Gun owners claim right to take their rifles to work

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

[paul51]

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

How do you feel about someone refusing to rent a property they own to someone based on their religion or the color of their skin?

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

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.

I wonder how many of these murders occur at workplaces where it is illegal to have guns...

[Batrachian]

"How do you feel about someone refusing to rent a property they own to someone based on their religion or the color of their skin?"

An interesting point. Where do private property rights end? I would consider it immoral, however.

[Redcloak]

I would normally be inclined to support property rights; but, issues such as the ones you mention are causing me to side against property owners.

Following your example, I can understand a business owner telling employees that no Bible study will be allowed on company property. One can argue that this is foolish because it discourages virtue among employees, but there's an implicit right to be foolish. What I don't see is how such a policy can be logically extended into a ban on having a Bible one's vehicle for use on one's own time. Likewise, while an employer might ban firearms inside the workplace, that ought not morph into a ban on an employee having a firearm while traveling to and from work. (If you can't have the gun in your locked vehicle in the lot, then how do you have it while commuting?)

[paul51]

The courts have ruled. It's not open to an individuals interpretation of morality. It's illegal, property rights not with standing.

[Redcloak]

According to John Lott, a disproportionate number of these shootings occur in states where there is no right-to-carry.

[MarkL]

The firm, which is locked in litigation with the fired employees, rejects the charges and says everyone knew it had a zero-tolerance approach to security. "You don't need a gun to be safe at Weyerhaeuser," said Jim Keller, the firm's senior vice-president. "Safety is our number one priority.

I know that I feel so much safer when I walk into a business and see the big "No Guns" sign.

Knowing that a criminal will see the sign, and think, "Oh shucks! I can't bring my gun in here to rob the place... I had better find another store to rob!" gives me such a warm and fuzzy feeling!

Mark

[paul51]

You don't need a gun to be safe at Weyerhaeuser," said Jim Keller, the firm's senior vice-president. "Safety is our number one priority

That's an extension of the same kind of rationale that says people don't need guns because the police will protect them. In the final analysis, an employer won't take any more responsibility to protect their employees than the police would take to protect the citizens. Neither of them should have the right to interfere with people who wish to exercise their right to protect themselves

[JudgemAll]

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.

Have the companies paid for the damages of their reckless or failing promises of custodies? If they have not, then they do not have a case. End of story.

This is a civil rights issue. Gun owners should not be discriminated, and the problem does not lay just in terms of workplace safety, but simply having guns at home can get you discriminated.

[JudgemAll]

That's an extension of the same kind of rationale that says people don't need guns because the police will protect them. In the final analysis, an employer won't take any more responsibility to protect their employees than the police would take to protect the citizens. Neither of them should have the right to interfere with people who wish to exercise their right to protect themselves

Exactly. it is a fraudulent pretense of custody and care, simply because they never pay when violence occurs at the workplace. In fact some managers love some form of mutual hatred and distrust at the workplace in order to rule.

Who pays for getting hurt should have primary care over not getting hurt in the first place. Others can stuff it.

[Hat-Trick]

It's intellectually dishonest to say that a gun is exactly the same as a book or a flag, because we all know that it isn't.

In my example, the gun is the same as a book or a flag, only the constitutional right has changed. It seems that you have a problem with the object (gun).

For example, some companies, such as machine shops, forbid the wearing of jewelry because it poses a safety hazard.

Go back to the contents of a vehicle on company property, and don't extend the issue onto the shop floor.

[paul51]

For example, some companies, such as machine shops, forbid the wearing of jewelry because it poses a safety hazard. They can then forbid the wearing of a necklace. If that necklace happens to have a crucifix on it then someone can argue that the company is violating their 1st Amendment rights of freedom of religion

There is no right protected by the constitution to keep and bear jewelry and no religion I know of requires someone to wear a necklace with a crucifix.

[JasonC]

The car is the man's property as much as the parking lot is the company's. If my boss told me he wanted to search my car everyday and to forbid me to have this or that in it on the basis that he pays for the parking lot, I'd tell him to take a flying leap and find a new boss.

[nuke rocketeer]

Their arguments about banning guns from vehicles in the workplace parking lot are specious. Someone who's going postal is really going to pay attention to company rules about guns in the workplace. If I remember right, it's against the law to bring a gun into a bar, but has that stopped barroom shootings?

[PoorMuttly]

"You don't need a gun to be safe at Weyerhaeuser,"

I'm sure that is true for everyone who lives in the factory....well....kinda sure, anyway.

[Batrachian]

"If my boss told me he wanted to search my car everyday and to forbid me to have this or that in it on the basis that he pays for the parking lot, I'd tell him to take a flying leap and find a new boss."

That is exactly my point. You have the right to work somewhere else if the terms and conditions of that job don't suit you, and your boss has the right to dictate what can be brought on to his property. You can't tell him how to use his property and he can't tell you where to work or what to do on your own time.

[mad_as_he$$]

What kind of idiot let's the company search his car?

What about those who do start shooting at the workplace THEY could be the only armed person - bad news to me. At Columbine the ONLY guy - a Deputy Sheriff - who had a chance to stop it fired of a coupla rounds and then "went for help".

Can't count on the company, the cops, or anybody else but your self.

[jonestown]

I think all of our rights are co-equal.

Your right to ban carrying guns on your property does not extend to banning your employees right to carry a gun to & from work, as long as he secures it while at work in his private property, - his vehicle.

[JasonC]

And if he has half a brain (which in point of fact, he does, and would never do something like this), he knows better than to try to dictate to me about my property (including my car and its contents) - just as I do not dictate to him about his. These paternalistic employers are idiots treating their employees as peons and pretending the employer owns the employees' cars and private effects, which they do not.

[jonestown]

You have no inherent right to park this employer's parking lot. The owner is entitled to make his/her own rules, --
30 Melas

---

Most larger companies are required by local gov permits to provide company parking, and employees are required to use that parking rather than public spaces.


Our governments are charged by the constitution to defend our right to bear arms...not only in the public square, but wherever it is being unreasonably restricted.

Employees that are required to park their private property [vehicles] in company lots while working, cannot be reasonably compelled to give up their right to lock private property [guns] in those vehicles.