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.
Personally, I don't oppose carry by any competent, honest citizen. But I also don't believe that one Right always trumps another Right. When two rights are in conflict, there are only two ways to resolve it. Either you compromise each somewhat by voluntary agreement, or you go your separate ways. But the Government should have no say in that interaction, unless the Government is one party, or one of the two private parties tries to use force on the other. Otherwise, it is the Government who is using the force of coercion to impose a compromise.
Gun owners are not infringing on property rights by carrying arms in their vehicles.
They are if they have no permission to enter the private property with them. If I say you may visit my home any time, as long as you leave your swords at the gate, that in no way infringes on your RKBA. You are free to say, "No thanks, I won't visit," or free to voluntarily comply. You are not free to enter bearing your sword, and carrying that sword within your privately owned scabbard does not change that.
How does your employees gun in his locked car affect your right to be "secure in our property"? -- Get real..
To be secure in your property is what all property rights descend from. It means that others may not do as they will with or on your property. They must first obtain agreement from the owner. Between the 3rd, 4th and 5th amendments, we are protected from entry and forced use of our property without due process of law.
If some private parking lot owner feels that, for whatever stupid reason, weapons on his property are not desirable, it is his right to disallow their presence and the presence of those bearing them. You have no reason to force him to do so just because you wish to remain employed by him. Now, if your services are desirable enough, you may come to some accommodation, such as the compromise of leaving your gun in your car, but you have no right to that accommodation.
If its "just another possession". why are you banning it?
The same reason an employer can ban any other possession on his property. Because it's his property, and his business, and he wants it that way. Just as he can demand you wear a uniform, wash your hands, refrain from political arguments or profanity, not post pictures in your assigned cubicle or park a foreign built vehicle in his lot.
I have answered honestly, arguing the constitutionality of the issue. -- Your inference to the contrary is dishonest.
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.
Personally, I don't oppose carry by any competent, honest citizen.
Yet you defend businessmen who do.
But I also don't believe that one Right always trumps another Right. When two rights are in conflict, there are only two ways to resolve it. Either you compromise each somewhat by voluntary agreement, or you go your separate ways.
That's exactly my point. Businessmen are free to go elsewhere to do business if they feel our right to carry is wrong. England beckons.
But the Government should have no say in that interaction, unless the Government is one party, or one of the two private parties tries to use force on the other.
Businessmen force the issue by firing employees with guns locked in their cars. -- The courts defend our rights, as is their duty.
Otherwise, it is the Government who is using the force of coercion to impose a compromise.
They're using the constitution to defend an individual right to carry, and you're opposing that right.
Gun owners are not infringing on property rights by carrying arms in their vehicles.
They are if they have no permission to enter the private property with them.
They have permission to park their vehicles. -- What's locked in an employees vehicle is none of the employers concern.
If I say you may visit my home any time, as long as you leave your swords at the gate, that in no way infringes on your RKBA. You are free to say, "No thanks, I won't visit," or free to voluntarily comply. You are not free to enter bearing your sword, and carrying that sword within your privately owned scabbard does not change that.
Your home 'rule' only affects your few visitors. -- Business rules affect many, and infringe on our right to carry arms while going about our business.
How does your employees gun in his locked car affect your right to be "secure in our property"? -- Get real..
To be secure in your property is what all property rights descend from.
That's not an answer.
It means that others may not do as they will with or on your property.
That's not an answer.
They must first obtain agreement from the owner. Between the 3rd, 4th and 5th amendments, we are protected from entry and forced use of our property without due process of law.
That's still not an answer. -- Your security is not affected by a gun in an employees car
If some private parking lot owner feels that, for whatever stupid reason, weapons on his property are not desirable, it is his right to disallow their presence and the presence of those bearing them.
There you go, simply denying that our constitution specifically protects the carrying of arms, and does not protect the "stupid reasoning" of parking lot owners.
You have no reason to force him to do so just because you wish to remain employed by him.
Enforcing our right to carry arms is a excellent reason.
Now, if your services are desirable enough, you may come to some accommodation, such as the compromise of leaving your gun in your car, but you have no right to that accommodation.
Round you go, defending the 'right' to ban guns from parking lots. Why?
If its "just another possession". why are you banning it?
The same reason an employer can ban any other possession on his property. Because it's his property, and his business, and he wants it that way. Just as he can demand you wear a uniform, wash your hands, refrain from political arguments or profanity, not post pictures in your assigned cubicle or park a foreign built vehicle in his lot.
What more need be said? The anti-constitutional gun grabber "wants it that way."
stop counter arguing something I am not asking. Address the philosophical question I posed honestly.
I usually stop responding when obfuscation and stubborn irrationality persists. When it doesn't stop, that's why I cut off responding a couple months ago. Sadly that it has to come to that so often on this forum. Or any forum for that matter.
Either you compromise each somewhat by voluntary agreement, or you go your separate ways.
Same holds for race, sex, age, religion, sexual preference and any other thing that a person can freely chooses to just say "no" to and walk away.