Posted on 12/16/2004 6:17:56 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez
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.