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.

[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