Are these ideas possible?

I will propose two ideas now, please tell me if you think it can be done please support your position with any case law or constitutional argument.


feel free to expand upon this idea, reword it and tell me why...

The people of the United States Of America shall be afforded the right to move with equal protection from one state to another with each state within the union recognizing the laws pertaining to the transfer, sale, purchase, possession, ownership, transportation, registration and licensing of firearms in the state in which they permanently reside.

No state may override the laws of the state in which a private citizen resides unless it can be proven that the person in question has resided in that state for a period of no less than 60 continuous days.

The burden shall be placed on the state to prove that residency has changed.

Click to expand...

I propose that this be added to Nevada Law..

No employer doing business in the state of Nevada shall restrict the possession or carry of firearms by their employees beyond that which is prescribed by specific statute. No employer doing business in the state of Nevada shall deny employment, terminate employment or discriminate against an employee based on the exercise an employee's right to be lawfully armed while on the job, going from or coming to their place of employment.

The provisions of this statute apply to only those employees that may otherwise be in possession of a firearm.

Click to expand...

The first is a violation of the sovereignity of the states. Each state is free and independent, the US cannot force states to change their law except for the enumerated powers under the US constitution. If I am in Nevada, I am subject to Nevada law PERIOD. If I don't like it I should not visit Nevada.

The second violates private property rights. Each property owner has the right to use his property as he sees fit. If an employer demands you not carry firearms on his premises you have two choices 1. Comply or 2. Quit or dont' accept the job. Anything else is an infringement on the employers right(he has them just like you do). As important as the RKBA is, it does not allow us to override the desires of another person with regard to their property or person.

Fatherof9 said:

The first is a violation of the sovereignity of the states. Each state is free and independent, the US cannot force states to change their law except for the enumerated powers under the US constitution. If I am in Nevada, I am subject to Nevada law PERIOD. If I don't like it I should not visit Nevada.

The second violates private property rights. Each property owner has the right to use his property as he sees fit. If an employer demands you not carry firearms on his premises you have two choices 1. Comply or 2. Quit or dont' accept the job. Anything else is an infringement on the employers right(he has them just like you do). As important as the RKBA is, it does not allow us to override the desires of another person with regard to their property or person.

Click to expand...

Your answers make sense and are logical, but if you will, I would like to add a twist to your response on my second proposal. Congress and the supreme court has always given some rights more priority that others. For instance, In McDonald, The SC ruled that Chicago has the right to regulate firearms, however the right to bear arms is of such high priority over the right to regulate that the City could not completely forbid the ownership and possession of firearms.

I understand a private property owner is entitled to certain rights just as private citizens are. If the people of the state of Nevada through their duly appointed representatives agree that private property owners do not have the right to restrict the possession of firearms by those they employ, this is the conditions that those private property owners must adhere to if they wish to do business in Nevada. Owning property does not exempt you from the law of the land.

Furthermore, US and Nevada law already dictates the limits of private property rights. While the owner of a business may have the right to refuse service to anyone, they may not refuse service to someone based on race, gender, religious affiliation, Etc.; These are protected classes. The second amendment is an individual right it is one of the first ten amendments that make up The Bill of Rights. It was so important that the framers of the constitution did not feel the Constitution itself could be successful without it. If the government is forbidden from infringing on our second amendment rights, private citizens shouldn't either.

The second amendment ends with "...Shall not be infringed." It doesn't end with "...shall not be infringed, unless you're the property owner." Being a property owner doesn't make you a country in and of yourself.

I'm not saying you're wrong Fathero 9, I'm saying it's not quite as simple as that.

I disagree with fatherof9's answers. The US Supreme Court has now held that our 2nd Amendment expresses a fundamental (God given) individual right, just like our 1st Amendment rights. To me that means that the right to keep and bear arms should be protected by and in all States to the same extent as our 1st Amendment rights. This will require a major readjustment of State laws and attitudes toward guns.

The above having been said, I want to point out that even fundamental rights are not absolute. Reasonable restrictions will always apply. The question of what restrictions are "reasonable" with respect to keeping and bearing arms will take a lot of time and controversy to resolve.

Nevada carrier said:

Your answers make sense and are logical, but if you will, I would like to add a twist to your response on my second proposal. Congress and the supreme court has always given some rights more priority that others. For instance, In McDonald, The SC ruled that Chicago has the right to regulate firearms, however the right to bear arms is of such high priority over the right to regulate that the City could not completely forbid the ownership and possession of firearms.

I understand a private property owner is entitled to certain rights just as private citizens are. If the people of the state of Nevada through their duly appointed representatives agree that private property owners do not have the right to restrict the possession of firearms by those they employ, this is the conditions that those private property owners must adhere to if they wish to do business in Nevada. Owning property does not exempt you from the law of the land.

Furthermore, US and Nevada law already dictates the limits of private property rights. While the owner of a business may have the right to refuse service to anyone, they may not refuse service to someone based on race, gender, religious affiliation, Etc.; These are protected classes. The second amendment is an individual right it is one of the first ten amendments that make up The Bill of Rights. It was so important that the framers of the constitution did not feel the Constitution itself could be successful without it. If the government is forbidden from infringing on our second amendment rights, private citizens shouldn't either.

The second amendment ends with "...Shall not be infringed." It doesn't end with "...shall not be infringed, unless you're the property owner." Being a property owner doesn't make you a country in and of yourself.

I'm not saying you're wrong Fathero 9, I'm saying it's not quite as simple as that.

Click to expand...

I have the right to tell you what you can and cannot do on my property PERIOD. Just because I choose to open a business does not mean that I forfeit my rights. Privately owned is privately owned. In the same way a business could demand I leave for exercising my freedom of speech, they could also demand I leave for a firearm. You mention that a business cannot refuse service to someone because of race or gender as a way to validate your argument for eroding more individual rights. I do not in any way condone racism or sexism, but I will defend someone's right to do what they want with their own property. Our founding fathers believed in individual freedom, not the will of the majority. Drug laws, and all the rest of the "victimless crimes" are unconstitutional. No matter how you rationalize it, FORCING a business to allow firearms on their property is nothing short of tyranny.

I may not agree with what the sheeple choose to do with their businesses, but it is their freedom to do so.

I would not want my private property rights to take a back seat to almost any other right.
Imagine it's 2am and a jehovahs witness is screaming the word of god on your front lawn. Freedom of speech and religion is wonderfull and he has the right to engage in it. I still want to be able to move him off my property.
We have to be very carefull when it comes to this because as we can becme the oppressors as we push forward with OUR right of choice. We choose to champion the 2A but we must not trample the others in doing so.
.

I'm speaking in terms of employees, not just any one who comes on your property.

Nevada carrier said:

I'm speaking in terms of employees, not just any one who comes on your property.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. Taking someones freedom (in this case private owners's rights to set their terms and conditions) in order to give someone else "freedom" is never justified. It is really just forcibly mandating what you think employers ought to allow on their property.

So how would my proposed idea be any different than the array of other employment laws already in effect that mandate certain rights of employees? What about all the OSHA laws on the books? Can an employer operate a factory with a noise level of 145dB and not permit it's employees to provide their own hearing protection? You could say yes, if an employer provides hearing protection for their employees, but what if that hearing protection is ineffective?

Is that any different then opening their private property to the public without ensuring that those in their employ can be safe from someone who can just enter unchecked?

If I work for an employer who provides an inadequate and under effective security force, who can not control who comes on their property and can not reasonably ensure that those in their employ are safe from any threat that may come from their visitors, shouldn't I be allowed to provide for my own safety and self defense without my options being limited to "accept the risk or quit?"

Should the students at Virginia Tech have only been given the choice to accept the risk that a mentally ill person may shoot up the campus or find another university? Should the Professors, grounds crew and other staff of Virginia Tech have the same limited choices?

I maintain that if your private business is open to the public and you can not reasonably control who comes onto your property/into your business that those you employ should not be forced to choose between self defense and employment. If on the other hand I worked in a place like for instance, the Family Court facility in Las Vegas where access is tightly controlled, and everyone entering is screened, then I believe it would be reasonable to tell your employees they don't need to be armed.

What if I changed the language to read;

No employer doing business in the state of Nevada shall restrict the possession or carry of firearms by their employees beyond that which is prescribed by specific statute. No employer doing business in the state of Nevada shall deny employment, terminate employment or discriminate against an employee based on the exercise an employee's right to be lawfully armed while on the job, going from or coming to their place of employment.

The provisions of this statute apply to only those employees that may otherwise be in possession of a firearm.

Employers may prohibit the carry and possession of firearms by their employees if
(a) An armed security force maintains one armed security agent for every 50 disarmed employees, and;
(b) All entrances are monitored and and access to the public is controlled and screened for deadly weapons.
(c) Employees are given a secure location to check and secure their firearms while their duties require them to be within controlled entry locations.
(d) Those employees who's duties are outside of controlled entry points where access to the public is uncontrolled or unscreened may not be prohibited from possessing or carrying a firearm.

Click to expand...

Nevada carrier said:

So how would my proposed idea be any different than the array of other employment laws already in effect that mandate certain rights of employees? What about all the OSHA laws on the books? Can an employer operate a factory with a noise level of 145dB and not permit it's employees to provide their own hearing protection? You could say yes, if an employer provides hearing protection for their employees, but what if that hearing protection is ineffective?

Is that any different then opening their private property to the public without ensuring that those in their employ can be safe from someone who can just enter unchecked?

If I work for an employer who provides an inadequate and under effective security force, who can not control who comes on their property and can not reasonably ensure that those in their employ are safe from any threat that may come from their visitors, shouldn't I be allowed to provide for my own safety and self defense without my options being limited to "accept the risk or quit?"

Should the students at Virginia Tech have only been given the choice to accept the risk that a mentally ill person may shoot up the campus or find another university? Should the Professors, grounds crew and other staff of Virginia Tech have the same limited choices?

I maintain that if your private business is open to the public and you can not reasonably control who comes onto your property/into your business that those you employ should not be forced to choose between self defense and employment. If on the other hand I worked in a place like for instance, the Family Court facility in Las Vegas where access is tightly controlled, and everyone entering is screened, then I believe it would be reasonable to tell your employees they don't need to be armed.

Click to expand...

You have the right to not work for someone who does not want you to carry on their premisis.

I am an employer and I do not allow my employees to carry on the job. I am a supporter of the 2A and I open carry, but not to work. I do not carry to work because I do not allow my employees to carry.

Why do I do this? I can account for my own actions, but if one of my employees is armed and during his time working he happens to feel the need to use his firearm and then shoots someone, I am liable as it was on my premisis while he was employed by me.

Look, life sucks sometimes. What happened at VTech and other incidences like it suck. But you do not solve problems by looking to take away the rights of someone else (the business owner). Principles like that are the foundation of this board and our constant fight to retain our 2A rights.

You have your rights, but you are asking that choosing to carry a firearm is the same as being Hispanic or physically handicapped. It simply is not the same. You excercise your rights as you should, but do not think that your argument is the same as excercising your rights. Everyone has rights but you do NOT have the right to infringe on the rights of others, which is what you are proposing.

Vegas_Dave said:

You have the right to not work for someone who does not want you to carry on their premisis.

I am an employer and I do not allow my employees to carry on the job. I am a supporter of the 2A and I open carry, but not to work. I do not carry to work because I do not allow my employees to carry.

Why do I do this? I can account for my own actions, but if one of my employees is armed and during his time working he happens to feel the need to use his firearm and then shoots someone, I am liable as it was on my premisis while he was employed by me.

Look, life sucks sometimes. What happened at VTech and other incidences like it suck. But you do not solve problems by looking to take away the rights of someone else (the business owner). Principles like that are the foundation of this board and our constant fight to retain our 2A rights.

You have your rights, but you are asking that choosing to carry a firearm is the same as being Hispanic or physically handicapped. It simply is not the same. You excercise your rights as you should, but do not think that your argument is the same as excercising your rights. Everyone has rights but you do NOT have the right to infringe on the rights of others, which is what you are proposing.

Click to expand...

So If I work for you, and someone comes into your business on your property and I die because I was not able to defend myself, are you going to go to court and say "I'm not liable, He didn't have to work for me?" Even if the court finds you liable for civil damages, does that make me any less dead? The bottom line is this if you allow your employees to carry firearms and one of them uses it to defend themselves, you're going to get sued, but your going to get suit if they die because they couldn't defend themselves as a result of your "no firearms policy" just the same. If you're going to be sued either way, wouldn't you rather the person you hired be able to go to court with you alive and unharmed because you gave them the means to defend themselves? Wouldn't you rather have the piece of mind that people with criminal intent will see that your employees are not prepared to be victims and choose another target for their crime?

We live in a litigious society, if you open a business it's almost certain that someone is going to sue you for something. Perhaps in addition to my proposed statute, there needs to be language in our state laws that exempts the property owner from liability when one of their employees uses a firearm in self defense, placing the liability on the person who squeezed the trigger.

For example, the law could read;

No employer doing business in the state of Nevada shall restrict the possession or carry of firearms by their employees beyond that which is prescribed by specific statute. No employer doing business in the state of Nevada shall deny employment, terminate employment or discriminate against an employee based on the exercise an employee's right to be lawfully armed while on the job, going from or coming to their place of employment.

The provisions of this statute apply to only those employees that may otherwise be in possession of a firearm.

Employers may prohibit the carry and possession of firearms by their employees if
(a) An armed security force maintains one armed security agent for every 50 disarmed employees, and;
(b) All entrances are monitored and access to the public is controlled and screened for deadly weapons and;
(c) Employees are given a secure location to check and secure their firearms while their duties require them to be within controlled entry locations.
(d) Those employees who's duties are outside of controlled entry points where access to the public is uncontrolled or unscreened may not be prohibited from possessing or carrying a firearm.

Limitation of liability;
(a) The employer, proprietor or property owner shall be held harmless from any liability as a result of the discharge of firearms by their employees unless,
1. The discharge was lawfull
2. The employer, proprietor knew that an unlawful discharge would occur and
3. had a reasonable means to prevent an unlawful discharge
(b) The discharge of a firearm for the purpose of this subsection is considered lawful if a reasonable person would conclude that the person who discharged the firearm had a genuine fear for their life or limb. For example but not limited to the following; An assailant presents a threat with anything that could be used as a weapon such as but not limited to a firearm, knife, club, improvised weapon or other implement that would otherwise inflict bodily injury, an assailant presents a threat and a significant size disparity exists, Multiple assailants present a threat.
(c) If subsection (a) 1 and 2 do not apply, only the person who discharged the firearm may be deemed liable for any unlawful discharge.

Click to expand...

Nevada carrier said:

...but your going to get suit if they die because they couldn't defend themselves as a result of your "no firearms policy" just the same...

Click to expand...

Best to my knowledge, no such suit has EVER been filed. Can you correct me on this?

The argument are making has no grounds in reality.

Reality is this: I am not responsible for the actions of someone coming in to my business, but I am responsible in part for actions of people I employ. The only reason (barring a completely insane person, which sadly does exist) for someone to shoot one of my employees would be because they were not cooperating. My standing policy in my store is the same as pretty much every business, if someone comes in to rob you and they have a weapon, give them what they want. The money in the register is simply not worth the risk of an employee losing their life. If they give up the cash, the perp will bolt and no one will be harmed.

But in the same scenario, if I knowingly allow my employee to be armed and the robber comes in with a gun and my employee decides to pull that gun, the likelyhood of a positive outcome is pretty much null. I become responsible for ALL actions, including if the bad guy shoots off a round or two and hits customers in my store. Their lawyers will argue that because I allowed my employee to have a gun and that employee pulled the gun, then my store as an entity will be liable for the whole encounter.

Look, this is simple here. You are refusing to accept the rights of others while promoting ONLY your own right. You have the right to have your weapon. But as a businessman, I have the right to not allow my employees to carry a weapon on my property. I also have the right to fire an employee for breaking this rule and have the right to not hire an employee who will not work for me otherwise. You have the right to not work for me. You have the right to start your own business and carry and allow your employees to carry. You have the right to find an employer who is willing to take the risk.

In the current law, you have rights and your employer has rights. In your proposal, you are asking that the employers rights become LESS IMPORTANT THAN YOUR RIGHTS. This is NOT how our laws were written or intended.

Your revisions pose no extra anything to the argument.. "unless the discharge was lawful". So in the scenario above, a lawful discharge would be one in defense of ones self or others. However, you might be a bad shot. So your discharge may have been lawful, but now you hit someone else and now I am liable again.

The real problem here though falls back to the rights of the employer and your proposal places ZERO respect for those rights. As I said before, your rights are only guaranteed as long as they do not interfere with the rights of others.

Vegas_Dave said:

Best to my knowledge, no such suit has EVER been filed. Can you correct me on this?

The argument are making has no grounds in reality.

Reality is this: I am not responsible for the actions of someone coming in to my business, but I am responsible in part for actions of people I employ. The only reason (barring a completely insane person, which sadly does exist) for someone to shoot one of my employees would be because they were not cooperating. My standing policy in my store is the same as pretty much every business, if someone comes in to rob you and they have a weapon, give them what they want. The money in the register is simply not worth the risk of an employee losing their life. If they give up the cash, the perp will bolt and no one will be harmed.

But in the same scenario, if I knowingly allow my employee to be armed and the robber comes in with a gun and my employee decides to pull that gun, the likelyhood of a positive outcome is pretty much null. I become responsible for ALL actions, including if the bad guy shoots off a round or two and hits customers in my store. Their lawyers will argue that because I allowed my employee to have a gun and that employee pulled the gun, then my store as an entity will be liable for the whole encounter.

Look, this is simple here. You are refusing to accept the rights of others while promoting ONLY your own right. You have the right to have your weapon. But as a businessman, I have the right to not allow my employees to carry a weapon on my property. I also have the right to fire an employee for breaking this rule and have the right to not hire an employee who will not work for me otherwise. You have the right to not work for me. You have the right to start your own business and carry and allow your employees to carry. You have the right to find an employer who is willing to take the risk.

In the current law, you have rights and your employer has rights. In your proposal, you are asking that the employers rights become LESS IMPORTANT THAN YOUR RIGHTS. This is NOT how our laws were written or intended.

Your revisions pose no extra anything to the argument.. "unless the discharge was lawful". So in the scenario above, a lawful discharge would be one in defense of ones self or others. However, you might be a bad shot. So your discharge may have been lawful, but now you hit someone else and now I am liable again.

The real problem here though falls back to the rights of the employer and your proposal places ZERO respect for those rights. As I said before, your rights are only guaranteed as long as they do not interfere with the rights of others.

Click to expand...

Perfect post.

Vegas_Dave said:

Look, this is simple here. You are refusing to accept the rights of others while promoting ONLY your own right. You have the right to have your weapon. But as a businessman, I have the right to not allow my employees to carry a weapon on my property. I also have the right to fire an employee for breaking this rule and have the right to not hire an employee who will not work for me otherwise. You have the right to not work for me. You have the right to start your own business and carry and allow your employees to carry. You have the right to find an employer who is willing to take the risk.

In the current law, you have rights and your employer has rights. In your proposal, you are asking that the employers rights become LESS IMPORTANT THAN YOUR RIGHTS. This is NOT how our laws were written or intended.

Click to expand...

The same argument could be used for both our positions. If this is not how our laws were written or intended, then your argument has has much weight as mine. If all our rights are equal according the last portion I quoted, why then are your rights as an employer greater than my rights as an employee, as well as a citizen? Obviously there is a conflict that requires certain rights to be given higher priority than others.

I think we can all agree that my right to self defense is absolute, be it at work or not. If you owned the casino that employs me and you cannot reasonably be certain that your guests are unarmed and/or have no criminal intentions, I think I should be afforded the right to provide for my own safety. this is not unheard of. remember the biker brawl that left several people dead in Lauglin?

You can bet your bottom dollar that if I were assaulted while on the job, and you barred me from carrying the tools to defend myself, I would slap you with a law suit, or my family would if I were killed. Now perhaps as the employer you could require me to demonstrate a high level of proficiency with my firearm before I'm permitted to be armed on the job, aside from that, it's your property, and also your responsibility to provide a safe environment for me to work. If it means that you must choose between screening your guests upon their entry or allow your employees to be armed, so be it. There are a lot of rights that employees have that employers don't like. I'm sure employers would save a lot of money without those pesky labor laws that REQUIRE them to provide health insurance, OSHA standards and Labor Union affiliations. Never the less, your approval of an employees rights is not a requisite of compliance.

But could the federal government restrict the business owners right to deny guns if they have government contracts, just like they do for EEOC, and other 'rules'?
You don't have to obey the government unless you choose to get in bed with them.

Now that brings up all sorts of interesting cases. Hiring students, since all students get loans through the government now.
Equal protection laws perhaps. If you have a coworker with a bullet in their body and they let him in, but not you who has a bullet in your pocket. Probably only comes up in nice big safe places like chicago, but worth a shot.

I guess with Obamacare the entire health care industry would have to allow carry. Courts when you get hauled in for not paying the 'fine'.

Nevada carrier said:

The same argument could be used for both our positions. If this is not how our laws were written or intended, then your argument has has much weight as mine. If all our rights are equal according the last portion I quoted, why then are your rights as an employer greater than my rights as an employee, as well as a citizen? Obviously there is a conflict that requires certain rights to be given higher priority than others.

I think we can all agree that my right to self defense is absolute, be it at work or not. If you owned the casino that employs me and you cannot reasonably be certain that your guests are unarmed and/or have no criminal intentions, I think I should be afforded the right to provide for my own safety. this is not unheard of. remember the biker brawl that left several people dead in Lauglin?

You can bet your bottom dollar that if I were assaulted while on the job, and you barred me from carrying the tools to defend myself, I would slap you with a law suit, or my family would if I were killed. Now perhaps as the employer you could require me to demonstrate a high level of proficiency with my firearm before I'm permitted to be armed on the job, aside from that, it's your property, and also your responsibility to provide a safe environment for me to work. If it means that you must choose between screening your guests upon their entry or allow your employees to be armed, so be it. There are a lot of rights that employees have that employers don't like. I'm sure employers would save a lot of money without those pesky labor laws that REQUIRE them to provide health insurance, OSHA standards and Labor Union affiliations. Never the less, your approval of an employees rights is not a requisite of compliance.

Click to expand...

That is an absurd argument, you are choosing to work for an employer. You are choosing to abide by his rules, you are not being barred your rights, you are making the choice to work for someone and thus follow their workplace rules.

It sounds like you're upset that most companies will not let employees carry and because of this would like the government to coerce businesses into allowing you to carry on their property. This ideology is great when you're "guys" are in power, not so much when people who disagree with you are. I believe in freedom, what do you believe in? What you are suggesting is not freedom, it is mandating that people do what YOU want them to. It stinks of fascism.

I am half owner of our family machine shop. When we moved from California to Henderson we had to not only comply but pay for the privilege through the county and state. Any employee I have also has to be paid for in the way of unemployment benefits and social security. OSHA safety standards must be met along with fire standards which I have to pay for to have inspected! Business owners accept these because we are independent people, and as long as we can make money we continue to have employees. The down side is (or upside) we are not dependent on anyone and for the most part do whatever we want. We don't get health insurance, sick days, paid vacations, 401k plans, or free unemployment insurance. That being said, if some employee comes along making a big deal about something (like having a gun) he would not have a job for too long.

Let's say I am anti-gun for a second.

A couple of things would happen if a law like that came into effect. The first thing I would do is make sure no new employees would have a gun by having them sign something stating that fact. Next I would find a way to lay off or fire anyone who was carrying. I know you are thinking I can't do that but in reality I could come up with 100 reasons why other then a gun. To have a successful law suit in a discrimination case is really hard.

Lets assume that an employee who after being hired started showing up with a turban on. Lets also assume that some of my customers stopped buying things from me because they didn't want to be around "those" types of people. Right, wrong, or indifferent as a business owner I could fire him for liability reasons concerning work safety because his turban could get stuck in a machine which could lead to harm or even death. Does he have a Right to religious beliefs and cultural clothing? Yes, but not when I am responsible for him. You have to look at employees as dependents no different then children. That is why many business owners don't want guns around. It is not about being anti gun, it is about liability.

A lot of times as a business owner I have to think about liability. If you were to shoot someone while on the job I'm pretty sure their family would sue me. If an employee got shot, they would sue me. The only thing that argument proves is that shootings and injury are bad!

The question then comes down to responsibility. If you were to get injured on the job because another employee did something dumb who is ultimately responsible? ME! Why me? Because I own the business! It is my property!

The bottom line is Rights = property. In almost all cases things could be resolved by simply asking or knowing who's property it is. If we expand your proposed law to other aspects of life you would see how bad it would become.

If I invited a friend over for dinner and he showed up with bible he just got because he was just converted to religion, and he would not stop reading it, is that illegal? Does he have a Right to read a bible? Does he have a Right to read the bible in my house? NO! Why? Because it is my house! I could grant him the privilege to do so or I could kick him out. Take it even a step further, what if a random person came into my house and started praying to Mecca? Does he have a Right to pray? If I order him to leave at gun point did I violate his first amendment Right?

If you do not like someones rules then don't associate with them. Find an employer who agrees with your morals, values, and beliefs. Or you can become a business owner yourself!

To greengum-the real problem here is that you should not be liable for every move your employees may make. However, that does not change the fact that it is your property, and your choice.

This has probably been mentioned by now, but I wanted to put it in a short post-the BoR, including the 2nd amendment, outlines rights that cannot be taken away by the government. Any land owner may make rules regarding their own premises. It comes down to "follow my rules or leave." If you don't wish to disarm, leave the property.

Nevada carrier said:

If all our rights are equal according the last portion I quoted, why then are your rights as an employer greater than my rights as an employee, as well as a citizen? Obviously there is a conflict that requires certain rights to be given higher priority than others.

Click to expand...

It is my property, therefore it is my rules. On your property, your rules. If I dont like your rules, I need to leave your property.

This is the biggest part of the argument that you are not paying attention to.

You do not have the RIGHT to work for me or any other employer. This is the biggest error in your argument. A job is NOT a guaranteed right in this country. If you insist on being able to carry your firearm in an industry that no current employer allows employees to do as such, you have the right to start your own business, find a different job or to not work at all.

You have the right to your gun. I have the right to decide what happens on my property, just like you have the right to decide what happens on your property, as long as it is not illegal. If I decide on my property, private or business, that I dont want you to have your gun on my property, my rights are in seniority as I do not have to let you on my property and you have to respect my right to my property.

No matter what way you try and spin it, the fact is that you have the right to not work for the employer if you dont like their policies. The employer has the right to not employ you if you do not follow their policies. Its as simple as that.

My two cents: Property rights are one of the biggest corner stones of our laws. Those rights will supercede your right to carry. The first common-law principles where established on property rights. I am not a lawyer by any means, but fundamentaly, I do not think you can legally overcome this principle.