Posted on 10/07/2007 7:54:27 AM PDT by 2Am4Sure
A Tulsa federal judge has ruled against the state in its attempt to make sure employees can take guns onto their employers' property.
U.S. District Judge Terence Kern issued a permanent injunction against an Oklahoma law that would have kept employers from banning firearms at the workplace under certain conditions.
Kern decided in a 93-page written order issued Thursday that the amendments to the Oklahoma Firearms Act and the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, which were to go into effect in 2004, conflict with a federal law meant to protect employees at their jobs.
Kern said the amendments "criminally prohibit an effective method of reducing gun-related workplace injuries and cannot co-exist with federal obligations and objectives."
(Excerpt) Read more at tulsaworld.com ...
Yup, rights are only allowed, inside your home. Eventually, only allowed inside your cell.
And the rights still exist, like the employer's property rights. If you come to my house and speak ill of my family, I can kick you out of my house. Your right to free speech is not infringed. If you come to my house and you have a weapon and I don't want you to have a weapon in my house I can kick you out. Your right to keep and bear arms has not been infringed.
The right to free speech and the right to keep and bear arms do not extend to the point that they infringe on a property owner (or leaser) to exercise his rights over his property. Your boss does not have to let you speak your mind at work. Likewise you do not have to work at your bosses location.
True case, a guy works for Miller and is photographed in a bar after work drinking a Bud light. The photo is printed in the local newspapers, and when the guy shows up the next day for work, he is told he no longer works for Miller. The boss fired him for basically being in an ad for Bud light. The guy wanted to sue but had no case. The boss does not have to employ you, particularly if you are acting in a manner that he doesn't like. (one of many links to the story http://www.nbc5.com/news/4191531/detail.html??z=dp&dpswid=1260382&dppid=65172)
You said it much better than I have been trying to say it.
Thank you.
As I stated in an earlier post, — any further redirecting of the argument onto private residency will be pointed out for what it is, a straw argument.
Your boss does not have to let you speak your mind at work.
***Yes, your boss does have to let you speak your mind at work, that right has been upheld by the courts.
Likewise you do not have to work at your bosses location.
***The answer to this is stated before as well: Likewise, the company does not have to set up shop here in America.
Here’s a hypothetical for you. Let’s say DPA5923, Inc. is a company with a crapload of lawyers who engage in shakedown lawsuits against companies like Miller and any other company that takes rights away from US citizens on US soil because, well, that’s its charter and they really felt strong about such things when the owner passed away and gave them a $zillion endowment fund. So, that guy who spoke his mind and got fired, goes to DPA5923 , Inc. and files a lawsuit, signs the complaint and DPA5923 Inc. does the rest and collects the money, giving the complaining party a 10% cut in the final settlement. Did that guy lose his rights when he worked for Miller? No. Does he have more of a chance of having his rights upheld when DPA5923 Inc. is on the case? yes. Does the employer still have the right to tell employees that they can’t carry guns in their private cars on the company private lot? Well, no, because that right is protected in the 2nd amendment in our constitution and it is much easier to see with this hypothetical that the company never really had that right in the first place.
Private property owners who prohibit concealed carry of arms by their invited visitors and/or business associates are, in effect, thumbing their nose at one of the Constitutions primary principles.
If you come to my house and you have a weapon and I don't want you to have a weapon in my house I can kick you out.
Why would you want to 'kick out' an invited visitor or worker, -- who happens to be carrying a concealed weapon? -- Certainly, in a private residence you can 'kick out' anyone at any time, but why are you focused on depriving them of the right to carry?
Your right to keep and bear arms has not been infringed.
--- the right to keep and bear arms do not extend to the point that they infringe on a property owner (or leaser) to exercise his rights over his property.
Yep, that's what the Brady bunch types want everyone in the USA to believe; - that property rights trump our right to carry arms.
Actually, the two rights co-exist quite well, as your visitors who carry - contribute to protecting your property from criminals.
Your hypothetical fails because you are wrong on your assumption that DPA5923 Inc’s lawyers would be successful in their lawsuits. They would not be.
This is not difficult. You do not have a right to a job or to be on another’s private property (ever hear of trespassing). If I ask (or tell) you to leave property that I have possessory rights over (owned or leased or rented etc, etc) and you refuse, you are trespassing and can be arrested and sued for the same.
If I as an employer do not like the fact that you appeared on TV last night in a commercial for my chief competitor, I am in my rights to fire you.
Hell, if I don’t like the way you said good morning to me, I am in my right to fire you. (aside from some contract obligation or legislative measure). Right to work states do not require a good reason or any reason to fire you.
If I forbid weapons on the property I have possessory rights over and you come on my property with a weapon, if I am your employer, I can fire you and if you are invited guest, I can uninvite you and demand you leave.
Your right to keep and bear arms does not trump my property rights just like your right to worship freely doesn’t mean you get to use my pool as a baptismal font.
I am amazed at how many conservatives are only interested in property rights when the owners of the property want to protect conservative interest.
Who cares? This is not an issue of whether the reasoning behind execution of the right is reasonable to you or me, just that it is lawfully executed. If I don't want you on my property because your shoelaces are frayed, I don't want you on my property.
Actually, the two rights co-exist quite well, as your visitors who carry - contribute to protecting your property from criminals.
Of course they co-exist, but your rights do not superceed my right to prevent you access to my property. If I do not want your protection, you can not force it on me...
Again, I am amazed at how many conservatives are only interested in property rights when the owners of the property want to protect conservative interests.
Your hypothetical fails because you are wrong on your assumption that DPA5923 Inc’s lawyers would be successful in their lawsuits. They would not be.
***Wrong. There actually have been cases where companies lost money because they chose to restrict a person’s right to freedom of speech, which is protected under our constitution. It’s not even a hypothetical — it’s real. That trumps all your nonsense.
This is not difficult. You do not have a right to a job or to be on another’s private
***blah blah blah... you’re intentionally overlooking the obvious. Of course the employer has the right to fire you, but he’s gonna get sued big time by DPA5923 Inc. if he takes away constitutionally protected rights. If that employer continues down that path, he will no longer be an employer because he’ll lose all of his money. The employer’s rights and the citizen’s rights collide. Within this interplay, the constitution has some say. Employers like to push people around and fire them for having green eyelashes if they can get away with it, and employees forget or don’t know that they have rights in our society.
Again, I am amazed at how many conservatives are only interested in property rights when the owners of the property want to protect conservative interests.
***And I am amazed at how many absolutists there are who conveniently overlook the constitution, and that the constitution was in effect before any employer had property rights over a given piece of land.
It is the public policy of the United States that our right to carry arms shall not be infringed.
Private property owners who prohibit concealed carry of arms by their invited visitors and/or business associates are, in effect, thumbing their nose at one of the Constitutions primary principles.
The Brady bunch types want everyone in the USA to believe; - that property rights trump our right to carry arms.
Actually, the two rights co-exist quite well, as your visitors who carry - contribute to protecting your property from criminals.
I am amazed at how many conservatives are only interested in property rights when the owners of the property want to protect conservative interests.
Why do you say it is "protecting conservative interests" to ban concealed carry on your property?
Because it respects property rights and does not infringe on the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment does not give you the right to trepass. If I throw you off my property for any reason, you can not trump that right unless you are talking public or private neccesasity (safeguarding human life, preventing further property damage, etc, etc). Your lame attempt to claim that I cannot refuse you entry on my land because you are armed, have short hair, wear glasses or anyother reason does not fly. Property rights do not trump civil rights, but your civil rights grant you or anyone else the right to trepass....
Trespassing is a common law derived from English Common law, in effect long before the US Constitution was written.
Trespassing was illegal before the Constitution was written. There are cases of trespass in colonial times and medieval England. The law has undergone changes from the earliest days, but the concept of ownership and possessorary rights include the right to prohibit others the use of a thing that is owned. If I prohibit the use of my land to you because you are armed or ugly, you are still armed and ugly (hence your right to be armed or ugly is not infringed) you just do not have the right to enter my property.
The rights listed in the first 10 amendments are not an end all list nor are they the most important to many people. Rather our founding fathers included them because they were rights most often infringed upon by the crown.
Do you believe a company must allow an employee to distribute flyers or papers on company property? If not, why not? If, as you believe, a company can not prohibit certain speech at its work place how could it prohibit certain literature? What if the literature was advertisement for its competitor or highly guarded trade secrets?
Your position that a property owner cannot control who enters their property and on what conditions does not stand up to even rudimentary scrutiny.
As Tpaine pointed out, (and no one responded)
“— Ownership in land — the most tangible, and in the early days of the Republic, the most important form of property — had never meant absolute control over that property or an unfettered right to use it in any way the owner wanted.
Traditions going back to English common law have always placed restrictions on property.
The common law doctrine of nuisance, for example, prevented owners from using their land in a way that interfered unreasonably with the rights of their neighbors.
Custom often allowed hunting on private, unenclosed land, or required that an owner allow access to rivers and lakes.
Property in the form of businesses also had regulations on them; taverns, ferries and coach lines, for example, were often heavily regulated in both England and the North American colonies. —”
Rights of the People: Individual Freedom and the Bill of Rights
Address:http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/rightsof/property.htm
And also, as I posted in #142:
Our Constitutional Rights don’t apply to demands a private citizen makes of visitors to his private property.
***Here’s where the right to private property came from: the constitution. Here’s where the right to 1st & 2nd amendments came from: the constitution. Well, okay, they “came from” the Creator and the constitution outlines certain rights that it chooses to protect for us citizens. It is the same constitution that allows you to buy a piece of property — the same constitution that outlines my rights to freedom of religion. If you want to put up a sign at the front of your business that says, “you no longer have constitutional rights when you cross this line”, your business will be shut down pretty fast. For instance, I don’t give up my rights to freedom, to not be a slave, just because I cross that line. When you put up a business, you are not allowed under the constitution to declare slavery for anyone who comes into your place of business — that’s the 14th amendment. The 1st & 2nd amendments are also still in place. The question of enforcement of those rights is fun and interesting, but that does not mean we do not have those rights.
I am amazed at how many conservatives are only interested in property rights when the owners of the property want to protect conservative interests.
Why do you say it is "protecting conservative interests" to ban concealed carry on your property?
Because it respects property rights
Guns are property. Banning the carrying of them is respect?
and does not infringe on the 2nd amendment.
Dream on, ms brady.
Your lame attempt to claim that I cannot refuse you entry on my land because you are armed, have short hair, wear glasses or anyother reason does not fly.
Your lame attempt to claim that I said you cannot refuse me entry to your home because I'm armed, -- is belied by my previous posts.
Property rights do not trump civil rights, but your civil rights do not grant you or anyone else the right to trepass....
You invited me on your property to do business. My concealed weapon does not make me a trespasser. Your objection to it on that basis makes you the fool, not me.
The rights listed in the first 10 amendments are not an end all list nor are they the most important to many people. Rather our founding fathers included them because they were rights most often infringed upon by the crown.
Our rights to life, liberty or property [guns] pretty well list them all. And whether it is you or gov't who try to infringe on them is also pretty immaterial.
Your position that a property owner cannot control who enters their property and on what conditions does not stand up to even rudimentary scrutiny.
Your position that a property owner has absolute control over the life, liberty, or property of anyone who enters their property for any reason does not stand up to even rudimentary Constitutional scrutiny.
Before I call this issue dead, I feel I must address this though...
You invited me on your property to do business. My concealed weapon does not make me a trespasser.
If I invite you on my property with the stipulation that you must not be armed and you are indeed armed without my consent, then you have entered my property without my consent (my consent was conditional on you not being armed) and you would be a trespasser.
If I make no mention of such a condition you would not be trespassing until I tell you that you cannot be on my land with weapons and you refused to leave.
That's the law (which does not contradict the US Constitution)
His decision is not even remotely based on the concept of private property.
But, I agree...private companies should be able to ban the possession of guns in their buildings.
On the other hand, those companies should also be boycotted.
You are not answering the questions put forth to you.
If you were a lawyer, a judge would fry your butt so bad, you wouldn’t be able to spit right.
Answer the questions. Otherwise I’m done dancing around with just another absolutist philosopher in love with hyperbole.
To be fair, the contention that I’m most interested in was not phrased in the form of a question, so here it is, reformulated:
If you want to put up a sign at the front of your business that says, “you no longer have constitutional rights when you cross this line”, your business will be shut down pretty fast. Does that mean your business had that right? Does your business have the right to establish slavery in light of the 14th amendment?
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.