There is no right to feel safe. Furthermore the data show that your fears are groundless, as I said in the last post. There's no data that support your contention. The postals that occured previously occured after the subject left. Several of them put on special outfits for the occasion.
"Lots of folks don't cool off in a ocuple of minutes."
Where's your data supporting shootouts over temper flairs? John Lott's work shows postals don't go that way and general public displays are very rare indeed. I'd guess they are less in number than the number of todlers that drown in 5 gal buckets.
"But another more basic problem is this: I at least have an argument that I can regulate what does and doesn't come on to my property. I can't regulate what stays outside my property. "
Your argument fails when the history of legitimate company policy is looked at. As I said, this measure goes outside the workplace into the employee's property. It violates his right to transport firearms. Those firearms are never used for criminal purpose, there is no criminal intent and there is no history that the employee is a danger to himself or others. Regardless of the article's claim that these policies are old, they are not. They are recent and they are a response to legislatures and courts refusing to take the guns away.
"I have a relatively-broad right to tell you that you may not bring something on my property, period. Even if you keep it in your car. Why? Because it's my property! "
The right is limited to deciding whether, or not the car can be there and you want the particular employee. You can not base the decision to employ, or threaten to fire him if he fails to buckle under to your extortion demand. His right to transport his property is his. His right to keep the contents of his vehicle private exists. His right to do that for whatever reason exists, especially for the purpose of his, or her self defense.
The demand for abandonment of those named rights, because of specious, unsupported, libelous claims against employees accompanied by the threat of firing for failing to do so, is extortion. That's the law.
"If I tell you, "I think you have a gun in your car - move it off my land." and you refuse, I can have your car removed without your permission, and at your cost. "
Sure, but you may not demand I acknowledge your nonsense, or let you search the car. Such bogus human relationship is allowed in at will employment. Hint at direct violation of anti discrimination laws and you're toast. Also, and this is very important, if there is a contract that would otherwise be in effect, except for the bogus outburst, you are liable for it's breach. If that outburst is clear extortion, then you are responsible for that also.
"In order to prove extortion, I think you first have to prove that you have the right to bring a firearm onto my property even though I have forbidden it. "
No. All I have to do is point out your property boundaries, the scope of employment, the rights you are attempting to cause me to abandon, that those rights you want me to abandon are in no way connected to workplace safety and in fact your focus ignored more obvious and known threats, and that your efforts are part of a conspiracy of leftists and gun grabbers to erode rights and establish precident. These rules came into effect not after a few postals, but after the grabbers failed to effectively prohibit their transportation and use in the legislatures and courts. I'll toss in the efforts of the critical infrastructure protection folks, because they're a big part of this push. They probably provided the impetus for the push to the natural grabbers.
"If someone shouts, "I'm going to kill you!" and then leaves the premises to go home, the authorities can be involved before the individual returns. "
Strange. All the hired security folks and resources spent to violate rights and none to actually protect the workplace. If the concern was postals, there'd be security in place. The concern's not postals, that's why the security and lawyers in place are to harass gunowners.
Dear spunkets,
Whether you think the reasoning is good or bad, or whether I think it is irrelevant. Whether the property owner thinks it's good is what counts.
"Sure, but you may not demand I acknowledge your nonsense, or let you search the car."
If those are the terms of entering my property, and I let you know before you entered, you submitted to the search by not turning around and leaving.
"Such bogus human relationship is allowed in at will employment."
Well, since, I think, 49 of the 50 states operate out of an employment at-will framework, we're in good shape, here!
"Hint at direct violation of anti discrimination laws and you're toast."
Anti-discrimination laws only apply to protected groups. Can you name the five federally-protected groups of the 1964 Civil Rights Act? And the two other protected classes that come from two other statutes?
I have bad news for you: gun owners aren't one of them. Federal law permits all sorts of employment discrimination. Federal law permits me to discriminate against acknowledged Democrats (or Republicans), federal law permits me to discriminate against homosexuals (or heterosexuals). Federal law permits me to discriminate against fat people (or skinny people) (as long as their fatness or skinniness is not a disability). Federal law permits me to discriminate against very tall people and very short people (so long as I'm careful not to permit that discrimination become a disparate impact against on of the protected classes). Federal law permits me to disrciminate in employment.
Legally.
"The right is limited to deciding whether, or not the car can be there and you want the particular employee. You can not base the decision to employ, or threaten to fire him if he fails to buckle under to your extortion demand. His right to transport his property is his. His right to keep the contents of his vehicle private exists. His right to do that for whatever reason exists, especially for the purpose of his, or her self defense."
But you don't have a right to park on someone's property. Or to work for someone. A company may extend the courtesy of permitting you to park on their property, provided that you agree to their terms. If you violate their terms, then when they fire you, they haven't fired you for exercising your rights, they have fired you for failing to abide by the agreement related to parking on their property - an act not protected by any rights.
You always had the right not to park on their property.
The agreement doesn't extort you, because you have no right to park on their property.
To the degree that your argument has any validity (and it is quite speculative at that - in many places, it's illegal to keep a gun in your car when you aren't in it, so there is no nationally-recognized "right" to keep a gun in your car), it is that the employer may not make the decision to employ based on whether you carry guns in your car that you keep OFF the employer's property, or whether you choose to park your car on the employer's property or not (provided that you abide by the employer's terms).
Because that is the choice always open to you: not to park on the employer's property. If you were contractually required by the employer to park on the employer's property, then your argument would at least be on-point, if still speculative.
You are asserting a right that you may bring a firearm onto someone's property, so long as you conceal it in your car. What about if you conceal it in your heavy overcoat? Your overcoat is also your property.
sitetest