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

[twoclones]

If they own the parking lot, of course they can.

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

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

 

[WardenWolf]

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

 

[Ron James]

In Arizona, if you leave a firearm visable in your car, cased or uncased, it will be gone in 60 seconds. You don't have to worry about any rights.

 

[WardenWolf]

Which is why you make damn sure it's not visible from the outside with the doors closed.

 

[Grey_Mana]

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

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

 

[Tin_Man]

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

What part of Az are you in MTW?

 

[Duke of Doubt]

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

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

 

[WardenWolf]

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

What part of Az are you in MTW?

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

 

[notorious]

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

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

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

 

[HoosierQ]

First of all my response does not include one's own employer who might be able to search vehicles...like schools do. But for "public" places like malls and things like that...

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

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

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

 

[rscalzo]

Just because the doors are open for business doesn't make it public property. It's still a private property and the owner/leaseholder can make the rules

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

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

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

 

[Duke of Doubt]

That was one of several risks run by the large shopping mall developers over the past several decades.

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

 

[notorious]

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

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

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

 

[Duke of Doubt]

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

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

 

[MGshaggy]

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

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

 

[Duke of Doubt]

And I suspect the 9th Circuit will make the analogical leap from 1st to 2nd Amendment jurisprudence in a single bound.

 

[notorious]

The 9th Circuits' amazing feats with leaps of logic has never been bound by the earthly laws of physics or any reasonable schools of philosophy.

 

[papaholmz]

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

-papaholmz

 

[TAB]

That would be at will, not right to work.

 

[notorious]

It's a no right to work state.

 

[ramis]

So......anyone know about Kentucky?

Here's the specific law for KY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[divemedic]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[onebigelf]

Not in Florida .

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

John

 

[22lr]

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

 

[papaholmz]

That would be at will, not right to work.

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