Reader comments
It'll be guns vs. landowners in Senate

Good idea. It is needed since there isn't enough street parking for all of us :) Just don't take the gun inside the employer's building and everything is fine!

Why is this a gunowners vs. landowners issue instead of a carowners vs. landowners issue? The inside of my car is also private property, and it belongs to me. What I place in it, particularly what is not visible from the outside, is not my employer's business. If employers do not want their employees to have these private spaces on their property, they can provide company cars to their employees or refuse to allow employee parking on their premises. But if they do allow private cars on the property, they should have to accept that what's in the glovebox or trunk is the carowner's concern, not theirs.

So, I support the bill, but would do so much more strongly if it applied to any and all items (perhaps with an exception for illegal items) stored out of sight in employee vehicles.

PS-Anyone who truly believes themself defenseless without their gun is probably defenseless with their gun.

"The property rights of the business should be paramount in this case," Romero said.

So he is saying that private property rights should trump the right of someone to defend their life? Get real!!!

This is not a hard question and I can't see why the legislature can't see the answer.

If the parking lot in question is open to the public then the owner of that lot has no right to dictate what his employees may or may not have in their vehicle, so long as they are legal in a public setting. If the lot in question is a private lot, reserved for employees only, and access is controlled to ensure it remains that way, the employer may dictate who and what enters that lot. To deny gun owners their legal right to carry a weapon in a public setting is a violation of the "rights and privileges" clause of the 14th Amendment. To deny that right in a private setting is not.

I find myself on both sides of the issue. I own a gun (legally) and I have been a businessman most of my life - much of it in small business. It does not take much of a scandal to really hurt a small busniness. When you have your whole life tied into a busines you want to be careful, and safe also. This is not the easy question others seem to want to make it.

So if land owners can violate state and federal law
Then let�s see them try and stop paying taxes
And see what happens
Why not if the can have any policy they like regardless of law
We all know how well �Gun Free slaughter zones� work so well

Once again the Utah State Legislature declares its true religion: "We worship guns!"

If an employer says to park on the street if you bring a weapon in your vehicle, how many more guns do you think will be stolen. Think about it every vehicle parked there will have a weapon. It will be like a shopping spree for thieves. This could cause more danger to the employees and the public than leaving a weapon in the car ever could.

What if there is no street parking available? There are some districts where there are nothing but companies with parking lots, and no legal street parking available.

If there is street parking available, and everyone else parks in the company lot, this advertises to a criminal "there is a gun in this car to steal". The companies will be helping to get more guns into criminal hands.

With the current state of the economy, and corporate layoffs, there might be more shootings. By preventing law abiding people from having a means of protection, the companies have implied they will be providing the protection.

Just imagine the lawsuits against these companies. Even anti-gun cities may need to sue these companies for making guns more easily available to criminals, and to provide free health care for gang members that manage to get shot by rival gang members.

Of course, there would also be the lawsuits by the law abiding victims that were not protected by the corporation.

We can respect property rights AND provide protection to business employees and customers, just is that businesses have a much better as an organized lobby than the general public is.

Currently, businesses can choose to disarm the public, without assuming any responsiblity or liability for provide compensating protection.

I say, give business the right to restrict guns on their property . . . just as long as they assume FULL liability and the expense for assuring all reasonable security precautions have been provided for the safety of all employees, patrons, and visitors to their place of business.

In tort law, it's called strict liability.

Presently, patrons, employees & guests have a far better chance of recovering all of their medical bills resulting from falling on a wet floor than they do at recovering ANY medical bills from being robbed, stabbed, clubbed, or shot on business' premises.

Personally, if I'm shot at while dining at Trolley Square, I'd much rather be able to defend myself than rely on the store owner to organize a charity fund to defray the family's funeral expense.

With RIGHTs ought to come RESPONSIBILTY. This concept has been sadly lacking in the discussion so far.

Maybe I am misunderstanding the issue here. Business's feel they have the right to force me to have (or not have) items in my car that they do or do not like? If my boss does not like the fuzzy dice on my car mirror, I can be fired for it? And would I be present when they searched my vehicle to see if I was in compliance of their rules? How about the wear on my tires. They may be as unsafe as a weapon. Maybe they have the right to post security at the entrance to check tire wear and inpound any vehicle that they consider to be unsafe.
Where does it start and where does it end?

Wonderful! Utah is doing great things to protect its citizens. I respect the police force greatly but know that they cant be there when you need them most.

You are the only one responsible for your personal saftey. Leagally carrying a firearm and being trained in it's use is the best way to defend yourself. The Right to carry is upheld by this country. I dont see how a company can infringe on this Right. If you have gone through the process to have a conceal and carry permit then you should be able to carry everywhere.

It has been proven over and over that people with a carry permit are less likely to commit a crime. And that more guns = less crime. Lets get rid of these unarmed victim zones!

a. Workplace gun bans are pushed by big city corporate lawyers and "human resource" weenies who just hate guns. They ignore the fact that nearly every workplace killing (including Trolley Square) took place despite gun bans. Guns bans do not stop criminals, so quit using that as an excuse to deny employees the option to have a self defense weapon with them as they commute.

b. At AOL in Ogden three employees were fired because they had legally owned guns in their cars to go shooting after work, and the company controlled the parking lot. Abuses like that need to be stopped here in Utah.

c. Eight other states have passed or are considering similar bills, with the backing of the NRA. An Oklahoma bill has been challenged in court and is on appeal right now.

d. Any employer who denies the option for legal self defense weapons should be held strictly liable for any injuries suffered during the ENTIRE TIME the person is disarmed- FROM THE TIME THE LEAVE HOME UNTIL THEY RETURN HOME, not just while at the workplace.