Posted on 12/11/2004 6:07:04 AM PST by Mr. Mojo
The firm, which is locked in litigation with the fired employees, rejects the charges and says everyone knew it had a zero-tolerance approach to security. "You don't need a gun to be safe at Weyerhaeuser," said Jim Keller, the firm's senior vice-president. "Safety is our number one priority.
====
Mr. Keller sounds like a clueless anti-gunner.
I think private property rights have to come first. The Second Amendment doesn't come at the expense of other rights.
This is about safety; it's not about guns."
mockinglyYeah, sure it is.
Agreed. I think firing an employee is a bit extreme, especially for a first offense, but the sanctity of private property must ultimately prevail.
The First Amendment guarantees the right to protest, but not on your front lawn.
The issue is not 2nd ammendment rights but property rights....The man was not arrested, he was fired. He knew the rules of employment and was on the company property.
That stated, try this scenario.....
If the gentleman was to stand in the company parking lot and complain bitterly and loudly about the company, it's management and policies would he expect to be fired or would he claim it's his 1st ammendment rights?
Try this at your employer and see if you make it till Christmas....
This is not any different for 2nd Ammendment rights....Next time, he should try to park at the curb...
NeverGore :^)
Only a liberal would find this surprising.
But in Oklahoma, as across much of rural America, gun control is seen as the work of naive and meddling minds.
A naive and meddling mind - somebody like, say, a liberal?
In recent years companies have been implementing anti-gun policies in an attempt to cut down on violence at the work place.
At least the author made the agenda clear in this sentence.
Now they fear the Oklahoman ruling will encourage the powerful gun lobby all over America to try to roll back the reforms.
Gun control is never about repressing our rights. It's always about the holy, righteous, lofty goal of "reform".
Paul Viollis, the president of Risk Control Strategies, is appalled at the new law. Every week there are 17 murders at the work place across America, and most of them involve guns, he says.
And I'm sure, if you dig into the statistics, that the real story is that he's counting cops, security guards, EMT's, convenience store clerks and other high risk occupations. Nice try, but we won't be fooled by this bu!!$h!t any more.
BUMP
Like to list the dozens?hundreds? of government rules and laws about what you cannot or can do or have on your private property ?
You can't fire someone for a number of personal reasons as long as they are doing the work they are being payed to perform. No where was there mention of threats or worker problems. Besides, maybe if employers didn't crap on their workers with strait-jacket policies there would be way fewer disgruntled workers !
The other poster's example of firing a person who loudly complained and criticized an employer in the parking lot falls because that could be constued as an example of abuse whereas the guns were not flaunted or misused according to the story.
I'm as big a Second Amendment supporter as anyone, but private property rights have to take precedence.
bump
This idiot really believes that by preventing sane, rational people from defending themselves, the insane and irrational will just quit and go home.
"Hey, I can't barge into that office and start shooting! Its a gun free work place and I'm not allowed to!"
Or
"Hey, I can't barge into that office and start shooting, someone might shoot me!"
Which office is safer, you imbecile?
If the kompany doesn't want weapons in his vehicle, they should 1) pay for his car, 2) pay for his driving time and expenses to and from work, and 3) guarantee his security at work, and while driving to and from work.
Korporate anti-gun policies are simply another assault on our individual Rights. Since the gov't is unable (at least today) to ban guns, they simply get so-called "private" companies to do it. Many of these same "private" kompanies are staffed with former fed bureacrats, and many others receive some sort of federal subsidy. So they are able to get away with enacting these anti-gun edicts.
As for those that are going to post about "private property" here, I suspect that they would be the first in line to applaud the state kicking down my door for playing my music too loud or not paying my taxes on my "private property".
I KNOW God-given RIGHTS come first, last, and in any between. The Second Amendment GUARANTEES ALL other rights. Be gone Chicken Little you statist dweeb.
So I can count on you to grab a rifle and help me defend my property should I ever decide to stop paying taxes on my "private property"?
Thanks in advance!
Apples and oranges. One relates to his actions while at work, the other relates to his private contents in his private vehicle.
Yes, but whose private property rights? Seems to me that since the automobile is the employee's private property, he has the right to keep a piece locked up in it.
You do raise a good point, though, one I hadn't thought about...it's a bit more complicated issue than it looks at first glance.
}:-)4
I agree that on the owner's property their property rights should be supreme - in most cases. The problem is where those property rights interfere with another's rights off the property. An owner's right to dictate behavior of visitors on their property does not extend to a grant of immunity from liability for the effective disarming of the individuals who visit the property where the individual's disarmament results in the individual being unable to protect themselves off the property. Besides, in the real world, this feel good "no guns allowed" knee jerk reaction only makes victims of people who otherwise might be able to fight back - the homicidal maniacs obviously don't care about being fired by the time they go on their rampage.
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.