Does a Public Business Have the Right to Tell You Not to Carry in Vehicle?


PDA






Tin_Man
December 28, 2008, 08:48 PM
I'm pretty sure a public business may tell you that you are not allowed to bring a firearm into their building, but can a business prohibit you from keeping your gun in your vehicle?

If you enjoyed reading about "Does a Public Business Have the Right to Tell You Not to Carry in Vehicle?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
kingpin008
December 28, 2008, 08:52 PM
If they own the parking lot, of course they can.

Tin_Man
December 28, 2008, 08:57 PM
But they don't own my vehicle. If I'm not mistaken, you're still allowed to keep your firearms in your vehicle at the post office and such right? Why would it be any different in this situation?

misANTHrope
December 28, 2008, 09:03 PM
Oh boy, these threads are always fun.

My opinion is that they're allowing you to park your vehicle on their property, and that in turn they should be able to make that use of their property conditional. But that's my pie-in-the-sky the-way-things-ought-to-be viewpoint, and does not in any way reflect the legal realities of our society.

NavyLCDR
December 28, 2008, 09:05 PM
If they own the parking lot, of course they can.

Not in Oklahoma. It depends upon state law, this is Oklahoma's law:

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

But they don't own my vehicle. If I'm not mistaken, you're still allowed to keep your firearms in your vehicle at the post office and such right? Why would it be any different in this situation?

You are not allowed to keep your firearm on Post Office property including in your vehicle in the Post Office parking lot. The only exception to that is if the Post Office owns the property that is on the street side of a curb, but there is no distiguishing property marker, then you can have your firearm in your vehicle there. Even in Oklahoma, it's still against Federal law to have your firearm in your vehicle on Post Office property, unless it is for official business, IE: law enforcement or actually to mail the firearm.

lawson4
December 28, 2008, 09:07 PM
I'll be back in a sec. I just put the popcorn on:D

lawson4

TexasRifleman
December 28, 2008, 09:14 PM
I'll be back in a sec. I just put the popcorn on

No popcorn needed, it simply varies depending on state law.

Oklahoma, as shown, specifically mentions it.

Many other states, Texas included, allow the property owner to make the call, though Texas is expected to go the way of Oklahoma during the next legislative session.

Tin_Man
December 28, 2008, 09:14 PM
You are not allowed to keep your firearm on Post Office property including in your vehicle in the Post Office parking lot. The only exception to that is if the Post Office owns the property that is on the street side of a curb, but there is no distiguishing property marker, then you can have your firearm in your vehicle there. Even in Oklahoma, it's still against Federal law to have your firearm in your vehicle on Post Office property, unless it is for official business, IE: law enforcement or actually to mail the firearm.

Huh, I must have missed that one entirely. Is it the same for all federal institutions?

Also, any idea how I could go about finding out if AZ has any similar laws to that of Oklahoma in regards to the property issue?

kingpin008
December 28, 2008, 09:26 PM
You are correct, they don't own your vehicle. However, if they own the property, they have the right (in most places) to tell you that you can't bring your vehicle onto their property if it contains a firearm.

NavyLCDR
December 28, 2008, 09:28 PM
Huh, I must have missed that one entirely. Is it the same for all federal institutions?

No, not the same. The Post Office has their own section in the Code of Federal Regulations.

Post office regs are Title 39, Part 232. Here are the applicable sections:
232.1 Conduct on postal property.
(a) Applicability. This section applies to all real property under the charge and control of the Postal Service, to all tenant agencies, and to all persons entering in or on such property. This section shall be posted and kept posted at a conspicuous place on all such property. This section shall not apply to—

(i) Any portions of real property, owned or leased by the Postal Service, that are leased or subleased by the Postal Service to private tenants for their exclusive use;

(ii) With respect to sections 232.1(h)(1) and 232.1(o), sidewalks along the street frontage of postal property falling within the property lines of the Postal Service that are not physically distinguishable from adjacent municipal or other public sidewalks, and any paved areas adjacent to such sidewalks that are not physically distinguishable from such sidewalks.


(l) Weapons and explosives . Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, rule or regulation, no person while on postal property may carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, or store the same on postal property, except for official purposes.

(q) Enforcement. (1) Members of the U.S. Postal Service security force shall exercise the powers provided by 18 U.S.C. 3061(c)(2) and shall be responsible for enforcing the regulations in this section in a manner that will protect Postal Service property and persons thereon.

(2) Local postmasters and installation heads may, pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 1315(d)(3) and with the approval of the chief postal inspector or his designee, enter into agreements with State and local enforcement agencies to insure that these rules and regulations are enforced in a manner that will protect Postal Service property.

(3) Postal Inspectors, Office of Inspector General Criminal Investigators, and other persons designated by the Chief Postal Inspector may likewise enforce regulations in this section.

jimmyraythomason
December 28, 2008, 09:32 PM
They cannot search your vehicle against your will so how will they know if it contains a firearm?

Rodentman
December 28, 2008, 09:37 PM
What about if the firearm is in "legal transport" IOW locked in a proper case, unloaded, with the ammo in a separate part of the vehicle?

FWIW I won't carry in the PO, but if the PO is on my route of errands, there will likely be a firearm in the car.

NavyLCDR
December 28, 2008, 09:50 PM
What about if the firearm is in "legal transport" IOW locked in a proper case, unloaded, with the ammo in a separate part of the vehicle?

Doesn't matter. If you are referring to FOPA it doesn't apply. FOPA only supersedes state and local laws, not Federal laws. Notice in the post office regulation that "storage" of a firearm is illegal on PO property as well, not just carrying. If all other aspects of the firearm possession on Post Office property was legal, then only the following would apply and nothing else:
(p) Penalties and other law. (1) Alleged violations of these rules and regulations are heard, and the penalties prescribed herein are imposed, either in a Federal district court or by a Federal magistrate in accordance with applicable court rules. Questions regarding such rules should be directed to the regional counsel for the region involved.

(2) Whoever shall be found guilty of violating the rules and regulations in this section while on property under the charge and control of the Postal Service is subject to fine of not more than $50 or imprisonment of not more than 30 days, or both. Nothing contained in these rules and regulations shall be construed to abrogate any other Federal laws or regulations of any State and local laws and regulations applicable to any area in which the property is situated.

TexasRifleman
December 28, 2008, 09:55 PM
However, if they own the property, they have the right (in most places) to tell you that you can't bring your vehicle onto their property if it contains a firearm.

And again, that's not necessarily the case depending on state law.

The Oklahoma law is interesting and I suspect it will be challenged at some point by a property owner.

kingpin008
December 28, 2008, 10:35 PM
And again, that's not necessarily the case depending on state law.

Which is precisely why I made sure to put the words "in most places" in there. :)

TexasRifleman
December 28, 2008, 10:37 PM
Which is precisely why I made sure to put the words "in most places" in there.

Oh I am not disagreeing with you, I think your original statement will turn out to be the case after some property owner in Oklahoma takes it to court.

I don't think their law will survive a challenge.

Not sure how it could really.

Cuda
December 28, 2008, 10:50 PM
What if they lease the building/parking space?


C

Ron James
December 28, 2008, 11:25 PM
If you lease a building or property, then you control the building property. If a federal agency leases a building then it is considered Federal property. On most federal property, the very act of entering that property gives them the right to search your car with out your permission. They would not do so unless they have reason to believe you have prohibited items in your car. But yes, they can search your car without your permission. Except on a military base , I've never seen them do it on a random basis. but I have seen it done { and they had good reason }. Whats the big deal? When I carry a firearm it is concealed, when I leave a firearm in my car it is concealed. I have never worked my self up into a lather over it. Some of you guys sound like Tim McVey. Good grief.:banghead:

Flyboy
December 29, 2008, 12:24 AM
Oklahoma's law was suspended by injunction pending the outcome of the civil suit by Weyerhauser, et al. The plaintiffs won at the district court level; the judge cited the Occupational Safety and Health Act, of all things. The state has appealed the decision to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals; I don't know if the appeal has been argued yet. Meanwhile, the law is in limbo, and not in effect.

mongo4567
December 29, 2008, 12:56 AM
Oklahoma's law was suspended by injunction pending the outcome of the civil suit by Weyerhauser, et al. The plaintiffs won at the district court level; the judge cited the Occupational Safety and Health Act, of all things. The state has appealed the decision to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals; I don't know if the appeal has been argued yet. Meanwhile, the law is in limbo, and not in effect.

Ahhh...that is why the law hasn't been passed in Texas yet...it never left committee for the last couple of sessions at least.

I personally like the Oklahoma law. I have a Texas CHL and can't have a firearm in my car at work because it is against my company's employment policy. That is a lot of exposure to potential danger on my daily commute.

MostlyHarmless
December 29, 2008, 01:21 AM
In Minnesota, private establishments can't prohibit guns in parking lots, whether in cars or otherwise. See Minnesota Statutes, 624.714, subd. 17:

(c) The owner or operator of a private establishment may not prohibit the lawful carry or
possession of firearms in a parking facility or parking area.


Employers can't do it by employment policy either:


Subd. 18. Employers; public colleges and universities. (a) An employer, whether public or
private, may establish policies that restrict the carry or possession of firearms by its employees
while acting in the course and scope of employment. Employment related civil sanctions may
be invoked for a violation.
(b) A public postsecondary institution regulated under chapter 136F or 137 may establish
policies that restrict the carry or possession of firearms by its students while on the institution's
property. Academic sanctions may be invoked for a violation.
(c) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) and (b), an employer or a postsecondary institution may
not prohibit the lawful carry or possession of firearms in a parking facility or parking area.

ants
December 29, 2008, 01:25 AM
I wish a real legal expert would do a sticky post on the concept of Private Property.

I'm sure it varies state by state, but we probably need clarification on these topics:

Just because the doors are open for business doesn't make it public property. It's still a private property and the owner/leaseholder can make the rules. How much does that vary state to state?
Private property starts at the property line, not the front door of the building. The parking lot is private property. How does that vary state by state?
Even though your car is your private property, so are your pants and shirt. Just because you (or your gun) are in a car doesn't mean the rules change. Or do they?
If you trespass by driving your car onto private property, you are still trespassing. Being in your privately owned vehicle doesn't mean you're on public property (or your own property). If you cross the property line, you're on private property where the property owner makes the rules.
Just how much does state law change these concepts from state to state.

I'm not listing these things because I believe they are the law, I'm asking a certified and credentialled professional to enlighten us.

With due respect to uneducated amateurs like me, I hope we don't just guess at the answers. I'd like to hear from legal professionals.

notorious
December 29, 2008, 01:27 AM
A few states have passed laws that prohibit businesses from preventing people having firearms in their vehicles. I think it stemmed from Right to Carry states and employees of gun-unfriendly businesses who had to leave their guns in their cars and then their employer told them to park off property and they filed suit and won.

Not sure if it was FL or something but I heard about it within the last month.

Eightball
December 29, 2008, 01:27 AM
So......anyone know about Kentucky? Or Michigan, another state where I spend some time?

SK2344
December 29, 2008, 01:38 AM
Just go in to mail your letter or mail your package and DON'T WORRY ABOUT THE GUN! I have been going into the Post office for 12 years with my gun in my pocket and nothing has happened to me. I really don't give a damn! If some crazy person comes in with a gun to kill every one, then I guess I'll be the lucky one to be able to defend myself. Just go about your business and stay safe. ////END////:banghead:

notorious
December 29, 2008, 03:25 AM
At the post office, your only worry is a postal worker, no criminal in his right mind goes to the post office and risks getting outgunned by the workers there.

flynlr
December 29, 2008, 04:20 AM
At the post office, your only worry is a postal worker, no criminal in his right mind goes to the post office and risks getting outgunned by the workers there

Nice of you to throw 600k+ employees into one bucket.

enjoy your 10 day waiting periods in la la land.

WardenWolf
December 29, 2008, 04:37 AM
Fact: even in states where businesses can prohibit firearms in cars, they'd still require a search warrant to search your vehicle. Fact: most states have a provision that allows a firearm to be stored in a vehicle somewhere out of sight while not being considered "concealed".

I'll let you draw the conclusions there. Check your local laws. Even if a business owner CAN legally disallow firearms in your car on his property, the car is still YOUR property and he does not legally have the right to search it. Follow laws regarding transport and storage, and go with it.

An employer may have rights to search your vehicle as a contract clause of your employment, but anyone else does not.

TAB
December 29, 2008, 04:46 AM
its about respect( or I should say lack of it) if they don't want it, don't bring it.

WardenWolf
December 29, 2008, 04:48 AM
I don't respect people who have that attitude towards firearms. I cannot abide willful ignorance, and have zero respect for those who display it. If they post "No firearms allowed" on the entrance to the building, I'll honor that, as that is legally enforceable. If they try to say you cannot have it in the parking lot, well, good luck getting a search warrant for something you don't even know is there. That is NOT legally enforceable, at least not here, and I know it. I'm NOT giving up my protection to appease some moron who has his head so firmly in his backside that he can't see daylight.

lawson4
December 29, 2008, 08:03 AM
A private company cannot get a search warrant. Only governments can.

lawson4

subknave
December 29, 2008, 09:04 AM
Didn't the NRA have a lawsuit about this awhile back where some workers got fired for having their guns in their locked cars/trucks in theparking lot?

It also seems that there are a lot of conflicting laws out there.

22lr
December 29, 2008, 09:26 AM
Think of it this way. A LEO has to have a warrant to search your vehicle. So there for it is your private property and cannot be controlled.

jorb
December 29, 2008, 09:50 AM
NC says that even with a permit you may not carry a concealed handgun on any premises where the carrying of a concealed handgun is prohibited by the posting of a statement by the controller of the premises. At least thats what the info I got with the permit says.

Double Naught Spy
December 29, 2008, 10:12 AM
But they don't own my vehicle.
Well, they don't own your person either, so the logic is a bit off. In some states, the vehicle may be considered an extension of the home, but that may or may not be in regard to public lands/roads.

I don't respect people who have that attitude towards firearms. I cannot abide willful ignorance, and have zero respect for those who display it. If they post "No firearms allowed" on the entrance to the building, I'll honor that, as that is legally enforceable. If they try to say you cannot have it in the parking lot, well, good luck getting a search warrant for something you don't even know is there. That is NOT legally enforceable, at least not here, and I know it. I'm NOT giving up my protection to appease some moron who has his head so firmly in his backside that he can't see daylight.

Got it. You are willing to break the law when you think you can get away with it. "Not legally enforceable" may not be completely correct when somebody spies a gun in a vehicle on posted property and reports it.

Interesting how you call it "willful ignorance" when somebody wishes to exert legal rights that you don't like and you think it is okay to not abide by them if you think you won't get caught. I have seen in the past that such attitudes are exactly what end up getting folks into trouble, either in that they think they won't get caught or hat somehow the laws don't apply to them. It gives a different perspective on "willful ignorance."

expvideo
December 29, 2008, 10:17 AM
Well, whether they can or not, my company does it. I imagine they do it illegally in OK as well. It's a big company. Anyway, they don't own your pants either, but they can tell you what can or can't be in them. Like your gun for example.

It is what it is. I don't like it much either.

expvideo
December 29, 2008, 10:20 AM
I don't respect people who have that attitude towards firearms. I cannot abide willful ignorance, and have zero respect for those who display it. If they post "No firearms allowed" on the entrance to the building, I'll honor that, as that is legally enforceable. If they try to say you cannot have it in the parking lot, well, good luck getting a search warrant for something you don't even know is there. That is NOT legally enforceable, at least not here, and I know it. I'm NOT giving up my protection to appease some moron who has his head so firmly in his backside that he can't see daylight.

Look at it this way... If it is legally enforceable, they will fire you and press charges. If it is not legally enforceable, they will just fire you. Either way, you're fired.

The simple answer, as unhelpful as it is, is to find a new job with a more pro-2a employer.

Thin Black Line
December 29, 2008, 10:28 AM
If a federal agency leases a building then it is considered Federal property. On most federal property, the very act of entering that property gives them the right to search your car with out your permission.

BTW, this applies to federal vehicles as well. Including those vehicles that
are leased by a contractor/private agency from the GSA. Those vehicles
still remain federal property and are treated as such. You must have a letter
from your employer authorizing the carrying of a weapon (even cased) in
the vehicle and it must be a part of your job duties. Obviously, unless you're
.mil or LE-related in the first place, this is unlikely.

Sorry I can't post the cite on that, but I read it directly from one of feds
earlier this year.

BBQLS1
December 29, 2008, 10:44 AM
Think of it this way. A LEO has to have a warrant to search your vehicle. So there for it is your private property and cannot be controlled.

A very good point.


IMO, a parking lot that is open to the public for retail has no business with what is inside your car. Personally, I believe this to be true with your car in general even if it is at the work parking lot. That being said, the law varies state to state.

notorious
December 29, 2008, 11:59 AM
The 4A case law is clear that the Government can search/seize at places where it is obvious that you have a limited expectation of privacy, such as airports and courts. The rationale is funny for airports ini that the citizen has the alternative to drive and air travel is not a right or something. It was strange reading.

As for Lawson4 and that private entities cannot get a search warrant... that's not entirely accurate... in cases of copyright and piracy, private entities can get something similar and seize your property with the US Marshals or local Sheriffs as the parties who execute their warrant. Microsoft and others have been doing it for decades.

But as it relates to this topic, private entities don't EVEN NEED a search warrant. The 4A only protects us from governments, while non-government entities have no such prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures. So it's not so much that private entities can't get them, but it's that they DON'T NEED them.

When you deal with private entities, in an employment context, it's pretty much company policy as modified within applicable laws, but it all should be contained in your orientation with all the forms and policies you sign, assuming your company does that in the first place. Grandpa Sheckles probably won't bother with all that if you just work for his hardware store part-time after school though.

We have no expectation of privacy whatsoever on our company computers, internet use, office space, etc. (unless you work for the government, then it's a bit different in regards to desk drawers and lockers). Then again, this is a broad federal and CA viewpoint. Your state might be different.

In other countries, it's the opposite. You can do whatever you want at work and the employer cannot go into your computer or check your online activities even though they are the ones who provided you the computer and internet access. I think Canada and some European countries are like that.

akodo
December 29, 2008, 12:04 PM
My opinion is that they're allowing you to park your vehicle on their property, and that in turn they should be able to make that use of their property conditional

Here's the problem with that, even in a pie-in-the-sky world

If the owner of the parking lot has say about what can and cannot be in the cars, then it falls upon the owner of the parking lot to ban dangerous items.

With authority comes responsibility.

Just like a fire inspector with the authority to inspect and allow open or force closed a building. If he allows a dangerous building to remain open, and it burns to the ground, he has some real liability issues.

The the same way, if a parking lot owner gets on his high horse and says "this is MY parking lot, so MY rules apply" and then someone is hurt in his parking lot, and his rules did not bar that behavior, HE is on the hook."

Now, if you say "this is MY parking lot, and I have it here for you to use, please do so reasonably" then you are off the hook

22lr
December 29, 2008, 12:06 PM
BTW: what I said is for Indiana and I have no earthly Idea about most other states. But if a warrant is needed then it is considered private property.

How to find out. Heres a good way, you get pulled over for speeding be very polite and when he comes back to give you the ticket/warning politely ask the officer about it. I said politely but 90% of LEOs would be happy to answer a questions about warrants and when one in needed. However dont go talking about in places were there are signs or anything, just ask if he would need a warrant to search X if he didn't have probable cause. Personally Ive gotten pulled over once and I just jaw with em till they leave. LEOs are very interesting people and the older ones know a lot about everything. Just please be very polite and if they say no don't push it they deal with enough crap as it is.

notorious
December 29, 2008, 12:09 PM
The the same way, if a parking lot owner gets on his high horse and says "this is MY parking lot, so MY rules apply" and then someone is hurt in his parking lot, and his rules did not bar that behavior, HE is on the hook."

Premise liability is a very different area of law and your case wouldn't make it past a demurrer in California unless you had a lot of evidence showing similar things happen all the time in that parking lot and the owner was on notice and didn't do what was REASONABLE to prevent it.

Yep, there's a separate area of law called "PREMISE LIABILITY". You gotta love them lawyers.

In any event, most tort law is like that. What is foreseeable and what is preventable and at what reasonable cost and if there is even a connection (nexus) between the cause and the effect? There are more complicated issues but those are the main things you have to answer for the court before liability can be attributed.

akodo
December 29, 2008, 12:18 PM
ants had a nice post here, #22 (http://http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=5192789&postcount=22) and I'd like to add a few questions that go the other way.

What are the rules for a property owner whose land blocks access to another owner's land. (say a grid 3x3 of 'undeveloped lots' great for birdwatching or hunting. Guy A buys the middle one, Guy B eventually buys the surrounding 8)
I am pretty sure there are rights that the other landowner can extend to access his land, which means he can pass on private property immune to tresspass laws, etc. to get to his, and back.

what are the common laws for established by-ways on your private property? be it a street, sidewalk, hiking path, etc?

It is clear that inside a city limits, there are extra restrictions built right into the legal code relating to say, your sidewalk. But I have also been told even in the boonies, if you buy a tract of land that has a path on it ("even an old indian path that is rarely used") it is basically an agreement in pepretuity with the previous land owner to allow people to cross there, and you bought that 'lean' right along with the land, so there is nothing you can do about it.

akodo
December 29, 2008, 12:20 PM
In any event, most tort law is like that. What is foreseeable and what is preventable and at what reasonable cost and if there is even a connection (nexus) between the cause and the effect? There are more complicated issues but those are the main things you have to answer for the court before liability can be attributed.

Right, and that exists because we don't sit on either end of the spectrum where a land owner has TOTAL control of EVERYTHING in his parking lot on one end and a total ANYTHING GOES on the other end.

Property rights sit somewhere in the middle, hence a whole tangle of laws regarding the rights of those on the land, and the requirements and liabilities of the owner.

In fact, I think part of the reason our property rights are in the middle of that scale is it was quite far on one side but then accidents happened, people sued, and the property owner would reply the legal equivlant of 'but there was no way I could have known that X, Y or Z was going to happen' after which the legal equivalent of 'in that case your rules preventing people from taking their own initiative to avoid X, Y, or Z should be allowed'

Knotthead
December 29, 2008, 12:36 PM
So......anyone know about Kentucky? Or Michigan, another state where I spend some time?

Kentucky has very strong protective measures for those carrying a firearm in a privately owned vehicle, including protection from employers. Kentucky statues can be found here (http://www.lrc.ky.gov/krs/titles.htm). Chapters 237, 503, and 527, I believe, are those pertinent to firearms. Note that I am not a lawyer.

Kleanbore
December 29, 2008, 12:51 PM
Missouri law specifically states that the posting of "no gun" signs on private property does not prohibit one from having a gun in an automobile in the parking lot.

However, an employer may prohibit employees from having a gun in a vehicle on the employer's property as a condition of employment.

mpmarty
December 29, 2008, 01:03 PM
1. An employer has no right of access to a private vehicle legally parked on his lot, even if said vehicle is unlocked.

2. An employer can request an employee to allow a search of his vehicle parked on company property. Refusal would result in dismissal.

Bottom Line: How much do you like working there? It "ain't" right, but it's how it is. The golden rule, he who has the gold makes the rules.

divemedic
December 29, 2008, 01:39 PM
An employer can request an employee to allow a search of his vehicle parked on company property. Refusal would result in dismissal.

Not in Florida.

What many here fail to understand is that your powers and rights as a property owner do not come (in large part) from the Constitution. They originate instead in State Law, and these laws vary from state to state.

One state may allow a property owner to forbid firearms, while another may not. One state makes it a crime for you to carry in their store against the owner's wishes, while others do not.

In Florida, I can carry where I wish, whether that is on my person or in my vehicle. If the property owner finds out that I am carrying on my person, then as an employee he can fire me, and as a visitor he can ask me to leave. In neither case can he have me arrested, because I have broken no laws.

If a property owner finds out I have a gun in my car, he can ask me to leave if I am a visitor, but he can do nothing if he is my employer.

Again, all this varies from state to state.

notorious
December 29, 2008, 02:11 PM
Akodo, you are referring to an easement which is a strip of land granting you access to your property if you are landlocked otherwise from accessing your property without trespassing. Liens don't come into easements because it's not a claim against another's property rights.

Property rights vary from state to state, but the only constant is that we cannot be deprived without due process. Beyond that, consult an attorney that specializes in property law in your jurisdiction, since property, unlike a lot of other areas of law, is subject to more local ordinances (zoning, tract size, permits, etc.) than sometimes state law.

twoclones
December 29, 2008, 02:11 PM
If they own the parking lot, of course they can.

Wrong. A vehicle is private property and benefits from many of the same rights as a home. Some state laws even prohibit employers from restricting employees from keeping guns in their vehicle while parked on company property.

http://www.nraila.org/issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=193

WardenWolf
December 29, 2008, 03:34 PM
In Arizona, a cased firearm stored anywhere in a vehicle is not considered concealed. Because of this, I don't CARE what someone's policy is regarding firearms in vehicles in the parking lot. They can't see it, therefore they can't do anything about it. An employer also cannot search a private vehicle unless he has permission, a warrant, or a clause in the employment contract. If they try to force you to submit to a search or dismiss you for refusing a search, labor lawyers love that type of thing.

Ron James
December 29, 2008, 03:56 PM
In Arizona, if you leave a firearm visable in your car, cased or uncased, it will be gone in 60 seconds. You don't have to worry about any rights.:)

WardenWolf
December 29, 2008, 03:58 PM
Which is why you make damn sure it's not visible from the outside with the doors closed.

Grey_Mana
December 29, 2008, 05:47 PM
Well, I live in Maryland. I can't legally bring, keep, store, or allow any flammable or combustable substance on my private property. What the county and state think my house is made of, and what I power my car with, I have no idea.

For almost all businesses, the state has helpfully preempted the need for businesses to tell me whether or not I can carry in vehicle.

Tin_Man
December 29, 2008, 06:02 PM
Amen to that. Just a rundown. I live in AZ, there are no posted signs (only a few sentences in the employee handbook), and I'm worried about a co-worker "ratting me out" if I decide to keep one in my vehicle.

What part of Az are you in MTW?

Duke of Doubt
December 29, 2008, 08:07 PM
In Maine, only taverns are permitted to post their premises against firearms. And I've seen precisely one such sign. It hangs in a wonderful biker bar. The language of the sign was selected very carefully so as to satisfy the statutory requirements and yet be light and inoffensive. It reads, "Cowboys, leave your guns at the bar. You're among friends."

Maine's Permit to Carry Concealed Firearms allows the carrying of any firearm(s) concealed on one's person or in one's vehicle, or both.

WardenWolf
December 29, 2008, 08:12 PM
Amen to that. Just a rundown. I live in AZ, there are no posted signs (only a few sentences in the employee handbook), and I'm worried about a co-worker "ratting me out" if I decide to keep one in my vehicle.

What part of Az are you in MTW?

I'm in Phoenix. I tell NO ONE I work with that I carry in my car. It's none of their business.

notorious
December 30, 2008, 05:55 AM
Haha, the condo I lived in had this super-officious HOA president who took her job too seriously. She's retired and about 153 years old and has nothing to do but to mind everyone else's business.

She lectured me one time over an issue that it's against Fire Code to have flammables inside my condo because it could burn down the whole complex. I asked her so do all the tenants only cook in the microwave because cooking oil and cooking wine are pretty flammable... as is dryer lint and candles and incense and cigarettes and all sorts of other things that people kept in the condos.

She gave me a dirty look as only ancient people can give a young whuppersnapper who outsmarted them and walked away. Felt good. As a matter of fact, it felt so good, it must be wrong.

HoosierQ
December 30, 2008, 11:46 AM
First of all my response does not include one's own employer who might be able to search vehicles...like schools do. But for "public" places like malls and things like that...

Lock up you gun out of sight for pitty's sake! You'd be a fool to leave it in plain sight anyway and unless you shoplift or something, nobody is going to be able to search your vehicle without just cause. And if you want to shoplift or flash people or whatever in the mall and not be prosecuted because you also have a gun in your vehicle...well everybody can dream I guess.

Now I am certainly being sarcastic and there are, of course, scenarios where , doing nothing wrong, you'd want to have the legal right to have your gun locked, and discovered, in your car, without fear: An accident in the parking lot that let's say pops open your trunk, your vehicle is broken into and you want to report the thing to the police etc.

But by and large I think discretion the better part of valor and 999 time out of 1,000, you are not going to have to face this issue regardless of the law.

rscalzo
December 30, 2008, 01:04 PM
Just because the doors are open for business doesn't make it public property. It's still a private property and the owner/leaseholder can make the rules

Not true. A major corporation lost a suit years back based on property owners rights and access by the public. The basic facts were allowing use of a mall by groups passing out informational flyer's and/or info.

the bottom line was that the courts determined that malls are now the new town squares and are open, with limitations to groups.

Anyone that interested can probably look it up. the corporation was Hartz Mountain (yes, the bird seed company) in a NJ case.

Duke of Doubt
December 30, 2008, 01:22 PM
That was one of several risks run by the large shopping mall developers over the past several decades.

Not much chance the corner feed store, drug store or laundromat was going to be considered the "new town square." Nor the hardware store, bookstore, tobacconist, haberdashery, or what have you. But when you put acres upon acres of public space out there, entice the general public to shop recreationally and to loiter? Asking for it. Just asking for it.

notorious
December 30, 2008, 01:31 PM
The trend is for the government to increasingly dictate what people can do on supposely private property. The recent case in CO involving eminent domain for private use as long as the government deems it for the greater good is another scary development into that final dominion.

For those who didn't hear about it, the case allowed a private construction company to take a privately owned house via eminent domain, which should be a government prerogative, if it is going to build something that the government deems to be of better use or will provide greater benefit to the public. IIRC, I think it was a condo or something that was being built and the government decided it would provide more benefit to the community than the existing single residence house so it forced the owners out.

Of course, that is a very simplistic view of the case but it's a scary expansion of their right to decide what's good for our property instead of us.

Duke of Doubt
December 30, 2008, 01:54 PM
One of the worst private takings cases was the Poletown case back in 1982. GM levelled a Detroit neighborhood to build a new factory, with power of eminent domain to keep prices flat after word leaked out of the move.

Remember GM? And how what's good for GM is good for America? Remember that? Man, I hope they fail and take the UAW with them.

MGshaggy
December 30, 2008, 01:55 PM
Not true. A major corporation lost a suit years back based on property owners rights and access by the public. The basic facts were allowing use of a mall by groups passing out informational flyer's and/or info. the bottom line was that the courts determined that malls are now the new town squares and are open, with limitations to groups.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the carrying or possession of guns on private property or in privately owned parking lots. You've conflated the concept of a quasi-public space in the context of 1st Amendment law with private property. Certain privately owned property, such as malls, may (in some cases) be quasi-public places subject to some 1st amendment protections WRT speech related activities, but absent other state laws to the contrary, they are nevertheless private property subject to the regulations of the property owners WRT other activities (such as possession and/or carrying of guns).

Duke of Doubt
December 30, 2008, 01:57 PM
And I suspect the 9th Circuit will make the analogical leap from 1st to 2nd Amendment jurisprudence in a single bound.

notorious
December 30, 2008, 02:11 PM
The 9th Circuits' amazing feats with leaps of logic has never been bound by the earthly laws of physics or any reasonable schools of philosophy.

papaholmz
January 1, 2009, 03:00 AM
Just got done with my CWP class in SC and I was taught that if the parking lot is accessible to the public then the business you work for can't legally prohibit you having a gun in your car in that parking lot; however, SC is a right-to-work state so they can fire you for any reason and in fact without providing a reason.

-papaholmz

TAB
January 1, 2009, 03:01 AM
That would be at will, not right to work.

notorious
January 1, 2009, 04:00 AM
It's a no right to work state.

ramis
January 1, 2009, 04:49 AM
So......anyone know about Kentucky?

Here's the specific law for KY.

http://www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/237-00/106.PDF

237.106 Right of employees and other persons to possess firearms in vehicle -- Employer liable for denying right -- Exceptions.

(1) No person, including but not limited to an employer, who is the owner, lessee, or occupant of real property shall prohibit any person who is legally entitled to possess a firearm from possessing a firearm, part of a firearm, ammunition, or ammunition component in a vehicle on the property.

(2) A person, including but not limited to an employer, who owns, leases, or otherwise occupies real property may prevent a person who is prohibited by state or federal law from possessing a firearm or ammunition from possessing a firearm or ammunition on the property.

(3) A firearm may be removed from the vehicle or handled in the case of self-defense, defense of another, defense of property, or as authorized by the owner, lessee, or occupant of the property.

(4) An employer that fires, disciplines, demotes, or otherwise punishes an employee who is lawfully exercising a right guaranteed by this section and who is engaging in conduct in compliance with this statute shall be liable in civil damages. An employee may seek and the court shall grant an injunction against an employer who is violating the provisions of this section when it is found that the employee is in compliance with the provisions of this section.

(5) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any real property:
(a) Owned, leased, or occupied by the United States government, upon which the possession or carrying of firearms is prohibited or controlled;
(b) Of a detention facility as defined in KRS 520.010; or
(c) Where a section of the Kentucky Revised Statutes specifically prohibits possession or carrying of firearms on the property.
Effective: July 12, 2006
History: Created 2006 Ky. Acts ch. 240, sec. 8, effective July 12, 2006.

divemedic
January 1, 2009, 10:16 AM
The trend is for the government to increasingly dictate what people can do on supposely private property. The recent case in CO involving eminent domain for private use as long as the government deems it for the greater good is another scary development into that final dominion.

Actually, in a strict sense that ruling is correct. Any other ruling would be legislating from the bench. The COTUS states (in part):

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

So as long as the eminent domain is done in accordance with due process, and the previous owner is compensated, such a taking is constitutional and always has been.

The same for the laws concerning CCW on private property. A state that passes a law preventing a property holder from excluding CCW on hos property is completely constitutional. The reason for this is that the invasion of the "taking" in this case does not rise to the level that would require compensation.

In order to rise to that point, a court must determine if the regulation results in one of three types of "per se" regulatory takings. These occur (1) where a regulation requires an owner to suffer a "permanent physical invasion" of the property; or (2) where a regulation completely deprives an owner of "all economically beneficial uses" of the property; or (3) a government demands that a landowner dedicate an easement allowing public access to her property as a condition of obtaining a development permit. Since none of the above exists in the case of prohibiting the exclusion of CCW, this is not an unconstitutional taking, anymore than a law requiring an owner to have handicapped parking, requiring an owner to allow seeing eye dogs, fire codes, or prohibiting alcohol sales.

onebigelf
January 1, 2009, 10:19 AM
Not in Florida :).

They own the parking lot, I own the vehicle. If they permit my vehicle in the parking lot for the purpose of seeking my business, they lose the right to specify what's IN the vehicle.

John

22lr
January 1, 2009, 10:35 AM
True, and besides what store owner is going to search your vehicle and then ban you from even shopping there again. My family owns a business and believe me the customer is always right, and you never drive away business unless its a last resort.:)

papaholmz
January 1, 2009, 11:24 AM
That would be at will, not right to work.

I stand corrected.... 'at will' is what I meant :)

The Deer Hunter
January 2, 2009, 10:00 PM
If I went into a business that had a policy against carrying concealed, and didn't make a big deal over it I would just carry in the building. If they are up in your face about it, I wouldn't even shop there.

If you enjoyed reading about "Does a Public Business Have the Right to Tell You Not to Carry in Vehicle?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!