Gun owners claim right to take their rifles to work

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

[jonestown]

Melas wrote:

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.

---

General Principles Regarding Illegal Contracts
           
As one authority has noted, "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." 

"No principle of law is better settled than that a party to an illegal contract cannot come into a court of law and ask to have his illegal objects carried out . .
The courts generally will not enforce an illegal bargain or lend their assistance to a party who seeks compensation for an illegal act.
Such agreements are "traditionally referred to as 'illegal contracts,'" even though they "are functionally described as contracts unenforceable on grounds of public policy." Statutes require that a contract have "a lawful object", otherwise the contract is void.
A contract that has as its object a violation of law is "against the policy of the law." 

[Luis Gonzalez]

Yes you do, as long as you have informed me that you retain that right. I'm certain that employees were forewarned of possible searches just like they are forewarned of possible random drug testing.

Do you oppose the mandatory random drug testing policies by employers?

[Luis Gonzalez]

If you are too stupid to understand what you signed, then you're too stupid to own a gun.

[Melas]

Oh well. Full circle. We arne't ever going to agree. If I were you however, I'd not test your theories in court.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You continue to lie and misrepresent the facts; no employer has infringed on anyone's right to carry a gun to and from work, you just believe that you are entitled to a parking spot on someone else's property under your own conditions. Not a surprising thing considering that you are a part of the entitlement generation who believes in communal ownership.

[Luis Gonzalez]

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

No one has made any laws.

A property owner has set conditions for the access and use of his private property.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"...the right to self defense..."

There is no Constitutional right to self defense.

[Luis Gonzalez]

All citizens are not required to take the Oath of citizenship, as thus, nothing "binds" natural-born citizens to defend anything.

[jonestown]

"No principle of law is better settled than that a party to an illegal contract cannot come into a court of law and ask to have his illegal objects carried out . .

The courts generally will not enforce an illegal bargain or lend their assistance to a party who seeks compensation for an illegal act.

Such agreements are "traditionally referred to as 'illegal contracts,'"

201 jones

---

If I were you however, I'd not test your theories in court.

204 Melas

---

The above quotes aren't "theories", they are well tested legal facts .

[Luis Gonzalez]

You consider your gun, locked in your car in the parking lot, a method of self-defense against work place violence?


What you are saying is once you have safely exited the building where the shooting may be taking place, self-defense would dictate that you re-enter the building and place yourself in harm's way?

You would not be there for self-defense, you would be there for something totally unrelated to self-defense.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Where does the Second say that you have the right to self-defense?

[Luis Gonzalez]

Do you for one minute believe that this employer searched anyone's vehicle without first making random searches a condition of employment, or at least notifying employees of the possibility of a search taking place?

[jonestown]

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?

193 jonestown

---

You continue to lie and misrepresent the facts; no employer has infringed on anyone's right to carry a gun to and from work,

205 posted on 12/12/2004 1:36:39 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez

---

There are several threads here that document such infringements.
Employers are infringing, as this threads article says:

"In recent years companies have been implementing anti-gun policies in an attempt to cut down on violence at the work place.

Several companies are trying to block the

[jonestown]

There is no Constitutional right to self defense.

207 Luis Gonzalez

---

Our RKBA's is protected from infringement in the 2nd Amendment, and the 9th makes clear that all other rights not enumerated are "retained by the people".

[jimthewiz]

I don't see this as a 2nd Amendment issue at all, but as a private property issue.

You may be right about 2nd amendment rights, but what is your defense for the violation of the 4th amendment? I believe that the Constitution trumps private property rights in this case.

Fourth Amendment - Search and Seizure
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

[Luis Gonzalez]

I'm looking for that constitutional right to self defense that you've been harping on for days now.

Property rights are set in the State charters and statutes, and "the people" include THE PEOPLE who own that parking lot...what of their rights?

[Luis Gonzalez]

If you accept a job, with the understanding that your vehicle may be searched for guns, then the search is not unreasonable.

[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

---

All citizens are not required to take the Oath of citizenship, as thus, nothing "binds" natural-born citizens to defend anything.
208 LG

---

All natural born citizens are bound to support and defend the Constitution regardless of oaths.
We are free to renounce our citizenship if we decline to do so, just as are naturalized citizens.

Regardless of citizenship status, all people in the USA must obey the Constitution.
-- In the past, those who have refused to defend the USA have even been interned for a wars duration.

[longtermmemmory]

this is not roll back of laws, this is PROGRESS for individual rights.

The primitives who seek to impose comunism one obscure law at a time are being left in the dust bin of failure.

[jonestown]

Luis Gonzalez wrote:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


Where does the Second say that you have the right to self-defense?

---

One of the purposes of arms is the "security of a free State".

In using arms to defend that free state, I am also defending my own self interests, my own state of being.

Get it?