Posted on 07/23/2004 6:56:58 PM PDT by 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.
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men," Apparently, one of the reasons Governments are instituted is to protect your rights against others and to protect their rights against you.
Dog Gone wrote:
"It's very difficult to try a company for murder"
______________________________________
Has any company EVER been tried for murder?
If 'it' was convicted, who served time?
Are you ~really~ sure you went to USC Law School? -- Perhaps you attended their School of Dramatic Arts by mistake?
How 'bout the other way around? So I don't have the right to fire an employee if they had an "Impeach Bush" sticker on their car? Try to tell me I couldn't.
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.
Of course not. You are free to procure other employment if you don't like the rules.
I am stunned that AOL would bother to act on such a minor infraction. I have to wonder how it was ever discovered in the first place, and if the real issue wasn't an alarming lack of discretion on the part of the employees.
I take it you have issue with Texas Right to Work laws?
The point went over your head, but I'm not surprised.
I don't do business with these half wits.
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=827
AOL Fires Gun Owners
by Sarah Thompson, M.D.
Director, Utah Gun Owners Alliance
http://www.UTGOA.org
America Online, http://www.aol.com, has been known to gun owners for some time for their support of anti-gun organizations and policies. They’ve donated large sums of money to liberal, anti-gun Democrat organizations to support people like Dianne Feinstein, Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy.
More recently, they’ve canceled accounts for firearms related web sites on the grounds that such material is no different from “pornography”. Never mind that guns are entirely legal items owned by tens of millions of Americans. Never mind that AOL doesn’t seem to think that disgustingly offensive rock music is a problem.
Now, in another step towards the final elimination of gun owners from “civilized society”, AOL has fired three exemplary workers for having firearms in their cars in order to go shooting at a range on their own time!
The three employees are Luke Hansen, Jason Melling and Paul Carlson. All three worked as “partner technical consultants” at AOL’s Ogden, Utah facility, doing higher level technical support. The Ogden facility employs about 850 people, according to AOL’s web site, and “handles a range of technical, billing, third-party and sales calls”. According to Mr. Hansen, they had worked at AOL for two to four years, and all had good employee records and good reviews from their supervisors. Unfortunately (at least from AOL’s point of view), the three young men also enjoy shooting.
On September 14, 2000, Luke, Jason and Paul met after work in the AOL parking lot to go shooting at the gun range near Eden, Utah. In order to carpool to the range, Jason and Paul transferred their firearms from their own cars to Luke’s truck, a matter of carrying them a few yards. Jason transferred a .30-06 hunting rifle and a 9mm Smith & Wesson handgun. Both firearms were unloaded and in cases. Paul transferred a .45 long Colt “cowboy style” pistol and a 7.63 X .39 KBI. The Colt was in a holster, and both firearms were unloaded. The handguns had trigger locks in place. Luke’s firearms were in his truck and he never touched Jason or Paul’s firearms. At no time did they brandish or handle the firearms in a threatening or unsafe manner. Luke and Paul hold valid Utah concealed weapons permits, and Jason is in the process of obtaining one, so all three are familiar with safe handling and Utah laws.
Although all three of them worked during the subsequent three days, nothing about the firearms was mentioned. However, on Monday, Sept. 18, all three were fired for “violating AOL’s employee policy” which states that firearms are forbidden on company property, including the parking lot. According to Luke, although no one complained, an overzealous security guard saw the firearms on a video surveillance tape and reported the alleged violations.
AOL does have its firearms policy posted inside the front and back doors of the building, stating that firearms are not permitted in the building or in the parking lot, and all three employees were aware of this policy. However, they were also aware that AOL’s policy violates Utah state law. AOL states that it is a “secure facility”, although under Utah law secure facilities can be designated only by the legislature, and include places such as courts, airports, mental health facilities, and prisons. By definition, a place open to the public cannot be a “secure facility”, and AOL’s parking lot is open to the public. (Actually, it’s a group of marked stalls in a public parking lot.) In addition, a secure facility is required to provide locked safe storage for anyone lawfully carrying a firearm, and accept responsibility for stored firearms, something that AOL clearly was not equipped to do.
On a previous occasion about two months ago, the three men had also transferred firearms after work, and had been reported to management. At that time, Luke Hansen met with AOL’s General Manager, Sarah McElwee. At that time, he explained to Ms. McElwee that while AOL might be able to restrict firearms in the building, it could not restrict firearms in a public parking lot, and that AOL did not meet the criteria for a “secure facility”. Mr. Hansen says he thought the matter was resolved at the time, although no written changes were made to AOL’s policy. Ironically, Ms. McElwee’s husband is known for the very fine firearms he makes!
By definition, a place open to the public cannot be a “secure facility”, and AOL’s parking lot is open to the public. (Actually, it’s a group of marked stalls in a public parking lot.) In addition, a secure facility is required to provide locked safe storage for anyone lawfully carrying a firearm, and accept responsibility for stored firearms, something that AOL clearly was not equipped to do.
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.
Obviously, it's not a principle that you or I would fight for, but you as a libertarian should agree that an employer has the right to set whatever restrictions it wants on its property.
Within reason, yes.
A 'gun free parking lot' is not a reasonable goal. There are a multitude of good & legal reasons for having a weapon secured in your car. It is against public policy to unnecessarily & unreasonably restrict individual rights to life, liberty or property.
Whatever
If an employer were to force an employee to stick on one party's sticker or remove the other party's sticker, a very strong case could be made that the employer's rights did not extend to making the employee choose a party to continue employment. However, if ALL political advertisements were banned in order not to offend customers, if would likely be upheld as a business-related right.
What! it wasn't AOL property and all the Corporation Idolators here were blowin smoke? Isn't that just too perfect?
You are incorrect about this. The Constitution does not confer any right to any corporation. The corporation owns the property, the corporation has no rights under the Constitution, only individuals do.
Time after time cases are won on this issue by kids in public schools who have been told they could not wear t-shirts with Confederate flags or religious messages. There are also numerous cases, three of which I have been personlly involved in as a paralegal, where an employee as been told he could not have religious or political symbols in his office or cubicle, and the employee wins.
Our rights do not cease to exist at the door or in the parking lot of our employers. The employer could have a policy of no smoking in the building or even on the property because smoking is not protected by the Constitution. But this judge has allowed a corporation to set up a zone where the Constitution is void.
Doesn't matter. The Constitution enumerates the rights of "the people", not "the people and all entities situated therein."
And I didn't go to law school, but I have read the Constitution.
I started with AOL in 1994 and left them in 1995, one year was enough for me as well.
The chances of me using them again, slim and none.
Unless the government forces all employers to ban firearms(*), you have every right to seek out an employer who won't.
(*) Unfortunately, the courts are trying to do precisely that.
As soon as I read this post, I remembered the case..
I KNEW I had read that the employees weren't in an AOL parking lot, but on "other property", and that AOL didn't have a claim on that basis alone..
Even if AOL "rents" the spaces from the parking lot owner, they DO NOT OWN THEM..
As a "renter" and not an "owner" of the property, they have no "right" to interfere with a gun owners rights...
( At least IMHO.... )
Not at all. They have the right to hire and fire as they please (with the excetions written into law for race, religion, etc., even in Texas). But that isn't what's being argued here. AOL essentially discriminated against a class of people (gun-owning employees) and likely in such a way as to show bias against someone carrying a firearm in their vehicle as opposed to any other deadly weapon like a knife, a baseball bat or a suitcase nuke. Unless AOL can go through everyone's trunk every morning so as to catch all violators of the policy, I think a legal case can be made that a class of people was systematically discrimanted against and a legal case can be made to forbid the policy or make it more equitable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.