Gun owners claim right to take their rifles to work

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

[FreedomHasACost]

Yes, but I do not believe I have the right to look through their car first.

[Dead Corpse]

Sure. He can tell me I can't park my car there. What he can't do is go snooping INSIDE said car. That part of the whole equation still escapes you doesn't it.... must be vexing for you. Maybe you should go lie down for a while...

[Dead Corpse]

A democrat? Your comment has nothing to do with the issue.

[Poser]

Property rights do not trump the right to protect yourself. The business does not protect you while you are in your car travelling to and from work.

A good compromise between the rights of the property owner and the rights of the individual is to require the gun owner to lock his gun in the car.

In any case, if the gun owner agreed not to bring guns into the parking lot as a condition of employment, he should not have brought it to work.

[jonestown]

I don't 'believe' that an employer violates the Constitution by prohibiting its employees from having firearms on company property. --- A company can regulate the carrying of arms by its employees on the jobsite, certainly.

An employer violates the Constitution by in effect prohibiting its employees from having firearms while driving to and from work.
Thus, employees who park on company property must be allowed to lock weapons in their cars.

Plenty of companies have implemented just such prohibitions, despite protests. -- That's why the Oklahoma state legislature passed a law to prevent companies from doing just that - because the action of the companies is not Constitutional.
- If the companies actions were Constitutionally correct, no law would be required to forbid the practice.

364 jonestown

---

Constitutional actions can be banned by law.

And, as has been mentioned many times, until you realize that the Constitution does not deal with private actors, all your other arguments are simply wrong.
369 Modernman

---

If the company's actions are constitututional, then the ONLY way to forbid their actions is through passing a law.

The use of positive law to forbid something is required if it isn't inherently forbidden by the Constitution.

---

Until you two realize that the Constitution applies to "private actors", all your other arguments are simply wrong.

Companies that forbid employees from locking weapons in their cars are, in effect, infringing on that employees RKBA's.

Company executives & lawyers differ, and people are fired, necessitating laws to settle the issue.

[Modernman]

Yes, but I do not believe I have the right to look through their car first.

You can make searching his car be a condition of his parking on your driveway. He can always refuse and park elsewhere, of course.

[Modernman]

Companies that forbid employees from locking weapons in their cars are, in effect, infringing on that employees RKBA's.

The company is not stopping you from carrying firearms in your car. They're just stopping you from doing so while on their property. Park elsewhere if such a rule is too onerous, or quit. Nobody is required to help you enjoy your rights.

[jonestown]

Modernman wrote:

How did the employer here prohibit its employees from having firearms while driving to and from work? I didn't see that in the article.

---

You 'see' what you want to see:

" ---- in Oklahoma, as across much of rural America, gun control is seen as the work of naive and meddling minds.

"Having a gun is no different from having a hammer. It is just a tool," said Jerry Ellis, a Democratic representative in the state legislature who drafted and pushed through the law.
- A law allowing employees to keep guns in locked cars on company property.

Several companies are trying to block the law.

Paul Viollis, the president of Risk Control Strategies, is appalled at the new law. Every week there are 17 murders at the work place across America, and most of them involve guns, he says.
"It's the most irresponsible piece of legislation I've seen in my 25 years in the business," he said. "I would invite anyone who'd allow people to bring firearms to work to write the first death notice.

"The argument that emp-loyees should be allowed to bring firearms to work because they'll be locked in the car is so absurd it barely merits a response."

[jonestown]

Companies that forbid employees from locking weapons in their cars are, in effect, infringing on that employees RKBA's.
jones

---

Modernman wrote:
The company is not stopping you from carrying firearms in your car. They're just stopping you from doing so while on their property.
Park elsewhere if such a rule is too onerous --

---

Most large companies are required to provide employee parking, and in most localities, employees have nowhere else to park. - In their effects, such onerous 'rules' are infringements.

[jimthewiz]

In downtown Washington, DC, if you wish to bring your car onto federal property (in some cases, within a certain radius of federal property), you must be willing to submit your vehicle to a search by federal police.

Your are absolutely correct and have demonstated my point. You must be willing to submit. You have the option of not entering.

In the case of the employer in the case, we have no mention of any agreement, but the employer searched without permission.

[jimthewiz]

If the employer is a private employer, and the employee signs an agreement to submit to random searches, the employer may search without probably cause.

You are absolutely correct and have demonstated my point. You must be agree to the search. In the case of the employer in the case, we have no mention of any agreement, but the employer searched without permission.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Check out your facts, no one went snooping in the car, the dogs sniffed out the guns, and the owners opened the doors.

"That Oct. 1, in a surprise search, Weyerhaeuser Co. sent gun-sniffing dogs into the parking lot of its paper mill here. Mr. Bastible and 11 other workers were fired after guns were found in their vehicles. The timber company said the weapons violated a new company policy that extended a longtime workplace gun ban to the parking area. The fired workers said they knew nothing of the new rule."

"The Weyerhaeuser paper mill has been the largest employer in town for more than 30 years, providing about 2,500 jobs in the area and contributing more than $55 million annually to the local economy in taxes, payroll and community donations, according to the company. The whole gun flap actually started with an apparent drug overdose at the plant. Plant manager Randy Nebel hired a security company to bring in four dogs to search for drugs and guns in the parking lot. The dogs didn't find any drugs but zeroed in on several vehicles containing firearms."

"The company then ordered the workers to open the suspect cars so that they could be hand-searched. A dozen workers, four Weyerhaeuser employees and eight who worked for subcontractors, were suspended for having rifles, shotguns or handguns. A couple of days later, they were fired as part of Weyerhaeuser and its subcontractors' zero-tolerance policy for major safety violations, the companies say."

"Jimmy "Red" Wyatt, a 45-year-old father of five who worked his way up from the factory floor to supervisor in his 22 years at the mill, says he often carried his rifle to scare off coyotes threatening the cattle he raises in his spare time. A shotgun also found was left over from bird hunting with his sons the day before."

"Mr. Nebel says that firing Mr. Wyatt, a model worker, was difficult. But after clearing the parking lot of guns, "I believe the plant is safer," he said."

"The plant manager said the new gun rule had been in place since January 2002 after reversing a previous policy that had allowed workers to leave their guns locked in their cars. The company says it told workers in writing and during "team meetings" of the new policy. "It was well known this would be dealt with severely," said Mr. Nebel. Mr. Wyatt and the other fired workers say they never were told of the changed rule." -- Source

If the employers can prove that that the policy had been announced, the employees are at fault for their own dismissal...and yes, Weyerhouser acted like gigantic a$$holes firing such long-term employees, but they are within their rights to do so.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"...the employer searched without permission."

Read post #392.

[Luis Gonzalez]

He doesn't see it, he believes that he is entitled to that job, and as such, he can control workplace rules.

The only rights being violated here are the property rights of the owners of Weyerhouser.

The employee maintains his right to have a weapon, and the ownership maintains their property rights, if that employee simply parks off premises...but people like jonestown have no respect for anyone else's rights, and expect the government to "defend" theirs.

It's called hypocrisy.

Since they believe that they are "entitled" to the job, they can dictate the rules of employment.

[jonestown]

yes, Weyerhouser acted like gigantic a$$holes firing such long-term employees, but they are within their rights to do so.
392 Luis Gonzalez

---

Yes, Weyerhouser acted like gigantic a$$holes firing such long-term employees.
And they are, in effect, violating the employees Constitutional right to keep & bear arms [while going to & from work] in doing so.

The Oklahoma State Legislature agrees.

[sitetest]

Dear jimthewiz,

"In the case of the employer in the case, we have no mention of any agreement, but the employer searched without permission."

That appears to be in dispute.

In fact, the employees are suing because they allege they were uninformed about the policy. If they can make out those facts, they may prevail. The company, on the other hand, differs. If the company can make out as fact that these folks knew the policy, knew that all vehicles are subject to search if placed on company property, then the employees will not prevail.

You may wish to look at what is quoted by Luis Gonzalez in post #392.

But we have have been discussing, more generally, whether employers may require those who work for them to agree with these conditions of employment. Certainly, if someone doesn't agree to the conditions of employment, he has the option of declining employment. If someone is employed, and does not wish for his car to be subject to search, even though that's company policy, he can leave his car off company property.

The more general question is whether the company has a right to insist on submission to searches of any vehicle that wish to gain entry to its property, and whether the company may forbid employees from bringing firearms onto company property, even if kept in their cars.

By law, the company may insist on the searches of cars parked on company property, and may forbid firearms in employees' cars parked on company property.


sitetest

[jimthewiz]

Where is the safety in banning guns in the workplace?
How many gun related crimes are committed by employees in police stations, gun shops and other places of employment where practically every employee is armed?

I invite responses from anyone who can show me figures where this exceeds one tenth of one percent of all such crimes.

(Check my tagline)

[jonestown]

Companies that forbid employees from locking weapons in their cars are, in effect, infringing on that employees RKBA's.
jones

---

Modernman wrote:
The company is not stopping you from carrying firearms in your car. They're just stopping you from doing so while on their property.
Park elsewhere if such a rule is too onerous -

---

Most large companies are required to provide employee parking, and in most localities, employees have nowhere else to park. - In their effects, such onerous 'rules' are infringements.
389 jones

---

The employee maintains his right to have a weapon, and the ownership maintains their property rights, if that employee simply parks off premises..

but people like jonestown have no respect for anyone else's rights, and expect the government to "defend" theirs.

It's called hypocrisy.

394 Luis Gonzalez

---

It's called courtesy to address someone you flame.

I respect everyone's rights, and expect everyone to respect mine.

The officials of our governments are in particular obligated to support & defend our Constitution, as per their oaths.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The Oklahoma legislature acted like even bigger a$$holes by duping the people of the State into believing that this "law" would hold up in Court.

The Oklahoma legislature "played" their constituents.

The law will not stand, because property rights supersede the idea that the employee is entitled to a job, a parking spot on someone else's property, and the right to dictate what rules he wishes to disregard in relation to another person's property.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Your opinion on what lawful rules a property owner may set for access or use of his property are meaningless, only the property owner's opinion counts.

I'm sure that you would say that exact thing to me if I decided to act in an inappropriate manner while on your property and argued that the Kerry/Edwards Forever sign I just planted on your property caused no one any harm, and that I was protected by my First Amendment right.