Posted on 03/23/2011 4:58:55 AM PDT by marktwain
A bill in the legislature has taken an unlikely path, and a senate committee is taking the latest look. The bill would make it illegal for employers to forbid employees from keeping guns locked in their vehicles while at work.
The bill got a do not pass recommendation from the House committee that first looked at the bill, but passed overwhelmingly on the floor.
Basically the bill sets up a battle over property rights.
It`s no secret that many North Dakotans like to hunt, and the state constitution holds Second Amendment rights in high regard. But some gun owners say their rights are being violated when employers set rules not allowing employees to keep their guns locked in their vehicles at work.
"Somebody might want to go hunting before or after work. I have a friend in Aberdeen, S.D., who used to go over his lunch hour," explained Darin Goens of the National Rifle Association.
It`s not just hunting rifles, but also concealed weapons. Supporters of the legislation to block employers from prohibiting employees from keeping guns in their vehicles say gun owners should be allowed to protect themselves to and from work.
"The only thing that happens is we disarm the people who are using their guns for self defense against these guys. The bottom line is, the bad guys are going to ignore the signs," said Goens.
But businesses say this bill in turn violates their property rights.
"It should be the right of the company to enforce the firearm policy they deem appropriate," said Andy Peterson of the North Dakota Chamber of Commerce.
And at least one gun owner agrees.
Gun owner Mike Donahue said: "I think if somebody says, `I don`t want you bringing guns on my property,` he has the right to say that or do that. If a business owner says, `I don`t want any guns in my parking lot,` no guns in the parking lot."
Donahue says if gun owners want to have their guns locked in their vehicles at work. They should find somewhere else to park, like on the street.
Supporters of the legislation say, the owner of the vehicle also has property rights.
Similar legislation has passed in 13 other states, but failed in Montana and Wyoming. The bill does exempt certain workplaces like schools, correctional facilities and places with hazardous materials.
The fact that you agree with the former and not the latter is without relevance. The point wasn't that Raytheon had good reason, but that said searches were consensual. Likewise, if you sign an agreement that you won't bring a weapon onto someone's property, it's not a violation of your rights, because you consented in the first place.
Yes.
You would think that wouldn't need to be pointed out on a Conservative forum, but this thread is evidence that remedial basics always can use a refresher course.
Complying with every little desire of every little dictator isn't something I find ethical.
My employer has a handbook that is routinely ignored by just about everyone unless it is being used to justify the dismissal of a real problem worker.Yet blatant violations of some sensible provisions are ignored because of the violators' "protected" class.
You misunderstand me. I wasn't suggesting that B4 comply. I was suggesting that he refuse to comply, openly. Big difference between continuing to carry even though you know it could cost you your job if you're found out, and telling your employer before hand that you refuse. I would choose the latter. Yes, I have huge issues with the former, because I have a choice. I can refuse and find another job.
The case of the Jews and those who covertly helped them in Nazi Germany fails to be analogous because they had no choice. There is no comparison between the struggle for survival against and evil armed oppressor, and an employer I can simply tell to color me gone and walk out the door unmolested.
So I'm curious as to how far you would carry this? Do you have the right to carry your weapon into someone's house? Obviously I would disagree. Very few of your constitutional rights past my doorway. Your 1st Amendment rights are certainly gone, as I'll damned sure show you the door if what you're saying, wearing, or doing offends me.
First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So if I am past your doorway Congress can make law in regard to all that, at least as applicable to me?
Or do you mean I lose my freedom of speech and can't say “No” if you ask for sex or shout for help if you otherwise assault me?
If I'm in your house do I have to convert to your religion?
You somehow wrote that without answering my fundamental question. Do I have the right to say that you can come in, but you can’t bring your gun? It has to be yes or no, there is no wiggle room here. I either have that right in my own house, or I do not. Which is it?
I don't see why this is so difficult for you. We're talking BUSINESS property, not somebody's home. The cases are completely different. The rights exercisable by/on business properties are less than for "real" private property (i.e. the "castle" in "a man's home is his castle"). During the integration/desegregation/civil rights timeframe, the courts decided that business owners had no right to exclude blacks from their BUSINESS properties.
Sure, (or if you insist "yes") you have the right, the freedom of speech, to say that. And you might have the right to enforce what you say. But am I obligated to comply with what you say absent that enforcement, and why am I so obligated?
It has to be yes or no...
No it doesn't. There are circumstances under which I would be obligated to comply. I won't list any because I asked you "why am I so obligated" above. But if say, you are a known pedophile and I see you go into your house with a child of mine, I maintain I have the right to go onto your property, even into your house, and "inquire" about my child, even if I am armed without your permission. In some situations, the same goes if I know you have stolen personal property from me and stored it in your house.
I either have that right in my own house, or I do not. Which is it?
One person's rights end at the point another person's rights begin. Your "real property" rights end at the point my other right of some sort begins. (For instance your property right to limit my freedom of speech ends at the point my freedom of speech to say "no" to your sexual proposition begins.)
Sometimes disagreements exist as to where the point is. We have laws and courts to settle such disagreements. Otherwise we'd settle them with clubs, sharp instruments, guns and so forth.
We're talking private property, period. The concept that someone can't set the condition of not being armed to enter their private property is so absurd, I'm amazed this is even a point of contention on this forum.
The courts disagree with your contention. And if you study history, property used in business has ALWAYS been treated differently from residential property.
In you home, your rights are paramount. In other places, less so, as prescribed by law. I'm surprised you think otherwise.
The courts have overwhelmingly disagreed with conservatives for the past 100 years. We have thousands of threads here about just that topic.
Argumentum ad verecundiam isn't much here.
Uh, noob...you might want to look at our respective time on/in forum before lecturing me about what threads are here.
And you only addressed half my comment....see "history" for the broad topic. The simple fact is that there has never, in the history of this country, been an absolute right to property. Government has ALWAYS had a say in how owners were able to use it, or have it taxed, or any of a dozen different limitations. That is just simple FACT.
Doesn't mean you've ever taken note no matter what you think your seniority implies.
And you only addressed half my comment....see "history" for the broad topic. The simple fact is that there has never, in the history of this country, been an absolute right to property.
Familiarize yourself with why "is" and "ought" are two different things in this argument and then the term "non-sequitur."
Any one who insists that peaceable people be rendered defenseless is not to be trusted.
Every journey begins with a single step.
Since businesses enjoy various benefits from existing as seperate legal entities from the owners' personal residences ,our society and government have determined businesses may not discriminate against various classes of non-criminal persons;I find repugnant the idea that businesses can discriminate against people based solely on those persons' desire to be able to defend themselves.
LOL. I've probably posted to more property threads than you've seen. I agree that current government incursions into property rights are and have been excessive and should, for the most part, be rolled back. But I put the right to life of the individual and the defense thereof higher on the priority list than ANYBODY's "right to property". A law abiding citizen should be able to have the best means to defend themselves ANYWHERE except inside of a private home of someone who objects. I'm also against abortion and think it should be illegal.
"Familiarize yourself with why "is" and "ought" are two different things in this argument and then the term "non-sequitur."
Sorry, but I have no clue as to what point you think you're making. Looking back, I see word "ought" to have been used exactly zero times in our exchange. Perhaps you intended it to have been implied in some of your responses. You might try for clarity of writing instead of obfuscation.
Why the completely arbitrary line of inside a person's home? Why does your right to defense of the "right to life" end at a door jam?
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.