Gun owners claim right to take their rifles to work

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

[sitetest]

"I didn't know it was completely a local thing."

It isn't on federal property. Then it's a federal crime.

[BOOTSTICK]

More nonsense by the ill informed, an employer does not have to have his employees, or anyone else for that matter sign some contract, the employer/property owner has rights over his property, try reading some of the previous cases I mentioned such as Major Ports, Nuke power plants and the such. The signs say "no weapons" and "vehicles subject to search" and they are enforced on a daily basis and are quite binding and legal.

[BOOTSTICK]

It's the lunatic gun slingers like you who give the rest of us {responsible gun owners} a black eye with your drivel. So now states rights don't exist due to the "supremacy clause" LOL And private vehicles are searched everyday, just visit a major defense contractor doing DOD contract work, then sue them after they search your car....good luck.

[Dead Corpse]

How is someone who has had their Rights removed via due process as punishment for criminal actions in any way the same as a law abiding citizen?

You can't really be this stupid....

[Dead Corpse]

And? Who owns the car? The Employee or the Employer? The car and the space it encompasses are not under the legal jurisdiction of the plant owner. Period. Your idiot repetition will not transmorgify one fact into another.

[Dead Corpse]

"Supreme Law of the Land...". Any Rights ennumerated there are protected every where within the legal jurisdiction of the United States. Any State ratifying the Constitution agrees to adhere to the Powers given to the FedGov, and the basic Rights of all US Citizens. Just as no State can re-institute, no State can LEGALLY and by strict Constitutional interpretation ban firearm ownership from law abiding citizens.

It's just you, California, and the likes of Charles Schumer trying to change that. Gun grabbing freaks that are frightened of their own inherent stupidity.

[BOOTSTICK]

So let me get this strait, your RKBA are infringed when the employer does not allow guns to be in your personal vehicle? Well what about the government then, do they have the right to not allow you into a government parking lot for the same reason? Is Uncle Sam denying your RKBA when you are in your personal auto, on GOVERNMENT PROPERTY????. Of course the answer is yes the government DOES have the right to disallow you to park you car on government property with a weapon safely locked in your car. Now if the Government can disallow you to park on their property with a gun locked in your car, why can't the private employer do likewise? Oh and if you think the Government does not have the right to prevent you from parking your car in a government parking lot, try entering just about any Military base with a gun locked in your car, when it is detected, you should expect to be immediately arrested.

[TLI]

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."

Sounds like Viollis can hear the sound of his cushy little business based on anti-self defense - anti-firearm - anti-2nd amendment laws being blown away by the rights of the people being rebuilt.

[Squantos]

Ok at least I have established yer knowledge on the subject at hand....sorry to bother.

[BOOTSTICK]

That is the point, you have no RIGHT to armed on private property, just as you have no free speech RIGHTS on private property, and just as you have no religious RIGHTS on private property!!!!!!

[BOOTSTICK]

UNLESS OF COURSE THE PRIVATE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS YOURS!!!!!

[jonestown]

BOOTSTICK wrote:

So let me get this strait, your RKBA are infringed when the employer does not allow guns to be in your personal vehicle?

Well what about the government then, do they have the right to not allow you into a government parking lot for the same reason? Is Uncle Sam denying your RKBA when you are in your personal auto, on GOVERNMENT PROPERTY???

---

Yes.

[BOOTSTICK]

Why "yes"??? because you say so???? what tripe!

[jonestown]

Suit yourself.
You call my defense of our RKBA's tripe, -- I say it's my duty.

[BOOTSTICK]

As an employer and private business owner I can just say that I'm happy to just find out I can purchase a Full body metal detector for only about $1,800 a door, since the gun slingers insist they have some mystery right to be on my property armed. Expect this trend to continue due to recent incidences such as the "Dime Bag" shooting.

[jonestown]

BOOTSTICK wrote:
I'm happy to just find out I can purchase a Full body metal detector for only about $1,800 a door, ---

---

Waste your money if you insist.

My local book store tried one for awhile, then recovered their sanity, and turned the detector off. It's now an $1800 show piece for the PC crowd.

[Luis Gonzalez]

There are rights as old as society in play here; a person's property is his and his alone.

You pay taxes on the land, maintain it if maintenance is needed, you are financially accountable for anything that might befall the people whom you allow on your property while they are on your property.

That's not Fascism.

Fascism begins when the government steps in and starts telling you, a property owner, that others have the right to set conditions on THEIR use of YOUR property, contrary to YOUR conditions, and that YOU are still financially , and maybe even criminally responsible for their well-being for as long as they remain on your property.

You just happen to find this degree of Fascism acceptable.

Whether an employer allows guns on their property on their own or not, or whether the government forces them to do it, they will be sued after a work place shooting, so I say that the day that ALL employees sign a release agreeing not to file suit against their employees if the were hurt at a job-related shooting, then the employer should allow guns on his property. You know what?

Maybe that's the next law that the Oklahoma legislature should pass; making it illegal to sue an employer if you got shot at work by a co-worker at the work place , or anywhere on the premises.

As a matter of fact, the legislature should release employers in the State of all liability, legal, criminal, or financial; if the people of Oklahoma and their legislature believe that the best way to keep people safe at work is to arm them, and took steps to implement their idea as law, then let the people of Oklahoma and their legislature assume all accountability when they fail to keep people safe at the work place.

But that won't happen.

That would require the intellectual honesty to assume responsibility for their own actions.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"There are plenty of instances where I ignore the law, but their are no victims in my wake."

So, you feel you are justified in ignoring the law if ignoring it serves in your best interest, and you're in here arguing that employers should not be allowed to ignore the law (Second Amendment) simply because they believe that ignoring the law serves in their best interest?

Tell me...does your head hurt after going in circles that fast?

[NittanyLion]

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

So you'd have no problem with me carrying a firearm in your home? How will you like it when I protest President Bush on your front yard? You'll no doubt support my First Amendment right to do so. Right?

[NittanyLion]

The company has a parking lot also open to the public for customers and visitors. It bans bibles (or korans) in a policy handed down only a few months ago. It employs book sniffing dogs to ferret them out, using the dogs to indicate which cars to search. The company fires an employee of 19 years for having a bible (or koran) on the company parking lot (which is also open to the general public.) LG, you side with the company's right to ban the bible (or koran) under these asinine fascist terms.

I would submit that the company does in fact have the right to fire an employee who did so. It would be stupid, wrongheaded (and as you state, asinine and fascist). Nonetheless, the company could do so.

Individuals and enterprises exercise their rights in all sorts of stupid and counterproductive ways, yet we don't ask the government to correct them when they do so. What's different about this case, other than the fact that it's our ox being gored?