Most of us have heard and followed to some degree the states that are wrangling over whether or not a person has a right to keep a weapon in their car while on someone else’s property – more specifically in the workplace. The debate is mostly about whether the owner of a business has a right to restrict what another person carries in their car while parking that car on his/her property.

CBS News ran a story yesterday about the battle in two states – Georgia and Florida. In that article, Larry Levine, an executive with Brandsmart that has stores in both Florida and Georgia, said he was worried about an angry employee being able to run to his car and get a gun and then go kill someone.

“Our company has the right to make the rules,” Levine said. “Same as in your house. You may tell people that come to visit you they are not allowed to bring a firearm in the house.”

There’s one huge problem with Levine’s assessment of who has what right and his comparison of apples and oranges. There is a marked difference between a homeowner allowing certain things INSIDE their house than what is left behind in the car. For me this is the real difference in this debate.

Do I no longer own my car and the personal property inside my car when I drive onto someone else’s property? If that is the case, what is to prevent the city or state or any other entity from stripping Americans of their right to keep a gun in their car while driving down the street?

But this debate overshadows the fact that we have a right to self-protection. If states want to limit that right, not allowing guns INSIDE the workplace, I just don’t see how they can limit one’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms while traveling in your car to and from work, which is exactly what such a law would do.

Tom Remington