Funny, I thought my car was my property
But a federal judge and the Whirlpool Corporation disagree:
Whirlpool Corp. has sued to block a new law that allows employees to keep guns in their locked vehicles on workplace parking lots. The law was scheduled to take effect Nov. 1, according to the Associated Press, but a federal judge blocked it. Only Kentucky has a similar law.
A car is generally viewed as your property. I wouldn’t think that Whirlpool would have a leg to stand on. Of course, it’s not like they’re authorized to search cars.
November 15th, 2004 at 12:59 pm
It’s not a question of whether or not the car (or, for that matter, the gun) is your property. It’s a question of how much control the company should have over its property.
November 15th, 2004 at 2:30 pm
I agree with X..the issue is that Whirlpool owns the parking lot.
November 15th, 2004 at 11:01 pm
Well, I’m too late for much beyond the “ditto” comment.
I’ve had jobs where part of the company policy was to prohibit guns on the property. As the property owner, they do have that right.
This issue seems pretty divisive to gun owners. I recall a thread over at THR where this went on for a while. The basic argument being, “Nobody can deny me my right to self defense.” Except that you’re not forced to enter the property, so if you choose to abide by the policy, an enter without your gun, well, that’s a choice you’ve made. You can also choose not to enter, and retain your right to self defense.
November 16th, 2004 at 2:51 am
Scratch Whirlpool off the list of companies to do business with.
November 16th, 2004 at 8:45 am
I disagree. If you were, for example, carrying a gun into their building or on their parking lot (not in your car) i could take their side.
However, my car is equivalent to my home.
November 16th, 2004 at 7:48 pm
The extension of the “defending the home” doctrine to include personal vehicles is, of course, one I agree with. In a way, I suppose, it’s similar to foreign embassies being considered a little piece of the home state within foreign soil.
But that fact that you car is, I hope, portable makes a difference. Consider the argument of burden. When balancing the rights of one party against another, is it more burdensome for Whirlpool to accomoate you, or for you to accomodate them? Since you aren’t forced to park on their property, you can easily accomodate their property right by simply not going there. You can also argue that it’s easy for Whirlpool to reverse their policy and accomodate you, except that because you have the choice of not going there, they aren’t really infringing.
And dangit, I know I phrased this much better over at THR several months ago, but I can’t find it now.