[Jeff Head]

I disagree. No need to rehash it over and over again. I am rabidly pro-gun and RKBA...but the employers rights extend to ALL of his property. It is then the employees right to either engage in the employment contract based on the conditions the employer sets or not.

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.

[jonestown]

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.
266 spunkets

---

Well said above.

-- Do you have any comment on the theory that employees can be bound by employment agreements/conditions that, in effect, prevent them from self defense?

Doesn't our Constitution set the base conditions for all contracts & agreements?

269