Concealed Weapons Bill Moves Forward

PIERRE, SD – A bill recently passed in the South Dakota House of Representatives would give more rights to employees. But some say it takes too many away from the business.

KELOLAND.com | Concealed Weapons Bill Moves Forward.

It is said that politics can make strange bed fellows.  On this issue I have to agree with Repersentive Feinstein.

“I am not against the second amendment; I am not against hunting. Our heritage is important to South Dakota, it’s important to the South Dakota economy, it’s important to the citizens of South Dakota. But I also believe that an employer has the right to police their own property as they see fit,” Feinstein said.

My property

My house.

My business.

My family.

My Rules.

As a property owner, I should have the right to set various rules as I see fit for the situation at hand.

If I host a party and say no drinking and driving, that means you hand me your car keys before popping the top on a beer. If I set the rule “lights out at 10:00 for teenagers,” that means cell phones as well.  If I say no firearms locked in your car while you are at work, then that is rule.  If you don’t like my rules, then don’t come.

There might be a situation where there might be small children or flammables, that don’t mix well with firearms. There just might be a good reason to not allow firearms.

I believe in the second amendment, and open carry laws I don’t have a problem with someone wanting to have a firearm in the workplace. As a superior, I would ask that you let me know about it. I have no problem with someone wanting to go hunting after work. If you want to keep a rifle for varmints, again no problem. The problem I have, is being told I have to allow it.

If the argument sounds familiar, it is.  This is the same argument used during the smoking ban.

During the smoking ban debate, the smoking opponents decided it was easier to convince 105 legislators and Governor to tell property owners or business operators what they can’t allow on their property. Now the National Rifle Association is trying to do the same thing only telling property owners what they have to allow. If we keep this up, the only responsibility property owners will have is to pay taxes.

 

45 Replies to “Concealed Weapons Bill Moves Forward”

  1. Mike Buckingham

    MC

    There is a difference, if I don?t want to follow your rules at the party you host I don?t need to come. When I provide generally free of charge shelter and food then yes I get to set the rules. But when an employer sets a condition that you have to give up your right to self-defense in exchange for a paycheck I have a problem with that. To use your smoking analogy if you want to work for me you have to smoke.

    Perhaps a hypothetical situation might explain my position. A young lady is leaving an abusive and even threatening relationship, she has reported the abuse, filed a protection order and purchased and trained with a firearm to protect herself if the worse were to happen. The only problem is that is that if her employer has a policy against having firearms on the property she has to leave it at home or risk being fired. So her right to protect herself on the way to or from work is forfeited.

    The bill is a reasonable compromise she can maintain her 2nd amendment as long as the firearm is secured and out of sight in her car.

    For those who want to suggest that employees can go ?postal? and go out to their car and retrieve their gun show me how a policy prevents this. Every few months someone gets fired goes home to retrieve a gun and walk back into the business and shoots one or more co-workers. A policy has yet to stop it. You can also go out and find news stories of exec?s shooting their wives at work, in a shopping center or even picking up the kids at school. If someone wants to try to protect themselves they should at least have the opportunity to do so.

    And if you want to tell me that we should trust the police to protect us. They will get a call and surely arrive in time to pick up the pieces and start an investigation but they won?t be there when you need them. Just ask Gabrielle Gifford how safe she was from a psychotic with a gun.

    1. duggersd

      Mike:
      The employer has a right to either allow or not allow firearms on his/her property. If the employee wants to have a firearm in his/her car, that employee can park off-site. As a teacher, I am not allowed to keep my shotgun in my car so that I can go hunting after school. At one time, it was even regulated that I could not keep the shotgun in my car if I parked within a certain number of feet of the school. That was a little ridiculous. I got around the rule by parking off campus when I planned to hunt after work.
      As for Congresswoman Giffords, as I recall there were several people there with firearms in the crowd. One person even had his drawn, but could not find the correct “target”. I really doubt if the Congresswoman had a pistol on her person she would have been protected. The key is it was a psychotic.

  2. Bill Fleming

    The fact that you would invoke Gabriel Giffords’ name to support your argument here literally turns my stomach, Buckingham. You didn’t even spell her name right.

    1. Mike Buckingham

      BF
      I am sorry that I offended you by invoking Representative Gifford?s name and the misspelling (I trusted spell check since this group tends to criticize misspellings and grammar rather than have an intelligent discussion.) What happened in Tucson was absolutely horrendous and no one from either political persuasion deserves what she experienced and the ordeal that she, her family and constituents face yet today. But that fact remains that law enforcement is powerless to defend you or your home from someone that has a desire to hurt you or your family. We have to be prepared to take care of ourselves and perhaps a firearm is necessary.
      Instead of calling names or belittling the spelling or grammar lets return to the days when this blog had an intelligent discussion of ideas. I may not often agree with some of the points you make in this forum but I always respect the right for you to express it.
      Anonymous
      I have no idea what ALEC has to do with this discussion the NRA has pushed this issue for several years and I will defend their right to present legislative ideas and encourage their support on gun issues. Your inference that I continue to serve in the legislature also shows how little you attention you pay to the legislature or those who are elected. I have not served in an elected position for nearly 4 years. I only chose to contribute to the discussion because I am care about gun rights. At least I BF and I are willing to sign our names and take the arrows for what we believe. How about signing your next attack and then defend it.

      1. BF

        Mike, your reasoning is hopelessly flawed. An insane man was able to legally purchase a weapon at a gun show and wreak havoc on a community in a matter of seconds. If anything that argues for perople having to take an extended psychological test before obtaining a license to carry a concealed weapon. I wonder how many who currently have permits would pass it.

        1. BF

          Further, the suggestion that law enforcement is impotent in this regard is also disingenuous. It is precisely BECAUSE gun laws are so lax that such chaotic events as the Giffords tragedy can occur. Any suggestion that the people in the crowd in Arizona would have fared any better that day had every citizen been armed is of course absurd. Chances are, even more people would have been harmed.

          1. BF

            In summary, Buckingham appears to subscribe to a philosophy that goes something like: “Should we kick people while they’re down? Sure. What better time?”

            Unconscionable.

            1. BF

              p.s. Mike, please note. In your reply to me you wrote: “I am sorry that I offended you by invoking Representative Gifford?s name”.

              Her name is not “Gifford” it is “Giffords.”

              The possive would be either Giffords’ or Giffords’s. If your intention is to pay her any respect whatsoever, you can start by learning what her name is. In this context, it’s not a nit-pick.

                1. ymous

                  BF once again having a conversation with himself. The right to bear arms means nothing to the left. The safest place for a pycho to carry a weapon is a college campus. Wow BF. Wow!

                  1. Bill Fleming

                    I’m 100% supportive of the 2nd Amendment, ymous, for precisely the reasons it was originally intended. So is Gabriel Giffords. We are both liberals. I simply object to Buckingham’s attempt to use her tragedy to demagogue the issue. I think that’s despicable.

                    1. Les

                      Isn’t it just riducules how bad you can get beet up for knokin Mikes spelling Flem?

                      After all your grammatical mistakes I’m just guessing happy hour started early today??

                      BTW Flem, Gabriel was an archangel and Gabby is Gabrielle.

  3. Anonymous

    WTF…

    So this is what we spend money on for our legislators to have 2 month party in Pierre? So someone else can do their thinking?

    And South Dakota is behind the curve on gun rights how?

    Just once…just one freaking time, I’d like to see our legislators stop kissing ALEC and the other outside interest’s ass and focus on SD. Is that too much to ask? Are we electing people so inept that they can’t make a judgement on what the needs of SD are without having someone hold their hand to decide what bills to put before the legislature?

    1. grudznick

      I don’t know who this Alex is but I agree. Stop monkeying around with these goofball things when:

      A) Focus people: FOCUS: It is not a concealed weapons bill. You spout the argus when you quote their story line and then you lose like the argus is losing.

      B) If I had a car, why can’t I have a gun in the trunk of my car locked in there and double locked and never pull it out and I say my employer can’t go searching through my trunk for guns or even pumpkins.

      We need to be cutting things, not messing around with these pumpkin or god bills.

      1. duggersd

        Grudznick:
        I am not sure where you are on this one. In another post you present a hypothetical that seems to argue against this post. I am not seeing this as restricting guns, only property rights. Why would you want a gun in your trunk if you are not allowed to use it? Why not just park on the street, bypassing the property owner’s concern.
        In your hypothetical, let us say it is the John Morrell parking lot instead. Someone takes out the gun and kills someone else. I can see some attorney suing John Morrell because they allowed an unsafe situation.

  4. Anonymous

    Money talks especially politicians…….

    I would like to see a gun sneaked into Cap building and some lazy worthless member of the political community s— in his pants.

  5. Anonymous

    Things like that are used to create controversy to hide the real problems like roads, education, healthcare, senior citizens, judicial system (to include wages for workers in dangerous locations), disabled people care (workers). If the money people were to go work in these conditions for one week they might think of ways to address these problems because not a one of them would be willing to work under these conditions. It is supported by the retention rate of these working people.

  6. William

    MC

    A flaw in your analysis is, that despite what I consider a violation of property rights by by the current anti-smoking law, no one is banned from possessing those products on the premises, only their use. It doesn’t prevent someone from smoking prior to or after leaving that particular location and it doesn’t allow a business owner to conduct a search of your person or vehicle parked on his “lot” in order to look for tobacco products. I suspect even smoking opponents would recoil from that.

    What’s the purpose of a business owner “banning firearms”? One should hope it’s to prevent its misuse resulting in injury or death, even if one disagrees with its effectiveness.

    The proposed concealed carry law actually attempts to balance two sets of rights in a way that respects both the business owner and any employee or customer by ensuring “the person is otherwise in compliance with all applicable state laws and regulations, and the firearm or ammunition is locked out of sight within the trunk, glove box, or other enclosed compartment or area within a privately-owned motor vehicle.”
    http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2012/Bill.aspx?File=HB1132HJU.htm

    If someone parks their vehicle on a parking lot provided by a business it certainly does NOT convey a need or an agreement to allow a search of THEIR property (and its contents) in search of a legally owned possession. The parking lot is NOT the equivalent of the “place of business”.

    Any ban that does NOT allow a meaningful way for a gun owner to safely store a firearm while at that location is simply an attempt to (mis)use the legal system to make it impractical for anyone that carries concealed to exercise their right IF they may happen to conduct business or work at that location at some point during their day.

  7. grudznick

    Could a guard at the Pen in SF park his car by the minimum unit and lock it and keep the bullets in the glove compartment and then go into his job and do it? What if a guy weeding the gardens outside the walls knows that guard “Smithsonorjones” has a firearm in his car, a Yugo, and decides to use his state-issued shovel to bust out the left rear passenger window (4 door Yugo with those odd beer-can rims) and then reach in and grab the device and ….(my sane friend Bill can finish how this might play out)

    I’m just sayin…

    1. Anonymous

      You can come up with all kinds of scenarios like that same trustee out there weeding the gardens could skip out, go to someone’s home who he knows has guns, break a window (no shovel needed to do this) and grab a gun and . . .

      The bottom line is as Mike B. stated, the young lady would have a way to defend herself, from any attacker, on her way home. Maybe the company who bans the guns in a locked car in their parking lot should then take full responsibility for all their employees and guarentee safe passage to and from work against criminals. Afterall, they do have to provide safe working conditions for their employees at work, so why not on the way home too if they won’t let the employees protect themselves. Just thinking . . .

  8. Anonymous

    People passing bills are generally on a ego trip. They have to make the front page so they can hide the real problems that need to be addressed.

    Does the bill remove regs that say no weapons in your court house or other gov offices open to the general public???????????

  9. Anonymous

    What I keep in my vehicle is MY property right. My concealed weapon will in remain concealed in my vehicle no matter what the company’s policy is where I park. It’s my gun, my vehicle and my right. Get over it.

    1. duggersd

      It is my private property and if I do not allow firearms on the property and I find out you have one, you are fired. Get over it. Keep in mind, I am not advocating not allowing people to have firearms. If I owned a business, I would not even disallow them. But the property owner has rights too. BTW, I am not allowed to have a firearm on a school parking lot, even if it is locked away in my vehicle. I got over it. I parked somewhere off campus and walked a block.

      1. Anonymous

        You’ll find yourself on the losing end of a lawsuit. Private property rights of employers rank lower than the 2nd amendment rights of individuals.

        10th circuit has upheld these laws and it’s a safe bet to assume so would the 8th circuit.

        1. duggersd

          Case please of the person who was fired because he had a weapon on the grounds of a person who did not allow them on his property? This is not a 2nd amendment issue as far as I can see.

          1. Anonymous

            A similar situation, Pizza Hut does not allow their employees to carry a weapon when delivering pizza. A driver in Rapid City was held up at gun point. Drew his weapon and shot one of the assailents. He was fired.

            That driver could have been killed but he had a gun. Pizza Hut has the rule, but they didn’t protect their driver and canned him for p0rotecting himself. Me, I no longer go to PIZZA HUT.

            1. duggersd

              But my point has more to do with the law saying Pizza Hut’s rule cannot be enforced. I am not denying it happens. I am not even saying I agree with the rule. I am only saying the company has the right. And you have the right to not eat Pizza Hut Pizza.

    2. anon

      This was not a problem, and would never have been an issue if the NRA hadn’t decided they needed to find an issue to postcard legislators over.

      They cannot document even one time that a worker has been fired for having a weapon locked in his car in South Dakota, yet they felt the need to push this bill through.

      So stupid.

      1. Anonymous

        boo hoo hoo…poor chamber of commerce supporter.

        It’s constitutional…and will survive a challenge. This same case was litigated in the more liberal 10th circuit…and survived.

        Has nothing to do with employer rights…came down to wether or not the general duty clause of an OSHA reg was violated.

        Bottom line…gun rights expanding in favor of individuals in this state and around the country.

        You don’t like it move to California.

      2. Anonymous

        See the post just above by Anonymous 4:35. Very similar circumstances, and he was fired for defending himself.

  10. Anonymous

    Maybe you should retired from the company that wants no weapons on its property. If you are willing to work under the conditions they set it seems to me you should also follow them before and after work on the company property………….

  11. Les

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis Testimony from Suzanna Hupp on her experience of watching her parents gunned down as she was helpless having left her concealed carry due to so many exceptions to the rule.

    This testimony has been maybe a little overused in some peoples minds.

    In my mind however, I feel it should always be part of the testimony on our concealed carry and other 2nd amendment rights.

    1. duggersd

      How is this applicable? The question is whether a business can not allow firearms on its property, locked in a car. This woman’s firearm was in her car. Even though she had a weapon in her car, it did not protect her and her family, did it?
      I am still interested in seeing the case where an employee was fired for violating a company rule about firearms and sued the employer and won.

      1. Anonymous

        its the connoco Phillips case decided by the 10th circuit. I don’t have the cite but just google these search terms.

        1. duggersd

          Here is one source I found:
          http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom/guns-in-the-workplace/76-conocophillips-vs-the-nra
          Here is another:
          http://hr.blr.com/HR-news/Health-Safety/Safety-and-Health/OK-Employers-Neednt-Allow-Guns-in-Parking-Lots/
          Both of these seem to deal with OK and both of these indicate the property owner had the right to ban firearms from their property. Nothing in these stories about 10th circuit. Is this the case you are referring to?

          1. Anonymous

            Dugger: In 2009 a three judge panel of the 10th circuit overturned a district court ruling which held that states could not prohibit employers from banning guns from their parking lots.

            I can’t speculate on what you have read or gleaned from the links you posted.

            What I can say is that the precedent in the 10th circuit allows states to prohibit employers from banning guns in parking lots.

            While it’s not controlling over the 8th circuit, which SD is in, it certainly is telling given the makeup of the 8th circuit and is accepted by many in the legal community as determinative of future efforts by states like SD.

            Bottom line: SD can do this and it will probably be upheld.

  12. Les

    Every rule, that limits the ability to carry, diffuses a normal carry pattern and allows an open window of opportunity for those not following the laws to cause unrestricted harm while chipping away at our 2nd amendment rights.

    Back to your point, I don’t believe I have any right to determine what you carry concealed in your vehicle once my property becomes of a public nature as in a mini mart where you gas up and carry concealed.

    As to whether anyone has been fired or not, it doesn’t matter. This clarifies a licensed carrier’s rights.

    1. anon

      So if every rule that “diffuses a normal carry pattern” needs to be outlawed, are you saying it should be made legal for an employee to carry a firearm on his person while at work?

      That’s obviously the next step to the law we’re discussing here. Would you all support a bill that bans an employer’s right to restrict employees from packing while on the job?

    2. duggersd

      I agree with the mini mart scenario. But the John Morrell parking lot is not a public parking lot.

  13. Les

    What is the principal purpose of the concealed carry?

    Students in Virginia unarmed and unable to protect themselves. The old going postal, employees unable to protect themselves.

    There will always be the unstable individual well able to acquire and conceal carry into any establishment legal or not.

    I believe concealed carry should be allowed across the board. Why only allow the toxic to carry?