• 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.

Employer diarming question

SpringerXDacp

New member
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
3,341
Location
Burton, Michigan
imported post

stainless1911 wrote:
Yes, let them get their own amendment, we have ours.

Did you not grasp the issues pertaining to Government intervention onto private property rights when the smoking ban was enacted? In other words, where do our (carriers) Rights end and private property Rights begin?

Do you really think Government intervention onto private property such as said smoking ban is a win for gun owners and carriers?
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
imported post

I disagreed strongly with the smoking ban, even though because of smoking, I cant breathe.

My issue with buisinesses vs. A2 are from a different angle.

Its too easy for a 7$ an hour employee who is mislead about guns or at the very least, uneducated about them, to trample on our rights usually as a result of an emotional snap judgement. And it was real soldiers who fought in many wars to ensure our freedoms. I never saw the geek squad, or the cart catchers at the local Krogers storming the beaches of Normandy. So why let them determine who has rights, where, and when?
 

CoonDog

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
532
Location
Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA
imported post

stainless1911 wrote:
Which amendment would that be?
Stainless, I trust you are aware that amendments do not grant rights. Also, just fyi, but most rights are unenumerated. 9th Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Further reading:

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0504a.asp
[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

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
imported post

CoonDog wrote:
stainless1911 wrote:
Which amendment would that be?
Stainless, I trust you are aware that amendments do not grant rights. Also, just fyi, but most rights are unenumerated. 9th Amendment:

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?
 

CoonDog

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
532
Location
Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA
imported post

stainless1911 wrote:
So why is this a one way street in the favor of an employee or owner?
Because only one of the two parties has a right to work there, the owner.

The employee doesn't have a right to a job anymore than he has a right to rob the owner. Theft is what would be happening if the owner were forced to hire said employee.
 

choover

Regular Member
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
287
Location
Belleville , michigan, ,
imported post

stainless1911 wrote:
CoonDog wrote:
stainless1911 wrote:
Which amendment would that be?
Stainless, I trust you are aware that amendments do not grant rights. Also, just fyi, but most rights are unenumerated. 9th Amendment:

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?
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?
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
imported post

choover wrote:
stainless1911 wrote:
CoonDog wrote:
stainless1911 wrote:
Which amendment would that be?
Stainless, I trust you are aware that amendments do not grant rights. Also, just fyi, but most rights are unenumerated. 9th Amendment:

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?
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?
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.

The smoking ban, discrimination for certain classes. I see no reason based on the history of regulation and government interference that they can not also include firearm owners in that "protection". If a place is open to the public then they should not be able to infringe on the second amendment.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
imported post

Stainless1911... please understand that there is more to rights than just the one's guaranteed in the Bill of Rights... there are also "property rights".... which, in many cases, supersede the Bill of Rights. (Obligatory disclaimer: There are also laws that impact the property owner's right to ban the rights of others on said property.)

And a business is a "property" that is owned by the businessman owner. As such he can set what ever conditions of employment he wishes (within the law) upon those he hires.

And those he hires enter into a contract with the business owner to abide by the conditions of employment.

So now we have 2 different things going. "Property rights" that allow employers to set conditions of employment... and a "contract" that both parties have agreed to. The employee has agreed to abide by the conditions set by the employer in return for monies paid by the employer for services rendered by the employee. (Another obligatory disclaimer: I'm working off the top of my head on this stuff... I am not now, nor have I ever been, an attorney.)

Don't like the conditions of the "contract" agreed to when accepting employment? Quit. Find a different "contract" with a different employer.

But, in the case of the OP's first post.... we are discussing an employee..... not a customer.
 

mpearce

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
83
Location
Commerce Twp, ,
imported post

A private property owner can notinfringe on your constitutional rights, only an agent of government can do that. Therefore, a private property owner is saying on his property his rights trump all others.

When government institutes a ban on the exercise of certain rights (by the way, there is no right, fundamental, enumerated, or unenumerated, to smoke), it does so asserting an interest in public health, safety and welfare and argues that the infringement on private individual rights is outweighed in favor in public health, safety, and welfare. See where the argument lies and what to focus in on.

Any attack on A2 rights would center around public safety and welfare. Therefore, each and every one of us should make every effort to not give those against open carry reasons to support the public safety and welfare argument. Be the calm, mild-mannered, respectful, and civil ocer and not argumentative, outrageous, and disrespectful to those LEOs who may not be so educated on the carry laws.
 

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
imported post

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.
 

SpringerXDacp

New member
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
3,341
Location
Burton, Michigan
imported post

DanM wrote:
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.
 

Venator

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
6,462
Location
Lansing area, Michigan, USA
imported post

I want to clarify my position on private property open to the public. I was referring to a ban on customers not employees. An employer can impose rules and policies as a condition of employment. Aprospective employeeis free to choose to accept them or not.
 

DanM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2008
Messages
1,928
Location
West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
imported post

SpringerXDacp wrote:
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.

Ah, yes, I wasn't careful to be precisely on the topic of the owner-employee relationship with my thoughts on the owner-customer relationship, however I am disposed to view them similarly with regard to an owner's exercise of whims in dictating conduct in the socio-economic relationships that he engages in.

Business owners have no ethical justification to be dictators, although many act that way. Their socio-economic relationships either with customers or employees should be based on equal footing for all parties. Customers aren't at their business for the "privilege" of receiving goods or services, and employees aren't at their business for the "privilege" of having a job. Owner and customer are at the business to exchange things of value: goods/services for (often) money. Owner and employee are at the business also to exchange things of value: (often) money for the fruits of labor. Thus, private property used in business is different fromprivate property not used in business. Private ownership of the physical plant of the business where these exchanges occur confer no ethically justified power on one party to make irrelevant or unnecessary demands on any other equal party to the transactions going on.

Enlightened business owners recognize this and do not interfere with the lawful, peaceable conduct of customers or employees which has nothing to do with the exchanges going on at their place of business. Enlightened legislators also recognize these truths and push forsafeguards against unenlightened business owners unethically wielding the socio-economic power they may have over their customers and employees to irrelevantly or unnecessarily trample on their freedom to lawfully and peaceably exercise fundamental rights.
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
imported post

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.
 

malignity

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2008
Messages
1,101
Location
Warren, Michigan, USA
imported post

stainless1911 wrote:
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.
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?
 

CoonDog

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
532
Location
Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA
imported post

Imo, the sole and final arbiter of who or what is allowed on the property ought to fall to one person only: the property owner. The owner should be allowed to ban anyone for any reason at anytime. If you own it, you have the right to control it, even if it means implementing a ban on something as seemingly pointless or trivial as banning persons with freckles, long hair, wearing earrings, turbans, named CoonDog, or any other reason.

ETA two additional points.

1) Because you have no right to my property, you cannot have suffered injury from my barring you from it. No injury = no victim = no crime. Hurt feelings? Too bad; I'm sure you'll get over it.

2) Because the state claims representation over all persons, it should not discriminate against any person. On the other hand, whether or not a private individual discriminates is a private matter and no business of the state.
 

Evil Creamsicle

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
1,264
Location
Police State, USA
imported post

malignity wrote:
stainless1911 wrote:
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.
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?
*Disclaimer: I am not taking either side with my remarks*

The difference, or one difference, could be that one does not have a 'choice' as to what race they are, where as carrying a weapon is a 'choice'

Then I suppose you could argue that patronizing your business is also a 'choice'...

I suppose its kind of like banning someone from your business because they are wearing a cross/star of david/buddha/flying spaghetti monster necklace.

Based on my above observations I suppose I would say that to ban you for activity/behavior, not necessarily mere posession of an object, would be appropriate...

So, you couldn't be banned for your cross/star of david/buddha/flying spaghetti monster, but you could be banned for standing in the foyer preaching your religion to potential customers.

Likewise, I suppose it is a sort of discrimination to ban someone for carrying a gun, but if someone, for example, was being dangerous... like if they took their gun out to show someone... or maybe started doing dry-fire practice in the produce section... then it would be based on behavior.

I'm up in the air about it... We had the discussion in another thread about 'victimless crimes' not being crimes... but what about situations that create 'victims' but are not 'crimes' ?

Interesting discussion...

*End Disclaimer*

I suppose I still believe the property owner should have the right to regulate, however unfairly... only because I don't think the government should have anything to do with it. Frankly these people worked hard for the property they own, and they should be able to do whatever they want with it, even if they are being dicks.

ETA: Is banning me from the girls bathroom because I don't have a vagina discrimination?
 

stainless1911

Banned
Joined
Dec 19, 2009
Messages
8,855
Location
Davisburg, Michigan, United States
imported post

People working hard for a buisiness, VS. People dying for their counrtys freedoms. Doesnt exactly balance the scales does it?

If you get kicked out of a buisiness for being boisterous, nude, or dry fire practice in the produce section, I agree, thats fine, and expected. There is no amendment for being an imbusil, so there is no protection for it.
 
Top