Posted on 12/11/2004 6:07:04 AM PST by Mr. Mojo
It makes about as much sense keeping a law-abiding citizen from having a firearm near a school, as it does making pilots jump through hoops in order to have a handgun handy to stop terrorists. Yes, they COULD make a mistake and accidentally hurt or kill an innocent passenger or two. Then again, the pilot COULD make a flying mistake that makes his plane go down with hundreds killed. By the same token, a law-abiding citizen, COULD make a mistake with their firearm, but they also COULD accidentally run down a bunch of kids at the school with their vehicle.
ALL of these scenarios are remote (with the flying error and the driving accident MUCH more likely than an accident or misuse of a firearm sitting in a holster, briefcase, or glove box), so why have a law that makes no sense?
Employers can legally make it a condition of employment that you not own any firearms.
Employers and employees make an agreement as to their relationship. Either party is free to quit or fire if they do not like the terms of such agreement.
This is why, if as a business owner, you choose to disarm EVERYONE, you are 100% culpable for any "pissed off or unstable employees" killing us or hurting us. I get so much as a bruise because of your victim disarmament rules and I'll not only file civil, but CRIMINAL, charges against you for failure to adaquately provide for our defense.
This argument is over and above the fact that everything on the indside of my vehicle is not yours and you have no jurisdiction there.
If the employer has a posted sign " all vehicles subject to search" you DO NOT have the right that your car not be searched, once on the property, as a matter of fact your vehicle may be searched without your permission! Just ask anyone who works at a defense contractor!, nuclear power plant, or major port!
Looks like these guys have learned well from liberals: if you don't like your employer's rules, go whine to the government and have the government force the employer to change those rules.
Gee your wrong again! First where I live there has been 3 major shootings by pissed off/ unstable employees { it's called going postal}, second if the employer has a posted "NO WEAPONS ALLOWED" sign, or it's in the employee handbook, the employer is NOT culpable, the offending employee is, and your civil suit would be laughed out of court!
You can legally make it a condition of their parking on your property that they allow you to search their car. If they refuse, you can ban them from parking on your property.
All of them. Your employer can fire you for a good reason (you're drunk on the job), a bad reason (he doesn't like the fact that you wore a green shirt to work) or no reason at all (usually the best approach- just fire someone and don't give them any reason).
There are some limitiations, such as racial, gender etc, discrimination. However, gunowners are not a protected class. Your employer can legally fire you for exercising your 2nd Amendment rights.
Unless the company parking lot or employee handbook says "NO WEAPONS PERMITTED ON COMPANY PROPERTY"
An employer can pass such rules. You're free to quit and work elsewhere if your employer is a jackass.
Searches without a warrent are illegal. Period. Your shameless bleating notwithstanding.
This is in fact how it has worked at many employers where I've seen this policy. It's a feckless policy, as most companies lack the resources to effectively search even the small samplings that are done for window dressing. So the policy effectively only disarms the compliant, assuring that any evil-doer will have fewer capable responders to deal with. The policy fails at both making the collective environment safer, as well as infringing on individual security. Only governemnt installations can afford the necessary real technology and manpower to effectively carry out these policies.
I have the means to protect myself. You remove that means and YOU are now culpable for my protection. Period. You turn your business into a free fire zone for every wacko with a grude and it is YOU who are responsible.
As stated ad nauseum, the inside of my car is not YOUR PROPERTY you gun grabbing commie. Unless you, as a business owner are making payments for me on my vehicle, you HAVE NO PROPERTY CLAIM to my vehicle of its contents.
Dear Dead Corpse,
"Searches without a warrent are illegal."
Warrantless searches as a condition to admission to a property are not illegal. I am regularly searched when I enter federal facilities. If I wish to bring my car on those facilities, it is subject to search. There are private facilities where this is true, as well.
The reason is that if I don't want to be searched, I can avoid it, legally, by just refraining from entering onto the property.
sitetest
Here is another story from:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a248982.htm
If You Want to Stop a Killer, You Have to Speak His Language
In Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control (1997), Florida State University criminologist Dr. Gary Kleck observes that "most defensive uses of guns do not in fact involve shooting anyone.... More commonly, guns are merely pointed at another person, or perhaps only referred to ... or displayed, and this is sufficient to accomplish the ends of the user...."
The point was underscored on October 1st of last year after 16-year-old Luke Woodham, a student at Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi, allegedly stabbed his mother to death in her home, then opened fire on students at the school with a .30-30 rifle, killing two and wounding seven. Woodham was eventually apprehended by an assistant principal armed with a handgun. Had he instead escaped, he would presumably have continued his killing spree elsewhere. Madison County investigators subsequently revealed that they had uncovered evidence of Woodham's involvement in a secret satanic society which had compiled a hit list of other students and parents. Six other youths allegedly involved in the cult were subsequently arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit murder.
Assistant Pearl High School principal Joel Myrick, in addition to his school duties, is a commander in the Army Reserve with 16 years of military experience and extensive training in firearms use and safety. He recently recounted for The New American the events surrounding what he describes as the "most horrible thing I've ever seen in my life."
Luke Woodham opened fire in a large, open area of the school called the Commons. Myrick, who was in his office at the time, recognized the sound of a rifle and rushed to see who was shooting. He saw Woodham, and momentarily considered rushing him, but concluded that the gunman would simply shoot him. Woodham noticed Myrick, but did not fire at him, apparently because there were so many closer "targets" in the vicinity.
Myrick, whose .45-calibre handgun was locked in his truck, watched helplessly as Woodham approached a tree behind which three students were attempting to hide, shooting one and firing at the other two as they fled. It was apparent that reaching his own gun "was the only way I was going to be able to do anything."
When Woodham turned his back and began walking down the school's science hall, Myrick took advantage of the opportunity to run to his truck. His plan "was to get my gun and return to the science hall as quickly as possible, because I figured that Luke was going door-to-door shooting. As I came around the corner [with gun in hand] he was coming out of the hall." As Woodham left the building, "I saw him and yelled 'Stop!' and pointed my weapon at him. He turned and looked at me and kept walking, a little faster, toward his car."
Myrick did not shoot at that point because "I was probably about 50 yards away and it was a little too far. And with kids and cars leaving the area I just didn't have a safe backstop."
Myrick started sprinting toward the car as Woodham started to flee. "He was going away from me, and the tires were spinning as there was dew on the ground. He headed toward an intersection in the parking lot, where he was going to turn right and get out of there." Fortunately, another car (whose occupants were oblivious to what was happening) had stopped at the intersection stop sign, forcing Woodham to wait for an additional few seconds, which gave Myrick "time to get down to the road that Woodham was going to turn onto, and to cut him off." Myrick was positioned across the road from some woods, which provided a safe backdrop. "So when Luke appeared in front of me I was going to shoot him, because I had seen the bodies laying out there, and I'd witnessed him firing a .30-30 at short range into people. When he finally got to the corner, I was on the edge of the road and I had my pistol leveled at him, aiming directly at his head. When he saw me he swerved off the road in an attempt to put some distance between us. He got into damp grass and, not being a very good driver, spun out."
From about 30 feet across the road "I could see his white knuckles on the steering wheel," Myrick continued. "I ordered him to freeze and not move, then quickly approached the side of the car, looked in, and kept the pistol at his head the whole time. I told him, 'If you move, I'm going to shoot you.' And he didn't move. He kept his hands on the wheel. The rifle was laying on the passenger's seat, barrel down toward the floor. I reached down with my left hand and opened the door and told him to get out hands first, and he did. I told him to lay on the ground, and he did. And that was it."
Asked if he regretted not having a gun at the start, Myrick said that from hindsight, and considering his military and firearms training, he wishes he "could have had a gun stuck up under my coat so that at the first shot I could have moved directly towards the shooting and neutralized him. Perhaps that would have been it, and there would have been seven kids that would not have been shot, and possibly one less dead."
When asked if he thought Woodham would have continued his killing spree elsewhere had he escaped, Myrick asserted: "I think that there's no doubt about it. He had 36 rounds remaining and the gun was loaded." And it could have become very personal. Myrick believes Woodham may have been heading for a nearby junior high school which he had attended, where "there may have been some kids he didn't like, or some teachers he didn't like, probably more than at the high school. And my son was there."
* * *
The Pearl High School incident, perpetrated by a troubled youth who had violated a multitude of federal, state, and local gun control laws, was indeed a tragedy. But the only armed adult on the scene earned the gratitude of his community for precluding an even more disastrous outcome.
- R.W.L.
THE NEW AMERICAN - Copyright 1998, American Opinion Publishing, Incorporated
P.O. Box 8040, Appleton, WI 54913
Homepage: http://www.jbs.org/tna.htm
Subscriptions: $39.00/year (26 issues) -1-800-727-TRUE
WRITTEN PERMISSION FOR REPOSTING REQUIRED: Released for informational purposes to allow individual file transfer, Usenet, and non-commercial mail-list posting only. All other copyright privileges reserved. Address reposting requests to tna@jbs.org or the above address.
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.