Posted on 10/22/2005 1:41:31 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Some years ago, long after a co-worker had left the Ministry of Truth, a number of us learned that, during this person's tenure among us, the individual frequently was armed and dangerous in the workplace.
If there is such a thing as a retroactive, post-traumatic, primal scream/crawling into a fetal position/whimpering with delayed fear syndrome -- the idea that many of us once worked alongside not only a complete crazy nut job, but a complete crazy nut job with a GUN certainly qualifies.
Or, put another way, if you ever needed a reason to install the mother of all panic rooms, consider this certifiably insane statistic: At the moment, across our fair beloved state, there are 354,552 Floridians with concealed weapons permits walking among us.
Let's face it, you just know at least a couple thousand of those folks running around with their hidden weapons are probably more unhinged than Edgar Allen Poe meets Rudolf Hess.
A Simple Test
Or perhaps they are directly behind you in traffic. Brrrrrrr.
Which brings us rather neatly to state Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Tea Cup Poodle, the legislative supernumerary of the National Rifle Association, who is the leading lotion boy on behalf of the gun lobby to deny employers the right to bar workers from keeping their weapons in their car while on company property.
How deranged is this?
Take this simple test.
Look around your workplace. Chances are there are one, or two, or three, or more co-workers you and your colleagues have often joked about as being the leading candidate to bring an AK-47 to the office someday.
Or maybe that Dilbert from Hell is -- you!
And now Dennis Baxley, R-You Talkin' To Me?, wants to make it just that much easier for your resident lunatic in the next cubicle to turn Amalgamated Widgets into a killing field.
We live in an imperfect world -- filled with very, very strange people who hear voices; who have issues; who really don't like you just ... because.
And many of these people are down the hall -- seething, fulminating, over in personnel -- filling out a job application.
Perfect World
Purely, as a general principle, can you make some kind of abstract Second Amendment argument that law-abiding citizens ought to be able to take their bazookas, their Uzis, their 50-caliber armor-piercing rocket launchers with them wherever they go, including onto the grounds of Acme Nose Tweezer International?
Well ... OK, whatever.
To be sure, in a perfect world where there was no workplace violence, where some employees weren't more unhinged than Son of Sam meets Lex Luthor, it would be fine if people drove into the company parking lot with their NRA-approved death ray, or their surface-to-air missile, or their Gatling Gun in the trunk. Who would care?
However, if the private sector can regulate other forms of employee behavior, such as smoking in the workplace, why can't employers also establish rules governing the presence of lethal weapons on private property?
There's no question the Florida Legislature, a subsidiary of the National Rifle Association, will pass Baxley's Fortune 500 meets "Six Feet Under" bill.
One question for Baxley, who does happen to have a conflict of interest in his legislation since he is an Ocala funeral director:
If as a result of the representative's legislative actions an act of workplace violence leads to the murders of workers, would Dennis Baxley also be willing to create a NRA-funded compensation account for the surviving families?
Didn't think so.
You do not have an inalienable right to carry a gun on my property and especially not on my airplane.
Now, I should not have any right to stop you from having a gun on your property. but, Your inalienable rights stop at your property line.
IMHO, the solution to this "controversy" is to pass a law that indicates that companies shall not be liable for allowing concealed-carry-permit holders to carry weapons on their property unless they take an active role in the employee's possession of the weapon (e.g. providing the weapon or training, requiring the weapon as a condition of employment, etc.), but shall be liable if they require someone to disarm and injury befalls someone as a consequence of such disarmament.
Nobody's property rights are infringed, but the 99% of "no weapons" signs would go away.
It sounds like you want to give property owners the right to search personal vehicles and decide what items people can and cannot carry in their vehicle. That is a path heading down a slippery and dangerous slope. When you run a business that employs people, you unavoidably take on certain risks associated with your employees, including the risks of actions those people may take on company property. There's no way to avoid those risks. If an individual or a company doesn't want to take those risks, then they have to hire contractors and consultants to do work for them on the contractor's property.
I'll tell you what these restrictions on guns on company property are really all about: reducing the threat of litigation by trial lawyers. These restrictions on guns don't actually make employees safer, but if an employee is shot on company property, the restrictions make it easier to defend the company against a lawsuit filed by the family of that employee. The company can then argue that they had restrictions in place against guns in cars and they "did all they could to prevent this tragedy." While the restrictions are of course ineffective and do not stop criminals from keeping guns in their cars, this sounds good in court and it can help to defend against lawsuits. That's all this is my friend. It's corporate risk management at the expense of employee rights. It's nothing more and nothing less. Have a great weekend.
A fair attitude. Like Indiana Pacer Steven Jackson said regarding the new NBA dress code, "they make the rules, they pay the bills, I want a job."
I agree employers should not be held liable when employees bring firearms with them, but the second part of your statement is ludicrous too. Its my property, I can require you to disarm and you have the right not to work here if you don't want to. It is as simple as that. I will add that I also have the right to require you to bring a firearm to work and if you don't want to, you can go somewhere else too.
But the employer should not be held liable if some nut invades the property and starts shooting under any circumstances.
Yes I do. And if you don't like this policy, you don't have to work here.
Like Indiana Pacer Steven Jackson said regarding the new NBA dress code, "they make the rules, they pay the bills, I want a job."
This is a legal dispute about a property owner's rights vs. a vehicle owner's rights, and you appear to fall strongly on the side of property owner's rights. But so far on this thread, I haven't seen you address the issue of what can happen to people when they are disarmed on company property. Is that not an issue to you? Do carjackings matter to you or only property rights?
"My house, my rules". A friend's wife doesn't like people carrying guns in her house. Occasionally, 'the boys' get together for a board game, sometimes at her house. Most of us carry. We leave our guns in our cars whether she is home or not. Her house, her rules. Don't like it, don't come over.
It's the same thing with an employer. If they don't want guns on their property, it is their property. They can do what they want. I do not have a right to be employed by any specific employer. If I don't like the rules I can either not apply for work there, or I can ignore the rules and take my chances on getting fired. (I have done the latter in a number of different jobs. Never got caught).
It's their property. I do not have the right to carry a gun on somebody else's property if they specifically tell me not to. If I do it anyways, they have the right to have me removed from their property. It's called 'property rights'. Their property = their rules.
For the record, friends can carry guns in my house all they want to. It doesn't bother me a bit. Actually, I prefer it. My property = my rules. My rules are "pack 'em if ya got 'em".
I was discussing this a couple of weeks ago with some co-workers. My argument was that also: someone going postal isn't going to care that the company has a no-weapons policy, and refrain from acting. I'd rather that they have a no-weapons inside building policy, or something to that aside. As it is, the state law includes parking lots as part of the company property. I think that we should park off-property so we can maintain our 2nd amendment rights, and also abide by private property laws for the company.
OK, that's fine in principle. I can understand why an employer doesn't want guns inside his buildings, but what about in the corporate parking lot? What happens to employees who are disarmed by their employer and then carjacked in the parking lot?
Furthermore, there is a HUGE issue here of what happens to diarmed employees after they leave work and are off company property on public roads and now they are disarmed and cannot defend themselves againt carjackers. When you take guns out of someone's vehicle, the impact of that action extends far beyond your property lines when that person leaves your property in his vehicle. You're disarming that person on his ride home too, which could be through a dangerous area.
This is a thorny legal issue, but I support the rights of vehicle owners. The restrictions will not make people safer at work because the criminal or the crazy person will not follow them anyway, and that's the person who is going to commit a violent crime.
That could be countered by the fact that your actions create an attractive nuisance. Even if the law were written so that for such a lawsuit to proceed one would have to show that the criminal was likely aware of the restriction, the key point would be not so much to punish companies for restricting firearms, as to make their liability-avoidance lawyers discourage them from doing so.
I have mixed feelings about the property rights issue. I do believe in the right of the owner to set the rules for people coming onto the property – but I also believe in the right to carry firearms. When I was working (after retirement – the US Army had some strict regulations about carrying non-issue firearms) it was not an issue. I worked for a couple companies that “advised” us not to carry, but I don’t recall even hearing of an outright ban.
The 2nd amendment is a non-issue, as it only restricts our federal Government, not individuals.
What you wrote is true but so is staytrues comment that the 2nd amendment regulates the govt, not private citizens.
But the bill of rights is not an end all list of rights. (See the 9th amendment)
You and I have the right to own property. I also have the right to restrict access on this property (see the IV amendment). If I own a private business, and I desire to restrict access to the business to people carrying firearms I can. This is not a violation of the 2nd amendment and I am shocked at how many "conservatives" don't understand this.
An employer may face certain liabilities if he has an unsafe work site, but he is not require to let people carry firearms on his premises and even if he does, it will not remove his liabilities.
If I disagree with it or not is irrelevant. The property owner still has the right to limited access based on certain criteria.
Yes, but what about the rights of employees to defend themselves against carjackers in the company parking lot and on public roads after they leave work?
The employer can indeed be held liable for an unsafe work area to include the parking lots. If it can be proven that the area was unsafe or a reasonable person would have known the area to be unsafe and someone gets hurt, the employer can stand by. Letting employees carry weapons will not negate this liability.
If an employee wants to bring a weapon he can risk it and face termination if caught, or leave his weapon in his vehicle which would be park in an area that was not the employers property.
Rights are not absolute. You do not have the right to slander or libel or commit perjury regardless of the 1st amendment. You do not have the right to take a gun into my house or on my property regardless of the 2nd amendment.
It is still the owner’s property and he can decide who can or can not enter the premises and will be liable for reasonable or foreseeable hazards.
If I had to work with shim, I would want a gun to keep his aids infested carcass away from me.
Property rights are not absolute either. This is a complex legal dispute between the rights of property owners and the rights of vehicle owners. There are many restrictions on property rights in the law that have been upheld after judicial review. To ban guns from inside a private vehicle is a very serious infringement of the right to self defense. The law is a constant balancing act between the rights of different groups within our nation. No group has absolute rights, as you stated, and that includes property owners.
I'm glad you two brave crusaders are acquainted. Thanks for the ping AAC.
Daniel Ruth = craven coward...
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.