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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

They can fire you. That's it.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

imported post

vmaxanarchist wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

And I don't agree with most of those things either, but that is a whole other debate.

imported post

Correct!

The law has already stepped in and changed those rights! You can no longer exclude customers or employees based on race, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, physical disability and Age. So this law just adds to the personal freedoms. Yes, at the expense of businesses. If I had to choose one over the other I would side with the expanded personal freedom. This in no way would affect property owned by individuals not conducting a business that does not accommodate the public or hire employees.

imported post

There are always conflicts with rights. When corporate rights conflict with individual rights, the individual should always win. Unfortunately, the oposite is usually true.

imported post

expvideo wrote:

There are always conflicts with rights. When corporate rights conflict with individual rights, the individual should always win. Unfortunately, the oposite is usually true.

Click to expand...

There's no conflict here. You are on my property, I control my property, you do what I say or leave.

You have the right to freedom of speech, but I can tell you to leave if you swear in front of my children or say something I don't agree with. Your rights are simply shield against coercion and no one is coercing you to work there. Besides, your constitutional rights are only against government and there are no government actors here.


Two things about rights:

1 - I think the fact that we're constantly listing "The right to _______" makes us think that rights are a list of things you can do no matter what, but a right is not the ENTITLEMENT to do something. It is the ABILITY to do something, or NOT do something without coercion, including the choiceof where to work or what rules to set on your property. It's a general idea that no one can use coercion or compulsion to make you do something.

2 - Rights are not an arbitraryfinite list of things. They are innumerable in practice (that's what the 9th Amendment is about), but in principles there is only one right and it springs from human reason and self-ownership: the right to be left alone (and you have the right to be left alone due to your property interest in yourself which then leads to theyour rights to own personal property and haveliberty). You can't listall rightsbecause there are infinite people can do with their property when at liberty to do so (when I say property I mean their bodies, minds, and what we think of as physical property)...see how "life, liberty and property just keep coming up?

Rights pre-dated the Constitution (indeed, they predate all human laws).We don't have a human right to own a gun (although we have the Constitutional right to not have our government keep us from doing so). We have a human right to be left alone and to repel those who refuse to leave us or our property or our libertyalone. The RKBA is part of that. You just can't protect that by NOT leaving other people alone.


All rights come from property rights.It's absurd to say "I'm proteting your right to defend your property rights by taking away your property rights." If you don't like my rules, don't come to my house. If you don't like my rules, don't work for me.

If you want to understand what I'm babbling about, just watch this and it'll make sense.

imported post

lockman wrote:

Correct!

The law has already stepped in and changed those rights! You can no longer exclude customers or employees based on race, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, physical disability and Age. So this law just adds to the personal freedoms. Yes, at the expense of businesses. If I had to choose one over the other I would side with the expanded personal freedom. This in no way would affect property owned by individuals not conducting a business that does not accommodate the public or hire employees.

Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see how the right of the business to demand their employees speak english pans out.....

imported post

bohdi wrote:

lockman wrote:

Correct!

The law has already stepped in and changed those rights! You can no longer exclude customers or employees based on race, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, physical disability and Age. So this law just adds to the personal freedoms. Yes, at the expense of businesses. If I had to choose one over the other I would side with the expanded personal freedom. This in no way would affect property owned by individuals not conducting a business that does not accommodate the public or hire employees.

Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see how the right of the business to demand their employees speak English pans out.....

Click to expand...

I believe you are talking about while on the clock and at the business?

Virginia is a right-to-work state so I could just fire the person if they did not follow the company rules and were able and requiredto speak English.

imported post

bohdi wrote:

It will be interesting to see how the right of the business to demand their employees speak english pans out.....

Click to expand...

Businesses don't have rights. I believe you mean the right of the business owner

I have to say, listing rights like this sounds silly to me. A business owner owns his property, he sets the rules. "The right to demand English" sounds silly. It sounds as silly to me as saying I'm waiting to see how the right to demand their employees wear socks pans out. ... and the right to demand his employees bathe, and the right to demand his employees call him Mr. Superman...All these things are rights coming from property rights, but it sounds silly to list them all, especially since you could never list them all.There are an infinite amount of things you can do with your property.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

bohdi wrote:

lockman wrote:

Correct!

The law has already stepped in and changed those rights! You can no longer exclude customers or employees based on race, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, physical disability and Age. So this law just adds to the personal freedoms. Yes, at the expense of businesses. If I had to choose one over the other I would side with the expanded personal freedom. This in no way would affect property owned by individuals not conducting a business that does not accommodate the public or hire employees.

Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see how the right of the business to demand their employees speak English pans out.....

Click to expand...

I believe you are talking about while on the clock and at the business?

Virginia is a right-to-work state so I could just fire the person if they did not follow the company rules and were able and requiredto speak English.

Click to expand...

I was. I didn't think that the suit is applicable to VA but I thought/remembered vaguely something like that going onin MA or MS?

imported post

Hef wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

It's "legal for you to have" but that's completely irrelevant to this discussion.We're not talking about government taking something away (which is when laws would be relevant). This is about private people contracting together. Something being legal doesn't mean I have to allow it on my property.

imported post

ama-gi wrote:

Hef wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

It's "legal for you to have" but that's completely irrelevant to this discussion.We're not talking about government taking something away (which is when laws would be relevant). This is about private people contracting together. Something being legal doesn't mean I have to allow it on my property.

Click to expand...

You seem to be confusing corporations with people.

The weapon is in the vehicle, which is my property. So until it leaves the vehicle, it is not on their property. They can't paint my car while I'm at work just because it's on their property, and they can't regulate what is in it either.

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Freeflight wrote:

*snip*

Click to expand...

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.

*snip*

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

Click to expand...

What you are saying may be correct in Virginia, but it sure is NOT in WA. In WA, signage has NO weight in law, and it is NOT trespassing until you are told, to your face, to leave the premises or you will be charged with trespassing. Even then, if you still don't leave, the police must be called and then you will be served with a trespass notice. THEN if you come back after that, you will be arrested/cited for criminal trespass.

Signs mean absolutely nothing in this state......especially since many signs end up quoting misinterpreted, repealed, or otherwise incorrect statements or quotes regarding the law. And you can do whatever you want (as long as it's legal), and the recourse of that private property owner is to ask you to leave the property. That's all. Nobody can search my person, nobody can tell me to remove my sidearm and leave it in the car, nobody can say I can't have my sidearm in my car in the parking lot either. All that can be said is, "Please leave my property or I will have you trespassed." And I think that's the best compromise between a property owner's right not to have you on their property, and your right to be a free individual.

imported post

compmanio365 wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Freeflight wrote:

*snip*

Click to expand...

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.

*snip*

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

Click to expand...

What you are saying may be correct in Virginia, but it sure is NOT in WA. In WA, signage has NO weight in law, and it is NOT trespassing until you are told, to your face, to leave the premises or you will be charged with trespassing. Even then, if you still don't leave, the police must be called and then you will be served with a trespass notice. THEN if you come back after that, you will be arrested/cited for criminal trespass.

Signs mean absolutely nothing in this state......especially since many signs end up quoting misinterpreted, repealed, or otherwise incorrect statements or quotes regarding the law. And you can do whatever you want (as long as it's legal), and the recourse of that private property owner is to ask you to leave the property. That's all. Nobody can search my person, nobody can tell me to remove my sidearm and leave it in the car, nobody can say I can't have my sidearm in my car in the parking lot either. All that can be said is, "Please leave my property or I will have you trespassed." And I think that's the best compromise between a property owner's right not to have you on their property, and your right to be a free individual.

Click to expand...

+1 (from experience)

imported post

expvideo wrote:

ama-gi wrote:

Hef wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

It's "legal for you to have" but that's completely irrelevant to this discussion.We're not talking about government taking something away (which is when laws would be relevant). This is about private people contracting together. Something being legal doesn't mean I have to allow it on my property.

Click to expand...

You seem to be confusing corporations with people.

The weapon is in the vehicle, which is my property. So until it leaves the vehicle, it is not on their property. They can't paint my car while I'm at work just because it's on their property, and they can't regulate what is in it either.

Click to expand...

My pants are my property but if I have it in my pocket and you say you can't have that, then that's an infringement on your right to property.

Corporations are owned by individuals and so when you infringe on the property rights of teh corporation, you're infringing on the property rights of the shareholders.

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.

Click to expand...

Their, the corps, property rights dont supercede my property rights, my vehicle, also the corp should also not be able to prevent me from defending myself in my travels to or from work which is what a gun in a vehicle ban does. some corps have even gone so far as to say that all employees must park on company property for those who simply say park on the street etc.

imported post

expvideo wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

I would never agree to them saying I can't have a gun in my vehicle and it isn't parked on company property. I am in no way saying that!