Where does the constitution guarantee you a parking spot? Or a job?
Lets not. Guns are beyond question an enumerated right.
So are property rights. Rather than address the real issue, which is a conflict between two rights of two people, you would rather continue to demagogue.
Your boss made an unreasonable 'rule', coerced your agreement to it, then violated your property [your vehicle] searching to find his 'contraband'. A jury will laugh him out of court.
No, he made a reasonable rule based on local robberies, the worker voluntarily agreed in order to have a convenient parking spot, and left the evidence of noncompliance in plain sight hanging around the rear view mirror. Now that I've stripped away your straw man interpretations of my hypothetical scenario, what should the jury say?
Our supreme law says we have a right to own & carry arms, which shall not be infringed.
It also says that we are to be secure in our property. Your car and all its contents are only on that property by sufferance. If you don't like that, you are free to work or park elsewhere. Secondly, if your gun is in your car and you are not, you cannot be said to truly be "carrying" it. At that time, it is not a defense, it is just another possession. That's why I posed the question in terms of conflicting property rights.
Employees can carry ~to~ the job, and leave their arms locked in their vehicles while working.
Why is this compromise opposed? Who benefits by restricting the individuals right to carry?
An employers 'conditions' cannot deprive his employees of their constitutional rights.
Where does the constitution guarantee you a parking spot? Or a job?
It doesn't, and that's not the issue here.
Guns are beyond question an enumerated right, and 'businessmen' are infringing on our right to carry them.
So are property rights.
Gun owners are not infringing on property rights by carrying arms in their vehicles.
Rather than address the real issue, which is a conflict between two rights of two people, you would rather continue to demagogue.
Bull. The real issue is a conflict between two types of people, -- gun owners & those who would 'boss' them. -- Your boss made an unreasonable 'rule', coerced your agreement to it, then violated your property [your vehicle] searching to find his 'contraband'. A jury will laugh him out of court.
No, he made a reasonable rule based on local robberies, the worker voluntarily agreed in order to have a convenient parking spot, and left the evidence of noncompliance in plain sight hanging around the rear view mirror. Now that I've stripped away your straw man interpretations of my hypothetical scenario, what should the jury say?
I'd bet they would still throw you out of court.
Our supreme law says we have a right to own & carry arms, which shall not be infringed.
It also says that we are to be secure in our property.
How does your employees gun in his locked car affect your right to be "secure in our property"? -- Get real..
< Your car and all its contents are only on that property by sufferance. If you don't like that, you are free to work or park elsewhere.
You are free to do business in a 'gun free' country. -- If you don't like our way, you are free to go elsewhere. England would welcome you.
Secondly, if your gun is in your car and you are not, you cannot be said to truly be "carrying" it. At that time, it is not a defense, it is just another possession. That's why I posed the question in terms of conflicting property rights.
If its "just another possession". why are you banning it?