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.
And gun owners (of which I am one).
I understand my rights cannot infringe on the rights of others. I do not demand that my boss allow me to carry weapons on his private property. If I do not like his rules, I will work elsewhere.
There is no right to carry weapons on private property. (2nd amendment) There is a right to restrict access to private property. (4th amendment) The property owner wins this one.
Regards to you, FRiend.
This is the problem in a nutshell.........there is nothing "abstract" about the 2nd Amendment. The language is about as clear and concise as it gets.
That's a rather tough position to take. What happens to the man who's 60 years old and has been working at a company for 30 years. Suddenly his company says he can no longer keep a gun in his truck for self-defense. Other employers won't hire him because he has costly health insurance premiums and they're only going to keep him for 4 or 5 more years anyway. Who's going to hire him and where is he going to work. It's just not that simple of an issue. You're also twisting this issue around and saying that the employees are demanding a right from their boss. But they've always had this right, so how can they demand a right that they've always had?
"The property owner wins this one."
We shall see. If I had to bet, I'd bet that most state legislatures will pass laws to protect the right to keep a weapon in a private vehicle and these laws will ultimately be upheld by the conservative justices on the SCOTUS.
If an employee refuses to follow the legal rules of his employment, the employer should be free to terminate him. If this 60 year old man decides that he would rather carry a gun on private property than be employed, he has made his decision. Not all decisions are easy or what we want, but life is not fair.
Just a clarification: I think the laws that will be passed by states to protect the right to have guns inside a vechicle will not apply to residential property or the buildings owned by a private business. They will only apply to parking areas of employers. I agree completely that anyone has the right to decide who can enter his private residential property and on what conditions.
Well clearly you fall very strongly on the side of property rights. I'm not going to spend any more of our time trying to persuade you about the other side of this issue. Have a great weekend.
Have your self a great weekend as well. I hope we are parting company as friends and not adversaries. As you say, I feel strongly about the issue, as do you. We just come down on opposite sides.
Can you restrict minorities from eating at your resturant ?
Absolutely...we are FRiends. We're not too far apart on this issue, just in the area of employer's parking lots. Property rights are extremely important in my view, and I respect people with a strong belief in property rights.
:-)
No. As I said before, rights are not absolute. You cannot legally restrict access based solely on criteria that is protected by law, such as race, creed, national origin, etc, etc. This is why the status of protective class must be carefully applied and bestowed.
Companies have many work rules which are broken routinely by employees, and if they get caught, they are punished.
An employee must weigh the consequences of breaking a work rule and getting caught.
Terrorism is getting worse and leaving your weapon at home so you don't break a work rule can have disastrous consequences.
I'd advise protecting yourself, then if you get caught, find another job.
Jobs are easy to find, your life is hard to get back.
My position is that the Second Amendment should be in that list of criteria ( I am aware of USSC cases, 9th Circuit Court of Appeal cases, and various state court cases ).
I couldn't disagree more.
The idea behind the protected class concept is these classes are based on uncontrollable features, such as sex, national origin, and race. Although creed could be argued, the idea is this is often a cultural identity. Most Christians are Christian because their parents were Christian as most Muslims are Muslim because their parents were Muslims, not really a conscious choice.
Gun possession is not such a feature. Gun possession is a choice that is acted upon (legally) when the person turns 18 or 21 in most jurisdictions.
If a restaurant owner wants to forbid people from bringing guns into his restaurant, he can. He can forbid a black person from doing it, or a white person, or a Jewish person, or anyone, but not because of their skin color, but rather because of their active choice.
I personally believe we are slowly becoming a nation of protected classes instead of strong individuals. I do not believe we should be adding action based criteria to the protected classes.
You only qualify for a concealed brain permit if you have a brain. This one doesn't qualify.
Those are also my house rules.
Twenty years ago I was one of those women who would have either made you leave it in your car or thrown you out of my house altogether, but in 1986 a particular crime, one that made national news, committed in my neighborhood, stunned me into a complete 180 about firearms.
Which is precisely why I have chosen to break company firearm rules when I have worked for companies that tell me that I cannot be armed. I'd rather be alive and unemployed than comply with company rules and be dead. Either that or never go to work there in the first place.
I even carried when working for Domino's Pizza. I had a .45/.410 derringer in my hand, under the pizza bag, when I went into the more dangerous apartment buildings. My boss knew it, too. She said that the company would not stand by me if I ever had to use it, but that she understood why I carried it.
I was doing an environmental cleanup in Texas many years ago, and had to go to a pumping station very near the Mexico border. One of the guys working for the company heard about it, gave us a worried look (knowing that we were from Seattle), and asked us "y'all got a gun, right?"
I stuttered a bit, and asked him what his company's policy was toward carrying firearms. He replied, "oh, we're not supposed to carry guns, so most of us carry one of these instead", and then pulled a .44 magnum Ruger Blackhawk from his truck.
God, I love Texas.
I was packing a .45 Sig at the time. For this trip, I also threw the mini-14 behind the seat.
He replied, "oh, we're not supposed to carry guns, so most of us carry one of these instead", and then pulled a .44 magnum Ruger Blackhawk from his truck.
I rode through Texas back in 1982 and saw a lot of bars with gun checks like Easterners and Californians had hatchecks – but they had them in Arizona too.
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.