A bill to allow guns to be stored in cars in private parking lots is a worthy effort at balancing constitutional right of firearm possession with the property rights of employers.

Sen. Mark Madsen, R-Eagle Mountain, has sponsored SB 67, titled "Protection of Activities in Private Vehicles." It addresses a 2004 Utah Supreme Court decision that said employers could fire workers who brought guns onto company property, including parking lots.

Madsen's proposal would allow people who are otherwise allowed to possess a firearm to keep them locked in a vehicle in a privately-owned parking lot.

The measure would remove a burden on gun owners. Currently, if an employer prohibits guns on company property, an employee who carries a weapon in a vehicle would have to remove it when he or she drives into the parking lot, or choose to park somewhere else.

Current law allows for a patchwork of practices from employer to employer. Some employers are OK with guns locked in employee vehicles; some are not. This is not unlike the patchwork from city to city in many states, including Utah, before they enacted "pre-emption" laws. Many state firearm codes now stipulate that state law takes precedence over any local ordinance when it comes to the possession and transportation of guns. This means that cities may prohibit firearms only in those places specified in state law.

Before the pre-emption laws, a person could technically be law-abiding, then a criminal, then law-abiding again simply by driving through three different communities.

Employer gun bans also raise questions. For example, unsecured parking lots are often places of public accommodation. That is, people -- even armed ones -- may come and go as they please to conduct business. Customers, vendors or complete strangers may pull into a company's open parking spaces and walk into the building, leaving a firearm in the vehicle.

Individuals licensed for concealed carry of a weapon may carry a gun into the business. The few exceptions include courts (at all times) and churches (when posted). The LDS Church reportedly plans to post "no weapons" placards at its meetinghouses.

We recognize that an employee is not a customer. Many places at work are clearly not public accommodations -- private offices, production areas, warehouses. Where those places are concerned, nobody is disputing that employers may restrict gun possession.

But the distinction between employee and customer seems a narrow one where parking lots are concerned. Even a customer who is not licensed to carry a concealed weapon may lawfully transport a legally owned firearm in his vehicle. And he's free to leave it in the vehicle when parking at the business.

Madsen's bill will likely alter the policies of companies that now prohibit firearms and other weapons "in the workplace." The question is whether a parking lot qualifies part of the "workplace" for an employee, since it may be shared with the public.

Not surprisingly, proponents of SB 67 bring up old arguments that guns are a benefit to society when in the hands of law-abiding individuals. Self-defense is often cited, as is the fact that criminals are not deterred by policies or laws of any kind. The often quoted saw of owners is clearly correct: When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. But that's old news.

Madsen's bill brings on a more interesting debate that illuminates private property. We firmly defend that right for employers. But like all rights, it exists alongside others. Employers opposed to guns in the workplace say that their property rights trump gun owners' rights. Yet an automobile is also private property. Does an absolute standard in favor of the employer fit when customers' guns in the same parking lot are not prohibited?

Consider a parallel example: A business owner concludes that political discussions disrupt his workplace, and so makes a policy against employees bringing in campaign fliers or signs. That may be sensible if the signs are posted in public view. Not only do they clutter the workplace but they could give the impression that the employer supports certain political positions.

But what if the business owner were to fire an employee for having campaign signs in the trunk of his car? Most of us would say that's wrong.

We think SB 67 does a reasonable job of balancing interests. Among other things, it allows an employer to ban guns in secured parking lots (those surrounded by a fence or controlled by a guard); it exempts the employer from liability from the incidental illegal use of a firearm arising from storage in a vehicle; it requires that firearms in a vehicle be out of sight or in a locked box.

The health of the State of Utah does not turn on this bill, but SB 67 does bring some consistency to firearms law. We applaud Madsen for bringing the matter up.