Gun owners claim right to take their rifles to work

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

[Dead Corpse]

If I'm already on your property, you can demand to search my car.

Isn't that a LOT like changing the rules of the game after the final buzzer goes off?

[Luis Gonzalez]

You are arguing in favor of your right to lie and deceive a property owner with impunity.

If I ask you on my property, and I expressly inform you that I will not allow weapons on my property, you believe that you have a Constitutional right to lie to me.

[Dead Corpse]

And a Law that violates the Courts mandate, AKA the Constitution of the Country or the several States, is no Law at all. No matter how many of your liberal judges try to prop it up.

[jonestown]

The fact that thousands of companies, and Fed/State/local governments are violating the US Constitution everyday does not prove you right.
The fact that you refuse to admit it, doesn't change the truth of the issue. Our RKBA's is being violated, and you are defending companies that are doing it.
566 jones

---

You stated upthread that adherence to the Constitution is a requirement for doing business in the US.
Now you claim that thousands of companies are violating the Constitution yet are still in business.
Can't keep your story straight, huh?
572 NittanyLion

---

"Shall not be infringed" is being violated, but some here think its just a 'story', a false 'claim'.
599 jonestown

---

So in short, you agree that your claim that companies cannot conduct business in the US unless they abide by the Constitution was a falsehood.
651

---

"So, in short" you are dreaming up another false claim about my position. Odd tactic.

[Dead Corpse]

No, but you are trying to exercise ownership Rights over property NOT YOURS.

[Dead Corpse]

When they don't have a leg to stand on, they'll do anything they can.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"The most you could do is rescind the invite and tell me to park elsewhere."

If the company's rule of no weapons on their property was a condition of employment, and you willingly violated a condition of employment, the company has every right to fire you, as they have a right to fire anyone who willingly, and knowingly violates any rule of employment.

You don't have a right to a Mulligan.

[Luis Gonzalez]

No, I'm exercising my right as an employer to fire an employee who willfully and knowingly violated a condition of employment and a work rule.

[Dead Corpse]

My firearms aren't ON their property. They are on mine.

Unless they want to make my payments on my car, it isn't theirs to have a say over the contents of.

[Modernman]

Isn't that a LOT like changing the rules of the game after the final buzzer goes off?

On someone else's proeprty, the rule are subject to change at any time. Your only recourse is to leave the property if you don't like the changed rules.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The job is not YOUR property.

The car is on their property, and your gun is in your car, your argument is absolutely idiotic.

[Dead Corpse]

Remind me never to come over to your house. I don't want you "changing the rules" in the middle of dinner to require a body cavity search...

So, does anyone who wanders on to your property get branded Slave then as well? Just trying to figure out how far you plan on abrogating another individuals equal Rights...

[Luis Gonzalez]

"My firearms aren't ON their property. They are on mine."

Your firearms are IN your property, and your car is ON their property.

Bottom line: there is a weapon ON their property that you brought IN your car.

You are fired.

[jonestown]

jones
It is against the clear 'public policy' of the 2nd Amendment to unreasonably require your employees to strip their vehicle of arms before parking in the lot provided them.

---

You keep saying this, with no backup. Do you have any case law that would support this position, or are you just making an argument based on wishful thinking?
656 Modernman

---

Why use "caselaw"?

The clear words of the 2nd support the peoples position. - Our rights to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed.

It's 'wishfull thinking' on your part to argue otherwise.

[Dead Corpse]

No. The job is their property. As is the place of business. I'm not carrying my firearms there either. They are on my property in my car.

The fact that you can't grasp the difference would make you the idiot.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Strawman argument...

Slavery is illegal, as is kidnapping and murder, no one has the right to commit a crime...already settled on this thread.

[Dead Corpse]

The car is not THEIR property. If I was in a company car and had my firearm on me, then you would be correct. As it is, no.

Sorry, try again. Not that I think you'll get anywhere near a cogent argument. You sure as heck haven't so far.

[jonestown]

see #609

[Luis Gonzalez]

The gun is IN your car, if it was ON your car, it would be clearly visible.

Your car is ON their property, with a gun IN it...which means that you have violated the property owner's right to not allow guns ON his property.

Do you put groceries ON your trunk or IN your trunk?

Learn English.

[spunkets]

Henry Perritt Jr., one of this country's foremost scholars on labor and employment law, advocates a comprehensive test for analyzing wrongful discharge claims involving violations of public policy. Perritt proposes four elements of a public policy tort case:

(1) The plaintiffs must prove the existence of a clear public policy (the clarity element). Henry H. Perritt Jr., Workplace Torts: Rights and Liabilities § 3.7 (1991) (hereinafter Perritt).

(2) The plaintiffs must prove that discouraging the conduct in which they engaged would jeopardize the public policy (the jeopardy element). Perritt § 3.14.

(3) The plaintiffs must prove that the public-policy-linked conduct caused the dismissal (the causation element). Perritt § 3.19.

(4) The defendant must not be able to offer an overriding justification for the dismissal (the absence of justification element). Perritt § 3.21. See also Collins v. Rizkana, 73 Ohio St.3d 65, 69-70, 652 N.E.2d 653 (1995) (adopting Perritt's four element test).

See...