Skip to comments.America Online Can Fire Gun-Owning Employees
Posted on 07/23/2004 6:56:58 PM PDT by TYVets
America Online Can Fire Gun-Owning Employees Utah High Court Rules Friday, July 23, 2004
Self-defense took a big blow this week when the Utah Supreme Court upheld the right of America Online (AOL), America`s largest on-line service provider, to fire three employees whose firearms were stored in the trunks of their cars in the parking lot of an AOL call center in Ogden, Utah.
In a decision that diminishes rights guaranteed under both the Utah and the U.S. Constitution, the court acknowledged the individual right to keep and bear arms, but said the right of a business to regulate its own property is more important!
Complying with this decision could potentially cost an employee his or her life--violent criminals certainly aren`t going to obey such a ban.
It may also diminish employees` abilities to hunt or target shoot after work.
The issue is becoming a hot legislative topic in the states. This year Oklahoma passed HB 2122 ensuring that employees with guns in their cars were not fired or harassed, and it was debated in several other states.
Please look to future editions of the Grassroots Alert for developing information on this issue.
While the postulated doorbell ringing would not be included, there are many situtations where use of deadly force is allowed to protect property as well as person. At least in Texas there is.
I noted these sentiments throughout this thread. Unfortunately, the concept of corporate "rights" is not very simple. Apparently, a clerk of the SCOTUS way back in 1886 included a headnote to a ruling indicating that corporations are persons.
That headnote (while not precedent-setting in itself) led to dozens of rulings affirming a corporation's rights of "personhood". A recent example occurred in the 70's, and Rehnquist actually pointed out the 1886 fallacy in his dissent.
But not to put too fine a point on it, it is not legally correct to say that corporations are not people for the purposes of interpreting their rights. All indications are that they are considered persons for these purposes more times than not.
I do appreciate the free CD/CD-ROM cases. I take out the CD-ROM, and either throw it away or keep it for target practice, but keep the case, after removing the offensive AOL inserts of course.
But if you are really good, you won't hit it ;~D
No, but they did mow down the Constitution.
Interesting. So if an officer does not comply with your wishes, what should you do, call a cop?
Not really, they have some "rights", but only as defined by law and subject to changes in the law. They do not have the right to vote for instance. A corportion cannot be incarcerated. In many cases even it's officers and managers are protected from legal consequences of their acts in the name of the corporation. Even the owners of the corporation, that is the stockholders, are only at risk for their actual capital invested, not for any damages the corporation might cause, nor for any debts the corporation might incur.
But those shareholders cannot be held liable for any damage due to the way their property rights are exercised. Thus corporate "rights" are not the same as individual rights. Corporate "rights" can be restricted or removed by law. Indivdual ones are not subject to prior restraint, but the individual can be held liable for the consequences of exercising those rights.
I'll agree that corporations are not equivalent to natural born persons and don't have all the same rights and obligations of real people, but it's pretty darn close.
You do know that Road Runner, which is a service of Time Warner cable, is owned by the same folks who own AOL. (AOLCNNTIMEWARNER we call it) Still if you want a cable modem in most cases you have only one choice. That is not the case with AOL. In fact you can get AOL broadband, Earthlink and in some locations a local ISP, or two via Time Warner Cable.
hope any freepers don't use AOL!
With a shotgun? :) A 12 ga shot column is bigger than the hole in the CD-ROM, even as it exits the barrel. In any event, I'm not *that* good, at least with a handgun at "interesting" ranges.
...disgruntled former employee....
People who have secure jobs are seldom a problem. Who needs AOL anyway?
Some people exercise their right to carry firearms as a means to defend themselves.
No it's not, it's part of a publically held corporation. Time Warner, which also owns CNN, Time and Lifes magazine and Warner Brothers TV and movie organizations. All of them are to one degree or another anti arms rights. Time is very open about it in fact. They exercise their freedom of speech to oppose our second amendment rights. I have little sympathy for them.
Time and Life
By entering into the location you consent to search of your person, vehicle, and effects, at the operator or drilling companies' discretion.
While seldom used on the locations I have been on, the policy exists, and refusal to submit to searches is cause for termination of employment or being banned from that drillling contractor's rigsites.
Their policy trumps my concealed weapons permit. Their rig and jobsite.
Like it or not, that is what anti-liability/pro-safety measures have come to.
That said, in most states, an unloaded firearm, secured in a locked area, of the vehicle, especially the trunk, is legal to posess (in the absence of other disqualifying considerations) even without a concealed weapons permit. The firearm is considered 'secured'.
Field stripped, stored in separate boxes, you have "parts", not a firearm. That may be an out. Stop at the gate and put your piece back together for the drive home.
Government cannot give special treatment to one company over another, at least not legally. Business dealings with companies are generally controlled by a bidding process, unless there ARE no competing companies.
Special treatment of industries does occur, and I am generally opposed to it, but it is not unconstitutional. Now, if an industry was given special treatment BECAUSE of treatment that would be unconstitutional if the government did it, that would be illegal, as I see it. Just my opinion.
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.