NRA bill would OK guns in cars at work

MiamiHerald.com ^ | Feb. 08, 2006 | MARC CAPUTO

[humblegunner]

Well, I was never banned.

I must have been thinking of someone else then.

[Luis Gonzalez]

And if you told me that I was not allowed into your shop wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt, I'd have to leave.

What I wouldn't do would be to run to the goverment, and claim that you are violating my First Amendment rights to free speech, and demand that they force you to allow me in wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Sorry about the tartness of my earlier response.

[tpaine]

States can make constitutional rules about how you use your property.

Luis Gonzalez Translation: government can usurp your property rights.

Luis, you argued quite differently recently, -- and I agreed:

--- we govern according to what the Constitution says.
It says that Amendments apply to the States, and that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Quite true Luis, -- but then Article VI goes on to say that all officials "-- shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution; --"

Do you disagree with this principle?
Have you ever served in any official capacity, been a member of the armed forces, or a naturalized citizen?
-- All of us have sworn that oath..
-- Would you refuse to swear on the basis that "-- I, on the other hand, as a private citizen, am not bound by the Constitution. --"?

The Constitution is a constraint on government, not an imposition of citizens.

As you quoted above in Article VI luis, - its supreme "Law of the Land" applies to all of us.

My land is my private land, and I am in my land my own government.

Sorry kid, but thats not even close to being true. You are subject to Constitutional laws anywhere in the USA.

I am not an official, and those officials are duty bound to stop government from encroaching on rights.

Thus you would you refuse to swear an oath on the basis that "-- I, on the other hand, as a private citizen, am not bound by the Constitution. --"?

..you claim a right to park on my property, against my wishes.

Nope, I claim a right to have a gun in my car in the mandated company parking lot.

You don't have that right, and since you don't have that right, you now argue that government must violate my rights to allow you convenient parking.

Nope. I claim a right to have a gun in my car in the mandated company parking lot.

You are a statist, and support collectivism.

You can't formulate a rational argument, so you're back to name-calling. -- Sad display.

[spunkets]

"And they don't want it parked there if you have a gun in it. Period."

They have no business asking. You understand "none of your business", don't you? Good! that's what this is all about. When the employer deals with people, he's expected to honor there property right also. It business, keep it that way.

[spunkets]

"v. smug·gled, smug·gling, smug·gles"

BS.

"If I tell you that you are not allowed to bring porn to your place of work,"

The interior of the employee's car ain't the workplace.

[stand watie]

actually, i MAY NOT have that right, no matter how much i may dislike his taste in clothing.

such a person is an "invitee" at my business & it probably would NOT be within my rights as an owner to tell him to leave.

free dixie,sw

[Beagle8U]

"I am not bound by the Constitution to honor your Second Amendment rights on my property."

No, you aren't, in you private home.

If you have a business parking-lot open to the public, then, yes you are.

If you own a business parking lot, you have every right to fence it in, and require EVERY car that enters to be searched before entry.

Your company would turn to crap, and go out of business, but does anyone really care?

[stand watie]

speaking of "work", i have to get back to it.(i've been on the computer too much today.)

enjoyed the discussion.

free dixie,sw

[Luis Gonzalez]

"...its supreme "Law of the Land" applies to all of us."

Wrong.

We apply that law to the government.

"I claim a right to have a gun in my car in the mandated company parking lot."

You are not mandated to drive to work, and you are not mandated to park at the company lot.

If the NRA were simply objecting to ConocoPhillips' policy of barring guns from its parking lots, I would have no problem with the boycott. Instead, the NRA is objecting to the company's defense of its right to determine the gun policy on its own property. "We're going to make ConocoPhillips the example of what happens when a corporation takes away your Second Amendment rights," declares NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre.

That statement makes no sense, since the Second Amendment is a restraint on government. The Second Amendment does not mean a private employer has to welcome guns in its parking lot, any more than the First Amendment means I have a right to give speeches in your living room. -- Source

[Luis Gonzalez]

"If you have a business parking-lot open to the public, then, yes you are."

It's still my parking lot, and I still set rules for access.

I can limit the amount of time you can have your car parked there, I can limit the type of vehicles parked (NO TRUCKS, NO BUSES), I can limit what times and what days you may enter.

I can set all sorts of limits to your use of my parking lot.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Thanks...see you arouund.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You have that right.

[tpaine]

"-- You are a statist, and support collectivism. --"
327 Luis Gonzalez


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


http://www.fairmeasures.com/ask/enews/archive/winter96/new04.asp
-329-




Yet here we have luis, supporting the statist/collectivist idea that smoking is a valid reason to ban smokers from employment.


In January 1996, the U. S. Supreme Court allowed an employer to refuse to hire applicants who had smoked cigarettes in the previous year.
Since 1990, the city of North Miami has had this requirement. One applicant sued, saying it violated her privacy. The Florida Supreme Court (whose decision was upheld by the U. S. high court) said the city's goal of reducing employment costs by guarding against smoking-related illnesses was legitimate.


--- Yep folks, "higher insurance premiums" can be used as an excuse to discriminate against most any sort of "dangerous" activity. You got a gun in the parking lot? -- Too dangerous!

[Luis Gonzalez]

Governments are instituted among men to secure our rights, and they govern according to the consent of the governed.

Sound familiar?

The Constitution is an employee's manual for elected officials, it is NOT a listing of limitations on my rights.

It disallows governmental intrusion on many aspects of our lives, but it does not remove my rights as a property owner, nor does it make my property rights subject to your need for more convenient parking.

[stuartcr]

I think area commands may be different, navy bases around here, haven't allowed weapons in personal vehicles on base since I've been working on base, that's been about 25yrs.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Yet here we have luis, supporting the statist/collectivist idea that smoking is a valid reason to ban smokers from employment."

LOL!!!

You are showcasing your ignorance today, aren't you Tommy?

The individual (employer) banned smokers (group) from obtaining employment.

It seems that you are in need of further schooling tommy.

Collectivism is not an individuals' action against a group, collectivism would be smokers (a group) forcing an employer (individual) to acquiesce to their wishes.

Collectivism, in general, is a term used to describe a theoretical or practical emphasis on the group, as opposed to (and seen by many of its opponents to be at the expense of) the individual.

[Beagle8U]

"It's still my parking lot, and I still set rules for access"

Try excluding blacks, women, or anything else covered by the Constitution or Bill of Rights.

Let us know how you make out...Ok?

Thank you for playing...we have some nice parting gifts for you as well.

[tpaine]

Yet here we have luis, supporting the statist/collectivist idea that smoking is a valid reason to ban smokers from employment:

http://www.fairmeasures.com/ask/enews/archive/winter96/new04.asp

"-- In January 1996, the U. S. Supreme Court allowed an employer to refuse to hire applicants who had smoked cigarettes in the previous year. Since 1990, the city of North Miami has had this requirement. One applicant sued, saying it violated her privacy. The Florida Supreme Court (whose decision was upheld by the U. S. high court) said the city's goal of reducing employment costs by guarding against smoking-related illnesses was legitimate. --"

--- Yep folks, "higher insurance premiums" can be used as an excuse to discriminate against most any sort of "dangerous" activity. You got a gun in the parking lot? -- Too dangerous!

You are showcasing your ignorance today, aren't you Tommy?

Not at all.. I'm showing folks your hypocrisy, louie.

The individual (employer) banned smokers (group) from obtaining employment. It seems that you are in need of further schooling tommy.

Anyone can read your cite kiddo, and see the truth.

Collectivism is not an individuals' action against a group,

"-- In January 1996, the U. S. Supreme Court allowed an employer [a collectivist employer, the city of North Miami] to refuse to hire applicants [individuals] who had smoked cigarettes in the previous year. --"

collectivism would be smokers (a group) forcing an employer (individual) to acquiesce to their wishes.

You're dreaming lou. That is not the way it reads.

Collectivism, in general, is a term used to describe a theoretical or practical emphasis on the group, as opposed to (and seen by many of its opponents to be at the expense of) the individual.

I'll grant you this louie, you know how to blow smoke, in a hypocritical way. -- But you can't fool all of us, all the time.

[joanie-f]

Squantos and tpaine, from reading posts written by both of you over the last seven-plus years, I know that, unlike many in the government who call themselves conservatives and defenders of the Constitution, and yet consistently betray both without even the slightest wrenching of personal conscience, both of you genuinely are (conservatives and defenders).

And, as are Jeff and I, both of you are 'from my cold, dead hands' defenders of the Second Amendment, especially.

Where it appears that the two of you, and Jeff and I, do not see eye-to-eye is in defining the line between defense of our Second Amendment RKBA and defense of the rights inherent in ownership of personal property, vesus government regulation of that property.

And, even in a debate as vitally important as this, it would appear that even genuine conservatives must agree to disagree. So, rather than create even the appearance of 'division in the ranks,' it’s probably best that we allow this debate to dissolve into silence born of respect. :)

Continued best to you both.

(No response necessary. Going to be off-line for several days … )

~ joanie ....