[TexasRifleman]

Support SB 231, Texas Commuters Act.

From TSRA:

SB 321 by Senator Glenn Hegar, Jr.(R-Katy) relates to protecting the jobs of hard-working Texans and the legal possession of a firearm in their private locked vehicles when parked on their employer's parking lot.

Beginning Monday, March 14th, SB 321 will be eligible for a vote on the floor of the Texas Senate. All Senator will participate in this vote.

It's time to call your state senator and urge he or she to stand with Senator Hegar and fight off business and industry amendments aimed at carving-out groups of employees and restricting the legal contents of their personal vehicles.

Tell your state senator there is no OSHA excuse, no Homeland Security excuse, and employer notification is not an acceptable addition to Senator Hegar's bill. You won't settle for an alternative "Guns Only" parking lot, or a stripped down version for Concealed Handgun Licensees only. Every Austin lobbyist is hard at work for their employer trying to turn SB 321 into a meal-ticket for them and leave you disarmed on your trip to and from your job. It's time to join other states and pass SB 321.

Contact Info for TX Senators:

http://www.senate.state.tx.us/75r/Senate/Members.htm

[TechBrute]

Thanks for the heads up, TX, manning the phone tomorrow.

[dacavasi]

likewise...

[henschman]

Is this one of those laws that prevents employers from making rules regarding their own property?

This isn't pro gun rights -- this is anti property rights and anti contractual rights. Your rights do not extend to telling other people what they have to allow on their property, or under what conditions they must contract with other people.

Tell your reps to vote "no" on this one.

[joeq]

Don't tell me what I can or can't keep in my locked up vehicle. That is my property. I will not tell them to vote no.

[coonhound]

Does your employer have the right to strip-search you? You are on their property. What I have in my car is in my car, stay out.

[Gord]

Is this one of those laws that prevents employers from making rules regarding their own property?

I admit to being a complete ignoramus on this particular sort of property-rights issue, so could you give an example of how this might negatively affect the property owner on a level commensurate with that of prohibiting employees from keeping firearms (or anything else) in their own "sovereign" vehicles? Would this affect the employer's liability premiums, etc.?

[TexasRifleman]

Is this one of those laws that prevents employers from making rules regarding their own property?

So my employer owns my car now? When did that law pass? The contents of my car are mine. As long as those contents stay in my car why are my employers property rights violated?

[walker944]

This proposed law has absolutely nothing to do with the employer or his/her rights! I live 38 miles from my job and currently have to let my employer dictate whether or not I can protect myself to and from work, because of their "no guns on the property" rights. I'm not worried about or concerned with issues arising on the job, but rather to and from work...that's a far greater exposure/risk to me.

[GEM]

The business community has explicitly analyzed that they have increased liability for guns at their businesses. The legal literature has several law reviews stating such.

That's all they care about. However, they use the property rights issues as a stalking horse for their evil designs. Then 'rights' folks have a hissy about their property. Well, there are plenty of things you can't do on your property - like be a racist employers. So the property rights folks should take a damn hike when it comes to the rights of self-defense and stop being the pawns of the money grubbing lawyers and employers.

:fire::banghead::cuss:

[THE DARK KNIGHT]

Is this one of those laws that prevents employers from making rules regarding their own property?

This isn't pro gun rights -- this is anti property rights and anti contractual rights. Your rights do not extend to telling other people what they have to allow on their property, or under what conditions they must contract with other people.

Tell your reps to vote "no" on this one.

First off, your car doesn't belong to them. It is none of the employer's business what lawful items you have locked in your car. They can still say no guns in the building/yard etc.

Second, if you think anyone in big business said "hey, we've got to respect employee rights"......LOL

[alsaqr]

Good for TX: i hope the bill passes.

The state of OK was first to have such a law. It has been blessed by the the federal court system. In OK your employer cannot prevent you from having a gun in your locked vehicle in his parking lot.

The OK law came about because Weyerhauser Lumber Co. went on a witch hunt and had employees cars searched.

[benEzra]

The OK law came about because Weyerhauser Lumber Co. went on a witch hunt and had employees cars searched.
On the first day of hunting season, no less (if I remember correctly).

[nuked0g]

what's the status of this law? I'm very interested in this one. I work at a steel mill and get off at three in the morning most nights, then have to car pool halfway across houston to the hood where my car is parked. This law should pass.

[Voland]

Here's a fun little link. I believe this is the correct bill...

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/BillStages.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=SB231

Basically, its no where at this point. Its been filed. I really do wish it would pass though.

V.

[henschman]

Of course your vehicle is your property. However, the parking lot is the employer's property. In a free society, a property owner gets to set the rules for those who enter his property, and can expel someone for any or no reason. Also in a free society, a man has a right to associate with any other man on mutually consensual terms. Absent some additional contractual terms, either party to an employment arrangement can withdraw his consent at any time.

So yes, you have the right to refuse to allow an employer to search your car, but he has the right to expel you from his property and to terminate his employment relationship with you.

Of course the conditions you voluntarily agree to when you form an employment relationship may impact other areas of your life... like if you voluntarily agree to work at a company who prohibits guns on the premises, it will be inconvenient for you to go to work armed, if you park on the premises. However, the key here is that you VOLUNTARILY agreed to accept those conditions when you formed the employment relationship. Nobody is sticking a gun to your head and forcing you to work there. In a free society, if you aren't willing to accept the conditions an employer places on his consent to form employment relationship, the answer is simple... YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORK THERE! The right to free association goes both ways. Either party can terminate the association at any time. If the terms under which you are willing to work don't match the terms that an employer is willing to employ you, then you shouldn't form/continue a relationship with that employer.

BTW, to avoid any confusion, when I talk about rights, I do not mean so-called "rights" that some government grants or denies to you. I am talking about natural, inalienable, God-given rights... like our right to bear arms. Obviously our right to property and our right to free association are infringed upon greatly in our current society. For instance, governments attempt to force employers to continue a relationship with employees even if they do not consent to employment under some circumstances, such as when the employer wants to terminate the relationship based on the race, alienage, nationality, sex, disability, etc. of the employee. But the fact that the government already infringes on our right to freedom of association in some instances is no argument for why they should infringe on it further!

[PTT]

Of course your vehicle is your property. However, the parking lot is the employer's property. In a free society, a property owner gets to set the rules for those who enter his property, and can expel someone for any or no reason. Also in a free society, a man has a right to associate with any other man on mutually consensual terms. Absent some additional contractual terms, either party to an employment arrangement can withdraw his consent at any time.

So yes, you have the right to refuse to allow an employer to search your car, but he has the right to expel you from his property and to terminate his employment relationship with you.

Of course the conditions you voluntarily agree to when you form an employment relationship may impact other areas of your life... like if you voluntarily agree to work at a company who prohibits guns on the premises, it will be inconvenient for you to go to work armed, if you park on the premises. However, the key here is that you VOLUNTARILY agreed to accept those conditions when you formed the employment relationship. Nobody is sticking a gun to your head and forcing you to work there. In a free society, if you aren't willing to accept the conditions an employer places on his consent to form employment relationship, the answer is simple... YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORK THERE! The right to free association goes both ways. Either party can terminate the association at any time. If the terms under which you are willing to work don't match the terms that an employer is willing to employ you, then you shouldn't form/continue a relationship with that employer.

BTW, to avoid any confusion, when I talk about rights, I do not mean so-called "rights" that some government grants or denies to you. I am talking about natural, inalienable, God-given rights... like our right to bear arms. Obviously our right to property and our right to free association are infringed upon greatly in our current society. For instance, governments attempt to force employers to continue a relationship with employees even if they do not consent to employment under some circumstances, such as when the employer wants to terminate the relationship based on the race, alienage, nationality, sex, disability, etc. of the employee. But the fact that the government already infringes on our right to freedom of association in some instances is no argument for why they should infringe on it further!

BUT, there are limits to private property rights.

Can an employer prohibit black people or women? Can an employer fire somebody for joining a religion?

And this bit about 'you don't have to work there' is wrong too. Many times, these large employers only exist because government regulation prevents smaller and more efficient competitors from entering the industry, often at the request of the big companies.

This whole recession thing was also caused by government, and often people have to take a job at one of these big employers to keep bread on the table after their small business tanked.

So now insult is added to injury when they have to make their commute unarmed for the privilege of earning minimum wage working for these big businesses who are only where they are because they collude with regulators to screw the competition.

Don't expect me to shed any tears for their lost 'rights' to regulate what other people do in their own private automobiles.

If they don't like playing by the rules, they are free to shut the business down.

[GEM]

The companies only care about liability. They care not for your 'rights'. You can buy into their sophistry and compare their company parking lot to your redoubt in the mountains.

If you do - you are a sucker.

[alsaqr]

Some OK employers are chapped by this law but so be it.



Tell your TX politicians to pass this bill.

[kurt1305]

For all intents and purposes, it is dead this session. There are only 39 days left in the session and it hasn't even made it out of the starting gate to committee. It would need to go to committee, pass on the Senate floor, go to House Committee, the House floor for a vote and then to the Governor.

[GEM]

The chatter on the TX chl forum is that things are in the works, etc.

Believe it when I see it. I do think, that if this fails, it is a serious and a touch existential set back. The House is grim with the calendar shennigans like before - but we aren't getting to the House.

This is with a supposed conservative legislature. If I'm correct, then the RKBA groups were played by legislators and the governor. :mad:

[G27RR]

Here's a fun little link. I believe this is the correct bill...

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/BillStages.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=SB231

Basically, its no where at this point. Its been filed. I really do wish it would pass though.

V.
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/BillStages.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=SB321

I think you meant 321 not 231, which is a DUI related bill. It passed the Senate and is out of the House committee but hasn't had a House vote yet.

[Crosswind81]

I think valid arguments for property rights vs the right to bear arms and protect oneself have been well articulated here. I wonder what liability a property owner has in providing security for one's employees or in the event something happens to said employee that would expose the property owner to culpability after the fact? In other words, if the unarmed employee gets hurt or killed going to or from work or while on the job, is the property owner exposing themselves to a lawsuit for failure to provide security when they assume that responsibility by their no guns rules? Seems to me, that liability cuts both ways. Is anyone aware of a suit ever brought because of this situation? Does it stand up to legal scrutiny that the employer is now responsible for the safety of the employee going to and from work if the emplyee cannot bear arms because of work rules?

[GEM]

That's a good question, and commonly brought up. Thus, I asked 4 very progun attorneys and looked at the legal literature.

There are no strong analyses for that position. The law review articles postulate that the great liability risk is for a company or location to allow carry than liability for not letting you carry.

The key issue and I'm NOT a lawyer is the directness of the action. If you proactively let guns be carried, you take the risk of the gun actor doing bad. However, you have little risk for the actions of a criminal - UNLESs you can prove a direct and very predictable threat. Not the vague threat of that there may be a crime.

The lawyers (again all staunch gun folks and knowing the area) also say that such a case would have to be taken on contingency against the legal resources of a major institution. Your personal damages (as compared to a large class action suit) might not justify the contingency - esp. if they want to fight as compared to giving a settlement and starting a precedent.

None of them would take it on contingency (as a business analysis) as compared to an advocacy analysis. Note you haven't seen such law suits at Virginia Tech or Northern Illinois. Legal action as been on the basis of failure to follow procedure on known threats - Cho or not locking down the school.

That probably has more weight than suing that since the school knew Cho was disturbed, that you should armed. The argument was that they should have gotten rid of him, like the CC did with Loughner in AZ.

Thus, it sounds good but I haven't found an expert or literature that suggests it is a viable legal threat.

That's why legislation is need to override the property rights (again a scam on the rights crowd - sigh) argument and limit institutional liability for the acton of a licensed carrier.

I really have no use for this is my castle argument. Given all the restrictions on businesses, it is clearly emotional and territorial as compared to having respect for the greater right of self-defense.

I don't have to go to your business but you don't have to have a business if you are scared of a basic right.

[geniusiknowit]

BUT, there are limits to private property rights.
Can an employer prohibit black people or women? Can an employer fire somebody for joining a religion?

These are limitations imposed by fiat. They aren't inherent in the nature of the right.

Many times, these large employers only exist because government regulation prevents smaller and more efficient competitors from entering the industry, often at the request of the big companies.

Right, but the law wouldn't be restricted to just those companies, would it?

If they don't like playing by the rules, they are free to shut the business down.

Suppose instead the law was to prohibit the carrying of firearms into any retail establishment. Would you say this to pro-gun business owners? Play by the rules or shut down?

[henschman]

BUT, there are limits to private property rights.

Can an employer prohibit black people or women? Can an employer fire somebody for joining a religion?

In a free society, an employee could quit because he doesn't like the religion/race/gender of the boss, and the boss could fire the employee because he doesn't like his religion/race/gender. Everyone would have maximum equal and correlative rights, and all human interaction would be voluntary (obviously a free society doesn't resemble our current society all that much).

And this bit about 'you don't have to work there' is wrong too. Many times, these large employers only exist because government regulation prevents smaller and more efficient competitors from entering the industry, often at the request of the big companies.

This whole recession thing was also caused by government, and often people have to take a job at one of these big employers to keep bread on the table after their small business tanked.

So now insult is added to injury when they have to make their commute unarmed for the privilege of earning minimum wage working for these big businesses who are only where they are because they collude with regulators to screw the competition.

Lord knows the government violates our rights billions of times per day in all kinds of ways. Yes, one of the many ways in which they do this is to steal our money and give it to failed businesses. However, one violation of our liberty is no excuse for FURTHER violations, just to "balance things out." That is how we got the massive leviathan state we have today... one government intervention causes problems, which requires more government intervention to fix, but which has its own unintended consequences, which requires more government intervention to fix... ad nauseum. It has to stop. It is time to start rolling back layers of government intervention, rather than adding more.

Forget about big government-subsidized corporations for a second and think of the impact of this law on a pure individual basis. One individual enters into an employment relationship with another, and then uses the power of the state to force the other person to accept terms to the employment relationship that the other person is not willing to accept voluntarily. It doesn't matter whether it is the employer doing it to the employee or vise versa -- no matter how you slice it, it is just plain wrong.

[paragrouper]

In a free society, an employee could quit because he doesn't like the religion/race/gender of the boss, and the boss could fire the employee because he doesn't like his religion/race/gender. Everyone would have maximum equal and correlative rights, and all human interaction would be voluntary (obviously a free society doesn't resemble our current society all that much).



Lord knows the government violates our rights billions of times per day in all kinds of ways. Yes, one of the many ways in which they do this is to steal our money and give it to failed businesses. However, one violation of our liberty is no excuse for FURTHER violations, just to "balance things out." That is how we got the massive leviathan state we have today... one government intervention causes problems, which requires more government intervention to fix, but which has its own unintended consequences, which requires more government intervention to fix... ad nauseum. It has to stop. It is time to start rolling back layers of government intervention, rather than adding more.

Forget about big government-subsidized corporations for a second and think of the impact of this law on a pure individual basis. One individual enters into an employment relationship with another, and then uses the power of the state to force the other person to accept terms to the employment relationship that the other person is not willing to accept voluntarily. It doesn't matter whether it is the employer doing it to the employee or vise versa -- no matter how you slice it, it is just plain wrong.
On the "pure individual basis" I would appreciate it if Texas would reaffirm my rights under the 4th amendment of the US constitution and let my employer know that he does not have the right to search my vehicle--my personal property.

[henschman]

The 4th Amendment has nothing to do with what a private employer can or can't do. If you read it, you will see that it is purely a restraint on the government (and only against the National government, at that -- the 14th Amendment places the same requirements on the States, but is also only directed at governmental action).

You have every right to deny your employer access to your vehicle, since it is after all your property. However, your employer also has every right to kick you and your vehicle off HIS property if he wants, and to terminate any voluntary relationships he has with you.

Just like if you invited your boss over to your house, you could kick him out at any time for any reason or no reason. If you want, you could even demand that he let you look in his car. If he refuses, you could tell him to leave. If he does not, you could use reasonable force to remove him from the premises... and you would be well within your rights. I don't deny that it is rude to treat somebody that way, whether its the employer doing it or the employee, but it is within the rights of a free individual to control access to his own property, and to enter and withdraw from voluntary, consensual relationships with others.

I believe that everyone is entitled to equal rights, regardless of which side of the money-for-labor transaction they are on. This Texas law would deprive some people of their rights while granting extra benefits to others. That is unjust and violative of the equal rights of free men.

[paragrouper]

Thanks for the law class. You make a poignant case for “equal rights,” Sadly, what you propose make the rights more equal for business interests than for the individual. The ambiguity currently in Texas code allows businesses to define for themselves what constitutes their ‘premises.’ In the case of my company that includes a public access parking lot. I can complain, I can refuse and I can lose my job for doing so. Further, by promoting the propoerty rights of businesses, you discard the interests of Texas CHL’s to defend themselves while traveling to and from work—as they would otherwise be allowed to under Texas Law.
That’s why this law is before the legislature, supported by the NRA, TSRA and many Texans. Despite your assertion in an earlier post, this is an RKBA issue, not a property rights issue—one that many of us hope will pass.

[walker944]

...you discard the interests of Texas CHL’s to defend themselves while traveling to and from work—as they would otherwise be allowed to under Texas Law.


Actually, Texas law allows anyone (not just CHL holders) to defend themselves traveling to and from work...or anywhere else for that matter, provided they are not in the process of committing a crime, or associated with a gang, etc. That law went into action 9/1/05. Unfortunately, the conflicting right of the business (currently at least) on their property trumps the rights of the individuals to defend themselves.

[Ironclad]

You have every right to deny your employer access to your vehicle, since it is after all your property. However, your employer also has every right to kick you and your vehicle off HIS property if he wants, and to terminate any voluntary relationships he has with you.

By your logic, your employer has the right to ask you for anything he wants, and then fire you for not complying. He could swat you on the butt, and tell you to go put on somethin see-through and meet him in his office, and then fire you if you refuse.
Is that a violation of your rights? Definitely. Just like illegal search of your property. An employer can say whatever he wants, but he can also answer for his violations of employee's rights in the courtroom.

[PTT]

It all depends in how important the right to self defense is to you vs property rights.

The ownership of property does not give anybody license to violate others' rights.

So, is defense a basic human right or isn't it?

[henschman]

Now some of you are claiming that an employer who makes such a policy is violating your individual right to self defense. This is not so. Nor is the right to self defense in conflict with any other right. True natural rights are never in conflict with one another, and there is never a need to "balance" the relative importance of one right against another. That is because the rights of one person end where the equal rights of another begins. Natural rights are the maximum amount of liberty that can be shared equally by all people. As Thomas Jefferson put it, "unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." In other words, my right to swing my fist ends at your nose. If you ever come to the conclusion that two natural rights are in conflict, you need to check your premises.

You have an absolute right to self defense anywhere you go. You also have the right to enter into contracts with other people. As a free person, you can choose to voluntarily bind yourself to certain conditions, and give up things you have a right to do, in exchange for something of value from another person. For instance, you have a right to go to the lake, sit in a chair, and drink beer all day if you want. However, people voluntarily give up their right to do this, and promise to sit at a desk for 8 hours per day doing work for another person, in exchange for that other person giving them something of value. If you enter into this kind of arrangement, you cannot say that the employer is violating your right to freedom of action, by preventing you from going to the lake and drinking beer all day instead of doing paperwork. That is because you VOLUNTARILY chose to give up that course of action in exchange for payment from the employer. It is the same with a dress code. An employer can choose to condition his consent to employ people based on how they dress at work. This may have absolutely nothing to do with the job, and may provide absolutely no benefit to the employer, but he has the right to make such policies because 1) it is his property, and 2) as a free man, he can choose to contract with others based on whatever terms he wants. None of the people who choose to contract with him and accept his payment for their work can complain that he is violating their rights to wear whatever clothes they want while travelling to and from work... because THEY VOLUNTARILY ACCEPTED THOSE CONDITIONS, AND IF THEY DON'T LIKE IT, ARE FREE TO TERMINATE THE RELATIONSHIP ANY TIME AND GO WHEREVER THEY WANT DRESSED HOWEVER THEY WANT. It is the exact same with carrying arms. You have the natural right to go armed anywhere and everywhere you have a right to be, but you can voluntarily give this up if you want to, as part of a contract with someone else. You can never claim that they are in any way violating your rights, because the relationship is completely voluntary and consensual, and you can terminate it at any time.

[paragrouper]

Now some of you are claiming that an employer who makes such a policy is violating your individual right to self defense. This is not so. Nor is the right to self defense in conflict with any other right. True natural rights are never in conflict with one another, and there is never a need to "balance" the relative importance of one right against another. That is because the rights of one person end where the equal rights of another begins. Natural rights are the maximum amount of liberty that can be shared equally by all people. As Thomas Jefferson put it, "unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." In other words, my right to swing my fist ends at your nose. If you ever come to the conclusion that two natural rights are in conflict, you need to check your premises.

You have an absolute right to self defense anywhere you go. You also have the right to enter into contracts with other people. As a free person, you can choose to voluntarily bind yourself to certain conditions, and give up things you have a right to do, in exchange for something of value from another person. For instance, you have a right to go to the lake, sit in a chair, and drink beer all day if you want. However, people voluntarily give up their right to do this, and promise to sit at a desk for 8 hours per day doing work for another person, in exchange for that other person giving them something of value. If you enter into this kind of arrangement, you cannot say that the employer is violating your right to freedom of action, by preventing you from going to the lake and drinking beer all day instead of doing paperwork. That is because you VOLUNTARILY chose to give up that course of action in exchange for payment from the employer. It is the same with a dress code. An employer can choose to condition his consent to employ people based on how they dress at work. This may have absolutely nothing to do with the job, and may provide absolutely no benefit to the employer, but he has the right to make such policies because 1) it is his property, and 2) as a free man, he can choose to contract with others based on whatever terms he wants. None of the people who choose to contract with him and accept his payment for their work can complain that he is violating their rights to wear whatever clothes they want while travelling to and from work... because THEY VOLUNTARILY ACCEPTED THOSE CONDITIONS, AND IF THEY DON'T LIKE IT, ARE FREE TO TERMINATE THE RELATIONSHIP ANY TIME AND GO WHEREVER THEY WANT DRESSED HOWEVER THEY WANT. It is the exact same with carrying arms. You have the natural right to go armed anywhere and everywhere you have a right to be, but you can voluntarily give this up if you want to, as part of a contract with someone else. You can never claim that they are in any way violating your rights, because the relationship is completely voluntary and consensual, and you can terminate it at any time.
You are almost right. I have entered into a contract with my employer and I currently abide by that contract. However, that agreement is subject to the laws of Texas and we are trying to change that law--much like your neighbors in Oklahoma did. If passed, my employers interest in what happens outside his premises, aka my vehicle in the parking lot will no longer be his concern.

[Classified00]

I'm always stunned at the controversy over this. Here's the way I see it:

One property owner's rights end where another property owner's right begin. The interior of my vehicle is my property and not anyone elses. This law is meant to clarify and enforce that.

If you hire me to do work some work for you and I park my SUV on your property then your property line ends at the shell of my vehicle.
- If the police come by and want to search my vehicle, who are they going to ask for permission? Me.
- If they find contraband, who are they going to charge? Me.
- If you pry open a door and get inside my vehicle, who are they going to arrest? You.

You can have my SUV towed from your property if you wish but the vehicle itself and the contents are mine.

:scrutiny:

[ghitch75]

we had the same bill come up and now it's law.....

[PTT]

I'm always stunned at the controversy over this. Here's the way I see it:

One property owner's rights end where another property owner's right begin. The interior of my vehicle is my property and not anyone elses. This law is meant to clarify and enforce that.

If you hire me to do work some work for you and I park my SUV on your property then your property line ends at the shell of my vehicle.
- If the police come by and want to search my vehicle, who are they going to ask for permission? Me.
- If they find contraband, who are they going to charge? Me.
- If you pry open a door and get inside my vehicle, who are they going to arrest? You.

You can have my SUV towed from your property if you wish but the vehicle itself and the contents are mine.

:scrutiny:

There are too many employers who don't understand this. They think they are God and that their employees are subhuman.

I don't mind letting the legislature knock their cocky butts down a notch. Somebody call a friggin wambulance.

Decent employers who deserve respect aren't going to be affected by this, because they already allow guns in cars or on their employees' person.

[henschman]

You are almost right. I have entered into a contract with my employer and I currently abide by that contract. However, that agreement is subject to the laws of Texas and we are trying to change that law--much like your neighbors in Oklahoma did. If passed, my employers interest in what happens outside his premises, aka my vehicle in the parking lot will no longer be his concern.


Think about what you are saying... you are saying that it is OK for the government to make laws that violate the natural rights of individuals, and if some people don't like others having rights, they can just get together and get a law passed stripping them of rights and it is all OK. Is that the kind of country you want to live in? Remember, in a system where people's rights are up for a vote, NO ONE'S rights are safe. Voting away people's rights is all fun and games until YOU are on the wrong side of the majority, and a bunch of people decide that they do not like you having a liberty that you hold dear.

On the topic of the law and its relationship to rightful liberty, I can't say it any better than Thomas Jefferson. This is the full quote that I quoted part of in my last post:

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." --Thomas Jefferson to I. Tiffany, 1819.

I'm always stunned at the controversy over this. Here's the way I see it:

One property owner's rights end where another property owner's right begin. The interior of my vehicle is my property and not anyone elses. This law is meant to clarify and enforce that.

If you hire me to do work some work for you and I park my SUV on your property then your property line ends at the shell of my vehicle.
- If the police come by and want to search my vehicle, who are they going to ask for permission? Me.
- If they find contraband, who are they going to charge? Me.
- If you pry open a door and get inside my vehicle, who are they going to arrest? You.

You can have my SUV towed from your property if you wish but the vehicle itself and the contents are mine.

The issue isn't whether your vehicle and its contents are your property -- nobody would argue with that, and our laws currently protect it as such.

The issue here is whether a private employer employer can fire you if you have a gun in your car in violation of company policy, or if you refuse to give consent for a voluntary search of your vehicle for guns.

The way I see it, an employer has every right to do these things. I agree that it is a stupid policy, but it is one that an employer is well within his rights to make.

[Ironclad]

A person owns the area inside his vehicle. Heck, in Texas the castle doctrine even applies in your vehicle. An employer dictating what you can have in your vehicle is no different than dictating what you can have in your own home.

[Classified00]

"The issue isn't whether your vehicle and its contents are your property -- nobody would argue with that, and our laws currently protect it as such.

The issue here is whether a private employer employer can fire you if you have a gun in your car in violation of company policy, or if you refuse to give consent for a voluntary search of your vehicle for guns.

The way I see it, an employer has every right to do these things. I agree that it is a stupid policy, but it is one that an employer is well within his rights to make."
- henschman

Let me tag onto Ironclad's point. Look at it this way, suppose your employer insists that you give them permission to search your home (and they want to do this with all employees) because they are missing equipment / tools / product / etc... Should they be able to fire you if you don't consent? I would say no because it's my property, same with my car. If my employer believes I have broken the law (in any way), they can call the police, present evidence and statements, and if the police have cause they'll search my property. My employer has no right to search my property (or fire me for not complying) simply because they want to.

The critical difference here is that we're not talking about company owned property like an office, cubical, desk or wall locker that they allow you to use. Can they search those areas, absolutely! That's their property. The building, their property. The parking lot, their property. The interior of my vehicle, not their property. Why on earth should they be allowed to threaten me to make me give them consent to search my property?

:scrutiny::neener::cuss::uhoh::eek:

[henschman]

A person owns the area inside his vehicle. Heck, in Texas the castle doctrine even applies in your vehicle. An employer dictating what you can have in your vehicle is no different than dictating what you can have in your own home.

True, but like I said, everyone has the right to enter into a contract or relationship with another person based on whatever conditions the 2 of them agree to.

Remember, you are not a slave... nobody is sticking a gun to your head and forcing you to work at a company whose policies you don't like.

Why should the government get involved in telling people what conditions they can and can't voluntarily agree to? Isn't an employment relationship supposed to be a voluntary and consensual relationship between 2 parties? If two people want to agree to an employment relationship on the condition that one of them gets to search the other's home or car or person, what business of the government's is it to tell them they can't agree to those terms? Whose right is being violated if an employer decides to withhold his consent to continue paying someone for his labor, regardless of the reason why he does so? There is no way anyone's rights can be violated by one party choosing to end a mutually voluntary relationship!

[Classified00]

henschman,

1. A contract that violates the law is not legally enforcable.

2. When two entities dispute property rights, it is absolutely the government's reponsibility to resolve the dispute. Isn't that what Rule of Law is all about?
* Here's yet another way of looking at this; when I accepted my job, I agreed (by signing the company handbook) not to carry a firearm onto their property. The very heart of the legal dispute is whether or not having a firearm in my car violates that agreement. I do not believe it does because the firearm is not on their property. It's on my property. Therefore, I support this legislation to make the state define the legal boundries once and for all.

3. For reasons I can't fathom, it appear that you believe that the interior of your car should have no legal protection.

:confused::scrutiny::eek:

[Ironclad]

nobody is sticking a gun to your head and forcing you to work at a company whose policies you don't like.

True. However, nobody should be able to make policies about what is contained in my vehicle.

[paragrouper]

Think about what you are saying... you are saying that it is OK for the government to make laws that violate the natural rights of individuals, and if some people don't like others having rights, they can just get together and get a law passed stripping them of rights and it is all OK. Is that the kind of country you want to live in? Remember, in a system where people's rights are up for a vote, NO ONE'S rights are safe. Voting away people's rights is all fun and games until YOU are on the wrong side of the majority, and a bunch of people decide that they do not like you having a liberty that you hold dear.

On the topic of the law and its relationship to rightful liberty, I can't say it any better than Thomas Jefferson. This is the full quote that I quoted part of in my last post:

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." --Thomas Jefferson to I. Tiffany, 1819.


The issue isn't whether your vehicle and its contents are your property -- nobody would argue with that, and our laws currently protect it as such.

The issue here is whether a private employer employer can fire you if you have a gun in your car in violation of company policy, or if you refuse to give consent for a voluntary search of your vehicle for guns.

The way I see it, an employer has every right to do these things. I agree that it is a stupid policy, but it is one that an employer is well within his rights to make.
I have thought about what I'm saying. It's like this; you think an employers's natural rights are more 'natural' than mine.

I disagree.

[henschman]

True. However, nobody should be able to make policies about what is contained in my vehicle.
And how does it violate any of your natural rights for someone to make such policies when you can freely choose not to accept their terms and not sell your labor to them?

I have thought about what I'm saying. It's like this; you think an employers's natural rights are more 'natural' than mine.

No, I just think you do not have a natural right to use a threat of force and violence to compel someone to accept terms to an agreement that they do not wish to enter voluntarily. That is exactly what is occurring when the government passes a law like this.

[paragrouper]

No, I just think you do not have a natural right to use a threat of force and violence to compel someone to accept terms to an agreement that they do not wish to enter voluntarily. That is exactly what is occurring when the government passes a law like this.

Now that is just a bit melodramatic.

Notwithstanding your views on natural law, the bill is before the legislature and I, along with other Texans, will continue to follow it's progress and encourage our elected leaders to pass it.

Have a nice day.:)

[henschman]

Describing this law as a threat of force and violence is not at all melodromatic. Force and violence are the only real powers the government has, and they are what backs up every law in existence. I just happen to believe that force and violence are only justified in DEFENSE of threats to someone's rightful liberty, and should never be initiated against someone to force them to accept terms to an agreement or relationship that they do not want to voluntarily accept.

You have a nice day too, but don't come complaining to me when your neighbors decide to vote one of YOUR cherished liberties away.

[Ironclad]

Force and violence are the only real powers the government has, and they are what backs up every law in existence.

So you don't think we should have any laws?

don't come complaining to me when your neighbors decide to vote one of YOUR cherished liberties away.

One of my cherished liberties is not having others tell me what I can and can't have in my vehicle, which is MINE, and doesnt effect anyone else.

[JohnKSa]

I believe that everyone is entitled to equal rights, regardless of which side of the money-for-labor transaction they are on. This Texas law would deprive some people of their rights while granting extra benefits to others. That is unjust and violative of the equal rights of free men.This sounds good until you realize that it applies to the current situation as well.

Currently employers are allowed to deprive some people (employees) of their rights while leaving other's benefits (non-employees) alone. They can't restrict non-employees from carrying in their parking lots because they can't fire them and they can't prosecute them. But they can fire employees. In other words, if your argument is valid as it applies to the potential law then it is equally valid when applied to the current situation.

Therefore the current situation is also unjust and violative of the equal rights of free men. So which is worse, the company telling me what I can and can't do in my property (my car is an extension of my home per TX law), or the government telling the company that the legal items in my car are none of their business.The issue isn't whether your vehicle and its contents are your property -- nobody would argue with that, and our laws currently protect it as such.

The issue here is whether a private employer employer can fire you if you have a gun in your car in violation of company policy, or if you refuse to give consent for a voluntary search of your vehicle for guns.

The way I see it, an employer has every right to do these things. I agree that it is a stupid policy, but it is one that an employer is well within his rights to make.Again, this sounds good until we realize that the REASON you say that an employer has the right to do these things is because of his property rights.

If property rights are that powerful then they don't suddenly become invalid when they're employee property rights instead of employer property rights.

Again, it comes down to balancing things, not a black & white situation. Which is a worse violation of property rights? Telling a company that they can't control the legal contents of privately owned vehicles in their public parking lots or telling a person that he can't control the legal contents of his own private property?

By the way, the former obviously isn't too odious given that companies are already unable to control the contents of non-employee's cars in their parking lots.

Besides, it's not REALLY about property rights, that's just how it's been couched to try to obfuscate the situation. It really about what an employer can and can't force an employee to do as part of an employment contract.

And how does it violate any of your natural rights for someone to make such policies when you can freely choose not to accept their terms and not sell your labor to them?This argument works only if you consider labor to be a commodity like a lemon or a gallon of gas. Two people meet, seconds later the transaction happens, the buyer is happy, the seller is happy, another few seconds later they go their merry way.

The problem is that not all jobs are as common or as interchangeable as one gallon of gas is to another or one lemon is to another. And a person doesn't invest decades of his life in the gallon of gas he sells. Nor does a lemon buyer enter into an ongoing relationship with the lemon seller.

So let's look at how reality can work.

I spend most of a decade getting an expensive and specialized education. I then sign on with a company that happens to be in a gun friendly state and that happens to have gun friendly policies. I spend another 2+ decades developing a specialized skill set that the company needs but that isn't quite as easy to find buyers for outside the company as a gallon of gas might be. Somewhere along the way, the company decides that their liability concerns outweigh my concerns for my safety and change their policies to prevent me from having a gun in my car AND to prevent me from parking off campus.

It's all well and good to say that I could "freely choose not to accept their terms and not sell my labor to them" but I think it's pretty clear to all of us that a rational person in that position and in the current economy/job market is obviously not going to make a decision like that. The companies know that. They formed those policies knowing that most employees couldn't afford to give up employment. The company doesn't want to run off the employees who carry guns for self-defense. They just want to control the contents of privately-owned employee vehicles.

The bottom line is that this, like all gun control, is about control. The company wants to extend their control into other people's property and business. They want to invalidate the property rights of others in the name of property rights. In the name of controlling what happens on company property they control what is stored in other people's property and not just on company property but also while traveling to and from company property. They want to decrease their own liability at the expense of increasing the liability of others.

It is the nature of people and organizations to continue trying to expand their power and the area that they control unless they are forced to stop. It's time for these companies to stop expanding their area of control and to draw back a little. What they're trying to control isn't any of their business and should never have been any of their business in the first place.

[Ironclad]

Very well said. Thank you.

[paragrouper]

Very well said. Thank you.
I agree.

The real question is; what can we do to help the process? My understanding is that both the House and Senate versions are with the Calendars committee, which is exactly where this bill was last session. I have continued to write and call members of the committee and I'm sure that others have as well.

Any news?

[W.E.G.]

Sharp stick in the eye to anti-gun employers.

Pat on the back for the working man's right to self-defense.

What's not to like?

[PTT]

And how does it violate any of your natural rights for someone to make such policies when you can freely choose not to accept their terms and not sell your labor to them?


No, I just think you do not have a natural right to use a threat of force and violence to compel someone to accept terms to an agreement that they do not wish to enter voluntarily. That is exactly what is occurring when the government passes a law like this.

Freedom of contract only exists when there is no coercion or extortion between the two parties.

Often the employer is the only employer hiring in any given specialty, so if he institutes an anti-gun policy, the employee has the choice of complying or taking a huge pay cut by taking a job at Wal Mart or McDonalds. Yeah, what a choice.

It is the proper role of government to prevent individuals from using coercive force against others, to protect individual rights and have a truly free market. Anti-gun workplace policies are coercive in nature and offensive to individual rights.

Else, why even have government? I'd much rather have a finely-tuned republican form of government than anarchy. By your logic, we shouldn't even have police or a military. Or judges and courts and jails and prisons because they all rely on the government's use of coercive force.

Can you honestly tell me you'd rather live in Somalia than Texas if they pass the parking lot law?

Be reasonable.

[outlook ranch]

You may own the parking lot, but from the ground up, the vehicle is MY private property.
I wonder, if a customer parked in your lot to make a purchase, would you run him off for having a pistol in his private vehicle...Hummmmm. I doubt it.

[alsaqr]

Under the OK law employers are exempt from civil liability. i would imagine that the TX law would be the same.

[JohnKSa]

It is.

[henschman]

Oh boy, I have drawn a lot of responses! Sorry for the long post, but I don't want to leave anybody's points unaddressed.

So you don't think we should have any laws?

I don't think we should have any laws except for ones which apply force in defense of liberty.

One of my cherished liberties is not having others tell me what I can and can't have in my vehicle, which is MINE, and doesnt effect anyone else.Of course it is yours, and no, it doesn't affect anyone else UNLESS you drive it onto someone else's property. But you can't put your property on someone else's property and then claim that it is none of their business and they have no right to tell you what you can and can't do with it. They have the right to expel you and your property from their property for any reason or no reason, just as you have the exact same right with regard to your own property.

This argument works only if you consider labor to be a commodity like a lemon or a gallon of gas. Two people meet, seconds later the transaction happens, the buyer is happy, the seller is happy, another few seconds later they go their merry way.

The problem is that not all jobs are as common or as interchangeable as one gallon of gas is to another or one lemon is to another. And a person doesn't invest decades of his life in the gallon of gas he sells. Nor does a lemon buyer enter into an ongoing relationship with the lemon seller.

So let's look at how reality can work.

I spend most of a decade getting an expensive and specialized education. I then sign on with a company that happens to be in a gun friendly state and that happens to have gun friendly policies. I spend another 2+ decades developing a specialized skill set that the company needs but that isn't quite as easy to find buyers for outside the company as a gallon of gas might be. Somewhere along the way, the company decides that their liability concerns outweigh my concerns for my safety and change their policies to prevent me from having a gun in my car AND to prevent me from parking off campus.

It's all well and good to say that I could "freely choose not to accept their terms and not sell my labor to them" but I think it's pretty clear to all of us that a rational person in that position and in the current economy/job market is obviously not going to make a decision like that. The companies know that. They formed those policies knowing that most employees couldn't afford to give up employment. The company doesn't want to run off the employees who carry guns for self-defense. They just want to control the contents of privately-owned employee vehicles.
Once again, the question comes down to whether the employer is forcing you to do anything. Did the employer force you to obtain the expensive education? Did the employer force you to develop a narrow skill set that applies to a specific industries with few employers? No, those were all your choices. The bottom line is that an employment relationship is mutually voluntary, and can only exist so long as both parties freely consent to it. The bottom line is that you are completely free to quit that job at any time. If you are not in a financial position to be able to do so and still enjoy the standard of living that you currently have, then that is not the employer's fault either.

It seems like one of the main issues you point out is that there is sometimes a disparity in bargaining power between the employer and employee, and that many times the employee needs the employer a lot more than the employer needs the employee. Disparities in bargaining power exist for just about every contract. There is usually one party who needs to make the deal at least a little bit more than the other party does. This doesn't mean anyone is initiating force or fraud, and it certainly doesn't mean that one party should be deprived of the ability to freely choose the terms under which he is willing to bargain. It is a fact of life that if peple are treated equally under the law, people will be unequal in their position in life. The inherent vice of capitalism, as Churchill called it. Personally, I don't consider it to be a vice... it is just the way things are. The nature of reality, as it were. And it beats the hell out of the alternative, which is a system that treats people UNEQUALLY in order to try to acheive an EQUAL position in life for all people... which is what you advocate when you support laws attempting to equalize the bargaining power of two parties.

Freedom of contract only exists when there is no coercion or extortion between the two parties.

Often the employer is the only employer hiring in any given specialty, so if he institutes an anti-gun policy, the employee has the choice of complying or taking a huge pay cut by taking a job at Wal Mart or McDonalds. Yeah, what a choice.

It is the proper role of government to prevent individuals from using coercive force against others, to protect individual rights and have a truly free market. Anti-gun workplace policies are coercive in nature and offensive to individual rights.
I agree with your premises, but not your conclusions. Our disconnect is over definitions... you seem to define "force," "extortion," "individual rights," and "free market" very differently than I do. The way you define those terms, it can be considered "force" or "extortion" for one person simply to choose the terms upon which he is willing to contract with another person.

You also seem to believe that a person's right to freely set the terms upon which he will contract with someone else is dependent on the amount of bargaining power he has.

I believe that one's position in life does not determine what rights one has... I believe that all people are entitled to equal rights at all times. And not just equal rights, but the MAXIMUM amount of rights that can be shared equally at all times. I believe that the line between "individual rights" and "initiation of force" is drawn at the point where one person's ability to act freely would begin to infringe on another person's equal ability to act freely.

There is no way that anyone can cross that line by simply setting the terms upon which he is willing to bargain, because this is something that everyone can do simultaneously without impairing anyone else's freedom in any way. Obviously if you condition your consent on certain terms, it limits the ability of others to obtain a job from you that doesn't include those terms; but that is fine because nobody has a right to have someone else provide them with ANYTHING. To force someone to affirmatively do anything, other than to respect the equal liberty of others, would violate the scheme of the maximum possible amount of equal liberty.

Else, why even have government? I'd much rather have a finely-tuned republican form of government than anarchy. By your logic, we shouldn't even have police or a military. Or judges and courts and jails and prisons because they all rely on the government's use of coercive force.


My logic does not precude having a police or a military... it just precludes having a police or military that does anything other than protect the liberty of individuals, since that is the only legitimate role of force/violence/government. It does not preclude republican government, but it precludes a republican government in which the role of the government is not strictly limited to the protection of the liberty of its citizens.

I didn't say that I am against all coercive use of force. I just said that I am against the INITIATION of coercive force. I belive force is only legitimately used in DEFENSE of someone's rightful liberty.

[GEM]

Thanks, John!

Not to stir the pot but natural rights? Our views of natural rights are just a social contract formed by evolutionary, psychological and sociological forces. One's natural rights can easily be discriminatory against the rights of another. Depends who calls the shots, so to speak.

My view (with others) is that an employer's rights to deal with an employee are limited to the exact conditions of his or her performance. What's in my car isn't the employer's domain because he has a parking lot. Very simple.

In terms of relative value, the right of self-defense trumps irrational terroritorial claims to be king of the parking lot.

But John said it so well. Unfortunately, the monied classes in TX are playing the legislature for their own benefit and sometimes they snow the 'natural rights' folks for their own venial benefit.

[henschman]

My view (with others) is that an employer's rights to deal with an employee are limited to the exact conditions of his or her performance. What's in my car isn't the employer's domain because he has a parking lot. Very simple.

In your scheme of rights, who gets to define what the "exact conditions" of the employee's performance are that are being bargained for? In a free society, it would be up to the parties to a contract to freely decide what conditions are being bargained for. If the parties wish to trade a promise to weld widgets and not bring a gun onto the employer's property for a promise to be pay 38,000 intergalactic units per year, then whose place is it to tell them they can't make such an agreement? And where would a party to such an agreement get off saying that he is being forced to adhere to these terms, when he is in fact free to reject them?

[paragrouper]

You may own the parking lot, but from the ground up, the vehicle is MY private property.
I wonder, if a customer parked in your lot to make a purchase, would you run him off for having a pistol in his private vehicle...Hummmmm. I doubt it.
That's the funny thing with my employer. A couple of years ago they added language to our handbook that extended their right to search to our vehicles--along with a "no Weapons" policy, But there is no notice on our premises that would satisfy 30.06--inside or out. So while they have effectively ensure that I, a CH licensee, will not store my pistol in my car while I am at work, any visitor is not likewise prohibited from carrying.

[rbernie]

How is this debate furthering Activism Planning? If y'all want to debate the merits of the law, I'd recommend starting a new thread in Legal rather than getting this one shut down.

Just sayin'....

[GEM]

I suppose it was about trying to scope out the opposition to the bill. Sort of a Red Force exercise. But you are correct. We now understand the irrational opposition to protecting human rights over the venial interests of the management.

The cogent arguments against such views can be used in the debate.

The theoretical debate about what is 'natural right' for the castle kings can be moved. if you want to put on your sophistry hat.

Glenn

[JohnKSa]

How is this debate furthering Activism Planning?How did it get in Activism Planning? Last time I checked it, it was in Legal. :confused: Once again, the question comes down to whether the employer is forcing you to do anything....No, those were all your choices.This implies that the presence of a choice equates to the absence of coercion.

Let's say I offer you the choice to jump off a cliff or be shot. You have the ability to choose but that obviously means very little from a practical standpoint and it certainly doesn't mean that there is no coercion.

Just as in the analogy, the company is forcing me to do something. It's forcing me to choose between two options, neither one acceptable....it certainly doesn't mean that one party should be deprived of the ability to freely choose the terms under which he is willing to bargain....And it beats the hell out of the alternative, which is a system that treats people UNEQUALLY in order to try to acheive an EQUAL position in life for all people... which is what you advocate when you support laws attempting to equalize the bargaining power of two parties.First of all, this isn't about freely bargaining vs. bargaining with legal restrictions for the simple reason that there is no such thing as the former. Nobody gets to freely choose the terms under which he is willing to bargain. There are always legal restrictions imposed unless we restrict our focus to totally inconsequential matters.

Second, telling an employer that there is a limit to how far he is allowed to extend his reach into the employee's private life does not even come CLOSE to equating to communism, to trying "to achieve an EQUAL position in life for all people".

Although you agree that this is a rights issue you are apparently unable to widen your focus to see anything other than the employer's standpoint. In other words, your arguments revolve around and are based on the idea that whatever the employer wants is right. That whatever he wants is his right to want. That whatever he wants to enforce is his right to enforce and that the employee should have no recourse to any of it other than "choosing" between the cliff or the bullet because anything else would unjustly limit the employer's rights. There are two sides to this issue, not just one.

You also argue as if the relationship between employer and employee is currently unfettered by legal limitations. That is not true and hasn't ever been true unless we go back to a time where there were no governments or societies to impose legal limitations.

The bottom line is that there already are and certainly should be limits on what an employer can force an employee to do as a condition of continued employment. This is just one more.

[GEM]

During the Depression, my father was told to register for political party X to keep his job.

His other choice was to not support his family.

My mother had to hide her religion to keep hers - I guess her free choice was to change faiths.

I think these two examples are fine with some posters. Free choice not to accept control of your faith or choose to starve.

[Walkalong]

It passed in Alabama and I am glad. I kept a gun in my vehicle against company rules for a long time, and now I am covered.

I believe my car is my car and they have no right to search it with out cause. Heck, the police can't without probable cause or your permission. Why should it be different with an employer just because you are parked in their lot?

Good luck Texas.

[GEM]

Thanks. We are keeping our fingers crossed but the business lobbies have a tight grip on the so-called progun legislators.

[jeffegg2]

Please please bring this to Michigan!!
:cool:

[henschman]

This implies that the presence of a choice equates to the absence of coercion.

Let's say I offer you the choice to jump off a cliff or be shot. You have the ability to choose but that obviously means very little from a practical standpoint and it certainly doesn't mean that there is no coercion.

Just as in the analogy, the company is forcing me to do something. It's forcing me to choose between two options, neither one acceptable.

In your example, one person has the other literally at gunpoint. It makes a poor comparison to an employment relationship, which both sides have freely chosen to enter into. The difference is that the man with the gun is threatening to do things to the other person which would deprive him of the maximum amount of equal liberty that every human being is entitled to. In other words, he is threatening to do things to him which he has no RIGHT to do. Namely, he is threatening the other person's right to continue living. By contrast, when an employer or employee decides to terminate a voluntary, consensual relationship, it does not deprive anyone of one shred of liberty... because rightful liberty does not include the "right" to force someone to continue a relationship that he does not consent to. This itself would deprive the other party of HIS rightful liberty. When a person ends a voluntary relationship with another person, the only thing the other person is "deprived" of is the ability to remain in the relationship... which at that point could not be maintained without the consenting party initiating force against the non-consenting party.

The way you see things, no human interaction could ever be considered voluntary. I suppose you would consider it to be coercive use of force if your girlfriend tells you she doesn't want to have sex anymore, because now you have to make the choice to either go without, or find someone else to do it with. Maybe we need a law to force her to continue the relationship, to protect your "rights." To make it more like the "large employer" scenario you guys keep bringing up, we could say that she is a lot more attractive than you, and has a lot more other prospects. She is like the employer, with more barganining power. Is this any excuse to deny her right to withdraw consent from the relationship if she no longer wishes to continue it?

And don't tell me that an employment relationship is totally different than a sexual relationship. When it comes down to it, all voluntary human interaciton is the same, and every one of us has a right to engage in all of its forms as long as the other party freely gives their consent as well. Whether it is a employment relationship, a sexual relationship, a friendship, or a sale of goods/services, it doesn't matter. No one has any right to force someone to continue a relationship that he no longer wants to be in.

Mere withholding of consent can never be considered force... not if we are to have a society based on voluntary human interaction. It is one of the rights that all human beings have at all times, no matter what.

By contrast, using a threat of actual force to induce someone to continue to associate with another person, when he has no desire to do so, is basically the definition of FORCE. Whether this is making someone jump of a cliff at gunpoint, or forcing someone to have sex with you, or the government forcing someone them to remain in an employment relationship with you under conditions that they do not consent to, it is all a violation of the rightful liberty of man and should be resisted by every liberty-loving individual.



First of all, this isn't about freely bargaining vs. bargaining with legal restrictions for the simple reason that there is no such thing as the former. Nobody gets to freely choose the terms under which he is willing to bargain. There are always legal restrictions imposed unless we restrict our focus to totally inconsequential matters.

This is the same argument that others keep bringing up in this thread, which is basically that "the government says it, so it must be right." This is only true if our rights exist at the whim of governments, rather than being natural inalienable and God-given rights. The argument between these philosophies was had in this country back in 1775-1783, but if you want to re-hash it again in this thread, I am perfectly willing.

The fact that the government currently violates our right to free association, and the fact that free human association has almost always been forcibly interfered with throughout human history does not mean that any of this is right, or that it is the way things should be.


Although you agree that this is a rights issue you are apparently unable to widen your focus to see anything other than the employer's standpoint.
On the contrary! I have been arguing for EQUAL rights for ALL people, no matter which side of a transaction they are on or what their "station in life" is. I believe an employee has just as much right to terminate an employment relationship as an employer, and has the very same right to set the conditions upon which he is willing to contract with others.

It is you who is ignoring the rights of some in order to give extra benefits to others.

I believe that a lot of the support for laws like this comes from the same class warfare tendencies that make people support the forceful redistribution of wealth. Many in this thread have made comments that basically equate to "stick it to the man!" Kind of like the New Dealers during the great depression who were rallying to "soak the rich!"

I also believe that a lot of the supporters of this type of law have an antiquated feudal concept of the employment relationship, which is a relic of our British heritage. They see their boss as a lord or master, and themselves as a servant. They believe that they are employed purely at the mercy of their boss. It is hard for them to grasp the concept of co-equal parties with equal rights forming a voluntary relationship for their mutual benefit. They see laws like this as helping the helpless little servants from being treated "unfairly" by their masters.

The problem with supporters of gun rights is that a lot of them are very single-issue, and are not supporters of liberty as a whole. They will support anything that "scores one" for the gun rights movement and gives a black eye to who they percieve to be anti-gun.


The bottom line is that there already are and certainly should be limits on what an employer can force an employee to do as a condition of continued employment. This is just one more.

You are arguing something like the reverse of the slippery slope argument. Since they are already partially infringing on this right, it is no problem for them to infringe it a little more, right? Hell, while we're throwing the right to contract and the right to freedom of association out the window, why not throw out freedom of speech and freedom of religion, as well? If the government does it, it can't be wrong, so why not?

[PTT]

In your example, one person has the other literally at gunpoint. It makes a poor comparison to an employment relationship, which both sides have freely chosen to enter into. The difference is that the man with the gun is threatening to do things to the other person which would deprive him of the maximum amount of equal liberty that every human being is entitled to. In other words, he is threatening to do things to him which he has no RIGHT to do. Namely, he is threatening the other person's right to continue living. By contrast, when an employer or employee decides to terminate a voluntary, consensual relationship, it does not deprive anyone of one shred of liberty... because rightful liberty does not include the "right" to force someone to continue a relationship that he does not consent to. This itself would deprive the other party of HIS rightful liberty. When a person ends a voluntary relationship with another person, the only thing the other person is "deprived" of is the ability to remain in the relationship... which at that point could not be maintained without the consenting party initiating force against the non-consenting party.

The way you see things, no human interaction could ever be considered voluntary. I suppose you would consider it to be coercive use of force if your girlfriend tells you she doesn't want to have sex anymore, because now you have to make the choice to either go without, or find someone else to do it with. Maybe we need a law to force her to continue the relationship, to protect your "rights." To make it more like the "large employer" scenario you guys keep bringing up, we could say that she is a lot more attractive than you, and has a lot more other prospects. She is like the employer, with more barganining power. Is this any excuse to deny her right to withdraw consent from the relationship if she no longer wishes to continue it?

And don't tell me that an employment relationship is totally different than a sexual relationship. When it comes down to it, all voluntary human interaciton is the same, and every one of us has a right to engage in all of its forms as long as the other party freely gives their consent as well. Whether it is a employment relationship, a sexual relationship, a friendship, or a sale of goods/services, it doesn't matter. No one has any right to force someone to continue a relationship that he no longer wants to be in.

Mere withholding of consent can never be considered force... not if we are to have a society based on voluntary human interaction. It is one of the rights that all human beings have at all times, no matter what.

By contrast, using a threat of actual force to induce someone to continue to associate with another person, when he has no desire to do so, is basically the definition of FORCE. Whether this is making someone jump of a cliff at gunpoint, or forcing someone to have sex with you, or the government forcing someone them to remain in an employment relationship with you under conditions that they do not consent to, it is all a violation of the rightful liberty of man and should be resisted by every liberty-loving individual.




This is the same argument that others keep bringing up in this thread, which is basically that "the government says it, so it must be right." This is only true if our rights exist at the whim of governments, rather than being natural inalienable and God-given rights. The argument between these philosophies was had in this country back in 1775-1783, but if you want to re-hash it again in this thread, I am perfectly willing.

The fact that the government currently violates our right to free association, and the fact that free human association has almost always been forcibly interfered with throughout human history does not mean that any of this is right, or that it is the way things should be.


On the contrary! I have been arguing for EQUAL rights for ALL people, no matter which side of a transaction they are on or what their "station in life" is. I believe an employee has just as much right to terminate an employment relationship as an employer, and has the very same right to set the conditions upon which he is willing to contract with others.

It is you who is ignoring the rights of some in order to give extra benefits to others.

I believe that a lot of the support for laws like this comes from the same class warfare tendencies that make people support the forceful redistribution of wealth. Many in this thread have made comments that basically equate to "stick it to the man!" Kind of like the New Dealers during the great depression who were rallying to "soak the rich!"

I also believe that a lot of the supporters of this type of law have an antiquated feudal concept of the employment relationship, which is a relic of our British heritage. They see their boss as a lord or master, and themselves as a servant. They believe that they are employed purely at the mercy of their boss. It is hard for them to grasp the concept of co-equal parties with equal rights forming a voluntary relationship for their mutual benefit. They see laws like this as helping the helpless little servants from being treated "unfairly" by their masters.

The problem with supporters of gun rights is that a lot of them are very single-issue, and are not supporters of liberty as a whole. They will support anything that "scores one" for the gun rights movement and gives a black eye to who they percieve to be anti-gun.


You are arguing something like the reverse of the slippery slope argument. Since they are already partially infringing on this right, it is no problem for them to infringe it a little more, right? Hell, while we're throwing the right to contract and the right to freedom of association out the window, why not throw out freedom of speech and freedom of religion, as well? If the government does it, it can't be wrong, so why not?

You make a lot of assumptions about why people disagree with you. Basically anybody who isn't an anarcho-capitalist or whatever you are automatically is a socialist, communist, or sympathizes with FDR or some other such BS.

What a stupid way to engage in debate. You are hoping that if you throw a sufficient number of strawman arguments at us, we'll just shut up and you'll 'win' the argument.

[henschman]

I'm not making any assumptions about why any of you individually disagree with me -- I have responded to your arguments as they are made.

In that last post, I made some comments about why I think many people support laws like this (class warfare, master/servant complex, and single-issue gun rights supporters). Some of it was based on some of the comments I have seen in this thread. However, I didn't use it as a basis for any of my arguments, so it is not a straw man argument. It is just commentary designed to make people think about the reasons for their beliefs. The majority of my post was an argument in response to the arguments of another poster.

As far as people being communist, socialist, etc... if you notice, I haven't used any of those labels in my posts. I try to avoid such emotionally-charged terms that have such strong connotations, and just say what I mean. If you believe that people should be forced to engage in relationships that they do not consent to, then that really says enough about your beliefs by itself. No labels required.

[PTT]

I think there should be some limits on freedom of contract to prevent abuse. Things like indentured servitude come to mind.

[JohnKSa]

In your example, one person has the other literally at gunpoint. It makes a poor comparison to an employment relationship, which both sides have freely chosen to enter into.Your argument would carry much more weight if a person freely chose to become an employee of a company with such policies and then immediately went about trying to get them changed. It is far less applicable to the situation where an employer unilaterally changes a policy after a person has invested many years and much effort into his career with a company.

That said, the analogy was to point out the fallacy in your implication that the presence of choice was evidence of a lack of coercion. A person can certainly be under coercion and still have the ability to choose.I suppose you would consider it to be coercive use of force if your girlfriend tells you she doesn't want to have sex anymore, because now you have to make the choice to either go without, or find someone else to do it with.A unilateral ultimatum set forth by one party to a particular human interaction/relationship may or may not amount to coercion depending on the ultimatum and the leverage of the party setting forth the ultimatum. That's why you can easily pick an example where it isn't coercion and I can easily pick one where it is. It's certainly not as black and white as you would like it to be or as clearcut as you imply it is.It is you who is ignoring the rights of some in order to give extra benefits to others.This was addressed earlier. There is no extra benefit requested or desired, the request is to be treated by the employer as it treats others. No special treatment or extra benefits, just the same treatment it affords others who use its parking lots.You are arguing something like the reverse of the slippery slope argument. Since they are already partially infringing on this right, it is no problem for them to infringe it a little more, right?I was addressing your comments that implied that the relationship between an employer and employee were currently unfettered by legal limitations. You may or may not agree with the imposition of those legal limitations, but it's certainly inaccurate to argue as if none exist and as if this law would be a new or radical concept in the employer/employee relationship.If you believe that people should be forced to engage in relationships that they do not consent to, then that really says enough about your beliefs by itself.This and most of your comments miss the point. The employer isn't seeking to end the relationship, they're simply seeking to extend their control into the employees' private lives because they know they have the leverage to get away with it.

It's instructive to remember, the employer isn't going to prosecute the employees, that's not an option that's available to them. The threatened penalty is termination (loss of employment). That penalty is what you keep calling a "free choice". In other words, you're saying that the threat by which the employer forces compliance with an unjust and inequitable policy isn't a coercive threat at all. You're trying to make it sound like it's merely a free choice of the employee. That the employee can freely avoid the forced choice by taking one of the forced choices.

Going back to the cliff/bullet analogy, your arguments are tantamount to claiming that there is no coercion because victim can freely end the confrontation at any time by merely jumping over the cliff thus putting himself out of the range of the person coercing him to choose between jumping over a cliff and being shot.

I will give you one thing. It takes a fair amount of rhetorical talent to make a penalty sound like it's remotely similar to a "free choice".

[henschman]

Your argument would carry much more weight if a person freely chose to become an employee of a company with such policies and then immediately went about trying to get them changed. It is far less applicable to the situation where an employer unilaterally changes a policy after a person has invested many years and much effort into his career with a company.
When you talk about an employer "unilaterally changing a policy," what you are describing is one party to a relationship setting new conditions on his consent to continue the relationship. Of course it is unilateral, because only the party himself can determine what conditions he is willing to consent to a relationship under. If a party is concerned about the possibility of the other party changing the terms of its consent after he has become dependant on the continuance of the relationship, he should protect himself by trying to get the other party to agree to additional terms to the agreement, over and beyond a pure at-will relationship that either party is free to walk away from at any time (which is what you have when two parties decide to form a relationship but do not make any promises about its duration or the conditions on which it can be terminated).

That said, the analogy was to point out the fallacy in your implication that the presence of choice was evidence of a lack of coercion. A person can certainly be under coercion and still have the ability to choose.Certainly, but I never said that all coersion is a violation of someone's rights. I try to avoid using slippery terms like "coersion" as qualifiers for whether or not a violation of someone's rights has occurred. What I said was that INITIATION OF FORCE violates the rights of others. I define "initiation of force" as that which deprives anyone of any part of the maximum correlative rights to which all people are entitled.

When one party changes the terms of his consent to continue a relationship, the choice the other party is presented with is to either meet those terms, or foresake the relationship. Like I said, the only thing you are denying to the other party when you discontinue a voluntary relationship is the ability for them to remain in the voluntary relationship... and a voluntary relationship is a thing which by its very definition doesn't exist without the consent of two parties. So really and truly, you are denying them nothing.

If one party to a relationship changes the terms under which he is willing to consent to continue the relationship, the other party cannot demand that the relationship be continued under the previous terms. If one party (or the government) were to force the other to continue in a relationship with another when he does not consent to it, it would deprive the first party of his ability to freely choose which relationships he does and doesn't consent to. This is a liberty that everyone can share equally without diminishing anyone else's ability to exercise any of their equal maximal liberties. Therefore, denying it to someone is a violation of their rightful liberty and is the type of coersion that ought to be prohibited.

A unilateral ultimatum set forth by one party to a particular human interaction/relationship may or may not amount to coercion depending on the ultimatum and the leverage of the party setting forth the ultimatum. That's why you can easily pick an example where it isn't coercion and I can easily pick one where it is. It's certainly not as black and white as you would like it to be or as clearcut as you imply it is.

Whether or not a violation of someone's rights has occurred is not about whether coersion is present... it is all about whether one person's actions diminish the maximum amount of freedom of action that another person can have consistent with the equal right of others to the same. This is the rationale by which I distinguish placing conditions on one's consent to continue a voluntary relationship, on one hand, and kidnapping someone at gunpoint, taking them to a cliff, and asking them to choose how they wish you to murder them, on the other hand. I have distinguished your analogy... I would like to know how you distinguish my analogy between forcing someone to remain in an employment relationship despite their consent versus forcing someone to remain in a sexual relationship despite their consent.

This was addressed earlier. There is no extra benefit requested or desired, the request is to be treated by the employer as it treats others. No special treatment or extra benefits, just the same treatment it affords others who use its parking lots.

The employer has already decided that he does not wish to remain in an employment relationship with people who have guns in their cars or who refuse consent for a search of their cars. Forcing employers to remain in a relationship with employees under these circumstances changes the relationship from a voluntary and consensual one to a forced one, which deprives the employer of his liberty (his freedom of association to be specific). It gives to the employee the ability to remain in a relationship with the employer even if the employer does not consent to it. So it most certainly DOES grant benefits to some at the expense of the rights of others.

As for "treating everyone the same," the only obligation any person has toward another is to respect their rightful liberty (which I think I have sufficiently defined). Other than that, we have the right to treat others however we want based on whatever distinctions we want. A person has the right to condition his consent to associate with other people on whatever terms he chooses. If he chooses to associate with invitees on one set of terms and people with whom he has an employment relationship on another set of terms, that is all up to him. No one can claim that he is violating their rights by treating them differently than others, because no one has a right to have someone else choose to associate with them in the first place. Everyone has the right to choose the terms upon which he will associate with others, but no one has the right to choose for others the terms upon which they will associate with HIM.



This and most of your comments miss the point. The employer isn't seeking to end the relationship, they're simply seeking to extend their control into the employees' private lives because they know they have the leverage to get away with it.
The employer is simply placing a condition on his continued consent to remain in a voluntary relationship. If the other party does not consent to the condition, the employer does indeed wish to end the relationship.

As for the private lives of individuals, a person has a right to live as private a life as he wishes. As long as he doesn't violate anyone else's equal rights, a man can go and live in the woods and never see another person if he chooses. However, if a man wishes to choose to form voluntary relationships with other people, he must meet the conditions that they require (and they must meet the conditions he requires). People generally don't enter into one-sided voluntary relationships, so you generally must give them something that you have a right to. As I have said over and over, if you don't like the conditions that others place on their consent, then you do not have to accept it. You can simply refuse to associate (or to continue to associate) with them.


I will give you one thing. It takes a fair amount of rhetorical talent to make a penalty sound like it's remotely similar to a "free choice".

And I will say that it takes a fair amount of mental gymnastics to equate someone exercising his right to freedom of association with someone making another person choose how he is going to be murdered.

[PTT]

Yes yes yes, we've heard all this before.

It's very clear that you believe there should be no government intervention in voluntary agreements between two parties. We will assume, for the sake of argument, that all employer-employee agreements are entirely voluntary.

I have found that a great way to test anything is to put it in extreme conditions to see if it survives. We will now test unfettered freedom of contract.

Suppose one party agrees to be an unpaid servant for between 3 and 7 years in exchange for an expensive transportation fee, such as a voyage from Europe to the Americas in the seventeenth and eighteenth century. Neither party was physically forced to enter the agreement.

This practice was outlawed by the turn of the nineteenth century. Would you, because of your beliefs, advocate the legalization of this practice?

[henschman]

Yes, why should that be prohibited? The only rationale I can think of would be to protect people from themselves, which I do not believe to be a proper role of government.

Does indentured servanthood seem like a radical concept to you? It doesn't to me. It is how a lot of our forefathes escaped a sure fate of poverty in England and were able to come to America, learn a trade, and eventually be able to buy land and better themselves. It is a lot like joining the military. You give up your freedom for a term of years in exchange for an opportunity that you would not otherwise have. Why in the world should people be forcibly prevented from entering this type of arrangement?

[PTT]

Yes, why should that be prohibited? The only rationale I can think of would be to protect people from themselves, which I do not believe to be a proper role of government.

Does indentured servanthood seem like a radical concept to you? It doesn't to me. It is how a lot of our forefathes escaped a sure fate of poverty in England and were able to come to America, learn a trade, and eventually be able to buy land and better themselves. It is a lot like joining the military. You give up your freedom for a term of years in exchange for an opportunity that you would not otherwise have. Why in the world should people be forcibly prevented from entering this type of arrangement?

Unfortunately the cost of indentured servants exceeded the cost of procuring slaves, so many employers switched to slavery in the late eighteenth century. By the time indentured servitude was outlawed, it was a mostly dead practice, replaced with slavery, an entirely undefendable practice.

But it does show the caliber of people who engaged in hiring indentured servants, the same kind of sleezebags who had no moral qualms with keeping slaves.

This sort of man, the sort who have no respect for their fellow man's rights, are good for one thing--using force against to stop them. They are animals, and animals understand only two things: hunger and fear.

I don't think today's crop of big anti-gun employers are any more respectable. Dirtbags of this sort always find ways to harm others whenever they think they are in a position to do so. They care about nothing more than gain and power, with no moral considerations.

We fundamentally disagree on this point, this idea of unfettered freedom of contract. I see value in placing reasonable limits, and value in using force against evil men to stop them from abusing others.

We dont live in your voluntarist utopia. This is the real world. If nobody does something to stop these evil men, they will not be stopped. You are too busy concerning yourself with ideological purity to do what needs to be done.

These are bad human beings we are dealing with, the kind who will use your morals against you to get what they want, money and power, and mostly the latter.

I dont think any amount of reasoned discussion can resolve these philosophical differences, so we will have to just agree to disagree.

[GEM]

For the same reason, that religious freedoms don't let you become a voluntary human sacrifice if we had an Aztec revival in the USA.

You'll never see the point of employer exploitation of folks who have to work to survive. Waste of electrons to continue.

[PTT]

I've said all I'm going to say on the topic. I can't figure out why I keep letting myself get caught up in these stupid philosophical debates.

[JohnKSa]

If a party is concerned about the possibility of the other party changing the terms of its consent after he has become dependant on the continuance of the relationship, he should protect himself by trying to get the other party to agree to additional terms to the agreement... Sounds good in a perfect world, but when an employee amounts to 1/60,000th of an employer's work force such attempts are not even efficacious enough to qualify as pitifully futile.

Your responses are extremely idealistic. You might find it surprising to find that your basic philosophy and mine agree remarkably closely with the exception that you refuse to acknowledge that practicality must play a part in any real-world system.Like I said, the only thing you are denying to the other party when you discontinue a voluntary relationship is the ability for them to remain in the voluntary relationship... and a voluntary relationship is a thing which by its very definition doesn't exist without the consent of two parties. So really and truly, you are denying them nothing. ...nothing except employment and all the many benefits that go with it.

Your assertion that nothing is being denied is totally meaningless from a practical perspective. If what you say is correct then the threat of termination would be meaningless since it's "really and truly denying the employee nothing". Clearly that is not the case or employers couldn't use it at as a threat to enforce their over-reaching policies.What I said was that INITIATION OF FORCE violates the rights of others. That's certainly a boundary that, when crossed, generally indicates that rights have been violated. That's not the only boundary by any means. In fact, the Supreme Court has held that even something as subtle as peer pressure can, in some circumstances, be sufficient coercion that it constitutes a violation of one's rights.As for the private lives of individuals, a person has a right to live as private a life as he wishes.Actually, that's not true. That is what you believe SHOULD be true.

In the world that we live in there are many impositions on our private lives that keep us from living as we choose. Some large, some small.

You're certainly welcome to your personal definitions and standards, but you should realize that's all they are: "YOUR personal definitions and standards". It's also worthwhile to keep in mind that if you're going to make up your own legal sytem of standards and rights violation criteria then you shouldn't be surprised to find that people disagree with your extrapolations. It's unavoidable given that your basic premises aren't founded in reality.

The larger point is this. If you're going to engage in a debate with people about real world issues, as opposed to the purely philosophical, it's only going to frustrate them and you for you to debate from the premise that things ARE the way you believe they should be even when that's obviously not the case. In addition, at the very least you should state your starting premises so that people can understand that you're not arguing about a real-world system but rather engaging in a philosophical argument about what you believe an ideal system should be.

Ok, so in your ideal world you see no need for goverment involvement in human relationships and contracts unless the boundary of "force initiation" is crossed. Everything else can be characterized as consenting relationships under your system of what constitutes a rights violation.

In the real world, one function of government is to step in and prevent very powerful entities from wielding their power in a manner that is inimicable to the wishes of society and/or to punish them when they do. This bill is a perfect example of that function in action.

[jeffegg2]

The reason they companies don't want you to carry on their parking lots is
not that they are gun haters, but one of liability. The parking lot is considered
part of "being on company property" for workman's compensation. The law
releases the company from liability in cases of firearm injuries. The law is not
"telling the company how it can run it's own property". :eek:

Even the PFZ's you can carry in your car in the parking lot, and then you have
to lock it in your car.:cool:

[paragrouper]

The TSRA notified me via email that the House has set HB 681 on the schedule for Monday, 2 May.

They urge all to contact their representatives and urge them to oppose any amendments HB 681 that exempt certain industries or impose restrictions and carve-outs on groups of employees who wish to store legally-possessed firearms in their own locked vehicle while parked at work.

Put the call out to all your friends and coworkers.

Find your representatives (http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/district.aspx?DistType=HOUSE&AllDistrict=on)

[paragrouper]

SB 321, substituted for HB 681 passed the House the evening by a voice vote. There were two minor amendments to SB 321.

Please call or write the representatives who supported HB 681/SB 321 and thank them for their efforts!

[paragrouper]

From the TSRA:

At 6:30 p.m. today, May 27th, the Texas Senate passed the conference committee report on SB 321 by Hegar/Kleinschmidt. The House passed their version yesterday and NOW at last SB 321, the Employer Parking Lot bill, is on its way to Governor Perry's desk.

The conference process is required because the House made changes to a Senate bill... This was also an opportunity to add a bit more immunity for employers, something of concern to Governor Perry, and make a tweak or two to the language.

The only "carve-outs" forced on the bill include those employees servicing gas and oil wells on leased property and ISD employees. College campus employees are covered as are defense contractors and all others.

The Petro-Chemical folks are limited to CHLs only but the conference process broadened the language so that an employee with a CHL may also have rifles and shot guns in their vehicles.

All other legal possession of a firearm and ammunition in a locked, personal vehicle is included. The protection for the employee, even a CHL, does not extend to outside the vehicle. The firearm should be stored out of sight.

A word of caution! Watch for your employer to change their employee manual, especially those companies which exercised the strongest opposition.

Special thanks to Senator Glenn Hegar, Jr. (R-Katy) and State Rep. Tim Kleinschmidt (R-Lexington). After seven long years, the bill has finally crossed the finished line! SB 321 is clear and finally passed!

The earliest effective date for SB 321 will be September 1st. Contacting Governor Perry and asking that the bill be signed would be good. SB 321 will become law unless it's vetoed.

Call 800-843-5789 and urge our Governor to sign SB 321 as quickly as possible.

[MaterDei]

SB321 passing is awesome. Well done TSRA and Texas voters!

[walker944]

So, I believe this law goes in tomorrow, Sep 1, correct?

[TexasRifleman]

Yessir, that's correct.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/billtext/html/SB00321F.htm

SECTION 4. This Act takes effect September 1, 2011.

[JohnKSa]

TX is still a right to work state which means, more or less, that an employer can fire you pretty much for no reason at all unless you have a contract that states otherwise.

I think the new law makes overt enforcement of policies against guns in locked employee vehicles unlikely and it gives a fired employee recourse. But the burden of proof to show the purpose of the termination is all on the employee and it could be a pretty heavy burden. The employer could put your name on a list for the next reduction in force or could wait a few weeks and then tell you that they no longer need your services. It would be difficult to prove anything and you'd have to prove something to have any recourse.

I'm not trying to disappoint anyone, I just don't want to see anyone get into a pickle because they think they're completely home free.

In my opinion, the best thing to do is enjoy the extra breathing room the law provides but without making a public point of it. Don't be a test case--don't be a case at all--they have a lot more resources than you do.