Posted on 12/16/2004 6:17:56 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez
You're correct, permission must be granted. However, you'd be surprised at how many people unknowingly give that permission when they sign for their parking stickers. It pays to read agreements.
An employer has a right to make any rules he wants on his property. A citizen has every right to work where he wants to if the employer will hire him and if he follows the employer's rules. That said, it is foolish for the employer to make no-gun rules. That postal fellow is not going to observe the no-gun rule when he brings his piece to the shop and he is more likely to think of doing it if he things no one else at the shop will be armed.
What are you talking about? A sign in a business's window stating "no guns allowed", or the same statment in an employees handbook IS NOT A LAW, Ace. You might want to know what a law IS before you carry.I have been carrying for YEARS and know the laws in my state. It is my responsibility to do so.
That's it, all of it.
My right to free speech does not trump your right to evict me from your home if I am saying there things of which you do not approve.
What does that have to do with any of this? Did you even read the previous posts? I have no idea what you're referring to.
It is the same as the employer's right to ban guns on his property.Your right to carry does not trump his right to ban your gun on his property.
Unfortunately, everyone has a right to do stupid things.
Louie, I have been arguing against companies violating employees property rights to guns, - [guns in the hands of the good guys] for a week now!
And who are the bad guys this time? The guys who used government to violate the property rights of land owners.
The bad guys are companies misusing their property rights in order to violate employee rights.
Your rights were intact, no one violated your rights;
Not true. The employees right to carry arms in their cars was violated by the 'new rules'.
you have the right not to work for a company whose regulations you do not believe in, you have the right to park elsewhere, you have the right to boycott the products made, and you have the right to carry a weapon up to the edge of their property...but that wasn't enough for you, you want the right to dictate how a landowner may use his land.
Use? - He is using his power to violate his employees right to be armed to & from work.
The only rights being violated are the rights of the property owner.
How does it violate a companies 'rights' for employees to park locked vehicles [containing guns] on the lots they provide?
One day, your neighbors will get together and decide that you may not put up a nativity scene in your front yard, and they will do so claiming the same "right" that you now claim. The right to dictate to others what they may or may not do on their property.
I'm not claiming a right to dictate anything. The company is dictating to their employees about their RKBA's.
Jeff Head is a national figure in the fight to safeguard our Second Amendment rights, and he patiently tried explaining to you just how wrong you were, as did many people on this thread, unfortunately, you are the enemy in the fight to safeguard our freedoms...you are that well-intentioned paver of the road to hell.
Many people on this thread are misguided. I am patiently trying to explain why. -- Companies are cynically misusing personal property rights to infringe on their employees 2nd amendment rights.
You've been arguing in favor of violating the property rights of property owners (employers) so that employees do not have to be inconvenienced into making alternative parking arrangements.
You are actually to dense to understand this argument.
DOJ Memo: 2nd Amendment is Individual Right
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1305791/posts
Joe Waldron, executive of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), told Cybercast News Service that the memorandum is "a good start, a good first step.
"What this does," Waldron explained, "is it puts the federal government -- the U.S. Justice Department -- which is the nation's chief law enforcement agency, on record as recognizing that the Second Amendment, without question, is intended to apply to individuals and not to collective organizations --- snip --
The Justice Department went on to say; --
"A 'right of the people' is ordinarily and most naturally a right of individuals, not of a State and not merely of those serving the State as militiamen.
The phrase 'keep arms' at the time of the Founding usually indicated the private ownership and retention of arms by individuals as individuals,--- "
Neither statement applies to the debate at hand. An individual's right to keep and bear arms is not the issue, the property owner's right to his property is what's being discussed.
I've posted the thoughts of two individual pro-Second Amendment advocates addressing this specific point, you, as it is the norm with you, can't substantiate anything with a thing beyond your own misguided opinions.
Luis Gonzalez wrote: You've been arguing in favor of violating the property rights of property owners (employers) so that employees do not have to be inconvenienced into making alternative parking arrangements.
Bottom line jonesy, and my last post to you on this.
Let's say that I believe that my safety, the safety of my loved ones, as well as the safety of anyone in my house is best served by an absence of guns on my property.
You believe that I am wrong.
You however, also believe that if I invite you to dinner, you have the right to ignore the policy I set for my property because you find parking on the curb and off my property inconvenient, and that you will use the government to force me to accept YOUR car entering MY property so that you can eat MY dinner.
You CAN use government to force your ideas on me, and to violate my rights...but it makes neither you or the government right.
You are wrong, and reasonable people have tried to show you why.
Bye.
The article:
"So there are really two rights at work here. Right in property, and right of self-defense."
____________________________________
One of the most concise arguments on the current debate in Oklahoma over the right of employer to set policy regarding weapons on their property that I have found on the web.
#1 Luis
____________________________________
Luis Gonzalez wrote:
An individual's right to keep and bear arms is not the issue, the property owner's right to his property is what's being discussed.
I agree with you, Pup. In my company's employee handbook, it says that "employees are not to provoke perpetrators in any way." This applies for situations both in and outside of the office during work hours. Essentially, we're not allowed to carry on company time. Now geographically, we're located to several relatively high crime areas and do work in all of them. The disagreement I have with the company is that no one in the Wendy's mass murder several years ago provoked the perp and they still were all put in the freezer and shot in the back of the head. I'll be damned if that happens to me.
No, I do not believe; --
-- "that if I invite you to dinner, you have the right to ignore the policy I set for my property because you find parking on the curb and off my property inconvenient, and that you will use the government to force me to accept YOUR car entering MY property so that you can eat MY dinner."
-- I have never posted anything on this thread to that effect.
Bye bye.
Globalism, Neo-Tribalism And False Reality
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1304383/posts
" --- Globalism is merely the latest version of these reactionary movements, this time striving to create one big global tribe, or global village, an attempt to recreate paleolithic tribal society on a global scale.
What about the so-called big brave capitalists? How does big business fit into this picture?
Martin Page, in his book The Company Savage (1972) drew the parallel between the modern corporation and the tribe, which he defined as a group of people who superstitiously believe that, together, they add up to more than the sum of their individual beings.
From this superstition springs another notion found in almost all tribal societies: that the tribe itself is a living force in its own right, which exists independently of the people who make it up.
In Africa, says Page, tribesmen call this force the Tribal Spirit, in Britain it is called the Company Spirit.
This pagan belief is even recognised in corporate law as the fictional persona, the corporate personality. It is also the basis of the idea of the organic corporate state.
Antony Jay, author of the book, Corporation Man (1972), also recognised the similarity between the tribe and the modern corporation and even sought to apply the dynamics of tribal behavior to corporations in a bid to have them function more effectively. Professor Hayek also attributed the recent revival in tribalist thinking to the fact that more and more people were obliged to work in larger and larger organisations, both public and private.
Globalists are socialists and therefore collectivists, in other words, tribalists. They view society not as many individuals, but as various tribes, pressure groups, or human resources whose interests are necessarily in conflict. They readily accept concepts such as inherited tribal guilt, guilt for past wrongs allegedly committed by people of the same tribe or race.
It is therefore meaningful for them to apologise for the alleged crimes of their tribal ancestors, and to try to persuade others to do likewise.
They are obsessed with issues of race, culture and group rights, while they ignore and set about abolishing individual rights."
_________________________________
As we see on this thread, -- the "Company Spirit" is set on abolishing individual rights.
Well before you get all upset, that sign IS THE LAW in Texas. Penal Codes Section 30.05 (criminal trespass) and 30.06 (Trespass By Holder of License to Carry Concealed Handgun) are automatically invoked should you carry a gun onto a premisis that:
1) Displays the 30.06 sign
2) Displays other signage barring firearms
3) You have signed an agreement stating you will not bring a firearm onto the property
4) Enter into a verbal agreement that would preclude you carrying a firearm on the property.
Finally, you've commited criminal trespass if you recieve notice that remaining on the property with a concealed weapon is forbidden and you fail to depart.
I've been carrying for a long time as well, and I know the laws in Texas inside and out. I'm suspicious that your state allows you to carry on private property without the owner's consent. Hell, I just flat out think you're wrong.
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.