Click to enlarge photos.By Bob Barr
Here we go again.
The Georgia General Assembly session is about to begin, and self-styled "property rights" advocates once again are criticizing the National Rifle Association for daring to urge passage of legislation that would remind Georgia citizens that their right to lawfully possess a firearm, as guaranteed by Constitution and law, cannot be arbitrarily denied them simply because they might chose to exercise that right in or on a publicly-accessible parking lot.
In a Jan. 3 column ("NRA's latest bill would trample property rights") against efforts by the NRA and what appears to be a majority of legislators under the Gold Dome, Georgia Chamber of Commerce Senior Vice President Joe Fleming decries the NRA's effort to "establish" a "peculiar new right" (emphasis mine). The "right" for which Mr. Fleming chides the NRA is in fact neither new nor peculiar under either federal or Georgia state law; and it is certainly not "bizarre" as further characterized by Mr. Fleming's overblown and vituperative rhetoric.
Despite efforts by Mr. Fleming and others to prevent the legislation supported by the NRA and many state legislators from being signed into law, the measure is actually quite limited and very measured - if, that is, one reads it.
First, of course, opponents of the parking lot measure might want to remind themselves that the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects against government infringing the inherent right to possess a firearm. While the Supreme Court of the United States currently has on its docket a lower federal court opinion from last year that found the District of Columbia's 30-year old gun ban to be unconstitutional, at least here in Georgia common sense and historical understanding generally hold to the notion that the Second Amendment - like, for example, the First - guarantees an individual right.
However, apparently in Mr. Fleming's universe, such individual rights as these can be arbitrarily denied by allowing governments or other entities (such as a business that maintains a parking area open to the public) to prohibit a person from exercising those rights on their property, even though that property is open to the public.
One might want to query Mr. Fleming and other opponents of the parking lot bill to determine if their expansive view of "property rights" would similarly empower the owner of a publicly-accessible parking lot to deny entry of a vehicle containing not a firearm but a Bible, the possession of which also is guaranteed by the Constitution. I suspect "property rights" purists like Mr. Fleming might squirm a bit on that one.
The fact of the matter is, legislation such as supported in Georgia by the NRA - HB 89 - does not infringe in any way the power of a "property owner" to use their property as they see fit. The legislation does not force the owner of a parking lot that is not open to the public to do or not to do anything at all regarding firearms or anything else. Nor does the measure affect the power of an employer to limit firearms in the workplace.
Let's quickly note some of the other things the legislation that has caused Mr. Fleming and some of his colleagues to become so incensed, does and does not do:
n The legislation simply reinforces the rights that law-abiding Georgia citizens explicitly enjoy, to maintain a firearm properly secured in their vehicle, subject, of course, to any otherwise lawful search.
n The legislation's provisions would not apply to businesses that maintain restricted-access lots, or to lots at sensitive sites such as defense contractors (Lockheed-Martin, for example).
n The proposed law would not prevent an employer from restricting an employee facing disciplinary action from bringing a firearm onto the property in his vehicle.
n The proposal supported by the NRA and others provides employers and property owners clear protection against liability for a person's misuse of a firearm that might be in their vehicle.
These are but a few of the common sense limits incorporated in this narrowly crafted piece of legislation. The legislation has in fact become necessary in recent years because businesses in a number of states are firing employees simply because those employees maintained a lawful firearm in their vehicle in a parking lot open to the public, and even though the person was doing nothing to harm anyone with the firearm - it was simply in their car. Allowing that sort of unreasonable action strikes many of us as - to use Mr. Fleming's word - "bizarre."
Bob Barr of Smyrna represented the 7th District of Georgia in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003, and is a member of the board of directors for the NRA.
Comment on this Story
Posted Comments
Mr. Barr is right on this and makes perfect sense. Licensed firearms carriers have already been screened through background checks/fingerprinting by the state and sheriff's office and should not be penalized for doing what the law allows them to do - carry a firearm in their vehicle. So many people get all bent out of shape about a legal firearm carrier, but don't realize how many times lives have been saved because a gun was readily available to stop a criminal killer from doing more destructive behavior. This bill should be passed into law.
It's petty. It's also aimed at restricting gun possession. It protects criminals and places harmless people in harms way. Georgia (a southern state) has a concealed/carry option in name only. Georgians carrying a firearm should reconsider. There are so many places off-limits for gun possession in Georgia, carrying one is risky behavior. Read the law. It isn't just gun rights we will lose, it's our liberty too. The same folks trying to ban guns are trying to ban everything else. We're losing the fight. Enough people don't care.
Although I no longer live in Ga., I still have many fond memories. I deeply appreciate the efforts Mr. Barr exerts on our behalf, not just the "gun" issue, but, all our dwindling personal freedoms. Tory is 100% correct in his assessment of this bill. If the American people don't wake up and take responsibility for our country it will go the way of other great societies.
Bob Barr is a respected American who believes in the constitution and protects our rights. We miss him in Congress as he is a one of the few who could be trusted. I have read comments from Barry and Tory. I could not have said it better.
Actually, I do believe that a private property owner's rights should be inviolable. If an owner disallows the possession of Bibles on his or her private property, then he or she should be able to do so. If this bill were only removing restrictions on publicly-owned properties, I could conscientiously support it. While I personally detest the illiberal thought process that leads some property owners to ban firearms from their parking lots, one must realize that the concept of property ownership is degraded when control over one's own property is infringed upon by statutory fiat.
The problem with businesses forbidding law abiding citizens from keeping their guns on their vehicles is that they are forbidding those citizens from exercizing their right to bear arms throughout their entire days itinerary, not just while they park their cars in their lots, as it is nearly impossible to store the guns in any other place but their automobiles.
The people that want to ban guns,should rember that most of the mass muders that havetaken place has been in gun free zones.
COMMON SENSE, does anyone know what that means anymore.I prefer to think no one cares anymore, or at best they just don't have time to pay attention to their rights being restricted or taken away. People need to wake up before they see our Constitution, and our Soverenty in their garbage can. Does the united socialist republic of America sound good to you ? I think I'll just be sittin' here cleaning my gun! gatorhead357@hotmail.com
The carrying of a firearm-whether concealed or openly in your vehicle is called LIFE INSURANCE here in South Ga.78% of the households in my county carry life insurance.
If people do not start to standing up for there rights we will lose them forever. We are allowing a few loud mouthed bullies and know-it-alls to destroy our freedoms. If there had not been a "gun free zone" at Virgina Tech how many people could possibly still be alive today. The only thing that gun free zones create is a place that criminals can come and not worry about being stopped from practicing there trade or in the case of shootings a place a freak can go and make history with little worry about anybody interfering until they have destroyed the lifes of so many innocent people. The police cannot be everywhere and most schools and business's do not have the funds to keep enough guards to discourage these freaks, so the law abiding people who go through all the training and background checks are not aloud to carry a firearm to protect there life and the lives of others. It would be nice to see the news media show that the people that go through the process of getting a permit are not a bunch of gun slingers but they are just everyday people that want to live there lifes knowing that they do not have to be a helpless victim. If even half the money that is spent every year on trying to restrict or remove our rights we would have the funds to help the schools and youth of this country.
It sounds like Mr Fleming is the type who, while promoting a "public" property owners right to ban firearms, would also promote that same "public" property owners's right to obtain a piece of "private" property through the use of "eminent domain". If I'm not mistaken, the government is not supposed to enact any law that infringes on a "right of the people".
A very important common sense piece of legislation. I only wish it would spread up the cost as far as New Youk State. Get it done!
The NRA would do better to support the will of its members in Georgia and back HB 915 "The Second Ammendment Protection Act of 2008" HB 915 would bring into line with the majority of other states the rights of law abiding citizens and repeal Georgia's draconian gun laws. California, one of the most restrictive states seems to trust its citizens who are lawfully armed to defend themselves and their families to a much greater extent then Georgia does. Lawfully permitted gun owners in this state are ever in constant danger of arrest for simple things such as carrying a firearm close to a bus stop. Thats just plain crazy and HB 915 would fix this travisty.
This is one more reason every gun owner should belong to the NRA. The 2nd is not about duck hunting!
Private property owners used to be able to refuse service to blacks in restaurants and hotels. They aren't allowed to do that any more. I don't think they should have veto power over constitutional rights, either.
"Jon says - Actually, I do believe that a private property owner's rights should be inviolable. If an owner disallows the possession of Bibles on his or her private property, then he or she should be able to do so. If this bill were only removing restrictions on publicly-owned properties, I could conscientiously support it. While I personally detest the illiberal thought process that leads some property owners to ban firearms from their parking lots, one must realize that the concept of property ownership is degraded when control over one's own property is infringed upon by statutory fiat." It's petty; we're not referring to personal property either, and we are talking about 'parking lots'. Property rights are degraded in many other ways too. Smoking is banned in privately owned restaurants. One poster made a good point: if you can't take your gun (in your car) everyhwere you go then you're better off leaving it at home. So the restriction restricts gun possession. Join NRA or GOA.
Although I'm at odds with Bob Barr on virtually all matters political, I'm in 100% agreement with him on the 2nd Amendment.
I would hope all states would pass laws such as this bill
Barr's dismissive rhetoric doesn't much help get to the bottom of a difficult issue. Property rights are human rights that are an absolutely essential buwark against government infringement of liberty. Property owners have a legitimate right to set the conditions on which others may enter their property. The Second Amendment protects against government infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. It does not confer any right to possess a gun on private property in defiance of the expressed wishes of the property owner. The closest thing to a serious argument in favor of the NRA-backed measure (and I'm a life member of the NRA) is what "Bob" says in another comment: "The problem with businesses forbidding law abiding citizens from keeping their guns on their vehicles is that they are forbidding those citizens from exercizing their right to bear arms throughout their entire days itinerary, not just while they park their cars in their lots, as it is nearly impossible to store the guns in any other place but their automobiles." There's a point to that. Maybe Bob gives us a distinction by which to override property rights in this case without opening the door for massive violations on every imaginable pretext. But this is an issue that needs to be debated in a reasoned, respectful manner among advocates of individual liberty.
Notice that the new law only refers to parking lots with public access. If a company wants to fully enclose its parking arear and supply guards then the law would not apply. To many large companies allow secure parking for the management level only and leave the rank and file employees to fend for themselves. I work for such a company. One employee was fired because a guard was walking around the unsecured parking laot and opened a cooler and found the demon alchohol (beer) in the truck. He was not drinking, but had been to the store before his shift started. If the lot was behing a fence and secured, I do not see a problefm. However if a company paid guard can just go poking around for whatever they want something has to be done. Also, in our unsecured lot the company states that they are not responsible for accidents, thefts, or damages that might happen while parked there. Seems to me that some employers want it both ways.
Jon says that he agrees with the right of the private property owner to restrict the beginning of a bible onto his property and that it should be inviolate. That is true. If you come on my private property I do have the right to restrict you from bringing a bible or a firearm or any other entity I deem anathema to me. The bill is not about private property. It is about publicly accessible private property. The property owner relenquishes certain rights when he opens up his property to public access. The question would be on another note. Would my 1st amendment rights also be restricted on this public/private property? The way the Chamber of Congress interprets it I would no longer be able to say what I think on this parking lot to others. Sorry. This is an irrational misperception by the Chamber of Congress and public/private property owners. You want your property rights. Then make it private property by restricting access and eliminating all rights by posting the limitations. Until you do this, though,If I have a firearm in my car and I drive onto your public/private property I am within the laws of the State and The Constitution as written.
We have lost most of our rights already.Would you take away our right to protect ourselves?
The article about 'property rights' and secong admendent rights was interesting to read about Georgia. Licensed firearms are screened for criminal backgrounds. These people respect the laws and people' rights. I rated the story a 5 stars.
Priviatly owned parking lots are not part of the public domain and as such are not subject to the same rules. We have a right to free speech in the US, but that doesn't mean that one can stand on a soap box in a priviatly owned parking area and say what he wants. The above person would probably be arrested for trespassing. Note that in this case, our constitutional rights do not apply in priviatly-owned parking areas. The same holds true for taking firearms onto private property. If the owner of that property doesn't want you yo have firearms on his property, then he has every right to take such action as to keep you from doing so, including firing an employee who brings a gun into his parking area.
Mr. Barr, thank you for this article and all the work you do for the NRA and to help protect the Second Amendment.
They say so many people are killed by fire arm per year ,get rid of them. How many people are killed by automobiles are you trying to get rid of them? Also, the law abiding people are the ones that are mostly being hurt,why they can't defend themselfs.
I do not live in Georgia, but this issue is important to me because I feel everyone has the right to protect themselves. My company is upgrading the current security around the facility. Once the upgrades are complete, the parking lot will be fully fenced with a guard (probably unarmed, the current security guards are not armed) at the entrance. This law would allow the companies policy to ban guns on the property. I work the midnight shift and I would not be able to have a weapon in my truck as I drive to and from work each day. I think this aspect of the issue needs to be addressed. I do hope this bill is signed into law as it would set a precedent for my state legislatures to follow.
Isn't your vehicle also your "property." Can an employer search a vehicle to find, as Mr. Barr says a Bible? If employers were searching employees cars for illegal drugs the gun ban nuts would be going ballistic.
Your vehicle is also private property and the owner of a vehicle has privacy rights as long as the item is not in plain view
I am a longtime gun owner, but the Second Amendment is a restraint on GOVERNMENT. The Second Amendment does not mean a private employer has to allow guns in its parking lot, any more than the First Amendment means I have a right to give speeches in your living room. Further, federal courts recently nullified a guns-to-work bill in Oklahoma as conflicting with employer's workplace safety obligations under OSHA. Yes, HB 89 has been watered down, but it very much remains a solution in search of problem.
Can't think of too many cases where someone reached under the seat of the car, pulled out a bible, and killed somebody with it...