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.
You're confusing corporations with people. A corporation does NOT have the same Rights as an individual that owns property.
Keep in mind that the primary reason corporations were founded was to avoid individual responsibility. With Rights comes responsibitlies, and corporations want the best of both worlds. Screw them.
No reason the employees can't leave the weapon at home
Should they leave their Bibles at home also? Or any other items that some company bozo might find offensive. People have a Right to have whatever they like in their private vehicle.
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.
This is dim. You have no "right" to drive you, your car or your gun onto my property. Just like you and your clothes have no right to walk in my house. But if you did, I would not be so kind as AOL was.
What a about a persons pants? Or dress? Can AOL now demand strip searches? What about body orifices? Can AOL check "up there"?
If their company policy states they do internal body searches, then I would suggest you bend over and spread'em or look elsewhere for work.
What gives you the idea that you can do as you damn well please on somebody elses property or set the rules as the employee is beyond my capacity to understand.
All of them. The Constitution does not confer any right to free speech, etc., on someone else's private property w/o their permission. As I said, a company that would restrict such things (guns, bumper stickers, and so on) is evil, but I don't want property rights compromised for anyone.
If the guns are not locked away in the vehicle, I have no problem with AOL's rights. I do have a problem, though, if the guns are locked away and are unaccessable except by the owner.
It presumes that someone may commit a crime with the gun on their premises - that's a major leap of logic.
What if somebody had marijuana in their glove compartment or cigarettes on the dashboard? Does the employer have a right to fire you because you drove a vehicle with either of these in your possession? How far do we want to take this concept?
And, somehow, I'd imagine AOL wouldn't be bright enough to fire a Middle Easterner with five tons of dynomite parked in his U-Haul on company property.
I hope this gets appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. This would appear to be a fourth admendment challenge to unlawful search and seizure. It's not like the guns are being brought into the workplace just because they are locked away in the parking lot.
Yes, if company policy bars all religious stuff in the office.
A little biased headline...
AOL can fire employees that bring their firearms onto AOLs property.
As it has always been.. ones 2nd ammendment rights don't trump private property owners rights to say no guns here.
Property rights are constitutional rights but you wouldn't know it sometimes here on FR.
So you think companies should be able to fire people for being too old, or the wrong color, or for not putting out?
I understand that some folks will answer "yes", on the basic principle of Freedom of association, and this doesn't mean that they condone the behavior.
However, there are laws preventing companies from firing folks for a host of reasons. Repealling these laws will be next to impossible, as well as a waste of time. So as gunowners, we should jump on the bandwagon instead of being a "chump" and letting companies trample on us.
I have to come down on the side of the employers here, even if I disagree with their policy
If this was Pete's Hardware Store, and "Pete" was the owner, then maybe I would agree. Pete is an individual and has the Right to hire and fire whomever he pleases in his private store. But in this case, it's a corporation. A corporation is NOT an individual, and does NOT have the same Rights as individuals have.
The Bill of Rights protects you against the government, not other private citizens, including businesses.
Yeah, but we have many more Rights than just the ones enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
I'm not trying to pick a fight--I just am not sure that I agree with the notion that because I drive into an employer's parking lot something that is, in almost all other instances, a legal activity or item, suddenly becomes verbotten because it offends the political sensibilities of the employer.
The "solution" is just to park your car off AOL property. Just a thought.
You said: So, I wonder if this right extends to business owners whether to allow smoking on their property?...JFK
The law in most states, and here in NC, is that an employer can fire an employee for any reason or no reason, as long as it is not an illegal reason, i.e., based on gender, race, national origin, religion, etc. and for a couple of policy reasons, such as whistle-blowing. Otherwise, both the employer and the employee have the right to terminate employment at will. AOL could have terminated the employees for just owning a gun, or using a gun, or being able to spell "gun" if it wishes to. An employer can fire or refuse to hire a smoker, also, whether they smoke on the job or not. Similarly, an employee can quit if he/she does not like the policy, and customers can use another service if they like. I disagree with AOL's policy, but I think it is legal.
But by your logic, driving a car to the office, and leaving a Bible in the trunk (which is where the guns were kept) would be banned as well.
The odd thing, it that this came down in Utah. LOL.
Lets turn it around. Can I walk into your house whenever I feel like it? If I come to your house dressed in a manner that offends your sensibilities can you not ask me to leave?
There's gotta be more to this story. I asked above but nobody has yet answered. How did AOL know there were weapons in the trunk???? Inquiring minds and all that.
Look at it this way. What restrictions do you think you'd accept about ordering people off your front lawn? Perhaps you'd be willing to let them be there with pro-Kerry signs?
Perhaps you'd be willing to let them be there with pro-Kerry signs and shotguns?
It's their stinkin' property just like any property you or I own, and why don't they get to make the rules?
I do. AOL is *not* an individual. They are a corporation, which by it's very existence is meant to separate the individuals running the company from the corporation, in a legal sense. You can't have individual Rights, without the responsiblities that come with those Rights. Corporations want it both ways, and many so-called "conservatives" want to give it to them.
AOL can regulate its workplace as it sees fit.
No they can't. There are thousands of federal laws that see to this. If every other group gets "protection", then gunowners and others who wish to have privacy insofar as their private vehicle is concerned, might as well jump on the bandwagon.
What sanctions might AOL use if a *customer* drove to their property to talk to the customer service folks? If an AOL customer is allowed to park without his car being searched, why should the employees be forced to comply? Wouldn't the customer, in theory, be just as potentially dangerous as the employee?
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.