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.
You guys are all for the land owners Rights. What about the car owners Rights to his car?
Everyone I know knows that there is a standing invitation. Bring your guns. The more the merrier. It lets me know that you feel that you are willing to help me defend my property. That I am WORTH helping defend as a friend. Don't come on to my property without my invite, but once you are here I treat you as an EQUAL. Not a subservient. All of YOUR Rights as a human being will be honored and I expect no less in return.
The Principle is exactly what we are discussing here. The simple fact that you invite MY property, ie; my car, on to your property in no way gives you right to search the car for anything. Nor disapprove of anything in it as long as it is doing no direct damage to your property.
Go to sleep. We can pick this up again tomorrow if necessary.
That was bad if me, but it's not just misguided, is unwillingness to acknowledge the basic truth behind this whole thing.
Some people simply believe that the role of government is to enforce freedom...how the hell do you do that?
More government=less freedom.
I contend that the Oklahoma State legislature has done freedom some true harm here by violating both the right to self defense, and property rights.
They've violated a property owner's right to control over that which he rightfully owns, and their right to take whatever course they decide to take in order to feel secure in their persons and their possessions.
The fact that we don't believe that the course he's chosen is the best choice that he could make does not give others, or the legislature for that matter, the right to decide for him.
Because that is what it would come to.
Let's say that you went to a friends house, carrying concealed, or with a gun in your car. Let's say the friend who invited you noticed the weapon while you were on his property (or saw it in the car on his property) and then informed you he didn't want that on his property, and he was insistent. You talk about it...it is his home, or place of business, that does not matter. In the end he insists that you take the gun away. Would you, on his own property, to his face violate those wishes? Would you tell him to his face, "No, I have a right to carry here and by God, I will keep it on my person or in this car no matter what you want on your property?"
If you do, he has every right to call the police and have them remove you, whether we agree with his stance or not. It has nothing to do with anything but that persons own free will to do with and so arrange their affairs on their property as they see fit and our respect for it. Either you respect that, even when you disagree with it, or you don't. That is the basic issue here.
Now, you may not go back over there...and that would be your choice and would be fine. Probably be what I would do, except I would not argue with him in his home or on his property about it. I would respect his property right. In the end, if you do argue, if he would not change his mind, the only way you could keep your gun there is to either personally take your gun out, point it at him and tell him you would shoot him if he tried to remove it (and that is what you might as well do, because the second option really represents that), or get the government to create and enforce yet another law, requiring him to allow you on his property against his will and wishes. That's what it boils down to...and that is compulsion to do something against his will on his own property and I am four square against it...as would be Ezra Taft Benson.
We've beat this dead horse to a pulp now. It is clear how I feel and we simply disagree. I'll let it stand right there and move on. JT and DC, for any further comments or responses on this issue, just refer back to this post.
Again, Merry Christmas...with the true Christian spirit of the season, His spirit, abounding with all.
The one seizing property to another individual's property is YOU!
The Brits were attempting to extend their will beyond what they were entitled to. That's the motivation for mounting the war in the first place.
The employer's right extends to the workplace. The parking lot is where his employees park there cars. If they have anything in particular in them while they are engaing in workplace activities, it doesn't matter. They are for use offsite and off company time. That is traditional American practice and culture. Most employers formerly had no problem recognizing their boundaries.
The boundary between the employer's jurisdiction and the employee's is the vehicle body. That's consistent with That's consistent with the OK and MN laws, other State laws I don't know about, the fed Firearm Owner Protection Act(McClure-Volkmer) and 18USC241. The employee is not actively exercising his 2nd amendment right within the employer's workspace. He excersises it offsite and off the clock. Just like one might do with a skien of yarn and knitting needles, a chainsaw, a fishing pole, or their toolbox. Parking lot signs say, "park at your own risk", "no trucks", "parking", "no parking", "no loitering", no ball playing", ect. Some installations are, or contain a reasonable target where banning certain items from the premises is legit.
THe fact is that the employer is in fringing on the employee's right and the employee is not infringing whatsoever by having any legal item in his car and asserting his right to have it. That's what the govm't acknowledges. Now, if Freedom of association becomes the employer's claim, he then has the right to enter the employee's personal sphere of jurisdiction and make the demands. If Weyerhauser, or anyone else admits that this is the case, then they can legitimately pull the crap they are pulling.
What they are doing now is a backdoor gun grab, that infringes on the employee's rights. They are spewing lots of BS, to hide their sentiment and obfuscate in the matter. It needs to be shown, that Freedom of association is all they have and that gun grabbing is their move in the game. These employers can not claim there is any danger in allowing their employees to have this item in particular in the cars parked in the lot, because they have not provided measures to exclude criminals, only measures to harass, slander, and libel their employees.
Benson addresses "moral respect", moral law, here:
"(5) I hold that the Constitution denies government the power to take from the individual either his life, liberty, or property except in accordance with moral law;
that the same moral law which governs the actions of men when acting alone is also applicable when they act in concert with others;
that no citizen or group of citizens has any right to direct their agent, the government to perform any act which would be evil or offensive to the conscience if that citizen were performing the act himself outside the framework of government."
Note that Benson says that a group of men [the anti-gun companies at issue] have no moral right to act "outside the framework", no right to "perform any act which would be evil or offensive to the conscience".
I submit that disarming employees using the pretext of property rights is offensive & evil in intent.
I think that Benson would see this particular issue in that same way.
do i, or do i not, have the absolute right to ban all firearms (except legally held firearms carried by a law enforcement officer on legally sanctioned business) from my property?
if a person wishes to enter my property with my agreement, do i have the absolute right to specify whatever conditions i see fit for them to uphold while they are on my property?
On this point we may disagree.
As to the larger point of self-defense, I know we will agree...I am glad the young man defended himself. He had every right to do so. It is up to him now to come to terms with his employer based on the conditions that were set before the incident ever occurred.
Regards.
The employer's rights extend to the entirety of his property, the fact that you are allowed to use his property (parking lot) does not negate his ownership of it, nor his property rights to it.
You don't have to work for an employer that does not allow guns on his property if you don't feel secure there.
No.
The employee retains the right to seek work elsewhere.
What you're advocating is a blatant land grab that violates the property rights of the employer.
He's left without a choice.
Let's say that you work for a company that does research and development of new systems of water purification; you are directly involved in research for a revolutionary new system will change the industry.
You are seen and heard discussing the specifics of the ongoing research, and giving detailed information about the project, tools, and the progress made by your employer to employees of a competing research firm at a local restaurant. You are on your own time.
Does your company have the right to fire you?
Once the gun comes out of storage and into the workplace, it's a legitimate item for the employer either to makes demands on, or to negotiate. That's, because it's his business. His(the owner) mean's corp CEO(BoDs), or proprietor.
W/o going into all the details, the employee ends up accepting risks and devoting his time to tasks ordered by the employer for whatever his intents and purpose is. The 2nd Amendment is irrelevant here, because the employer demnds that these tasks be done according to his rules and guidelines. The employer/owner acts as a sovereign and you agree to waive your sovereignty over matters in the workplace for whatever economic benefits you recieve. There is mutual agreement regarding this. In most cases it's a practical agreement, where both parties allow each other some space. Those that do not allow space have various well know and common names, such as clymer, ect...
The right to self defense however can never be taken away. It can only be overruled by the individual himself, such as is done in the military, or in aid to one's fellow(s) under attack, in trouble by some accident, or otherwise threatened. No one can demand that one abandon the right of self defense, nor the measures taken to provide for it. Guns are not always required for self defense either. The existence of the right of self defense is why the 2nd was penned. The 2nd forbid the govm't from taking away effective self defense.
If the employer's demands don't meet the employee's stds for effective self defense on the job, he should either refuse to work there, or operate under the space clause. Of course clymer orgs don't have a space clause.
Here's an example of a company's space clause in action. spunkets as a young man drills holes and uses leather gloves to avoid having machine chips shave all the flesh off his hands. Co. says that's not allowed, because of insurance regs. Insureance folks claim the gloves will be grabed by the chips and cause spunkets to be wrapped around the spindle, or at least have his arm ripped off.
spunkets wears gloves anyway. Boss(pres) says, "take them off". spunkets takes them off and stops work. Boss says, "get back to work." spunkets puts gloves back on and drills another hole. Boss says, take the gloves off. spunkets takes off the gloves and stops work. Boss says,"get back to work." spunkets puts gloves back on and drills another hole. This sequence is repeated 'till boss gives up and goes back in his office. Scene repeated at least monthly for a year. Same with the crane and safety glasses. When spunkets moves tons of steel on a sling through the aisles, he wants perfect unobstructed vision, so he never wacks something with it and causes a mess with dead people mixed in.
"Doesn't our Constitution set the base conditions for all contracts & agreements?"
No. The Constitution is the blueprint for the govm't and limits their powers. That policy limit on rights infringements is extended to the private sphere only when unjust conditions exist, such as extortion, fraud or discrimination amounting to exclusion of a minority exist. Examples of extortion are when rights are violated in an unreasonable way, such as job loss for not risking ones life , or health. The courts and the legislature can intervene. Asbestos, coal dust, explosions and other equipment failures are an example. Since all branches are political, the rule of "more, or less" applies.
In the case of guns in the employee's parked cars though it is a clear extortion, a violation of the 14th Amend. and an attempt to usurp the power of govm't. That's, because they're not claiming Freedom of assoc., they are claiming reasonableness and imaginary powers.
Read your own tag line and ponder it. The anaology you posted isn't even close to being a similar situation. The employer in this case is stealing the right of the employee to exercise his rights on his own time and off the clock.
You've been told the parking lot is for storage. You've been given the law that shows that's what it is and that's about all that goes on there. How many desks, or work stations do you ever see in the parking lots? Where does the receptionist sit to do her nails, in the parking lot, or inside the door?
He can declare freedom of association, play nice and refrain from extending his property claim to the interior of his employee's property and violating his emplooye's rights offsite and off the clock, or he can move his operations out of the US.
Can you break into my car just because its parked on your lot??? No. you will be charged with a crime. You can have it towed or whatever but you cannot enter without permission.
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.