to have a license to use the nascent parking lot they sign controlled everything about the parking lot everything about the property mr macintyre was fired because he had a loaded oil spill like that there's an issue parking garage or other parking area they employer provides for employees to which access is restricted to limited through the use of a gate security station or other manged restricting a limited general public from access he and the mississippi statute so of the swindle case just indicates the strength with which mississippi right to keep and bear along has protected but there's another case it's even stronger than that it's not a legislature could modify it so when we talk about the text that the mississippi legislature adopted because i mean the mississippi legislature wrote this provision and they could have written it however they wanted it we you know we have a different rule in texas for example on for this very same proposition about private parking lots that looks very different than the one mississippi adopted but the one they adopted says what is the security station gate or other means of limiting restricting access to the parking area and what i'm confused by is why the residual clause has to necessarily include physical barriers to access so let me give you a hypothetical suppose there's no gate i suppose there's no  i understand from your brief you would say that's not a means of restricting access but what if there's an armed guard with an a r fifteen walking around in forcing the no parking policy that's not a physical barrier but ordinary people reading the text of the statute would certainly think instead they do what they do in austin texas which is they just put a great big we call it the thing they bolt on to your your hubcap so you can't drive and put a big sign says you know you've been you've been booted on your car i mean that that's obviously not physical access to the parking area you're free to go in there but they're going to boot your car if you if you don't have permission to be there it just strikes me that the way the mississippi legislature drafted that residual clause there's nothing in there that requires it to be limited to physical barriers to entry to a parking lot osha but  arm according to eyewitnesses including their personal manager for the court specifically five hundred and forty two an e mail that she wrote that form is always up according to us there is absolutely no physical barrier there's nothing else between they it and the time they enter the parking lot how far is it from the access on that and they son's access or it's over a mock calculator that because he did a film after he was fired to show that there was an and the famous four minutes long so if you're saying is going twenty whatever on the parking lot there's nothing directed to the parking lot all of the things that he talks about the says the mine thing is there were two gates there's difference and that's in the testimony about whether there's whether whether it's what we would call the gate the only thing there isn't because it's not the employe it says that the contractors employees  require that other means has to be the same says ical structure as a gate or security station judge when gate hill below that he was satisfied that the parking lot created by nissan and the security provisions around it met the statutory exemption and there is some disconnect i think in terms of some of the pictures the council was talking about the restriction the nine foot high fence topped the barbed wire covers the entire facility all the way around such that judge wingate posed in of itself there's an argument to say that the enclosure is a work place there's a difference an excellent d absolutely expressed prohibition on bringing weapons into the workplace as opposed to the parking lot exception which is what we're focused on any more so than the walls around this court room with a gate coming in and a drop army with them and restrict the general public's access to this property and that's the focus point of the statute is it's not mr mcintyre at the other contractor employees it's the general public's access to this property has to be restricted by gate which it had security station which it had or other means that restrict or limit the general public access to the property and in this case other means primarily relies upon the fence that goes all the way around the property and where the st gate is gay day before we go to one way in the parking lot is completely hidden from view back behind in the sun facility and it's our position that to limit other means to slowly something like a gate or like security station ignores the numerous methods and components that are available to  employer to restrict their property no trespassing signs posted where the gate is where drop our money has the fence signs warning of the video surveillance security station you can have patrols on that station that go around the premises including this parking lot outside contractor wayland security whose job it is is to ensure that the parking lots are going slowly but the contractors and these on employees into  there is not a basis to go backwards with the language and say it only has to be a gate or security station when you have other means between manpower video surveillance offense and patrol that leads in addition to the gate security station in place now asking about yes or video surveillance all i saw on the record is that there is a camera focused on this gate one aim but no evidence they clearly indicate any other part of the route back to one b or of the parking lot of self as video surveillance do you agree that's as much as the record shows adult with all due respect i don't necessarily agree that there are several signs posting properties under video surveillance there's also a regular looking at all let all the restrictions in the limitations that are at physically there that when they were shown in his record i may not be a fair view of the record but also the security guard what is in the record as to the actual route that the plaintiff would have taken the actual parking lot one be which on the record about what  the st part of it is it's a regular patrol the nd part of that is the contract between the sun and wait on security charges then with the responsibility to patrol the premises the parking lot and to remove anybody who is not properly on site i e any trespass how do i tell them if there's a trespasser that's a good question your honor not a security guard presumably is going to ask a question to someone who's not there who is if you go back in the one b you're going to go into work you leave your car you walk into the entryway you go in the facility if they're not loitering people who would be in the parking lot area who are not interested building in could be pro could not possibly enter the building because they don't have the requirements for a badge for have access would be questioned about why are they there and what's their purpose but if you don't see that person intern how do you know that the car is parked there belongs to employees has to trespass security station is going to rely on its patrols and it's going to rely on video from security guards who are the people outside all day longer in the shifts with the drop arm is up primarily during shift change you have hundreds if not a one thousand full is coming in on the property and they had previous experience that when they were required to badge in they would back up they would have accidents and people relate to work so they compromise and let it drop arm up while shift change was in place and whatever mr macintyre saw coming and going to work couldn't possibly equate to drop armed in function like he's inside with no due point of what's going on up to eighteen hours a day that he's working in security guards testified that they were operable and that's the premise the way they were used and we ask you to two specific things mentioned in the statute and the mere existence of the fence all way around with a gate and opening more than a gate i would say if the arm is already always up is that in itself sufficient to comply with the statute or do you need some sort of mcintyre's evidence that it was always up isn't seasonable he can't testify as to what that date did contrary to security guards testimony while he's in that the still be eight to ten hours a day back past you factual argument i'm looking at a legal argument judge wingate w satisfied that in and of itself the existence of the gate in the drop arm satisfied the statutory exception and i think the focal point has to be not what mcintyre saw come in the work of leaving work every day it's what the general public would be communicated to them as to their ability to access to property and is clearly limited in restricted in the statute says gate security station or other means all in the alternative and if you take the other means in combination with his clearly the general public would know that their access is proper it was limited in the mississippi courts of found cases it said just posting the problem is a no trespass was sufficient to advise the person that they should not be on the property in the making the company or the parking lot where they got injured which sufficient to relieve them a lot of billing so clearly in this scenario this is the case is that as the charity case recognized as the most extensive to date on this issue of whether or not a case which addresses the cause of action for wrongful discharge at issue here expressly incorporates in the current framework to the wrongful discharge claim issue in this case there's never been a one off a discharge the case as to nissan further even if the statutory construction about against whom it will permit a claim were relevant it's clear that mississippi's code annotated four thousand and fifty five dollars also limits it application in the private sector context to a claim between the employer and the employee there has been a reference to the term person in section one the term person if you'd like in section one because section one also applies to public employers in addition to private employers public employees are different they may be constitutional issues associated with people who visit those facilities public employees may employ other than employees or other then employees may work at public sector facilities political appointees elected officials and others but the statute can only be read with regard to private sector employers to encompass a claim badly discharged employee against the employee who did the discharge course at the legislature intended to broaden they could have done so we've cited other statutes in other states where the court did this delay just like they used the term property on tenet landlord business entity person including but not limited to an employer the fact that the legislature did not do that can only mean that in the private sector the stack reaches the employer and it's employee no federal or state cases ever held differently and in any event and importantly even to this if you did permit some sort of a wrongful discharge claim against a rd party and we say that it does not it could not be wrongful discharge because of what i just said earlier it would have to be a rd party claim and there is no such claim here the nissan policy is wrong mr wade respectfully referenced the policy the wrong policy the policy regarding the foreign trade zone is not applicable here because this parking lot was not in a foreign trade  zone the parking lot was outside the foreign banks and the parking lot is not inside a nissan facility technically like inside the brick and mortar building although did wingate we believe correctly hailed that the parking lot was it within the workplace itself work for nissan off company premises except to the extent allowed by law so nissan's policy is not a mandatory discharge or a mandatory no guns policy callsign it had a judgment to make if in fact cal that he did the policy is not a mandatory prohibition so it could not have had the effect of causing the discharge is far as the nissan policies is concerned it requires a judgement  circumstances at the time it requires a judgement based on the law at the time callsign it in can consultation with it's own decision makers and council made that judgment as it was a if it was following our policy then they made that judgment there's no proof in the regular neeson would have attempted to disturb that judgment if they decided to keep mr macintyre so this notion that nissans policy left cow sonic no choice is just simply wrong and  call about the gun came to just the contracted wailing security officer they call nissan security manager at the plane nissan security measure mark jackson referred to nissan's supplier liaison mar and then turned and handed the complaint to cal sunny the employer and said as reported when you're employed as a gun in the parking lot would you please go see about it and what is that what are you taking that from letter an email or whatever the the  combined affidavits of graham and jackson and really from several sources here are the only other thing in the record your honor is this callsign it's legal officer mr vick reached out to nissan and said we are being told that these arms are always up and they stay and they reset to nissan to find out about that number one and number two to get nissan's opinion about whether the lot was secured within the meaning of section two because there was no swindle it to stand it was all brand new and so the response was is news to us the arms are always up there supposed to be only around shift changes otherwise so those are the two things and so in any event the remaining evidence that they offer is speculation among callsign ic employees or security guards but what would nissan do what would nissan want none of it sufficient to show that nissan actually did anything miss courtney's to speculation about whether he'd be allowed back on the properties just that is no as a nissan ever told him not to come back on the pitch but not to let him back on the property mr time graham has been in the midst of terminating mcentire that's not what the e mail said she says mark graham has been in the midst of this and of course mr graham had relayed blame the initial complaint to her but the statute we says the this physical barrier business got started with parker parker never considered the two most important words in statute restricted or limited and then he went about to require means that contemplate precluded the druckerman gate want to i was down according to the eyewitness testimony except around shift change so that means it was up about nine or ten hours a day and down thirteen or fourteen hours a day that is a limitation on public access public can't get through there at that time and it is limited in that way the next thing is the property line fence it surrounded the whole place including the parking lot that limited public access for most of the perimeter limited you couldn't get to it from the backside of the plane or anywhere but no one was checking access the gate wasn't there was are they don't have a badge or something to make sure yes you're on when the when the drop arm is down they have to have a base get through when it's u they do not in the young have to have a bash to get through the opening the gate into the area not into the perimeter fence but you do have to have a batch to batch through when the drop on this day and the reason they had to have it up is because there were thousands of people literally coming in not required by the statute the statute says limited and that's exactly what it means and certainly the no trespassing signs as well your honor if the public obeys those as most will they're not going to come in in public access  access there is an automatic gate where a badge could be used but i have never seen it working since time i have been parking in this lot this is what the mogul personal mentioned plant manager sent a sign think so the fact is no limitation of access through the use of a gate course another interpretation is not even a gate a security station which is way on the other side of the plane and it's in the security station when you're out of looks us as to those parking lots you have to have they have limited access you have to use or they sign card and open arms to get into them you also pass the security gate with the security guard gate in the center of the front they are right adjacent to where they open a corner not approach is always open that doesn't restrict access to anything and the statute literally requires if there be a district that access to the parking lot taking the evidence in the light in those favor plaintiff there is no restriction whatever on access to the parking lot being restricted a limited not that sort of refers to if you take the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff there is no limitation in any way of access to the parking lot unless you say that that no trespass and saying that you