Restrictions cannot contravene the Constitution

The Star-Telegram ^ | Mar. 12, 2007 | MARION P. HAMMER

[sauropod]

Interesting point and I will cogitate on it.

Thanks!

[green iguana]

You can get fired for any reason

You are dead wrong. Try firing all women, because they are women.

[tpaine]

The rights referred to in the Constitution do not exist in transactions between businesses and individuals,

Wrong, -- and this judge explains why:

In Plona v. United Parcel Service, 2007, -- 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."

[marktwain]

"Most states have laws that your guns must be disassembled during transportation."

Not true. I suspect that your views have been influenced by living in one of the few rabidly antigun states on the east coast.

Most states allow you to carry your gun assembled. 48 states have a system for obtaining a concealed carry permit.

In many states, you have the right to carry a gun in your car for self defense, without a permit, and in most of the states that have permit system, the permit is easy to get.

[marktwain]

"Utter nonsense. Why would the Second Amendment work differently than the First? My right to free speech is seriously curtailed while I'm at work. I could go to the mall and use abusive language or bad-mouth my company's products. Can't do that at work and remain employed. It's that simple."

True, but your employer cannot require that your vocal cords be cut. The right to bear arms is restricted, you are not allowed to carry on your person while at work. But simply keeping the personal firearm in your vehicle, in a parking lot that is open to the public, is a restriction on your rights, because it prevents the exercise of those rights before and after work. It is no different than if your employer would choose to say that you could not have a bible stored in your vehicle, and I think the courts would react the same way to that.

[marktwain]

"Utter nonsense. Why would the Second Amendment work differently than the First? My right to free speech is seriously curtailed while I'm at work. I could go to the mall and use abusive language or bad-mouth my company's products. Can't do that at work and remain employed. It's that simple."

True, but your employer cannot require that your vocal cords be cut. The right to bear arms is restricted, you are not allowed to carry on your person while at work. But simply keeping the personal firearm in your vehicle, in a parking lot that is open to the public, is a restriction on your rights, because it prevents the exercise of those rights before and after work. It is no different than if your employer would choose to say that you could not have a bible stored in your vehicle, and I think the courts would react the same way to that.

[Joe Brower]

There are colorable arguments on both sides of this debate.

Two questions I would have for any prospective employer would be:

1) Do you yourself carry a firearm on your person or close at hand while restricting that same right to your empployees?

2) Are you prepared to incur potential liability if anything should occur as a result of your restrictive policies?

[Zon]

You could make a more asinine comment, right?

[from occupied ga]

Most states have laws that your guns must be disassembled during transportation.

Most Some states have laws that your guns must be disassembled during transportation.

[Dilbert56]

Could you keep a hustler in your car?

I could keep a Hustler magazine in the car if it wasn't lying on the seat open to a "pictorial" page. Not sure what would happen if it were and I don't want to find out.

The point I should have made is not that my employer restricts my rights, it's that I surrender some of my rights by working there. Look at the military contract. It's even more restrictive. They can't publicly criticize the chain of command. They can't refuse a lawful assignment. Why they can't even commit adultery! - CINC excepted of course if (D)

[Zon]

Second amendment rights trump private property rights? I don't think so, but it'd be nice if it were so (for 1st amendment too!).

Gun-free zones are invitation to become crime zones. Any business owner that's okay with that I don't think has their customer's safety in mind. It' their property to do as they see fit so long as they don't initiate force against anyone or their property. In other words, each person is free to say "no" and walk away. Freedom of association is also the freedom to not associate.

[mathluv]

I am a woman, and I have been fired. No reason has to be given. You are saying a reason is necessary. It is not.

[TYVets]

Are you prepared to incur potential liability if anything should occur as a result of your restrictive policies

Employees that drive 30 miles to a their workplace.

A lot can happen.

I can see law suits just waiting to happen because of this policy.

[Zon]

I see your point about property rights, but isn't my car MY property?

Isn't your body your property too?

[Wonder Warthog]

"Most states have laws that your guns must be disassembled during transportation."

Actually, very few states have that as a requirement. Mostly the "extreme blue" states in the Northeast.

Massachusetts has become a disgrace to its own history. I'm sure John and Sam Adams are generating high wattage spinning in their graves.

[Zon]

Employees that drive 30 miles to a their workplace. A lot can happen.

Doesn't freedom of association mean that an employee (or prospect employee) can say no and walk away, just as an employer can say no and walk away? And both of them can do that for any reason or no reason? That's with regard to being honest, not according to the massively corrupt politicians and bureaucrats in government. You know that whole personal responsibility thing.

I can see law suits just waiting to happen because of this policy.

Which is as corrupt as the parasitical elites in government.  You know that whole personal responsibility thing.

[sauropod]

I'm trying to be polite.

Suggest you do the same.

[Zon]

Do as you choose and I'll do the same. Perhaps you'd prefer if I said you could make a more disingenuous comment, okay? 

If you want to rely on bad government laws that's you business. When you or your property are damaged by someone then you have a case. Good luck trying to convince an impartial jury that a picture of a naked body harmed you.

Guns don't kill -- people do.

Pornography doesn't rape people -- people do.

[green iguana]

Oh I agree that one can be fired for no reason. I also agree that no reason need be given. But, there are reasons for which no one may be fired, even here in Texas. Unlawful firing and discrimination lawsuits get filed and won all the time here. An unlawful reason need not be given for it to be discerned.

[sauropod]

I think you misunderstood my original post. My original comment was a serious one.

I was pissed that I would have to point out something so basic (1st Amendment applies to political speech - original intent of the Founders) to an active reader of this forum. That shouldn't have been necessary.

My comment about Flynt was a sneer at Flynt posturing himself as some kind of paragon of virtue for peddling smut.

AFA "bad government laws" the fewer the better. I'm all about freedom.