Gun owners claim right to take their rifles to work

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

[BOOTSTICK]

Guess you don't visit too many airports, since by your infantile understanding of the law, every time airport security has you pass through a metal detector, let alone a pat down, they are violating your 4th amendment rights.

[jeremiah]

You would have a fight on your hands if you tried to search my car. Of course that would mean you would kick me off under the assumption, that I was carrying, which is your right. I am pretty sure you have NO right to search MY private property.

[Chemist_Geek]

Are we now to only defend property rights for those owners who agree with us?

Yup. That's exactly it.

[Chemist_Geek]

If a company bans Muslims in their employment from bringing a Q'uran on to their property, will you stand in defense of those Muslim's First Amendment rights?

Or will you be defending the Company's property rights?

...crickets...

I'm not surprised. Way to go, Luis, in asking the correct question. Cast the same issue as being against the favorite whipping boy around here, and all of a sudden that side of the argument is nowhere to be found.

[BOOTSTICK]

Wrong again, you will not successfully sue a business with a "NO WEAPONS ALLOWED" sign posted, if a fellow employee shoots you. You do have the right that an employer makes sure you are protected from a violent act , only if the employers establishment has a history of criminal activity, or violence in the past, this is known as the "notorious business" clause.

[Dead Corpse]

...physically removed from your vehicle, and it will be searched...

The same has happened in every dictatorship throughout history. NOw you are on their side? That is rather telling...

[FreedomHasACost]

That is an excellent example of how guns save lives. This happens all the time but is rarely recognized. I do not go anywhere with out my gun and although I believe business owners can make decisions on who to hire I will not go anywhere my gun is not allowed (except places where there are armed protecters. ie the Capitol). The right to keep and bear arms is a very important theme.

[Squantos]

Confusing in most cases but .....no it's still just a simple personal property rights issue. Our, yours or mine , RKBA's does not trump our property rights if our firearm is kept in our personal (private property) vehicle.

... Where do ya draw the line ? ..... I believe the confusing issue here is commercial property vs personal property.

If your commercial property is gated, to control entry and clearly posted at the entrance that the following is prohibited ie cats , ugly trucks and firearms then cats , ugly trucks and firearms are legally prohibited regardless of state personal property or firearms or cat and ugly truck rights laws.

If your commercial property is not posted and entry physically controlled with a guard force or electronic security gates where anyone traversing your parking lot may come and go then they are subject to state and federal laws only with regards to what is or isn't contraband, allowed or prohibited in every personal vehicle.

Chicken little aside......that's how it is as I have enforced, encounterd and entertained it on private, commercial and federal property present and past.

[Dead Corpse]

You disarm me. You are culpable. Only the 9th Circuit or Bill Clinton could twist the logic of it to mean anything else.

[BOOTSTICK]

Guess you have'nt read all the posts, the point being where the employer has a posted sign, or in the company handbook, that "WEAPONS ARE NOT ALLOWED" AND " ALL VEHICLES ARE SUBJECT TO SEARCH" does the employee have the right to search your private vehicle.

[BOOTSTICK]

Not so, you need to bone up on your states gun laws, you DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE ARMED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY IF THE OWNER DECIDES SO!

[Modernman]

So could my boss say that I own a pickup and they are gas-guzzlers and so therefore I may not park it there?

Yes.

[Chemist_Geek]

Searches without a warrent are illegal. Period.

Wrong. You seem to be blind to the word "unreasonable" that the Founders (genuflect) wrote in there in the Fourth Amendment (genuflect again).

First off, as many have tried to tell you people of the course of the several threads, the Constituition (genuflect) limits government actions, not acts of a private being.

Secondly, when the employment contract specifically allows for searches...then even if was a government searching then it wouldn't require a warrant because you signed that consent to get the job.

[Modernman]

It's a feckless policy, as most companies lack the resources to effectively search even the small samplings that are done for window dressing

If I was an employer, I wouldn't ban my employees from keeping guns in their cars. It's a dumb policy, but employers are free to enact dumb policies.

[Barnstormer]

There is another aspect of this issue to consider. When someone invites you onto their private property, they also invite some of your rights to come along with you. Otherwise, they would be perfectly within their rights to put video cameras in the ladies' restroom in violation of their female employee's right to a certain amount or privacy, etc. Do you see where I'm going with this?

So, I believe this is far more complicated that a simple matter of the employer's property rights and the resolution of it will rely on how well the employer conveyed their rules to the employees (did they sign an agreement not to bring weapons onto company property?) and where the state law stands on the right to carry a weapon in your car?

[Modernman]

Otherwise, they would be perfectly within their rights to put video cameras in the ladies' restroom in violation of their female employee's right to a certain amount or privacy, etc.

That is actually quite legal, so long as you inform your employees of the practice.

[DocH]

Thanks A. Patriot. The only story I could remember when I posted was the Virginia Law School incident. I was unsure if the other incident I was trying to remember was in Arkansas or Mississippi. The article you sent me clears it up. Thanks again.

[FreedomHasACost]

You seem to have a very primitive understanding of how guns work. Say that for every three gun carriers there is also one bad one. A non realistic proportion of bad ones. Then say that your bad employee opened fire. If you were the only one with a gun your odds of shooting him first would be much less than if there were also three others trying to stop him. Also, just by having everyone there with a gun is a deterrent. Would someone be more likely to rob someone who they knew has a gun and would protect themselves or someone they knew was away or unarmed? It is the same principle at work

[Barnstormer]

I see what you are saying - but, let's alter the sceanario a bit. Let's say the company requires physical work of their female employees and provide shower facilities they can use before they go home AND they put cameras in the female shower area. The female employees have a reasonable expectation that their shower will not end up on an internet porn site - their right to a certain amount of privacy did not fall out of their car when they entered company property.

As stated earlier, this issue is a bit more complicated than it appears and I believe it will go against the employers if they try to enforce arbitrary rules?

[Modernman]

I see what you are saying - but, let's alter the sceanario a bit. Let's say the company requires physical work of their female employees and provide shower facilities they can use before they go home AND they put cameras in the female shower area.

I still think that would be legal, so long as the employees are informed ahead of time and both men and women are treated the same way. You may be able to make the argument that this behavior creates a hostile work environment.

The female employees have a reasonable expectation that their shower will not end up on an internet porn site

Depends on whether or not they agreed, ahead of time, to have their shower scenes posted on the internet. Without their consent, posting pictures of other prople on the internet is probably illegal and is almost certainly a tort.

As stated earlier, this issue is a bit more complicated than it appears and I believe it will go against the employers if they try to enforce arbitrary rules?

Generally speaking, your employer can pass completely irrational, arbitrary rules if he wants, so long as they don't discriminate based on race, gender etc. A crazy boss could require that everyone who works for him must dress up like a giant pink bunny rabbit and fire you if you refused.