Gun owners claim right to take their rifles to work

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

[from occupied ga]

How about firing you for having cigarettes in your car?

[Dead Corpse]

The inside of my VEHICLE is MY private property. Period. Get that through your thickened skull.

[Luis Gonzalez]

By the way, the blatant dishonesty of your response was astounding.

The fact that you, a person who constantly advocates nuking Mecca, banning Islam in America, and killing its adherents worldwide because you don't consider Islam a religion at all, turned around and drew moral equivalency between the Q'uran to the Bible in order to hide your true feelings when answering this question, was truly nauseating.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You don't get it do you?

They don't have to give you a reason why they fired you at all.

[NittanyLion]

How about firing you for having cigarettes in your car?

I would submit that an employer can set any rules they like (so long as they don't discriminate based on gender/race/religion, violate laws, etc.), and fire you if you fail to meet the rules. Cigarette smoking included.

[from occupied ga]

They don't have to give you a reason why they fired you at all.

Depends on the state. Some states true others not true. On the other hand they can't legally fire you for being black or hispanic or for being female. So there are conditions where government regulation trumps employers powers.

[from occupied ga]

I would submit that an employer can set any rules they like (so long as they don't discriminate based on gender/race/religion, violate laws, etc.), and fire you if you fail to meet the rules.

Then you should have no objection to getting to the law changed to add firearms ownership/possession to the gender/race etc.

[Lazamataz]

"There is no Constitutional right to self defense."

Incorrect. The Preamble clearly states that all men are endowed with certain inalienable rights: The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Two of three of those inalienable rights are denied without the simple ability to defend yourself.

Additionally, all life forms have the common sense to defend themselves. It is a universal trait among the living. It has been, and will be in perpetuity, a Natural Law.

I'm very surprised to see you write that sentence.

[Lazamataz]

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

It's a good thing we "gun loonys" have defended "ridiculous ideas" or BOOTSTICK would be left to defending himself with a stick.

That he carries in his boot.

Unless, of course, Luis Gonzales declared even that self-defense to be unconstitutional.

[Lazamataz]

It's the lunatic gun slingers like you who give the rest of us {responsible gun owners} a black eye with your drivel.

You know what? I never really got too involved in this issue.

But now I am going to get really involved in pushing this to the forefront. I will campaign stridently and with great vigor to force all employers to accept concealed weapons on their property. I will be writing letters to the editor, getting on radio shows, and calling call-in TV programs. I will be a vocal and noticable voice for the "lunatic gun slingers". I will never stop.

Mostly, I'll be doing it just to personally annoy you.

[Lazamataz]

Gee by your logic they should pass out guns to all who enter prison

A new cause to get behind! Additionally, I will push for pistols in vending machines that are placed in airports and grade-schools.

[nobdysfool]

I'm as big a Second Amendment supporter as anyone, but private property rights have to take precedence.

What about the right to be free from unreasonable search? Even if my car is parked on the company's lot, the car remains MY private property, and as such, is not subject to search and/or seizure without probable cause. It isn't as cut and dried as you'd like to make it.

[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.

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.
385 jones

---

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?
459 Nittany

---

"So", you have no problem ignoring what's been written on this workplace issue?

-- Now you want to shift issues to a discussion of an individuals rights at home?
Pitiful digression.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Laz...that's in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"...Luis Gonzales declared even that self-defense to be unconstitutional."

Where exactly did I say that Laz?

How does my (correctly) stating that self defense is not a Constitutional right equate to me saying that self-defense is unconstitutional?

I'm truly surprised at where you're going here.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"I'm very surprised to see you write that sentence."

I'm even more surprised at the fact that you can't tell the Constitution apart from the Declaration of Independence, and how they relate to our laws.

[Fruitbat]

Hey Boss, can I have next week off?

(lock and load sound)

:D

[Luis Gonzalez]

The man who owns the company that I work for has banned all cigarette smoking on his property, if you want to have a smoke during your breaks, you have to physically leave the grounds.

Stated company policy is that cigarette smoking anywhere on the property can get you fired.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Ol' jonestown here bases his entire argument on a falsehood...no one is prohibiting employees from driving to and from work with a weapon in their car, he just claims that the employees are entitled to park in the parking lot, and as such they are also entitled to set the rules for access and usage of the employer's private property.

When faced with the logical response that employees can drive to work, park off premises, and drive home with weapons in their cars without being bothered by their employer, he claims that employees are "forced" or "required" to park on the employer's property...thus far, he's refused to provide one shred of evidence that Weyerhauser required their employers to park on the company parking lot, or that any company requires anyone to not only drive themselves to work, or park on their parking lot.

[jonestown]

It's a good thing we "gun loonys" have defended "ridiculous ideas" or BOOTSTICK would be left to defending himself with a stick.

That he carries in his boot.
Unless, of course, Luis Gonzales declared even that self-defense to be unconstitutional.
469 Lazamataz

---

One wonders what these 'defenders of property' would say if their government regulated insurance companies told them to disarm themselves or lose all coverages.

-- I suspect they would applaud the new program as a great step foward in community safety.