Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: Wal-mart employees allowed to carry loaded weapons off clock

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    RTM, Lake Linden, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    232

    Post imported post

    Wanted to let everyone know Wally World took a step in the right direction. Despite working there I did not shop there while not being there for work anyways. They had a policy which stated no employee could carry a loadedfirearmon ANY walmart owned property anywhere. We were allowed off the clock carry, but the gun had to be unloaded. As per the norm, can not keep a gun on oneself at all while being at work, or in the parking lot, unless your state allows that, and there some that do.

    As of the 19th of April that paragraph in the policy was omitted and now I and I presume others do not have to pull over on the highway and unload there gun anymore.

    Not a big win, not a huge victory, but definately less annoying, definately a step in the right directionand I can shop there again with the wife.

    -northofnowhere

  2. #2
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    It's a small step in the right direction. Which is way better than one in the wrong direction. Congrats. LOL.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  3. #3
    Regular Member Brimstone Baritone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Leeds, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    786

    Post imported post

    That's great news! Is that an update to AP-01, or was it a different policy? I can't wait to check the WIRE and see it for myself.
    There was a time that the pieces fit, but I watched them fall away, mildewed and smoldering, strangled by our coveting. I've done the math enough to know the dangers of our second guessing. Doomed to crumble, unless we grow and strengthen our communication. -Tool, "Schism"

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    RTM, Lake Linden, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    232

    Post imported post

    Yea, updated AP-01. They simply removed the second paragraph. The primary regarding weapons while "to and from official business duties" etc etc still applies.

  5. #5
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    Post imported post

    Can we expect a Brady Bunch temper tantrum and a petition out of this?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    1,098

    Post imported post

    buster81 wrote:
    Can we expect a Brady Bunch temper tantrum and a petition out of this?
    One can dream...

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Caldwell, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    418

    Post imported post

    awesome

  8. #8
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    buster81 wrote:
    Can we expect a Brady Bunch temper tantrum and a petition out of this?
    At their "huge" organized rally against Starbucks in Seattle a handful of our members outnumbered them.

    It is fun to watch them spin into obscurity though. LOL.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  9. #9
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164

    Post imported post

    Wait a minit ... WalMart can dictate your actions when you are off the clock (whether on their property or not)????

    Since when does any employer have the right to dictate off-the clock behavior? Either they have to pay you for being on-call or they have no authority to do that. Where is your State Attorney General and why hasn't he challenged this?

    Where are the civil liberties lawyers? Where is the ACLU? Oh, I forgot, they are not interested unless it follows the Bloomburg/Obama Plan for Amerika.


    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Wal-Mart is an entity with liberties also. They and their employees are free to enter into any legal contract. If the requirements to that contract are repugnant to the employee, he or she is free not to enter into that contract.

    If Wal-Mart indeed has a policy of requiring employees to partially give up their 2A rights as a condition of employment, I would simply never work for them.

    Frankly, I find most of the labor restrictions on employers as challenges to their liberties, not as protections of the liberties of the workers. Such laws do not promote liberty; they strangle it. But, since those particular attacks on liberty are to the advantage of a majority of the electorate, they are popular.

    If one believes in liberty, one believes in liberty for Wal-Mart too. It is our willingness to give up the liberty of others that allows the taking of our liberty.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bunkie, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    216

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    Wal-Mart is an entity with liberties also. They and their employees are free to enter into any legal contract. If the requirements to that contract are repugnant to the employee, he or she is free not to enter into that contract.

    If Wal-Mart indeed has a policy of requiring employees to partially give up their 2A rights as a condition of employment, I would simply never work for them.

    Frankly, I find most of the labor restrictions on employers as challenges to their liberties, not as protections of the liberties of the workers. Such laws do not promote liberty; they strangle it. But, since those particular attacks on liberty are to the advantage of a majority of the electorate, they are popular.

    If one believes in liberty, one believes in liberty for Wal-Mart too. It is our willingness to give up the liberty of others that allows the taking of our liberty.
    While I do agree with you about restrictions on the rights of employers,
    I also believe W.M. has no right to tell an employee that they cannot exercise
    a constitutional right, while not on their property or their time. Illegal drugs,
    other criminal activity , immoral activities and even some legal vises ,should
    and could be grounds for dismissal.
    All of that being said, I believe, W.M. should be able to deny employment to
    anyone for any reason.With the currant laws restricting employers, private
    business and private property, it is hard to strike a balance between employer
    employee,customer, etc. If private property rights were absolute the matter
    would be black and white.



  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    The proper balance is that both Wal-Mart and the employee are free to enter into a contract with each other or not. They are both free to set conditions on whether they will enter into the contract or not.

    All contracts involve a mutual surrender of what one has a right not to surrender, to the ultimate good of all parties to the contract. If one does not want to surrender part of his RKBA, then he doesn't sign on with Wal-Mart, and they don't surrender some of their money.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,040

    Post imported post

    "They had a policy which stated no employee could carry a loadedfirearmon ANY Walmart owned property anywhere."

    They only restricted the employee's right to carry on their property even if off-the-clock and that has now been omitted.

    Cheers for Walmart!

    Just as you might feel you only wished to hire people who carried a weapon, they may chose the opposite and the best of luck to both of you to stay in business.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    ecocks wrote:
    "They had a policy which stated no employee could carry a loadedfirearmon ANY Walmart owned property anywhere."

    They only restricted the employee's right to carry on their property even if off-the-clock and that has now been omitted.

    Cheers for Walmart!

    Just as you might feel you only wished to hire people who carried a weapon, they may chose the opposite and the best of luck to both of you to stay in business.
    Exactly. It's called Liberty.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bunkie, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    216

    Post imported post

    From some of the post , I thought W.M. was restricting their employees
    from carrying loaded firearms off of their property. Sorry.

    Eyes, with all due respect, to restrict constitutional rights in a contract is
    immoral and illegal ,if outside of being on their time and or property.
    What if an employer said that you could not vote or practice your
    preferred religion as a condition of employment?
    Even if you agreed with and accepted such a contract, your constitutional
    rights are abridged and that is not allowed under the Constitution.
    Now, I am only talking about "Constitutional rights" and outside the
    scope of work. Other than that, I think they can as a condition of
    employment restrict other areas of an employees life and then, do
    agree if you don't like it, don't enter into said contract.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    It's neither immoral nor illegal. Have you ever signed a confidentiality agreement? Those are routine in the business world. How about a non-compete agreement? Also routine.

    The question is not whether free people can enter into contracts where they promise not to exercise certain rights (after all, Liberty means that you are free, for whatever reason, to exercise or not to exercise your rights). The question is an individual one: Would you enter into a contract with an employer if he asked you not to exercise your 2A rights.

    It is as much a restriction on Liberty to say you cannot enter into such a contract as to directly bar the exercise of a right.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bunkie, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    216

    Post imported post

    In my business I deal with non-compete agreements all the time and the courts
    have always declared them to be not worth the paper they are written on and
    unenforceable. I just believe that no one can compel you to give up "inalienable
    rights"either through contractual or other means. They are absolute.
    All men have them ,even people in China or any other totalitarian country.
    No man can rescind them, you can not give them away,they are granted us by God.
    You can choose not to exercise them because HE also gave us free will, but
    you still have them.
    The business agreements you spoke of are not the rights that I speak of and
    those are in the scope of business and can be contractually regulated.
    But, I speak of those rights more closely held, the Bill of Rights, more specifically
    the first 2.
    As I said outside the scope of work they cannot be tampered with.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Wal-Mart is not compelling anyone to give up their rights. They are offering a job that the applicant can take or leave. Part of the contract is agreeing to follow the firearms policy.

    It's a choice. It is Liberty.

    Oh, and those agreements. They're enforceable. Unless they are written poorly or the company chooses not to go to the mattresses. And how about those non-disclosure agreements?

    In a contract, one has a perfect right to agree not to do something they have a right to do. That's part of Liberty.

  19. #19
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    Post imported post

    HunterDave,

    Suppose we were to enter into an agreement for you to do some work on my property.

    If one of the terms of our contract was for you to not post any signs on my property, and you put one up that said 'HunterDave for President' on my front lawn, do you think you would be in breach of our contract?


    If one of the terms of our contract was for you tonot carry a gun while on my property, and you did so, do you think you would be in breach of our contract?


  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    Your personal vehicle should be considered an extension of your home. Problem solved.

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    Post imported post

    unless you live in Michigan, then you need a CPL to carry there too.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bunkie, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    216

    Post imported post

    buster81 wrote:
    HunterDave,

    Suppose we were to enter into an agreement for you to do some work on my property.

    If one of the terms of our contract was for you to not post any signs on my property, and you put one up that said 'HunterDave for President' on my front lawn, do you think you would be in breach of our contract?


    If one of the terms of our contract was for you tonot carry a gun while on my property, and you did so, do you think you would be in breach of our contract?
    Yes,you would be in breach of contract, but I was talking about after I left your property,and on my own time. I inferred from some of the post that W.M. said that their employees were unable to carry a loaded firearm off the clock and off W.M property.As I read further I saw that some omitted the fact that they were talking about W.M. employees carrying off the clock on W.M. property.
    Sorry for the confusion.

    Also If you read further up, my other post makes it abundantly clear that I am speaking about off time and off employers property.

    Eyes and my conversation, in my mind, was about what restrictions an employer could put on an employee in their personal life.As I said in that conversation,I don't believe that an employer can compel you to give up certain constitutional rights
    contractually , on our on time and property, as condition of employment.

    Lets say they had in their contract, that as a condition of employment, you could no longer worship God or you could never own a gun or use one for any reason.
    And lets also say you signed that contract but still attended church every Sunday and deer hunted every chance you got.The employer sues for breach, in my opinion no
    court in the land would favor the employer.

    In my opinion nothing transcends the rights protected by the 1st and 2nd amend.


  23. #23
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    Post imported post

    Hunterdave wrote:
    buster81 wrote:
    HunterDave,

    Suppose we were to enter into an agreement for you to do some work on my property.

    If one of the terms of our contract was for you to not post any signs on my property, and you put one up that said 'HunterDave for President' on my front lawn, do you think you would be in breach of our contract?


    If one of the terms of our contract was for you tonot carry a gun while on my property, and you did so, do you think you would be in breach of our contract?
    Yes,you would be in breach of contract, but I was talking about after I left your property,and on my own time. I inferred from some of the post that W.M. said that their employees were unable to carry a loaded firearm off the clock and off W.M property.As I read further I saw that some omitted the fact that they were talking about W.M. employees carrying off the clock on W.M. property.
    Sorry for the confusion.

    Also If you read further up, my other post makes it abundantly clear that I am speaking about off time and off employers property.

    Eyes and my conversation, in my mind, was about what restrictions an employer could put on an employee in their personal life.As I said in that conversation,I don't believe that an employer can compel you to give up certain constitutional rights
    contractually , on our on time and property, as condition of employment.

    Lets say they had in their contract, that as a condition of employment, you could no longer worship God or you could never own a gun or use one for any reason.
    And lets also say you signed that contract but still attended church every Sunday and deer hunted every chance you got.The employer sues for breach, in my opinion no
    court in the land would favor the employer.

    In my opinion nothing transcends the rights protected by the 1st and 2nd amend.

    Indeed it did. My apologies.


    You have said that you feel a contract restricting constitutional rights to be "immoral and illegal." Under what law do you feel it would be illegal?

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,040

    Post imported post

    Hunterdave wrote:
    buster81 wrote:
    HunterDave,

    Suppose we were to enter into an agreement for you to do some work on my property.

    If one of the terms of our contract was for you to not post any signs on my property, and you put one up that said 'HunterDave for President' on my front lawn, do you think you would be in breach of our contract?


    If one of the terms of our contract was for you tonot carry a gun while on my property, and you did so, do you think you would be in breach of our contract?
    Yes,you would be in breach of contract, but I was talking about after I left your property,and on my own time. I inferred from some of the post that W.M. said that their employees were unable to carry a loaded firearm off the clock and off W.M property.As I read further I saw that some omitted the fact that they were talking about W.M. employees carrying off the clock on W.M. property.
    Sorry for the confusion.

    Also If you read further up, my other post makes it abundantly clear that I am speaking about off time and off employers property.

    Eyes and my conversation, in my mind, was about what restrictions an employer could put on an employee in their personal life.As I said in that conversation,I don't believe that an employer can compel you to give up certain constitutional rights
    contractually , on our on time and property, as condition of employment.

    Lets say they had in their contract, that as a condition of employment, you could no longer worship God or you could never own a gun or use one for any reason.
    And lets also say you signed that contract but still attended church every Sunday and deer hunted every chance you got.The employer sues for breach, in my opinion no
    court in the land would favor the employer.

    In my opinion nothing transcends the rights protected by the 1st and 2nd amend.
    IMO, every court in the land would regard that contract as breached if you did as described. No payment or service would be forthcoming from the other party and any penalties would be levied and enforced. How could they not be?

    I offer and you agree toa contract stipulating that if you do not attend church for the next year, I will pay you $100,000. You go to church, I become aware of it and refuse payment. You sue. I show the judge the copy of the contract, your signature on the contract, proof of your attendance,you tell the truth and confirm that you signed it of your own free will without duress and I believe no judge in the landwould make me pay you that $100,000.

    Further, I believe that if that contract required you to buy me a new truck if you defaulted in youragreement that every judge in the land would require you to buy me a new truck.

    Substitute whatever you want for the performance requirement. "Not carry a gun", "not write a book", "not vote in an election", etc.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bunkie, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    216

    Post imported post

    Buster,
    No apologies necessary, just a friendly hypothetical discussion.
    I will try to answer as to, in my opinion, legality,shortly.

    Ecocks,
    In your scenario, I would agree. You were contracted to a specific
    purpose . To not attend church and being paid for that action.To
    fulfill a contract you must buy a truck. Yes, agreed.

    But in a contract to be a stock boy or maintenance man or whatever,
    a company makes as a condition of that contract, that you give up
    your 1st and 2nd amend. rights, is an over reach of employers rights.
    If it were in the scope of their business, I would see it differently i.e.
    you were going to work for an atheistic org. and they required you not
    attend church. Within the scope. If you were going to work for the
    Brady Bunch, to not own firearms. Within the scope.To not write a
    book about W.M. while employed by W.M. Within the scope. To not
    do illegal drugs. Within the scope because they are illegal and insurance
    purposes.

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •