Gun owners claim right to take their rifles to work

Telegraph ^ | 11/12/04 | Alec Russell in Valliant and Scott Heiser in Washington

[jonestown]

Mans most primary right is to defend himself. -- Indeed, - the State is charged in our Constitution to prevent infringements on that individual right.


You claim that is a "wrongheaded and foolish argument that has no merit" yet you fail to counter argue the point.



The government is not 'dictating' to a property owner the rules he may set on his own property.
In this case, the legislature was correctly preventing companies from infringing on their employees right to carry arms to & from work.

Politicians were doing their Constitutional duty for a change.

"Anyone who claims otherwise is disingenuous at best" is simply another specious generality.

[spunkets]

"The property owner believes that his right to protect himself is best served by the policy of not allowing guns on his property,

He protects himself by denying that right to others.

"the Oklahoma legislature violated his right to set policies on his own property"

The OK legislature is justified, because it is the ultimate sovereign over that land and it is charged with protecting the rights of all of it;s citizens, not just the guy that owns the parking lot.

First of all, the legislature acknowledges that the right to life is paramount and self defense is a right that all are entitled to equally. Neither the founders of the country, or the OK legislature thinks that this right is subservient to any random individual's right to defend themselves in public, or anywhere for that matter. The OK legislature trusts it's citizens and allows them to own firearms and to elect the folks that make it up.

The OK legislature doesn't see phantoms and agrees that disarming their citizens is neither justifiable, nor do they see it as a valid defense and protection scheme. They know that disarming folks creates victims.

The state defines your property rights, they are not inalienable. You are neither born with, nor do you take with you when you die, your property. In the US, they are based on Freedom. Freedom however, does not in any way whatsoever render the right to life, sovereignty of will and the right to self defense, subservient to anyone, because they own real property. Especially when it's a stinking parking lot.

The State of OK, being charged with protecting it's citizen's rights equally, realizes that business is a joint venture of individuals. It recognizes the fact that some individuals wielding power over others, deny the rights that they themselves enjoy. The state of OK allows those involved in business and weilding power over others, a wide lattitude in limiting firearms within the scope of business activity.

Just as they provide for the existence of zoning regs for location, design, construction of buildings, that limit property rights for the protection of life and the property rights of others, they draw the boundaries that limit the powers of the property owner. They limit that power to prevent abuses. Real property owners are no more kings of some little kingdom, than the State of OK is, or the US for that matter. That property is under the owner's charge for use only, not abuse.

Parking lots are for storage of vehicles. Parking lots could just as well be created by having the State take the property under emminent domain and charging the business that necessitates the lot and causes it's use. They do this to create the roads. Instead, the zoning folks simply say the lot must be a certain size to accomodate the number of folks expected. If you think you can setup a significant business, w/o providing parking and using other people's property for that purpose, you are mistaken. You are not entitled to the space.

No business owner is entitled to claim that a parking lot is any more than what it is. It's defined by the State. It's not the workplace. It's for storage of vehicles and that's it. You may use it temporarily for other purposes, as the State permits.

Just, because you hold a peice of paper that says you own a friggin' parking lot doesn't mean jack. Your employee's are entitled to free and unencumbered enjoyment of their rights coming and going to your business that other people enabled. Whatever is in their car is their business, not yours. Stick to whether, or not they can park there and obey the zoning requirements. You're not a king, so you're not entitled to demand anything about what your employees have in their vehicles, nor hire sheriff wannabe's to enforce it.

[spunkets]

" Of course the government dictating to a property owner the rules he may set on his own property is a burden; anyone who claims otherwise is disingenuous at best."

See #482.

[NittanyLion]

You claim that is a "wrongheaded and foolish argument that has no merit" yet you fail to counter argue the point. The government is not 'dictating' to a property owner the rules he may set on his own property.

What's to argue? The 2nd Amendment does not bind private property owners to allow guns on their property any more than it binds you to allow me to use your front yard for a protest. We've been though this, but evidently it hasn't sunk in yet.

The government isn't dictating the terms of use? Willful ignorance is an ugly thing - try educating yourself.

[sitetest]

Dear spunkets,

I think our arguments are starting to circle each other's, so I'm going to restrict my comments to the small area of new ground in your post. My failure to respond to arguments that we've been going 'round and 'round on just means that I think we've pretty much exhausted those arguments.

Whether Lockheed Martin knew about this man's previous threatening language or not isn't clear. Furthermore, without a specific threat, it can be difficult for a large organization to move against someone using such language. As well, even a specific threat must be judged in context.

Plenty of room there for human error.

I knew a fellow, quite harmless, who got mad at his boss once and made a specific threat - "I'll kill you."

He was fired. The union didn't even try to get his job back. Really a shame. The fellow was harmless. He was just blustering.

But this is what the union said. Absent a specific threat, the company could not have dismissed him. If he'd have just said stuff like, "I really hate managers, I wish they were all dead. Some days I'd like to whack 'em myself. Especially the black/white/hispanic/orange ones."

If he'd have said, "I could do it, you know. I got the guts to do it."

If he'd have talked like that, the union would have been able to get his job back, with back pay for the missed time. According to the collective bargaining agreement, the company had no right to dismiss him without going through the normal disciplinary process of multiple warnings, re-evaluations, probationary status, etc. absent a direct and specific threat.

The reason for policies like that? Because not everyone who talks trash is a dangerous killer. There's plenty of room for human error, in either direction.

If this guy didn't make a direct threat specifically at an individual, or even if he didn't do it in the earshot of a supervisor, or if there were insufficient witnesses to it, the company may not have been able to immediately dismiss him.

And with him bringing firearms daily, I'm sure the supervisors would have looked forward to provoking him further with drawn-out disciplinary processes that may be required by collective bargaining agreement, already-set company policy, or even in this case, the Americans with Disabilities Act (another one of those laws that creates "rights" for folks that require businesses to spend large sums of money on behalf of the workers).

Which is the point of these policies, from the perspective of these companies. The folks writing these policies aren't saying, "We employ boatloads of homicidal maniacs - better not let them have guns in the company parking lot."

What they're saying is, "Bob, down at Lockheed Martin, told me after the Williams shooting that management had no idea that this guy was so crazy.

"Since then, Lockheed Martin has really tried to figure out how to identify these folks before they go off like that. In the meanwhile, no system is perfect. It would be one more step to take if we didn't permit folks to have firearms in their vehicles while on company property.

"I'm sure 99% of the folks affected are great folks. But we likely don't even know who the one nutcase is. And no matter how hard we try, we may miss him. And if we miss him, folks might die. I went to Lanette McCall's funeral. I can't imagine having to do that for one of our own folks.

"And of course, the real difficulty is, as the crazy guy starts to show that he's crazy, and we start to initiate disciplinary action against him, our disciplinary policies and the law combine to force us to be careful, to go slow. Absent a direct threat on a specific person, we may not be able to dismiss him after just one incident. And then, just getting into it with the fellow who is crazy may provoke him. If he's got a gun in his vehicle, we might be in the same situation as Lockheed Martin."

And of course, he's going to finish by saying, "This policy may not apply to the vast majority of folks, but IF IT SAVES ONE LIFE, it will be worth it."

Although I may or may not agree with everything in this line of thinking, I will tell you something I know for sure: no one can predict with certainty who will and who won't become violent. Not everyone who says something mean, malicious, racist, or even threatening-sounding is a real threat, and not everyone who is a real threat says something.

But that's almost irrelevant. What you're saying is that Lockheed Martin, or any company, to meet this threat, has to create a near-flawless management system to identify these threats before they're realized.

What I'm saying is that Lockheed Martin is entitled to deal with the problem the way they see fit, within reason. Within THEIR reason. Whether I, or you, think their solution is ideal or not doesn't count.

Firearms are sometimes used by people to kill people in workplaces. Forbidding the presence of firearms from company grounds is a reasonable attempt to reduce the possibility that this may happen. It does not infringe on anyone's "rights" as no one has a "right" to possess a firearm on another's property.

Even you appear to have acceded to banning firearms within the company's offices or workspaces. Thus, the right to keep and bear arms doesn't seem to apply absolutely.

Thus, we're arguing about where to draw the line, not a matter of basic principle. You have already compromised on the basic principle - someone does not have the right to bear arms in the halls of the office or the manufacturing floor.

You just believe that it isn't reasonable to draw the line at the company gate. Others disagree with that.

Since we've already vindicated the company's right in principle to ban firearms to some degree or other in or on its premises, I believe that the company has the right to decide where to draw the line, and that it is an unreasonable intrusion into the property rights of the property owner that we've already recognized in principle to try to draw that line for him.

"'Quite insulting. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.'

"I've addressed the facts of the matter and the relevant points. If the find the analogies presented are improper then point out how that is so. The employees here are deamonized as incapable of civil behavior, self control, and postals ready to go off at any time. They are considered statistical event generators."

Part of the problem is that you didn't make an analogy. And analogy goes like this, "your argument is similar to that argument in this-and-that way."

What you said was:

"Your argumnets are the same [emphasis added] as those put forth by the bozos paying in script, redeemable in the company store, by those who kept the dangerous properties of such things as asbestos secret, toxic waste dumping, ect."

You equated, you didn't analogize. Even an analogy, even an accurate analogy, may be inappropriate if the goal is to maintain a civil conversation with your interlocutor. But that isn't what you did.

You offered an unmitigated insult.

It's sad that you are unable to acknowledge that so far.

And of course, the other problem with this is that you really haven't put yourself adequately in the position of employers generally (not the ones who paid in script, etc.). You assume that they are demonizing all their workers. Rather, the employers are merely admitting lack of omniscience as to who is in the majority of good folks, and who is in the minority of dangerous folks that the company was otherwise unable to detect.

And in failing to see that, you have demonized the employers, impugned their motives and intentions, and cast their actions in the worst possible light.

You are unable to see that those who disagree with you might nonetheless be acting in good faith, even if they are objectively in the wrong.

Spunkets, try to understand the question from folks who don't view themselves as omniscient, but who nonetheless are held to standards bordering on perfection, and who are horrified by the prospect that some of their workers could be hurt or killed in incidents like this. Rather than ascribing the motive of wishing to deny rights to their employees, try to understand that from their perspective, they're trying to respond to a threat that they perceive as real.



sitetest

[jonestown]

See 482.

Try to refute the points Spunkets made therein.


"Willful ignorance is an ugly thing - try educating yourself" is yet another divisive generality.

[jonestown]

You are unable to see that those who disagree with you might nonetheless be acting in good faith, even if they are objectively in the wrong.

Rather than ascribing the motive of wishing to deny rights to their employees, try to understand that from their perspective, they're trying to respond to a threat that they perceive as real.
845 sitetest

---

Those who 'disagree' that people have a right to self defense directly challenge a base principle of our Constitution. Thus, they are not acting in 'good faith'.

From my perspective, they're trying to respond to a threat that they "perceive as real" by threatening our liberties.

Indeed, "they are objectively in the wrong".

[NittanyLion]

See 482. Try to refute the points Spunkets made therein.

482 is your post, not spunkets. It appears to be a defense of the Clintonian distinctions you're attempting to make in support of your argument.

"Willful ignorance is an ugly thing - try educating yourself" is yet another divisive generality.

It isn't a "divisive generality", it's a specific and pointed statement made regarding your woeful ignorance of the Constitution and US legal system.

[spunkets]

" the other problem with this is that you really haven't put yourself adequately in the position of employers generally (not the ones who paid in script, etc.). You assume that they are demonizing all their workers. Rather, the employers are merely admitting lack of omniscience as to who is in the majority of good folks, and who is in the minority of dangerous folks that the company was otherwise unable to detect."

Now particulars and variations of the situation are being addressed. I know and understand more about these situations than you think, from all levels, perspectives and variations of. I'll get back later.

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

I would appreciate it if you would change your screen name to BOOTLICK. It fits better with your posts.

[Batrachian]

"If we can extend" civil" rights to private property then surly we can extend the God given right to self-protection to private property."

That would mean that individuals have the right to carry not just in a locked car in the parking lot, but on their persons in the workplace, whether the property owner wanted it or not. OK, you could take that position, but that's not what's being discussed in this case. Your making an absolute argument about a limited situation.

I still think that in the balancing of rights that has to take place everywhere, private property rights have to take precedence over the right to keep and bear arms in this case. It could be the other way around in other cases.

[RightWinger]

...that means that you have violated his rules for access and use.

Yes, you are correct, I am violating a work rule and I could be fired if caught. I would be breaking the law if I carried concealed through the main gate since it is posted but I am only breaking a rule by having my gun in my vehicle.

I am not worried about losing my job, good jobs are easy to find in my field, but I am worried about losing my life, that's why I ignore this work rule. What the company doesn't know won't hurt them or me.

I'm hoping our gun rights group, GrassRoots South Carolina, can convice our representatives to pass a law like Oklahoma's.

[BOOTSTICK]

The metal can be set to direct at certain parts of the body, and only alarms in the office. The customer doesn't know he is alarming the detector, so if it alarms that person can have special attention paid to him, or the metal detector can be set as a door chime when no employees are at the front of the store. However as far as a night club goes I would suspect that all patrons would be checked as they enter the club, as is the procedure at NFL games.

[BOOTSTICK]

You obviously didn't read my post correctly. The point you missed is that on my private property, whereas the property is my home, I can discriminate on any basis I wish, including religion, race, and gender. The point being the sovereignty of the home allows me to remove anyone from my property I see fit. The presumed right that the "gun slinger" has some mysterious right to be armed on private property and against the wishes of the property owner is alot of cheese!

[Luis Gonzalez]

You claim that you have the right to set the policy for self defense that best suits you.

Yet the Oklahoma legislature has removed the right of the employers in Oklahoma to set what policy for self defense best suits them.

Do you see that the legislation composed by the Oklahoma legislature in all actuality violates the right to self defense by violating the ability of property owners to set whatever policy they believe to be the most prudent one to defend themselves?

[Joe Hadenuf]

Uh huh.