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.
Amazing, eh?
Look up the history of the East India Company sometime.
And you're just ignorant about the law. Corporations have rights. The only BS is what you've posted on this thread.
Probably but the real question is should there be? Who controls your property? Me, the state or you?
What about in a situation where the gov't gives preferential treatment to one company, and detrimental treatment to others? And this is the case for ALL large industries, to some degree or another.
Isn't this essentially the same thing as the gov't taking action to deprive civil Rights, especially when the company that benefits is opposed to the Right of Free men?
Consider the airline industry, for instance. If United Airlines announced a policy that would allow all passengers with CCW "permits" to carry on board, do you really think the feds would allow that to happen? No. They would not let United fly. But some folks here are still under the illusion that our airlines are "privately owned".
I'll come over but only if I can bring my toys and point them the same direction you are pointing yours. We'll sit on the porch and make noise.
I sure hope that dang "assault ban" thing dies. I have a few things I'd like to take outside that have not been outside yet.
This is quite limited, and for good reason. Most signs that you or I post on our private property have no legal standing. (Even "no gun" signs here in Florida have no legal standing).
The rare exception to this is the "no tresspass" sign. And even those have to be a certain font, color, and location in order to have legal standing.
As individual private property owners, we can still ask them to leave for any reason, and then the law will back us up, but not before.
Corporations have rights
Only individuals have Rights. A creation of a group of individuals (be it a government, or a corporation, or a robot) has no inherent Rights.
I would have to disagree. The Constitution and the bill of rights note the rights of all and generally tell us that our rights end where those of another person begin. If you carry a weapon for personal safety and the employer can't garauntee your safety from their parking lot to your home, that is the issue. Infringing your right to carry at this point becomes an infringement on your ability to protect yourself. And you never know when you might need to pull the trigger.
I worked for Kmart Corp as my first fulltime job. While I was working for them, my district manager took a trip up north from here and was murdered in a parking lot. You never know when it might come in handy to have something to protect yourself with. And Liberals are trying to take that ability away from us. And it goes without saying that if you take away a people's ability to defend themselves, you also remove their abiltiy to be a threat collectively should you choose to exploit and subjugate them. Liberals aren't put off by your ability to protect yourself - it's your ability to defend against their attempts to subjugate that they resent.
how about...no homosexuals on my property or no black people?
Are my property rights secure?
Very well stated!
Here's one that'll p**s you off.
And some folks would apparently be a-ok with that.
Unless you offer your property up as a public accommodation, you are quite secure in whatever your prejudices. I don't like hawkers bothering me myself, whether it be for a product, religion, or political candidate. My policy is to not answer the door when the doorbell rings, unless I am expecting somebody. Call first, or I am not home.
Check this out ladies!
So, if I owned a company I could fire anyone who owned rap music? And I'd have the right to break into their car to see if they had any so long as they parked in a space on my property?
COOL! Think I'll start a business just to test this.
I'm also going to reserve the right to fire anyone wearing a tattoo. Makes no difference where or if it's covered up. I reserve the right to search you just because I don't like tattoos.
I think I'm going to like being a business.
Am I correct from your posts that, for you, the right of privacy trumps all other rights contained in the Bill of Rights?
Is this a tough sisters alert or something?
And keep your SUV, cell phone, fast food off my parking lot.
Don't you see a connection with your freedom to defend yourself and the erosion of your abilty to choose what you can own?
I'm sorry, but I do not understand how the sensibilities of a company has trump card priviledges over matters specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
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.