Posted on 03/13/2007 11:26:20 PM PDT by neverdem
The U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions guarantee the right to keep and bear arms. Transporting a firearm in your vehicle for protection while traveling to and from work, grocery shopping, to the doctor's office, to a shopping center or anywhere else people commonly travel is central to that right.
In Plona v. United Parcel Service, 2007 (U.S. District Court, N.D. Ohio), UPS fired an employee for having a firearm stored in his vehicle in a public-access parking lot used by UPS employees and customers. The court found that "the right to keep and bear arms" is enough to form the basis of a wrongful termination. Further, U.S. District Judge Ann Aldrich found that "allowing an employer to terminate an employee for exercising a clearly established constitutional right jeopardizes that right, even if no state action is involved."
Businesses are prohibited from discriminating because of race, age, sex, religion, nationality, etc. And clearly they are also prohibited from discriminating against those who exercise their right to keep and bear arms for personal protection and other lawful purposes like hunting and target shooting.
Individual constitutional and legal rights do not end when we drive onto a business parking lot. Simply put, business property rights do not trump the Constitution or the law.
State legislatures have a duty to protect the constitutional rights of individuals from abuses. They must act as a shield to protect constitutional rights of the people; they also must act as the point of a sword to punish those who violate our inalienable rights. That is at the heart of this debate.
Businesses cannot substitute their own political philosophies for constitutional rights. And nowhere in the Constitution are businesses given any authority to prohibit rights in their parking lots. Businesses have no more right to ban firearms in private vehicles than they do to ban books. Businesses may impose only restrictions that do not rise to the level of contravening protected rights.
Nor can employers require you to waive your protected rights. They cannot, as a condition of employment, require you to give up your right to vote; neither can they require you to give up your right of self-protection or your right to keep and bear arms.
On the common-sense side, think about a mom who doesn't get off work until midnight. She may drive 30 or 40 miles over dark, desolate roads to get home to her family. She may stop at a convenience store and pick up bread for school lunches the next day.
Her employer has no right to tell her that she'll be fired if she exercises her right to have a firearm in her vehicle for protection.
Think about women who work late hours as cashiers at supermarkets. And what about employees of all-night pharmacies, or nurses or lab technicians who work late shifts and drive to and from work through dangerous areas late at night?
As one female legislator asked, what about lawmakers who travel their districts at night for speaking engagements? Are they not supposed to park anywhere or stop for a cup of coffee or a soda or a bite to eat because they carry a gun in the car for protection?
A woman who is being stalked or who has obtained a domestic violence injunction against an abuser needs protection. Police often advise these women to buy a gun for protection because police can't be there to protect them. An employer violates her rights if the employer attempts to force her to waive her rights and chose between her life and her job.
The keeping of firearms in a vehicle is a preeminent right that is well-grounded in law and public policy. Legislatures must stop the abuse of our most basic and fundamental Second Amendment rights on the part of corporate giants.
So you think you can make a false accusation against a person (me) and that person asks for your apology yet you don't apologize and instead carry on like it never happened and expect the person (me) to continue a discussion as though you've earned my respect!? How irrational is that? Very.
I made no false accusation against you.
You most certainly did. Here's the documentation of your false accusations against me.
|
You know full well what people are 'abusing abuse' to get me suspended - and why they do it. -- Now, incredibly enough, you want to play that same game, -- because we disagree about our right to carry arms, you want me silenced. -- Get a grip on your emotions. -- Lighten up. |
You didn't even attempt to back up your false accusations with proof. Probably because you have no proof. And here was my response to that:
How would I know that? Because you say so? LMAO!!
I've never hit the abuse button on you - never! I doubt I've hit it even ten times in nine years. I'm content to let people expose their follies and irrationalities for all to see and personal attacks just drain their credibility. And as far as swearing goes, I don't do it and I'm not offended by others that do.
You're so vain. You're ego is the size of Jupiter. I could care less if you're silenced. It's not like you're convincing anybody and even if you were I still wouldn't want you silenced. Actually, you do a service by being on the irrational side of juxtaposition. For honesty to prevail irrationality must be confronted. Hiding it from people solves nothing. That's what neocheaters do. They hide their irrationalities and corruptions behind a slew of political agenda laws and ego justice. |
Don't play semantics. Court decisions are court declarations are decrees of the Court are the dictates of the Government are the Government intruding into what should be a private contract between two people.
Any way you slice it, one side or the other in any court decision has to abide by a Governmentally imposed ruling against what they see as their own interests. The other side has the coercive power of that decision backing their interests.
You do.
-- We want our right to carry arms in our vehicles to be respected by landowning employers/shopkeepers who we do business & work with.
Even against the will of that business or employer's wishes of association, under penalty of governmental sanctions. Sounds like force to me.
"-- They cannot delegate a power they themselves do not have. --"
Lex:
--- 'Even if everyone in the community desires -- [that land owners allow armed people on their property] -- they have no right individually or collectively to force them to do it. --'
No one in our constitutional community wants to force land owners to allow 'armed people' on their property. -- We want our right to carry arms in our vehicles to be respected by landowning employers/shopkeepers who we do business & work with.
You do. -- Even against the will of that business or employer's wishes of association, --
No one in our constitutional community wants to force land owners to stop associating with whomever they wish.
-- under penalty of governmental sanctions.
Our gov't has the duty to enforce the Constitution against infringements of our right to carry arms.
Sounds like force to me.
Sounds like gun grabbing to me.
And a court decision upholding that right is not a "decree".
Don't play semantics.
You're the one playing semantics, pretending that infringements on our right to carry are based on 'property rights of association'.
Court decisions are court declarations are decrees of the Court are the dictates of the Government are the Government intruding into what should be a private contract between two people.
Contracts between two people that contravene constitutional rights are not enforcable. -- Re-read the article.
Any way you slice it, one side or the other in any court decision has to abide by a Governmentally [constitutionally] imposed ruling against what they see as their own interests. The other side has the coercive power of that decision backing their interests.
Quite true. You don't agree with the way our rule of constituional law works? -- Do business elsewhere.
Sounds like force to me.
Sounds like gun grabbing to me.
No one is grabbing your guns; they are simply saying that you should take yourself and/or weapons elsewhere than upon private property where they are not welcome.
Would you feel better with this for a solution: posted at the gate is a sign that says "Anyone who brings unauthorized weapons on this property will be considered an armed intruder, and shot on sight." Then, when he exercises HIS 2nd amendment rights in defense of HIS property rights, you would realize that YOUR 2nd amendment rights don't trump them because you say so.
Contracts between two people that contravene constitutional rights are not enforceable. -- Re-read the article.
Any way you slice it, one side or the other in any court decision has to abide by a Governmentally [constitutionally] imposed ruling against what they see as their own interests. The other side has the coercive power of that decision backing their interests.
Quite true. You don't agree with the way our rule of constitutional law works? -- Do business elsewhere.
You are obdurate in your inconsistency. Why is it you believe the 2nd amendment takes precedence over the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th?
I don't believe that. -- You seem to believe/demand that your right to parking lot property takes precedence over our right to carry arms in vehicles. -- That's inconsistent with our Constitutional principles.
Why are you against the free exercise of so many sections of the Constitution?
Why are you against the free exercise of 2nd amendment section of the Constitution?
Our gov't has the duty to enforce the Constitution against infringements of our right to carry arms.
Sounds like force to me.
Sounds like gun grabbing to me.
No one is grabbing your guns; they are simply saying that you should take yourself and/or weapons elsewhere than upon private property where they are not welcome.
Why do you insist that arms are not welcome in an employees vehicle?
Would you feel better with this for a solution: posted at the gate is a sign that says "Anyone who brings unauthorized weapons on this property will be considered an armed intruder, and shot on sight." Then, when he exercises HIS 2nd amendment rights in defense of HIS property rights, you would realize that YOUR 2nd amendment rights don't trump them because you say so.
You want employers to post on their parking lots -- "Anyone who brings unauthorized weapons on this property will be considered an armed intruder --"? That's your solution? -- Thanks.
Opinion pieces do not carry the weight of fact. If you think you cannot voluntarily contract away rights, then I suggest you try deserting the military or publishing trade secrets you have contracted not to reveal. See how far your freedom of the press or unimpeded travel gets you.
Try trespassing on a military base, onto an airplane or into the White House "bearing arms". You'll find out that while you may own and bear arms, you cannot do it there, or in many other locales, without permission. And, if you try, you'll find out that after being convicted by due process, you might never have the right to vote, move freely, associate with certain people, work for many employers or bear arms again, as part of your punishment. Assuming you put the weapon down slowly and back away carefully when arrested, that is.
You don't agree with the way our rule of constitutional law works? -- Do business elsewhere.
You haven't a clue how our rule of constitutional law works if you believe any one right has automatic precedence over any other. Doing business includes the hiring of employees. Don't agree with the way private property and freedom of association works in the United States? Bear your guns elsewhere. I understand the Horn of Africa is a free-carry zone. Maybe someone there will be willing to hire you at gun point.
You want employers to post on their parking lots -- "Anyone who brings unauthorized weapons on this property will be considered an armed intruder --"? That's your solution? -- Thanks.
No, my solution is for the two parties to come to a private, non-governmental agreement. Your solution is to use force to impose your passage with arms. But if you grant yourself the indisputable power to go where you will armed, then don't whine when others use their right to bear arms to defend themselves from your undesired presence on their property.
"You haven't a clue how our rule of constitutional law works if you believe any one right has automatic precedence over any other." (LexBaird in Post 132)
So you are saying:
a. In the name of balance you might not object to the Bearing of Arms on your property even though the impact to you was negative in that your control of your property was diminished.
b. Property Rights do not automatically take precedence over the Right to Bear Arms
Yes, but not by Government decree. If one should decide that the value of the employee or customer outweighed the "negative impact", then an accommodation could be reached. For example, the business owner might allow a currency courier or key designer who insisted to go armed on site, but not a janitor. The point is that the accommodation is negotiated and entered into willingly by both parties, or there is no deal.
b. Property Rights do not automatically take precedence over the Right to Bear Arms
Correct, in some conceivable circumstances. For example, the 3rd amendment allows for quartering soldiers on private property in time of war, provided it is done "in a manner to be prescribed by law." Active pursuit of a criminal might be another. But, in general, a property owner has say over whomever is allowed to enter a property, including vetoing whatever goods may be conveyed there. If some pacifist hippie commune wants to allow bird watchers with cameras but not bird hunters with guns, that's their right.
The right to bear arms moves with the PERSON not the ARMS. When you are in a building and your gun is in your car, you are not exercising your right to bear arms. OTOH, the right of property is centered in the property itself. My house or business is my property, whether I am there or not. Since the person bearing the arms is mobile and free willed, and the property is not, it is almost certain that the cause of the conflict lies in the person bearing the arms where they are not wanted, rather than the placing of that person on the property unwillingly. Perhaps if an owner were to allow carry by written agreement, then sold out to another who changed the policy without renegotiating the employee agreements.
In essence my position can be broken down like this:
A) If the two parties whose individual rights are in conflict wish to come to a mutually agreeable compromise, wherein the absolute exercise of their rights is voluntarily impinged, that is between the two of them, and the government should butt out.
B) If the two parties whose individual rights are in conflict cannot come to a mutually agreeable compromise, wherein the absolute exercise of their rights is voluntarily impinged, that is also between the two of them. They should go their separate ways and the government should still butt out.
C) One cannot justify using the force of the government to take away another's rights simply in order to more easily exercise their own. The exercise of your rights do not give license to violate another's. As Will Rogers famously said, "Your right to swing your fists ends at my nose."
D) Government intervention should only occur when the intersection of rights is unavoidable and causing actual damage, for example: X polluting upstream of Y's property means Y cannot avoid either the damage or the intersection of property rights. Since there is nothing compelling the employee to work at that place, just his desire to do so, the conflict is avoidable without governmental involvement.
Several of the editors I've had, from my first encounter with such dreadful creatures around 1970, to the one who armtwisted me into writing a syndicated column that ran in most of the 12-15 papers that made up the Midwest-based Hiatt Newspapers chain in the 1980s and '90s, and the most recent, a former LA daily newspaper editor who not only found space in his magazine for some of my work but hung the dreadful term contributing editor on my byline, would most certainly agree with you.
The quote: "or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens ..."
There are three instances in which this statute would apply: 1) being an alien, 2) being a different color, 3) being a different race. Those are all the reasons given. Nothing more. Nothing about armed vs. non-armed. The statute does not apply unless you are being treated differently because of being an alien, or because of skin-color or racial characteristics.
Nope. Read it again, all of it, and try not to mumble when you come to the big words:
Whoever, under color of any law...willfully subjects any person in any State...to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws...or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien,
or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both....
Opinion pieces do not carry the weight of fact. If you think you cannot voluntarily contract away rights, -- [snip the obvious]
Using the coerce-ment of a job to infringe on your employees right to carry also contravenes our constitutional principles.
You don't agree with the way our rule of constitutional law works? -- Do business elsewhere.
You haven't a clue how our rule of constitutional law works if you believe any one right has automatic precedence over any other.
Admit it; you believe your property right has automatic precedence over an employees right to carry in their vehicle.
Doing business includes the hiring of employees. Don't agree with the way private property and freedom of association works in the United States? Bear your guns elsewhere. I understand the Horn of Africa is a free-carry zone. Maybe someone there will be willing to hire you at gun point.
You can do your business elsewhere. I understand England loves gungrabbers.
You wrote that you want employers to post on their parking lots -- "Anyone who brings unauthorized weapons on this property will be considered an armed intruder --"? That's your solution? -- Thanks.
No, my solution is for the two parties to come to a private, non-governmental agreement.
We came to that compromise/agreement years ago; -- my vehicle is my property, parked on your lot while I work, -- and nothing in that vehicle concerns you.
-- Now you want to infringe upon that agreement for unknown reasons. [political reasons?]
Your solution is to use force to impose your passage with arms.
A locked vehicle on your parking lot imposes no 'force' upon you, no matter if it contains arms. - Admit it.
But if you grant yourself the indisputable power to go where you will armed, then don't whine when others use their right to bear arms to defend themselves from your undesired presence on their property.
Hype. -- You desire the presence of your employees on your property. -- Admit it. -- You simply 'hate' them having guns locked in their vehicles.
One cannot justify using force to take away another's rights simply in order to more easily exercise their own.
-- The exercise of your parking lot property rights do not give license to violate another's right to carry in their vehicle. As Will Rogers famously said [paraphrased], -- 'Your right to ban guns ends at my tires'
Sorry, dude, but you have no right to a job, and no right to take away property rights from another, just so you can hold one.
We came to that compromise/agreement years ago; -- my vehicle is my property, parked on your lot while I work, -- and nothing in that vehicle concerns you.
What "we"? And in what way is enclosing your gun in a vehicle any different than enclosing your gun in a box in your cube, a locker, or a hip holster? If an owner can ban you from carrying on your person or storing it in your cube, how can he not stop you from leaving it in the car?
A locked vehicle on your parking lot imposes no 'force' upon you, no matter if it contains arms. - Admit it.
If it is there against my desire solely because the Government has imposed the accommodation, it is forced. Just as the useless handicapped parking spot in front of our building is forced on us, even though we could use the space better, and have never had a handicapped person use it in the 15 years I know of.
Admit it; you believe your property right has automatic precedence over an employees right to carry in their vehicle.
Vehicles have no right to carry; only individuals do. If you aren't in your car, but your weapon is, it is not being carried. It is being stored. You have no right to store your possessions wherever you want on another's property, even within another allowed possession. Simply enclosing it within another larger container does not negate its presence. If there was a company policy against alcohol on the premises, you could not disregard the policy simply because you stored your booze in your backpack or car trunk for those emergency uses.
Admit it. -- You simply 'hate' them having guns locked in their vehicles.
You seriously need to learn to separate between advocating an action and advocating someone else's right to do that action. I don't advocate racial intolerance, but I advocate your right to be racist. I don't advocate protests against America, but support your right to do so. I think Scientology is silly, but won't lift a finger to stop you from giving them money and time. I don't mind if responsible adults carry weapons, but won't force others to accept it on their property.
But, on another level you are correct. I do think storing your guns in a vehicle is a darn good way to get them stolen, and so a somewhat irresponsible action, even if occasionally unavoidable. It is too easy to gain access to the interior of even a locked car. I would prefer to see them safely carried, placed where they can be monitored, or stored in a secure place when they cannot be. Were I making the rules at a business regarding weapons, I would require anyone desiring them to carry at all times and not leave the weapons unattended in a drawer or car, for example.
You seriously need to learn to separate between advocating an action and advocating someone else's right to do that action. I don't mind if responsible adults carry weapons, but won't force others to accept it on their property.
You seriously need to address the issue rationally. -- No one is forcing "others to accept it [carrying arms] on their property. -- The arms are being carried on the employees property, locked in their vehicles.
Admit it; you believe your property right has automatic precedence over an employees right to carry in their vehicle.
Vehicles have no right to carry; only individuals do.
Weird 'point'. An employees right to carry arms in their vehicle is the issue. -- Certainly "-- Vehicles have no rights --"
If you aren't in your car, but your weapon is, it is not being carried. It is being stored.
Another weird 'point'. An employees right to carry arms in their vehicle, and to lock them there while at work, -- is the issue.
You have no right to store your possessions wherever you want on another's property, even within another allowed possession. Simply enclosing it within another larger container does not negate its presence. If there was a company policy against alcohol on the premises, you could not disregard the policy simply because you stored your booze in your backpack or car trunk for those emergency uses.
Good grief. Are you seriously suggesting that shopping for food & booze before work, & locking the stuff in your car while at work, -- can be a firing offense, - against company policy?
But, on another level you are correct. I do think storing your guns in a vehicle is a darn good way to get them stolen, and so a somewhat irresponsible action, even if occasionally unavoidable. It is too easy to gain access to the interior of even a locked car. I would prefer to see them safely carried, placed where they can be monitored, or stored in a secure place when they cannot be. Were I making the rules at a business regarding weapons, I would require anyone desiring them to carry at all times and not leave the weapons unattended in a drawer or car, for example.
"Were I making the rules", --- gotta love that comment, seeing you've been defending 'rules' that infringe on our rights for quite a few posts now..
Using the coercement of a job to infringe on your employees right to carry also contravenes our constitutional principles.
Sorry, dude, but you have no right to a job, and no right to take away property rights from another, just so you can hold one.
No property rights are being "taken away" by an employees gun being in an employees car.
We came to that compromise/agreement years ago; -- my vehicle is my property, -parked on your lot while I work, -- and nothing in that vehicle concerns you.
What "we"?
'We the people' established that our right to bear arms applies to within in our vehicles, - quite a few years ago.
And in what way is enclosing your gun in a vehicle any different than enclosing your gun in a box in your cube, a locker, or a hip holster?
You own the vehicle, and are authorized by the business to park it on the lot while working.
There is no 'authority' or power delegated to a business to ban arms from that private vehicle.
If an owner can ban you from carrying on your person or storing it in your cube, how can he not stop you from leaving it in the car?
See above; - your car is your private property.
A locked vehicle on your parking lot imposes no 'force' upon you, no matter if it contains arms. - Admit it.
If it is there against my desire solely because the Government has imposed the accommodation, it is forced.
Rational employers find it 'desirable' that employees park on the company lot. It's good business.
No, it isn't the issue. The issue is not carrying the arms in the vehicle. That occurs outside of the workplace, going and coming, and can be resolved by not parking in the company lot. The instant you leave the gun behind in the car, you are no longer carrying it. Since you agree that vehicles have no rights, then you understand that the vehicle cannot "carry" your arms in your absence. It becomes a mere storage location.
Another weird 'point'. An employees right to carry arms in their vehicle, and to lock them there while at work, -- is the issue.
Only the bolded part is the issue. The other part was decided when the employee agreed not to personally carry while at work. The second part has nothing to do with the right to carry; rather it is a property question. Where are you allowed to keep your stuff, and can the categories of stuff be limited on other's property? Does the disallowed stuff you desire to keep stored become allowed simply by placing it inside some other stuff you own? It becomes a strict property rights vs. property rights question. The answers are obvious to anyone who approaches it constitutionally: the owner of the property on which the other items and persons reside gets to determine what items or persons are allowed there. If you don't like it, take your person and items and clear off.
Good grief. Are you seriously suggesting that shopping for food & booze before work, & locking the stuff in your car while at work, -- can be a firing offense, - against company policy?
Anything can be against a company policy. There is no constitutional requirement that companies must not set certain policies, just that they are free to associate with whomever they wish. I can see several instances where a company might have a strict no-booze on site policy: religious groups, AA organizations, halfway houses, private schools, etc., who wish to keep even the opportunity for drinking away from the premises. There was a case where a Muslim based organization banned pork products in their employee's lunch boxes. When you agree to work for company X, you contract to abide by their policies under penalty of dismissal.
'We the people' established that our right to bear arms applies to within in our vehicles, - quite a few years ago.
Documentation? Show me where "we the people" decided that you can violate other people's property restrictions merely by enclosing the violating item within a vehicle. And don't say "the Constitution", because that's just begging the question. It doesn't say what you keep insisting.
You own the vehicle, and are authorized by the business to park it on the lot while working. There is no 'authority' or power delegated to a business to ban arms from that private vehicle.
You may also own a purse, briefcase, backpack, or pair of trousers which are authorized by the business. Does that mean you can carry a gun in them, against company policy? Again, the company is not banning your arms from your vehicle. It is banning vehicles which are being used to store arms. Keep your arms in your car and park off site. Conflict resolved.
A locked vehicle on your parking lot imposes no 'force' upon you, no matter if it contains arms. - Admit it.
Never argued otherwise; we have already established that vehicles are not sentient. That you cannot understand plain language is not my fault. The force occurs when you insist the vehicle containing arms be parked on private property, regardless of the owner's wishes, and use government writ to enforce it.
Rational employers find it 'desirable' that employees park on the company lot. It's good business.
It may be good employee relations, but it is strictly a perk. It is land allocated for employee convenience that might be more usefully used otherwise, like for customer parking for example. It is the employees that find parking there "desirable", and should therefore abide by the restrictions. It is hardly a mandated requirement of business.
Bump
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.