Posted on 12/11/2004 6:07:04 AM PST by Mr. Mojo
I don't care what the posts say I am commenting on what is legal and isn't and is currently enforced. Ones opinions and personal issues with widgets aside, pro or con.
Not unless the vehicles access to the property is controlled . You can post signs all day long. They have all the validity of stay off the grass unless your commercial property to include the employee parking lot is gated for only those who have been briefed as to company policy, that briefing documented, the employee signed as part of their employement agreement that to carry a weapon or other listed and posted prohibited items in their personal vehicle in a "controlled" area (the company property and all grounds owned by acme inc).......is accomplished and allowed access via an issued employee identification badge or guard force that ensures only those the employer has approved via the above security briefing and employment agreement are allowed in that parking lot.
Your personal property rights trump the employers unless you sign them away via the process described above..... If you sign away those rights during the employment process and violate them..... then yer fired if caught. End of issue
Anything less is shit'n shineola and fluff.........and not legally enforced.
My, but you're a slow learner!
Your choice as a potential employee is to either accept your employer's rules or not. If you don't, you won't be able to work for that person.
Yes, a private property owner can disallow carrying of arms on their property. The inside of my car is MY property. Still can't wrap your warped little brain around that one, can you...
Yes. I can sign away my Rights as a condition of employment. That is the one reason why I am not currently wearing a firearm at my desk. As a counter condition, I stipulated that since they chose to disarm me, that they are thereby responsible for preventing harm to me from such actions as a firearm could reasonably be expected to provide protection from. Such as BOOTLICKER flying off the handle and ignoring all the nicely posted signs and shooting at people.
You disarm a law abiding citizen, you have just taken on the responsibility of keeping them safe. Period.
I know you two don't like guns. But you really need to get over this unreasonable fear of yours. It is clouding your logic.
False.
I have no more responsibility to "keep you safe" if, as a business owner I choose to prohibit you from possessing your precious firearms at my business.
Criminal attack is not a reasonably forseeable incident, nor is possession of a firearm a sufficiently likely guarantor of harm prevention, to make anyone financially liable for your safety.
Really, it's positions like yours which is why the gun-nut stereotype isn't.
"Employers can legally make it a condition of employment that you not own any firearms."
Name the federal, state, or local codicil that allows this. You are saying 'legally' so tell me where this is legal that an employer can dictate what you do or do not own on your own private property.
So here's your argument about employer's "rights" being extended onto YOUR private property - where you have previously maintained that your private property rights trump any other consideration.
And that's wrong, too - you certainly have a strange, odd understanding of the legal system.
In this specific case we're discussing, you have no RKBA which the employer must respect. The government, yes, or it should anyway.
When gun owners learn to play well with others, then we'll see real success in getting these laws relaxed.
It's very strange, though, that gun owners like you demand that everyone else pander to your paranoia which requires you be armed, and by doing so trust that you will be well-behaved. But You! Oh, no, you can't afford to trust anyone - that's why you've gotta be armed all the time!
In contract law, you can agree to anything that is not otherwise forbidden under local, state or federal law. You can agree, as a condition of your employment, not to own firearms. Of course, if such a rule is too onerous, you can always quit. If you can show me a law that would forbid this type of agreement in a given jurisdiction, that's a different matter. Absent such law, however, such a rule by an employer would be perfectly legal.
So here's your argument about employer's "rights" being extended onto YOUR private property
You are only bound by this agreement because you have consented to it as a condition of your employment. Again, if this rule is too onerous you are free to quit and seek employment elsewhere.
Isn't that why our LEO's and military personal carry them? You sound like one of the Brady bunch now. They have used exactly the same argumentation in their frivolous lawsuits.
So how long have you been a shill for the Brady Campaign?
"In contract law, you can agree to anything that is not otherwise forbidden under local, state or federal law."
Okey doke. So when this law passes that forbids employers from needlessly messing with their employees you'll abide by it?
"You are only bound by this agreement because you have consented to it as a condition of your employment. Again, if this rule is too onerous you are free to quit and seek employment elsewhere."
But what about you? How do you feel about an employer violating your private property rights with their pointless edict that has absolutely nothing to do with the work you do for them on their property?
Dear jonestown,
"Your choice as a potential employer is to either accept our US Constitutions rule of law, --- or not.
"If you don't, you won't be able to establish a business in this country."
Well, your statement is counterfactual, if you believe that an employer violates the Constitution by prohibiting its employees from having firearms on company property - even in the employees' cars. Plenty of companies have successfully implemented just such prohibitions.
That's why the Oklahoma state legislature must pass a law to prevent companies from doing just that - because the action of the companies is not unconstitutional.
If it were unconstitutional, no law would be required to forbid the practice.
sitetest
Thousands of established employers are proving your statement wrong every day. You're living in some delusion of your own making, and ignoring evidence to the contrary.
As it is, with my size and training alone I could wreak a fair amount of havok with no weapons at all. And no one here could stop me. However, an armed 8 year old, who was a decent shot, could bring me down in a heart beat.
Guns save lives. Guns in the hands of the law abiding are a deterrent to criminals and loonies alike. That you can't figure out or accept that simple fact says a lot about you.
Modernman wrote:
In contract law, you can agree to anything that is not otherwise forbidden under local, state or federal law.
Hehhe... now you want them to listen to logic? Good luck with that. They've been immune so far.
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.