a common-sense policy that addresses public safety, mental health, privacy rights, and our Constitutional rights. I will certainly keep your ideas in mind as we work together on this important issue.


Again, thank you for your comments and concerns.

Kurt L. Heise
State Representative
20th District
699 House Office Building
Lansing, MI 48909-7514
kurtheise@house.mi.gov
517-373-3816
Fax: 517-373-5952
Toll Free: 1-855-REP-KURT

This is the typical noncommittal response.

[Quaamik]

I got the same reply from Rep. Heise. From it, I assume he didn't even read the e-mail i sent, as it had nothing to do with schools or SB-59.

I pointed that out in a reply.

[Olds]

Any updates on this bill?

[Liberty]

deleted

[MI_XD]

I just sent a message to Rep Gail Haines, who submitted this bill, to see what she can do to get this going again. Am going to send a message to my Rep., Aric Nesbitt to have him give her his support on this. Now, are the members of the Judicial Committee the same as listed earlier in this thread? This one needs to see some action, or be re-submitted.

MI_XD

[plumbum]

what will this bill do again? i was trying to decifer and had a hard time

[MI_XD]

It allows us to store our weapons in our private vehicles while legally parked in an employer's parking lot. So, people don't have to be defenseless driving to and from work. Sets up recourse if a person is fired for having their weapon stored in their private vehicle.

MI_XD

[XDM 40 cal]

I Hope this happens... Companys need to understand there are Good people that have to goto bad areas...to work.

[plumbum]

OMG. I need this to happen.For the last 10yrs I have only worked mainly in 3 spots. All a terrible area.

Zug island, marathon petroleum, severstal.
At times lots of long hours, driving through del ray at 1am. lol well all of those places have strict parking lot rules.
Especially with guns. Ultimately I wouldn't get in as much trouble because I'm a sub so basically they would just ban me for life. Which sucks I have a long time to go in my carreer still and don't need to get banned from those places

[rexzor2007]

I'm kinda surprised more business owners on here haven't started jumping down throats over this. Normally when bills like this are mentioned on here panties get twisted with posts like ,"The govt is trampling on business/private property rights...again" or "the constitution keeps the govt from taking away your rights, it does not protect you from private citizens doing so." (paraphrased of course).
Thankfully, my boss encourages me to carry both on work sites and when doing office work in his home office so it's not an issue (he says it's free armed security LOL), but once Nursing school is over that will be a completely different ballgame. Either way, I hope it passes. People shouldn't have to worry about what might happen to them on their way to and from work and being unprepared for it.

[LibertyComrade]

Others should not infringe upon our rights to protect ourselves. We (gun-rights supporters), similarly, should not infringe upon the rights of others to manage their property and employment contracts as they see fit.

This is a bad bill.

If you don't like the policies of your employer, don't work for them. Making the choice between accepting wages in exchange for labor, if that means you must compromise values you hold dear, is a price you (should) have to make in a free society.

[D-Man]

If you don't like the policies of your employer, don't work for them.

I agree with your premise, but the "if you don't like it, don't work for them..." Viewpoint is far too easy to say and in many cases, is devoid of reality.

It's up to each individual to weigh the major factors involved in their situation.
The ratio of people who dislike their companies policies is probably pretty high vs those who don't.

Again, I totally agree that employers have such a right, but to cut n dry the 'solution' in this way is a bit cavalier.

EDIT...
It does seem that we agree after reading your post again. About the price we chose to pay and compromise...that is what I was thinking.

[One of Many]

Basic HUMAN RIGHTS should not be subject to the arbitrary whims of any individual, company, corporation, or government. Self defense is a basic human right. Having the means with which to protect yourself as you go about conducting lawful activities should also be considered a basic human right. We pass laws to protect society from those who intentionally harm others, and that is why we put violent aggressors in prison. Those who defend themselves against violent aggression should not be punished, nor should they be prohibited from defending themselves, or having a tool with which they may defend themselves.

Victims of violent aggression should be allowed to use the same level of force as those who are attacking. In this society that means firearms that are readily accessible. If an employer wants to prevent their employees from defending themselves while on paid time and on employer property, that employer should be required to provide protection to the employees during that time and during their commute. If they refuse to provide that protection during the commute, then they have no right to prohibit the employee from possessing the tools of self defense in areas where the employer refuses to provide protection.

Parking lots are typically not protected areas. Employees should have the right to possess firearms within their private vehicles that they use to commute to their place of employment. Given a choice between providing protection during the employees commute, or allowing firearms to be stored by employees in their private vehicles on employer property, which will the employer choose? The least expensive option, which is to allow employees to store firearms in the privately owned vehicles. The other alternative is for employees who are victims of violent aggression during their commute, to bring civil litigation against the employer for damages and loss of income due to the violence they were unable to defend against. The least expensive measure is for the employer to allow legal firearm possession in private vehicles on employer owned parking lots.

[D-Man]

One of many,

I'm not going to deny your opinion out of hand, but parts of your argument can be taken beyond your intended stance.
For instance, LIFE is a basic human right, so is an employer responsible for your safety from a fatal crash during your commute as well?

I see the point you are making, and I agree many would bennefit from the freedom to carry on their commute. But I think the line was stretched a bit.

If this law passes I will have mixed feelings. I will be glad I can carry en route, but know that another's rights were abridged...however much I don't agree with their opinion.

[rexzor2007]

Many good, valid points, on all sides. I think, with most issues, it has come down to which is the greater evil: to deny business owners the right to deny firearms on their property (or to deny them the right to feel cozy that their law/employee agreement abiding employees do not have guns in their cars), or to allow business owners the right to right to infringe upon the the 2nd amendment rights citizens to possess firearms in their private vehicles. Sadly, because no middle ground can be found, it is now down to which is more of a rights violation than the other. The way I've have rationalized it is employees being allowed to carry doesn't have much of an effect on the employer, as the gun is in the car and not on the person while they are working. If it passes, employers just don't have that "peace of mind" that their law/employee agreement abiding employees don't have a gun in their car. That's really all they lose. It can be taken as far as they no longer have the right to dictate what can be allowed on their property, but just as we don't have to work for them, they don't have to own a business. That logic works both ways.

[One of Many]

Look at contributing factors when evaluating where responsibility lies. An employer is not responsible for the employees choice of mode of transportation used during the commute, or the operation of the vehicle used, so is not responsible for traffic accidents. If the employer is responsible for the employee being unarmed when someone violently attacks the employee during that commute, due to a ban on firearms in employee vehicles on employer parking lots, then there is a level of employer responsibility for the consequences of that violent attack.

An employer can not guarantee the safety of their employees while commuting, but they can reduce the safety of the employee by restricting the exercise of basic human rights. If the employer chooses to increase the risk to the employee, then the employer should be held responsible for that risk. What is the life of an employee worth? The answer depends on who is asking the question. To the employer it may be just the cost of training a replacement worker, but to the family of the employee it can be much higher.

[LibertyComrade]

Basic HUMAN RIGHTS should not be subject to the arbitrary whims of any individual, company, corporation, or government. Self defense is a basic human right. Having the means with which to protect yourself as you go about conducting lawful activities should also be considered a basic human right. We pass laws to protect society from those who intentionally harm others, and that is why we put violent aggressors in prison. Those who defend themselves against violent aggression should not be punished, nor should they be prohibited from defending themselves, or having a tool with which they may defend themselves.

Victims of violent aggression should be allowed to use the same level of force as those who are attacking. In this society that means firearms that are readily accessible. If an employer wants to prevent their employees from defending themselves while on paid time and on employer property, that employer should be required to provide protection to the employees during that time and during their commute. If they refuse to provide that protection during the commute, then they have no right to prohibit the employee from possessing the tools of self defense in areas where the employer refuses to provide protection.

Parking lots are typically not protected areas. Employees should have the right to possess firearms within their private vehicles that they use to commute to their place of employment. Given a choice between providing protection during the employees commute, or allowing firearms to be stored by employees in their private vehicles on employer property, which will the employer choose? The least expensive option, which is to allow employees to store firearms in the privately owned vehicles. The other alternative is for employees who are victims of violent aggression during their commute, to bring civil litigation against the employer for damages and loss of income due to the violence they were unable to defend against. The least expensive measure is for the employer to allow legal firearm possession in private vehicles on employer owned parking lots.

All true rights are basic human rights. All others are legal artifacts that we call "rights" (like the right to an education or something else similarly ridiculous), but which are not what I am talking about.

The right to defend yourself is a basic human right, I agree. So are property rights. Without property rights you cannot claim the right to self-defense, because property rights include the right to one's self, one's body, one's life. Only with those property rights in place can the right to self-defense be derived. You have the right to yourself as property, and you therefore have the right to defend yourself.

Your rights also end where the rights of another begins. That's how rights work, they are subject to the individual and govern the boundaries between individuals in order to differentiate right from wrong.

You have the right to self-defense. Your employee has the right to manage their property and business as they see fit. You voluntarily contract with the employer to exchange your labor for wages and other benefits/compensation. In doing so you are permitted on that owner's property for specific purposes. You are there under their permission and that permission, just like permission into any other private property (like a residence), can be conditional. If you don't like those conditions, don't enter. You don't have to do so. No one is forcing you.

Now, as mentioned above the "cut and dry" approach may seem "idealistic" to some, but it's really not. You have a right to life, but that doesn't mean you can force others to feed you (sacrificing their property rights). It's the same with the right to self-defense. You have the right to self-defense, but that doesn't mean you can force employers to allow you to trespass on their property against their wishes (sacrificing property rights). Doing so is wrong, it's that simple.

It's not an issue of the "lesser of two evils". Only this bill is evil. A property owner/employer not allowing you easy access to your preferred method of self-defense is not evil, it is an assertion of their property rights. You may not like it, and I'd agree with you, but that doesn't make it wrong or evil.

[D-Man]

I just want to say that the comments on this thread are a breath of fresh air. All points were / are being presented fairly without the typical "condescension" that seems to accompany Internet discussion.

Bravo.:cheers:

[dstallguy]

I've reviewed the parking lot / personal property position with my prepaid legal counselor. Their position is that as long as the parking lot of the employer is open public access and not a gated or restricted-access lot, parking deck, campus, etc. (even if the gates are normally open) then it can likely be considered "acceptable for concealed carry in the car". Case in point: If you work in automotive and work for Ford as an employee, contractor, or supplier-resident, it is not permissible to have a firearm in your vehicle on their premises. This is stated in the Ford policy and is handed out to suppliers that do business with them. If you're caught, you face termination. If you're a supplier, you will lose your building access rights and privileges. My employer has a parking lot for employees that is accessible to the general public day or night without restriction. No specific reference either in the employee handbook; therefore, my legal counsel advised me that this can be considered "not the premises".

[One of Many]

The right to defend yourself from violent attack is not dependent on property rights. The life of an individual is more important than any property that individual may own. The right to life is the highest importance among the basic human rights.

Over the course of human history, many cultures have used human slaves as property, for economic gain of the owner, but still recognized the right to life of the slave. That right to life supersedes the property right of the owner. The same limitation applies to the social contract we call the employer/employee relationship. That is an exchange of services/value between two parties, and with the rules of society setting limitations upon both parties for the common good of society in general. That means that restrictions can be placed upon both the employer and the employee for the good of society, as long as the basic rights of either are not harmed.

There is no harm to the employer in requiring that employer to recognize the employee's right to self defense and possession of his own property while on the property owned by the employer. Some employers prohibit employees from possessing phones and cameras on employer property, due to concerns about espionage and theft of intellectual property. That is not a basic human right of the employee, and no one is trying to say that the employee may not possess those items within their personal vehicles on employer parking lots.

It seems that the only real issue is employee owned firearms inside employee vehicles on employer parking lots. We all know that the real reason for those gun bans has nothing to do with property rights of either the employer or the employee. It is all about extending control over the employee into the unpaid time when the employee is not working. We have seen similar efforts where employers have fined employees because they choose to indulge in legal substances such as tobacco or alcohol, and neither of those have anything to do with the basic right to self defense, nor protecting the interests of the employer.

[Leader]

The employer is not responsible for the criminal actions of their employees or of others on their property.

[LibertyComrade]

The right to defend yourself from violent attack is not dependent on property rights. The life of an individual is more important than any property that individual may own. The right to life is the highest importance among the basic human rights.

A right is a right. If it's not a right, we should call it something different. Property rights are the originator of all other rights, as they include the right of self-ownership (from which all other rights, including the right to self-defense derive). If we don't have property rights, no other rights are relevant as they all derive from the most basic of property rights which is self-ownership. If I can't own property then I don't own myself, in which case the right of self-defense is no longer a derived right.


Over the course of human history, many cultures have used human slaves as property, for economic gain of the owner, but still recognized the right to life of the slave. That right to life supersedes the property right of the owner. The same limitation applies to the social contract we call the employer/employee relationship. That is an exchange of services/value between two parties, and with the rules of society setting limitations upon both parties for the common good of society in general. That means that restrictions can be placed upon both the employer and the employee for the good of society, as long as the basic rights of either are not harmed.

No, the imposition of limitations by external parties to an otherwise voluntary agreement between individuals or groups of individuals is tyrannical. And, by the very nature of your argument you're harming the basic rights (property rights) of employers and property owners. You just somehow place some rights as being more important than others, which is hogwash. Human rights ALL derive from the principle of self-ownership and therefore are all of utmost and equivalent importance. That's why they're called rights. If we're going to stratify and prioritize them then they are no longer absolute, and no longer rights.


There is no harm to the employer in requiring that employer to recognize the employee's right to self defense and possession of his own property while on the property owned by the employer. Some employers prohibit employees from possessing phones and cameras on employer property, due to concerns about espionage and theft of intellectual property. That is not a basic human right of the employee, and no one is trying to say that the employee may not possess those items within their personal vehicles on employer parking lots.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

a.) The employer *is* harmed. You've stolen their free will in how they manage the property that they rightfully own. This is the same level of harm that would be achieved if someone just barged into your home against your will and did things there that you didn't consent to. Or if they borrowed an object of yours without your consent and used it in a manner you did not approve of.

b.) Also, the right to own and posses private property like cell phones and cameras IS a basic human right, just like all other forms of property rights (which I must emphasize again are necessary for the right to self-defense to exist in the first place).

c.) Even though the right to posses cell phones and cameras *is* a right inherent to all, it does not supercede the right of the bounding property owner from imposing limitations on owners of such devices from using his property. Leaving a camera or a phone is a condition a property owner can rightfully impose before using their property...just the same as firearms or any other rightfully owned piece of property.


It seems that the only real issue is employee owned firearms inside employee vehicles on employer parking lots. We all know that the real reason for those gun bans has nothing to do with property rights of either the employer or the employee. It is all about extending control over the employee into the unpaid time when the employee is not working. We have seen similar efforts where employers have fined employees because they choose to indulge in legal substances such as tobacco or alcohol, and neither of those have anything to do with the basic right to self defense, nor protecting the interests of the employer.

It doesn't matter what the property owner's intents are. You can disagree with them all you want, and I do just as you do, but that doesn't mean that it's wrong or that we can use the force/violence inherent in state-enforced legislation to bend them to our will.

As for it being unpaid time, that's irrelevant. The ownership of the property doesn't toggle on/off based on when the employee is being paid. All of that is controlled by the voluntarily contract of labor between the laborer and their employer. If the laborer objects strongly enough to the employer's conditions they are perfectly free to no longer sell them their labor. Simple as that.

[goplayer]

But the car belongs to me so I should the right to determine what is stored in my property. The problem is that you have overlapping property. Some what similar to mineral rights. I can own the mineral rights under your property and you have no say about what I do with it.

[LibertyComrade]

But the car belongs to me so I should the right to determine what is stored in my property. The problem is that you have overlapping property. Some what similar to mineral rights. I can own the mineral rights under your property and you have no say about what I do with it.

Except that although you're in your car, your car is entering/on/passing through, their land. You're not in a "property" bubble just because you're riding in a piece of your own property. They still have the right to deny the entrance of your property, including your car, onto their property unless under certain conditions (such as not transporting a weapon within your other property).

[zigziggityzoo]

Except that although you're in your car, your car is entering/on/passing through, their land. You're not in a "property" bubble just because you're riding in a piece of your own property. They still have the right to deny the entrance of your property, including your car, onto their property unless under certain conditions (such as not transporting a weapon within your other property).


In Kentucky, that's exactly how it works. Your car interior is an extension of your home, and you enjoy all the rights that come with that, including the ability to carry concealed.

By allowing vehicles onto your property, you are effectively a landlord of a mobile home lot. You can police who can enter, but you cannot control (nor are you held responsible for) what happens inside the vehicle.

To me, I think this is a good compromise.

[One of Many]

We seem to have two different ideas of what the supreme human right actually is. Some say it is Property Rights that are above all else and to which every other right (including the right to life) is subject to restriction, while I say that the Right to Life and by extension the right to Defend that life using any necessary property takes precedence. I know the source of the Right to Life, as it is proclaimed in the Holy Bible which is the authority for all of the rights we claim. Within the Bible we see that God did not give every human the right to possess property, and did allow some humans to own other humans. That seems to me to nullify the claim that property rights are supreme and inviolate.

I would like to know what is the source of authority for those who claim that Property Rights are the foundation upon which all other rights rest. Is it a religious authority, or a secular authority? How old is that authority, and how has that authority been communicated to mankind?

[Kitgun]

Some folks from the Chamber of Commerce on board with this.

[LibertyComrade]

We seem to have two different ideas of what the supreme human right actually is. Some say it is Property Rights that are above all else and to which every other right (including the right to life) is subject to restriction, while I say that the Right to Life and by extension the right to Defend that life using any necessary property takes precedence. I know the source of the Right to Life, as it is proclaimed in the Holy Bible which is the authority for all of the rights we claim. Within the Bible we see that God did not give every human the right to possess property, and did allow some humans to own other humans. That seems to me to nullify the claim that property rights are supreme and inviolate.

I would like to know what is the source of authority for those who claim that Property Rights are the foundation upon which all other rights rest. Is it a religious authority, or a secular authority? How old is that authority, and how has that authority been communicated to mankind?

A.) The right to property *IS* the right to life. You're the only one drawing a distinction between the two. Self-ownership is the right from which all other rights derive, and self-ownership is a property right.

I own myself. Therefore I own my body. Therefore I both (a) possess the right to defend my body and life and (b) possess the right to the fruits of the labor of my body (such as wages, products, services, whatever). The right to self-defense and the right to own things other than yourself both derive from self-ownership. Taking away either deprives an individual of their rights of self-ownership.

One practical way to look at it is how valuable is your life if someone took everything but your life from you? You lost all your property, your freedom of movement, your freedom to make life decisions for yourself, etc? Not really a life worth living. The right to life and the right of property and self-ownership are all intertwined and all absolute.

B.) You need to learn your Biblical history. Slaves, as referenced Biblically within the nation of Israel, were actually indentured servants. It wasn't that they weren't allowed to own property, but rather that they incurred debts and then contracted to be long-term servants to the debtor in order to absolve themselves of those debts.

The only slaves within the Bible that were actually enforced into their servitude were the Jewish people by other nations, and God liberated them.

EDIT:

C.) Rights don't "come from an authority", that's what make them rights. Rights derive from the very nature of mankind. As a Godly man I believe that our nature was set by His design. So saying our rights "come from God" isn't wholly incorrect but it is overly simplistic and causes unnecessary friction with non-believers.

God didn't touch our foreheads and pour rights into us, or any other mythological nonsense like that. Rather God set all of creation, including the universe, into motion according to the laws of nature that fit His design. Those laws of nature gave rise to the creation of Man (evolution, creationism, whatever you want to call it). Man therefore was created to behave in a specific way, namely by having free will (i.e. self-ownership). The cornerstones of free will being individuality and self-awareness.

All men can and do understand that free will/self-ownership is inherent to the nature of man. (Even slave owners and tyrants understand the concept, they simply choose to be evil and infringe upon the rights of others.) That is why self-ownership is the originator of all human rights, because it is the inherent nature of mankind since our creation (by God's design). From free will/self-ownership all other rights derive.

If the right to life was the supreme right then it would apply to all living things (like plants and animals) and not just mankind, because God gave other beings life. However, this is not the case as is obvious by the nature of God's design for the universe. Animals eat other animals, by His design, depriving one another of their lives.

Man, however, derives the "right to life" from our original right set by God (free will/self-ownership) as a social construct on how to live together according to His will. The difference between Man and other living things isn't that we have life, obviously, but rather that we have free will.

Therefore the "right to life" is a derivative right from the originating right of self-ownership, just as is the right to property such as owning objects. They are both just as important and just as absolute. Denying one or the other is a denial of God's will, by denying individuals their free will/self-ownership which was His plan for that individual



In Kentucky, that's exactly how it works. Your car interior is an extension of your home, and you enjoy all the rights that come with that, including the ability to carry concealed.

By allowing vehicles onto your property, you are effectively a landlord of a mobile home lot. You can police who can enter, but you cannot control (nor are you held responsible for) what happens inside the vehicle.

To me, I think this is a good compromise.

Except that's nonsensical. If the lot-owner has the policing right on deciding who can enter, then that means they have the right to set conditions of entry. Which is exactly what I've been saying all along. Saying that they have policing powers on who can enter but then claiming they can't deny entry based on what is inside or going on inside the vehicles because it's not their property means that they actually do not have policing powers on who can enter their property after all. These are contradictory statements.

[One of Many]

Apparently in your examination of the Bible, you chose to overlook the fact that God does not disapprove of human slavery. He regulated it in the Hebrew Laws, but they did not apply to other nations. In your New Testament, Christ does not say that slave ownership is bad, he tells slave owners to treat their human property with respect because they are under God's authority, and he tells slaves to obey their masters. Those slaves owned only what their masters allowed them to posses, other than their own right to life.

God demanded that human life be protected, and that those who chose to take life without justification under the law be punished by rule of law. That law required that animals also be put to death when they caused the loss of human life. When an animal belonging to one person killed another person, that animal was to be killed, and when the animal had a history of aggression and was allowed by the owner to cause death to others, the owner of the animal was to be put to death according to the law.

That hardly seems to be setting Property rights above the Human Right to Life. God considers all of His creation to be His property. God's right to property is inviolate. He allows his human property to exercise free will, but that free will does not authorize those humans to nullify the Laws that God communicated to mankind. All human rights are a gift from God, and we have them only as God allows us those rights. They do not exist separately from God, and they do not supplant God. The claim that Property Rights are the supreme right regardless of authority is fallacious.

[LibertyComrade]

Apparently in your examination of the Bible, you chose to overlook the fact that God does not disapprove of human slavery. He regulated it in the Hebrew Laws, but they did not apply to other nations. In your New Testament, Christ does not say that slave ownership is bad, he tells slave owners to treat their human property with respect because they are under God's authority, and he tells slaves to obey their masters. Those slaves owned only what their masters allowed them to posses, other than their own right to life.

God didn't regulate slavery in the Hebrew Laws...the Hebrew priests did that. The Old Testament laws handed down by God were 10 and they were simple. Indeed, the first Law handed down by God to the Israeli tribes actually mentioned slavery:

"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery." (Exodus 20:2)

The laws handed down by God actually included numerous provisions for property and contract law:
5.) Though shall not murder. You are not to deny someone their right to themselves.
6.) Though shall not commit adultery. You are not to break the contract between you and your spouse.
7.) Though shall not steal. You are not to deny others the right to own property.
10.) Though shall not covet. Others' property is their own. More of an ambiguous moral law, but it still seems to place pretty clear boundaries that

The Hebrew Laws were the High Priests best interpretations of God's commandments, they were not the direct words of God himself. This was an error on the parts of the High Priests based upon their limited understanding of God's will and work in the world and due to the influence of other heathen cultures, as I think most Judeo-Christian scholars and ethicists would tell you today.

So, I find it a bit of a stretch for you to be making the case that God somehow was "okey-dokey OK" with forced human slavery when the teachings of Christ are one of individual liberation which allow one to turn your focus to the worship of His Father. Christ didn't speak out against slavery, not because He supported it, but because His mission on Earth was not a worldly mission. He wasn't liberating us from the evil of others, He was liberating us from our own evils.


God demanded that human life be protected, and that those who chose to take life without justification under the law be punished by rule of law. That law required that animals also be put to death when they caused the loss of human life. When an animal belonging to one person killed another person, that animal was to be killed, and when the animal had a history of aggression and was allowed by the owner to cause death to others, the owner of the animal was to be put to death according to the law.

As noted above, he also commanded that property rights be protected. You're not to steal. That means taking property rights from someone. Stealing a loaf of bread and stealing someone's ability to manage their land are still both theft. I don't see anywhere in His commands where He states that the theft of life is better or worse than the theft of property.

One thing to consider is that the teachings of Christ on life were on eternal life, not temporal life. Not the kind of life you would defend with a gun, but the kind of life you'd defend with honest worship and communion with God. So it seems a silly argument that the right to temporal life is of supreme importance to a God whose primary teaching to Creation was on eternal life which is not dependent on temporal life.


That hardly seems to be setting Property rights above the Human Right to Life. God considers all of His creation to be His property. God's right to property is inviolate. He allows his human property to exercise free will, but that free will does not authorize those humans to nullify the Laws that God communicated to mankind. All human rights are a gift from God, and we have them only as God allows us those rights. They do not exist separately from God, and they do not supplant God. The claim that Property Rights are the supreme right regardless of authority is fallacious.

Fallacious, I do not think that word means what you think it means. Because you haven't proven any fallacies, you've just stated opinions and interpretations with lacking evidence to support them.

To give you an example, this is fallacious: "He allows his human property to exercise free will, but that free will does not authorize those humans to nullify the Laws that God communicated to mankind."

Free will actually does authorize humans to nullify the laws that God communicated to mankind. That's literally what it does. God commanded (handed down a law) to Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge. They by their free will, however, ate of it anyway.

The entire intent of free will is to allow humans to defy God (i.e. to commit sin). Because only with the ability to reject God can we have the ability to choose to accept God, which is what God wants from us. God created Man with free will specifically for this purpose, to create a unique being that could choose to love Him as He loves us. No other being in God's creation can do this, and it is because of our free will to defy God that it exists.

So, your statement is fallacious. Specifically it suffers from a logical fallacy known as "negative conclusion from an affirmative premise". Specifically you proposed several premises, directly and implied:
A.) God gave Man free will.
B.) Free will allows Man to make choices.

And came to the conclusion (C) Free will does not allow Man to make choices that God disapproves of. Your affirmative premises (A) and (B) to not logically conclude the negative premise (C). That's what a fallacy is.

[One of Many]

Now I know that you have no Biblical authority for your positions, except that which you give yourself. You have changed the word of God by adding to it, taking away from it, and perverting it to suit your own desires. You claim to show that God only gave ten laws, and that every other law is one made by men, but you can not even list those ten laws without adding your own commentary to them, which changes the meaning of what was given by God. You have set yourself up as being greater than God, which also makes you (in your mind) greater than any government of man. In other words, you do and say what you want, and what matters to you is only what you can get away with, or who is more powerful than you. You will comply with what is forced upon you by government, but say that government has no right to do what they are doing, because you disagree. Thus your position that property rights are the supreme factor in all of the nations of men.

[nmuskier]

We need to make sure the universities are also included in this.

Yes, I saw no exemption for universities or PFZ's like schools, churches, daycare... Hopefully that means they are included? The general public may be ale to park in these places, but employees often may not. It would be great if employees of these facilities could store in their car as well.

[LibertyComrade]

Now I know that you have no Biblical authority for your positions, except that which you give yourself. You have changed the word of God by adding to it, taking away from it, and perverting it to suit your own desires. You claim to show that God only gave ten laws, and that every other law is one made by men, but you can not even list those ten laws without adding your own commentary to them, which changes the meaning of what was given by God. You have set yourself up as being greater than God, which also makes you (in your mind) greater than any government of man. In other words, you do and say what you want, and what matters to you is only what you can get away with, or who is more powerful than you. You will comply with what is forced upon you by government, but say that government has no right to do what they are doing, because you disagree. Thus your position that property rights are the supreme factor in all of the nations of men.

Speaking of fallacies, this is known as an argumentum ad hominem. Rather than refute the argument or its points, you attempt to discredit the person or source of the argument.

So, I think this discussion has clearly come to an end. Your views have nothing to stand upon except unsubstantiated Biblical references, and so it has resorted to a discussion about me rather than the ideas expressed by me. I have no desire to engage in such a discussion with a faceless Internet persona. If you want to abuse the Word of God to commit evil, and support the commission of evil by others, against your fellow man there is little that I can do to stop you beyond presenting you with evidence of your transgression, as I've tried to do here.

This bill is a bad law. That's all I'm saying, and hopefully some people that read this thread will understand that and pull their support from it.

[One of Many]

Satan tempted Jesus by misusing the Holy Scripture. You seem to have the same intent. There is no evil in what I have said. Identifying false doctrines and those who profess them is required of those who follow Christ. I agree that further discussion with you is pointless. Get behind me, Satan.

This bill is good for the interests of society at large. No one is harmed by it.

[SADAacp]

As near as I can tell, 22 other states have similar laws already in place. While I'm fairly certain many of the employers in these states threw/are throwing a fit, there's no blood in the streets as a result of law-abiding firearm owners storing firearms in their vehicles while at work. A line needs to be drawn and it starts with the space that occupies the passenger compartment and trunk of an employees vehicle while on company property. If employers are highly concerned about disgruntled employees, disgruntled employees are not going to be concerned about what is or what is not legal when that time comes where they go ****oo for cocoa puffs.

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/MK-CH070_GUNS_G_20131015200309.jpg

[Winchester416]

I thought we were already allowed to?

I've done it for years, all though College and everyday at work I've spoken both to campus police at school and the security at work; both could not of cared less about me having a pistol in my car.... Your vehicle is just that yours.... their for not theirs.... Is it specifically against the law? I've always heard and was taught if it's in you vehicle their aren't any problems.... as for a church you only need permission from the minister or someone on the board to carry in the church, so why wouldn't you be able to keep the firearm in your vehicle? Heck I brought in a Bushmaster for my senior project presentation when I was in Mechanical Engineering.... I spoke to the dean before I did; and he wasn't the least bit worried about me/the rifle.... I told him all the hoops I was willing to jump though including being escorted by campus police; he laughed and said nope just bring it in! No worries!

[Caliper]

I thought we were already allowed to?

I've done it for years, all though College and everyday at work I've spoken both to campus police at school and the security at work; both could not of cared less about me having a pistol in my car.... Your vehicle is just that yours.... their for not theirs.... Is it specifically against the law? I've always heard and was taught if it's in you vehicle their aren't any problems.... as for a church you only need permission from the minister or someone on the board to carry in the church, so why wouldn't you be able to keep the firearm in your vehicle? Heck I brought in a Bushmaster for my senior project presentation when I was in Mechanical Engineering.... I spoke to the dean before I did; and he wasn't the least bit worried about me/the rifle.... I told him all the hoops I was willing to jump though including being escorted by campus police; he laughed and said nope just bring it in! No worries!

It's not neccasarily that it's illegal, but many employers have a policy against firearms in vehicles, wether cased in the trunk or not.

My employer has one such policy. So, if a firearm is seen or someone reports you to security then security will ask to search your car. Refuse the search and run a good risk of being fired. Let them search your car and if they find a firearm then you'll probably be fired as well.

Personally, I find this a violation of property rights. My car and whatever inside it (as long as it's legal) is my property and none of their business. Businesses don't always see it that way. This law is needed to have the state protect my property rights.

[MI_XD]

Personally, I find this a violation of property rights. My car and whatever inside it (as long as it's legal) is my property and none of their business. Businesses don't always see it that way. This law is needed to have the state protect my property rights.

+1000

MI_XD

[rexzor2007]

Personally, I find this a violation of property rights. My car and whatever inside it (as long as it's legal) is my property and none of their business. Businesses don't always see it that way. This law is needed to have the state protect my property rights.

The issue you will see on here, and from the opposition of this issue is Money > Rights. On here, if you point that out, you get called a Socialist and arguments get brought up about how we're only protected from actions by the govt, not private (let's be honest: money-making) citizens. Unfortunately, money being greater than rights is supported more often than not, especially on here.

[CyborgWarrior]

As near as I can tell, 22 other states have similar laws already in place. While I'm fairly certain many of the employers in these states threw/are throwing a fit, there's no blood in the streets as a result of law-abiding firearm owners storing firearms in their vehicles while at work. A line needs to be drawn and it starts with the space that occupies the passenger compartment and trunk of an employees vehicle while on company property. If employers are highly concerned about disgruntled employees, disgruntled employees are not going to be concerned about what is or what is not legal when that time comes where they go ****oo for cocoa puffs.

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/MK-CH070_GUNS_G_20131015200309.jpg

Workplace shootings down since 2004 sunset on the AWB.
Just saying...

[Draken]

Personally, I find this a violation of property rights. My car and whatever inside it (as long as it's legal) is my property and none of their business. Businesses don't always see it that way. This law is needed to have the state protect my property rights.

Even if it's illegal its none of their business, if you're caught with a kilo of coke in your car, the company is not responsible. You will go to jail for a long time, and your company will keep making money. I fully understand the property rights side of things, but as long as it is contained on MY property (in this case, my car), it is none of their concern...now as soon as I get out of my car with it, then it is on their property, and they can have all the say they want about it.

[Pyzik]

We need to make sure the universities are also included in this.

Indeed!
So far so good.

[jgillmanjr]

To those who support this parking lot law:

What would you say, or do, if your employer had an ECP at the entry of the parking lot and performed searches there to check for firearms?

Let's say this bill passed, and your employer asked you your position on the law, with a supportive position, or a response of no answer, leading to dismissal. What then?

Also, do you believe you have the RIGHT to work for any employer of your choosing?

[zigziggityzoo]

What's an ECP?

Assuming that I keep firearms in my car... and there was a security check for firearms I would find another place to park, or take public transportation again like I used to. Even though I DONT keep firearms in my car I would still find another place to park as I wouldn't want to be searched every day.

Assuming this law passed, nothing is stopping me from lying to my boss. If my response got me terminated, Them's the ropes. I'd find another place to work for, and as a second priority, see a lawyer about my options.

[jgillmanjr]

Derp on my end.

ECP == Entry Control Point

I also work for the department of redundancy department.

[MI_XD]

To those who support this parking lot law:

What would you say, or do, if your employer had an ECP at the entry of the parking lot and performed searches there to check for firearms?

Let's say this bill passed, and your employer asked you your position on the law, with a supportive position, or a response of no answer, leading to dismissal. What then?

Also, do you believe you have the RIGHT to work for any employer of your choosing?


Bolded portion: This bill has language that would make it ILLEGAL/Punishable for the Employer to terminate you for having your firearm in your vehicle.

MI_XD

[Roundballer]

Bolded portion: This bill has language that would make it ILLEGAL/Punishable for the Employer to terminate you for having your firearm in your vehicle.

MI_XD

The Employer can "dismiss" you for any reason, or no reason at all. They don't need one. It would be up to you to prove that you were "dismissed" because of this issue, and that it violated the law. Making it ILLEGAL to "dismiss" you for this reason would just force them to have ANY OTHER reason on hand if they are questioned.

[luckless]

The Employer can "dismiss" you for any reason, or no reason at all. They don't need one. It would be up to you to prove that you were "dismissed" because of this issue, and that it violated the law. Making it ILLEGAL to "dismiss" you for this reason would just force them to have ANY OTHER reason on hand if they are questioned.

+1


Why spend political capital on something that will have very little positive effect for our cause and may even generate a few, well-healed enemies that, currently, have no dog in this fight?

[Leader]

The Employer can "dismiss" you for any reason, or no reason at all. They don't need one. It would be up to you to prove that you were "dismissed" because of this issue, and that it violated the law. Making it ILLEGAL to "dismiss" you for this reason would just force them to have ANY OTHER reason on hand if they are questioned.

While that may be what Michigan being an "at will" state means, in reality my S-I-L CAN'T fire anybody. Not for missing work, not for not doing their job, it's almost impossible to fire people anymore.
It's also almost impossible to find people that want to actually work at a job rather then collect a pay check for showing up when it's convenient .

[sasquatchpa]

While that may be what Michigan being an "at will" state means, in reality my S-I-L CAN'T fire anybody. Not for missing work, not for not doing their job, it's almost impossible to fire people anymore.
It's also almost impossible to find people that want to actually work at a job rather then collect a pay check for showing up when it's convenient .

Can't....or won't......??

[Leader]

Can't....or won't......??

She says she can't.
Corp. won't let her because of the legal hassles.

[sasquatchpa]

I didn't mean to hijack....I have went through some stuff... People can be fired, for NO reason at all.

[PaulC]

I didn't mean to hijack....I have went through some stuff... People can be fired, for NO reason at all.
That depends... I'm sure a legal beagle can comment.. Contract law trumps "at will" and many employers have employment agreements.. A contract.. Now depending on the terms of said contract. I know my company abides by what the state says regarding firearms in cars. In Kentucky it is allowed so they allow it.. Not so much here in Michigan.

[Arthur Dent]

The Employer can "dismiss" you for any reason, or no reason at all. They don't need one. It would be up to you to prove that you were "dismissed" because of this issue, and that it violated the law. Making it ILLEGAL to "dismiss" you for this reason would just force them to have ANY OTHER reason on hand if they are questioned.

Where I work firing someone is a very long, drawn out process which can take a year or more in some cases. I think most places are like this so they can cover their asses legally.