• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Guns Legal Now In Texas' Work Place Parking Lots

Tell me how much it means when a psycho is allowed to kill everyone he comes across in a garage when he is allowed to carry a firearm?

What do you tell the victims of his assault?

Sorry but we allow people to carry firearms to work. Maybe if it was a family that got killed you would think differently. Unless you are a cold asshole that thought "Well who cares if my wife was killed by someone allowed to carry a firearm to work, I mean she was just my wife".

Maybe you are just one of those folks.

When was the last time a psycho cared about what was legal and what was not? I'm more concerned about law abiding people being able to defend themselves against psychos. When you hear about workplace killings, do you feel a sense of satisfaction when no one was able to get to a weapon to stop the killer?

"Yeah, too bad 20 people were murdered, but at least no one had a gun in their car in the parking lot to defend themselves!"
 
I'm curious. This law seems to unsurp the rights of the business owner. If I am reading this correctly, if the business owner does not want an employee to carry a weapon, this law negates that.

So, for consistency's sake, those of you that agree with this, do you also agree that the government has the right to tell business owners that they cannot allow someone to smoke in their place of business?
 
I'm curious. This law seems to unsurp the rights of the business owner. If I am reading this correctly, if the business owner does not want an employee to carry a weapon, this law negates that.

For clarity, this law only allows a lawfully owned weapon to be properly stored in the employee's vehicle while that vehicle is on business property.

This law does not allow employees to carry into the business

So, for consistency's sake, those of you that agree with this, do you also agree that the government has the right to tell business owners that they cannot allow someone to smoke in their place of business?

You mean in their car while parked on in their parking lot.
 
For clarity, this law only allows a lawfully owned weapon to be properly stored in the employee's vehicle while that vehicle is on business property.

This law does not allow employees to carry into the business



You mean in their car while parked on in their parking lot.

Thank you for the clarification. This seems entirely consistent to me and I see no problem with it.
 
I do not see a real problem with this if they have permits or whatever.

Now.. If I could just get my crappy workplace to understand that my smoking out in my very own car is not near as bad as my right to carry a Glock or whatever to work? :rofl

Honestly, some people can have guns in their cars at work but I am not suppose to smoke a cig? What is wrong with this picture and my police state? :(
 
Thank you for the clarification. This seems entirely consistent to me and I see no problem with it.

Thinking more on your smoking analogy: since the weapon is merely stored and not used, telling an employee they can not have a weapon in their car is exactly like telling that employee they may not have a pack of cigarettes in the glove box.

If we were talking about the driveway of someone's home there would be no question, but I think a business has to accommodate the public here even when some of the public work on the premises.
 
As a carpenter I enter into people's homes to perform my work.

Perhaps you don't carry it anymore, but I had an image of you with a framing hammer hanging from your belt. I wonder if these rubes understand how deadly a framing hammer is while they walk by men wielding them all the time. In the image the customer is telling you how scary it would be if all these men had lethal tools on them, and you are holding your framing hammer and watching several others being employed, and it looked, like you were chuckling on the inside :)
 
That's why I live here :) You enter my home... I'll shoot you, and I won't stop to ask you to "freeze" I won't wait to figure out your intentions... I'll shoot you till you're dead. Then I'll call the cops to come clean up.

You would not try to shoot them where they could not get up and then call 911? You would really shoot for death?

If so? We finally agree on something. :2razz: You break into my home? You probably will die!
 
This is unreasonable. Employers have every right to set restrictions on what employees can bring to the workplace. The right to own a gun does not mean you can bring it onto other peoples property against their will. If you want to bring a gun to work, find an employer who allows it or just park your car off the campus. I find the undermining of property rights disturbing.





I don't consider my employees cars "my workplace" and I utilize outside sales.
 
I'm curious. This law seems to unsurp the rights of the business owner. If I am reading this correctly, if the business owner does not want an employee to carry a weapon, this law negates that.
Oh look, there you are trying to be above it all, show you're realllllllly non-partisan and above it all by twisting the verbage around to show that there is another side and if you support the one you're a hypocrite!

So, for consistency's sake, those of you that agree with this, do you also agree that the government has the right to tell business owners that they cannot allow someone to smoke in their place of business?
Nice try, but that's not what it says at all, as I believe Jerry clears up the post down from mine.

Now that I know exactly how you play this game, I'm gonna call you out on it. Nice try...

The subject at hand is what employees can have in their POV's while traversing to and from work. Not if they can pack heat in businesses.
 
Oh look, there you are trying to be above it all, show you're realllllllly non-partisan and above it all by twisting the verbage around to show that there is another side and if you support the one you're a hypocrite!


Nice try, but that's not what it says at all, as I believe Jerry clears up the post down from mine.

Now that I know exactly how you play this game, I'm gonna call you out on it. Nice try...

The subject at hand is what employees can have in their POV's while traversing to and from work. Not if they can pack heat in businesses.

"Don`t ask Don`t tell".... "I have a heater in my car". "You`re fired dumbass"!
 
I do not see a real problem with this if they have permits or whatever.

Now.. If I could just get my crappy workplace to understand that my smoking out in my very own car is not near as bad as my right to carry a Glock or whatever to work? :rofl

Honestly, some people can have guns in their cars at work but I am not suppose to smoke a cig? What is wrong with this picture and my police state? :(

The gun owner isn't using the gun in their car, not even to clean it, whereas you are using your cigarettes.

A little gun oil on the hands doesn’t smell anywhere near as bad as a work uniform saturated with cigarette smoke…and yes, we can smell it.
 
A little gun oil on the hands doesn’t smell anywhere near as bad as a work uniform saturated with cigarette smoke…and yes, we can smell it.

So you can smell it big whoop. There are perfumes I cannot stand. I don't think they should be banned.
 
Before the smoking analogies go any further, let's note that the natural right of self-defense is protected in the Constitution, and cannot be properly compared to issues that are not Constitutional rights.

Having said that, I also think an employer forbidding you to smoke in your own car is overboard.

It is a necessity, sometimes, to determine where Person A's right to ____ ends, and Person B's right to _____ begins. I think we need to redefine private property a bit....your own home and yard is one thing, it is indeed private. A business with employees and/or one that is normally open to the public is a slightly different thing: people who walk in the door of your business are not surrendering their natural human rights at the door. There has to be a balance between the biz owner's property rights and the rights of those he employs or who are customers, since he opened the property to others by hiring employees.

Employee does not mean slave.

G.
 
Perhaps you don't carry it anymore, but I had an image of you with a framing hammer hanging from your belt. I wonder if these rubes understand how deadly a framing hammer is while they walk by men wielding them all the time. In the image the customer is telling you how scary it would be if all these men had lethal tools on them, and you are holding your framing hammer and watching several others being employed, and it looked, like you were chuckling on the inside :)

SD considers this a firearm:

Hilti Single-Cartridge Powder-Actuated Tool, .22 Caliber, DX E72 - 1092 at The Home Depot

craigslist020.jpg


Consider it a breach action .22, and yes the rounds get much, much larger.

You need to be 18 (not 21) to buy, and one only needs an easy-to-get safety certificate to use. No concealed carry required.

This tool's primary use is to fasten steel base plate to concrete floors and to fasten steel members to other steel members.

To those who are predisposed to an unhealthy fear of being assaulted, please keep in mind that this gun is much easier to get than a lawfully owned and carried pistol. I doubt the avarage homeowner would think anything of it if they saw one of these holstered on my belt while erecting steel walls in their basement.

As a tangent: For homeowners who simply, for whatever reason, do_not_want any firearm of any kind in their house whatsoever, there are other fastening methods such as Tapcon. Those methods, however, take longer and that means the homeowner will pay a bit more.
 
Last edited:
So you can smell it big whoop. There are perfumes I cannot stand. I don't think they should be banned.

Taking food serve as an example business, neither cigarette smoke nor perfume are desired smells and both are typically prohibited.
 
Taking food serve as an example business, neither cigarette smoke nor perfume are desired smells and both are typically prohibited.
At the restaurant I used to work at it was mandatory to smell good at all times, and we ran like crazy for the entire shift, you don't keep a nice smell without deodorant and good cologne.
 
My state actually just beat Texas out on this one, under La. law a vehicle is an extention of the home, so we passed a law clarifying that the extension is granted on work premises as well, of course, the gun has to stay in the vehicle, so it was just more of a clarification as to how the initial law applies of domicile extension.
 
At the restaurant I used to work at it was mandatory to smell good at all times, and we ran like crazy for the entire shift, you don't keep a nice smell without deodorant and good cologne.

We're not talking about casual smells, though, so please stay on topic.

I said:
A little gun oil on the hands doesn’t smell anywhere near as bad as a work uniform saturated with cigarette smoke…and yes, we can smell it.

..therefore we are talking about very strong smells, including overpowering perfume.

My comment stems from another poster bringing up smoking in a car, so are you saying that you put on deodorant by discharging the entire can while sitting in your closed-up car?

If not, you are off topic.
 
We're not talking about casual smells, though, so please stay on topic.

I said:


..therefore we are talking about very strong smells, including overpowering perfume.

My comment stems from another poster bringing up smoking in a car, so are you saying that you put on deodorant by discharging the entire can while sitting in your closed-up car?

If not, you are off topic.
Smoking is a habit, pure and simple, I would rather smell an over saturated smokers clothes than some of the perfumes/colognes of choice, but I wouldn't ban either as I see it to be ridiculous.
 
As former SC Senator Fritz Hollings might have said, "They's a whole lotta thread-drift goin' on heah." :rofl
 
As former SC Senator Fritz Hollings might have said, "They's a whole lotta thread-drift goin' on heah." :rofl
Yeah, you're right, just wanted to clarify my position on the original tangent. I am glad to see state's stepping up to clarify where people's property rights stand, now if we can only get more common sense as far as property and other natural rights are concerned we might get this United States back on track after all.
 
Smoking is a habit, pure and simple, I would rather smell an over saturated smokers clothes than some of the perfumes/colognes of choice, but I wouldn't ban either as I see it to be ridiculous.

You have every right to ban or not ban such things as you see fit. Surly you would respect the rights of other business owners to choose otherwise.

(man pro-choice logic is addictive)
 
You have every right to ban or not ban such things as you see fit. Surly you would respect the rights of other business owners to choose otherwise.

(man pro-choice logic is addictive)
I do, but not as a condition of working there or regulating legal behaviors on personal property, such as a car.
 
Back
Top Bottom