• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

hsmith

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2007
Messages
1,687
Location
Virginia USA, ,
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.
 

Hef

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
524
Location
Bluffton, South Carolina, USA
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.
 

compmanio365

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
2,013
Location
Pierce County, Washington, USA
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.......
 

DreQo

State Researcher
Joined
Jan 8, 2007
Messages
2,350
Location
Minnesota
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?
 

mkl

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
387
Location
arlington,va, ,
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.
 

BobCav

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
2,798
Location
No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
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!
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
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.
 

mzbk2l

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
425
Location
Superstition Mountain, Arizona, USA
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?
 

mkl

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
387
Location
arlington,va, ,
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.
 

ne1

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2006
Messages
460
Location
, , USA
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/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=326&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.
 

mkl

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
387
Location
arlington,va, ,
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.
 

Freeflight

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
306
Location
Yorktown VA, ,
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/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=326&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.
 

mkl

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
387
Location
arlington,va, ,
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.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
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.
 

Legba

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2007
Messages
1,881
Location
, ,
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
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
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.
 

Legba

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2007
Messages
1,881
Location
, ,
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)
 

drkarrow

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2007
Messages
76
Location
, Minnesota, USA
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.
 
Top