Free Republic
Browse · Search
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 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 261-268 next last
To: jwalsh07

Didn't SCOTUS or somebody rule that employees had a right to wear religious symbols at work? In any event, we may be mixing up public policy preferences, with the state of the law at present. Of course, courts tend to favor the 1st amendment more than the 2nd.

41 posted on 07/23/2004 7:29:24 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: NCLaw441

I think you missed the point I was making when I highlighted that quote. My point was that the NRA is saying that the right of the employer to control what goes on on his/her private property is more important than specifically enumerated rights held by citizens, not what he/she may fire an employee over. If this is indeed the case, then resturants and bars who are in the process of fighting onerous smoking bans placed on them by statist thugs might have some ammunition to fight back with here. Tho what we have gotten from the NRA here might be less of concrete case law and more political spin. Without the actual decision, I cant say which...JFK

42 posted on 07/23/2004 7:30:08 PM PDT by BADROTOFINGER (Life sucks. Get a helmet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
If their company policy states they do internal body searches, then I would suggest you bend over and spread'em or look elsewhere for work.

And what about when because of gov't policy, there is only *one* company to work for?

What if the gov't sold the roads to corporations? Would they be able to search us without warrants then?

What gives you the idea that you can do as you damn well please on somebody elses property or set the rules as the employee is beyond my capacity to understand.

I understand where you and others are coming from, but corporations are NOT individuals, and thus don't have the same individual Rights that you and I have.

43 posted on 07/23/2004 7:30:08 PM PDT by Mulder (All might be free if they valued freedom, and defended it as they should.-- Samuel Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

No, and that is not on point. This is a far more public accessible location--a parking lot. Do all employees abandon all their property rights and other constitutionally guaranteed rights when they step on the premises? No. With this logic, AOL can also insist that all employees vote for Kerry or, worse, Nader.

44 posted on 07/23/2004 7:30:36 PM PDT by twntaipan (demonRATs ARE the friends of our enemies, which makes demoRATs our... (finish the sentence).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Mulder

There is no federal or Utah law requiring employers to allow employees to bring guns onto company property.

Whether there should be a law is a separate question. As long as there isn't one, I have no problem with AOL saying you can't bring guns on their property.

Now, I think their rule is stupid. And I have every right not to watch CNN or buy their other products. It won't be much of a loss.

45 posted on 07/23/2004 7:32:22 PM PDT by conservative in nyc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Actually I think that case was a discrimination one where certain religious things were OKIE DOKIE and others weren't.

But at any rate, I'm still of the mind that the employer makes the rules and if the employee doesn't like them, it's adios amigo.

I figured out a long time ago that I didn't like corporate rules so I figured I would be the employee and the employer. We get along much better that way.

46 posted on 07/23/2004 7:32:54 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
So you think companies should be able to fire people for being too old, or the wrong color, or for not putting out?

Constitutionally, yes. Laws have been passed which greatly restrict employers' rights in this regard. Employers must observe those or face the consequences.

Don't get me wrong. I violate my company's policy every day. But if they fire me, I won't complain.

47 posted on 07/23/2004 7:32:57 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: TYVets
Self-defense took a big blow.

False and hypberbolic. Do we expect this from NRA?

48 posted on 07/23/2004 7:33:14 PM PDT by Tax Government (Dumb-shi-crats -- just what our country needs. Not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: twntaipan

You do know that SCOTUS ruled that shopping malls can ban "free speech" on their premises don't you? I know, because I "argued" the case in moot court in law school, prior to the rendering of the Tanner decision, which was pending at the time. I argued the winning side. I argued that the folks handing out leaflets were officious intermedlers, noisome, and should not have the right to interfere with mall sales, or something like that. It was a long time ago, but the memory is fresh to this day.

49 posted on 07/23/2004 7:35:25 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: TYVets

C'mon. The title isn't even correct.

50 posted on 07/23/2004 7:36:44 PM PDT by Half Vast Conspiracy (If the Rapture is coming, should I insist on a non-Christian pilot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

That could be, but I suspect you might be wrong. But on this one, rare as it may be, I could be wrong. Oh the horror. :)

51 posted on 07/23/2004 7:36:49 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: All

Attention all potential criminals. If your looking to rob or rape anyone wait outside a AOL parking lot and follow your victim when they leave our parking lot. When they stop, do what you will with your victim. And next time your looking for a internet provider remember who disarmed your victims for you.

52 posted on 07/23/2004 7:37:07 PM PDT by pepperhead (Kennedy's floats, Mary Jo's don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

If they held pro-Kerry signs and shotguns but did so in a peaceful non-threatening manner (doubtful given that they are mean-spirited liberals), I don't believe I have a right to order them off my driveway if they just happen to be standing there and not obstructing anything. Maybe they are unhappy with my pro-Bush sign.

If they stand there too long, I will have them arrested for loitering.

But you are making an apples and oranges argument. An employer's rights are not the same as a homeowner's. As a business, you are subject to certain laws covering businesses that do not apply to homeowners.

True, employers can generally have the right to hire and fire as they please. My problem is with the specific policy they are trying to implement and the invasion of privacy they necessarily take to determine whether someone has a weapon in the locked trunk of their car.

Again, let's say they had marijuana (something that's illegal as opposed to guns) locked in their glove compartment. Does AOL have the right to break into your car and search the glove compartment in order to prove whether you have brought an illegal substance onto their property?

53 posted on 07/23/2004 7:37:59 PM PDT by Tall_Texan (Ronald Reagan - Greatest President of the 20th Century.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
Corporations are individuals who own varying amount of the company. At its basest, you would have me. I own my small company and I set the rules. If I can't then my property isn't mine and somebody has made a sham of the 14th Amendment.

I didn't like the rules of the corporations I worked for. I left. As RR was wont to say, vote with your feet.

I also don't like anything about AOL but if you can bring your gun on AOL's property, then you can bring it on mine and I'm not having none of it. Unless of course, we were buds. :-}

54 posted on 07/23/2004 7:38:52 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


I hope that property rights are soon recognized for bar and restaurant owners on the smoking issue. I prefer non-smoking restaurants, but I support the owner's right to make a market or preference based decision on whether to allow smoking. It just makes common sense.

As I read the Bill of Rights, most of the freedoms are applied to government action, not private action. For example, government has to give due process, but private individuals and businesses don't. The private sector can ban speech under its control, while government can't. We may disagree with private policies that restrict, say, gun ownership by hiring policies or free speech by editorial positions, but these don't rise to the level of constitutional violations since no government action is taken.

55 posted on 07/23/2004 7:39:21 PM PDT by NCLaw441
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Not so long ago my friend. CT Supreme Court ruled last week that unions have no "right" to pass out union literature in privately owned malls.

Will wonders never cease? :-}

56 posted on 07/23/2004 7:40:19 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

Comment #57 Removed by Moderator

To: TYVets

My company does it too. If there were a shooting situation at work, the company can be held liable. Its standard CYA. If I can't deal with it, I can work somewhere else.

58 posted on 07/23/2004 7:41:07 PM PDT by oyez (¡Qué viva la revolución de Reagan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: isthisnickcool
Doesn't the person own the car? And what's in it? It's their property.

Sure. But you don't have a right to a job.

59 posted on 07/23/2004 7:41:22 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Torie

Well, one things for damn sure, one of us yahoos is wrong. LOL

60 posted on 07/23/2004 7:41:25 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 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
Topics · Post Article

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