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

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

[pikachu]

Not saying whether I agree or disagree on principal, but Indiana is an employment-at-will state. Your employer can fire you if they don't like the color shirt you are wearing, and you basically have no recourse. The only exception would be if you could prove discrimination based on a protected class (e.g. sex or race). Pizza Hut may or may not be morally culpable depending on your perspective, but they did nothing wrong legally.

The fine point here is that even if you work in an 'at-will' state, you can still seek work comp benefits if you are injured while you are working for that employer. PH had the right to fire him and he has the right to file a claim.

[phasma proeliator]

Ping

[L98Fiero]

"-- and I wouldn't advocate that approach."

Ha! No, that wouldn't be the way to go. I would just take the dismissal and be happy to be alive.

[Puppage]

And there is a further right here - requiring that an employer accept you carrying a concealed weapon on company property

Gee, I don't see that I wrote that ANYWHERE in my previous posts.

[dirtboy]

Gee, I don't see that I wrote that ANYWHERE in my previous posts.

You inferred it with this:

A State law is NOT the same as a Constitutional right.The state of Texas did not give me that right.... the Constitution did.

[Puppage]

Oh, I've inferred now, have I. Showing a difference between workplace rules & a Constitutional right is HARDLY requiring that an employer accept my right. What else can ya throw in ther?

Do as you please..I would rather be alive than dead, period.

[jonestown]

Puppage wrote:

A State law is NOT the same as a Constitutional right.
They are 2 very different things. So, in your scenario I am not violating the "very law" that gives me the right,as you put it.

The state of Texas did not give me that right.... the Constitution did.

---

Exactly.
Laws repugnant to Constitutional principles are null & void.
And all of us are obligated to support & defend those principles.

[stylin_geek]

To my way of thinking, no one has a "right to a job." None, nada, zilch. As far as I'm concerned, if I know company policy going in, and violate it willingly, then that is my problem and responsibility.

[jonestown]

Do legislative bodies have the right to violate property rights in the name of what they believe is the best course of action for the people to defend themselves when it comes to gun possession?
According to you, they do, so if you're arguing in support of the Oklahoma State legislature's right to set policy for property owners there, then you must be equally in support of the California State legislature doing the same thing here.

In a nutshell jonesy, when you involve government, they will screw you sooner rather than later.
When you argue that the government has the right to violate some rights, you risk all rights being violated by the government.
11 Luis Gonzalez

---

In a nutshell Louie, you are claiming to see arguments I've never made.

Legislative bodies do not have the right to violate property rights in the name of what they believe is the best course of action for the people. They must abide by our Constitution.

I'm not arguing in support of the Oklahoma State legislature's right to set policy for property owners. I'm arguing that they have a duty to enforce our RKBA's against infringements.

I have never argued that the government has the right to violate "some" rights.

[Nuzcruizer]

The guy shot him ten times; isn't that overkill? Wasn't he dead enough after 2-3 shots? Maybe he's a real poor shot...

[phasma proeliator]

You keep shooting until the threat is eliminated.. not until the assailant is dead. If he/she dies, then so be it - but that is not the primary goal.

There have been many instances in which 2 or 3 rounds have not stopped the assualt.

[libstripper]

The point about concealed carry is that one's employer does not learn about the weapon's 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. Hence, the way to deal with an employer who prohibits legal concealed carry is to carry in spite of the rule and don't let anybody know about it unless you have actually to use the weapon in self defense.

[Puppage]

The point about concealed carry is that one's employer does not learn about the weapon's presence unless a situation develops where the employee has to display it or discharge it in self defense

Right you are! See Post # 6

[PaRebel]

No intention to nitpick here, but the Constitution does not "give" anyone any rights. It, at best, enumerates certain rights we are endowed with, that is, unalienable rights, as in "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights...".

[dirtboy]

Hence, the way to deal with an employer who prohibits legal concealed carry is to carry in spite of the rule and don't let anybody know about it unless you have actually to use the weapon in self defense.

Well, hey, then, you have a property with a nice creek along it - probably has some good fish in there. You post that you don't allow fishing - but I disagree with that law, so I'm gonna go and fish there anyway.

Property rights are not inferior to 2nd Amendment rights. If you don't agree with the employer's terms, don't take the job.

[phasma proeliator]

And he has a right to shoot you for trespassing... ;-)

[jonestown]

dirtboy wrote:

Property rights are not inferior to 2nd Amendment rights. If you don't agree with the employer's terms, don't take the job.

---

2nd Amendment rights to carry arms in vehicles are not inferior to parking lot property rights.
If you don't agree with those Constitutional terms, do business elsewhere.

[loboinok]

The Texas Concealed Carry Law protects a business owner's right to ban guns from their property.

As well it should, but here in OK,many of us contend that the business owner has a right to policy BUT the vehicle sitting on their parking lot is OUR private property as well as what is in it,just as the wallet in your back pocket or purse you carry into their property IS your private property.

[Modernman]

2nd Amendment rights to carry arms in vehicles are not inferior to parking lot property rights.

The point you seem to keep missing is that you have virtually no right to be on someone else's property.

Furthermore, someone else exerting their property rights in no way harms your 2nd Amendment rights. You are always free to park elsewhere.

[jonestown]

jones:

2nd Amendment rights to carry arms in vehicles are not inferior to parking lot property rights.

---

Modernman wrote:

The point you seem to keep missing is that you have virtually no right to be on someone else's property.
Furthermore, someone else exerting their property rights in no way harms your 2nd Amendment rights. You are always free to park elsewhere

---

Your points have been discussed ad nausem on other threads and yet you insist that your opponents are missing them.
Spunkets just adddressed them again, this morning, here:



"First of all, the legislature acknowledges that the right to life is paramount and self defense is a right that all are entitled to equally.

Neither the founders of the country, or the OK legislature thinks that this right is subservient to any random individual's right to defend themselves in public, or anywhere for that matter. The OK legislature trusts it's citizens and allows them to own firearms and to elect the folks that make it up.

The OK legislature doesn't see phantoms and agrees that disarming their citizens is neither justifiable, nor do they see it as a valid defense and protection scheme. They know that disarming folks creates victims.

The state defines your property rights, they are not inalienable. You are neither born with, nor do you take with you when you die, your property. In the US, they are based on Freedom. Freedom however, does not in any way whatsoever render the right to life, sovereignty of will and the right to self defense, subservient to anyone, because they own real property. Especially when it's a stinking parking lot.

The State of OK, being charged with protecting it's citizen's rights equally, realizes that business is a joint venture of individuals. It recognizes the fact that some individuals wielding power over others, deny the rights that they themselves enjoy. The state of OK allows those involved in business and weilding power over others, a wide lattitude in limiting firearms within the scope of business activity.
Just as they provide for the existence of zoning regs for location, design, construction of buildings, that limit property rights for the protection of life and the property rights of others, they draw the boundaries that limit the powers of the property owner. They limit that power to prevent abuses.
Real property owners are no more kings of some little kingdom, than the State of OK is, or the US for that matter. That property is under the owner's charge for use only, not abuse.
Parking lots are for storage of vehicles. Parking lots could just as well be created by having the State take the property under emminent domain and charging the business that necessitates the lot and causes it's use. They do this to create the roads. Instead, the zoning folks simply say the lot must be a certain size to accomodate the number of folks expected. If you think you can setup a significant business, w/o providing parking and using other people's property for that purpose, you are mistaken. You are not entitled to the space.

No business owner is entitled to claim that a parking lot is any more than what it is. It's defined by the State. It's not the workplace. It's for storage of vehicles and that's it. You may use it temporarily for other purposes, as the State permits.
Just because you hold a peice of paper that says you own a friggin' parking lot doesn't mean jack. Your employee's are entitled to free and unencumbered enjoyment of their rights coming and going to your business that other people enabled. Whatever is in their car is their business, not yours. Stick to whether, or not they can park there and obey the zoning requirements. You're not a king, so you're not entitled to demand anything about what your employees have in their vehicles, nor hire sheriff wannabe's to enforce it.

842 posted on 12/16/2004
7:09:45 AM PST by spunkets