Parking-lot laws: an assault on private-property rights and workplace safety.

ABSTRACT: In March 2004, Oklahoma passed a law prohibiting property owners from banning firearms from their parking lots. Several months later, a number of interested companies filed suit, seeking to enjoin the law's enforcement. Among other assertions, the companies claimed that such "parking-lot laws" violated their property rights under both the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause and the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. Claiming such laws are necessary for employees to be able to freely exercise their right to self-defense, the National Rifle Association has been pushing for the passage of parking-lot laws in all fifty states. This Note concludes that while parking-lot laws likely do not violate the Due Process Clause, they do violate the Takings Clause. This Note also argues that such laws are unwise, as they will likely jeopardize the safety of employees and customers, thereby increasing businesses' risk of liability. Furthermore, parking-lot laws will increase businesses' security-related costs and undermine employee satisfaction and work productivity.

 
  I. INTRODUCTION 
 II. BACKGROUND 
     A. THE CONSEQUENCES OF SHALL-ISSUE-CONCEALED-CARRY LAWS 
     B. CONOCOPHILLIPS CO. V. HENRY 
III. THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF PARKING-LOT LAWS 
     A. A VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE? 
     B. A VIOLATION OF THE TAKINGS CLAUSE? 
        1. A Per Se Taking? 
        2. A "Taking" Under Traditional Takings Analysis? 
           a. Parking-Lot Laws' Economic Impact 
           b. Parking-Lot Laws' Interference with Distinct 
              Investment-Backed Expectations 
           c. Parking-Lot Laws' Intrusive Character 
 IV. THE POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF PARKING-LOT LAWS 
     A. SAFETY 
     B. LIABILITY 
        1. Negligent Hiring, Retention, or Supervision 
        2. Duty to Provide Adequate Security 
        3. Immunity from Liability 
     C. COSTS 
  V. CONCLUSION 

"For all its talk about defending civil rights, the NRA has little respect for any rights that might be in tension with pervasive and unaccountable ownership and use of firearms. The danger of this vision is not so much that it will lead to more violence, but that it brings us closer to a society where everyone is armed and nobody is really free." (1)

I. INTRODUCTION

Workplace homicides are the fourth-leading cause of work-related deaths and the second-leading cause of deaths among women in the workplace. (2) Workplace homicides accounted for nine percent of all workplace fatalities in 2006. (3) Eighty-one percent of these homicides were committed with a firearm. (4) In 2006, ninety people suffered firearm-related injuries in their workplaces. (5)

The effects of workplace violence on businesses and their employees are far-reaching and include physical and psychological harm; losses to property and productivity; increased security, workers' compensation, and litigation costs; and decreased employee morale. (6) According to the National Safe Workplace Institute, workplace violence cost employers $4.2 billion in missed days of work and legal fees in 1992. (7) From 1992 to 2001, workplace homicides cost society an estimated $6.5 billion. (8)

Although there is no single cause of workplace violence, forty-six percent of employees attribute such violence to the availability of firearms. (9) In fact, businesses that allow firearms are five to seven times more likely to have a homicide occur on the premises than those that ban firearms. (10) Accordingly, approximately two-thirds of employers have violence-prevention policies that address the presence of firearms at work. (11) Many businesses ban firearms from their properties altogether. (12)