• 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.

Wal-mart employees allowed to carry loaded weapons off clock

N

northofnowhere

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
232
Location
RTM, Lake Linden, Michigan, USA
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
 
sudden valley gunner

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
imported post

buster81 wrote:
Can we expect a Brady Bunch temper tantrum and a petition out of this?
Click to expand...

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.
 
okboomer

okboomer

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
1,164
Location
Oklahoma, USA
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.
 
eye95

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 
H

Hunterdave

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
214
Location
Bunkie, Louisiana, USA
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
eye95

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 
E

ecocks

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
1,040
Location
USA
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.
 
eye95

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It's called Liberty.
 
H

Hunterdave

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
214
Location
Bunkie, Louisiana, USA
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.
 
eye95

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 
H

Hunterdave

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
214
Location
Bunkie, Louisiana, USA
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.
 
eye95

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 
buster81

buster81

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top