Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

America Online Can Fire Gun-Owning Employees
NRA ^ | July 23, 2004 | NRA

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.


TOPICS: Announcements; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aol; automobles; bang; banglist; concealedcarry; faol; guns; rhodesia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 261-268 next last
To: Torie
That act is called murder, pure and simple, in all 50 states. One needs to have a reasonable belief of aa threat of personal harm, to off a trespasser, and ringer a doorbell is not trespassing in any event

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.

181 posted on 07/24/2004 8:36:31 AM PDT by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
That's true, but corporations are not people and only have those "rights" which the people, via the government chooses to give them. What the goverment/pepple may give, they may take away. Corporations are artificial people only to the extent allowed by law. State law in most cases.

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.

182 posted on 07/24/2004 8:40:20 AM PDT by Mr. Bird (Ain't the beer cold!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
They get their business from sending junk mail to people's houses (unsoliticited), and hope that a few suckers will install their "software".

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.

183 posted on 07/24/2004 8:40:53 AM PDT by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
or keep it for target practice

But if you are really good, you won't hit it ;~D

184 posted on 07/24/2004 8:42:01 AM PDT by HairOfTheDog (~*-,._.,-*~Loves her hubbit~*-,._.,-*~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: oyez
I can't recall when someone mowed down a Human Resources department with a copy of the New York Times.

No, but they did mow down the Constitution.

185 posted on 07/24/2004 8:49:49 AM PDT by reg45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: twntaipan
You have a right to keep and bare arms on your own property - not necessarily on someone else's property
186 posted on 07/24/2004 8:52:41 AM PDT by reg45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch

Interesting. So if an officer does not comply with your wishes, what should you do, call a cop?


187 posted on 07/24/2004 8:53:51 AM PDT by snopercod (What we have lost will not be returned to us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
Corporations are citizens.

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.

188 posted on 07/24/2004 9:03:37 AM PDT by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: TYVets; All
This decision is consistent with conservative principles. What's the outrage? AOL is a private company. They can set the rules on their own private property. Period. That is the fundamental principle of nongovernmental interference.

Those who want to keep and bear arms now know that AOL is not the place for them to work. Those that don't agree with AOL's policy are free to object and lobby them. When AOL decides that the policy decision hurts its business, maybe they will change -- maybe not.

This is the way America works.

(We have the right to free speech and freedom of the press too, but that does not mean I have to let some left-wing kook stand in my driveway bad-mouthing Reagan and reading the Washington Blade. It's my property -- push on. Likewise, this is AOL's property, move on.)

The hardest thing about being conservative is staying consistent.
189 posted on 07/24/2004 9:24:53 AM PDT by Iron Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sloth
The corporation (and therefore the property) is ultimately owned by shareholders, who delegate the exercise of their property rights to the company's management.

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.

190 posted on 07/24/2004 9:31:19 AM PDT by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
Over one hundred years ago, the US Supreme Court ruled that corporations are "persons" and have can assert their rights under the Bill of Rights. A corporation, for example, has free speech rights and the right to a jury trial. By statute, they are also citizens of the state in which they are incorporated and where they conduct their principal place of business. This is important for taxation purposes as well as for establishing diversity jurisdiction in Federal court.

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.

191 posted on 07/24/2004 9:34:37 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: M Kehoe
Eat your heart out Case, the Road Runner is after you, and you ain't no coyote.

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.

192 posted on 07/24/2004 9:51:36 AM PDT by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: TYVets

hope any freepers don't use AOL!


193 posted on 07/24/2004 9:56:42 AM PDT by votelife (Calling abortion a women's issue is like calling war a men's issue!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HairOfTheDog
But if you are really good, you won't hit it ;~D

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.

194 posted on 07/24/2004 10:02:30 AM PDT by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: TYVets
Haven't they read the news stories?

...disgruntled former employee....

People who have secure jobs are seldom a problem. Who needs AOL anyway?

195 posted on 07/24/2004 10:02:53 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (HEY! Let me light this thing BEFORE you start coughing, OK?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SouthernFreebird
This is not stopping anyone from hunting after work

Some people exercise their right to carry firearms as a means to defend themselves.

196 posted on 07/24/2004 10:06:38 AM PDT by paul51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Iron Eagle
What's the outrage? AOL is a private company

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.

197 posted on 07/24/2004 10:09:25 AM PDT by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
Time and Lifes

Time and Life

198 posted on 07/24/2004 10:11:33 AM PDT by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: Tall_Texan
On all oil rig locations I have been on in the past 10 years, firearms, illegal drugs, and alcohol are explicitly prohibited on location. Period.

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.

199 posted on 07/24/2004 10:16:12 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (HEY! Let me light this thing BEFORE you start coughing, OK?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Mulder

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.


200 posted on 07/24/2004 10:32:28 AM PDT by NCLaw441
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 261-268 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson