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.
Does this also mean they also own your car once it hits their property? Or they have a right to search your car for what ever reason they trump up? Screw AOL. They will never get my business.
Late at night, or daylight for that matter, have you ever driven though certain parts of Kansas City or St Louis, Missouri on your way home from work?
Personally, I would prefer an armed and armored motorcade.
The road, which I own, to my house is a quarter mile long. Which parts of it should I allow folks to carry guns on?
Well I am not going to bet. You are armed and dangerous when it comes to Constitutional Law. What little I know, I typically have to look up. And I am relying on memory on this one. That won't cut it.
Good point.
Unless I'm thinking about another case I thought the employees in this one were not parked on AOL property but next to it in a lot some employees use when some liberal bed wetters saw the guns and whined about it.
IIRC the employees were transferring firearms from the truck of one car to trunk of another to go hunting.
What would be the situation if AOL had a policy of "no newspapers on the premises" and a few employees were caught with copies of the New York Times? Any difference you think?
First amendment/second ammendment.
I bet that if people would look at many of the larger corporations you'd find they have rules against employees having fire arms, alcohol, drugs, etc in their possession on the company property.... Thus in your car, locked up is in your possession and if it's on the company property [parking lot] then it's a violation.
No, but they do have the right to require you to submit to a search if you park on their property.
This is probably a situation where somebody "finked" on a fellow employee and started all this. AOL was probably more than happy to follow up on it.
But you really don't appreciate your rights as a property owner. You can require them to do anything you want as a condition of their existence on your property. The idea that you have to wait until they are loitering until a trespass law is violated is silly.
My point was to see where the property rights of the person who happens to be an employee ends (or starts) and the corporations starts (ends). If you assert that AOL controls anything on their property just because it's on their property that absurd.
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.
Tell ya what, the next time someone uses your driveway to turn around in please run out and douse the car with gasoline and set it aflame. To really test your "property rights" I suggest doing this with a police car. But call me first, I want to watch.
Sadly, in my neck of the woods, literally, you'd have to knock off three of those zeros. But I'm a happy guy nonetheless.
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.
I don't give a rat's behind about corporations (they weren't even around at the time of our founding).
How about the New Hampshire resident that had a concealed carry permit, but worked in Massachusetts, he and 5 other people were killed in the work place?
Many employers can not protect employees on the job let alone to and from work !
I am sure A O L will protect their employees to and from work. (sarcasm)
=======
You are evidently one of the only posters here with a brain. I just love the RINOS who defer to the lawyers and say their decision "protecting" Time-Warner and stripping the employee's right to defend themselves to and from work is the "right" decision. I thought this was a conservative website?
Come over any time. When somebody drives on my property uninvited and parks themselves on my posted raod they get a visit from me and ole betsy. No repeat customers so far.
It surely should be forbidden at postal offices...
Oh really? So I can put a sign in my yard saying that all women that came on my property had to buy me dinner, and then I can call the cops when they refuse?
No, but they do have the right to require you to submit to a search if you park on their property.
BS. Corporations don't have "rights". Only individuals do.
THIS AIN'T ABOUT HUNTING!!!!!!! And yes, I was shouting!!!!! It's about my personal right to self defense to and from work or any other place I may be!
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.