America Online Can Fire Gun-Owning Employees

NRA ^ | July 23, 2004 | NRA

[TYVets]

America Online Can Fire Gun-Owning Employees Utah High Court Rules Friday, July 23, 2004

Self-defense took a big blow this week when the Utah Supreme Court upheld the right of America Online (AOL), America`s largest on-line service provider, to fire three employees whose firearms were stored in the trunks of their cars in the parking lot of an AOL call center in Ogden, Utah.

In a decision that diminishes rights guaranteed under both the Utah and the U.S. Constitution, the court acknowledged the individual right to keep and bear arms, but said the right of a business to regulate its own property is more important!

Complying with this decision could potentially cost an employee his or her life--violent criminals certainly aren`t going to obey such a ban.

It may also diminish employees` abilities to hunt or target shoot after work.

The issue is becoming a hot legislative topic in the states. This year Oklahoma passed HB 2122 ensuring that employees with guns in their cars were not fired or harassed, and it was debated in several other states.

Please look to future editions of the Grassroots Alert for developing information on this issue.

[NonValueAdded]

OK, I agree there are property right aspects that give a private individual a strong measure of control over their premises but there are also laws that govern the employee / employer relationship and the corporate construct is not the same in all respects as a person. I'll concede that forbidding firearms on the property is a legitimate right of a business enterprise, assuming proper notice was provided.

However, my over-the-top example of requiring a Kerry bumper sticker would still be over the line. An employee is not an indentured servant and there are limits to the control an employer has over every aspect of an employee's life. I guess I'd have to say forbidding ALL political stickers is legitimate restriction an employer could promulgate.

That said, AOL can't force us to do business with them and I'll have to think hard about my Road Runner access as long as AOL isn't split off from Time Warner / Brighthouse.

[Dog Gone]

A corporation is a US citizen in both the state in which it is incorporated and the state in which it conducts its principle place of business. You can continue to argue with me about this, but you will continue to be wrong.

My law school was the University of Southern California. What was yours?

[Tall_Texan]

Unless you offer your property up as a public accommodation, you are quite secure in whatever your prejudices. I don't like hawkers bothering me myself, whether it be for a product, religion, or political candidate. My policy is to not answer the door when the doorbell rings, unless I am expecting somebody. Call first, or I am not home.

Then there was the case recently in Florida where a man defended his property by shooting a teenager in the back as he was running away after pulling a prank (ringing the doorbell and running away after midnight). The teen died.

If someone is trespassing onto your property, does he have the right not to be used for target practice?

[tpaine]

Mulder wrote;

Many enlightnened states realize this. Oklahoma was the most recent to pass a bill saying employers couldn't have a policy barring employees from keeping guns in their cars.

______________________________________


Ahh, don't you love it when the government decides to pass laws restricting people's ability to control what happens on their own property?
70 Nathaniel Fischer

_____________________________________

Amazing, eh?
81 jw07

______________________________________


When the gov't protects and reinforces the Right of individuals to defend themselves, and their Right to not have their cars searched, absolutely, YES.

The primary purpose of gov't is to protect our individual Rights.

75 Mulder


______________________________________


Amazing, eh, -- how many yahoos on FR lose sight of the primary purpose of government?

Perhaps they are so eager to pass themselves of as bona-fide 'conservatives' that they remain clueless to our basic constitutional principles, to protect an ~individuals~ right to life, liberty, & property.


A 'gun free' employee parking lot? Boy, now there's a principle worth fighting for.

Good work Mulder.

[Torie]

He most certainly does. That act is called murder, pure and simple, in all 50 states. One needs to have a reasonable belief of aa threat of personal harm, to off a trespasser, and ringer a doorbell is not trespassing in any event. You just tossed me a slow hanging curve ball.

[Mulder]

A corporation is a US citizen in both the state in which it is incorporated and the state in which it conducts its principle place of business

That is a total abomination. But it must be nice to have all the Rights of citizenship (in the eyes of the state) without the responsbilities of citizenship.

My law school was the University of Southern California. What was yours?

I've read the Constitution, so that makes me more educated than most lawyers (perhaps not you). And I'm not being flippant. I'm serious. I speak from experience.

[Dog Gone]

You can disagree with me as a matter of public policy or common sense, but you can't disagree with me based on the Constitution. You don't have a 4th Amendment right to assert against me for an unreasonable search or seizure. You probably have all kinds of LAWS against that, but the Bill of Rights only restricts the Federal government and the state governments to the extent that those rights have been extended to the various states.

If I'm your employer, I can restrict the heck out of your right to free speech or to carry a weapon, or whatever. Unfortunately, that right is being eroded, and it sounds like many here support that.

[twntaipan]

Yes. But by that reasoning, it would seem if pushed far enough, someone, at some point, could argue that a right that is specifically stated in the Bill of Rights, can only be exercised in the privacy of one's own domicile, and no where else (not in public, because it might offend someone, not in the "space" of another entity [home/business] because it offended the sensibilities of others).

Because, it seems, the right of privacy (I would assume the shopping mall asserted that as owners they had the right to determine what was allowable on their premises and no one else) is held as the preemninent of the Bill of Rights. A first, among lesser, equals, so to speak.

Free speech (which would mean, you can say it, but no one is compelled to listen to it)? Only in your home, because you have ultimate rights there.

Freedom of religion? Only in your home, for reasons mentioned above.

Right to bear arms? Only in your house (but some are hoping to change that).

Right to assemlby? Not necessarily in your home, because it might offend your neighbors (reference house church groups which are specifically banned in some locales).

Right to privacy? Not if your thoughts (assuming they do not advocate that which is unconstitutional/treasonous) are politically incorrect.

[Jorge]

Maybe AOL has good reason to be frightened of it's own employees.

[tpaine]

Well said

[TigersEye]

AOL sucks. Always has, always will.

[Torie]

One can argue anything. But until one tries to parse the competing considerations, constitutional, public policy, and plain old common sense, in a thorough anjd even handed way, one isn't contributing much of anything.

[Mulder]

I'll concede that forbidding firearms on the property is a legitimate right of a business enterprise, assuming proper notice was provided.

Suppose the gov't passed laws that made it possible for AOL to buy up every other company in the US for pennies on the dollar. Then AOL could ban guns everywhere! And that would be fine for some folks.

Of course, it will never go to that degree, but all large companies are beneficiaries of corporate welfare to some degree. The gov't makes them "winners", while making small businesses and individuals "losers". It's in the tax code. It's in the civil rights laws. Etc....

So in a sense, gov't can enact their edicts through so-called "private" corporations. The corporations do what gov't wants (bans guns, recognizes same sex marriages, etc....) and the gov't gives them contracts or changes tax law to help them.

But I'm getting off track here. Individuals have unalienable Rights, which include the Right to own property (cars), bear arms, speak freely, etc.... No gov't or no authority has any power to infringe upon them. Individual Rights trump "corporate rights" every time.

[Dog Gone]

The point is that corporations have both the rights and responsibilities of any other citizen. Do you have the right to prevent a guest from coming into your house with a gun?

I would hope you would say yes, because you could prevent a guest from coming into your house for any reason you choose. Nobody has a right to come into your house without a court order over your objection.

If AOL wants to have this rule and enforce it, that's their decision and they'll have to live with whatever consequences that entails.

But their policy is neither illegal or unconstitutional unless local state law has overridden their property rights.

[NonValueAdded]

Here is the Florida Statute on Corporations:

607.0302 General powers.--Unless its articles of incorporation provide otherwise, every corporation has perpetual duration and succession in its corporate name and has the same powers as an individual to do all things necessary or convenient to carry out its business and affairs, including without limitation power: (1) to ... yada yada yada [emphasis added]

The bold clause tells me a corporation and an individual are not completely equal, at least in Florida. And I didn't go to law school but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn once.

[sarasmom]

I can cause more lethal damage with my "unarmed" automobile, than I have ever caused with my unseen thigh holstered gun.

I prefer my gun, for accuracy, but if all I have left for self defense is the overwhelming force of my automobile, well, don't come asking for insurance damages if you are inadvertantly injured while I defend myself with the only means you think I should have immediately available.
Do you feel safer now?

I am a much better shooter with a gun than I am with my car...

[tpaine]

My law school was the University of Southern California.

If I'm your employer, I can restrict the heck out of your right to free speech or to carry a weapon, or whatever.

Unfortunately, that right is being eroded, and it sounds like many here support that.
107 Dog Gone

______________________________________


USC law school taught you that employers have right to "restrict the heck out of your right to free speech or to carry a weapon, or whatever"?

You should sue the bastards.

[Cincinnatus.45-70]

Actually, I tried to read the link through AOL. but for some reason, it's not working. You don't suppose AOL ... no, they wouldn't do that, would they?

[Mulder]

You probably have all kinds of LAWS against that, but the Bill of Rights only restricts the Federal government and the state governments to the extent that those rights have been extended to the various states

What about when the corporation *is* the government de facto? I'd be interested in your thoughts here.

If the gov't owned the corporation 100%, could they then have license to infringe upon all individual Rights?

What if the percentage is only 50%? Or 1%?

Or what if they don't own it, but pass laws making it impossible for anyone else to compete with the company?

If I'm your employer, I can restrict the heck out of your right to free speech or to carry a weapon, or whatever.

Can a man consensually surrender his Right to self-defense or Right to free speech? I think not. Consider what Sam Adams had to say:

"If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of Almighty God, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.”"

Certainly no third party can deprive a man of his Rights, if even he himself cannot surrender them.

Keep in mind, we're not talking about employees who want to open a shooting range on company property, or clean their guns while they should be working.

We are talking about the Rights of individuals to bear arms for defense of themselves, their property, and their nation. No power on earth has the moral authority to deprive them of that Right and duty.

[Dog Gone]

How so? I have the power as an individual to do everything necessary and convenient, except that I haven't won the Lotto yet.