Posted on 10/09/2005 9:09:28 AM PDT by RightDemocrat
That's correct, assuming that carrying on company property is within company policry.
In that case there wouldn't be an issue anyway.
The employyees car does not belong to the employer. It is not his property. The lot is provided for the purpose of storing the employee's car during work hours. The employer can limit the general type of vehicle, but in no case can the employer dictate what legal personal property can be contained in that personal vehicle.
True. But, do you think one has the RKBA on private residential property, even if the homeowner wishes otherwise?
Some posters think that as long as the weapon remains in the car, there is nothing the homeowner can do about it, short of directing the car to move, while others believe that a homeowner can keep cars containing guns out of his driveway while a business entity cannot.
It strikes me that a contractor may (or not) agree to not have a weapon in his truck in order to get a particular job, similarly, employees may agree to the same thing in order to get a corporate job. I think what some are saying is that RKBA makes these kinds of voluntary agreements unconstitutional in and of themselves. I disagree, since I think that RKBA exists on private property only within the wishes of the owner of the property. And of course it exists on public property regardless, or should. IMO, the same goes for the rest of the BOR.
I agree with you on the homeowner, but corporate property is in a sense a form of public property since people are by the very nature of business given an open invitation to come on to the property. Further a corporation is usually owned by a large group of people to varying degrees. Since there are many owners shouldn't they be allowed to do as they wich. My whole point all along is that corporations do NOT have the same rights as persons.
To the extent that we lose control over what is your own, in my case, my property, in your case, your car, our freedom is restricted.
IMO, one should have complete freedom within one's own personal sphere, but only until that freedom infringes the freedom within the personal sphere of someone else.
When the car comes onto my property containing something that I normally disallow on that property, my sphere of freedom is infringed. But I understand, your car is within what you consider your sphere of freedom, and you consider that I am infringing on that freedom by my disallowment of a gun in its contents.
Because we both believe in our personal freedom, you want to control the contents of your car, I want to control what comes within the boundaries of my property.
The answer is simple enough (to me): either we agree that the car stays on the outside of the boundaries, I decide to let the gun stay in it, or you decide to remove it while it's on my property.
Good luck with getting a rational reply. -- I made the same argument, which was ignored. -- He then diverted to his amusing 'private party' ploy.
Expect more efforts at distraction
I disagree with you on the corporate part, but at least we understand each other, I think.
It isn't about rationality. I asked you a simple question. DO I HAVE THE RIGHT TO ORDER YOU OFF MY PROPERTY FOR ANY REASON AT ANY TIME?
Well, you have to fight bad Constitutional contentions when you see them, even if the poster in question is so obtuse that you cannot get them to answer simple questions.
Because even if they don not answer simple questions, it makes it clear to most other readers what they are up to. My simple question is now, do I have the right to order someone off my property for any reason, even if they were previously invited there?
That's true, I guess.
And I do think it's clear this law would limit rather than enhance our freedom. In terms of its legality, I see it as more of a potential threat to RKBA than a savior of it.
The arguments by the guys who support the proposed law seem to have filtered down to 2 separate tacks: one, that business property, specifically corporate, doesn't enjoy the same protections as residential (because I think , they perceive corporate property as being analogous to public property), and two, that a car is inviolate, like an embassy in a foreign country.
I come closer to understanding the "car is inviolate argument" and probably even agree that, without a prior agreement, a property owner has no right to search one that is on his property. However there is no doubt in my mind that the property owner may create any conditions he wishes, without justification, regarding the presence of that car on his land. That would include specifying its contents, and methods of verifying such. In other words, the property owner can insist that the car owner, to gain access to the property, must agree to conditions. Seems reasonable to me, but I believe the proposed law would make such an agreement illegal.
And I also see it as opening the door to requiring "safe storage" laws in homes. If businesses can be forced into safe storage against their will, why can't homes? That is a VERY dangerous precedent that I don't think the NRA and the folks supporting this law have thought through - I can just see the Brady Center spinning that 180 degrees and saying "If safe storage is necessary for guns to be on a business's premises, then why shouldn't it be necessary in homes to keep guns away from children?"
Yeesh.
-- do you think one has the RKBA on private residential property, even if the homeowner wishes otherwise?
Round you go. -- If the weapon remains in a visitors car, it is not being 'carried' on the owners property, it remains inside the visitors property. Get it?
Some posters think that as long as the weapon remains in the car, there is nothing the homeowner can do about it, short of directing the car to move,
True. If you somehow sense a visitor has something in their car that offends you, you can direct them to leave.
while others believe that a homeowner can keep cars containing guns out of his driveway
Certainly you can; -- you can put up a sign, which could be ignored by invited visitors, as you have no power to search their cars.
while a business entity cannot.
You become a 'business entity' when you employ a contractor.
It strikes me that a contractor may (or not) agree to not have a weapon in his truck in order to get a particular job,
I personally, as a prime contractor could agree, but I could not force my subcontractors or employees to agree to be disarmed as a condition of their employment on your property. That would be an unconstitutional act by me. -- They could then ignore your wishes, as you have no power to search vehicles, -- finish the job as per contract, and leave.
similarly, employees may agree to the same thing in order to get a corporate job.
Contract clauses that are repugnant to the law of the land are unenforceable. -- Ask your lawyer.
I think what some are saying is that RKBA makes these kinds of voluntary agreements unconstitutional in and of themselves. I disagree, since I think that RKBA exists on private property only within the wishes of the owner of the property.
The law of the land exists everywhere in the USA, and we are all obligated to support & defend it; - against acts repugnant to our Constitution.
And of course it exists on public property regardless, or should. IMO, the same goes for the rest of the BOR.
Your visitors rights remain in effect when they are on your private property. If your visitor or an intruder violate your rights, you can respond in kind. [ever hear of the golden rule?] -- Please, can you tell me if you're starting to 'get' the basics of our constitutional contract?
Usage error corrected; no extra charge.
And that's where the "they have no right to search my car" argument falls apart.
Employment is a contract. Contracts have terms.
Even entering pseudo-public property like a parking garage is a contract - if you look on the back of a ticket, it explains the terms for entering that garage - and states it is a contract for the duration of parking in the garage.
An employer can state that they have the right to search your car while it is on the premises as a term of entering the property for employment. You can always refuse to take that job. If you take the job and then the employer wishes to search your car, you can always refuse and drive away. The employer cannot force a search of your car as a private entity - but they can terminate employment for failure to adhere to the contract.
And, as another poster noted, the best approach is to apply massive public pressure to companies. Using the law in an activist manner is the approach of liberals, IMO - and that weapon will be used against us later.
No, they do not. A vistor has no First Amendment rights while on my property. Or do you think that someone should be allowed to hold a protest on my property against my will? Likewise, you don not have the right to bring a gun on my property if I do not want you to.
And, once again, DOES A PROPERTY OWNER HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL SOMEONE TO LEAVE THEIR PROPERTY FOR ANY REASON?
In any case, I would have left when you first started acting odd about guns, not just because you had the right to set terms. I suspect most of your rational guests would have followed.
"--- Don't waste my time or JimRob's bandwidth asking how I found out you had the gun.
Under your rules for use of private property, do I have the right to tell you to leave? In fact, do have the right to tell you to leave my property for ANY REASON? "
Well, there are questions under the constitutions rules, dboy.
-- But the facts remain in the cases at hand. -- Companies have no power to search employees cars for weapons. We have a right to carry arms in our vehicles, and it is a violation of individual rights to ban employees from having a gun in their cars.
Let's hope the USSC someday backs up the States on this issue.
196 posted on 10/10/2005 3:40:26 PM PDT by faireturn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
You did not answer the question. You evaded it, just as you have evaded just about every question put to you.
Forget the party. Forget the gun aspect. We are now talking fundamental property rights.
I invite you onto my property. I then change my mind and demand that you leave. For no reason. Do I have that right? Or do you have the right to stay there against my will?
I agree.
However, they can set the term that, in order to enter their property and work there, that they reserve the right to search cars on the property - just as they typically reserve the right to search your briefcase upon entering or leaving.
And if you refuse those terms, they have the right to ask you to leave and to terminate your employment. No car search required - YOU refused the terms of the employment contract.
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.