The never-ending gun debate
Text 
No Comments [ Add Comment ]I
magine living in a state where some issue relating to guns doesn't come up every year in the Legislature. You'll have to, because as long as you live in Utah, it just ain't gonna happen.
The subject of gun rights versus property rights is up for debate again this year. It's a familiar scrap: Business owners currently have the law and court precedent on their side if they want to restrict their employees from bringing guns to work and leaving them in their automobiles in the company parking lot. In fact, it was a case arising from an employee-employer dispute at an Ogden business several years ago that established the case law -- the employer won.
This fact has been an irritant for gun-rights advocates. So they're at the Legislature again this year, hoping to swing the pendulum back in their direction. Senate Bill 67 would prohibit employers from banning firearms brought by employees to workplace parking lots.
A certain segment of concealed-carry permit holders have stated forcefully in letters to the editor over the years that they should not be restricted from carrying their weapons anywhere but a jail, courtroom or airport -- they'd like to choose for themselves whether they carry in church, any business or anyone else's home.
Obviously, a certain segment of private property owners view things differently. As they point out, it's their business, their home or their church, so they should be able to prohibit guns on their property. This would, naturally, include employers -- primarily interested in workplace safety.
There are reasoned arguments, we believe, on both sides. Gun-rights absolutists may be correct that their ability to protect themselves is somehow restricted if they are not allowed to bring a weapon into a company parking lot. The circumstances of such a necessity would be rare, we believe, but it is possible.
We do not, however, believe that argument outweighs fundamental property rights. A business should be able to make such rules for its employees. If the employee objects, that employee should seek alternative parking -- whether on a public street or in a nearby lot that allows firearms to be kept in automobiles. If they feel strongly enough, they could also seek alternative employment.
Reality is, employers are allowed to enforce all sorts of rules over the behavior of employees. They should also be able to restrict firearms at the workplace. To recognize an employer's right to that rule is not anti-gun, but pro-property rights.
It is, then, the gun owner's legitimate right to find other parking, or decide whether to continue to work there. Likewise, it is a customer's right to decide whether to continue to do business with such an employer. There are, after all, consequences for every action.
In this situation, we believe property rights are paramount. But that does not mean gun owners' rights are ignored; as we noted, other options are available.
Add Your Comment
