Posted on 05/03/2005 6:09:30 PM PDT by Mulder
JUNEAU -- A Senate committee is thinking of adding one more provision to an anti-gun-control bill. The proposed amendment would guarantee in state law that Alaskans have a right to carry and store weapons in their vehicle, even if there is a municipal law against it or their employer prohibits it.
(Excerpt) Read more at adn.com ...
Whoa, they lost me when they included employers....
Now they are attempting to ban cities from enacting gun control, and protecting the Rights of workers from anti-RKBA employers.
It appears that the RKBA is doing quite well in Alaska. Perhaps other states will follow their lead.
Why?
Maybe I am reading it wrong. Are they saying an employer can't have a gun free zone at work?
I dunno. I've thought about that one too. Employers have a right to private property, but then again, so do I with regard to the contents of my car. I don't see where an employer can intrude into my private car and tell me what can be in there (that is otherwise legal).
A law on the subject would settle the matter of conflicting property rights.
They're talking about vehicles, like in the employee parking lot.
Damn pretty place but the skeeters are so big up there they can stand flat footed and have sex with turkeys.....or so I hear.
And then theres that cold and snow to consider.......:o)
Read it again. It says "in the vehicle." Big difference. If I keep a gun in my car for safety on the long drive back and forth to the plant, I should be allowed to keep it locked in the trunk while I'm at work.
"Whoa, they lost me when they included employers...."
If the employer is doing business as an artificial entity like a corporation, the state can regulate his allegedly "private" property any way they like or simply revoke their charter to do business in the state. A private citizen who is doing business in his private capacity on his private property is entirely another question.
Keep in mind that corporations exist only because of charters, rules, regulations, and laws enacted by the government. The servant (corporation) of a servant (government) cannot exist on equal footing as the principal.
The reason that corporations were created was because some tasks (e.g., mass production) were impossible for a sole individual to undertake as long as he had *full* liability. Before corporations, the owner of a business had full personal liability for everything that happened in that business. This is fine for small businesses, or family-operated outfits. But simply impractical for large outfits.
So special rules were made by the state to remedy this situation, which benefited everyone. These special rules centered around granting the privilege of "limited liability" to individuals that ran the corporation. (On a side note, people underestimate just how powerful this privilege is).
Theoretically, this arrangement is supposed to benefit everyone. The company owners win because they can produce (and thus sell) more product. The country benefits because those goods are being manufactured at home, along with all the know-how to build them. Individuals benefit because with mass production, the per-item production cost declines, meaning lower prices and higher productivity (better wages) for workers. And the state benefits from collecting more revenue, which it can use to more effectively protect the Rights of individuals.
This model only works if the 1) the people that run the corporations are moral, or 2) the state regulates them sufficiently such that they act morally. ("Moral" really isn't the right word, but you get the drift).
The "failed" model is seen in the "company" towns of a century ago. Workers were treated like slaves, paid in company script, and literally worked to death, while the owners of the corporations made out like bandits. The state failed miserably in their responsibility to protect individual Rights.
(Now before someone starts talking about "free markets", keep in mind that 1) the corporation (unlike an individual) does NOT exist in nature. It requires state intervention to create. And 2) the Founders not only rebelled against a tyrannical gov't, but also tyrannical corporations. The tea that the Sons of Liberty dumped into Boston Harbor did not belong to King George. It belonged to the East India Tea Company. The Founders realized that tyranny could come from powerful entities which were not necessarily state-based. Many modern-day "conservatives" seem to forget this)
But back to the issue at hand. This case is another example of "failed" oversight of corporations. A company has absolutely no authority to regulate the lawful and peaceful behavior of individuals, so long as they hide behind the 'limited liability' statutes.
If a corporation wants to control what workers do 'off-the-clock', they should be forced to pay their wages for such time, OR surrender their limited liability charter, and deal with them on a man-to-man basis.
Kompany anti-gin policies are nothing less than an assault on our Liberty as a Free people. While it may be "smokers" today, tomorrow, it could be "gunowners". One newspaper writer in Minnesota has even gone on the record saying that companies should refuse to hire anyone with a CCW permit. What's next? Should companies refuse to hire anyone that owns guns? Or anyone that refuses random company inspections of their property? Or anyone that refuses to take an implantable microchip?
If you think this is far-fetched, keep in mind that most large corporations are statist in nature, as are most of the regulatory bureaucrats. So now you have a situation where many companies would issue "no guns" rules on their own. And the rest would be blackmailed under the table into doing so by rogue bureaucrats and politicians (i.e., you want this contract, you have to ban guns)
The government, whos primary purpose is to defend our Rights as individuals (per Jefferson), has an absolute obligation to stop tyranny such as this, by any means necessary. The corporate charter of such a company should be immediately revoked, and those making the policies should be charged under civil Rights statutes.
The Alaska legislature is well within their delegated powers to pass the bill.
Exactly. Note my reply in post #11.
Also, note that most (if not all) of the anti-gun edicts come from large companies, and NOT businesses owned by individuals.
Skeeters big enough to throw a saddle on. :-)
Whatever it takes to keep the statists and leftists away. They are too soft to survive difficult conditions.
Yepper but still a beautiful place.... I was stationed up in Fairbanks, out on Shemya and at Clear a couple of times and loved every freezing second of it. I go back every year pretty much. Missed just a few, but I'll return as long as I'm able.
Stay safe !
Dunno there are plenty of socialists just east of that state. Hope they fight to keep it out !
Roger that. I was on an Icebreaker and another ship that made regular port calls all over AK. Loved it.
Shemya? Good Lord... I haven't been there, but I've been to Adak. Just... damn....
Yeah if it was above the high tide mark we got to render safe the infamous japanese glass net float ball sea mines.....:o)
Got two of em hanging in my den right here......realy pretty ! Seen grown men fight over the damn things.
Heh. Got a couple myself. Pity that now they use plastic. It's just not the same.
I spent 9 days in AK last summer. Carried everywhere I went. Neat place.
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.