An alternative to 'guns at work' laws

March 20, 1:57 AMSt. Louis Gun Rights ExaminerKurt Hofmann

Previous Next

20 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

       Photo courtesy of Oleg Volk

There has been a fair amount of action in the last year or so on legislation in various states that would prevent employers from prohibiting their employees from keeping firearms in their locked vehicles in employee parking lots.  Florida, for example, passed such a law last spring.  The law was challenged, and then upheld by the courts (although one of the largest employers in Florida, Walt Disney, has claimed an exception based on a technical provision in the law regarding companies that handle explosives, citing the fireworks kept on hand for the nightly fireworks displays--that issue is still being sorted out, I believe).

In February, the Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld that state's version of the law*, which had been challenged by several major corporations.  That case had dragged on for years, and could conceivably see more court action, judging from a Conoco Phillips spokesman's statement that "the company has not had time to determine what its next step will be."

In Texas, that state's version of the legislation, Texas SB 730 and HB 1301 (both pdf files) is working its way through the legislature, with the Senate version being the subject of vigorous debate just this week.  Some astute analysis of these bills can be found here.

Frankly, although I consider myself a fairly hardcore gun rights advocate, I am torn when it comes to this kind of law.  I cannot easily dismiss the argument that a property owner has the right to prohibit pretty much anything on his or her property, and that those who find such prohibitions unacceptable have the option of not going there.  On the other hand, some argue that fundamental human rights--and the right of self-defense (and the most effective means of its exercise) certainly ranks among those--are always inviolate, and that property owners cannot legitimately demand the surrender of such rights, even on their own property.  It's always a dilemma when rights collide.

It seems to me that there is a way around the dilemma, though.  Let property owners ban guns on their property, but in doing so, they take on the responsibility for the protection of anyone legitimately on that property.  Such legislation has been introduced before.  I first became aware of the idea when it was introduced in Illinois, of all places, in 2005.  The bills (HB 477/SB 44) went nowhere, of course, but represent the kind of compromise between self-defense rights and property rights that appeals to a libertarian like me. 

Synopsis As Introduced
Creates the Gun-free Zone Criminal Conduct Liability Act. Provides that any person, organization, or entity or any agency of government, including any unit of local government, that creates a gun-free zone is liable for all costs, attorney's fees, and treble damages resulting from criminal conduct that occurs against an individual in the gun-free zone, if a reasonable person would believe that possession of a firearm could have helped the individual defend against such conduct. Defines "gun-free zone". Effective immediately.

Ideally, I would think such a law would need to include liability protection for property owners who did permit firearms.

As it turns out, this kind of law has been introduced elsewhere.  Gun rights advocates in Georgia, for example, worked for such a law in 2003, and attempts were made in Arizona in 2002, 2003, and 2008.

Granted, I don't get the impression that any of these bills got very far.  On the other hand, the NRA has put enormous effort behind the laws that would outright prohibit property owners from barring guns on their property (with only modest success), rather than putting that effort behind the liability laws.  It seems to me that the liability approach is both more respectful of everyone's rights, and might face less opposition from corporate interests.

That approach would, I argue, be a better use of NRA's resources.

* Correction: The "guns at work" law in Oklahoma was overturned not by the Oklahoma Supreme Court, as I had stated, but by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.  I apologize for the inaccuracy.