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
Yep.
Replace "firearm" with virtually anything else, and you'd have unanimous agreement on this forum that Weyerhauser was within their right to fire.
I never said they were.
"The agreement doesn't extort you, because you have no right to park on their property. "
The agreement doesn't extort you, because you have no right to park on their property."
That's right, there is no right to park on someone else's private property. I listed the rights involved and you ignored them. You are also addressing the private property right of the employer as some sort of absolute that exists in a vacuum.
" 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"
I've never known any. McClure-Volkmer, or the firearms protection act acknowledges the right to transport personal firearms and requires govm'ts at all levels to provide for it. Infringement of transport of unloaded, cased firearms out of reach is not allowed according to that law. It is certainly expected that during travelling the driver will exit and leave the vehicle unattended.
"Because that is the choice always open to you: not to park on the employer's property."
Most large businesses and many smaller ones have lots that were required by zoning to keep the employees from taking up all the area's parking spaces. Employees parking off site will cause residential only parking signs to be posted in some cases. Otherwise simple no parking signs.
" What about if you conceal it in your heavy overcoat? Your overcoat is also your property. "
The difference is between storage and use. If it's on your person and not in storage, it's being used and has entered the workplace.
"employment at-will"
A single mom has a work has a good work and attendance history. She calls in and tells the boss that she doesn't have a babysitter for that day. The boss demands that she comes in, or she's fired. She stays home and is fired. Does she have a tort case for being fired w/o just cause?