SB 1028 firearm in vehicle located in parking lot

[Tallbear]

SB 1028 of 2014 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2014-SB-1028)
Weapons; licensing; employer limitations on employee possessing a concealed pistol in vehicle located in parking lot; prohibit. Amends sec. 5n of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.425n).
Last Action: 9/9/2014 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

[Roundballer]

All of the larger corporations are going to fight this one, just like they have in the past. Their argument will be "property rights" issues.

[Shyster]

All of the larger corporations are going to fight this one, just like they have in the past. Their argument will be "property rights" issues.

And that is a very valid argument. Do you want the government to tell you what you must allow on your property? I see both sides of this issue.

[RogueLeader]

And that is a very valid argument. Do you want the government to tell you what you must allow on your property? I see both sides of this issue.

The only deviation to that(and it is a small one) is that it is my property inside of my property, just like any of my other property inside of my car; especially if it is a legally owned item.

Of course, in theory, I could work someplace that would not worry about what I have in my car, but that is not always as easy done as said.

Personally, I would like to see this pass, though I have a feeling the chances are slim.

[Walther]

Doesn't matter, it will languish then die.

Wasn't this in the big gun bill that Snyder refused to sign?

[Draken]

And that is a very valid argument. Do you want the government to tell you what you must allow on your property? I see both sides of this issue.

The problem I have with this is that if you get caught with 2kilos of coke in your car, the employer is not going to get in trouble because it's "your" property...but as soon as it comes to having firearms inside it's "their" property. To much of a double standard, inside the car is mine, it is titled to me, not the company. Now if the company provided me with a car, I could see the point.

[sasquatchpa]

:yeahthat::thup::thup::thup:

We need a "like" symbol on each post

[_Shife_]

And that is a very valid argument. Do you want the government to tell you what you must allow on your property? I see both sides of this issue.
From a common sense standpoint I think for purposes of storing a firearm your vehicle should act as an extension of your personal property and allow someone to store their firearm before 'entering' someone else's property, but I understand that common sense is often not compatible with legal language.

[jgillmanjr]

The problem I have with this is that if you get caught with 2kilos of coke in your car, the employer is not going to get in trouble because it's "your" property...but as soon as it comes to having firearms inside it's "their" property. To much of a double standard, inside the car is mine, it is titled to me, not the company. Now if the company provided me with a car, I could see the point.

No. It's still your property. They should, however, be able to set a condition of parking on their lot the ability to inspect your vehicle for firearms.

[partdeux]

No. It's still your property. They should, however, be able to set a condition of parking on their lot the ability to inspect your vehicle for firearms.

NO

[Draken]

No. It's still your property. They should, however, be able to set a condition of parking on their lot the ability to inspect your vehicle for firearms.

No, they should not. What is in my car is mine, and is no business of my employer, no different then my house.

[jgillmanjr]

No, they should not. What is in my car is mine, and is no business of my employer, no different then my house.

Your house is also not parked on the employers property.

But wouldn't it be the business of your employer if it was their desire to not have firearms on company property?

[RogueLeader]

No. It's still your property. They should, however, be able to set a condition of parking on their lot the ability to inspect your vehicle for firearms.

What other contraban(in their eyes, even though your firearm is legal) should be all to find/inspect in a search of your vehicle.

Maybe they can say you are not allowed to have CDs(for the old school) or MP3s for heavy metal.
No coolers containing alcohol for your personal consumption offiste, after the work day is over.
No smoking in the building, so they should be able to say no smoking paraphernalia in your car.
No knives in your car.
Maybe no power tools of your own.

Yes, some of those are absurd, though, a few, not so much. Yet, they are all legal. Why only firearms?

Why is this not expanded to all property owners. If you pull in front of a store that does not allow firearms, but have a need to go in(no other choice), you will need to store your firearm in your car, and park your car off property.

Why is an employeer's property rights for their parking lot any better than the parking lot property rights of a business? So long as they are not violating any of the protected classes, why can they not have those rights?

Again, I admit, their is some absurdity in the above, but then again, look at some of the laws we have on our books.

[jgillmanjr]

NO

http://www.x-entertainment.com/pics/kool1.jpg

[jgillmanjr]

What other contraban(in their eyes, even though your firearm is legal) should be all to find/inspect in a search of your vehicle.

Maybe they can say you are not allowed to have CDs(for the old school) or MP3s for heavy metal.
No coolers containing alcohol for your personal consumption offiste, after the work day is over.
No smoking in the building, so they should be able to say no smoking paraphernalia in your car.
No knives in your car.
Maybe no power tools of your own.

Yes, some of those are absurd, though, a few, not so much. Yet, they are all legal. Why only firearms?

Why is this not expanded to all property owners. If you pull in front of a store that does not allow firearms, but have a need to go in(no other choice), you will need to store your firearm in your car, and park your car off property.

Why is an employeer's property rights for their parking lot any better than the parking lot property rights of a business? So long as they are not violating any of the protected classes, why can they not have those rights?

Again, I admit, their is some absurdity in the above, but then again, look at some of the laws we have on our books.

Why wouldn't it be expanded to all private property owners? You must be inferring something that I haven't said, nor am I thinking - I would argue that ALL private property owners should be able to set whatever conditions for being on their property. I'm not arguing it's smart, and I may not like them (such as the case of prohibiting firearms), but that's something for the market to make a determination of - not the heavy hand of government.

[RogueLeader]

Why wouldn't it be expanded to all private property owners? You must be inferring something that I haven't said, nor am I thinking - I would argue that ALL private property owners should be able to set whatever conditions for being on their property. I'm not arguing it's smart, and I may not like them (such as the case of prohibiting firearms), but that's something for the market to make a determination of - not the heavy hand of government.

Well, then the simple answer is that you either allow parking or you don't allow parking.

I have no problem(legally) with someone telling me that I cannot carry a firearm on their property. But, if it is in my car, then that is different.

I don't see it as being heavy handed for the government to say your the rights of your home extend to the interior of your car; I would welcome it.

And, I support the rights of a property owner telling me what I can and cannot bring on their property. If it is my firearm, then I will lock in my car. If they don't want my car on their propery, I will park somewhere else.

However, I would not consent to let anyone just search my vehicle. At best, they can just ask me to leave, and I will.

But, you did fail to answer my question, for an employeer, of how far their reach should go in regards to legal 'contraban'?

[jgillmanjr]

Well, then the simple answer is that you either allow parking or you don't allow parking.

I have no problem(legally) with someone telling me that I cannot carry a firearm on their property. But, if it is in my car, then that is different.

Why is it different? Is your car not parked on their property?


I don't see it as being heavy handed for the government to say your the rights of your home extend to the interior of your car; I would welcome it.

Again, your home is not parked on their property.


And, I support the rights of a property owner telling me what I can and cannot bring on their property. If it is my firearm, then I will lock in my car. If they don't want my car on their propery, I will park somewhere else.

However, I would not consent to let anyone just search my vehicle. At best, they can just ask me to leave, and I will.
Quoted for truth. Should they have the logically borked idea of requiring you submit to vehicular searches to verify no firearms in your vehicle, they should have that right without interference from the government. Don't like the idea? Like you said, park elsewhere.


But, you did fail to answer my question, for an employeer, of how far their reach should go in regards to legal 'contraban'?

Did you not read my reply?


I would argue that ALL private property owners should be able to set whatever conditions for being on their property.

If the company wanted to prohibit a empty mountain dew bottles from sitting in your car on their property, they should be able to. Again, I'm not saying I agree with it, or that it's smart, but they should have the right to do so, and let the market determine if they made the right call or not.

[Draken]

If the company wanted to prohibit a empty mountain dew bottles from sitting in your car on their property, they should be able to. Again, I'm not saying I agree with it, or that it's smart, but they should have the right to do so, and let the market determine if they made the right call or not.

NO! The car is just like my house, it is TITLED property, in my name. If I leave something IN my car, regardless of where it is parked, the stuff in my car is still located in MY property, thus the reason more and more states are treating it as an extension of your home, even when it comes to carrying a firearm.

[jgillmanjr]

NO! The car is just like my house, it is TITLED property, in my name.

Sweet jesus. Here, maybe you'll remember this if I paste it in big letters a couple times..

Your home is not parked on their property.
Your home is not parked on their property.
Your home is not parked on their property.
Your home is not parked on their property.


The fact it's titled really has no bearing on this conversation. Hell, the fact the car is yours isn't even in dispute.


If I leave something IN my car, regardless of where it is parked, the stuff in my car is still located in MY property
Again, a fact that isn't being challenged, nor does it change anything when your property is parked on someone elses property.


thus the reason more and more states are treating it as an extension of your home, even when it comes to carrying a firearm.
Or because there are legislators that realize that restricting the GOVERNMENT is a good thing.

[Draken]

Sweet jesus. Here, maybe you'll remember this if I paste it in big letters a couple times..

Your home is not parked on their property.
Your home is not parked on their property.
Your home is not parked on their property.
Your home is not parked on their property.


The fact it's titled really has no bearing on this conversation. Hell, the fact the car is yours isn't even in dispute.


Again, a fact that isn't being challenged, nor does it change anything when your property is parked on someone elses property.


Or because there are legislators that realize that restricting the GOVERNMENT is a good thing.

Wow, childish much?

You keep talk about it being parked on their property, so if someone stops by your house you have a right to search their car anytime you want? How about the government searching your car just because they want to without a warrant, since they own the roads you drive on. It has NOTHING to do with the location of where the tires are located, it has to do with the fact that it should be treated the same as your home. Your company has NO business worrying about what is in your car unless a. you threaten someone/the company, then they call in LEOs or b. if they have reasonable suspicion of theft, which guess what, once again they call in the LEOs. More and more states are passing laws to treat your car as an extension of your home because it has no bearing on the business what is in it. That would be much like working for lowes but getting fired because you have rigid tools in your car. Its stupid and should NOT be allowed.

[jgillmanjr]

Wow, childish much?
Nope, just seems like some people need help remembering things that were said at times.


You keep talk about it being parked on their property, so if someone stops by your house you have a right to search their car anytime you want?
If I felt like making it a condition I wanted to impose, yes.


How about the government searching your car just because they want to without a warrant, since they own the roads you drive on.
...
......
.........

Lulz wut?
I just want to make absolutely sure I read this correctly - you're trying to equate the stance on private property rights that I have with governmental due process?

Now THAT is lush!

Hell, I might have to spread that one around. That's comedy gold.


It has NOTHING to do with the location of where the tires are located, it has to do with the fact that it should be treated the same as your home.
Oh, but it does, because you are on someone else's PRIVATE property.


Your company has NO business worrying about what is in your car unless a. you threaten someone/the company, then they call in LEOs or b. if they have reasonable suspicion of theft, which guess what, once again they call in the LEOs.
So a company has no business policing its own property and enforcing its own policies... outstanding.


More and more states are passing laws to treat your car as an extension of your home because it has no bearing on the business what is in it.
Are these laws treating cars as an extension of the home for the purposes of search and seizure laws, or so that the force of government can be used to legally prevent a business owner from checking for prohibited items in their parking lots?


That would be much like working for lowes but getting fired because you have rigid tools in your car. Its stupid and should NOT be allowed.
Indeed. It would be stupid, but it should be allowed.

[scot623]

I'm all for gun rights but let's be real careful about what we want the government forcing people to do on their own private property, residence and/or business.

[SteveS]

And that is a very valid argument. Do you want the government to tell you what you must allow on your property? I see both sides of this issue.

I agree. As much as I would like some aspects of this law, I also resent the .gov increasing their power over private property owners.

[zigziggityzoo]

If you invite my car onto your property, then you invite its contents too. Just as you aren't liable for its contents (Ever hear walmart being prosecuted for a trunk meth lab? Thought not), you also may not dictate its contents. It is my own personal bubble of private property. You are not welcome inside it, even if it comes onto your property.

If you do not like that, you may prohibit my vehicle from entry.

Just my opinion. As of right now, the law does not agree.

[jgillmanjr]

If you invite my car onto your property, then you invite its contents too.

Just as you aren't liable for its contents (Ever hear walmart being prosecuted for a trunk meth lab? Thought not), you also may not dictate its contents. It is my own personal bubble of private property. You are not welcome inside it, even if it comes onto your property.

If you do not like that, you may prohibit my vehicle from entry.

Just my opinion. As of right now, the law does not agree.

The law doesn't agree? What about, exactly?

Everything you've said is logically correct.

You are free to set your conditions, I am free to set mine, and neither one can force our conditions on each other.




Although as I said - I wouldn't actually prohibit firearms.

[SteveS]

The law doesn't agree? What about, exactly?

Everything you've said is logically correct.

You are free to set your conditions, I am free to set mine, and neither one can force our conditions on each other.




Although as I said - I wouldn't actually prohibit firearms.

I don't see the difference, either. The owner of the property is saying that they don't want firearms on their property. It doesn't matter if they are on you or your car. By bringing a firearm in your car or on your person, you are violating the conditions of entry, unreasonable they may be. Your car isn't some kind of mobile sovereign state. Why should my car be given some kind of special status that my body doesn't have?

[zigziggityzoo]

I don't see the difference, either. The owner of the property is saying that they don't want firearms on their property. It doesn't matter if they are on you or your car. By bringing a firearm in your car or on your person, you are violating the conditions of entry, unreasonable they may be. Your car isn't some kind of mobile sovereign state. Why should my car be given some kind of special status that my body doesn't have?

IMO I think they should both have the same right. If you are a public accommodation, my car or my body and its appurtenance should be none of your business.

[Niteman9]

I think most employers only have this policy because the insurance companies require it. If this were to pass the insurance companies could no longer require the policy as a condition of coverage.

I know in Kentucky you vehicle is considered an extension of you home. You don't need any permits to keep a gun in your vehicle.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[DP425]

The problem I have with this is that if you get caught with 2kilos of coke in your car, the employer is not going to get in trouble because it's "your" property...but as soon as it comes to having firearms inside it's "their" property. To much of a double standard, inside the car is mine, it is titled to me, not the company. Now if the company provided me with a car, I could see the point.

I'll go out on a limb here and assume most employers do not allow their employees to store 2kg of blow in their cars either. I see no double standard. I see being fired either way.

[DP425]

If you invite my car onto your property, then you invite its contents too. Just as you aren't liable for its contents (Ever hear walmart being prosecuted for a trunk meth lab? Thought not), you also may not dictate its contents. It is my own personal bubble of private property. You are not welcome inside it, even if it comes onto your property.

If you do not like that, you may prohibit my vehicle from entry.

Just my opinion. As of right now, the law does not agree.

In effect, if they are saying no gun on property... and you refuse to take it out of your car... they are also saying no car on property

[DP425]

Wow, childish much?

You keep talk about it being parked on their property, so if someone stops by your house you have a right to search their car anytime you want?Yes- it goes like this; "Hi, if you'd like to remain on my property, you must allow me to search your car... No? Okay, GFYS, get off my property"... and for your employer, they can add "Oh, and you're fired". How about the government searching your car just because they want to without a warrant, since they own the roads you drive on. Uh... what? I thought we were talking about private persons and entities here It has NOTHING to do with the location of where the tires are located, it has to do with the fact that it should be treated the same as your home. Your company has NO business worrying about what is in your car unless a. you threaten someone/the company, then they call in LEOs or b. if they have reasonable suspicion of theft, which guess what, once again they call in the LEOs. More and more states are passing laws to treat your car as an extension of your home because it has no bearing on the business what is in it. That would be much like working for lowes but getting fired because you have rigid tools in your car. Its stupid and should NOT be allowed.

I'm mostly being devils advocate here; I'm pretty torn on the issue myself.

One important thing to remember- where the law already allows parking lots of PFZ's, it doesn't mandate you can carry there. As it stands right now, if a private daycare posts "no firearms in parking lot"... the fact that they are not considered part of the PFZ by law is irrelevant. If you work there and they say no firearms on the property, the parking lot exclusion to the PFZs doesn't matter one bit. That part of the law doesn't grant you a right to park there with a firearm, it only removes it from being a PFZ, as private property, it can still be administered however the owner(s) see fit.

[jgillmanjr]

IMO I think they should both have the same right. If you are a public accommodation, my car or my body and its appurtenance should be none of your business.
Sure - if by public accommodation you mean an actual public building.

The idea that government can dictate the practices of a private entity because such entity grants the general public the right to engage in commerce on their property without the need for some kind of club system is absurd.

[jgillmanjr]

Now here's something I'm surprised no one has picked up on yet.

In the event this bill passed, in its current form with no modifications, it seems like it would also preclude the State of Michigan from prohibiting firearms possession in vehicles for state employees.

[Leader]

I'm mostly being devils advocate here; I'm pretty torn on the issue myself.

One important thing to remember- where the law already allows parking lots of PFZ's, it doesn't mandate you can carry there. As it stands right now, if a private daycare posts "no firearms in parking lot"... the fact that they are not considered part of the PFZ by law is irrelevant. If you work there and they say no firearms on the property, the parking lot exclusion to the PFZs doesn't matter one bit. That part of the law doesn't grant you a right to park there with a firearm, it only removes it from being a PFZ, as private property, it can still be administered however the owner(s) see fit.

Not irrelevant at all in my mind, it changes the violation to a simple trespassing charge NOT a gun law violation in ANY way.

Now it has to be proven that you KNEW they didn't allow guns in the parking lot.

[Jared1981]

And that is a very valid argument. Do you want the government to tell you what you must allow on your property? I see both sides of this issue.
Government already tells businesses that they must....

1. Ban the possession of ignited tobacco (smoking).
2. Have handicap parking spaces
3. Stop serving alcohol at 2AM


They need to be consistent.

I would also argue that a car is private property and what you leave locked in there is of no concern to the business owner.

I would even go as far to say that since the state bans smoking, serving drinks after 2 etc. then the state mine as well force them to allow for lawful weapons carry since their business seems to already be ran by the state.

[partdeux]

I'll go out on a limb here and assume most employers do not allow their employees to store 2kg of blow in their cars either. I see no double standard. I see being fired either way.

One's illegal, the other isn't


I think most employers only have this policy because the insurance companies require it. If this were to pass the insurance companies could no longer require the policy as a condition of coverage.

Do you know that as a fact?

[Shyster]

Government already tells businesses that they must....

1. Ban the possession of ignited tobacco (smoking).
2. Have handicap parking spaces
3. Stop serving alcohol at 2AM


They need to be consistent.

I would also argue that a car is private property and what you leave locked in there is of no concern to the business owner.

I would even go as far to say that since the state bans smoking, serving drinks after 2 etc. then the state mine as well force them to allow for lawful weapons carry since their business seems to already be ran by the state.

For the record I am opposed to those regulations too.

[Niteman9]

I said "I think" therefore it's my opinion.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[jgillmanjr]

Government already tells businesses that they must....

1. Ban the possession of ignited tobacco (smoking).
2. Have handicap parking spaces
3. Stop serving alcohol at 2AM


They need to be consistent.

I would also argue that a car is private property and what you leave locked in there is of no concern to the business owner.

I would even go as far to say that since the state bans smoking, serving drinks after 2 etc. then the state mine as well force them to allow for lawful weapons carry since their business seems to already be ran by the state.

Yeah, arguing existing government overreach as a valid reason for further government overreach...

[partdeux]

Yeah, arguing existing government overreach as a valid reason for further government overreach...
What overreach? It's for your own safety.

[DP425]

Not irrelevant at all in my mind, it changes the violation to a simple trespassing charge NOT a gun law violation in ANY way.

Now it has to be proven that you KNEW they didn't allow guns in the parking lot.

That isn't in the context of what we are discussing. Someone had alluded to the idea that because the parking lots of PFZs are not PFZ, that they are protected from a private property owner saying you cannot carry there, and thus this bill is just an extension of that fact. This is 100% incorrect as the parking lot exclusion is just that, an exclusion for the PFZ, not an all encompassing grant to carry in those parking lots.



In terms of relevance to criminal charges, yes they are important. In terms of relevance to the topic at hand, it holds zero bearing.

[DP425]

One's illegal, the other isn't Look again at the quote I was referencing. I didn't bring up the whole drug deal. Someone made a claim that the employer wants to be all up in your business with firearms in your vehicle, but are hands off with coke. Granted, I haven't worked at every employer, not even but a handful... but I'm thinking it would be a safe wager to bet on 99% of employers having a "no drugs on premises" policy.



Do you know that as a fact?
Interesting thing about the insurance. We know MANY employers do not allow employees to carry guns, yet many of those same business allow carry by customers. Makes me curious how much at play insurance companies really are. I understand, liability is likely higher with an employee carrying, but still.

[Jared1981]

For the record I am opposed to those regulations too.

I had a feeling you would be.

[Jared1981]

Yeah, arguing existing government overreach as a valid reason for further government overreach...

That's how I see it. Besides, private property doesn't truly exist in America (or most other places around the world). The government owns the property and rents it to you. If you don't pay your quick rent (property tax), you will see how fast your "private property" suddenly isn't yours anymore.

Since people truely don't own property, the state mine as well force them to allow guns since they are only renting it anyway.... And they run every other aspect as well which people love anyway.

I would rather see real private property, but we don't live in that world.

[jgillmanjr]

I would rather see real private property, but we don't live in that world.

So let's just keep in advocating the abrogation of private property rights...

I'll pass.

[Jared1981]

So let's just keep in advocating the abrogation of private property rights...

I'll pass.

There are no "private property" rights. People are conditioned to think this way. You rent your property from the state/local government. If you owned it, you wouldn't have to pay rent on it. You have a property interest in your property but you do not "own" any land.

The "owners" of this farm were forced to host a same sex wedding, surely if it was their property they could say no, but their preferred privileges were revoked on this matter according to the true owners, the State of New York

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/08/29/after-being-fined-and-forced-to-host-gay-weddings-christian-farm-owners-make-drastic-decision-that-will-likely-hurt-their-business/

I fully expect cognitive dissonance to kick in because you can't "pass" on it. Generally, after 3 years of not paying rent on your property, men with guns will come to remove you from the governments property... and they, nor the courts will care at all about your private property theories.

[Leader]

Snip...............

The "owners" of this farm were forced to host a same sex wedding, surely if it was their property they could say no, but their preferred privileges were revoked on this matter according to the true owners, the State of New York

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/08/29/after-being-fined-and-forced-to-host-gay-weddings-christian-farm-owners-make-drastic-decision-that-will-likely-hurt-their-business/
Snip..................

I wonder if the State of New York would force a Muslim mosque to host gay marriages too?

[Jared1981]

I wonder if the State of New York would force a Muslim mosque to host gay marriages too?

No, but that sure would be interesting to watch.

[jgillmanjr]

I'm going to ask some very simple yes or no questions.



There are no "private property" rights. People are conditioned to think this way. You rent your property from the state/local government. If you owned it, you wouldn't have to pay rent on it. You have a property interest in your property but you do not "own" any land.


I am fully aware that the government is more than happy to send armed muscle should you not pay the rent.

Question one: Do you think that this is appropriate - that the government should be collecting rent?



The "owners" of this farm were forced to host a same sex wedding, surely if it was their property they could say no, but their preferred privileges were revoked on this matter according to the true owners, the State of New York

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014...heir-business/

Indeed. There have also been a case or two of cake makers forced to make "wedding" cakes for gay couples - by the heavy hand of government.

Question two: Do you think it's appropriate that the government forced these entities to conduct business with other entities to which they don't agree, nor wish to do business with?



I fully expect cognitive dissonance to kick in because you can't "pass" on it. Generally, after 3 years of not paying rent on your property, men with guns will come to remove you from the governments property... and they, nor the courts will care at all about your private property theories.




In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.[1][2]

1. Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. California: Stanford University Press.
2. Festinger, L. (1962). Cognitive dissonance. Scientific American, 207(4), 93–107


It's wikipedia, but short of actually verifying the text in those manuscripts, the definition seems solid enough to me.

The problem is that my beliefs/ideas are not contradictory. Contradiction in beliefs would be me saying that the government is justified in forcing businesses to serve [insert protected class here], but not be able to force businesses from prohibiting firearms on their premises (parking lots included).

However, I don't hold the former belief.

Sure, I recognize that the government, through the barrel of a gun, has seized ridiculous amounts of power. However, given that it's a fact, rather than something I agree with (which would be a belief), cognitive dissonance does not apply.

I argue that wherever possible, government encroachment in the matter of property rights should be resisted as much as possible. I can think of no beliefs I would hold that would be contradictory.

So question three: Do you believe that efforts should be made, where possible, to halt, if not reverse this trend of government intrusion into the property rights realm?

[Jared1981]

I'm going to ask some very simple yes or no questions.



I am fully aware that the government is more than happy to send armed muscle should you not pay the rent.

Question one: Do you think that this is appropriate - that the government should be collecting rent?


Indeed. There have also been a case or two of cake makers forced to make "wedding" cakes for gay couples - by the heavy hand of government.

Question two: Do you think it's appropriate that the government forced these entities to conduct business with other entities to which they don't agree, nor wish to do business with?





It's wikipedia, but short of actually verifying the text in those manuscripts, the definition seems solid enough to me.

The problem is that my beliefs/ideas are not contradictory. Contradiction in beliefs would be me saying that the government is justified in forcing businesses to serve [insert protected class here], but not be able to force businesses from prohibiting firearms on their premises (parking lots included).

However, I don't hold the former belief.

Sure, I recognize that the government, through the barrel of a gun, has seized ridiculous amounts of power. However, given that it's a fact, rather than something I agree with (which would be a belief), cognitive dissonance does not apply.

I argue that wherever possible, government encroachment in the matter of property rights should be resisted as much as possible. I can think of no beliefs I would hold that would be contradictory.

So question three: Do you believe that efforts should be made, where possible, to halt, if not reverse this trend of government intrusion into the property rights realm?


Question 1: no. There are quite a few countries that do not have property tax. Until recently, Ireland was one of them. Ireland managed to get by all these years just fine without property tax.

Question 2: no. However some consistency would be nice. This issue is always tough to discuss especially for a politician, because they always bring up the civil rights movement and restaurants refusing to serve minorities. In a free economy, businesses should be free to make poor choices and suffer the social consequences.

For example if New York State had their gun laws nullified, and a business in New York City welcomed unconcealed long arms, they would probably suffer severely by the lack of patrons. If that would be the case, then so be it.

Question 3: you have definitely proven that you do not suffer from cognitive dissonance. The vast majority of people do. They like private property rights when it comes to excluding guns; however, when it comes to bar closing, smoking, handicap entrances, public restrooms, and everything else, they want the government to force their way in there.

It seems currently that we are in a paradox where when it comes to guns private property is completely private; however, when it comes to everything else it's magically a public accommodation and they must allow everything and accept all these restrictions.

While I personally would never open carry in a business that does not welcome it, it is hard for me to jump on the trespass bandwagon when at the same time I see everything else that a business must allow.

Definitely a complex issue that is not easy because it is a Hobsons choice given the current paradigm.

[32_d3gr33s]

3 things....

1.) if i live in my car, can an employer still tell me what i am and am not allowed to have in my car?

2.) if i cannot store my firearm in my car, i must have to leave it at home while im working. If i was assaulted and seriously injured on the way to my job, would i be able to sue my employer? It is because of them, that i could not carry my legally permitted firearm and defend myself. would i have grounds for holding them liable?

3.) Are employers allowed to ban other items from peoples vehicles? If they banned you from having a bible or a flag in your, would that be ok?

[jgillmanjr]

Question 3: you have definitely proven that you do not suffer from cognitive dissonance. The vast majority of people do. They like private property rights when it comes to excluding guns; however, when it comes to bar closing, smoking, handicap entrances, public restrooms, and everything else, they want the government to force their way in there.


Unfortunately you are correct in that assessment. Those people also probably think that the state (as in the government at large) knows best. I believe you would agree with me that, in fact, the state does *not* know what is best.

Then of course as previously mentioned, just because I believe that businesses/property owners have these rights, I don't necessarily agree with them - if I end up starting a business, MDA would be screaming at me for advertising it being a firearms friendly place.

I would say the closest thing to any sort of cognitive dissonance I have is when it comes to private entities leasing space from a public entity. I would say that firearms should be forced to be allowed there, but then what standing would I have to say that the leasing entity can restrict other things (such as the rest of the public) from being there w/o other conditions. However, I'm starting to suspect the solution to bring things back in consonance would basically be to eliminate such leases.

Of course, the government shouldn't be in the business of building arenas, but I'm starting to go on a tangent.


It seems currently that we are in a paradox where when it comes to guns private property is completely private; however, when it comes to everything else it's magically a public accommodation and they must allow everything and accept all these restrictions.
And I think you identified the issue when you mentioned the conditioning earlier. Well, that, or those people are leftists who think .gov knows best.

As for the public accommodation thing - that term drives me nuts. It's still private property, and it happens that a business is going to let the general public in (to make money, of course), but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to set their own conditions for entry. Let the market decide if they made the right call with their decisions.


Definitely a complex issue that is not easy because it is a Hobsons choice given the current paradigm.
It seems as though we actually would agree on things a little more than originally indicated once we cut out the cruft. Indeed it is a Hobsons choice (you either force private property owners/businesses/entities to allow firearms or you don't force them), but I would argue that by forcing them to allow firearms, who would we be to say that other things shouldn't be forced, such as baking a cake for a gay wedding when you don't agree with the lifestyle?

[jgillmanjr]

3 things....

1.) if i live in my car, can an employer still tell me what i am and am not allowed to have in my car?

If your car is parked on their property, yes.


2.) if i cannot store my firearm in my car, i must have to leave it at home while im working. If i was assaulted and seriously injured on the way to my job, would i be able to sue my employer? It is because of them, that i could not carry my legally permitted firearm and defend myself. would i have grounds for holding them liable?
Unfortunately, there are two contexts for answers here: What case/statutory law has decided, and my own answer based on logic.

1. Looking at things from a legal perspective as described above, I honestly don't know. I haven't researched it, so I don't know whether there's any case law out there (whether or not it would apply to Michigan) or not. I'm not aware of any liability defined in federal or Michigan statute either. Maybe one of the attorneys here could contribute.

2. From my personal perspective - no, they shouldn't be held liable.


3.) Are employers allowed to ban other items from peoples vehicles? If they banned you from having a bible or a flag in your, would that be ok?
If for some borked reason they wanted to, yes.

[Leader]

If the government can tell a business that your second amendment rights MUST be honored, how can they tell us they don't have to honor them in schools, day care centers, and other PFZ's?

[jgillmanjr]

If the government can tell a business that your second amendment rights MUST be honored, how can they tell us they don't have to honor them in schools, day care centers, and other PFZ's?

Got me.

Instead of parking lot laws, we should be pushing for laws that punch holes in sovereign immunity if someone gets harmed because they couldn't possess a firearm as a result of government regulation.

[Jared1981]

Got me.

Instead of parking lot laws, we should be pushing for laws that punch holes in sovereign immunity if someone gets harmed because they couldn't possess a firearm as a result of government regulation.

There is a better chance of Japan legalizing machineguns before any government would waive soverign immunity.

[langenc]

I'll go out on a limb here and assume most employers do not allow their employees to store 2kg of blow in their cars either. I see no double standard. I see being fired either way.

So I guess the employer could ask to search your car, private property and they maintain right over it--the property and all that is parked thereon.
So they are looking for a gun and you have a CPL, humane resources found. No gun is found and the 2kg of blow is found--or couple thousand $$ of employer property-now what?? Illegal search?? or prosecution?

[The Deputy]

Personally, I say call your state legislator and discuss it with them. I did, and he appreciated my perspective and said he would keep everything in mind when the time came. You can BS this stuff to death on these boards, granted some logical discusion evolves sometimes and it can be used in your discusion with your representatives. Email them, call them...it is the voice that is in their ear that gets noticed.

[Walther]

So I guess the employer could ask to search your car, private property and they maintain right over it--the property and all that is parked thereon.
So they are looking for a gun and you have a CPL, humane resources found. No gun is found and the 2kg of blow is found--or couple thousand $$ of employer property-now what?? Illegal search?? or prosecution?

It's not all that complicated, really. Where I work my employer can search my car for anything any time it's in their parking lot. If I refuse I am fired. If they find something that shouldn't be there, I am fired. All of this is laid out in the employee handbook which I must sign annually. If I refuse to sign, I am fired. This has nothing to do with laws. I don't like it but it is a condition of employment I deal with.

It all boils down to this: It's their sandbox, I'm just playing in it.

[SelfReliant]

Question (if this was previously brought up I apologize)... What if the employer owns the building but not the parking lot. Many of The Home Depot locations are company owned buildings, but the parking lots are leased from a property management company (some explanation was given for this as being for general liability purposes). Does the company (The Home Depot) still have the right to tell an employee they cannot store a firearm in their vehicle?

[Walther]

Question (if this was previously brought up I apologize)... What if the employer owns the building but not the parking lot. Many of The Home Depot locations are company owned buildings, but the parking lots are leased from a property management company (some explanation was given for this as being for general liability purposes). Does the company (The Home Depot) still have the right to tell an employee they cannot store a firearm in their vehicle?

Again...If the company has rules that do not break any laws and you agree to them as a condition if employment, then rights don't come in to play.

As for a lease, a lesee typically has most of the same rights and privileges as a property owner.

[madmathew]

Does anyone know which corporations are putting up an opposition to this bill? Maybe an email campaign and ban on their products would push them away from it.

[Arthur Dent]

but that's something for the market to make a determination of - not the heavy hand of government.

Complete loss of credibility with this statement.

It has NOTHING to do with the market. It has EVERYTHING to do with property rights and enforcing individual property rights.

[jgillmanjr]

Complete loss of credibility with this statement.

It has NOTHING to do with the market. It has EVERYTHING to do with property rights and enforcing individual property rights.

Indeed this does concern the issue of property rights. I'm not sure where I indicated this wasn't the case.

However, the market also does play a factor as well - If an employer can't get a good workforce as a result of their policy prohibiting firearms, that would be an example of the market signalling it was a bad move. If people stop patronizing the business because of the policy on firearms, that would be another market signal. Of course the inverse can happen as well - no adverse market actions happen as a result of the policy. Still the market at play.

So... yeah. Try again?

[QFAC]

While I understand everyone's comments and opinions, I must ask where in the constitution does it say we give up our individual rights. What levels of private property are there, someone always owns every inch of the ground we stand on. One should not have to give his or her indivdual freedoms just because of where you are standing. So in the mall the cops can search you with out a warrant or infringe on your freedom of speech just because the property owner says it ok..... I think not, but we all seem to be ok with the infringement of the 2nd amendment.
The founding Father did believe that these rights were of such importance and to ensure they were not infringed they demanded as much by the summation the Bill of Rights...

We all need to consider this, if we do not we will not like the color and tone our great Country as we move forward into our children's futures.....

[MP Miller]

....if we do not we will not like the color and tone our great Country as we move forward into our children's futures.....

Too late, already happened

[Walther]

While I understand everyone's comments and opinions, I must ask where in the constitution does it say we give up our individual rights. What levels of private property are there, someone always owns every inch of the ground we stand on. One should not have to give his or her indivdual freedoms just because of where you are standing. So in the mall the cops can search you with out a warrant or infringe on your freedom of speech just because the property owner says it ok..... I think not, but we all seem to be ok with the infringement of the 2nd amendment.
The founding Father did believe that these rights were of such importance and to ensure they were not infringed they demanded as much by the summation the Bill of Rights...

We all need to consider this, if we do not we will not like the color and tone our great Country as we move forward into our children's futures.....

You are 100% correct!

And the company I work for doesn't have to employ me.

I can be an idealist, or I can be gainfully employed. I choose the latter.

[jgillmanjr]

And the company I work for doesn't have to employ me.


But.. but... but..

We should have the government FORCE the company to employ you!










I feel dirty now for even mentioning that despite it being snark.

[The Deputy]

I wonder how Utah gets away with allowing teachers to conceal carry. I was reading that article about the woman teacher that "shot the s*itter" and wonder what kind of law they have. One of the evening news shows, don't remember which even did a segment on it. The segment actually looked old, but they were happy to mention about the bathroom incident. Probably the only reason they drug it out on the vault and aired it.

However, during the segment...they said several teachers/school employees conceal carry and they do not have to tell their employer. Even though several districts were against the practice.

[Leader]

I wonder how Utah gets away with allowing teachers to conceal carry. I was reading that article about the woman teacher that "shot the s*itter" and wonder what kind of law they have. One of the evening news shows, don't remember which even did a segment on it. The segment actually looked old, but they were happy to mention about the bathroom incident. Probably the only reason they drug it out on the vault and aired it.

However, during the segment...they said several teachers/school employees conceal carry and they do not have to tell their employer. Even though several districts were against the practice.

Utah "gets away with it" because it isn't against the law in their state like it is here.

[The Deputy]

Utah "gets away with it" because it isn't against the law in their state like it is here.

I get what you are saying about the concealed carry, if that is the law you are talking about. However, here in Michigan...if you have a CPL you could open carry within a school or store a firearm within your vehicle (at least that's my understanding of the laws I've read on the MSP site). However, if you are empolyeed by a school district and did such...theoretical you wouldn't be breaking any laws...right?...but, most likely you could/would be fired if their "employee handbook" said it was against their rules of employment (having a firearm on their property). So, I'm assuming...either they have a law in Utah that enables the empolyee to conceal carry or the employer doesn't have the right to terminate employment because of it. Or they follow the wording of the second amendment and don't infringe.

But, for conversation sake...lets take schools out of the equations. Here, even private companies could or would fire an employee for concealed, open or storage of a firearm if their terms of employment disallow. I imagine this issue has something to do with an empolyer's abilitiy to terminate an employee "at will" here in Michigan. I wonder what rules or laws apply in Utah for private employers? And if they do, would it be advantageous for our law makers to look at them...and maybe use them here?

[kryl]

Your house is also not parked on the employers property.

But wouldn't it be the business of your employer if it was their desire to not have firearms on company property?

What if it were the employer's desire that you not have a political bumper sticker, a bible in your car, leather seats, a gas engine, or cruise control?

[jgillmanjr]

What if it were the employer's desire that you not have a political bumper sticker, a bible in your car, leather seats, a gas engine, or cruise control?

Answered already: http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?305952-SB-1028-firearm-in-vehicle-located-in-parking-lot&p=2469063&viewfull=1#post2469063

[kryl]

Answered already: http://www.migunowners.org/forum/showthread.php?305952-SB-1028-firearm-in-vehicle-located-in-parking-lot&p=2469063&viewfull=1#post2469063


That may be what you think but I don't think that's a reasonable answer. So the employer can tell me I can't have a car with blue seats if they have a phobia about them?

[jgillmanjr]

That may be what you think but I don't think that's a reasonable answer.
Well I don't think it's reasonable that people believe they can prevent a private property owner from enacting their own policies on their property.


So the employer can tell me I can't have a car with blue seats if they have a phobia about them?

If they so desired, they should have that ability to, yes.

[Dirty_Harry]

This is getting deep. I see both sides of the story. I manage a small company, my boss asked me not to CC while I am at work. I comply, it is his business. He has no such qualms about me leaving it in the car.

If I worked for a company that said no to in the car as well.....what gun? They will likely never search, and if they want to I can always find another job.

[jgillmanjr]

If I worked for a company that said no to in the car as well.....what gun? They will likely never search, and if they want to I can always find another job.

QFT

[Walther]

That may be what you think but I don't think that's a reasonable answer. So the employer can tell me I can't have a car with blue seats if they have a phobia about them?

Yes, they can. They can set any rule they like provided it doesn't break any laws. Your options are to accept the rules, quit, take them to court (which costs money and you still end up without a job), or protest.

It isn't a hard concept. Do you own a home or rent an apartment? Do you have rules? I mean, even basic ones? Like, maybe you expect people to use the bathroom as opposed to peeing on your tree? Maybe you don't want people to flick boogers at each other. Some people have allergies, maybe they don't want you in their home if you own a cat because the residual dander causes a reaction. If anyone breaks those rules, would you ask them to leave?

Obviously your analogy of blue seats is ridiculous, but I understand your point. It all boils down to it's theirs, so they get to decide.

[langenc]

No. It's still your property. They should, however, be able to set a condition of parking on their lot the ability to inspect your vehicle for firearms.

Maybe--but what happens when they find said gun.

I used to take a deer rifle w/ me to work and stop on the way home and sit for an hour or so..
In the fall I often had a shotgun on behind the drivers seat--VW bug. I recall once a grouse flew across. I stopped and went into the woods about 10 yrds. Stopped and waited maybe a minute. Turned and took one step and it flushed again. I then went on in farther and another 10-12 yrds, a butterfly flushed, at least I thought it was. One of those woodcock. I had migrated up from Ohio and that was my first experience w/ them. I was used to the cackling rooster, much different.

As far as a car w/ blue seats-didnt one of, or all, the big 3 make those w/ imports park waaayyy out in the back some yrs ago?

[kryl]

As far as a car w/ blue seats-didnt one of, or all, the big 3 make those w/ imports park waaayyy out in the back some yrs ago?

I believe that the parking lots were controlled by the UAW. That is how that came about.

[Roundballer]

I don't know why you guys are still arguing about this bill. It was DOA. The bill was introduced by Virgil Smith D-Detroit, without any other sponsor.

This is nothing but a "feel good" bill that he can point to in the attempt to garner support for his party and his reelection. He has already served 3 terms as a Representative and one term as a Senator. One more term and he is out.

This bill was not intended to go any where, nor is anyone even looking at it. It will die at the end of session later this year.

[Walther]

I don't know why you guys are still arguing about this bill. It was DOA. The bill was introduced by Virgil Smith D-Detroit, without any other sponsor.

Because we can? If you'll read the posts, the topic has wandered more into the ethics or viability of such a law rather than the bill itself.


I believe that the parking lots were controlled by the UAW. That is how that came about.

Are you suggesting then that a union has enough control over a parking lot to force people with foreign cars to park in the back forty, but an owner or lessor cannot make and promulgate rules on their own property?

So, the UAW said so. Guess who had to put the rule in place and then enforced it. The union? No....try again. The Owner? BINGO! We've come full circle, and can now recognize the fact that the Owner has the ability to create and enforce rules of use on their own property. Funny how all that worked, ain't it?!

[SADAacp]

Because we can? If you'll read the posts, the topic has wandered more into the ethics or viability of such a law rather than the bill itself.



Are you suggesting then that a union has enough control over a parking lot to force people with foreign cars to park in the back forty, but an owner or lessor cannot make and promulgate rules on their own property?

So, the UAW said so. Guess who had to put the rule in place and then enforced it. The union? No....try again. The Owner? BINGO! We've come full circle, and can now recognize the fact that the Owner has the ability to create and enforce rules of use on their own property. Funny how all that worked, ain't it?!

I wonder why the Big 3 weren't allowed to do that back when the UAW showed up at their doorstep?

[Walther]

I wonder why the Big 3 weren't allowed to do that back when the UAW showed up at their doorstep?

They did, for a time. Not sure when the practice ceased but there was a period when that ocurred.

[Kaeto]

The UAW came about because you had bosses like Henry Ford who thought that because he employed you he had the right to tell you what kind of clothes to wear, what food to eat, how to keep your house, and even what churches to worship in when you were off the clock. Then you had the coal mining companies that paid their workers only in company script that could only be spent at the company store. Where prices were set such that you were in debt to the company by the next payday even if you only bought the absolute necessities to live on.

And don't think employers wouldn't love for things to go back to that way.

[Jared1981]

The UAW came about because you had bosses like Henry Ford who thought that because he employed you he had the right to tell you what kind of clothes to wear, what food to eat, how to keep your house, and even what churches to worship in when you were off the clock. Then you had the coal mining companies that paid their workers only in company script that could only be spent at the company store. Where prices were set such that you were in debt to the company by the next payday even if you only bought the absolute necessities to live on.

And don't think employers wouldn't love for things to go back to that way.

For better for worse, it was Henry Ford's company. no one has to work there, and if he could not find people to work for him then he would have went under.

Today the UAW is good for nothing except for electing Democrats, sending producers overseas, and getting the jobs back of people who smoke pot at the Chrysler plant and get caught by FOXNEWS.

[SADAacp]

For better for worse, it was Henry Ford's company. no one has to work there, and if he could not find people to work for him then he would have went under.

Today the UAW is good for nothing except for electing Democrats, sending producers overseas, and getting the jobs back of people who smoke pot at the Chrysler plant and get caught by FOXNEWS.

That was my point since folks here have been screaming private property rights about possession of firearms in employees vehicles in the parking lots. Apparently, there's an exception for unions to come onto the property, kick in a few doors, bust some windows, burn down a building or two to get what they desire. But don't even think about a law abiding employee storing a firearm in his or her vehicle.

[rexzor2007]

I think most employers only have this policy because the insurance companies require it.

Would any business owner on here be willing to cite this or post up a picture of this requirement. I'm not saying you are wrong so please don't get the wrong idea. I just hear this example used a lot, but every business owner I've spoken with about the issue of firearms relation to insurance said firearms are not something their insurance company hassles them about unless they are an FFL. Again, anyone who can post up the regulation I'd really appreciate it.

[Divegeek]

Would any business owner on here be willing to cite this or post up a picture of this requirement. I'm not saying you are wrong so please don't get the wrong idea. I just hear this example used a lot, but every business owner I've spoken with about the issue of firearms relation to insurance said firearms are not something their insurance company hassles them about unless they are an FFL. Again, anyone who can post up the regulation I'd really appreciate it.

As a business owner I can say that firearms or weapons of any kind has never come up with either of the insurance companies I have dealt with in the 7 years I have been open. Believe me I would have remembered.

[jhagans]

As a business owner I can say that firearms or weapons of any kind has never come up with either of the insurance companies I have dealt with in the 7 years I have been open. Believe me I would have remembered.

Not surprised some big corporations "hide" behind this.

[Roundballer]

and 11

with another "agree"

The #3 & #4 posts must be in the marketplace, I don't go in there.

#1 & #2 are Introductions. All in 1 hr 40 min, slow by many standards, must have really read a few things along the way.

All of this, and I bet he doesn't have a pic in his ad.

[LivinTheDream]

That was my point since folks here have been screaming private property rights about possession of firearms in employees vehicles in the parking lots. Apparently, there's an exception for unions to come onto the property, kick in a few doors, bust some windows, burn down a building or two to get what they desire. But don't even think about a law abiding employee storing a firearm in his or her vehicle.

That sure isn't anyone that I know's reality. I've been working in and around auto plants my whole life and I've never seen anyone 'kick in a few doors, bust some windows, burn down a building or two to get what they desire.' The union NEGOTIATES contracts that they (union employees and the company) both promise to abide by.
The days of Jimmy Hoffa and the mob running unions is long gone. Hell, I've only seen it in movies. scratching my head

[brentb636]

[QUOTE=LivinTheDream;2642665]That sure isn't anyone that I know's reality. I've been working in and around auto plants my whole life and I've never seen anyone 'kick in a few doors, bust some windows, burn down a building or two to get what they desire.' The union NEGOTIATES contracts that they (union employees and the company) both promise to abide by.
The days of Jimmy Hoffa and the mob running unions is long gone. Hell, I've only seen it in movies. scratching my head[/QUOTE[/I]

I agree completely. People who have never worked at a major plant with a real union, just don't understand the environment. There's no violence, even when there is a strike, which hasn't happened in a long time. That sort of thing kinda' disappeared in the '50's in the auto industry anyway. It's quite civilized now. People on both sides, Management and Labor actually have college degrees in labor management and ways to negotiate. Jimmy Hoffa was a Teamster crook. Different animal altogether. :)

[joelansing]

I work at a large very nice place. Over the years our HR department has probably hired 6 different teams to go over our Personal Policy Manual. When I started there it was 16 pages. Now it's 138 pages. Two of the new things are a No Weapons on company property and another clause saying they can search our car if it is on company property. We have to agree to the rules and sign our names to them to work there. It's a necessary evil brought about by scared people, lawyers (Not Shyster :), and people trying to be in line with Best Practices. Best Practices are retarded much of the time. If everyone is doing it, it's called Mediocrity, not Best Practice. I don't keep a weapon in my car most of the time because of where I work and where I have to park my car most days. Sure it stinks. But it beats working at McDonalds or Gander Mountain :) They asked me about putting up signs prohibiting our customers from bringing weapons onto our premises. I told them be very careful about causing a problem where there is none. We could end up with all the gun crazies having open carry parties at our establishments in protest, and also lose many customers and get negative PR. They seemed to have heeded that advice. I love where I work. No weapons in cars stinks, but no place is perfect. Hmm, can we open carry in Heaven?

- Joe

[Roundballer]

You guys all know that this was just "feel good" when it was introduced and that there never was any hope of it going anywhere.

The sole sponsor of this bill was Virgil Smith (D-Detroit) and that since introduction of this bill last year, he has been arrested for assault and bound over for trial.

He has been stripped of everything that had to do with his work in Lansing, except the position of Senator. He certainly isn't good for our cause.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2015/06/25/state-sen-virgil-smith-prelim-exam/29264995/

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2015/06/25/virgil-smith/29264031/

This bill died at the end of session last year, we will have work to get a viable bill introduced in the future if this is what we want to spend energy on.

[Walther]

The thread was dead last year. YOU resurrected it with post 91 at the top of this page, and the post doesn't even make any sense.

[SADAacp]

The thread was dead last year. YOU resurrected it with post 91 at the top of this page, and the post doesn't even make any sense.

New members were banned and all their posts/accounts deleted. That's why it appears post 91 doesn't make any sense.

[Walther]

Time to revive this thread for a little bit of 'feel good, hell froze over, miracles can happen' news. I have frequently posted that my company does not allow guns on their property, even locked in my car. Here's a quote from earlier in this thread.


...Where I work my employer can search my car for anything any time it's in their parking lot. If I refuse I am fired. If they find something that shouldn't be there, I am fired. All of this is laid out in the employee handbook which I must sign annually. If I refuse to sign, I am fired.

A friend at work took his CPL class and we were talking about the rules. He went to look it up, and couldn't find it. I tried to find it, and couldn't. Went to the VP-Office Manager (pro-carry)and asked. He said he thought it may have been pulled, so he went to corporate HR. Yep, it's gone. Turns out that language was peculiar to our division, and corporate wanted to standardize the handbook through our hundreds of offices and over 17,000 people.

Corporate told him its entirely up to him as the office manager to allow it or not. His stance? He is never going to search anyone's car for a gun, and even if one was found, no one cares. He even alluded to the fact that if someone is carrying, even in the building, and no one knows, then no one knows.

See, dreams DO come true.

[bernokarl]

ok doe k

[mittenman]

To me as a layman I would think that constitutionality when 2a rights conflict with property rights 2a rights should prevail. That's not always the case but constitutionally speaking in my view it should be.

[Roundballer]

To me as a layman I would think that constitutionality when 2a rights conflict with property rights 2a rights should prevail. That's not always the case but constitutionally speaking in my view it should be.
The Bill of Rights is only a restriction on what the Government can do. The BOR does not limit what what individuals (or corporate "persons") can do.

[klijewski]

I thought it was determined by the courts that if your property served the public, you have to allow all people of all beliefs. After they forced a bakery to make a cake for a gay wedding, didn't they open this issue up to discrimination? I identify myself as a person who carries a gun.

[luckless]

I thought it was determined by the courts that if your property served the public, you have to allow all people of all beliefs. After they forced a bakery to make a cake for a gay wedding, didn't they open this issue up to discrimination? I identify myself as a person who carries a gun.

You don't have to bake a gay cake in Michigan. You don't have to bake a gun cake, either.

If you talk the legislators into including "gun owner" into Elliot-Larsen, you will be able to demand that gun cake toot sweet.

[klijewski]

You're missing my point, Its about the public that you serve that you can't discriminate against. If your property does not serve the public, you don't have to cater to the public. But if it does, then you have to treat everyone the same no matter who they are or what they wear.

[luckless]

You can post a sign on your property or place of business that says, "No guns allowed".

I highly recommend you take a quality CPL course. A good legal presentation is the most valuable part of the class. Or, you could post your question in the "legal beagle" forum.

[Leader]

You can post a sign on your property or place of business that says, "No guns allowed".

I highly recommend you take a quality CPL course. A good legal presentation is the most valuable part of the class. Or, you could post your question in the "legal beagle" forum.

Except so many of those "quality CPL classes" give out misleading and just plain wrong information it makes you wonder what you are paying for.

[Jared1981]

You're missing my point, Its about the public that you serve that you can't discriminate against. If your property does not serve the public, you don't have to cater to the public. But if it does, then you have to treat everyone the same no matter who they are or what they wear.

It is legal in Michigan and according to the federal government to discriminate against gun owners. It's not illegal.

[MP Miller]

You're missing my point, Its about the public that you serve that you can't discriminate against. If your property does not serve the public, you don't have to cater to the public. But if it does, then you have to treat everyone the same no matter who they are or what they wear.
Discrimination should be legal.

[klijewski]

It is legal in Michigan and according to the federal government to discriminate against gun owners. It's not illegal.

just pointing out the double standard

[Stevie-Ray]

Discrimination should be legal.Well, it was, for many decades. It was called Affirmative Action.

[hunt-n-fool]

I drive 30 miles each day, only to arrive at work, where firearms are not permitted on the premises, building and parking lot.
Its a high traffic area, with no other parking available within a mile or more. Strips me of my CPL for 5 days of the week.
Condition of employment is a signing of a drug test at any time and a vehicle search at any time.

This condition needs to change.

[Homestead]

Then if my employer was to ban having my legally owned pistol, what would be the purpose of a CPL? What would be the purpose of carrying for self defense? I don't care who it offends, what's in my car is none of my employer's business, end of story.

So what happens if I don't comply?

What will we do when all employers turn and say "No guns in cars of employees"?

Just another way to put John q public at risk.

A law to prevent businesses and employers from doing such a thing is common sense. Once one employer starts it will rapidly spread disarming more people who have to leave their gun at home because of some over zealous morons.

[westcliffe01]

Indiana has had this legislation now for several years. I have not yet heard of a workplace parking lot shootout. The incident at the GM Tech center highlights why this needs to pass.

[Homestead]

I agree.

[Leader]

Indiana has had this legislation now for several years. I have not yet heard of a workplace parking lot shootout. The incident at the GM Tech center highlights why this needs to pass.

Don't you know?

Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it can't, multiple times.

[Niteman9]

I believe KY allows a gun in a car. You can keep a gun in the glove box even without a
Permit to carry. Some thing about your car is an extention of your home.

Sent from my SM-T357T using Tapatalk

[MP Miller]

I believe KY allows a gun in a car. You can keep a gun in the glove box even without a
Permit to carry. Some thing about your car is an extention of your home.

Sent from my SM-T357T using Tapatalk
Many states do. More states allow car carry without a permit than register pistols.

[kurmey]

I see both sides of this issue too. It's probably going to die in congress.

[MI_XD]

I see both sides of this issue too. It's probably going to die in congress.

It has already died and been shoved aside. That was SB1028 of 2014. Lazy good for nothing RINOs in Lansing can't get off their fat arses and get anything good done for us gun owners!

[Roundballer]

It has already died and been shoved aside. That was SB1028 of 2014. Lazy good for nothing RINOs in Lansing can't get off their fat arses and get anything good done for us gun owners!
Don't blame anyone except the sponsor of the bill for this failure.

The soon to be ex-senator and sole sponsor of this bill, Virgil Smith-D Detroit will be sentenced in about a week or so. He has not been there to support this bill, or gather any others to support it.


http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/wayne/2016/02/11/state-virgil-smith-court-wayne/80232392/

[MI_XD]

Leave it to a D to put up a worthwhile bill for gun owners, and no one helped it out, probably because it came from a D.

I still stand by my last sentence. Nothing good done for us gun owners!

[allstajacket]

NO! The car is just like my house, it is TITLED property, in my name. If I leave something IN my car, regardless of where it is parked, the stuff in my car is still located in MY property, thus the reason more and more states are treating it as an extension of your home, even when it comes to carrying a firearm.

Another thought for this, when parked on someone's property without permission, they can legally have you towed, yet they can't bust into your car and take your things because it's "on their property." Right?

[kryl]

Another thought for this, when parked on someone's property without permission, they can legally have you towed, yet they can't bust into your car and take your things because it's "on their property." Right?

We weren't help by a misguided supreme court voting against the 4th amendment a few years ago. The useless war on drugs is always the totalitarian state's underlying excuse.

[jbizel1]

I also feel that some things are definitely yours and some things are not. For example your car and the contents inside are your property. That being said, no one without your permission should be inside your vehicle. At work you may have a locker that you put items in but although the things inside are yours, the locker belongs to the company which they do not need your permission to access.