stainless1911
Banned
imported post
Yes, let them get their own amendment, we have ours.
Yes, let them get their own amendment, we have ours.
Yes, let them get their own amendment, we have ours.
Stainless, I trust you are aware that amendments do not grant rights. Also, just fyi, but most rights are unenumerated. 9th Amendment:Which amendment would that be?
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
[font="Times,Times New Roman"][/font][font="Times,Times New Roman"]The Bill of Rights: Unenumerated Rights[/font][font="Times,Times New Roman"]
by Jacob G. Hornberber, Posted August 10, 2005[/font][font="Times,Times New Roman"]A common misconception among the American people is that their rights come from the Constitution. Even lawyers and judges are guilty of believing this, oftentimes suggesting that whether a right exists or not depends on whether it is listed in the Constitution. Law-enforcement agents read criminal suspects “their constitutional rights,” which leads some people to infer that the Constitution is the actual source of people’s rights.
[/font] [font="Times,Times New Roman"]Nothing could be further from the truth.
[/font] [font="Times,Times New Roman"]Suppose the Bill of Rights had not been enacted. Would that mean that people would not have the rights that are enumerated in those amendments?
[/font] [font="Times,Times New Roman"]No, it would not mean that. The existence and protection of those rights did not depend on the passage of the Bill of Rights.[/font]
stainless1911 wrote:Stainless, I trust you are aware that amendments do not grant rights. Also, just fyi, but most rights are unenumerated. 9th Amendment:Which amendment would that be?
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Because only one of the two parties has a right to work there, the owner.So why is this a one way street in the favor of an employee or owner?
Private property trumps as it should be, How would you like to not be able to tell someone what they can or cannot do on your property?CoonDog wrote:stainless1911 wrote:Stainless, I trust you are aware that amendments do not grant rights. Also, just fyi, but most rights are unenumerated. 9th Amendment:Which amendment would that be?
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
I agree that the constitution doesnt grant rights.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
So why is this a one way street in the favor of an employee or owner?
Of course the issue is what types of private property, personal home versus private property open to the public (business). The government already tells private property owners (business) what they can and can't do.stainless1911 wrote:Private property trumps as it should be, How would you like to not be able to tell someone what they can or cannot do on your property?CoonDog wrote:stainless1911 wrote:Stainless, I trust you are aware that amendments do not grant rights. Also, just fyi, but most rights are unenumerated. 9th Amendment:Which amendment would that be?
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
I agree that the constitution doesnt grant rights.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
So why is this a one way street in the favor of an employee or owner?
So, you disagree that employers (businesses) should not have the Right to prohibit certain activities/conduct by their employees?
I agree there is a difference, however, this thread/topic is about employers who prohibit employees from carrying weapons while at work and not policy for clientele. Take for example, Starbuck's, they follow State lawwhich allows us here in Michigan to OC and/or CC in their businesses while at the same tiime prohibits employees from doing same.SpringerXDacp wrote:So, you disagree that employers (businesses) should not have the Right to prohibit certain activities/conduct by their employees?
While this was addressed to Stainless, I'll offer my view.With regard to privately-owned property, there isa difference betweenthat which is not open tothe public and that which is. An example of the former is one's residence and an example of the latter is a business, or the part of the business' physical plant, made publicly accessible forconduct of business with the public. Some states recognize this difference in the law and actually do limit whatthe owner/agent of publicly-accessible private property may do with regard to regulating the lawful and peaceableconduct of their customers within the publicly-accessible parts of the private property.
I agree with much of this approach, and my opinion is that if you are engaged peaceably in lawful conduct within the publicly-accessible portion of a business then you should be left unmolested to carry out your business and get on with your day.
I agree there is a difference, however, this thread/topic is about employers who prohibit employees from carrying weapons while at work and not policy for clientele. Take for example, Starbuck's, they follow State lawwhich allows us here in Michigan to OC and/or CC in their businesses while at the same tiime prohibits employees from doing same.
Though this may not be the popular opinion, I agree. If you're open to the public, you shouldn't be able to ban firearms. If I had a store, I'm not allowed to ban someone of a certain race. What's the difference?Private property, regarding someones home, is the only place that anyone (including the government) should be able to prohibit firearms. Ok, jail too. But private property that is open to the public should be subject to the laws and rights of the public. Those peoples rights were established before the business was, or the country for that matter, and the lives and safety of those people are more valuable than the property, the business, or any opinions generated within the business. If the potential entrepreneur has a problem with his potential customers being prepared to defend themselves and who exercise their civil liberties, then the entrepreneur should perhaps reconsider opening the business in this country.
As far as employees and contracts are concerned, it should be illegal for an employer to request the denial of, and illegal for the employee to sign off on civilrights that were paid for in blood.
As an employee, I may enter into a contract to do work for reward, but in to way consent to the degradation of my rights or safety.
As Ive said before, ifyour paycheck were more important thanyour life, I suppose it would be quicker and easier to just rob a bank.
*Disclaimer: I am not taking either side with my remarks*stainless1911 wrote:Though this may not be the popular opinion, I agree. If you're open to the public, you shouldn't be able to ban firearms. If I had a store, I'm not allowed to ban someone of a certain race. What's the difference?Private property, regarding someones home, is the only place that anyone (including the government) should be able to prohibit firearms. Ok, jail too. But private property that is open to the public should be subject to the laws and rights of the public. Those peoples rights were established before the business was, or the country for that matter, and the lives and safety of those people are more valuable than the property, the business, or any opinions generated within the business. If the potential entrepreneur has a problem with his potential customers being prepared to defend themselves and who exercise their civil liberties, then the entrepreneur should perhaps reconsider opening the business in this country.
As far as employees and contracts are concerned, it should be illegal for an employer to request the denial of, and illegal for the employee to sign off on civilrights that were paid for in blood.
As an employee, I may enter into a contract to do work for reward, but in to way consent to the degradation of my rights or safety.
As Ive said before, ifyour paycheck were more important thanyour life, I suppose it would be quicker and easier to just rob a bank.