Rights, rights, and rights (Guns at the workplace)

Freedom Sight ^ | December 11, 2004 | Jed S. Baer

[Luis Gonzalez]

Rights, Rights, and Rights

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.

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.

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.)

Commenter John DeWitt frames the argument when he writes,

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.

[technochick99]

presence unless a situation develops where the employee has to display it or discharge it in self defense. You can always get another job, difficult as it may be; you can't get another life.

Better to be judged by 12 and/or have to find another job, then be carried by 6.

Of course, I'm a bit of an extremist law-breaker at times. I've been known to turn right on red even when the sign says I can't.

[Modok]

It's bad when all the posts get stuck together.

[vie20000]

"you can still seek work comp benefits if you are injured while you are working for that employer."

Where did it say he was injured in any way? I missed that part. Certainly if he were injured while on the job he would be eligible for worker's comp. I was reacting to the idea that he should sue for wrongful termination.

[vie20000]

"An employer cannot legally fire someone in retaliation for exercising a legal right."


No, after working for many years in a law office, I have seen that around here you can fire an employee for pretty much ANY reason, other than legally prohibited discrimation (sex, race, etc).

[pikachu]

Where did it say he was injured in any way? I missed that part. Certainly if he were injured while on the job he would be eligible for worker's comp. I was reacting to the idea that he should sue for wrongful termination.

Stress, hearing loss from the noise of the gun firing, post traumatic stress, etc.

[Jeff Head]

I believe that a property owner hasd a right to restrict gun carrying on his property. I also believe that an employer can restrict the bearing of arms at their place of business or on their property...at penalty of, in the first case asking a person who carries to leave or having that person removed by law enforcement...and in the second case, terminating the individual if they violate the employer's policy.

Now, having said that, I am glad that young man defended himself. If he was using his own vehicle in delivery, but did so on company time, I believe there is room for the company to keep the him on. If not, if he was in a company vehicle and had signed an employument agreement to the contrary...then he still should have protected himself, but be willing to take responsibility on the other hand for making the decision to violate the company policy in defending himself. His life is worth more than his job, and when faced with the decision of losing one or the other, he chose correctly...and should not whine about the company's decision as regards their business and their property. Now, I believe that is a foolish decision on their part...but it is theirs to make.

If we reach a point where we say that armed men can enter another's property and do so against the will of the property owner...then we become no better than the British who housed armed men in the colonists' homes aginst their will.

Let the free market take care of it. If someone indicates that firearms are not allowed...take your business or patronage, or emply elsewhere if it is that important...and as this story shows, it could be that important.

No one is forcing these folks to go unarmed...they just have a free will choice to make regarding their firearm and someone else's property. For me, I will choose to defend myself or loved ones at every turn, and then be willing to accept responsibility for that decision and be thankful that I, or mine, are alive to do so.

[jimthewiz]

dismissal in retaliation for exercising a legal right is prohibited. Employers sometimes do it and inevitably lose if taken to court. They can fire anyone but not always legally.

[rogermellie]

coming from a non-gun owning society i've read the thread with interest.

it seem to me that a change of venue would help this argument.

say i know you from work, i invite you over for dinner at my house on a sunday afternoon. you drive up towards my house and see a sign on my fence that says "no firearms on my property whatsoever" (i'm the owner of the property, its my choice) my property is my house, my garden and my driveway and it has clear boundries.

if you still wish to come to dinner you should park in the street and leave your firearm in the car, if you park on my driveway and leave your weapon in your car you are breaking my property rights to say who comes on my property and what they may bring with them. if you come into my house with a concealed firearm against my express wishes you are crapping on the most dearly-held of your beliefs - that of self defence.

so in that example it appears absolute, either park in the street and leave your firearm in the car - or drive to McDonalds.

so why is the employers parking-lot any different to my driveway? - its his property and he has chosen to make it flat with painted lines on it, that doesn't dilute its 'legitimacy' as property just because it doesn't have four walls and a roof.

property is property, my rights to decide what goes on there begin where my property begings, if i own the parking lot or driveway you may decide not to visit it because of my rules on firearms or on my prices, but they are my rules, if you don't like them, go somewhere else.

[dirtboy]

dismissal in retaliation for exercising a legal right is prohibited.

I can call my boss a moron. I have the Constitutional right to do so and can face no criminal prosecution for such.

And he has the right to promptly fire me for doing such.

Your claims have no basis in law, precedent or the Constitution.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"If we reach a point where we say that armed men can enter another's property and do so against the will of the property owner...then we become no better than the British who housed armed men in the colonists' homes against their will."

I knew you would be the voice of reason in this debate.

Thanks for the insight.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"It's a parking lot."

Then use one not owned by this individual.

God doesn't own it, and if He did then certainly the Oklahoma legislature would have NO jurisdiction over it.

[Luis Gonzalez]

How much would you like to bet that had this article been about a workplace that outlawed speaking Spanish on its property, and the State legislature had written a law protecting the ability of the people to speak whatever language they wish to speak in the company parking lot, the people now defending Second Amendment rights, would instead be defending the employer's property rights, and not the employee's First Amendment rights?

[dirtboy]

Haven't seen a good 3rd Amendment logical argument for some time. Only on FR...

[dirtboy]

It's always a temptation. Everyone is opposed to government spending until it affects their pet program or bennie. Everyone is in favor of limiting government power, until someone does something they don't like.

I think stores and businesses that prohibit concealed carry are royally stupid. But you basically have a right to be stupid and associate only with stupid people if you so desire. Otherwise, DU would be illegal.

[jimthewiz]

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.

Your understanding of easements is incorrect. A more complete explanation is available at Findlaw

What Is an Easement?

An easement is commonly defined as a nonpossessory interest in another person's land. The nonpossessory nature of an easement is one of its primary -- and potentially confusing -- characteristics. An easement is a property interest that allows the holder of the easement to use property that he or she does not own or possess. An easement does not allow the easement holder to occupy the land, or to exclude others from the land, unless they interfere with the easement holder's use. In contrast, the possessor of the land may continue to use the easement and may exclude everyone except the easement holder from the land. For instance, if Alvin owns a piece of property and grants Barbara a right-of-way on the road across the property, Barbara has an easement in Alvin's property. Barbara may use the road, but may not stop others from also using the road, except to the extent that their use interferes with her own use of the road. Alvin may exclude everyone except Barbara from crossing his property, while continuing to use the road himself. Land affected or "burdened" by an easement is called a "servient estate," while the land or person benefited by the easement is known as the "dominant estate." If the easement benefits a particular piece of land, it is said to be "appurtenant" to the land. If the easement only benefits an individual personally, not as an owner of a particular piece of land, the easement is termed "in gross." Most easements are affirmative, which means that they authorize use of another's land. Less common are negative easements, which usually involve preserving a person's access to light or view by limiting what can be done on neighboring or nearby property.

Creation of an Easement
Easements are usually created by conveyance in a deed, or some other written document such as a will or contract. Creation of an easement requires the same formalities as the transfer or creation of other interests in land -- typically: a written instrument, a signature, and proper delivery of the document. In limited circumstances, a court will create an easement by implying the existence of the easement based on the circumstances. Two common easements created by implication are easements of necessity and easements implied from quasi-easements. Easements of necessity are typically implied to provide access to a landlocked piece of property. Easements implied from quasi-easements are based on a landowner's prior utilization of part of his or her property for the benefit of another portion of his land. Other methods of establishing easements include prescriptive use (i.e. by the routine, adverse use of another's land), estoppel (a legal doctrine involving reliance on the words or actions of another person), custom, public trust, and condemnation.

Beach Access
Here are two examples reaching from coast to coast that can be verified.

As the property values of beachfront property went up, the owners of those properties sought to kick the common people off their "private" beaches. One beach property owner made the mistake of chasing William Bulger, the President of the Massachusetts Senate, off of his beachfront property. Bulger responded by enacting the 1991 Beach Access Law. The Beach Access Law opened private beaches to the public by allowing the public to walk across private beach property between the high and low water marks to reach a public area. You can imagine the litigation that this law produces every summer.

Court's decision in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and by the terms of the Commission's statutory charter. The Association's principal purpose is to advocate for and to help ensure that the regulation of private property, development, and public beach access along the coast of California is consistent with state and federal law and the Constitution of the United States, and that it reflects an appropriate balance between the interests of the public in coastal access and preservation and the constitutional rights of coastal property owners to the frill enjoyment and use of their property.

Please do your research before making unsubstantiated allegations. I back my position with points of law. If you wish to discuss this on a legal level, please do the same, otherwise label your circular logic as opinion and I will accept it as same.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The point is that the way we are setting up lots in Florida, the lot owners do not own the easements, so the required easements are effectively common areas within the development.

[jimthewiz]

Your claims have no basis in law, precedent or the Constitution.

You can find more complete information at Findlaw

What Makes a Termination "Wrongful"?

The term "wrongful termination" means that an employer has fired or laid off an employee for illegal reasons in the eyes of the law.

Illegal reasons for termination include:

• Firing in violation of federal and state anti-discrimination laws;
• Firing as a form of sexual harassment;
• Firing in violation of oral and written employment agreements;
• Firing in violation of labor laws, including collective bargaining laws;
• Firing in retaliation for the employee's having filed a complaint or claim against the employer. Some of these violations carry statutory penalties, while others will result in the employer's payment of damages based on the terminated employee's lost wages and other expenses. Certain wrongful termination cases may raise the possibility that the employer pay punitive damages to the terminated employee, while other cases may carry the prospect of holding more than one wrongdoer responsible for damages.

  Please do your research before making unsubstantiated allegations.
  I back my position with points of law. If you wish to discuss this on a legal level, please do the same, otherwise label your circular logic as opinion and I will accept it as same.

[dirtboy]

Please show me in that list where it mentions the right to carry a weapon in the workplace against the posted regulations of the employer. Or that it allows unfettered freedom of speech in the workplace.

Hint: it doesn't.

You have mastered Findlaw, grasshopper. Now master reading comprehension.

[jimthewiz]

Correct. Easements can be set up in many ways, but in all cases the property is owned by someone or something (government, private party, or as it seems in your case, the developer.) other than the beneficiary of the easement.
I have not checked Florida laws, but there is a real possibility that the developer was required to provide public access easements. Normally that is considered for the 'public good'.

[jimthewiz]

You have mastered Findlaw, grasshopper. Now master reading comprehension

Obviously you have mastered neither.
Show me where I have mentioned right to carry a weapon in the workplace.
My references have been regarding unreasonable search and seizure. (US Constitition-4th amendment).
The freedom of speech issue was yours,not mine

Since you fail to support your points with law and instead resort to insults, I choose to disengage. (Not exchange ideas with you any longer)

Thank you for your input!