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.