Posted on 02/19/2009 10:11:28 AM PST by cashion
If guns are such a problem in the workplace, why aren’t there more shootings at police stations?
Precisely.
It's not so much that employers disliked guns, it's that OSHA was pressuring employers behind the scenes to adopt rules against guns as a "workplace safety" issue. This ruling lets employers off the liability hook.
That is your idea of freedom? I don’t like kids so I can tell you that you aren’t allowed to have a baby seat in your car when you work for me?
I am a Muslim and I can’t discriminate against hiring you but I can tell you not to have a bible in your car?
You have some screwy ideas of freedom.
“If guns are such a problem in the workplace, why aren’t there more shootings at police stations?”
And if criminals cannot differentiate between gun free zones and gun zones (as the left claim), then why are there no shootings at gun ranges?
Fixed.
We had this little debate a couple of weeks ago. My position as the business owner is to create a safe work environment. If I say guns are not allowed, that absolves me of all liability if you desire to bring a weapon and leave it locked in your vehicle.
One, it's not technically violating the rules I have laid out, simply because I cannot search your vehicle at random, or ever. SO HOW WOULD I KNOW?
Two, Your property and privacy of your vehicle trumps my ability to enforce the rule UNLESS: you play show and tell in the parking lot, someone breaks into your vehicle and steals it, or it goes off while you move it around in the trunk/backseat. Then we have a problem.
Some though, believe it is an absolute, one way or the other.
Frank Phillips is turning over in his grave..!!!
The court should have left the company an out.
If the company wants to refuse the possession of a firearm in a locked car, then the company is required to provide armed escort and insurance against preventable harm coming to the disarmed employee from work to home and vice-versa.
That way the company can remain safe for killers who wouldn’t obey the law anyway and employees can be safe as they transit to and from work to home.
And your tires are on my property and so if you want to keep your job, then you had better find an off-premises parking space.
The wording is wrong on this article. The state doesn’t “allow” people to have guns in their vehicles, the state affirms that the people have the God given right to be armed. To buy into the crap that the state “allows” us to have firearms is to buy into the crap they have the right to take them away from us.
I like that.................
MOLON LABE
Honestly, I never thought about that. But I do think that if I wanted to prohibit the possession of all tobacco products on my property, I would have the right to do that.
Horse shit. Your property rights don’t extend to mine. My vehicle is my vehicle and even though it’s tires are on your property is is MY property and none of your frickin’ business if I have a gun in it or not. You think property rights triumph all but you refuse to respect others property rights.Once I step onto your property and out of mine(my car)then, yes, you have control and can say I can’t carry onto your property, but my car is mine and what’s in it is also mine and is not subject to your control.
You don't have the right to what radio stations I listen to in my car, do you?
You don't have the right to tell me I can't have a box cutter in my car, do you?
What about a screw driver..and a tire iron? You gonna tell me I can't have those in my car too?
What you fail to understand is that the inside of the vehicle is NOT the "private property" of the business. It's the private property of the vehicle owner, no different from the inside of his/her home. The fact that said vechicle may, for some time, be parked on the business owner's lot is of zero relevance.
MOLON LABE!!!
As it should be. If the company wants to buy me a car, then they can dictate whats inside it.
Your property ends at my tires. So does your control over whats inside my car. It seems ridiculous, but them’s the rulez.
I agree, HOWEVER, this needs to be added:
The company has, by not allowing self denfense weapons on it's property, implied that the property is safe, and the person doesn't need any weapons.
IF anything happens, the property owner should be held civily, and perhaps even criminally liable for his prohibition.
This judgement is just the tip of the iceberg, more and more individual property rights are going to be taken away.
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.