AOL court decision (guns on corporate property) is in...

[JGReed]

GunGeek -

"AOL contended that while the parking lot outside the company's Ogden offices is open to the public, AOL had leased 350 spaces specifically for its use. The nation's leading Internet service provider claimed it was therefore within its rights to extend the no-firearms policy of its building to its portion of the parking lot. "

 

[Coronach]

If the court ruled AOL has control over the mall parking lot then what stops them from saying all mall patrons can't have guns? Even those not going to other shops.

Well, the fact that other patrons of the mall are not their employees would be problem #1. This is a case dealing with employment, not with criminal trespass.

Mike

 

[ojibweindian]

That law suit and $3.85 will get you a cup of coffee. Just because employers infringe our Second Amendment civil rights doesn't mean they accept any responsibility for our safety. It's already been adjudicated.

Not in this state, I think. And it never hurts to try. I would say that if someone, or some entity, demands that you be vulnerable to assault on their property, then they have a fiduciary duty to reasonably protect you.

 

[Coronach]

Yeah, I'm still waiting for that cite.

Mike

 

[pittspilot]

Am I the only property rights person here?

AOL may dictate any policy that it likes on its own property and on its own parking lot. It's called America. The BoR is supposed to stop the government from infringing on rights, not private citizens.

Thus, if AOL, or any other private firm wishes to ban guns on their private property, that is their right.

People are also free to boycott AOL, both as products and accepting employment from that group.

 

[Waitone]

No, I too am a proponent of property rights. Where I have the problem is the inequity before the law of someone who successfully defends their life and are subsequently face with CIVIL litigation by the BG's survivors.

In my simplistic world a clean shoot should preclude civil liabiliity. No criminal liability means no civil liability in terms of self-defense.

 

[ojibweindian]

Am I the only property rights person here?

But you are responsible for what occurs on your property. Rights come with responsibility.

 

[mercedesrules]

(pittspilot) Am I the only property rights person here?

No. The rights I value most are life, liberty and property. There is no right to be employed by any certain firm nor to enter any certain other person's property.

If you think about it, you wouldn't want the state deciding who gets to enter your living room. Entering AOL is by contract - not right.

If the parking lot is common with other businesses, there should be an agreement between them for a common policy. Two classes of parkers doesn't sound just to me.

MR

 

[Treylis]

I am going to go on the record to say that since it is private property, they should be able to do what they want. Yes, they should not be able to infringe on our rights; however, there is no compulsory order mandating that any of us work for AOL or even enter their property. Therefore, if you chose to go on their property, you chose to be disarmed. Pretty simple. If it means that much to you, don't work for them.

I completely agree. While I think that their decision is stupid and worthy of boycott, it's, well, their decision. It's their own property and business, and they should be able to exclude and include, hire and fire for ANY reasons whatsoever.

In this case, property rights do indeed hold the trump card.

 

[Grump]

In this case, property rights do indeed hold the trump card.

It's easy to tell who has READ the case. It was a wrongful termination case in an at-will employment state. The recent enactments of the UT legislature, including committee hearing statements, mirrored the relevant gun-rights laws' statements of no increase or decrease in existing property rights. Unlike the OK law cited above, there was no "strong" public policy found in UT law which could have trumped the employer's rights to restrict & regulate use of its leased portion of the parking lot.

The general argument holds pretty well, unfortunately, because you needed an AOL parking sticker to use that leased portion of the parking lot. The "public access" element was a bit lacking. And the Constitution is generally a restriction on the Govt's actions, not your employers. Even the ever-mighty First Amendment free speech rights tend to end at your employer's door. In the employment context, there is "strong" public policy favoring whistleblowing to expose wrongdoing.

I also believe that there is good reason to expect any "gun free" policy to be, by itself, an "undertaking" by the landowner to provide better "security" for its employees and patrons. Our "standard of care" will creep more and more towards every place being an armed/disarmed camp, with only the "special" designated guards being armed and the rest of the people there being perfect unarmed victims. Well, within the context of firearms and knives. Improvised weapons and group efforts to defeat crazy shooters or gas-leakers (think Sarin, etc.) or powder-spreaders or arsonists** will then be our best weapons. Sad, but I would hardly be defenseless even when "de-fanged". But the landowner decreeing "no guns" will face liability for attacks which are preventable under the "standard of care." Cold comfort to the dead and their survivors.

The state's public policy is embodied in its legislative enactments. Believe it or not, the UT court was and is not big on legislating from the bench...except when enacting their own internal rules on CCW and weapons in courthouses. They do tend to have a bit of an authoritarian tilt, though.

**Ever see what a single person with a Bic lighter and a can of almost any aerosol can do to an office full of paper, books, carpet and Cheetos?