Posted on 02/08/2006 7:13:35 AM PST by neverdem
I never really understood the desire of some people to rifle through the private belongings of others.
Frankly, I find it bizzare to say the least. I guess some folks are control freaks, or have weird fetishes, or just enjoy abusing their authority over others.
I've always respected the private property of others. I don't go through women's purses when they leave them unattended on a date. I don't dig through workers toolboxes when they take a bathroom break. I don't sneak around through my neighbors house when invited over for dinner.
I guess some folks *do* these things, and they tend to show up on threads like this. It is really kind of creepy.
Dont want it searched? Walk to work or park on the street.
Like I said, that is creepy. It sounds like you would have had a promising career as a Stasi agent. Too bad for you, they are out of business.
Not only is it absurd, I find it downright creepy and even un-American that someone would claim authority to rifle through another person's private property.
There is another "reason" or at least justification. Corporations are not people, except as provided by law. Those laws are designed to give the people who actually own corporations protections against risking any more than they have invested. It goes back to the Dutch explorers, at least. Companies, not being people, have no rights, none. They have priveleges granted by government. In return for those privileges the government may limit what would otherwise be private rights.
And of course as others have mentioned, there are some competing rights considerations as well. In such cases the solution is often the minimum possible restrictions on the rights (or privileges) of both sides of the issue. In this case that would mean such things as requiring firearms to be locked in vehicles and not visible from outside, which is an infringement but a livable one, similarly, any objective analysis will show that no real injury at all is done to the company. (As we all know, such policies do nothing to stop criminals or the insane, and only guarantee them a safer "work environment", ie. "Gun Free Victim Zone".)
You, sir, are 100% correct. Although I've argued this point here in the past and you would be surprised at the number of people who claimed that corporations have Rights.
Do I have to worship the god you dictate?
-----
The problem I see with that thinking is that YOUR policy against me bringing by gun into your parking lot, conflicts with MY right to have my gun before I get to YOUR parking lot, and when I LEAVE your parking lot..... I am not sure if there is an easy solution to this
Maybe a business oportunity here...??? public use gun lockers to drop off/pick up your gun OUTSIDE the parking lot?
BTTT
There isn't. You have the rights of the property owner versus the rights of the citizen guest. Both are quite valid.
Overall, I say let the market decide -- I'll take my business elsewhere if I can. And if rules are to be made, it would be best to err on the side of individual liberty.
That's a BS argument, you don't have to park on his parking lot, park elsewhere and walk.
You have no right to enter my property if I don't want you on my property, and if you can't adhere to my conditions of entry, I don't have to allow you on my property.
The government may not abridge a citizen's right to bear arms, I, on the other hand, as a private citizen, am not bound by the Constitution.
Perfect example...if you come on my property and start conducting Islamic prayer services in my yard, I'll have you removed, by force if necessary, because your right of freedom of religion does not supersede my rights as a property owner.
Your rights end where mine begin.
Your argument assumes a right to enter that parking lot. You don't have that right unless it's given to you by the owner.
It takes a court order for the government to do that.
Your right to carry ends at the edge of someone else's property.
which argument do you suggest is "BS".. I think I made a valid argument for both sides.. and simply pointed out that the ballance between the two is not easily made.
Yet, you claim right to use the parking lot I paid for however you want to use it.
The right you claim as the owner of that car applies to the owner of the parking lot.
There is no balance...property rights trump.
You don't have to park in my lot.
Regardless of how this comes out, I will continue to do what I please with my private property (my automobile) and my employer can take a flying leap. It's none of their business, and I will never consent to a search of my vehicle, their fantasy life regarding my private property notwithstanding.
exactly the reason why I stated that the balance between the rights are not easily achieved.. in essence an employer who makes it difficult for an employee to exercise their "right to carry" while NOT ON THE CLOCK... basicly to and from work... is a fair question for an employee to ask.. IMHO an employer does not assume ANY liability by NOT creating a "prohibition". The decision to carry a firearm in your vehicle should rest with the individual not the company they work for..
Not exactly...you REALLY require a concealed carry permit to do that:
"It is unlawful to carry a handgun concealed on or about one`s person or concealed or openly in a vehicle without a license to carry a concealed pistol.
If you don't, they're pretty specific on how and where they should be in your vehicle:
In order to transport or possess rifles and shotguns in a motor vehicle, Michigan law requires that they be unloaded and broken down or enclosed in a case, carried in the trunk of the vehicle, or inaccessible from the interior of the vehicle."
I'm no lawyer or law student, but it makes sense to me.
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.