Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Discrimination and Preemption

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    830

    Post imported post

    Please explain this to me.

    If Virginia law preempts localities from banning guns how can private corps ban guns.

    If it is illegal to discriminate based onrace creed or gender or sexual preferencehow is it legal to discriminate based on 2nd amendment preference.

    I know i am oversimplifying things but i would like learn more through the discussion.

    Are we making any headway on laws prohibiting corporations from banning guns even in your private vehicle while parked on their property?



    Joe

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Spotsylvania County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    700

    Post imported post

    Corporations are quasi-citizens. Corporations cannot vote in government elections but they are afforded many of the legal rights of regular citizens.
    ---

  3. #3
    Regular Member VAopencarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The 'Dena, Mаяуlaпd
    Posts
    2,147

    Post imported post

    Corporations are not government entity's. They are 'private'.

    The 2d Amendment is not viewed as a civil rightby 'the powers'.

    I also see it as property owners rights too. Should the govt tell people how or what they can do regarding their own property. Of course they DO do this to some extent but I think a property owner should be able to set any 'rules' they choose to regarding their own property.
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Virginia, USA
    Posts
    236

    Post imported post

    it all comes down to a battle of who's rights rule. The parking lot issue is just an example of this. Why does a company get to decide what I have in my vehicle? I firmly believe that they can kiss my backside when they declare they have control over my vehicle and what's inside it!

    I have been addressing this issue with my company becuase we have a corporate policy that says they have a right to request search of my car for prohibited items with reasonable suspision. They are not liking the fact that I have confirmed that they can ask, but I have the right to refuse. This hasn't actually been an issue in the history of our company, but I want the wording removed.

    Our HR staff is not really happy with my views and when we try to discuss it, they go irrational! I guess people are so afraid of offending anyone they are not talking to. They seem to have no problem arguing for what you are against in the name of "devils advocate"... The devil doesn't need an advocate, he's already in all politics!

  5. #5
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    67GT390FB wrote:
    If Virginia law preempts localities from banning guns how can private corps ban guns.
    B/c VA's preemption statute only applies to localities.

  6. #6
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    coltcarrier wrote:
    it all comes down to a battle of who's rights rule. The parking lot issue is just an example of this. Why does a company get to decide what I have in my vehicle? I firmly believe that they can kiss my backside when they declare they have control over my vehicle and what's inside it!
    Companies don't really want to control what you have in your car. They simply want to minimize activities they think or guess may cause disruption to operations and they wish to minimize legal liability for any violence caused by any employees, especially on their property. The legal liability is so potentially enormous that the top executivesof any company would be derelict in their managerial responsibility to the owners of the firm if they didnot act to minimize it.

    Get rid of the legal liability implicit in allowing employees to carry/transport/store firearms on property and they won't have a reasonable objection it. Don't remove said legal liability and the status quo will never change.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    12

    Post imported post

    VAopencarry wrote:
    The 2d Amendment is not viewed as a civil rightby 'the powers'.
    We need to fix that

  8. #8
    Regular Member reefteach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    511

    Post imported post

    We have a better shot at carrying in National Parks.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •