NRA Taking Your Property Without Compensation

Today the House of Delegates approved a bill, HB 162, that prohibits private property owners from establishing or enforcing any policy that prohibits a person from storing a firearm in a locked car or truck parked on their property. What’s more the bill says that you can be sued and required to pay damages if you seek to enforce such a policy.

This bill is brought to us by the National Rifle Association which was incensed when Weyerhaeuser fired an employee for violating a company policy prohibiting firearms on its property. The NRA pledged to outlaw such policies in every state in the union. Hence this bill offered by Delegate Lingamfelter. Listen to an NPR report on the push to enact these laws. Read more.

In an act of some irony, given the intent of the proponents, big companies with secured parking lots got an amendment to the Virginia bill that exempts them from coverage.

So whose private property rights would be secondary under this legislation to another person’s gun “rights”?

The property of any “person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity” to which access is not “restricted or limited through the use of a gate, security station, or other means”. In other words, every mom and pop store, home on a residential street, office building or restaurant with an open parking lot, shopping center, church, open campus private college, etc.

Now, mind you, if we were talking about 1st amendment rights, the property owner’s right to restrict access would be and is sacrosanct. If you don’t believe me, ask the candidate for the House of Delegates who was arrested at a Charlottesville shopping center for distributing political literature in violation of that private property owner’s policy restricting what would have been protected free speech on a public sidewalk.

To my mind, it is one thing for the state to adopt a policy that all public property should be open to lawful gun toting citizens, whether public parks or the House of Delegates’ office building.

But, I would argue, it is quite another thing for the legislature to tell me that I cannot have a policy at my business that prohibits my employees and customers from bringing guns onto my property and leaving them “stored” in their cars, (unless, of course, I’m a big employer with a controlled access gated parking lot whose lobbyists made sure that I was exempt). And, is it “limited government” to say to me that I risk a lawsuit if I tell people coming to my house and parking in my driveway that they can’t store a gun in their car while on my property?

I find small comfort in the fact that the bill says that the property owner can’t be sued if someone breaks into a car parked on his/her property and uses the gun “stored” there to commit harm to others or if the gunowner him or herself commits mayhem while on your property.

Why might I want to establish that guns are not welcome in my office or on my office property? The rising incidence of workplace violence, for one thing. The number one cause of death for women in the workplace is homicide. Partners and boyfriends commit 13,000 incidents of workplace violence a year. As a private property owner, I should be able to decide that these statistics warrant a “no guns” policy in my workplace and in my parking lot.

The gun rights folks will say that anyone who established a no guns policy on a shopping mall parking lot or at a multi-occupied office complex would risk commercial boycotts and worse. So be it.

If you don’t want to leave your gun at home, and I want to prohibit you from “storing” it in the car while you shop at my store, visit my office, or eat at my restaurant, I should have the right to do so at the risk of losing your business but not at the risk of being sued under a wrong headed law that makes my private property rights subservient to your gun rights.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

23 responses to “NRA Taking Your Property Without Compensation”

  1. Anonymous Avatar

    This is as wrong as laws banning smoking in resturants. Is there nothing that won’t be done to erode the rights of property owners to make their own choices about what is done on their property? Granted, I don’t see that the issue is going to come up very often: employers rarely search the cars of their employees.

    But guess what kids: the constitution does not apply to private citizens. If I want to kick you off my property or fire you for saying things I don’t like… that’s nto unconstitutional. You don’t have a right to my property.

  2. Anonymous Avatar

    The way I read the bill, if you have someone over to work on your furnace and tell that person he cannot have a gun locked in his car — you could get sued. It doesn’t even respect the property rights of your home, let alone your place of business. These folks have as much respect for property rights as they have for privacy rights — so no surprise. (In fact, the second amendment may be the only one they respect.)

  3. Jim Bacon Avatar

    It’s an interesting dilemma to see two fundamental rights clash like this. As a non-gun owner — indeed, as a person who hasn’t even handled a gun since shooting a 22 at tin cans some 40 years ago — I’m not exactly NRA cover boy material. I line up on the side of property owners to set limits on conduct on their own property.

    I generally support the “right to bear arms.” People should be free to bear guns in their own home, on their own property, on the property of consenting property owners, and, with reasonable restrictions, on public property. But the right is not so absolute that it should allow a person to bear arms on someone else’s property without that person’s consent.

    It’s absolutist positions like this that give the NRA a bad name.

  4. Anonymous Avatar

    This further shows the disillusionment that is occurring within the Republican Party. By that I mean God, Guns, and Gays.

    They have sold their souls to special interest groups like the NRA, particularly at the national level.

    I wonder what our new AG thinks of this bill?

    Fix the damn roads and return home to your districts before I have no 1st Amendment rights left at all.

  5. Rtwng Extrmst Avatar
    Rtwng Extrmst

    This is an interesting discussion. I can see some sense in both sides of the argument.

    Is it right for the state to force private property owners to allow activity on their private property that they find unsafe or unacceptable? I think the negative to this proposition is a strong case here. After all, what’s the problem? If people choose to ignore this policy of the owner, no law has been broken, but people might be asked to leave or take their business elsewhere.

    However, what about the case of employers? I don’t have a problem with employers having a “no gun on our property” policy. However, if they enforce such a policy by dismissing employees who ignore it, are they also willing to provide a safe work environment (inclusive of the parking lot) in order to protect their employees from nefarious lawbreakers? Should they be liable for negligence if a crime is committed against one of their employees on their property, or for that matter at a public establishment if the crime is committed in their parking lot? I suspect this is why the exemption was given to folks who have secured parking areas.

    It’s not just a cut-and-dried situation to me. In the end, I think this bill oversteps and hurts the rights of private property owners, but I also believe that if private property owners enforce a “no gun” policy they should be held accountable for criminal acts that may occur on their “publicly accessible” private property. They should also have to clearly and publicly post their policy for all to understand.

  6. Rtwng Extrmst –

    If you post “No Trespassing” signs on your property and a hunter hops your fence (with a gun) and dies in a hunting accident, you are not liable for damages – the hunter was trespassing.

    The same applies to people who trespass and conduct criminal activity on your property.

    So what is a private property owner to do? I guess post a sign that says, “No Trespassing, No Guns”

  7. Ray Hyde Avatar

    Well, according to property law, it is not considered a “taking” unless substatially all economic benefit is removed by the regulation.

    Now, if you want to work to get that rule changed, so that the government has to pay to restrict rights to use your property that affect the value, well then I’m on your side. such a rule should apply to new regulations passed AFTER you acquire the property. That way anyone who acquires a propert will know what the rules are and can be confident that the rules will be applied consistently. If the government doesn’t want to pay the costs involved they could issue a waiver for that particular property.

    In this case, the property owners could claim that this was a new rule assessed after the acquisition and apply for a waiver. Anyone with a new plant or facility would know what the rules are in advance and act accordingly.

    The NRA would get their rule so they woulod be happy, but it might take many years before all property changes hands and the rule applies universally.

    This strikes me as a win-win proposition.

  8. Anonymous Avatar

    I suppose if you are opposed to birth control you could post a sign that says no trespassing, no guns, no condoms.

  9. Rtwng Extrmst Avatar
    Rtwng Extrmst

    People,

    This has nothing to do with trespassing or condoms. This law appears to be written with private property that has public use of some kind in mind (e.g. a store or restaurant, or even a workplace). In other words they are places where people who are legally carrying a gun might have to go to do some form of business.

    BTW these kinds of local policy signs abound, for example ever seen the following?: “No shirts, no shoes: No service” or “We don’t accept personal checks” or “cash only”, etc., etc.

    For residences, you don’t need to post a sign, just tell your “guests” we don’t want guns on our property. If you have one and don’t want to leave it at home, don’t come. Not to mention that you are always free to tell someone to leave if the subject comes up.

    I do think though that owners of private property who invite people onto their property, but yet do not provide a safe environment should be liable if they do not allow people to lawfully protect themselves.

    That all being said, I think this bill goes too far. It’s unecessary.

  10. Rtwng Extrmst Avatar
    Rtwng Extrmst

    On reading the full text of this again, it seems to me this will have no impact on private residence owners. A private residence owner will always be free to ask someone to leave if they are not willing to come to their property without a firearm. The owner in this case is not restricting the person from storing the gun in the vehicle, but rather restricting said person from their private property. In the case of private contractors, residence owners it seems to me are under no requirement to allow contractors to park on their private property. In fact many residences in metropolitan areas have no driveway or public parking available at all.

    On the other hand this would seem to restrict store owners and employers from doing the same, seeing as their private property has a public or at least quasi-public use (parking for employees or customers). I think there is more reasonable logic in these cases to say if someone is carrying legally, and you are asking people to use your facility for parking, people should be able to lock their firearm in their vehicle as long as you as the owner of the facility are not held liable (which this bill allows for).

  11. Anonymous Avatar

    This is another nail in the coffin of “employment at will” in this state. Those of you who got all fired up about LeBlanc’s appointment should be equally opposed to this measure. Think of the mischief to which a union could put this.

  12. Roy B. Scherer Avatar
    Roy B. Scherer

    Several things to point out here. Please bear with me.

    >This bill is brought to us by the
    >National Rifle Association

    Actually, it was brought to us by Virginia Citizens’ Defense League (q.v. at their “vcdl” website, which is an “org”>). The NRA may have helped spread the word, but having let my membership lapse decades ago I wouldn’t know.

    >So whose private property rights would >be secondary under this legislation to >another person’s gun “rights”?

    Excuse me, but in the first place I point out that your use of quotes around the term “rights” is at best inappropriate. If you had taken the time to actually read the Second Amendment, and also to read what the framers of the Constitution wrote about that right, you wouldn’t be so snide. In the second place, it’s not about “gun ‘rights’”. It’s about each person’s God-given right to self-defense. There is a conflict in values here, but the presentation given is not at all balanced.
    Rather than continuing to go through this post line by line, let me give some background here. Please compare what I’m saying with the original post.
    Let’s first define the issue. The bill that occasioned this post is HB162. You can see the bill and related data at the website below. I was at the first meeting at which it was tentatively approved, and here’s what I posted in my General Assembly report. (BTW, if you’d like to be on the list for those reports, please send me an email with “GA06 – Update” as the subjectline.):
    =============================== begin excerpt =====================
    GA – 19 JAN 06 [excerpt]
    House Militia and Police Committee, subcommittee #1, met this afternoon at 5. The meeting was well-attended by activists.

    HB162, Delegate Lingamfelter < http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=061&typ=bil&val=hb162 > would require businesses to allow people [to] hav[e] firearms inside their locked vehicle, and relieve them from liability arising from that, and allow people to get court orders to enforce the law if businesses violated it. Proponents (many present; few spoke) point out that, when businesses have and enforce a blanket prohibition on firearms anywhere on their property, they are effectively disarming their employees and customers while they’re en route between home and work.
    There were two people opposing the bill on various grounds, including: The bill will harm gun-owners, since anti-gun businesses would just refuse to hire them; what about disgruntled and possibly violent employees; the bill doesn’t address school activities being held on non-school grounds; and businesses have a right to protect themselves.
    The patron, and Delegate Griffith, each offered an amendment to clarify parts of the bill. The subcommittee adopted both.
    After some discussion, the subcommittee decided that the bill still needs work, which will probably take some time. The bill was passed by for the day, with the expectation of more consideration, and probable passage, at the next meeting. — No action.
    =============================== end excerpt =====================

    The substitute bill, as amended, was indeed approved at the next subcommittee meeting, and was reported out by the full Committee, and passed by the House of Delegates, and is now before the Senate of Virginia.

    The issue here is the right to self-defense. This is a natural right, granted by “nature’s God” to all people. The Constitution of the United States further recognises the right of all people to keep and bear arms, largely in suppport of that right.
    If your spouse has threatened to kill you and your children because you’ve been uppity enough to leave and file for a divorce, and has actually assaulted you in the past, you may wish to carry a handgun — or a sawed-off 12-gauge — for self-protection. Under US and Virginia law, you’re entitled to do that, if you don’t fall into the “prohibited classes”. With no firearm, a 5’2″ 110-pound woman is pretty much at the mercy of a 6’2″ 175-pound attacker — especially if he also has a gun. With a firearm available, the odds are a whole lot more even.
    The trouble is that the weapon is useless if you don’t have it available. When businesses prohibit firearms on their property, even in their parking lots, that means that you have to leave the weapon at home when you go shopping or go to work — and these are precisely the times at which you’re most vulnerable.
    The bill allows you to keep your weapon with you while you travel to, and return from, shopping or work. It also allows you to force a business-owner to comply with it. It doesn’t allow you to bring the weapon inside; you have to leave it inside your car, and it has to be securely locked. It very deliberately does not force you to allow firearms inside your house or business, or even inside a vehicle in the driveway of your home. The committee members worked for several hours to make the original bill address those concerns. (See the original and substitute versions at the website above.)
    Some will say that no one should possess firearms. I’d disagree in principle (after all, that would mean that the small are forever at the mercy of the big), but more immediately I point out that there are millions of firearms already in private hands, and that I’ve never seen any practical proposal to change that. If bad guys have guns, then why decree that good guys cannot also have them?
    Some will say that the police will protect you — but in the best of cases it will take police officers several minutes to respond to a call, and it takes oinly seconds for an attacker to kill several people. (BTW, the police have no duty to protect you. Repeated court cases have held that government and police are not liable, even if they incompetently — or even deliberately — ignore your plea for help as you’re being assaulted. YOU have a duty to protect yourself.)
    Some will say that all violence is intrinsically evil. That’s a fine and noble philosophy, and it works pretty well when your opponent is a large group of people who generally share moral views — witness Ghandi and King — but it doesn’t work nearly as well when the opponent is a thug who wants to kill or rape you, or rob you and leave no witnesses behind. If you choose to follow absolute non-violence, that’s fine, but please don’t attempt to force others to do so.

    There are two points in the original posting worth responding to directly:
    >Why might I want to establish that
    >guns are not welcome in my office or
    >on my office property? The rising
    >incidence of workplace violence, for
    >one thing. The number one cause of
    >death for women in the workplace is
    >homicide. Partners and boyfriends
    >commit 13,000 incidents of workplace
    >violence a year. As a private property
    > owner, I should be able to decide
    >that these statistics warrant a “no
    >guns” policy in my workplace and in my
    > parking lot.

    Perhaps someone could tell me even one case in which a “no guns” policy has prevented such an attack? So far as I’m aware, the vast majority of such have occurred at places — like the post office murders a few days ago in California — where there are strict policies prohibiting firearms. These policies are simply ignored by anyone who intends to commit violence. The only effect they have is to make sure that the victims are not able to shoot back.

    >If you don’t want to leave your gun at
    > home, and I want to prohibit you from
    > “storing” it in the car while you
    >shop at my store, visit my office, or
    >eat at my restaurant, I should have
    >the right to do so at the risk of
    >losing your business but not at the
    >risk of being sued under a wrong
    >headed law that makes my private
    >property rights subservient to your
    >gun rights.

    Sorry, that’s wrongly stated. You do not and should not have the right to keep me from having a gun in my car while I’m at your place. You do indeed have and should have a right to keep me from bringing the firearm inside. What the bill addresses is whether or not your private property rights IN YOUR PARKING LOT override my right to self defense. The bill makes a slight encroachment on private property rights in favor of the right of self defense.
    I think that it’s a reasonable balancing of two rights in collision. If you disagree — or agree — you should contact your legislators and make your views known.

  13. NOVA Scout Avatar
    NOVA Scout

    Why would I have more of a “right” to forbid your bringing a gun into my house on your person than to forbid you to bring a gun onto my property in your automobile? If I have a “right” to control use of my property, it seems that right is as robust in my driveway as in my dining room.

    There are situations where fact patterns involving dwellings are important – in most jurisdictions, I probably am more justified in shooting an intruder in my house than I am in shooting him in my driveway – but I would think that my ability to dictate the conditions under which I permit persons to enter my property is fairly strong and would extend to items I consider dangerous (whether rationally or not) brought within my boundaries.

  14. Anonymous Avatar

    There are several references in these comments that indicate that this law would not apply to a residential property – that is 100 PERCENT FALSE.

    Read the legislation here – http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=061&typ=bil&val=hb162

    There is NOTHING in this legislation to prevent it from applying to my residential property and my driveway. Nothing.

    This, unfortunately, is the Republican party of today. It is no longer the party of less intrusive government. Where has my party gone?

  15. criticallythinking Avatar
    criticallythinking

    First, it bothers me that schools are exempt. If I have to go to school to pick up my child, and I have a right to posess a firearm, there is no useful reason to keep me from driving on public property to do so.

    I haven’t read a single case where a prohibition on guns in school parking lots has prevented a gun from being brought into the school (or even a case where a person was trying to hide a gun in their car in a parking lot at school but was caught — as opposed to innoncent, law-abiding people who are ignorant of the law and therefore make it clear that they have a gun and therefore get caught).

    The right to bear arms is of little use if there is no place to put those weapons when you arrive at a place that doesn’t allow weapons. In the old west lore, establishments who didn’t want armed patrons would collect the weapons for safe-keeping, and return them. I can’t imagine the government passing a law requiring shopowners to do that today.

    Can a shopowner refuse to allow people driving SUVs from parking in their lot? Would you support a bill that prevented a shop owner from not allowing foreign cars, or small cars, or yellow cars, or cars with Bush stickers? Remember that none of those are allowed as RIGHTS in the constitution like bearing arms. Yes, BEARING arms. The 2nd amendment says we can KEEP AND BEAR arms, not just Keep, but also BEAR them.

    Shop owners already give up some “rights” of association in exchange for doing business. They can’t refuse to allow people in based on race (although apparently they can refuse to allow military people in their bars). A shop open to the public probably can’t only serve one sex.

    Of course, the real question is, what’s the problem people are scared about here? Law-abiding citizens having locked guns in their cars? In your driveway? There is NO HARM to the property owner, relative to the great harm to the person’s right to bear arms if you prevent it.

    Government, even limited government, exists to legislate the territory between competing rights of citizens. This is exactly the kind of law we should EXPECT from a limited government.

    I probably would write the law a little differently, and put more to protect the private residential owners (although the point is a good one — if you haven’t done ANYTHING to prevent the general population from walking all over your yard, you are hardly in a position to complain if a person who has to visit you wants to keep a locked gun in his locked car. If you HAVE put up your own protection, then this law keeps people from driving past your armed guards with their own weapons).

    This is NOT intrusive government (except the part where I can be forced by the government to come to the school, but can also be forced by the government to leave my gun at home — that is government intrusion on my rights, and should be changed).

    I do not own a gun, I do not have a carry permit, I have never owned a gun, I’ve only shot a gun a few times in my life — but I recognise the right to do so, and see how that right is meaningless if it can be thwarted by the fiat of other citizens.

    BTW, there is probably an unintended but welcome benefit from this law. It will prevent anti-gun organizations from launching a campaign to force businesses to institute no-gun policies, on threat of boycott. Can’t force them to do what the law doesn’t allow…..

    These aren’t the best arguments, but Roy took those….

  16. Just one question for all you defenders of an absolute right to bear arms on the private property of others …. can I come stand in your driveways or in your business parking lots to protest against your beliefs or business practices?

    If not, why not?

    Why should you have any greater right to control my first amendment right to free speech when on your property, than I would have to control your exercise of your right to bear arms on my property under this law?

    And, Roy, while you know how much I respect your acumen and insight into the legislative process, you’re wrong about one thing here … the bill does cover my driveway as well as business premises.

  17. Rtwng Extrmst Avatar
    Rtwng Extrmst

    CG2,

    You are incorrect. Under this law I can ask anyone who is uninvited on my private property to leave as a trespasser. Gun or no gun, speech or no speech. However, if I invite you onto my property for some purpose (stated or implied), certainly I have no right to curtail your free speech. However, I do still have the right to ask you to leave. No different with this case and guns. The only difference I can think of is if I am implicitly asking people onto my residence as part of some service. Even then though if your speech is impacting my business I can ask you to leave. I can see no corollary to a gun locked in a car on my driveway as somehow impacting my business though.

  18. However, if I invite you onto my property for some purpose (stated or implied), certainly I have no right to curtail your free speech. However, I do still have the right to ask you to leave.

    Huh? How does this not curtail free speech? How does this square with the ability of a private enterprise to estable dress codes or restrictions on behavior?

    Further, not only would you have the right to ask some to leave your property if you did not like what they were saying (in other words, curtailing free speech) you have the right to revoke their invitation and have them forcibly removed. In which case, you have clearly blocked their right to free speech.

    The fact is, one does not have a constitutional right to free speech on someone else’s private property without their permission…nor do they have a constitutional right to store their firearm on your property without your permission.

    A. No person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity shall maintain, establish, or enforce any policy or rule that has the effect of prohibiting a person who may lawfully possess a firearm from storing a firearm locked in or locked to a firearms rack in a motor vehicle in a parking lot, parking space, or other similar property set aside for motor vehicles.

    While I fully support the 2nd Amendment, I am much more concerned about my rights as a property owner and my ability to express my enactment of those rights. And I am a gun owner and former infantryman.

  19. Anonymous Avatar

    Roy, you are wrong. The common law bundle of sticks I own absolutely permits me to set conditions upon your entry to my property — under the rights to exclude and peaceful enjoyment.

    However, the General Assembly may change those rights, which this statute does.

    So don’t start to lecture me about rights — especially when the ones you wish to trample predate the 2nd Amendment.

    Incidentally, I own SEVERAL guns and have since I was 10 years old.

    This is not a matter of individual liberties being trampled by government — unless you consider property rights individual liberties.

  20. spankthatdonkey Avatar
    spankthatdonkey

    Citizens have the right to “Keep and Bear Arms” per the Second Amendment.

    Citizens in our “Commonwealth” are expected to be “Law Abiding Citizens”, or they lose their privledges.

    There seems to be a lot of “presumption of guilt” on the Citizens who dare to exercise their rights to keep/bear arms in/upon their own private property, in this case an automobile.

    The first 10 Amendments to the Constitution is the “Bill of Rights”, which was intended to protect the rights of citizens and elevate them above the Federal and their State Governments/Constitutions,(as per each state).

    Now do we need a “Bill of Rights” to establish our “citizenship/Rights” as it concerns to every property owner in each deeded parcel of the Commonwealth???

  21. It’s not a presumption of guilt involved at all…it is a legal tradition regarding the rights and privileges of property ownership that predate the Bill of Rights.

    It is difficult to reconcile the conflicts when one right conflicts with another right. However, in the case of personal property rights, say my rights as a homeowner, and your right to keep and bear arms, it is quite simple.

    If I don’t want you to keep a gun in your car when you visit me, don’t park in my driveway. That negotiation of respect between different rights is supposed to be part of the social compact, but this bill negates that. I am less concerned about the property rights of business owners, but then the same logic appplies…one does not have to park in the employer’s lot and so forth, nor does one have to business with a business that won’t let you keep your gun in your car when i is on their property.

    All across the rural Colorado in the 90s, you could see signs in stores that make it very clear that you are not to bring your gun into their store. Concealed and open carry is completely within the law…but so are the rights of property owners.

  22. The Society of Human Resource Managers sent out this legislative alert to its members this week:

    “State Legislative Alert!

    Please write or call your state representative and urge them to oppose House Bill 162. This legislation would prohibit employers from setting policies and procedures that protect their employees and customers while on company property. Specifically, the bill would prohibit employers from establishing policies that prevent employees and patrons from storing firearms in their vehicle while on private property.

    Issue Background

    As an HR professional, we believe that every employee is entitled to a safe work environment. According to the U.S. Department of Labor’s most recent statistics, there were 433 shooting homicides at private businesses in 2003. Research released this year by the American Journal of Public Health found that workplaces where guns were permitted were five times more likely to experience a homicide than those where all weapons were prohibited. SHRM research found that 55 percent of employees say that “feeling safe in the work environment” is very important to their overall job satisfaction.

    Legislation

    The following are provisions of House Bill 162 that would limit an employer’s ability to protect their employees while simultaneously safeguarding their property:

    Workplace Policies that Prohibit Firearms – A person, property owner, tenant, employer, or business entity cannot establish, maintain, or enforce any policy that prohibits an employee or patron from carrying or storing a firearm within his/her vehicle while on private property.

    Liability Concerns – Civil liability implications clearly exist in the proposed legislation for employers who implement and enforce a policy that prohibits weapons in the workplace. Additionally, although the bill attempts to provide liability protection to employers who allow firearms to be stored in vehicles, the ambiguous language in the bill leaves an employer open to liability if an employee or patron is wounded by a firearm.

    Infringes on Property Rights – House Bill 162 restricts the property rights of individuals, property owners, tenants, employers, and business entities. Citizens in Virginia have the rights to control their property without state restrictions.”

    To my mind the most important argument is the last one. The bill of rights exists to protect me from government action including action to infringe on my private property rights like this bill does. It does not exist to force one private party to accord another private party his/her “constitutional rights.” On my property, you have the “rights” that I choose to give you. And, storing your gun in a car in my driveway or on my business premises is one right that I have the right to choose not to give you.

  23. Anonymous Avatar

    Hb 162 is a very good bill. When does any business get the right to tell me what I can or can not have in my autombile. My automobile is my personal property, what gives you the right to tell what I can have in it. What next, banning cigarettes in my car.

Leave a Reply