[Batrachian]

I think private property rights have to come first. The Second Amendment doesn't come at the expense of other rights.

[MrJingles]

The Second Amendment doesn't come at the expense of other rights.

Agreed. I think firing an employee is a bit extreme, especially for a first offense, but the sanctity of private property must ultimately prevail.

The First Amendment guarantees the right to protest, but not on your front lawn.

[hoosierham]

Like to list the dozens?hundreds? of government rules and laws about what you cannot or can do or have on your private property ?
You can't fire someone for a number of personal reasons as long as they are doing the work they are being payed to perform. No where was there mention of threats or worker problems. Besides, maybe if employers didn't crap on their workers with strait-jacket policies there would be way fewer disgruntled workers !
The other poster's example of firing a person who loudly complained and criticized an employer in the parking lot falls because that could be constued as an example of abuse whereas the guns were not flaunted or misused according to the story.

[S.O.S121.500]

I think private property rights have to come first. The Second Amendment doesn't come at the expense of other rights.

I KNOW God-given RIGHTS come first, last, and in any between. The Second Amendment GUARANTEES ALL other rights. Be gone Chicken Little you statist dweeb.

[Moose4]

Yes, but whose private property rights? Seems to me that since the automobile is the employee's private property, he has the right to keep a piece locked up in it.

You do raise a good point, though, one I hadn't thought about...it's a bit more complicated issue than it looks at first glance.

}:-)4

[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.

[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.

[kAcknor]

I think private property rights have to come first. The Second Amendment doesn't come at the expense of other rights.

I agree (but)... ;)

This is a continuation of the multiple laws driven by those on the left that infringe on the rights of property owners. The ban on smoking in restaurants and bars passed in many cities is the closest example. We have given up something to allow for what has been determined to be an overriding right, clean air and health.

That I didn't agree with them, and spoke/voted against it is no longer the point. The laws have been upheld and complaining about them is pointless. They ARE. Deal with it.

So now it's the same thing, but those on the political left are those being asked to modify property rights to allow a greater need, the right to self defense, to prevail. This time I agree and think that the needs of individuals to the right of self defense should override property.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The government in the past, used laws restricting Second Amendment rights to violate property rights, now they are doing it again, this time with the enthusiastic support of the right.

John Locke maintained that private property rights are the cornerstone of all other rights, and it was it was out of this philosophical heritage that America's founders created a new nation, based on the principle that each individual is a sovereign within his own right. Property rights then became the acknowledged foundation upon which other constitutional freedoms rested, including freedom of speech and to bear arms. It was not until this century, when private property came under relentless ideological assault, that the First and Second Amendments to the Constitution were subjected to ambiguous and convoluted contention.

[Robert_Paulson2]

The Second Amendment doesn't come at the expense of other rights.

---

Well glad to see somebody would agree with King George. His right to divine rule on British Sovereign Property and Territories, certainly gave him the right to confiscate the arms of the subjects...

Of course the minutemen fired on the brits at concorde... the shot heard round the world. They were coming to remove the weapons from the King's sovereign territory and property... and it marked the beginning of the end... of the british empire...

All corporate property rights END where your inalienable rights as an individual begin. And for what it's worth, corporate rights are NOT even recognized as inalienable, or guaranteed in the constitution, whereas INDIVIDUAL rights are in both cases. In most state laws and constitutions, corporate property rights do not supercede nor are they recognized to be ABOVE those of indivuduals.

and the corporation, along with other businesses who routinely violate their employees' rights (allegedly in a voluntary fashion) are finding this out.

GOOD.
I hope they either learn to obey the law, or are put out of business by others who are willing to obey the constitution and refrain from trying to alienate, what is KNOWN to be inalienable.

Run the violators out of business... their right to exist as a corporation is dependent in codified law, on their subservience to and support of constitutional laws of the states and federal government. It is a requirement by law, of their official corporate charter or they would not be allowed to corporate in the first place

compared to individuals, constitutionally, corporations have virtually NO guaranteed rights... and all of the ones they DO have, are granted by statute, not by the constitution.


Seldom is an armed employee.... killed by a firearm. Sidearms of some kind should be the norm, not the exception.

as muslim terror continues and expands... they will be.

[mamelukesabre]

I heard in san fran, they decided that having sex in a car was not the same as having sex in public, even if the car was on public property. in other words, your car is your own personal mobile house and that a private property bubble followed your vehicle wherever it went and so did your property rights.

Well, if that's how they see it, then they shouldn't be allowed to make any laws restricting guns in vehicles.

[TChris]

I think private property rights have to come first. The Second Amendment doesn't come at the expense of other rights.

How does an employee exercising his Second Amendment rights harm the private property rights of the business? The employees aren't trying to mount an armed coup on the business.