Dear spunkets,
Ultimately, the argument concerning the part of the US code you cite, I think, fails.
Here's why: First, it's a criminal statute, thus not accessible directly by the employees affected. Only the government may prosecute.
But second, it assumes that rights are being denied without due process. That begs the question of the whole debate.
But if rights were being denied, then the employees would have a cause for civil litigation. Without Title 18 of the US code. Just walk into court, allege a tort based on denial of rights, allege the harm is having been fired, walk out with backpay, reinstatement, legal fees, and maybe even some punitive damages, depending on how egregious the violation.
But no one is suing under that theory, because, frankly, no one is forcing them to do anything. If you don't want to work for the folks, don't work for them.
Companies have been promulgating these rules, quite successfully from what I gathered from my business and employment law class, and the courts are quite pleased with them. Even in this case, the fired employees are claiming only that they did not have sufficient notice of the policy, not that the company had no right to enforce it.
sitetest
That's why I posited the if-prosecutorial discretion. Otherwise it's an outline for cause in the suit-your tort claim.
" no one is forcing them to do anything. If you don't want to work for the folks, don't work for them."
The assumption is that the party(ies) desired, needed and rely upon the continued employment relationship. THe demand for search was accompanied by the threat of firing.
"Companies have been promulgating these rules, quite successfully from what I gathered from my business and employment law class, and the courts are quite pleased with them. Even in this case, the fired employees are claiming only that they did not have sufficient notice of the policy, not that the company had no right to enforce it."
I don't believe it, as I have outlined. The excesses have all involved workplace/space rules and business related rules.
"The real question is, if a company has, say, 500 employees, and they're allowed to bring firearms to work, and folks do, and someone goes "postal," can a plaintiff's lawyer persuade a civil jury whether that result was foreseeable?
The phrase "bring firearms to work" is too vague. The firearms are not in the workspace, or within any reasonable jurisdiction of the employer. Firearms contained within the employee's vehicle are just as accessable as postal tools as the one's he maintains in his house. In fact the postal would do better with the vehicle itself, loaded with fuel.
The employer can't simply break into the employee's car, that is at minimum breaking and entering and destruction of property. He must mount an extortion to do it. That highlights the fact that the employee's car is not the employer's property and he has no right to enter it, without mounting the extortion.
"There are many juries that can be persuaded that this is the case."
Sure. There are also many juries that would not.
"If the company then prevents anyone from bringing a firearm to work, even to the point of not permitting them on the premises, even in the parking lot, the company can say that it took every reasonable action to prevent the otherwise foreseeable event that someone might go nuts, bring their gun to work, and shoot the place up."
It's either a Free country, or it's not. The employee's property contained in the car is not a nuisance, nor is it reasonable to consider employees as criminal thugs. The fact is that all of the postal events I can recall occured after the employee was fired and returned at a later time. None were perpetrated by otherwise happy workers that were concerned with doing their job.
"Whether you think that is a reasonable conclusion or not, or whether I think it is a reasonable conclusion or not, really doesn't matter."
This is FR and we discuss these things. My sentiments and thoughts have also gone to appropriate places off site. I see this as a back door gun grab and attack on both rights and Freedom. See, there's no real, effective effort to ensure workplace safety against the threat of postal types, just harassment and deamonization of gun owners. The bozos even link firearms with drugs at every opportunity.