Gun owners claim right to take their rifles to work

Telegraph ^ | 11/12/04 | Alec Russell in Valliant and Scott Heiser in Washington

[Modok]

The only rights being attacked here, are the property rights of the business owner, whose rights to control access and use of his own property is being overturned by the Federal government in favor of the communal belief that you are entitled to property rights on someone else's property.
===
Because someones property is parked on your property does not make the other persons property yours. It is still theirs, not yours. You may ask them to remove their property off of your property, but you have no rights to enter what is theirs what is in their property. You are violating their property rights if you do, whether the law allows you to do so or not. You want all the respect for your rights but offer no respect for the property rights of others in return.

[gitmo]

I don't think we can give property rights supremacy over the right to bear arms. Property rights aren't even enumerated in the Constitution, although they most definitely fall into the Tenth Amendment The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

But the Second Amendment is the only Amendment in the Bill of Rights that doesn't talk about the Government. The 1st Amendment says the CONGRESS shall make no law ... The 3rd talks about the military quartering soldiers in private homes. The 4th is protection against unreasonable search and seizure by the government.

But the Second Amendment quite simply says ... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. I read that to mean that no one can infringe that right. Not the government nor anyone else.

So I think it's a mistake to assume a unenumerated right takes precedence over the most broadly defined of all the enumerated ones.

[Modok]

Never post while putting up Christmas decorations!

===
Because someones property is parked on your property does not make that persons property yours. It is still theirs, not yours. You may ask them to move their property off of your property and they should comply, but you have no rights to enter their property. You are violating their property rights if you enter their property. You want all people to respect your property rights but offer no respect for the property rights of others.

[Dead Corpse]

But the Second Amendment quite simply says ... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. I read that to mean that no one can infringe that right. Not the government nor anyone else.

You, me, and anyone else that has read and understood the Constitution and the writings of the Founders.

The Powers that Be have a vested interest in keeping us vulnerable and compliant. By hook or by crook.

[jonestown]





Luis Gonzalez wrote:

Your statement was that we are ALL bound to protect the Constitution is false, ---

---

The Constitution of No Authority

by Lysander Spooner - 1869


The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. and the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them.



The constitution of no authority
Address:http://www.morethings.com/philosophy/no-treason.html

[Abogado]

For your hypothesis just one, where does a property owner obtain the authority to infringe with my right to bear arms once I am off your property - such as on my way to or from your property? I have observed domestic violence cases (homicide) where the perp purposely arranged to attack the normally armed victim on the way home from her work. She was well trained and had a CCW - there was little doubt she could have defended herself but for her employer's disarmament policy. Property rights only extend to the end of the property. Even most court houses have lock boxes...

[nevergore]

The apparent lack of consistent logic in your reply makes it difficult to respond however note the following points.

1. The "employer" didn't pass a law, simply set requirements for conduct and allowed behavior on it's property.

2. The "employee" can park his car at the curb and not on the employers property.

3. The "employee" was well aware of his employers requirements while on "company" property.

4. Just because the "employer" allows private vehicles on company property does not mean you can carry anything in your vehicle while there.

If you do not like the conditions of employment set forth by your employer you can either seek to comply, change them or find a new job that meets your criteria.

Employers set many conditions of employment that I may not agree with or may not but it's their private property right. Dress, haircuts, general appearance, conduct etc.

Some, like Coke, set standards for off premises behavior such as if a Coke employee is seen drinking a Pepsi product in their off time the employee is subject to dismissal. You don't like these employment requirements, find another job. If this gentleman did not like the gun carry requirements of his employer, he didn't have to park on their property and could have parked at the curb.

BTW, I've carried concealed for 20+ years, a lifetime NRA member and a staunch defender of gun rights...but I never would carry my weapon onto someone else's private property after they stated I could not come on their property with a weapon, regardless of how I secured it.

NeverGore :^)

[Luis Gonzalez]

They don't, and I've never said that they do.

On another thread titled "Where does a company's right to prohibit guns stop?", my original response is still my position at this time:

"At the edge of their property."

A private business has the right not to allow you on their property with a weapon, and they do have the right to set work place regulations (please, don't start throwing up strawmen argument about rape and forced sex). So do government offices by way, try carrying a gun into a Federal Courthouse one of these days.

The employee's decision then becomes whether to NOT have a gun in their vehicle, to park the vehicle off premises, or to seek work elsewhere.

In order to protect free speech we have to accept (and defend) speech that we disagree with, in order to protect religious freedom we have to accept (and defend) religions that we find distasteful, in order to defend government by the people, we have to accept (and defend) the right of people with whom we disagree to participate in the electoral system, and in order to protect our own personal property rights, we have to accept (and defend) the ability of others to set conditions of access and use of their own property, even if we disagree with their conditions.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Hear, hear!!!

[Luis Gonzalez]

The Constitution is a document limiting the actions of government, and setting the standards on how it is run.

Get yourself educated...and while you're at it, learn some HTML.

The Constitution is citizens telling government how to do their job...in effect, the Constitution is the workplace rules set by the employers (the people) for the employees (the government).

If the employees violate the workplace rules set forth by the Constitution, they get fired.

You want to honor and defend the Constitution?

Honor and defend property rights.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Because someones property is parked on your property does not make the other persons property yours. It is still theirs, not yours."

So, you do agree then that the mere fact that your car is parked on my property does not give you property to my property, and with it the right to dictate conditions of access and use?

[Modok]

It does not make my property yours nor does it give you the right to know what it is. You are wanting to extend your rights to destroy mine. If I park my vehicle on your property, by what right do you have access to procedes of the sweat of my brow. If you do not like that and ask me to move my vehicle off your property I will move it, but you have no right to access the contents of it.

[jonestown]

Your statement was that we are ALL bound to protect the Constitution is false, --
173 Luis Gonzalez

---

False? How an you claim that we are not bound to support & defend the Constitution, when the oath of citizenship clearly says otherwise?

As I said, -- those of us born here and who choose to stay in this country as citizens - [and anyone is free to renounce citizenship] - are bound to support & defend the Constitution, -- just as naturalized citizens pledge in their oath of citizenship.
180 jones

---

Luis Gonzalez wrote:

The Constitution is a document limiting the actions of government, and setting the standards on how it is run.
The Constitution is citizens telling government how to do their job...in effect, the Constitution is the workplace rules set by the employers (the people) for the employees (the government).
If the employees violate the workplace rules set forth by the Constitution, they get fired.
You want to honor and defend the Constitution?
Honor and defend property rights.

---

I honor & defend all of our rights.

-- And when an employer infringes on an employees right to carry arms to & from work, -- I protest that violation. -- Why don't you?

[Modok]

If your car is parked on my property will you let me search it? Do I or do I not have a right to search it? You seem to think that I do.

[jonestown]

Modok:
"Because someones property is parked on your property does not make the other persons property yours. It is still theirs, not yours."

---

So, you do agree then that the mere fact that your car is parked on my property does not give you property to my property, and with it the right to dictate conditions of access and use?
191 Luis Gonzalez

---

The mere fact that your private property [a car] is parked on company property does not give the employer the right to dictate what private property [arms] can be locked within.

Amazing that such a simple Constitutional concept can be opposed by conservatives.

[Melas]

If your car is parked on my property will you let me search it? Do I or do I not have a right to search it? You seem to think that I do.

What you and others seem to be missing is that when you sign an agreement allowing your employer to search your car, or sign and agreement limiting what you can have in your vehicle, then you've VOLUNTARILY surrendered your right.

[Melas]

Yes, and it's foolish and dangerous in my opinion. It's also their right as individuals and companies to do whatever they want. If another company requires as a condition of employment that every employee must carry a gun, I'd support that as well.

I believe that is a condition of employment at the NRA.

[jonestown]

What you and others seem to be missing is that when you sign an agreement allowing your employer to search your car, or sign and agreement limiting what you can have in your vehicle, then you've VOLUNTARILY surrendered your right.
196 Melas

---

What you and others seem to be missing is that when you sign an agreement allowing your employer to search your car, or sign and agreement limiting what you can have in your vehicle, then you've INVOLUNTARILY been coerced into believing you've 'surrendered' a right.

Your employer has no reasonable, legal/constitutional basis to disarm you on your way to & from work.
Such agreements are legally unenforcable.

[Melas]

BS. It's simple contract law. You agree to abide by the conditions of the contract in order to park in your employer's lot. If you don't like the rules, pay the $5 and park in private lot.

[mamelukesabre]

I heard in san fran, they decided that having sex in a car was not the same as having sex in public, even if the car was on public property. in other words, your car is your own personal mobile house and that a private property bubble followed your vehicle wherever it went and so did your property rights.

Well, if that's how they see it, then they shouldn't be allowed to make any laws restricting guns in vehicles.