What’s your take should an employee be aloud to store a gun in their car?
Tennessee legislators passed a new Second Amendment rights bill which was signed into law by the governor this week. It’s a rather unusual law, if only for the the specific scenarios which are covered. Referred to as the “Guns in Parking Lots” law, it’s a companion piece to a related bit of legislation which was enacted last year. The previous law decriminalized the storing of weapons in the automobiles of employees while parked on the employer’s property even if said employer had posted a rule forbidding weapons on the premises. But after review by the state Attorney General, it was noted that the employee could still be fired for violating the rule, even if they wouldn’t be prosecuted in court.
At the Daily Caller, frequent Hot Air contributor (and friend) Dustin Siggins has penned an editorial arguing that this new law goes too far. The basis for his argument is that the government has overstepped its bounds and prioritized the rights of employees over those of employers.
Unfortunately, all the law did was use government force to give priority to employees over employers.
Tennessee Republicans decided that the Second Amendment rights of employees have priority over the property rights of employers.
[T]his violates the idea that government should, for the most part, let private actors handle their own issues. Like the Obama administration’s abortifacient, sterilization, and contraception mandate, however, the Tennessee government has unnecessarily decided to declare that employees have rights to employer property.
This is also reminiscent of recent attempts by homosexual militants and their allies to force business owners to participate in ceremonies they disagree with — again, using government mandates to interfere with the private, independent decisions of business owners.
Dustin also argues that if an employee doesn’t like the company’s policy, that person can leave employment.
I have to disagree here, and I take issue with Dustin’s argument on a couple of points. I would first note that I am certainly sympathetic with the concept of giving employers wide latitude to conduct their business operations in a manner which best suits their needs. Within reason, the employer needs to have the ability to make and enforce rules that achieve the mission and produce a profit while providing employment and benefits for their workers. But as with all things in this life, there are limits.