Gun owners claim right to take their rifles to work

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

[jonestown]

Batrachian wrote:

Put emotion aside and think this through. You can't use the 2nd Amendment to destroy private property rights.

---

Put emotion aside and think this through. You can't use private property rights to destroy the 2nd Amendment.

[Melas]

You may have a point if you can show me where an employee is compelled to park in the employer's lot. However,I know of no such ordinance in any place that I know of, so I'm extremely skeptical.

[jonestown]

That does it. I will take it to the extreme. No one may come on my property unless they are naked and submit to a full body cavity search every morning.
64 Modok



And what's worse I am told that I have a "responsibility" to do this, because if someone hides drugs on their person and brings them onto my property where they are discovered, my property may be seized.
67

---

Obviously, stomach pumping of all employees will be required, along with the nude body cavity searches.

Welcome to Fascism Incorporated, fellow workers!

[kAcknor]

I think private property rights have to come first. The Second Amendment doesn't come at the expense of other rights.

I agree (but)... ;)

This is a continuation of the multiple laws driven by those on the left that infringe on the rights of property owners. The ban on smoking in restaurants and bars passed in many cities is the closest example. We have given up something to allow for what has been determined to be an overriding right, clean air and health.

That I didn't agree with them, and spoke/voted against it is no longer the point. The laws have been upheld and complaining about them is pointless. They ARE. Deal with it.

So now it's the same thing, but those on the political left are those being asked to modify property rights to allow a greater need, the right to self defense, to prevail. This time I agree and think that the needs of individuals to the right of self defense should override property.

[jonestown]

Most larger companies are required by local gov permits to provide company parking, and employees are required to use that parking rather than public spaces.

Our governments are charged by the constitution to defend our right to bear arms...not only in the public square, but wherever it is being unreasonably restricted.

Employees that are required to park their private property [vehicles] in company lots while working, cannot be reasonably compelled to give up their right to lock private property [guns] in those vehicles.
100 jonestown

---

You may have a point if you can show me where an employee is compelled to park in the employer's lot.
However,I know of no such ordinance in any place that I know of, so I'm extremely skeptical.
102 Melas

---

May have?

Do you really think that company employees can park anywhere they want in most localities?
Hell, my local 7/11 had a fire and was required to provide 2 off-street employee parking spaces in order to reopen.

You should reserve your skepticism for the motives of the gun banning companies.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"If an individual citizen can't carry a gun that he owns, in a vehicle that he owns."

No one is saying that an individual can't carry a gun in their vehicle...they just can't park it on another individual's private property because the property owner's right to set the conditions of access and use of his property begin at the property line.

Your entire argument has always been that someone other than the rightful owner of property can set rules and conditions on land that belongs to someone else.

Yours is not only a ridiculous argument, it's also circular, because it relies on the same property rights that you are arguing you should be able to violate.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Most larger companies are required by local gov permits to provide company parking, and employees are required to use that parking rather than public spaces."

Post proof of that.

[Melas]

Do you really think that company employees can park anywhere they want in most localities?

In a word. Yes. I even called a friend in NYC a bit ago and asked him, and he said of course not. He's free to park in a private garage if he doesn't want to park in his company garage.

[Luis Gonzalez]

They don't even have to drive to wrok.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The government in the past, used laws restricting Second Amendment rights to violate property rights, now they are doing it again, this time with the enthusiastic support of the right.

John Locke maintained that private property rights are the cornerstone of all other rights, and it was it was out of this philosophical heritage that America's founders created a new nation, based on the principle that each individual is a sovereign within his own right. Property rights then became the acknowledged foundation upon which other constitutional freedoms rested, including freedom of speech and to bear arms. It was not until this century, when private property came under relentless ideological assault, that the First and Second Amendments to the Constitution were subjected to ambiguous and convoluted contention.

[jonestown]

Do you really think that company employees can park anywhere they want in most localities?

jones

---

In a word. Yes.

Melas

---

Post proof of that.

[jonestown]

Luis Gonzalez wrote:

They don't even have to drive to wrok.

---

Correct..
-- Let these defenseless employees eat cake as they walk to work.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I do it daily.

I can park in my driveway and jog to work, park in a pay lot and walk the rest of the way in, I can take a cab, I can ride my bike, I can roller skate in, I can use a skateboard, I can use a unicycle...

[Luis Gonzalez]

You don't have to work there, do you?

Or do you believe that you're entitled to the job?

[NittanyLion]

So you're making a distinction between a corporation and a home. True, there's a legal and historical basis to make that distinction, but I think it's been used as a Trojan horse to destroy more of our property rights.

The name "Michael Bloomberg" comes to mind...

I see this law as not much different from a smoking ban. Both involve government telling a private entity what it can or cannot allow on its property.

[Modok]

What did Locke define "property" as?

[jonestown]

Luis Gonzalez wrote:

The government in the past, used laws restricting Second Amendment rights to violate property rights, now they are doing it again, this time with the enthusiastic support of the right.

---

In the past some governments have used laws on property rights to violate Second Amendment rights.

Now some individuals & companies are doing it again, this time with the enthusiastic support of the left, as we see in the posted article.

[NittanyLion]

Now some individuals & companies are doing it again, this time with the enthusiastic support of the left, as we see in the posted article.

Yes, and it's foolish and dangerous in my opinion. It's also their right as individuals and companies to do whatever they want. If another company requires as a condition of employment that every employee must carry a gun, I'd support that as well.

Are we now to only defend property rights for those owners who agree with us?

[jonestown]

Luis Gonzalez wrote:

I can park in my driveway and jog to work, park in a pay lot and walk the rest of the way in, I can take a cab, I can ride my bike, I can roller skate in, I can use a skateboard, I can use a unicycle.

---

But you can't carry arms, and secure them before entering the door at work.
Effectively, you've been disarmed by your employer.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

[jonestown]

Luis Gonzalez wrote:

You don't have to work there, do you?

---

You don't have to live here do you?

America, love it's Constitutions RKBA's or leave it.