[PistolPaknMama]

You do have a fundamental right to own any firearm you legitimately acquire, granted. You do not have a fundamental right to employment by any person or company who, for whatever reason, does not want you as an employee. If a company were to forbid firearm ownership by all employees and you decided that you'd rather work at that company than own a gun, you would have the right to make such a decision.

This is totally lame. The Constitution does not guarantee the right only to OWN a firearm, it guarantees you the right to BEAR that arm.

What you suggest is that a "company" is more powerful than the very foundation on which this country was founded. They are not! This has been proved over and over in courts that employers cannot infringe upon free speech. This is a Second Amendement issue, NOT a corporate policy issue. The Second Amendment is found in the same Bill of Rights where you will find the First Amendment. Why would one Amendment apply and not the other?

What you suggest is that just because you work for a particular company, if that company has a policy of searching your house and taking things it thinks you shouldn't own, then it should have a right to do so. Even though the Constitution protects you from illegal search and siezure from the government, Or if the "company" has a policy that you have to be Wiccan to work there, even though your religious protections are guarded by the Consitution. What you propose is that those protections so enshrined to protect individuals from tyranny are not extended to companies who make up their own unConstitutional rules, and those protections end when you go to work for somebody who simply thinks you shouldn't have them.

[supercat]

What you suggest is that a "company" is more powerful than the very foundation on which this country was founded.

What I am suggesting is that companies have broader authority to make rules, because they have less power to enforce them.

I, as an individual, have no power to force you to cover your home's walls with Metallica memorabilia. I may, however, offer that if you do certain things for me, including covering your home's walls with Metallica memorabilia, I will give you $100. You would then have the right to accept my offer or reject it as you see fit.

Indeed, I would be within my rights demand that you do just about anything (other than sex acts, or acts which would take much over 16 hours) for my $100. You, conversely, would be within your rights to tell me to stick my $100 into a certain part of my anatomy if my demands were unreasonable. The reason I am within my rights to demand almost anything I want in exchange for my $100 is that if you don't do what I want, the most I can do to you is not give you the $100.

[Mulder]

What you suggest is that a "company" is more powerful than the very foundation on which this country was founded. They are not!

Very good point.

Also, see my previous posts. It looks like federal felonies might have been committed by AOL.