HB 4187 passed the West Virginia senate this week by a 32-1 vote. The bill insures that while business may ban carrying firearms on their premises, they can’t prohibit guns stored in vehicles on their parking lots. Summary From HB 4187:
The purpose of this bill is to create the “Business Liability Protection Act”. The bill includes the right to limit possession of firearms on certain premises and definitions. It also provides for misdemeanor criminal offense and penalty. It prohibits employers from certain specific actions against a person when that person possesses a firearm legally, including a condition of employment. The bill provides a duty of care of public and private employers and provides for immunity from liability. The bill authorizes the Attorney General to enforce this statute, including the right to sue or seek injunctive relief; and seek civil fines.
The bill had two amendments added in the senate.
One change requires that firearms in vehicles be hidden out of view of passers-by. The second clarifies that the right to have firearms in vehicles does not apply to vehicles owned or leased to a private business or association.
The amendments were adopted on a voice vote, without debate.
The only Senator to vote nay was Corey Palumbo, (D- Kanawa, 17). Palumbo has a whopping 43% rating from the NRA and voted against constitutional carry (HB 4145) in 2016.
Twenty-two states now have similar bills that protect the right to bear arms inside of privately owned transportation while at work. The point is clear. Most people move from place to place in their privately owned vehicles. If they’re banned from having firearms in their own parked vehicles, their exercise of Second Amendment rights is effectively chilled.
The House passed the bill on the last day of the session. It’s now on its way to Governor Jim Justice for signature. While HB 4187 passed with veto-proof margins in both sides and while only a simple majority is sufficient to override a veto, the legislature will not be in session to do so.
Governor Justice has an A rating from the NRA and he’s expected to give the bill his approval.
©2018 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Unfortunate it has to be codified.
Codified tyranny. Neat.
So if enough people vote, we can just ignore whatever laws (natural or otherwise) that exist.
Great message to future generations, rather than punishing people for their crimes, it’s limit freedoms of everyone else.
WV, going the right direction.
Annnnd apparently it only takes one lawsuit for the cheetoh hued idiot to change tune.
Now we just have to beat this bump stock thing and manage to jam our fist of truth up his ass so far we turn him into our meat puppet.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/03/11/white-house-backs-off-call-to-raise-minimum-age-to-buy-long-guns.html
Sounds like a way to codify making parking lots a pistol shopping center for criminals…
Lets be honest, Nine… it’s been like that for a while. I may remember a time when folks would keep a shotgun or rifle plainly displayed on their truck’s window gun rack – but that was a very long time ago. We’ve gotten so accustomed to locking our vehicles and concealing our valuables from casual sight that we simply shake our heads at the foolishness of someone who doesn’t do so.
Take your guns with you into work if you possibly can folks – remember, concealed means concealed. In any major city I know of, no vehicle should be considered a safe hiding spot for anything of value… and yes, that’s sad.
Please help save our 2nd Amendment rights. The Whitehouse.gov petition web site has a lot of pro-2nd Amendment petitions that need people to view and sign if possible. Look at these and decide which to sign. There are too many to link here.
A lot of anti-2nd Amendment petitions are post there also.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/oppose-gun-control-and-weapons-ban-legislation
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov
The guy featured in that picture looks like an old groundhog
So gun owners are in favor of government regulations that violate the private property rights of the Job Creatorz™? 10 years ago, the libertarian magazine Reason wrote about “Gun Rights vs. Freedom? How ‘take your guns to work’ laws violate property rights” after a similar law was passed in Florida:
If the business owner allows employees to park their vehicle on company property, they are allowing a slice of the employee’s property to be inserted into the company’s property, kind of like an foreign embassy. The company cannot reasonably regulate the contents of the employee’s property. Your reasoning would make it legal for a business to disallow any aspect of the vehicle or contents whatsoever, from the presence of snacks to the color of the vehicle.
You are your own property. By your logic, employers have to allow employees to carry guns on their own person at work.
Unless the law says otherwise, yes it can.
Then how do you explain HOAs — homeowner associations, which are private corporations — regulating the use and enjoyment of a homeowner’s own private property?
“Then how do you explain HOAs — homeowner associations, which are private corporations — regulating the use and enjoyment of a homeowner’s own private property?”
Because you’re a member of that association and agreed to its terms when you purchased the property? Even then, they are limited in their powers. They can’t restrict who can buy a property, or what is owned or done within the property that isn’t visible or audible. They could say what color you can paint the house, where you can park a vehicle, when your trash cans are visible, how high your grass can be, how much your dogs can bark, etc. They can’t keep you from owning a gun, drinking beer, eating Twinkies, or getting Lewinskis — that’s what wives are for.
Just like employees agreed to the employer’s terms of employment.
If the employer’s terms are “no guns in your car parked in our lot”, then the employee agreed to it.
Actually, that was the original purpose of HOAs — to prohibit property owners from selling to blacks, Jews, the Irish, etc. Keeping those deplorable out of neighborhoods was the original meaning of “protecting property values”.
The only reason race restrictive covenants are no longer enforceable is because the Supreme Court said they aren’t (Shelley vs Kraemer in 1947).
Age-restrictive covenants still exist and are legal (55 and over communities).
Yes, they can.
Unless otherwise prohibited by law or their own governing documents, HOAs can dictate what is “done within the property that isn’t visible or audible”.
Yes, they can.
A step in the right direction.
Comments are closed.