Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: sailor4321

“Why is it wrong for an employer to prohibit firearms on that part of his property which is not open to the public?”

Why is it not wrong for an employer to prohibit firearms on that part of his property which is not open to the public?

One person’s rights end where another person’s rights begin.

The juncture of that ending and beginning may be a conflict of rights. An organized society has laws and courts and such to settle such conflicts. But in this case, what is the conflict? How does possession of a firearm on an employers property adversely affect his rights, providing the firearm is not seen and more particularly, not heard.


14 posted on 04/05/2011 9:38:16 PM PDT by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]


To: KrisKrinkle

If you are in an area of the employer which is not open to the public, you have no “right” to do or possess (or say, or that matter) anything which the employer prohibits. If you are in a “public” area owned by the employer (i.e., not on anyone’s private, controlled property), then you do have rights which can be adjudicated.

Many of the problems in this area of “rights” stem from employee use of parking lots which are also used by the public. There are some employers who have tried to prohibit employees having guns in their cars while not exercising the same restriction against non-employees, which is certainly unfair and perhaps even unlawful in some jurisdictions.


15 posted on 04/05/2011 10:06:10 PM PDT by sailor4321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson