Posted on 02/08/2006 7:13:35 AM PST by neverdem
It wouldn't. Federal law overrules, at least as a practical matter. The military takes a dim view of privately owned firearms. Although most bases will allow those living in on base quarters to have them, if they are registered with the Provost Marshall. Many bases also allow long guns used for hunting, even by local civilians, if hunting is allowed on the post/base. But they still have to be registered with the Provost Marshall.
That's what I thought. I know, on some bases around here, one can hunt, but what you have to go through to get permission, makes it a major chore.
See #41
Did it!
I'm not sure how I feel about this. Working for a company isn't a right, it's always subject to the company's rules.
A person who feels strongly enough about this particular wrinkle on the issue can always choose to terminate the relationship if they can't abide by what the company demands of them.
Having said that, let me also admit that I don't have a carry permit and so I'm not affected by this issue the way that some people are. About the only time this is an issue for me is on Friday afternoons during hunting season.
On the other hand, I'm always in favor of the NRA keeping the pressure on, even if I'm not directly affected. But I don't think this is a horse I'd bet on.
Sounds reasonable.
Was in Ft. Meyers a year or two back and when a vehicle arrived at the job site near where my wife and I vacationed, about fifty Hispanics jumped out, kind of like the circus clown wagon.
Gun racks aren't outlawed (once gun racks are outlawed, only outlaws will have gun racks), but guns in those gun racks aren't allowed. I have, however, seen big ol Ram 1500s with lift kits with super soakers in their gun racks. Kinda funny.
Personally, I keep my S&W in the center console or on my hip while I'm driving. God Bless Jeb!
When enlisted men are in the barracks they are required to keep personal weapons at the armory. I know since I got more than an earful because some reservists were taking their 9mm pistols with them to Saudi/Kuwait during Desert Shield/Storm.
Prison terms is going a bit far. I would think stiff fines would do the trick. And the private property issue isn't one to be taken lightly. However, if employers are allowed to require that guns be kept in a locked vehicle, and not visible, that's not much of an imposition on the employers, compared to the imposition on employees of they're not permitted to keep their guns in their cars while at work, since that effectively prevents people from having their guns with them while travelling on public roads between work and home. And where are the liability suits from people who were held up or worse, and couldn't defend themselves, because of their employer's no-guns-on-our-property rule?
When businesses limit employees' on-the-job speech rights, that doesn't limit speech rights off the job. The same isn't true with a rule prohibiting employees from keeping guns locked in their cars, since that effectively prohibits them from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights while going to and from work as well.
It is just the anti-gun control freak business people again;if you treat your employees like fellow citizens and pay them on work done instead of busy time ,most problems would disappear.The employer who wants to lord it over workers hates the idea of peasants with arms. The reality is that prohibit guns in vehicles at parking lots of businesses could grow to shopping malls and effectively disarm all law-abiding persons.
My recollection is that the parking lot in question was a leased lot shared by, perhaps, more than one company. I don't think the employees in question were at all aware that they were committing a firing offense for having their hunting weapons in the parking lot.
My solution to this problem is to make a change in incorporation laws.
Laws permitting the formation of corporations encourage the pooling of capital to conduct business by limiting the liability of stockholders. This is a benefit conveyed by law to improve life for all. There is no reason whatever not to include protections for civil rights as part of incorporation law.
Privately held businesses could continue to make any rules they want. It's unlikely that privately held businesses would be very interested in limiting the rights of employees in ways not practiced by larger companies.
There would certainly be little sympathy for an employer who banned political bumper stickers in their parking lots or who required voting a certain way as a condition for employment.
Liability concerns have resulted in very few larger privately held companies. Similarly, liability concerns cause corporations to decide issues such as "guns in the parking lot" with no weight whatever to the civil rights of employees. If there was no law prohibiting corporations from demanding specific political affiliation as a condition of employment, that would be viewed by most as a serious problem. Likewise, the keeping and bearing of arms is being made very impractical for most people.
Don't Ask. Don't Tell.
You are forgetting about the private property owner Rights of vehicle owners.
Absolutely, which is why the state has the power to get involved. It's no different than if a major corporation made you sign a document agreeing to vote a certain way as a condition of employment. Good for business? perhaps in the short term. Good for a Republic based on individual Rights? Absolutely not.
Governments are instituted, after all, to defend individual Rights.
Easy! Your boss (your company's HR and Security Dept) would utilize a dog trained to identify the smell of gun powder and thus determine that there is just cause to request that you open your car for a search. Refusal will be cause for your termination. See how easy this is?
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.