Posted on 10/09/2005 9:09:28 AM PDT by RightDemocrat
Agree or disagree?
"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?"
The weapon is also inside the property owner's property. Get it?
No.
"And if you refuse those terms, they have the right to ask you to leave and to terminate your employment. "
No. The employer either honors their employees right to property, or they get the hell out the US and set up shop in some hell hole where tyrants are welcomed. They can go to China for instance.
"Employment is a contract. Contracts have terms."
That's a good point. Some here wish the law to specify the terms of the contract.
"Using the law in an activist manner is the approach of liberals, IMO - and that weapon will be used against us later."
That's very well put. I'm fairly surprised that LaPierre, whom I've always liked, has fallen into that trap.
Ah. So the employer must honer their employee's right to property at the expense of his own.
The employer must honor the property line. He must refrain from attempts to extend it where it doesn't exist. The FL legislature would be acting to reaffirm this fact and prevent loss of employee right by adverse possession.
It exists at the edge of his property. If you enter his property, you do so on his terms. No one is forcing you to enter his property - if you don't like his terms, you can always work somewhere else.
That is why the 2nd Amendment is a constraint on government, not individuals or non-governmental organizations. Government can force you to do things. An employer cannot. If your car is on his property, he cannot search that car against your will. But he can demand that you leave and terminate your employment if you agreed beforehand that he had the right to search cars on his property. That's the difference here - he has property rights because he does not have the force of government to search you.
And that's where the "they have no right to search my car" argument falls apart.
Not at all; -- if you invited me and my car onto your land without an initial search, you have no power to search my car later. [unless you can get a warrent] -- Obviously, your best recourse is to get me to leave.
Employment is a contract. Contracts have terms.
Yep, terms that cannot be repugnant to our laws.
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.
And a contract term banning guns would be repugnant to our 2nd amendments law of the land.
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.
Such a statement would be coercive as well as being repugnant to our 2nd amendments law of the land.
You can always refuse to take that job.
Specious argument. Obviously not 'always'.
If you take the job and then the employer wishes to search your car, you can always refuse and drive away.
And loose your job because of coercion.
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.
Such coercive efforts to ban guns are repugnant to our rule of law.
And, as another poster noted, the best approach is to apply massive public pressure to companies.
The companies are being supported by millions of liberals & socialists in both parties. The best approach is to insist that the 2nd amendment be enforced.
Using the law in an activist manner is the approach of liberals, IMO - and that weapon will be used against us later.
The enforcement of the 2nd is mandated by constitutional law to legislative & executive branches throughout the USA. Such enforcement is mistermed as "activist" by some liberals.
Well said. The same reasoning can also be applied to individuals who refuse to support & defend our BOR's on private property.
They are free to leave.
I see. Now where's the vertical boundary, somewhere outside the solar system?. Does the moron employer get to demand airline companies check with him about any regulations he might issue? The vertical boundary is the vehicle's outside edge. "If you enter his property, you do so on his terms."
It's a parking lot. It's there so the employees can park the car, not so the employer can dictate social policy, ban things and otherwise run roughshod over employee rights. If the employer doesn't provide the parking space, he'll have no employees. The employer doesn't get to infringe on public, or others private property by forcing his employees to park elsewhere. The employer has 2 choices, allow parking, or not allow parking. The choice to allow parking does not entitle him to anything else.
"That is why the 2nd Amendment is a constraint on government, not individuals or non-governmental organizations."
The relevant topic is property right and Freedom off the job, not guns. Employees are entitled under the 14th to enjoy property right and Freedom w/o it being userped by employers. In particular their vehicles. Whatever the employees decide to take with them, for whatever reason, when they travel to and from work is none of the employer's business.
"Government can force you to do things."
They force employers to have parking lots, so their employees don't clog up everyewhere else with their cars.
"he can demand that you leave and terminate your employment if you agreed beforehand that he had the right to search cars on his property.">
This particular demand is no more a valid than demanding the employees give him a BJ.
" if you don't like his terms, you can always work somewhere else."
Wrong. If the employer don't like honoring employee rights, he can get the hell out of the US and go somewhere that welcomes tyrants.
No, people have the right to prohibit guns on their property, just as they have the right to deny protests on their property or passing out fliers on their property, which are First Amendment rights off their property.
Specious argument. Obviously not 'always'.
And this is where your argument falls apart. No one forces you to take a job. Whereas government can force you to do something. That is why the Bill of Rights is a constraint on government - because government can use force. But is not on individuals - they in turn have property rights - and if you violate property rights, such as having a gun on their property against their will, they can ask you to leave. If you refuse, you are in trespass, and then government is called to enact force.
And loose your job because of coercion.
Coercion? You signed an employment agreement. No one coerced you to do that.
Such coercive efforts to ban guns are repugnant to our rule of law.
I disagree with banning guns at the workplace. But it is a property owner's perogative to do so. I enter his property on his terms and remain there on his terms.
And it's telling that you STILL have not answer a simple question - do I have the right to demand you leave my property for any reason after I have invited you there?
I think I know why you refuse to answer such - because it destroys your position utterly.
You ever see what countries are like that do not have private property rights?
They are sh**holes because of it. Property rights are JUST as fundamental as 2nd Amendment rights. But you want to trump them. If anything, YOU are the one emulating communistic approaches here - that terms for a property owner can be set by the government, and that private property can be subsumed to the will of the state.
I see you wish to function in abject disregard for basic property law. So I won't bother even addressing the rest of your post, since you start with an absurd position on which to rest your case. But I will answer your close:
If the employer don't like honoring employee rights,
Let's say I call my boss an a-hole to his face. I have a First Amendment right to do so. Is he violating my employee rights to fire me for exercising my First Amendment rights?
I disagree with banning guns at the workplace. But it is a property owner's perogative to do so. I enter his property on his terms and remain there on his terms.
Try to understand that you do not have the coercive 'perogative' to ban guns or demand BJ's [thanks Spunkets] as a condition of employment.
Yes, an employer can ban guns on his property, just as I can prohibit guns on mine. BJs have nothing to do with it. You are taking an activist approach against property rights. And that is wrong. You are not forced to work at a job. You can work at a company that does not have this policy. Otherwise, you're like the union types who want jobs where the employer cannot fire someone for cause.
Oh, yes, and I'm STILL waiting for you to answer my simple question - do I have the right to demand that you leave my property after inviting you on it, for any reason?
Right. Employers have always made such demands before whenever the legislatures failed to control things for them.
" So I won't bother even addressing the rest of your post, since you start with an absurd position on which to rest your case."
Touchy aren't we?
"Let's say I call my boss an a-hole to his face. I have a First Amendment right to do so."
Your grasp of Constituitonal law and human relations sucks.
"No one forces you to take a job."
Employers aren't kings and lords and their employees aren't their serfs. They either restrict their demands to valid workplace concerns, or the rest of us will make a correction.
THe legislature failed to do the bidding of the employers, so they've taken this route to disarm their employees. They have no right to demand their employees subject their Freedom off the job to their will. In particular they do not have the right to demand that their employees abandon their right to effective self defense off the job, regardless of what they nthink, or how they feel.
The power to overcome the employer's property rights has been an agenda for the left for decades.
Touchy aren't we?
No. I just don't waste my time with nonsense.
Your grasp of Constituitonal law and human relations sucks.
Ah, so my employer CAN restrict my First Amendment rights on the job. But you said the following:
If the employer don't like honoring employee rights
Well, he's not honoring my First Amendment rights. Are some rights more equal to you, then?
Employers aren't kings and lords and their employees aren't their serfs.
A serf has no choice who he works for. You do. You voluntarily enter into a contract with an employer. If you don't like those terms, don't take the job.
They either restrict their demands to valid workplace concerns, or the rest of us will make a correction.
With activist government that restricts property rights.
I bet you were in favor of Kelo, then, too. It also restricted property rights.
Protecting rights is a valid function of govm't. Just as protecting employee health is a valid concern, so is protecting their right to travel to and from work with any legal item in their vehicle, or on their person. The employer demand an item not be brought into the workplace, but he has no right to demand it not be in their vehicle.
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.