# Much Ado About Nuthin'?



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Like a lot of you, I just got an NRA-ILA alert about Senate Bill 67 which would allow you to keep a firearm in your locked motor vehicle while parked on publicly accessible private property as long as the firearm is legally possessed and transported, properly secured and/or in a locked vehicle, and not in plain view. The bill is stuck in committee.

I see two issues with this. Up front, should the bill be passed? (I suppose it should.) But secondly, does it need to be passed? I'd dare guess thay very few people ever refrain from keeping a gun in their vehicle because it's against the wishes of the private property owner. I consider myself to be reasonably law-abiding. I even wait for a green light at an empty intersection at 3:00 am. But my employer's policy against firearms on the premises hasn't stopped me from keeping a shotgun or rifle behind the seat when I need to. I mean, how would anybody know?

Of course, I'm probably missing the point. Again. :lol:


----------



## threshershark (Sep 7, 2007)

This issue has come increasingly to light because some employers have fired people upon finding out they had legally owned firearms in their vehicles on company property. The most recent public case I'm aware of was by Conoco-Phillips. Many employers (including mine actually) have policies that prohibit the posession of a firearm on their property, including inside private vehicles passing through or parked there. In your case, while the odds are in your favor of no one finding out, you are probably risking your job every time you bring a gun to work. If a friend ratted you out, or if your car was burglarized and you reported a firearm stolen, you could be fired.

I think the point is that while private property owners should have a say about the presence of firearms brought into their facilities, publically-accessible private property such as a parking lot blurs the line. A vehicle is often legally considered an area in which personal privacy can be expected, and if it's parked in an area which is accessible to the public then it follows that the right to keep and bear arms should be applicable.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

My work would fire me in a heartbeat if they found out I had a firearm in my personal vehicle. So, yes I do believe this law is needed. I believe a person has the right to protect himself and the politics of a property owner should not, must not, override it. AOL fired 3 employees a few years back, and they weren't even on AOL property, they where on 'leased' property.


----------



## tapehoser (Sep 10, 2007)

+1 on both comments.

I'd be fired in a heartbeat as well. But I believe the car, although _SITTING_ on someone else's property is still *MY* property and should not be under the control of anybody but *me*. This law is an extension of the Castle Doctrine espoused in other states, and I wholeheartedly hope it passes.


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

I agree, Tapehoser. The vehicle should be considered the owner's private property. Federal law allows for transporting guns through restricted areas such as national parks, Utah law allows for a gun to be stored in a vehicle on school property, so it seems only natural to have a similar allowance for private property where public vehicles are allowed. Now the national park laws are another story altogether, I hope those changes go through as well.


----------



## BERG (Dec 4, 2007)

Great posts. I agree with the last two. When someone can find a way to stop the bad guys from gunning innocent folks down on private property, then maybe I would not keep a loaded gun under my seat...until then, fire me and put me in jail. My car is my property, and I'll take the chance. I suppose this makes me a criminal of sorts eh?

So, I go to work and everyone knows that no one is allowed to have guns. What, or who, is going to stop the disgruntled employee from going postal, when he knows that no one else has a gun? Nothing new about this argument is there?


----------



## huntingbuddy (Sep 10, 2007)

At my work we show our new gun to the boss and coworkers :mrgreen:


----------



## tapehoser (Sep 10, 2007)

huntingbuddy said:


> At my work we show our new gun to the boss and coworkers :mrgreen:


Jake, you are a lucky son of a gun!


----------



## bigpapacow (Nov 15, 2007)

I used to work at a bank that had that policy. It didn't stop me from having guns in my vehicle. Many times I took off to the hills straight from work. I definately dould have been fired for it though. Now, I work for a buddy doing loans and it is practically a requirement to show off the new hardware at work. It's great!


----------



## Donnerhund GWPs (Sep 12, 2007)

I used to work at a national retailer ( won't mention their name, but thier initials are AZ) at which the company policy stated firearms were prohibited " in the building, parking lot, or in off-site parking" Yes, they actually have the balls to tell their employees not to have guns in vehicles parked on property they don't even own or lease!!!!!!!!! Wow! Oh yeah, they have had a few armed robberies at some locations... even in off-site parking, go figure! :roll: 

Later I went to work for a company that didn't really prohibit guns, but the owner sometimes made comments which alluded to his disapproval. Which is one reason why I favor concealed-carry, what he didn't know was good for me!

Now I work where I'm expected to be armed, and I even get paid to shoot from time to time! 8)


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

> Oh, for the good old days when we left our guns in our cars in the high school parking lot so we could hunt after school.


You did that too? I remember going to my own parent-teacher conference after a morning deer hunt - ammo and big knife on my belt, and rifle in the gun rack of my truck, to talk to my government teacher. It didn't seem out of place in any way where I grew up.

At my office, there have been many occassions where firearms have been brought in to show off. It is expected among us, that a new gun needs to be shown off. I guess we are lucky around here.

On the issue of firing an employee over that - I would think that would all depend on the type of work and how replacable the employee is. I would never fire staff over that - they bring in too much money for the firm.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

A question I would love answered by the anti-gun folk is; were there more/less school shooting when we had guns in the trucks in the school parking lot, including the trucks of many teachers. I don't recall the shootings like we see now. Gary, my current employer is based in Denver, and they really don't care if I am a good employee or not, company policy is company policy. If I got caught with a firearm in my personal vehicle I would be fired on the spot. That includes my Hoyt.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Thats a good question Pro. I think times are different though. I don't think it is a "less school shootings back in the day" because of the chance or return fire. That is rational. And people who go on shooting sprees are not rational. Nor do they care about the reprucusions - such as return fire. It isn't a deterant. They are crazy. And laws and reason don't apply. 

Growing up in rural country, guns were fully accepted in every day life. And even though we all had guns in our trucks, we would never try to off the whole school. We knew better. And had respect for humanity, and the teachers, and as much as we could, other students. It was a different society then. And I'm not that old by the way.

As for the company policies - this puts us gun-toting republicans in a bit of a quandry. We like to let the market forces rule and do its thing, with minimal government involvement. But here we have private industry placing restrictions on us. If we don't like, we don't have to work there. I would think that if it were important enough to enough employees, the company would change. But then again, we might be surprised at how many employees might favor the gun-ban on company property. That's a tough one.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I disagree, I believe most of these shooters target areas where there is little/no risk of return fire. If these irrational people knew there was a good chance of being shot before they 'made their statement', I believe many of them would not make the attempt in the first place.

You are right, if I feel strong enough about it I can get a new mode of income, exactly what I am planning on doing in the very near future. As for having enough employees take a stand, I have 40,000+ co-workers, most of whom are 'cement dwellers' and the odds are worse than the Utes making the Sweet 16 in Men's basketball in 2008 of getting enough employees willing to make a stand on guns in personal vehicles.


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

If the school/mall shooters care about return fire, then why do they all shoot themselves? Clearly they don't care what happens to them. Its suicide by cop, or by their own weapon. And the threat of return fire doesn't change that.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I disagree, I believe most of these shooters target areas where there is little/no risk of return fire. If these irrational people knew there was a good chance of being shot before they 'made their statement', I believe many of them would not make the attempt in the first place.
> 
> You are right, if I feel strong enough about it I can get a new mode of income, exactly what I am planning on doing in the very near future. As for having enough employees take a stand, I have 40,000+ co-workers, most of whom are 'cement dwellers' and *the odds are worse than the Utes making the Sweet 16 in Men's basketball in 2008[b/]of getting enough employees willing to make a stand on guns in personal vehicles.*


*

Wow, I didn't realize it was that bad. *


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> If the school/mall shooters care about return fire, then why do they all shoot themselves? Clearly they don't care what happens to them. Its suicide by cop, or by their own weapon. And the threat of return fire doesn't change that.


It's not that they are 'afraid' to die, it is that they want to take others with them, and to die on their terms after they have maximized mayhem. It wouldn't stop all of these type of shootings, but I believe it would reduce the number of them, and it would reduce the number of victims. How many more people would have died at Trolley Square if that off-duty officer hadn't returned fire?


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

> How many more people would have died at Trolley Square if that off-duty officer hadn't returned fire?


That's a really good question.


----------



## woollybugger (Oct 13, 2007)

I just want to know why all of the anti-gun efforts are focused upon the law abiding citzen first and foremost? I have yet to see any effort by the anti-gun camp to keep guns from criminals (since they are the ones committing the crimes, logic tells me they shoud be concerned with them as a group first). And, if law abiding citzens don't cause mayhem and commit gun crimes, why is there a need to control them? Am I just too rational?


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Woolly - you bring up a good point. Aren't any laws intended to make things more strict focused ultimately, on law abiding citizens?


----------



## Nibble Nuts (Sep 12, 2007)

woollybugger said:


> I just want to know why all of the anti-gun efforts are focused upon the law abiding citzen first and foremost? I have yet to see any effort by the anti-gun camp to keep guns from criminals (since they are the ones committing the crimes, logic tells me they shoud be concerned with them as a group first). And, if law abiding citzens don't cause mayhem and commit gun crimes, why is there a need to control them? Am I just too rational?


It's because the leaders of the anti-gun movements do not have law-abiding citizens in mind. Some people think it is due to their folly, but I believe it is a calculated movement.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

woollybugger said:


> I just want to know why all of the anti-gun efforts are focused upon the law abiding citzen first and foremost? I have yet to see any effort by the anti-gun camp to keep guns from criminals (since they are the ones committing the crimes, logic tells me they shoud be concerned with them as a group first). And, if law abiding citzens don't cause mayhem and commit gun crimes, why is there a need to control them? Am I just too rational?


There isn't. The first step towards keeping criminals from using guns is to arm law abiding ones. I would gladly step up and do my duty as an American to rid our country of these types up people, one piece of lead at a time. Just tell me where to aim.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Just an FYI - the bill didn't pass.

Reports are that it had plenty of support, but politics ruled the day just as happens all too often with Utah's legislature. Still, things can always change. I even saw Gayle Ruzicka smile the other day!!!


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Did anybody read the idiotic editorial in the Trib today? It basically says allowing folks to take guns into federal parks will increase poaching, gun related crimes, and take away part of the 'experience' for the other visitors. How **** dumb are these people? :roll: Do they really believe the ONLY reason criminals/poachers are not doing their evil deeds in national parks is because of a gun law? Nonsensical. :?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Here is the link: http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_8495423


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Does Ranger Bob know that?


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

fatbass said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Does Ranger Bob know that?
> ...


I agree, I was referring to Jellystone Park. You know, Yogi and BooBoo? How dare you stop them from stealing your pic-a-nic basket. :twisted:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

You got me, I rarely had time to watch cartoons growing up, so I pulled Ranger Bob from my backside. :shock: I guess that explains why you missed my reference.  

On a serious note, I believe it is every husband/fathers DUTY to protect his loved ones, to be denied that duty is flat out un-American, and un-constitutional. Pinheads saying they 'feel' safer w/o guns around is an example of what is wrong with 'progressives'.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

GaryFish said:


> Thats a good question Pro. I think times are different though. I don't think it is a "less school shootings back in the day" because of the chance or return fire. That is rational. And people who go on shooting sprees are not rational. Nor do they care about the reprucusions - such as return fire. It isn't a deterant. They are crazy. And laws and reason don't apply.


What do you think about this?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=58323

I wonder why the 'main stream' media hasn't reported this part of the story? :?


----------

