Proposed law: Companies can't keep employees from bringing guns to work

[billvon 3,031]

>the constitution says you have a right to carry (in my mind) . . .

No it doesn't. It says the government shall not infringe upon that right. It doesn't say local business owners can't prohibit it.

Take a first amendment example. Can I come into your business, step up on a soapbox and start spouting a political speech?

[kallend 2,067]

Quote

Quote

Quote

"I'm not entirely happy about fed.gov intruding on private property rights"

*****************************************


.....as apposed the feds stepping on Constitutional rights?

The Constitution constrains the government, not private employers.

You have no free speech rights in your workplace either. If you badmouth your boss over the PA system at work, don't expect the 1st Amendment to protect you from being dismissed.

True, but that is not what we are talking about are we? you like to redirect don't you........

Just an example that appears easier to understand. if the 1st doesn't apply, then neither should the 2nd.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

"I'm not entirely happy about fed.gov intruding on private property rights"

*****************************************


.....as apposed the feds stepping on Constitutional rights?

The Constitution constrains the government, not private employers.

You have no free speech rights in your workplace either. If you badmouth your boss over the PA system at work, don't expect the 1st Amendment to protect you from being dismissed.

True, but that is not what we are talking about are we? you like to redirect don't you........

Just an example that appears easier to understand. if the 1st doesn't apply, then neither should the 2nd.

OK, lets go with this. Do you believe that the 2nd amendment speaks of individuals or a militia?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

OK, lets go with this. Do you believe that the 2nd amendment speaks of individuals or a militia?

Weren't you just complaining about redirection?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

OK, lets go with this. Do you believe that the 2nd amendment speaks of individuals or a militia?

Weren't you just complaining about redirection?

He started it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,067]

Quote

Quote

Quote

OK, lets go with this. Do you believe that the 2nd amendment speaks of individuals or a militia?

Weren't you just complaining about redirection?

He started it

I started nothing.

Since the 2nd is such an emotional issue, I just decided to give an example from the 1st instead.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

"I'm not entirely happy about fed.gov intruding on private property rights"

*****************************************


.....as apposed the feds stepping on Constitutional rights?

The Constitution constrains the government, not private employers.

You have no free speech rights in your workplace either. If you badmouth your boss over the PA system at work, don't expect the 1st Amendment to protect you from being dismissed.

True, but that is not what we are talking about are we? you like to redirect don't you........

Redirect? What the hell?

You opened the topic to Constitutional rights. Last time I checked, the 1st was one of them. It is a logical idea that if you think the 2nd amendment should be uphelp in a PRIVATE business then the 1st should be too.

In other words, if I can bring a gun to my employer's workplace, then I can also send disparaging emails about him without fear of termination. Conversly, if I am not allowed to do the latter(which I am not in most businesses), then there is not reason why I should be able to do the former.

Me thinks this "stop redirect" debate tactic is taking the place of "You don't like Bush, well, Clinton sucked too" technique. Used far to often and a silly diversionary method of non debate.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[kallend 2,067]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

"I'm not entirely happy about fed.gov intruding on private property rights"

*****************************************


.....as apposed the feds stepping on Constitutional rights?

The Constitution constrains the government, not private employers.

You have no free speech rights in your workplace either. If you badmouth your boss over the PA system at work, don't expect the 1st Amendment to protect you from being dismissed.

True, but that is not what we are talking about are we? you like to redirect don't you........

Just an example that appears easier to understand. if the 1st doesn't apply, then neither should the 2nd.

OK, lets go with this. Do you believe that the 2nd amendment speaks of individuals or a militia?

What I believe about the Constitution carries no weight, it means what the Supremes say it means.

Your right to bear arms does not trump my right to set conditions when you visit my house, however.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

"I'm not entirely happy about fed.gov intruding on private property rights"

*****************************************


.....as apposed the feds stepping on Constitutional rights?

The Constitution constrains the government, not private employers.

You have no free speech rights in your workplace either. If you badmouth your boss over the PA system at work, don't expect the 1st Amendment to protect you from being dismissed.

True, but that is not what we are talking about are we? you like to redirect don't you........

Redirect? What the hell?

You opened the topic to Constitutional rights. Last time I checked, the 1st was one of them. It is a logical idea that if you think the 2nd amendment should be uphelp in a PRIVATE business then the 1st should be too.

In other words, if I can bring a gun to my employer's workplace, then I can also send disparaging emails about him without fear of termination. Conversly, if I am not allowed to do the latter(which I am not in most businesses), then there is not reason why I should be able to do the former.

Me thinks this "stop redirect" debate tactic is taking the place of "You don't like Bush, well, Clinton sucked too" technique. Used far to often and a silly diversionary method of non debate.

Look, kallend and you got me thinking. Your points are well taken. You could also look at this from a privacy standpoint could you not?

I pull into the parking lot. I lock my vehicle. The company goes on a fishing expidition (which is what happened in one case) and search vehicles randomly looking for leagaly stored weapons. They find yours and you are fired.....thoughts?


By the way, your sig lines says volumes........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

"I'm not entirely happy about fed.gov intruding on private property rights"

*****************************************


.....as apposed the feds stepping on Constitutional rights?

Read my post below............

I know you have a point but it is not as simple as you would want it to be....IMHO

The Constitution constrains the government, not private employers.

You have no free speech rights in your workplace either. If you badmouth your boss over the PA system at work, don't expect the 1st Amendment to protect you from being dismissed.

True, but that is not what we are talking about are we? you like to redirect don't you........

Just an example that appears easier to understand. if the 1st doesn't apply, then neither should the 2nd.

OK, lets go with this. Do you believe that the 2nd amendment speaks of individuals or a militia?

What I believe about the Constitution carries no weight, it means what the Supremes say it means.

Your right to bear arms does not trump my right to set conditions when you visit my house, however.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,031]

>I pull into the parking lot. I lock my vehicle. The company goes on a
> fishing expidition (which is what happened in one case) and search
> vehicles randomly looking for leagaly stored weapons. They find
> yours and you are fired.....thoughts?

If:

a) you agreed to such searches when you joined the company and
b) you understood the no-guns rule

then yes, you could be fired. You could be fired if you work at a Ford plant and agree to not use the parking lot for foreign cars, and then park a Toyota there.

[jdhill 0]

Quote

not use the parking lot for foreign cars, and then park a Toyota there.

But a lot of Toyotas are made in America...

And there are plenty of Fords made in Mexico and Canada...
J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke

[kallend 2,067]

Quote

Look, kallend and you got me thinking. Your points are well taken. You could also look at this from a privacy standpoint could you not?

I pull into the parking lot. I lock my vehicle. The company goes on a fishing expidition (which is what happened in one case) and search vehicles randomly looking for leagaly stored weapons. They find yours and you are fired.....thoughts?


By the way, your sig lines says volumes........

Do you have a right to privacy in the workplace? Can your employer require that you give a urine sample, for example?

You seem to confuse restraints on what the government may do with conditions laid down by an employer.

(Not that restraints on the government mean a whole lot any more).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

I pull into the parking lot. I lock my vehicle. The company goes on a fishing expidition (which is what happened in one case) and search vehicles randomly looking for leagaly stored weapons. They find yours and you are fired.....thoughts?


By the way, your sig lines says volumes........

If it is a private company and you know they have a no gun policy and a vehicle search policy and you bring your car onto their lot with a gun, then yes, you can be fired. If it is not on the books, then no. The point is is that a company can say what they allow on their property.


And, what, pray tell, does my sig line say about me? Do you even know what it is from?

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[billvon 3,031]

>And, what, pray tell, does my sig line say about me? Do you even
>know what it is from?

There are those who think that life has nothing left to chance
With a host of holy horrors to direct our aimless dance

A planet of playthings
We dance on the strings
Of powers we cannot perceive
The stars aren’t aligned, or the gods are malign
Blame is better to give than receive

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that’s clear
I will choose free will

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

>And, what, pray tell, does my sig line say about me? Do you even
>know what it is from?

There are those who think that life has nothing left to chance
With a host of holy horrors to direct our aimless dance

A planet of playthings
We dance on the strings
Of powers we cannot perceive
The stars aren’t aligned, or the gods are malign
Blame is better to give than receive

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that’s clear
I will choose free will

Different words, but pretty apt.
The lyrics are from the Song "Opiate" by Tool. It has NOTHING to do with people REALLY following me. It is indeed about thinking for yourself. It is hard to choose which bits of the song I wanted to post. I figured the ones who got it, would. The rest would just get mad and assume things.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[JoeyRamone 0]

No it would not if you are going to do something like that nothing will stop you.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

>And, what, pray tell, does my sig line say about me? Do you even
>know what it is from?

There are those who think that life has nothing left to chance
With a host of holy horrors to direct our aimless dance

A planet of playthings
We dance on the strings
Of powers we cannot perceive
The stars aren’t aligned, or the gods are malign
Blame is better to give than receive

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that’s clear
I will choose free will

Different words, but pretty apt.
The lyrics are from the Song "Opiate" by Tool. It has NOTHING to do with people REALLY following me. It is indeed about thinking for yourself. It is hard to choose which bits of the song I wanted to post. I figured the ones who got it, would. The rest would just get mad and assume things.

My reply was more tounge in cheek than anything else and no, I did not have any idea where it came from.

As for the thread, you all have made good points. I do not think the drug testing comparison was close. That has more to do with safety of themselves and the fellow employees. I work where testing is federally mandated on two fronts.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Your right to bear arms does not trump my right to set conditions when you visit my house, however.

First question:

So if a private corporation or organization wants to ban a certain lawful group of people in a discriminatory manner, then that's okay with you?

You support the right of the Boy Scouts to ban homosexuals?
You support the right of country clubs to ban blacks?

Second question:

How will these companies know if someone has a gun in their motor vehicle? Is it okay with you if private companies go around conducting searches of their employee's vehicles? Now who's "house" is being violated? It seems to me that this turns your argument around, and makes the company guilty of violating the privacy of their employers and their personal property.

Idle comment:

If they use gun-sniffing dogs, I'd fix the situation real quick: I'd just bring some gunpowder to work, and sprinkle it on all the cars of the corporate executives...

And I'd park down the street off company property somewhere.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

Your right to bear arms does not trump my right to set conditions when you visit my house, however.

First question:

So if a private corporation or organization wants to ban a certain lawful group of people in a discriminatory manner, then that's okay with you?

You support the right of the Boy Scouts to ban homosexuals?
You support the right of country clubs to ban blacks?

As much as I disagree with them and abhor what they do. Yes. They have the right. Just like the Catholic church can discriminate against gays. But because I do not believe that what they do is correct, I do not participate.

As for private property, if an employee KNOWS the policy of a company and that policy states "No guns", then personal privacy does not apply. They decided to work for the company knowing the conditions. They either follow those conditions or they get a new job. If the condition was not made apparent, THEN I have a problem.

Simple as that. That is called freedom. The company is free to say no guns and the employee is free to not work there.

Besides all this, what good does a gun in your car do at work? Except allow theives the chance to steal your gun from your car (which is probably not as secure as your house)?

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

You support the right of the Boy Scouts to ban homosexuals?
You support the right of country clubs to ban blacks?

Yep. The issue with the BSA is that they have historically enjoyed public (read: government) support in terms of $$ and access to schools.

This question isn't a no brainer. Not allowing employees to leave their legally concealed weapons in their parked cars greatly damages their freedom of self defense and security. They would have to drive directly home to re-arm, or have a storage facility just outside the office.

But the employer is thinking about the other end (not that a fired homidical employee is going to calm down that quickly) and have their rights too.

A good company would find a middle group.

[billvon 3,031]

>You support the right of the Boy Scouts to ban homosexuals?

I don't support them; the constitution does - provided they get no government money or services when doing so.

>You support the right of country clubs to ban blacks?

See above.

>How will these companies know if someone has a gun in their motor
> vehicle? Is it okay with you if private companies go around
> conducting searches of their employee's vehicles?

If the employees have agreed to that - then yes.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

...That's exactly the point I was trying to make before - at what point do personal rights override corporate rights, or vice versa?

Private property is a no brainer - you say "no guns", then "no guns" it is. I do not know if corporations have the same right to deny, however.

I just think that a corporation should, if they don't already, have say-so over who brings guns onto their property...."you're invited to work here, but not to bring your weapons."

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

what good does a gun in your car do at work?

That's not the issue. The problem is that many states allow citizens to keep a self defense gun in their cars, either with or even without a special gun carry license. So the issue is that these companies are making it impossible for the citizens to exercise this right. If you can't have a gun in your car at work, then you also can't have the gun with you while driving to and from work. All gun owners want to be able to do is to have their self defense gun in their car for their commute. And private companies shouldn't be able to override state law in this specific regard, because their policy has an effect that reaches beyond their own property line.

It would be the same thing if a company with a no-smoking policy banned employees from having a pack of cigarettes in their car. The cigs in the car have no ill effect on the employer or his premises, and they therefore shouldn't concern themselves with it if an employee simply wants to enjoy a smoke on his ride home. Should companies also be permitted to search private vehicles for the presence of cigarettes?

[billvon 3,031]

>Should companies also be permitted to search private vehicles for
>the presence of cigarettes?

If the employee agrees to such searches, and there is a 'no tobacco in the parking lot' policy - then yes, they should.