Posted on 12/11/2004 6:07:04 AM PST by Mr. Mojo
Because it's on my property. You don't have to park it on my property if you don't want to.
Do you accept the terms and conditions of the job?
Now you have to come up with a law that made it illegal for employers to disallow guns on their property.
The Second does not apply in that case, as it restricts the Federal Government from placing restrictions on your right to keep and bear arms, and does not apply to private citizens on private property.
I'll ask again...did YOU take the Oath of Citizenship?
There's no violation of law here - simply one property owner consenting to a search of his property by another.
You never answered - how much money will you be donating to my legal defense fund?
If you invite me onto your property, you invite my rights with me, including my GUN.
If you want no guns on your property, invite noone.
BTW, employees do NOT give up their rights for pay, except for US Military (US v. Feres, 1957).
I did not ask whether you had Pledge Allegiance to the flag, I asked whether you had taken the Oath of Citizenship.
You claimed that everyone was "bound" to its content.
Now...it's a rather simple question:
Did YOU ever PERSONALLY swear the Oath of Citizenship that you posted?
So then, my First Amendment rights equally supersedes property rights, and Jim has no right to ban people from this forum with whom he disagrees.
If your argument is correct, then so is mine, and I know you know that mine is not correct.
If by law you must refrain from searching their person and property and thus are unable to ascertain their possession of drugs, you should be able to defeat the asset forfeiture. So this law, if it applied to drugs as well, would probably carve out an exception to their right to seize the property of a third party, at least in the parking lot scenario. If the third party was the owner of the VEHICLE, that might be a different story.
Many things, but in the specific instance that i was alluding to, it was soil.
====
Many things, but in the specific instance that i was alluding to, it was soil
So Locke thought property was other things than just soil? What else did Locke, who you referred to, include in his definition of property?
133 posted on 12/11/2004 2:53:32 PM CST
===
No answer yet?
Luis Gonzalez wrote:
"the law has a long history of recognizing the general rule that certain contracts, though properly entered into in all other respects, will not be enforced, or at least will not be enforced fully, if found to be contrary to public policy."
Now you have to come up with a law that made it illegal for employers to disallow guns on their property.
The Second does not apply in that case, as it restricts the Federal Government from placing restrictions on your right to keep and bear arms, and does not apply to private citizens on private property.
I carry my rights with me.
If you don't like my rights, you have the right to post a sign on your private property.
Something like: YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS HERE.
Does this mean, I can't have my bible?
Even if the employer allows another to wear his face covered because of Religion?
Does this mean, the company can tell me what to eat? What to drink?
Ask the Dead Post office employees about gun security?
Ask the Xerox office employees about gun security?
Ask the Columbine students who died or their parents about gun security?
Ask the 300 Russian children and teachers about Gun security?
When, AND IT WILL HAPPEN, a school is taken over because of this STUPID GUN FREE ZONE rule in America, and students and teachers are killed, Please scream "THE LAW SAID THEY WEREN"T ALLOWED to have a GUN in SCHOOL. MAYBE then YOU"LL LEARN that CRIMINALS don't give a D*MN about Laws, I pray my Son's school isn't the 1 were more people die PROMOTING STUPIDITY.
I agree in a Perfect world, IT AIN”T gonna exist until GOD RETURNS, NOT ALLAH, we won’t need ANY Protection! Ask the People in the WORLD TRADE towers what they did to die!
Ask the 40,000 people (we know about) SADDEM, gassed, Poisoned, shot, beheaded, raped, tortured, buried alive, burned alive, maimed, what they think about GUN Control. Ask the people who die from guns in NEW YORK, and WASHINGTON (WHICH HAVE THE STRONGEST GUN LAWS IN AMERICA).
Now ask Vermont, which as the Least GUN Laws in America, and the least number deaths per person per state in America.
as that figure is about half the total murders, and about equal to all the firearm murders, I think Paul is including guys knocking over the 7-11 and drug turf killings as "work place murders"
You are seriously suggesting you have the Entitlement to search the vehicles of people who visit your home? You don't, and you don't deserve an explanation why not.
Only a moron would waste time posting that I don't deserve an explanation. I mean, why bother typing how you're not going to explain something? Just go ahead and don't explain it.
Then park at the curb....
NeverGore :^)
What about the basic Rights of the vehicle owner?
And don't give me this "he can go work elsewhere" crap.
Under such logic, a kompany could do the following:
Fire a woman for refusing to sleep with the boss.
Fire an employee with 40 years service on the day before he retires so that the korporation won't have to pay out a big pension.
Require that all employees vote for a certain candidate for political office.
And so on. And kompanies have done ALL of these things, many times over, which is one reason they are regulated. When dishonest korporations screw honest folks over, gov't gets involved, as they should when the Rights of individual citizens are at stake.
Even if the employee signed a document, before being hired, no lawful court would recognize it, since no sane man or woman would sign away their rights, unless due to fraud or force. You can't sign away your basic rights. Any such contract is "null and void".
You've gotten off on this libertarian "perfect world" tangent akin to L. Neil Smith writing about talking dolphins in a parallel universe.
While I admire the idealism of you and some of the other posters here, y'all need to deal with reality.
The reality is that 1) individual Rights (particularly the RKBA) are under full assault in this nation at all levels, and 2) the federal gov't and large korporations are getting tied closer and closer together, such that much of the national statist agenda is getting enacted at the korporate level.
As such, whenever ANY steps are taken to protect our basic Rights, I'll support it.
I honestly don't understand why so many people on this thread are taking the side of the kompany. Do y'all really believe that this judge's ruling (overturning the Oklahoma law) is the first step in a movement that will actually restore property Rights in this country?
Anyone that believes that is a sucker, at best.
But I'll tell you what. Ping me once this judge overturns ALL restrictions on "private property" and ALL restrictions on gov't infringement on the RKBA, and I might concur with your argument then.
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.