1 posted on
02/20/2006 11:38:26 AM PST by
neverdem
To: TYVets
BANG! You might find this interesting.
2 posted on
02/20/2006 11:41:35 AM PST by
neverdem
(May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
To: neverdem
Hayden said weve all heard stories about violence in the workplace and thats why we have policies about guns. I guess he's never heard of people hurt or killed because they couldn't defend themselves.
3 posted on
02/20/2006 11:45:00 AM PST by
RJL
To: neverdem
The court had to come to this conclusion. Just imagine the Pandora's box it would open if the entire Bill of Rights became fully enforceable against private property owners. It would mean you couldn't "discriminate" against those whose views you find absolutely repugnant.
4 posted on
02/20/2006 11:45:20 AM PST by
inquest
(If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
To: neverdem
Hayden said weve all heard stories about violence in the workplace and thats why we have policies about guns.How many such policies have actually prevented violence?
6 posted on
02/20/2006 11:48:44 AM PST by
shekkian
To: neverdem
I understand that in some localities, your car is considered the same as your home as to having a firearm within. If that is the law in Oklahoma, then why would it change when one enters a parking lot?
The issue should be whether one can remove it from the car while on another's property.
8 posted on
02/20/2006 12:01:58 PM PST by
RAY
To: neverdem; Joe Brower
An Armed Citizen, Is A Safe Citizen!
The Second Amendment...
America's Only Homeland Security!
Be Ever Vigilant!
10 posted on
02/20/2006 12:04:29 PM PST by
blackie
(Be Well~Be Armed~Be Safe~Molon Labe!)
To: neverdem
How is a hunter to go hunting after work?
11 posted on
02/20/2006 12:09:59 PM PST by
mountainlyons
(Hard core conservative)
To: neverdem
SC case law has previously said an RV can be considered an abode. maybe they should all drive RV's full of guns to the company lot.
13 posted on
02/20/2006 12:20:25 PM PST by
Rakkasan1
(Muslims pray to Allah, Allah prays to Chuck Norris.)
To: neverdem
The workers contended, among other things, plant security officers violated their federal constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures by telling them they would be fired if they did not permit a search of their vehicles. The former employees also contended the law violated their right under the Oklahoma Constitution to keep guns. When are people going to learn that the Constitution controls the actions of the government with respect to the citizens, not the actions of an employer with respect to its employees?
15 posted on
02/20/2006 12:25:57 PM PST by
TChris
("Unless you act, you're going to lose your world." - Mark Steyn)
To: neverdem
So what happened here? Employees employed by the same firm over a long period of time were threatened with the loss of their jobs if they didn't consent to a search of their vehicle?
Is there any reason those same employees shouldn't have presumed that their contract to work for that company included what had become precedent? If they had come to work every day for the last year or more, and if they had had firearms in their vehicles before, why would they be in the wrong for presuming they couldn't continue to follow that policy?
And then there's the privacy issue. More or less related to the above, and to the presumption that we have a natural right to privacy, why should their jobs be subject to loss simply because a company decided that morning to change what had been the norm?
20 posted on
02/20/2006 3:42:48 PM PST by
Simo Hayha
(An eduction is incomplete without instruction in the use of arms to defend against harm.)
To: neverdem
The appellate judges disagreed, quoting the state Constitution: Nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons. Idiots. The fired employees were not CARRYING weapons. The weapons were stored in their vehicles.
If a judge can't figure this out, he's a lying liar and needs to be removed now.
To: neverdem
This is a property rights issue according to the courts. And property rights seem to trump personal liberty in this case.
Interesting how that works. The property rights of the property owner are sacrosanct when the issue is banning guns. Now I wonder if those property rights would be quite as sacrosanct were the local government trying to condemn the real estate in question?
I think we all know the answer.
22 posted on
02/20/2006 4:42:38 PM PST by
RKBA Democrat
(Lord Jesus Christ, son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.)
I just wonder how many FReepers will condemn this who have been supportive of the firings of workers for being smokers.
Hmmmm.
32 posted on
02/20/2006 8:30:07 PM PST by
RandallFlagg
(Roll your own cigarettes! You'll save $$$ and smoke less!(Magnetic bumper stickers-click my name)
To: neverdem
Nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
So, state constitutions now out weight the US Constitution?
To: neverdem; All
You may wish to opine:
We communicate openly with the public
Mailing Address
Weyerhaeuser Company
P.O. Box 9777
Federal Way, WA 98063-9777
Shipping Address
Weyerhaeuser Company
33663 Weyerhaeuser Way South
Federal Way, WA 98003
Telephone
(253) 924-2345
1-800-525-5440
59 posted on
02/22/2006 10:59:52 AM PST by
MileHi
( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson