Posted on 03/13/2007 11:26:20 PM PDT by neverdem
The U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions guarantee the right to keep and bear arms. Transporting a firearm in your vehicle for protection while traveling to and from work, grocery shopping, to the doctor's office, to a shopping center or anywhere else people commonly travel is central to that right.
In Plona v. United Parcel Service, 2007 (U.S. District Court, N.D. Ohio), UPS fired an employee for having a firearm stored in his vehicle in a public-access parking lot used by UPS employees and customers. The court found that "the right to keep and bear arms" is enough to form the basis of a wrongful termination. Further, U.S. District Judge Ann Aldrich found that "allowing an employer to terminate an employee for exercising a clearly established constitutional right jeopardizes that right, even if no state action is involved."
Businesses are prohibited from discriminating because of race, age, sex, religion, nationality, etc. And clearly they are also prohibited from discriminating against those who exercise their right to keep and bear arms for personal protection and other lawful purposes like hunting and target shooting.
Individual constitutional and legal rights do not end when we drive onto a business parking lot. Simply put, business property rights do not trump the Constitution or the law.
State legislatures have a duty to protect the constitutional rights of individuals from abuses. They must act as a shield to protect constitutional rights of the people; they also must act as the point of a sword to punish those who violate our inalienable rights. That is at the heart of this debate.
Businesses cannot substitute their own political philosophies for constitutional rights. And nowhere in the Constitution are businesses given any authority to prohibit rights in their parking lots. Businesses have no more right to ban firearms in private vehicles than they do to ban books. Businesses may impose only restrictions that do not rise to the level of contravening protected rights.
Nor can employers require you to waive your protected rights. They cannot, as a condition of employment, require you to give up your right to vote; neither can they require you to give up your right of self-protection or your right to keep and bear arms.
On the common-sense side, think about a mom who doesn't get off work until midnight. She may drive 30 or 40 miles over dark, desolate roads to get home to her family. She may stop at a convenience store and pick up bread for school lunches the next day.
Her employer has no right to tell her that she'll be fired if she exercises her right to have a firearm in her vehicle for protection.
Think about women who work late hours as cashiers at supermarkets. And what about employees of all-night pharmacies, or nurses or lab technicians who work late shifts and drive to and from work through dangerous areas late at night?
As one female legislator asked, what about lawmakers who travel their districts at night for speaking engagements? Are they not supposed to park anywhere or stop for a cup of coffee or a soda or a bite to eat because they carry a gun in the car for protection?
A woman who is being stalked or who has obtained a domestic violence injunction against an abuser needs protection. Police often advise these women to buy a gun for protection because police can't be there to protect them. An employer violates her rights if the employer attempts to force her to waive her rights and chose between her life and her job.
The keeping of firearms in a vehicle is a preeminent right that is well-grounded in law and public policy. Legislatures must stop the abuse of our most basic and fundamental Second Amendment rights on the part of corporate giants.
That's correct. The interior of your vehicle is your business, no one else's. The employer can only decide whether you can park on his lot.
Myself and several other posters have obliterated your arguments over the past couple months. You're in denial dude. That's your problem -- not mine. Deal with it. Or don't. It makes no difference to me.
Amazing concept Zon. -- You refuse to argue the constitutionality of the issue - yet declare you have "obliterated arguments".
Not a concept. It's documented fact on several threads. A couple months ago I spent a couple of days proving you wrong. Over the months I've seen several other people do similar on this issue (Your assertion that an armed person has a right to access another persons property against the property owners rules.) Some of the threads were started by you. I've seen you use several irrational tactics in your arguments, some against the rules, (I'm certain other people have seen them too,).-- not that rules/policy of the property owner of FreeRepublic would matter to you anyways. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that you hold the record for most times suspended from FreeRepublic. How many is it so far?
--- 'Even if everyone in the community desires -- [that employees be disarmed while going to or from work] -- they have no right individually or collectively to force them to do it. --'
"-- They cannot delegate a power they themselves do not have. --"
Thus we see:
--- 'Even if everyone in the community desires -- [that land owners allow armed people on their property] -- they have no right individually or collectively to force them to do it. --'
OR --- 'Even if everyone in the community desires -- [that employers hire someone who will not comply with their rules at their business] -- they have no right individually or collectively to force them to do it. --'
"-- They cannot delegate a power they themselves do not have. --"
Fairly simple constitutional principle, but a lot of FReepers seem to have a very tough time understanding it...
And some have a hard time realizing it applies to ALL constitutional freedoms, not just RKBA.
How about the governmental court ruling you keep waving around?
Amazing concept Zon. -- You refuse to argue the constitutionality of the issue - yet declare you have "obliterated arguments".
Not a concept. It's documented fact on several threads.
Bull. You can't post your documented facts as they don't exist.
You 'left the field' on those threads, unable to support your position. -- Feel free to rebut -- on those threads.
A couple months ago I spent a couple of days proving you wrong.
Boasting is easy. Where are your facts? -- Post them to that thread & we can continue the debate.
Over the months I've seen several other people do similar on this issue (Your assertion that an armed person has a right to access another persons property against the property owners rules.)
You're mischarcterizing my position on those other threads. Post to those threads if you want to re-argue those issues.
Some of the threads were started by you.
So what?
I've seen you use several irrational tactics in your arguments, some against the rules,
It's 'against the rules' to do what you're doing now. You're trolling/cross-posting one threads arguments to another.
(I'm certain other people have seen them too,).-- not that rules/policy of the property owner of FreeRepublic would matter to you anyways. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that you hold the record for most times suspended from FreeRepublic. How many is it so far?
Lots. -- That's because defending our right to carry vs a 'right to ban' really gets some noses all out of joint.
Zon: not that rules/policy of the property owner of FreeRepublic would matter to you anyways. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that you hold the record for most times suspended from FreeRepublic. How many is it so far? 102
Lots. -- That's because defending our right to carry vs a 'right to ban' really gets some noses all out of joint.
No. You can't even admit that you violated the rules. You make up some harebrained rationalization to justify your violations. It's because you have violated the property owner's rules/policy to such a degree that you got suspended. You've demonstrated lots, your disregard for the person's whose living-room/forum you've been invited into. You assert that it's your violations on 2nd amendment threads that got you suspended each time -- are you sure that you weren't suspended a few times for your violations on non-2nd amendment threads?
"-- They cannot delegate a power they themselves do not have. --"
--- 'Even if everyone in the community desires -- [that land owners allow armed people on their property] -- they have no right individually or collectively to force them to do it. --'
No one in our constitutional community wants to force land owners to allow 'armed people' on their property.
-- We want our right to carry arms in our vehicles to be respected by landowning employers/shopkeepers who we do business & work with.
And a court decision upholding that right is not a "decree".
As to your "principle," if you as my employer were to give me the key to your house and direct me to go into your house on a work related errand, I would not only have the right to enter your property (because you had given me the right for a particular purpose), I would have an obligation to do so as your employee.
"...such as a business owner defending his business/property..."
Your statement supports what I wrote. "Businesses don't (insert your own verb whether it be "restrict" or "defend" or whatever and add an object) -- people (who own businesses) (such as a business owner) do."
"I often use the phrase..."
Well, we seem to have one point of agreement.
'Even if everyone in the community desires -- [that employers hire someone who will not comply with their rules at their business] -- they have no right individually or collectively to force them to do it. --'
If they had the right individually or collectively that would make a business owner a second class citizen that's not as equal as the home owner that can refuse armed persons entry to their property. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile. Next thing you know they won't allow the second class business owners to permit smoking on their property while the more equal homeowner can do that. Opps, they're already doing that. And now they're moving on to banning transfats in restaurants. To politicians, bureaucrats and some people on this forum, business owners are second class, or less equal citizens.
Of course I have. -- But not here, and not in our previous debates.
You make up some harebrained rationalization to justify your violations. It's because you have violated the property owner's rules/policy to such a degree that you got suspended. You've demonstrated lots, your disregard for the person's whose living-room/forum you've been invited into. You assert that it's your violations on 2nd amendment threads that got you suspended each time -- are you sure that you weren't suspended a few times for your violations on non-2nd amendment threads?
You know full well what people are 'abusing abuse' to get me suspended - and why they do it. -- Now, incredibly enough, you want to play that same game, -- because we disagree about our right to carry arms, you want me silenced.
-- Get a grip on your emotions. -- Lighten up.
To a few 'businessmen', politicians, bureaucrats and some people on this forum, -- gun owners who carry while going to & from work are second class, or less equal citizens.
From that premise it follows that "Businesses don't restrict rights -- people (who own businesses) do." Your "principle" does not falsify that.
I understand. My point was that a business owner that doesn't allow a person on their property has not restricted the person's rights because the person doesn't have a right to access the property.
.As to your "principle," if you as my employer were to give me the key to your house and direct me to go into your house on a work related errand, I would not only have the right to enter your property (because you had given me the right for a particular purpose), I would have an obligation to do so as your employee.
True. And if I said you can't take a gun onto my home property you have a choice to agree or disagree.. If you don't agree I don't give you permission nor the key to enter the property.
You know full well what people are 'abusing abuse' to get me suspended - and why they do it.
How would I know that? Because you say so? LMAO!!
Now, incredibly enough, you want to play that same game, -- because we disagree about our right to carry arms, you want me silenced.
I've never hit the abuse button on you - never! I doubt I've hit it even ten times in nine years. I'm content to let people expose their follies and irrationalities for all to see and personal attacks just drain their credibility. And as far as swearing goes, I don't do it and I'm not offended by others that do.
you want me silenced.
You're so vain. You're ego is the size of Jupiter. I could care less if you're silenced. It's not like you're convincing anybody and even if you were I still wouldn't want you silenced. Actually, you do a service by being on the irrational side of juxtaposition. For honesty to prevail irrationality must be confronted. Hiding it from people solves nothing. That's what neocheaters do. They hide their irrationalities and corruptions behind a slew of political agenda laws and ego justice.
Whatever. Feel free to babble on.
To a few 'businessmen', politicians, bureaucrats and some people on this forum, -- gun owners who carry while going to & from work are second class, or less equal citizens.
Your mysticism causes you to create a mind- spun fabrication that a business owner's property rights are different than the homeowner's property rights. That's where the second-class citizen, less than equal citizen phrase got it's meaning.
Who forced you against your will to work for the employer whose rules/policy you disagree with? Nobody. That's what I thought. Nobody is forcing you to drive to and from work without a gun. If you drive to and from work without a gun that is your choice. You made the choice to work for the employer according to the rules of the agreement that both of you agreed to. No second class citizen there. Both of you are equally free to say no and not enter into agreement.
Whatever. Feel free to babble on.
Apparently I nailed it spot on.
You know it's unkind to argue with mental defectives, don't you?
Your mysticism causes you to create a mind- spun fabrication that a business owner's property rights are different than the homeowner's property rights.
The article outlines the constitutional position, not "mysticism" :
"-- Businesses are prohibited from discriminating because of race, age, sex, religion, nationality, etc. And clearly they are also prohibited from discriminating against those who exercise their right to keep and bear arms for personal protection and other lawful purposes like hunting and target shooting.
Individual constitutional and legal rights do not end when we drive onto a business parking lot. Simply put, business property rights do not trump the Constitution or the law.
State legislatures have a duty to protect the constitutional rights of individuals from abuses. They must act as a shield to protect constitutional rights of the people; they also must act as the point of a sword to punish those who violate our inalienable rights.
That is at the heart of this debate. --"
That's where the second-class citizen, less than equal citizen phrase got it's meaning. Who forced you against your will to work for the employer whose rules/policy you disagree with? Nobody.
Who forced the employer to make a 'rule' that contravenes our right to carry arms in our vehicles? -- That's what I thought, -- Nobody.
That's what I thought. Nobody is forcing you to drive to and from work without a gun. If you drive to and from work without a gun that is your choice. You made the choice to work for the employer according to the rules of the agreement that both of you agreed to. No second class citizen there. Both of you are equally free to say no and not enter into agreement.
Our basic agreement was made over 200 years ago. We the people have a right to carry arms.
You are free to say no and not enter into that agreement.
You know it's unkind to argue with mental defectives, don't you?
Care to post just who is the "mental defective" zon is arguing with, mr. troll?
tpaine: "You know full well what people are 'abusing abuse' to get me suspended - and why they do it..."110
Zon: How would I know that? Because you say so? LMAO!! 113
Well, before I even consider responding further I need you to apologize for falsely accusing me of, in your own words, "You know full well what people are 'abusing abuse' to get me suspended - and why they do it. -- Now, incredibly enough, you want to play that same game, -- because we disagree about our right to carry arms, you want me silenced."
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.