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."
Yet you defend businessmen who do.
Yes, I do. Because I would not choose to exercise my property rights in this case does not mean I would deny others that same free choice. You would, and would use the coercive might of the government to force your will on them.
Businessmen are free to go elsewhere to do business if they feel our right to carry is wrong. England beckons.
They are also free to do so here. And you are free not to work for or patronize them, without the government intruding on the association or lack thereof. Instead, you would have the inverse of England's solution. Instead of oppressive coercion to prevent the exercise of the RKBA of the employee, you advocate oppressive coercion to prevent the exercise of property rights of the business owner.
Businessmen force the issue by firing employees with guns locked in their cars. -- The courts defend our rights, as is their duty.
That is not an exercise of force. It is an exercise of the right to free association. Both sides get to decide the conditions under which their association will continue, and both have the power to unilaterally end that association. The employer cannot force the worker to labor, nor can the worker force the employer to give him labor. You would not only force, via government penalty, the infringement of property rights of the 3rd, 4th and 5th amendments, but the association rights of the 1st.
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.
So, your rights only count if their exercise effects "a few" and not "many"? Alert the Media that their exercise of the Free Press is void, because too many are effected negatively.
You're just like the gun grabbers you condemn, who justify banning various weapons, because too many people are negatively impacted. What you are really saying is you want the rights of others limited by law, so that yours can be blissfully unimpinged by those whose rights you intersect.
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.
There you go, simply denying that our constitution specifically protects private property rights, and does not protect the desire of gun owners to convey guns thereon against the owner's will, either in their hip holster or their vehicle.
What more need be said? The anti-constitutional gun grabber "wants it that way."
Who is more "anti-constitutional": he who would balance all of the rights found therein, or he who would use one section to deny the others? I think ALL the provisions of the Constitution deserve respect, even if that occasionally impacts me negatively.