Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 224

Thread: Am I the only one that doesn't like the new laws forcing employers

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Virginia USA, ,
    Posts
    1,688

    Post imported post

    To allow workers to have weapons in their cars? The laws that are getting passed in FL and the NRA was pushing in GA - where your employer would be required to allow you to store your firearm in your vehicle on company property.

    I personally believe it violates the property rights as an owner of a business and to me, private property rights are JUST AS IMPORTANT as the right to bear arms, if not more. Why do you need the right to bear arms if you aren't entitled to your property for one (And your body is also your property as far as I am concerned).

    You have no right to work at a business, you can find a new job if your employers rules don't suit you.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    arlington,va, ,
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    I agree. It's unfortunate that even more rights are being taken from property owners.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Hilton Head, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    524

    Post imported post

    A vehicle is private property, like a person's home. As long as the weapon stays in the car while on company property, it's presence is irrelevant, especially when the employer is not liable for criminal misuse of the weapon (should it be stolen from the vehicle).

    If it's legal for me to have, and it stays in my car, it isn't my employer's business. That said, everyone I work with - and I do mean everyone - has a gun at work, either in their vehicle, their desk, or on their person.

  4. #4
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013

    Post imported post

    The thing is, PEOPLE have rights.......corporations don't (or at least shouldn't). And if it is in my car, in most places, my car is an extension of my private domicile. Just as your landlord can't kick you out for having weapons in your apartment (or shouldn't), your employer shouldn't be able to fire you for having a weapon safely stored in your car.

    Just my .02.......

  5. #5
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    Is there a word for a solution that causes more problems in the process? They're attempting to free-up one right by violating another.

    Here's a question, though. Aren't vehicles considered an extension of private property, or something like that?(edit: I see that was already mentioned while I was typing, lol)If that were the case, then if a property owner allows someone to park their vehicle on their property, they would be accepting whatever is in that vehicle, right?

    And here's another question. What is the reason that employers are banning guns in the first place? From my experiences, it seems that a lot of it has to do with insurance. The employer gets a break on insurance if they restrict their employees from carrying firearms. Supposedly some insurance companies wont even provide insurance unless firearms are banned.

    The problem is that since employees can't have guns at work, they can't practically have them on their way TO and FROM work, which essentially leaves them unarmed and potentially more vulnerable. One solution is to force employers to allow firearms on their property, BUT this potentially violates someone else's rights in the process. So is there a different solution that doesn't?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    arlington,va, ,
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    "Just as your landlord can't kick you out for having weapons in your apartment"

    I think as a landlord I should be able to set whatever conditions I want in the lease.


    "property owner allows someone to park their vehicle on their property, they would be accepting whatever is in that vehicle, right?"

    My thoughts are:
    Yes. However if the property owner says "You can park your car here, but only if you agree to these rules" Then you must abide by those rules. Those rules might be that your car has to be clean and in good working order and tagged, or it might be "No guns in the car". I think the property owner should be able to ban your car from his property for ANY reason. Yes, including that he doesn't want guns.



    * "So is there a different solution that doesn't?"

    Yes. It is called "Freedom" and the Free Market. People could chose not to work for a company that institutes a "No gun" policy. Or people could work there, but demand the company provide some sort of enhanced security. Or a company might step in and make a parking lot in the metro area that had good security that marketed themselves to people who needed to leave guns in the cars while at work. Who knows what a free market would provide if government didn't get involved.

    Instead of running to the government so they use force to promote their will, everyone could just respect everyone else, and vote with their dollars and with their labor.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    I like it and yet I don't. Now we've created parking lots full of guns waiting to be stolen. I've read somewhere that more guns are stolen outside "gun free zones" than anywhere.

    While corporations may bedefined as having legal rights as "persons", there is one right they do NOT have - The right to LIFE!! A person's life and the defense of that life is more important, more valuable and more sacred than any piece of dirt.

    That right is mineby birth from God alone and I have a right to defend that life anywhere against any evil that would take that life andwith whatever means I have at my disposal, even if legally disarmed.

    I submit that anyone that insists I disarm on their property assumes FULL RESPONSIBILITY for my life and safety. Since this in a world wide web, I'd say that constitutes public notice...so I'm covered!





  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    I believe both have rights...

    The corporation has the right to refuse items they do not want on the property.. in your vehicle or not.

    The employee or guest has the right to park their vehicle off the property, not enter the property at all,and get a job elsewhere if they do not feel safe. :P

    But I feel that a gun stored in your car on company property should be permitted. Once you leave the property you are no longer under the "protection", if any, and may need access to your gun.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Superstition Mountain, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    424

    Post imported post

    I think if the employer is going to allow the car on company property, he has to allow the contents on company property.

    What if my employer doesn't like red seat covers? Does he get to tell me I can't have them in my car on company property? What if he's a PETA activist? Does he get to tell me I can't have a car with leather seats on company property?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    arlington,va, ,
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    mzbk2l wrote:
    What if my employer doesn't like red seat covers?* Does he get to tell me I can't have them in my car on company property?* What if he's a PETA activist?* Does he get to tell me I can't have a car with leather seats on company property?
    Yes to all of those things. As a property owner, he should have the right to hire whoever he wants, and to set whatever rules he wants for his property.
    We start going down a very slippery slope when we start forcing property owners to allow/disallow certain things on their property. It should be up to the people involved to make agreements as to what is acceptable/unacceptable, and not the government.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    460

    Post imported post

    mkl wrote:
    mzbk2l wrote:
    What if my employer doesn't like red seat covers? Does he get to tell me I can't have them in my car on company property? What if he's a PETA activist? Does he get to tell me I can't have a car with leather seats on company property?
    Yes to all of those things. As a property owner, he should have the right to hire whoever he wants, and to set whatever rules he wants for his property.
    We start going down a very slippery slope when we start forcing property owners to allow/disallow certain things on their property. It should be up to the people involved to make agreements as to what is acceptable/unacceptable, and not the government.
    mkl, why don't you just move to England where the sovereign crown owns everything and people have no individual rights. I think you would be quite comfortable there. You go down a very dangerous slope when property becomes more important than the right to defend life.

    Again, I call attention to Property rights versus civil liberties:

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...6&page=501

    In Marsh v Alabama Justice Black declares that "The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it."


    You have a right to private property and to do as you wish with it, but when you invite the public onto your property you cannot use your claim of property rights toviolate individual god-given rights.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    arlington,va, ,
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    ne1 wrote:

    mkl, why don't you just move to England where the sovereign crown owns everything and people have no individual rights. I think you would be quite comfortable there. You go down a very dangerous slope when property becomes more important than the right to defend life.


    I disagree. If you really think my argument is that people have no individual rights, you have it exaclty backwards. I believe in individual rights, and by not using force. I believe we should all operate in a voluntary nature if possible. I believe that government exists as force, and should be avoided whenever possible.

    You are coming onto someone elses property, you should follow their rules. You are not being forced to go there. You are doing some of you own will. Why should you get to set the rules?

    The right to defend your life is very important, but you are voluntarily coming onto someone elses property, and then demanding they follow YOUR rules. I see that as insane.

    What this law does, is use force to make an employeer bend to the will of the government. So now, you've taken a right away from a property owner to decide what and who he wants on his land, and you've given it to the government to decide what is best for everyone. So now, you've decided that property owners have no right to determine what happens on their property, it is the government that has that right. So when the politicians change, they can show that THEY are the ones who control what goes on in personal property, and BAN guns on all businesses. Why not? If the government is the one that has the power to FORCE you to allow guns on your property, the government must have the power to FORCE you to NOT allow guns on your property.



  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran Freeflight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Yorktown VA, ,
    Posts
    306

    Post imported post

    ne1 wrote:
    mkl wrote:
    mzbk2l wrote:
    What if my employer doesn't like red seat covers? Does he get to tell me I can't have them in my car on company property? What if he's a PETA activist? Does he get to tell me I can't have a car with leather seats on company property?
    Yes to all of those things. As a property owner, he should have the right to hire whoever he wants, and to set whatever rules he wants for his property.
    We start going down a very slippery slope when we start forcing property owners to allow/disallow certain things on their property. It should be up to the people involved to make agreements as to what is acceptable/unacceptable, and not the government.
    mkl, why don't you just move to England where the sovereign crown owns everything and people have no individual rights. I think you would be quite comfortable there. You go down a very dangerous slope when property becomes more important than the right to defend life.

    Again, I call attention to Property rights versus civil liberties:

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...6&page=501

    In Marsh v Alabama Justice Black declares that "The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it."


    You have a right to private property and to do as you wish with it, but when you invite the public onto your property you cannot use your claim of property rights toviolate individual god-given rights.
    YOU ARE CORRECT NE1!!!:celebrate This is the answer... I have said it before.. Malls cant restrict firearms because they choose to open their private property to make money... same with employers. Constitutional rights of the patrons and Employees Absolutely trump their property rights. If they don't open their property to the public or to make money by allowing business as in a PRIVATE HOME then Property rights should take precedence. "Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it."

    IMO

    FreeFlight



    Live FREE or DIE.




    And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

    Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939

    Free Flight

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    arlington,va, ,
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    Freeflight wrote:
    Live FREE or DIE.

    Live FREE or DIE!*



    *unless you have invited the public onto your property. In those cases refer to the variouslaws that describe what the government lets you do with your property. Using your property for a purpose other than one decided lawfull by the government is a violation of the law and you will be punished up to and included jail. Making rules not approved by the government for how people should act or use your property is also illegal and will be punished in the same way.





  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Freeflight wrote:
    YOU ARE CORRECT NE1!!!:celebrate This is the answer... I have said it before.. Malls cant restrict firearms because they choose to open their private property to make money... same with employers. Constitutional rights of the patrons and Employees Absolutely trump their property rights. If they don't open their property to the public or to make money by allowing business as in a PRIVATE HOME then Property rights should take precedence. "Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it."

    IMO

    FreeFlight

    Live FREE or DIE.
    Yes.. the malls can do it and the Judges will convict you for trespassing.

    If the mall says "NO Roller blading..." can you do it until they ask you to leave?

    NO!! You were already warnedand they do not need to come remind you that they already informed you.

    If a sign is in place forbidding you to sell your wares in the mall..... do you get to go in and do it until they tell you to leave?

    NO!!! You are trespassing by doing what the mall has clearly forbidden!



    You guys need to stop thinking they in the manner you are because you are going to get yourself into trouble.

    A business open to the public CAN restrict what you do on their property. You are welcome to come shop but there are certain activities they can prohibit that the judge will convict you for.

    They have no obligation to protect you, provide you with roller blades, or give you a table to sell your stuffbecause they do not want you there doing it.

    If you feel the mall is that dangerous that you need a gun then maybe you should shop someplace else. You have no rights to be on the property of another unless they permit it.

    No need to flame me.. I am just giving it to you straight. I wouldhave to arrest you if they requested you be charged.

    Having the sign displayed is the same thing as telling you in person for the first time to leave immediately.


  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    I just resent being expected to justify myself to others. Thatthe contents of my car,pockets, bodily fluids, or whatevermight bethe rightfulconcern of my employer's rubs me wrong. We limit the government's authority in these matters, and I consider it the same presumption upon my liberty whoever is doing the searching. If there is some demonstrable harm being done or if someone's work is affected, fine, do your search or brethalyzer or whatever, but I don't see how someone merely having a gun secured in a car is any problem for anyone. It wouldn't come up unless someone is performing an arbitrary search for compliance, or unless someone actually used one, and we already have laws to deal with those situations.

    It just bugs me that what is a right with regard to the government is a privilege when it comes to employers or landlords. If I were an employer, I wouldn't want to concern myself with the minutiae of someone's private life as long as they do what they've contracted to do. And where does this sort of thing end even if we agree that it is reasonable for an employer to do this sort of thing? Does someone stand to get fired for having the "wrong" bumper sticker on their car, after a search for guns comes up empty? What if they turn up a copy of the Koran in your trunk? Spent casings from your last range trip? Cigarette butts in your ashtray?

    I don't like compulsion of any kind. An employer might harbor the same kind of resentments at being made to allow guns on their lot, but in the absence of any demonstrable harm, I tend to side with the NRA on this.

    -ljp


  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Legba wrote:
    I just resent being expected to justify myself to others. Thatthe contents of my car,pockets, bodily fluids, or whatevermight bethe rightfulconcern of my employer's rubs me wrong. We limit the government's authority in these matters, and I consider it the same presumption upon my liberty whoever is doing the searching. If there is some demonstrable harm being done or if someone's work is affected, fine, do your search or brethalyzer or whatever, but I don't see how someone merely having a gun secured in a car is any problem for anyone. It wouldn't come up unless someone is performing an arbitrary search for compliance, or unless someone actually used one, and we already have laws to deal with those situations.

    It just bugs me that what is a right with regard to the government is a privilege when it comes to employers or landlords. If I were an employer, I wouldn't want to concern myself with the minutiae of someone's private life as long as they do what they've contracted to do. And where does this sort of thing end even if we agree that it is reasonable for an employer to do this sort of thing? Does someone stand to get fired for having the "wrong" bumper sticker on their car, after a search for guns comes up empty? What if they turn up a copy of the Koran in your trunk? Spent casings from your last range trip? Cigarette butts in your ashtray?

    -ljp
    Something to keep in mind is thata BUSINESS is NOT the Government that you have all these protections against.

    A business is no different than any other citizen.

    An example.....

    The policecannot go into your house and obtain evidencethey arelooking for without the "government" givingthem permission first or you granting permission to search.

    But if you have a guest that decides to snoop and finds evidence of a crime completely on their ownCAN be used in court.

    This would not be true ifa cop suggested or asked them to go do it as they are now working on behalf of the police.

    If an employer does not like what you have displayed on your car... he can have you remove the car from the property. Same thing goes for a homeowner association. By default everyone can drive and park. They each grant you permission to drive and park on their property but both can revoke your permission to use their lot at any time. They cannot ban you from the property if you live there or are expected to work there.

    You might own a home in the association but if you constantly drive recklessly.. they can legally ban you from driving to your home. You will have to park in the public street and walk in.

    Do not believe me?? Check your association bylaws.


  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,882

    Post imported post

    Fortunately, there's no danger of my ever belonging to a homeowner's association. I'm sub-broke and will presumably remain that way the rest of my life - barring a lottery hit - so mortgages don't figure in my plans. Even if I were to come by some windfall, I would certainly avoid any such situation where I'm expected to relinquish significant aspects of my liberty to satisfy my neighbor's notions of propriety (typically based on their own bottom-line moreso that the public good).

    One minor but significant victory for presonal liberty can be found among ham radio people. Congress is the sole regulatory authority over matters pertaining to broadcasting and the airwaves (the FCC is a congressional agency), and federal law supercedes state and local laws about "eyesore" antennas and such. There was a supreme court ruling on this (sorry, don't have the citation offhand) and housing codes prohibiting the erecting of antenna towers were ruled unenforceable, as long as the licensee was compliant with the FCC rules. Strike a blow for freedom and become a ham geek.

    Fortunately, I'm pretty much required to carry for work, so this whole topic is irrelevant to my present circumstance, but I've certainly worked for employers who would have summarily fired me for having a piece on the company lot. Admittedly, I don't know that it does a lot of practical good to have a gun and leave it in your car, but it might conceivably come up. I'd still like the option of storing it in the car to carry after hours without having to go naked to and from the house every day.

    -ljp (call sign redacted)


  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    , Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    76

    Post imported post

    compmanio365 wrote:
    The thing is, PEOPLE have rights.......corporations don't (or at least shouldn't). And if it is in my car, in most places, my car is an extension of my private domicile. Just as your landlord can't kick you out for having weapons in your apartment (or shouldn't), your employer shouldn't be able to fire you for having a weapon safely stored in your car.

    Just my .02.......
    That would be the goverment's dream come true. Ever sell an item on ebay? Your house is now a corperation and you have just gave up all of your rights.

    Just remember. In the USA most companies are owned by people.



  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran Nelson_Muntz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Manassas, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    697

    Post imported post

    Legba wrote:
    I don't like compulsion of any kind.
    Just say No!

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    hsmith wrote:
    To allow workers to have weapons in their cars? The laws that are getting passed in FL and the NRA was pushing in GA - where your employer would be required to allow you to store your firearm in your vehicle on company property.

    I personally believe it violates the property rights as an owner of a business and to me, private property rights are JUST AS IMPORTANT as the right to bear arms, if not more. Why do you need the right to bear arms if you aren't entitled to your property for one (And your body is also your property as far as I am concerned).

    You have no right to work at a business, you can find a new job if your employers rules don't suit you.
    I completely disagree. I think that as an employer/property owner you should be able to say "you can't carry a gun on my property or I'll fire you". However, my car is not your property. I don't think that a parking lot is something that should be covered by any corporate policy. My company restricts carring firearms AND restricts leaving them in the car, suggesting that I should leave my gun at home. F*** that. I park at a different company's lot and walk to work. I shouldn't have to do that. Whether I carry a gun away from work is none of my employers' concern, and whether I have one in my car is also none of their concern. I'll grant them that whether I am carrying one at work is something that they can restrict, but my car is my property, and you don't have rights over it, just because it's in your lot.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    The corporation has the right to refuse items they do not want on the property.. in your vehicle or not.
    Okay, so assuming they refuse permission for me to keep something in my car in their parking lot, and I do it anyway, what should their legal recourse be? Exactly what ARE the rights of the property owner?

    Personally, I think these parking lot laws are the wrong approach. The right approach, IMO, is for the law to state that anyone who creates a gun-free zone is accepting responsibility for the protection of those they disarm, and failing to provide such protection constitutes negligence. Negligence isn't a crime, but it incurs civil liability.

    Ideally, it shouldn't be necessary to legislate this liability, just as it's not necessary to specify in the law that mopping the floor of a public area and failing to put up a "wet floor" sign is negligence and makes you liable if someone slips and falls. But since the opportunity doesn't seem to have arisen to make this clear via the normal process of precedent, and since the only way it will be made clear is for a bunch of people to get hurt and killed over the course of several years, state legislatures should make it explicit.

    This approach preserves the rights of property holders to make whatever rules they wish on their property, and to enforce them by trespassing violators, but also observes the principle that people, including property owners, are responsible for the results of their actions. As a practical matter, whereas corporate counsel and insurance companies now believe that banning guns reduces their liability, a law explicitly making them responsible for the protection of people they actively take steps to disarm would help them understand that banning guns increases their liability.

    If they still opted to ban guns, accepting the responsibility of either protecting people with metal detectors, armed guards, etc. or being liable for failing to protect them, then fine. Their right.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    swillden wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote:
    The corporation has the right to refuse items they do not want on the property.. in your vehicle or not.
    Okay, so assuming they refuse permission for me to keep something in my car in their parking lot, and I do it anyway, what should their legal recourse be? Exactly what ARE the rights of the property owner?
    They can fire you. That's it.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    swillden wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote:
    The corporation has the right to refuse items they do not want on the property.. in your vehicle or not.
    Okay, so assuming they refuse permission for me to keep something in my car in their parking lot, and I do it anyway, what should their legal recourse be? Exactly what ARE the rights of the property owner?

    Personally, I think these parking lot laws are the wrong approach. The right approach, IMO, is for the law to state that anyone who creates a gun-free zone is accepting responsibility for the protection of those they disarm, and failing to provide such protection constitutes negligence. Negligence isn't a crime, but it incurs civil liability.

    Ideally, it shouldn't be necessary to legislate this liability, just as it's not necessary to specify in the law that mopping the floor of a public area and failing to put up a "wet floor" sign is negligence and makes you liable if someone slips and falls. But since the opportunity doesn't seem to have arisen to make this clear via the normal process of precedent, and since the only way it will be made clear is for a bunch of people to get hurt and killed over the course of several years, state legislatures should make it explicit.

    This approach preserves the rights of property holders to make whatever rules they wish on their property, and to enforce them by trespassing violators, but also observes the principle that people, including property owners, are responsible for the results of their actions. As a practical matter, whereas corporate counsel and insurance companies now believe that banning guns reduces their liability, a law explicitly making them responsible for the protection of people they actively take steps to disarm would help them understand that banning guns increases their liability.

    If they still opted to ban guns, accepting the responsibility of either protecting people with metal detectors, armed guards, etc. or being liable for failing to protect them, then fine. Their right.
    The company can tow any vehicle they want off the property. Just like you could tow your friend's car out of your driveway.

    If you had something in your car like blow up dolls or say a big sign on top that bashed the company.. This would be justification to tow you if you did not remove the car on your own.

    You would have to sue them to get your money back assuming you win.

    Most businesses do not care what is in your car. A few may make a rule that you cannot store a gun or any other dangerous items. But what they do not see will not cause them to be interested in your car.

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    naperville, il, ,
    Posts
    121

    Post imported post

    As a libertarian I agree with you on theory. However the absolute right of contract was taken awaynearly a century ago when the first child labor laws were held up by the Supreme Court.

    The Government can demand many things in the employer employee relationship: no child labor younger than a certain age; no discrimination based on race, sex, or religion; OSHA safety rules; minimum wage; and many others.

    Thus another requirement on businesses that holds up the individual right to keep and bear arms, I see as a good regulation.

    I would like to see a restriction that doesn't allow employers to drug test employees. However since the Federal Government requires that all Government contractors test and all employers of commercial drivers, the Government is already on the anti liberty side of this issue with their regulations.

Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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