Chief_of_Scouts
Regular Member
imported post
NRA Courting Trouble In Suit
Law shouldn’t trump property rights
It’s easy to fall into the trap of believing our rights trump everything else, especially the natural right of self defense. This page has used thousands of words over the years to defend Americans’ access to firearms because one’s right to defend one’s life is foundational to a society that respects the rights of its members. That being the case, some might find it odd that we’d argue against a law that forces businesses to allow firearms on their property, but property rights have a place in society, also.
The Jan. 15 issue of Gun Week, the publication of the Second Amendment Foundation, reported a federal appeals court in Denver is mulling a case that pits gun rights against property rights. It’s a case that could have far-reaching effects on what property owners are allowed to permit on their land.
The case stems from an incident at a Weyerhaeuser paper mill in Valliant, Okla. Company officials, enforcing firearms prohibition on company property, found rifles in several vehicles in the company-owned parking lot. Ignoring pleas that the employees were simply trying to save time before they went hunting after work, Weyerhaeuser fired the employees. In response, firearms advocates successfully lobbied state lawmakers for a law that forces employers to allow firearms on their property.
Some companies, including ConocoPhillips, sued the state, claiming the law infringes on their right to use their property as they wish, and it endangers the safety of their employees. Reasonable folks can disagree with the latter, but it’s not government’s place to decide what is and isn’t allowed on private property.
U.S. District Court Judge Terence Kern sided with Conoco & Co. and struck down the law in 2007. Oklahoma officials took the case to the federal Court of Appeals in Denver. Gun Week reports the court heard arguments in November and is expected to issue a decision later this year.
Even the National Rifle Association got involved in the case, filing an amicus brief backing the state and organizing a boycott of Conoco products. The gun-rights organization looks at it as a Second Amendment case. “We’re going to make ConocoPhillips the example of what happens when a corporation takes away your Second Amendment rights,” NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said when announcing the boycott in 2005. Although this page often agrees with LaPierre and the NRA, he’s off base in this instance. The Second Amendment enjoins government from infringing on citizens’ right to own, carry and use guns. But in the Oklahoma case — and at some Colorado businesses such as The Gazette — it’s private property owners barring firearms, so the only right the state is infringing is the right of ConocoPhillips and others to freely use their property.
It’s no different than a friend asking you to not bring your carry pistol into his home. That’s his right, just as it’s your right to decline an invitation to visit based on that request. The same holds true for employees of companies that prohibit firearms; they’re free to find a job where such proscriptions don’t exist. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a number of cases that workers do not have a right to any specific job.
Rather than relying on the courts, a better approach for the NRA and other gun-rights advocates would be an education campaign aimed at changing the way corporate America views firearms. When employees or former employees go into a business with a gun and shoot people, it’s understandable businesses would want to keep their workplaces free of firearms. Unfortunately, if someone is intent on doing harm, a rule against guns isn’t going to stop them, so the ban likely does more harm than good. The vast majority of firearms owners are responsible citizens, and if they bring a gun to work, it’s most likely to protect themselves and others from that angry, armed person at the front door. That’s the message LaPierre and others should be sending to businesses.
NRA Courting Trouble In Suit
Law shouldn’t trump property rights
It’s easy to fall into the trap of believing our rights trump everything else, especially the natural right of self defense. This page has used thousands of words over the years to defend Americans’ access to firearms because one’s right to defend one’s life is foundational to a society that respects the rights of its members. That being the case, some might find it odd that we’d argue against a law that forces businesses to allow firearms on their property, but property rights have a place in society, also.
The Jan. 15 issue of Gun Week, the publication of the Second Amendment Foundation, reported a federal appeals court in Denver is mulling a case that pits gun rights against property rights. It’s a case that could have far-reaching effects on what property owners are allowed to permit on their land.
The case stems from an incident at a Weyerhaeuser paper mill in Valliant, Okla. Company officials, enforcing firearms prohibition on company property, found rifles in several vehicles in the company-owned parking lot. Ignoring pleas that the employees were simply trying to save time before they went hunting after work, Weyerhaeuser fired the employees. In response, firearms advocates successfully lobbied state lawmakers for a law that forces employers to allow firearms on their property.
Some companies, including ConocoPhillips, sued the state, claiming the law infringes on their right to use their property as they wish, and it endangers the safety of their employees. Reasonable folks can disagree with the latter, but it’s not government’s place to decide what is and isn’t allowed on private property.
U.S. District Court Judge Terence Kern sided with Conoco & Co. and struck down the law in 2007. Oklahoma officials took the case to the federal Court of Appeals in Denver. Gun Week reports the court heard arguments in November and is expected to issue a decision later this year.
Even the National Rifle Association got involved in the case, filing an amicus brief backing the state and organizing a boycott of Conoco products. The gun-rights organization looks at it as a Second Amendment case. “We’re going to make ConocoPhillips the example of what happens when a corporation takes away your Second Amendment rights,” NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said when announcing the boycott in 2005. Although this page often agrees with LaPierre and the NRA, he’s off base in this instance. The Second Amendment enjoins government from infringing on citizens’ right to own, carry and use guns. But in the Oklahoma case — and at some Colorado businesses such as The Gazette — it’s private property owners barring firearms, so the only right the state is infringing is the right of ConocoPhillips and others to freely use their property.
It’s no different than a friend asking you to not bring your carry pistol into his home. That’s his right, just as it’s your right to decline an invitation to visit based on that request. The same holds true for employees of companies that prohibit firearms; they’re free to find a job where such proscriptions don’t exist. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a number of cases that workers do not have a right to any specific job.
Rather than relying on the courts, a better approach for the NRA and other gun-rights advocates would be an education campaign aimed at changing the way corporate America views firearms. When employees or former employees go into a business with a gun and shoot people, it’s understandable businesses would want to keep their workplaces free of firearms. Unfortunately, if someone is intent on doing harm, a rule against guns isn’t going to stop them, so the ban likely does more harm than good. The vast majority of firearms owners are responsible citizens, and if they bring a gun to work, it’s most likely to protect themselves and others from that angry, armed person at the front door. That’s the message LaPierre and others should be sending to businesses.
fficial&hs=2zO&defl=en&q=define:hypocrisy&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
