Posted on 12/16/2004 6:17:56 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez
I jumped in on a discussion at TCF regarding this news item. Companies that ban guns put on defensive.
Ronald Honeycutt didn't hesitate. The Pizza Hut driver had just finished dropping off a delivery when a man holding a gun approached him.What happens in these arguments is that most people wind up focusing solely on guns, with all the attendant concern about fear, violence, hostility, etc. that comes with them. In that context, both sides can point to anecdotes of either workplace violence (see "going postal") or parking lot attacks where the victim either was able or unable to defend herself late at night in a parking garage or dimly lit parking lot in a bad section of town. This is becoming more of a concern in recent years as states pass less restrictive concealed carry legislation. Two states, Oklahoma and Kentucky, have laws specifically protecting keeping guns inside a locked vehicle in workplace parking lots. (Note that Whirlpool has backed off.)
Honeycutt wasn't about to become another robbery statistic. He grabbed the 9 mm handgun he always carries in his belt and shot the man more than 10 times, killing him.
Honeycutt faced no criminal charges, because prosecutors decided that he acted in self-defense. But the 39-year-old did lose his job: Carrying a gun violated Pizza Hut's no-weapons rule.
"It's not fair," says Honeycutt of Carmel, Ind., who has found another pizza-delivery job and continues to carry a gun. "There is a constitutional right to bear arms. If I'm going to die, I'd rather be killed defending myself."
Employers have long banned guns from the workplace as part of a violence-prevention strategy, but those policies are being tested as states pass laws making it easier for residents to carry concealed guns - in some cases, crafting legislation that strikes down employers' attempts to keep guns off company property.
But unlike a number of gun rights activists I believe property rights trump all.And this is the springboard for the discussion which seems, to me, sadly lacking from the coverage of the issue. The following is a restatement and expansion of my comments at TCF.
Indeed, John.
Your right to defend yourself, i.e. your life, is a property right. What is the most dear thing you possess? Your own self. Your own body. Your own life. Just as it is your right to prevent someone from stealing your tangible property (e.g. land, a car, etc.) it is also your right to prevent someone from taking your life from you. Do you think the the term "taking your life" as a synonym for murder is a coincidence? Rights inhere to possession. A fundamental right from possession is control over how a possesion may be used.
This issue is a really good one for understanding rights. It regrettably gets lost in the hollering from both sides, and so a really good airing of the philosophical questions doesn't happen. Instead, we get complaints such as Honeycutt's "It's not fair". How is it not fair, sir? Did someone coerce you into entering into an employment agreement?
Everybody understands that "my right to swing my fist ends where your nose starts". This is a statement of balancing rights based on burden. Is it a greater burden for me to accomodate your rights, or the other way around? Is it easier for you to deal with a broken nose, or for me to not swing my fist?
The parking lot question is a little more difficult, because there's an economic burden in having difficulty finding a job with an accomodating employer. The burden a company would bear in accomodating gun-carrying employees (or customers for that matter) is more difficult to define, but it includes such things as a risk of violence, and all the liabilities which could come from that. Note that some gun-rights advocates are arguing for a law which makes a company liable for damages resulting from an inability to defend one's self, if a company has a no-guns policy.
But the person who is entering the property carrying a gun is the active party, and thus I think that from a philosophical point of view, it's less burdensome for that person to cease the activity than it is for the passive party (in this case the company owning the property) to accede.
Let's assume that the state steps in and passes a law which states that business owners may not prohibit carrying of weapons onto their property. The businesses' property rights have been diluted with no recourse other than the courts for restoration of their rights (in the eyes of the law #&151; I stipulate that the law may never actually take away a right, so there's no need to argue the point). This is a significant burden upon the right to control the use of their own property.
By contrast, the burden on the individual for restoring full exercise of his right to self preservation (via carrying a gun) is to simply leave the property, or not enter in the first place. This is really the same as saying that his rights have never been diluted in the first place, since it is a personal choice to enter such a property (where the owner states guns may not be carried). There is no coercion on the part of the state, or either party, in what is, in effect, a contract between two parties, the terms of which specify under what conditions a person may enter the property. By the act of entering the property, the individual implicitly consents to the terms of the property owner. If you don't consent, don't enter, or leave when you are informed of the terms.
So there are really two rights at work here. Right in property, and right of self-defense. By passing a law restricting businesses' ability to make policy, the state infringes on both.
So in the end, I wind up not liking it when I see gun-rights advocates arguing in favor of infringing on other rights. For when you argue that under some set of circumstances, the state may burden a particular right, you put the others in jeapordy of similar reasoning.
As a passionate advocate of both Second Amendment rights and property rights, I'd be interested to know what your take on this article is.
The company isn't the one who gets buried.
They are the ones who get sued by the ones doing the burying.
Will you promote legislation releasing employers from any and all liability for work place shootings to stand side-by-side with legislation forcing employers to allow guns on their property?
There's more to it than just consideration of free assn. and contracts. The Free assn element is legit, if the business states that it is gun owners they are dicriminating against.
Firearms that remain in the vehicle are not a legitimate jurisdiction for the employer, because they are otherwise hidden and can only be observed if the the disclosure is forced. Also, by unreasonable restrictions, unrelated to the workplace, that infringe on the employee's offsite activities are not allowed. This is just a parking lot remember. The firearm is only in use if it comes out of the car.
Before CCW, these rules didn't exist and folks had just as many guns in their cars before, as after. Note the catch from the recent forced searches: active hunters, target shooters and most remarkable-tobacco.
IMO, they've decided to do this to take the law into their own hands, because that's really what they have done. They are also interested in generating bogus statistics for the VPC, join together, and the other "peace" at all cost leftists, and support them.
In short, if they want to claim free assn., then let them claim that, not the bogus claim of property right.
The only time an employer should have a liability for workplace shootings is if they have a policy which prohibits firearms in the workplace, or if the employer is the one who commits the crime.
In other words, it is objectively, scientifically provable thatWelcome to the EPA...your defense of the government's violation of property rights is greatly appreciated.an employerthe government reducesitsthe risk ofworkplace shootingsspecies becoming extinct byat least allowing employees to keep guns in their vehiclesrestricting a property owner's right to develop land that acts as a habitat for those species.
The Oklahoma legislature did not remove liability as they removed the employer's ability to ban guns in the workplace...why not?
The right to violate property rights.
"It isn't a crime f you don't get caught."
They didn't remove the employers ability to ban guns in the workplace, they trimmed it back so people could travel from their homes and work in possession of firearms. Now if they had told the employer they cannot for ban guns from the workplace then the employer should not be liable for the things which occur because of that.
And, like I said - the company can reserve the right to search your vehicle if you wish to park it on their property and be employed by them. You can refuse to work for them, or, if you work for them and they request to search your vehicle, you can refuse the search and they can decide if they wish to fire you or not.
The Bill of Rights was meant as a constraint on government - not private organizations. Government can force a search and jail you if you do not assent. An employer can compel a search, but you can disagree and leave and end your employment.
Amazing. Ever read the section about the right to be secure in one's effects? Or the prohibitions about government taking of property without due compensation?
Nah, there aren't any Constitutional property rights /sarcasm.
Property rights are just as vital as rights to self-defense in a free, prosperous society. No one forces you to work at a given company. And no one forces you to shop at a business. If a company wants to be a complete bunch of idiots and ban weapons on their property, that is their perogative. Would you demand the right to carry a weapon onto your neighbor's property against his will?
The have dogs check out your luggage, and require you to open any piece that a dog gets a "hit" on. The apple that you saved from the continental breakfast at Atlantis in Nassau just in case you get hungry later gets confiscated.
Unreasonable search and seizure, or law enforcement?
By the way...I have easements both next to my house, and behind my house, they are not my property, and never were my property; easements are not private property.
"Public access to public beaches over private property is not only required, but must be provided at the expense of the property owner in most cases."
I've lived nearly my entire life within minutes of some of the nation's most famous beaches, and that's not the case at all.
The parking lot attached to the building where you work IS the workplace.
If you trip and fall on the parking lot, you would sue for workman's compensation.
The legislature removed the employer's right to set policy, but did not remove their liability.
By the way, your right to drive to and from work with a loaded gun in your car was never impaired by the employer's policy of not allowing guns in their parking lot, you simply had to park elsewhere.
But these guys in Oklahoma, apparently too fat and lazy to walk an additional thirty yards in defense of their Second Amendment rights, and being under the false impression that they have a right to park on the employer's property, opted to use the force of government to get legal entitlement to set policy on other people's property.
Similar behavior is exhibited by leftist tree huggers and assorted environmentalist nutjobs.
No, it's parking lot.
What were the alternative areas to park in the OK case?
Who owns it?
It's the workplace, otherwise, why would you be bitching about it?
"Is this the Weyerhauser HR department?"
"Yes, what can I do for you?"
"A number of your employees have been parking on the edge of my field and walking to work. I stopped one the other day and they said they were doing it because they can't leave their guns in their cars in the parking lot. I don't want people parking in my field."
Memo to employees that afternoon, " It as come to our attention that some employees have been parking off of plant property. If you drive to work you are expected to park your vehicle in the designated parking area located... Failure to comply with this policy will be met with disciplinary action up to and including termination."
It's about guns. It's green eggs and ham and they don' like them. They don't like them in cars in the parking lot, they don't like the employees having guns between the job and home, they don't want the employees to have guns in their homes homes.
LOL.. what thread have you been looking at!?
It's a parking lot.
"Who owns it?"
God. It's on loan, free of charge. He's also given out his rules, that amount to, play nice. He'll probably reward these folks with their own stinking, but peaceful little parking lot the can rule over for all eternity. Peaceful to enjoy all by themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.