Posted on 12/11/2004 6:07:04 AM PST by Mr. Mojo
They do. The outer skin of the guys automobile is the limit of the company's "property right". The interior space is NOT the company's, but belongs to the owner of the car.
If the car owner is stopped by police, they had better have or get a warrant if they want to search the interior. The company has no right to make such searches, either.
The new law is "right on".
What? You were making your case. I asked a question. The burden lies on you, my friend.
What if the gov't favored anti-gun kompanies, and penalized pro-gun companies? Then you'd have the gov't banning guns via 3rd party, which is just as illegal as if they did it themsevles.
Now obviously, you aren't going to find federal statues favoring "anti-gun" over "pro-rights" companies, but federal laws and regulation DO favor larger korporations over smaller ones. And the former tend to be much more anti-gun than the latter.
There has to be a balancing of rights, and it seems to me that a private property owner has the right to determine who or what comes on to his property. Forget that it's a company. It's still private property. Think of it as your own home and tell me what say you have in determining what goes on there. You can invite people in to your home but you can dictate on what terms they can come in. You can say they must remove their muddy shoes, or they have to leave their dog outside, or they can't come in armed if you don't want them to. You have the say. It's your castle. How can I be wrong in this?
You want it all, that's the problem.
The law should have established an employees right to privacy in his locked vehicle on private property, subject to a law enforcement search with a warrant.
So9
I'm saying there is a huge difference between the private property of Joe Six Pack, and the property of a business that is open to the public or that employees workers.
For example, I can tell a woman I bring home to either walk around naked in my house, or leave. Any employer can not do this.
If you want to start a coporation, (which in and of itself is only possible because of state charters), then you have to submit to state laws. And any law that protects individual Rights is not only legitimate, but also worthy of praise.
If the gentleman was to stand in the company parking lot and complain bitterly and loudly about the company, it's management and policies would he expect to be fired or would he claim it's his 1st ammendment rights?"
try this scenario....
If the gentleman was to sit in his car with the windows rolled up and the doors locked and complain bitterly and loudly about the company, it's management and policies would he expect to be fired or would he claim it's his 1st ammendment rights?
In short, I have the legal right to know what people bring on to my property, and if they don't like it they can leave. Not so?
They should have made it include everything, not just guns.
Do you concede that I'm right?
No you don't
It is a Fourth Amendment issue.
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.
What right does a company have to search private vehicles? Absent probably cause, not even the police have that right.
Perzactly....In Virginia (mentioned by someone else on here, also), teachers may not carry a gun, nor have it in their vehicles on school property, but no one can search the vehicle of the teacher without a warrant.
DITTO!!!
Turning away people coming IN your house with a firearm with alcohol being served is one thing, but taking your dog OUTSIDE and searching your guests vehicles (THEIR private property) for guns (or anything else) is another. THAT seems simple enough to me for anyone to understand.
No, you are not right. You have, however, been in New Jersey too long. The mindset about guns that seems to prevade that state shows through. Private property and the right to the means defend it is fundamental even if the private property is nothing more than the clothes on your back or the skin covering your body.
Both sides of this debate will lose unless one side overcomes its fear of the armed person.
You are confusing apples and oranges. Because you CAN, by law, have your property seized if someone brings drugs on there (if left in their vehicle, I'd say this is unlikely) does not make it RIGHT.
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.