Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NRA pushes 'guns-at-work' bill in Florida
Florida Times-Uion ^ | 10/08/2005 | J. Taylor Rushing

Posted on 10/09/2005 9:09:28 AM PDT by RightDemocrat

TALLAHASSEE -- A rare and spectacular showdown may be coming in Florida's Republican Party: Big Business vs. Big Guns. And the stakes couldn't be higher. To critics, it's about the safety of workplaces, including hospitals and churches, throughout the Sunshine State. To supporters, it's about the safety of employees who travel to and from those workplaces.

The dust-up is over the "guns-at-work" bill, which the National Rifle Association began pushing last month in Tallahassee to force all Florida businesses to allow firearms in the vehicles of any employee or visitor. Companies could keep policies banning guns from their buildings themselves but could no longer apply those policies to their parking lots.

Many businesses are either wary of or leaning against the proposal, including heavy-hitters such as Disney and local giants such as Blue Cross and Blue Shield, CSX and Baptist Health System.

But the NRA is insistent. The group, which has donated nearly $1 million in Florida over the past decade, mostly to Republicans, is led in Tallahassee by former national President Marion Hammer. Hammer said the rights of gun owners should be intact in their vehicles, and the proposed law already gives businesses immunity from liability lawsuits in cases of workplace shootings.

"Your home is a slam dunk, but bridging that into the private property of an organization doesn't hold," said Mike Hightower, chairman of the Duval County Republican Party and lobbyist for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida. "I don't think people are going to want to cross that line."

In a telling sign of wariness, neither Gov. Jeb Bush, Senate President Tom Lee nor House Speaker Allan Bense are taking positions on the bill yet.

(Excerpt) Read more at jacksonville.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: bang; bigbusiness; florida; gunrights; nra; secondamendment; workers; workplace
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-271 next last
To: faireturn; ExSoldier
Exsoldier did frame that very well, I also agree with it as far as it goes. My point is that corporations are not infringing anyone's right to bear arms because that right ends, as he says, at his nose. At the boundaries of corporate (private) property.

"The question remains, why do you think you need the power to keep me from having a gun in my car?"

I really don't need the power to keep you from having a gun in your car, I even want you to have one there. I just want the power to keep cars containg guns (or anything else) off my own property, if I so choose. If I want to keep cars containing little old ladies for Kerry (which, unfortunately are legal) off my property, I want that right too, in fact it seems more reasonable than keeping cars containing guns off. But it's the same right.

The idea that a car on someone else's property acts as a small oasis of its owner's property, and thus has immunity, like an embassy in a foreign country for instance, is kind of a fascinating idea. Not one which I agree with, though.

Do you believe that you also have no right to prohibit guns in the cars of those who are in the driveway of your home?

51 posted on 10/09/2005 1:56:50 PM PDT by Sam Cree (absolute reality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

"I assume the term "guns-at-work" was selected by opponents of the bill? It certainly gives a different impression from "guns locked in your car.""

I think your right. It is a very misleading based on the facts. I have no problem with an employer that sets a policy that something like guns, booze, or smoking isn't allowed at work. They own the facility and it is there right. But this is very different. To me a car is private property. Companies shouldn't have the right to regulate what you have on or in your property.


52 posted on 10/09/2005 1:56:51 PM PDT by SmoothTalker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree
Do you believe that you also have no right to prohibit guns in the cars of those who are in the driveway of your home?

As long as you are in lawful possession, I have no right to bar you from the curtilage of my property. I can under the castle doctrine, prevent you from entering my domicile.

But folks lets leave aside the business aspect and private property for one moment. Can the government especially local government prevent me as a teacher from having a gun locked in my car? Because once I roll off school property....I'm in da HOOD......

53 posted on 10/09/2005 2:11:11 PM PDT by ExSoldier (Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: ExSoldier

Must you provide justification for keeping a car off your property? IMO, it's the property owner's discretion, no justification required.

But yeah, leaving aside the property rights issue, seems to me that in some schools the teachers ought to be armed in the classroom.


54 posted on 10/09/2005 2:23:09 PM PDT by Sam Cree (absolute reality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree
Exsoldier did frame that very well, I also agree with it as far as it goes. My point is that corporations are not infringing anyone's right to bear arms because that right ends, as he says, at his nose. At the boundaries of corporate (private) property.

In this instance, the private parking lot property ends at my private property, my vehicle.

The question remains, why do you think you need the power to keep me from having a gun in my car?

I really don't need the power to keep you from having a gun in your car, I even want you to have one there. I just want the power to keep cars containg guns (or anything else) off my own property, if I so choose.

Why would you so choose, when you say you even want me to have one there?

The idea that a car on someone else's property acts as aof its owner's property, and thus has immunity, like an embassy in a foreign country for instance, is kind of a fascinating idea. Not one which I agree with, though.

Well, our constitution agrees with the citizens home as a "small oasis" from unreasonable searches, why would you consider a car any less?

Do you believe that you also have no right to prohibit guns in the cars of those who are in the driveway of your home?

Honestly, the thought never entered my mind [I'm 68]. -- I first saw that idea posted about a year ago here at FR, when the Oklahoma incident arose. Why on earth would anyone who supports the Constitution -want- to hang a sign prohibiting guns on his property? In America that's like waving a red flag at a bull.

55 posted on 10/09/2005 2:29:14 PM PDT by faireturn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: faireturn

Faireturn, I personally wouldn't want to keep employees from carrying. What I want is solely the power to control what's on my property, including contents of cars.

As I said, my few employees routinely carry on my property, which pleases me.

But I believe it's up to me, not the state, to determine these things on my own property.

And, IMO, if we give the state the power to insist that guns may come onto one's property without their consent, then we risk giving it power to also prohibit such a thing. The power to truly infringe the RKBA, which I don't believe is happenning in these corporate parking lots.


56 posted on 10/09/2005 2:44:45 PM PDT by Sam Cree (absolute reality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: faireturn

I kind of go along with the idea of a car being an extension of one's home, but I don't believe one can "extend" one's home onto someone else's private property. I don't think it matters whether it's business or residential.


57 posted on 10/09/2005 2:46:28 PM PDT by Sam Cree (absolute reality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree
Faireturn, I personally wouldn't want to keep employees from carrying. What I want is solely the power to control what's on my property, including contents of cars. As I said, my few employees routinely carry on my property, which pleases me. But I believe it's up to me, not the state, to determine these things on my own property.

Well at least you honestly admit you want " -- the power to control what's on my property, including contents of cars. -- "
Most employers are using bogus liability arguments.

And, IMO, if we give the state the power to insist that guns may come onto one's property without their consent,

The state is obligated to enforce our 2nd Amendment against all infringements. Parking lot gun bans are infringements.

then we risk giving it power to also prohibit such a thing. The power to truly infringe the RKBA, which I don't believe is happenning in these corporate parking lots.

You are letting your beliefs blind you to the truth. These bans are orchestrated by the brady bunch faction, imo.

I kind of go along with the idea of a car being an extension of one's home, but I don't believe one can "extend" one's home onto someone else's private property. I don't think it matters whether it's business or residential.

Parking your car in a private or public lot does not "extend your home" by any stretch..

58 posted on 10/09/2005 3:11:41 PM PDT by faireturn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree
Must you provide justification for keeping a car off your property? IMO, it's the property owner's discretion, no justification required.

Agreed. No Trespassing laws are as old as the republic. If you POST your land you are justified in enforcing the ban. But if you don't post the land, especially rural land and you find somebody on your property you are within your rights to ask them to leave but you cannot take further action as long as they obey the request. But you can't have them arrested for the initial trespass as this would be the equivalent of a Bill of Attainder and unconstitutional.

59 posted on 10/09/2005 3:28:51 PM PDT by ExSoldier (Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: SmoothTalker
Companies shouldn't have the right to regulate what you have on or in your property.

I agree. What you do in the workplace is their business, but what's in your car is not. Even (in my opinion) if you have drugs or explosives -- that's a police matter, and if they show up with a search warrant, then you're toast.

60 posted on 10/09/2005 3:48:53 PM PDT by Tax-chick (When bad things happen, conservatives get over it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Cobra64

Don't laugh...an automobile is considered an extension of the home in many states.


61 posted on 10/09/2005 4:37:48 PM PDT by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree
I don't really want to be able to dictate what you keep in your car. I just want to retain the right to be able to dictate what comes onto my own property, which includes cars and their contents.

The contents of automobiles are beyond your "right" in many states. Your property rights don't cancel out my property rights.

62 posted on 10/09/2005 4:41:39 PM PDT by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: ExpatGator
GOOD! My Life Membership fee is being put to good use. Thank you, and I AM THE NRA!

Actually, no. Your dues cannot be used for lobbying. That's why you get all those solicitations for the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA). Only money donated to the NRA-ILA can be used to lobby for legislation. Likewise only money donated to the NRA Political Victory Fund (NRA-PFV)can be used to help pro-gun candidates. The NRA cannot use dues for either purpose without violating their tax-exempt status.

63 posted on 10/09/2005 4:45:57 PM PDT by Hugin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jess35
"The contents of automobiles are beyond your "right" in many states. Your property rights don't cancel out my property rights."

Your property rights should not, in a free country, allow you to bring anything onto my property that I don't want you to bring. You have RKBA, but you don't have it on my property without my consent.

As I mentioned in my first post, some posters are falling into the liberal trap of thinking that corporate property is public property. It isn't, any more than your own driveway is.

64 posted on 10/09/2005 6:01:49 PM PDT by Sam Cree (absolute reality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: ExSoldier

You know, you got me thinking, by talking about posting the land, etc. I might go for it being illegal to not allow workers to have guns in their car if they are not warned. However, if the employee and the employer agree ahead of time that no guns in the car is a condition of employment, then I don't see the state taking the power onto itself to prohibit such an agreement.

But my other point is that it makes more sense to be allowed to carry on school property, which is truly public property. I may not think the contents of a car are an extension of private property when that car intrudes on someone else's private property, but I sure do think it's an extension when it's on public property. I believe the couts have disagreed widely with me on this however.

It would be irony indeed if we end up in a situation where our cars are inviolate on private property belonging to another, but subject to search on public property.


65 posted on 10/09/2005 6:12:22 PM PDT by Sam Cree (absolute reality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: RightDemocrat

It's a mistake IMO. Private property is private property. Companies should and do have the right to set the rules for their property.


66 posted on 10/09/2005 6:18:40 PM PDT by cruiserman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: faireturn; ExSoldier
"Parking lot gun bans are infringements."

They are not, because such bans are a voluntary agreement. What you want is for the state to disallow the ability of employers to make the agreement a condition of employment. However, I do think such bans are infringements of RKBA when they exist, as they do, on public property.

"You are letting your beliefs blind you to the truth. These bans are orchestrated by the brady bunch faction, imo."

In fact I recognize that and stated as much in a prior post. I don't know whether or not the liability claims are bogus, but I consider that corporations do this because they want to appear politically correct. Which is reprehensible, but within their rights. The point is that, as Exsoldier noted, your freedom ends at the point it interferes with the freedom of another. In this case, it ends at the freedom of the property owner to control what may be carried by another onto his own property.

"Parking your car in a private or public lot does not "extend your home" by any stretch.."

Here, we agree, regarding private lots. The car is an extension of the home on public lots, IMO. Should be, that is.

67 posted on 10/09/2005 6:27:15 PM PDT by Sam Cree (absolute reality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree
I might go for it being illegal to not allow workers to have guns in their car if they are not warned. However, if the employee and the employer agree ahead of time that no guns in the car is a condition of employment, then I don't see the state taking the power onto itself to prohibit such an agreement.

Let's throw another monkey wrench into this mix. What about a business that's a really B-I-G corportation with LOTS of major stockholders and strong feelings on the issue? Say Disney makes this case (and they do) and all of their stockholders decide to bail. Is there a point where compromising your ideals makes better business sense? Then what? Talk about the sole proprietor. He owns say a hardware store in a medium sized community. He makes the same demand. His employees bail and make it an issue in the papers. The pro-gun elements put together an effective boycott. Now what? Stand firm and go out of business? You can BET that the competition will make statements to the effect of whatever way they can grab the business.

68 posted on 10/09/2005 6:31:46 PM PDT by ExSoldier (Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: RightDemocrat

I am always amazed that people object to me carrying a gun, with a permit that means I have never had a run in with the law, at 56 years old. No one in America cared that at 22 with an 18 year old driver, I went up and down the highway in Germany with a side arm, a M-16, and NATO CRYPTO for a Pershing nuclear missile platoon with three launchers and nine rockets.


69 posted on 10/09/2005 6:34:38 PM PDT by HoustonCurmudgeon (Houston - Showing New Orleans how it's done.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ExSoldier
"Is there a point where compromising your ideals makes better business sense? Then what?"

Good point. My view is that we should bring pressure to bear through the market or through unfavorable publicity, those kinds of things. IIRC, it was done successfully against Citibank on the RKBA issue. They didn't want to do business with gunshops and suddenly found that they were going to lose a lot of customers because of that. They reversed course. Although IMO, Citibank didn't have to compromise any prinsiples, they just had to make a decision to forget political correctness for once. I can imagine that their decision, whichever way it went, was based on PR.

I don't see a boycott against Disney being effective though, because I doubt it possible to keep even conservatives away.

70 posted on 10/09/2005 6:40:34 PM PDT by Sam Cree (absolute reality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree
The state is obligated to enforce our 2nd Amendment against all infringements. Parking lot gun bans are infringements.

They are not, because such bans are a voluntary agreement.

Hardly. Ever hear of coercion? Most rational people are fighting these infringements tooth & nail.

What you want is for the state to disallow the ability of employers to make the agreement a condition of employment.

Every state is obligated by our constitution to defend its citizens against conditional, coercive scams that infringe on individual rights.

As I mentioned in my first post, some posters are falling into the liberal trap of thinking that corporate property is public property.

As I mentioned in some of my posts, some people here are falling into the trap of thinking that corporations are defending 'property rights'. Not so, -- they are trashing individual employees 2nd, 4th & 14th Amendment rights.

71 posted on 10/09/2005 7:28:51 PM PDT by faireturn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: ExSoldier

"Still not sure how passage of this Bill will affect me as a public school teacher!"

IIRC, there is a federal law that forbids firearms on school grounds, unless you are LEO or district security. I'm interested in that too, as I'm going to be a teacher. Working as a sub right now, waiting for my certification paperwork to get processed... and waiting, and waiting...


72 posted on 10/09/2005 7:37:21 PM PDT by Old Student (WRM, MSgt, USAF(Ret.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: faireturn; William Tell; Labyrinthos
faireturn

I believe that those folks from the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia, and The Peoples Republic of New York that you have engaged in this thread are so used to having their Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms infringed, and are so ready to accept "reasonable gun controls" that they cannot understand why those of us in the "Free States" think that the Second Amendment still means something.

73 posted on 10/09/2005 7:54:03 PM PDT by P8riot (When they come for your guns, give them the bullets first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: faireturn
I didn't see the post where someone thinks a corporation defends individual rights. That is not their calling.

"Hardly. Ever hear of coercion? Most rational people are fighting these infringements tooth & nail."

You'll have to tell me about the coercion. Last I looked, no one was being forced to work for these corporations. Quite the contrary, they work there because they want the jobs. Your thinking is akin to union thinking, the employee gets to dictate the terms, by the power of the law. Now that's coercion!

74 posted on 10/09/2005 7:57:44 PM PDT by Sam Cree (absolute reality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: P8riot
The 2nd protects us from being disarmed by our government. It doesn't give anyone the right to carry arms on the private property of others without their say so.

A corporation has no power to disarm you or anyone else. It does have the power to keep armed men off its property. Rightfully so.

What most of the posters on this thread want is not just the right to keep and bear arms, but the right to carry arms on to private property belonging to someone else regardless of the owner's wishes.

75 posted on 10/09/2005 8:08:07 PM PDT by Sam Cree (absolute reality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree

So what do you do with your gun between home and the office parking lot? Do you give it to Bubba to hold for you until 5 O'clock?


76 posted on 10/09/2005 8:15:28 PM PDT by P8riot (When they come for your guns, give them the bullets first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree

So what do you do with your gun between home and the office parking lot? Do you give it to Bubba to hold for you until 5 O'clock?


77 posted on 10/09/2005 8:15:39 PM PDT by P8riot (When they come for your guns, give them the bullets first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: P8riot

I'd leave it at home. Better yet, pressure your employer any way you can, mount a publicity campaign against him. It worked with Citibank, IIRC. But usually if the rules at a workplace are too onerous to tolerate, people have found work elsewhere.


78 posted on 10/09/2005 8:20:07 PM PDT by Sam Cree (absolute reality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree
I'd leave it at home. Not an option. It doesn't do you any good there.

"Oh wait Mr. Perp. I need to go home and get my gun."

Sheesh!

79 posted on 10/09/2005 8:22:32 PM PDT by P8riot (When they come for your guns, give them the bullets first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree
But usually if the rules at a workplace are too onerous to tolerate, people have found work elsewhere.So you let them run you out of your job, simpy because they don't respect your Constitutional rights?
80 posted on 10/09/2005 8:26:24 PM PDT by P8riot (When they come for your guns, give them the bullets first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: P8riot

I agree with your sentiments strongly, I just don't agree that we have a constitutional right to carry weapons on other people's property when they don't want us to. On public property, yes, of course, not that too many local governments respect even that.



81 posted on 10/09/2005 8:32:14 PM PDT by Sam Cree (absolute reality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree

I'll take my chances. I have a lockable gunsafe mounted in my truck. That's where my gun is when I am inside. I won't open it for anyone. If they want to try they are welcome too, but it's gonna take a torch.


82 posted on 10/09/2005 8:44:51 PM PDT by P8riot (When they come for your guns, give them the bullets first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Old Student
I'm interested in that too, as I'm going to be a teacher. Working as a sub right now, waiting for my certification paperwork to get processed... and waiting, and waiting......

First of all, subs have about the toughest job in the system. My hat is off to you but I wonder about your judgment. Subs tend to make early burnout cases as regular teachers. Yeah, it MIGHT be good preparation, but it can wear you down, too. But then, I've taught in some very literal trenches over the years. If you're in a good environment, it might be great. What did you get your degree in? What level do you wish to teach? Subject?

IIRC you're correct about the federal law concerning guns on campus. No wait a minute....it's IN SCHOOL, not on the grounds because parents with a CCW can drive up the front drive and pick up their kids but they can't go into a conference armed. Also there may once have been such a law but it was invalidated by the USSC under the commerce clause of the 14th Amendment.

83 posted on 10/09/2005 8:47:03 PM PDT by ExSoldier (Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: P8riot
"I have a lockable gunsafe mounted in my truck."

Cool. I imagine it is anchored well. I should look into something like that for my own truck. I don't usually carry, but on road trips I have generally had something aboard.

84 posted on 10/09/2005 8:49:30 PM PDT by Sam Cree (absolute reality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree

It is welded to a piece of 1/4 plate that is welded to the floorboard. Like I said it'll take a torch to either get it open or get it out. I just want to make it as much trouble as I can for anyone trying to get to it.


85 posted on 10/09/2005 9:06:06 PM PDT by P8riot (When they come for your guns, give them the bullets first.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree
Sam Cree said: "Last I looked, no one was being forced to work for these corporations. "

Well, it might not be that simple.

Corporations are not PEOPLE. For many legal purposes, they are treated like people. That is one of the advantages of incorporation.

Corporations are business entities created through the operation of state law. Such laws exist to ENCOURAGE business activity, mainly by limiting the liability of the corporation to the assets of the corporations. The stockholders cannot be held liable for the corporations debts.

This state-sponsored limitation of liability has become an essential element of business success. There are few large companies which are not incorporated. Unfortunately, corporations have no sensitivity to human rights. They are not PEOPLE, so one shouldn't expect such sensitivity. Corporations were not endowed by their creators with unalienable rights.

However, the tremendous success of corporations creates a situation in which corporations have tremendous impact on people's lives. It is absolutely unreasonable to believe that EVERYONE could chose not to work for a corporation. Some could, but if everyone tried, the entire economy would fail.

An unintended consequence of corporate success, is that many aspects of our lives are controlled by such corporations. Many corporations are multi-national. There is no reason to believe that such corporations will have any respect for human righs whatever, given that they might be able to operate more profitably in countries with no human rights guarantees.

For the reasons I described above, I find no compelling reason to spare corporations from legal constraints on their abilities to reduce the freedom of the people. If corporations were forbidden to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, I see no reason to believe that the economic success of corporations would in any way be negatively impacted.

86 posted on 10/09/2005 10:50:26 PM PDT by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: P8riot
I believe that those folks from the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia, and The Peoples Republic of New York that you have engaged in this thread are so used to having their Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms infringed, and are so ready to accept "reasonable gun controls" that they cannot understand why those of us in the "Free States" think that the Second Amendment still means something.

At least this folk from the Peoples Republic of New York (I can't speak for those folk who live in Kalifornia) understands that the Constitution only prohibits the government from infringing upon individual rights such as the right to bear arms, free speach and assembly, etc., and that the Constitution, in general, and the 2nd Amendment in particular, has absolutely nothing to do with the relationship between private employers and employees. As a private employer, I have the right to prohibit you from carrying a firearm on my property, just as I have the right to require you to carry a firearm on my property as a condition of your employment. If you don't like it, then go find a job someplace else. And stop being such an idiot about the what the Constitution does and doesn't do. Your lack of knowledge is embarrassing and makes the rest of us look really stupid.

87 posted on 10/10/2005 4:42:59 AM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos

Can you also tell your employees that they can't have religious or political material in their cars? Can you tell them how they should vote if they want to work for you?

If you are scientologist, can you forbid employees having medications on them or in their cars?

At what point do your private property rights become more important than other citizens' Constitutional rights?


88 posted on 10/10/2005 5:39:42 AM PDT by Eagle Eye (There ought to be a law against excess legislation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods
Suppose an employer tried to tell it's workers they couldn't keep a bible locked in the trunk of their car while on the job.

That's the same analogy that I've been using. What if your company can prohibit religious items on their property. Not just bibles, but crosses, religious pamphlets, St Christopher statues and medals, US Currency, etc. You can't bring anything with the Words "God", "Allah", "Jehova", etc., onto the companies property.

Suppose they decide that they don't like certain news papers or magazines? In fact, maybe the only newspaper you can bring to work is USA Today.

I like the ruling by the Georgia Supreme Court that declared your car an extension of your home.

89 posted on 10/10/2005 5:39:59 AM PDT by mbynack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree
Do you believe that you also have no right to prohibit guns in the cars of those who are in the driveway of your home?

I've heard this argument several times, and it isn't really germaine. Your property expectations as a homeowner are different that the expectations of a corporation which does business with the public. If you had a business where the public and your employees came and went in your driveway at will I would expect that you would have no right to say what they had in their cars.

90 posted on 10/10/2005 5:41:43 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy, and Bush is no conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods

I think that bosses aren't concerned that if they confront a worker for his poor performance, substance abuse, etc. and fire him that he won't go out to his car, get his Bible, and take it back into the office to use against his coworkers.

Parking lots are private property belonging to companies or real estate managers. If they want to ban weapons from those locations, they have the right to do so. Gun-owners who want to keep guns in their cars can quit and find companies that allow it or look the other way. That's the American way--not this state-enforced tolerance.


91 posted on 10/10/2005 5:45:55 AM PDT by HostileTerritory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye

The First Amendment stops at the boundary of company property. Why should the Second Amendment be any different?


92 posted on 10/10/2005 5:46:42 AM PDT by HostileTerritory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: RightDemocrat

I'll carry my gun where I damned well please. If it's in my car, Disney and the rest of those whining Jackass lovers can KMA.


93 posted on 10/10/2005 5:47:37 AM PDT by Leatherneck_MT (3-7-77 (No that's not a Date))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HostileTerritory
think that bosses aren't concerned that if they confront a worker for his poor performance, substance abuse, etc. and fire him that he won't go out to his car, get his Bible, and take it back into the office to use against his coworkers.

As opposed to going home and getting a firearm and going back into the office etc? Your argument is specious.

94 posted on 10/10/2005 5:52:22 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy, and Bush is no conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos

You have Zero right to tell a person what they can or cannot carry in their car so long as that item, whatever it is, is a lawful product.

You don't want someone parking their car in your lot, that's fine. But YOUR rights end at my bumper bud.


95 posted on 10/10/2005 5:54:32 AM PDT by Leatherneck_MT (3-7-77 (No that's not a Date))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye

when it involves the safety and well being of their
employees..


96 posted on 10/10/2005 5:56:20 AM PDT by rahbert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT

Case law would seem to hold otherwize..


97 posted on 10/10/2005 5:57:32 AM PDT by rahbert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Labyrinthos
Your lack of knowledge is embarrassing and makes the rest of us look really stupid.

This statement is typical of the arrogance of some posters who are so positive that they're right that they consider their opinion to be gospel. I got news fer ya Jack. Your opinion is no better than anyone else's on this matter, but it does reflect your cultural upbringing in New York where neo-nazi statists, upChuckie Schemer and Hitlery reflect the viwpoints of about 75% of the electorate.

98 posted on 10/10/2005 6:00:19 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy, and Bush is no conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga

Sorry, it's true--people can freak out and make a lifetime mistake in five minutes that they would never do if they had to drive 20 minutes home and back to the office in which to calm down and think it over.

Companies are TERRIFIED of recently-fired workers going postal. That's why they don't want guns anywhere near the property. Security is good for keeping civilized people out, but the kind of rent-a-cop you find in an office park isn't up for a gunfight with a depressed psycho.

Call my argument "specious" if you want, but it's what's on the minds of every HR manager and property manager on every Interstate.

If you don't think proximity matters, imagine what firings would be like if there was a gun in the hallway outside the HR director's office. Oh, and an open bar. Do you think that would increase violence, or have no effect?


99 posted on 10/10/2005 6:07:12 AM PDT by HostileTerritory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree

The problem is a Corporate is a created person under the laws of the Government. By that definition they are LESS than the government while the Citizens of this country are GREATER than the government.

That which is created can never be greater than the creator. Simple law of nature.

By that definition, a created person should never have rights that outweigh those of a sovereign citizen of this country which created the government that created the corporation.


100 posted on 10/10/2005 6:07:12 AM PDT by Leatherneck_MT (3-7-77 (No that's not a Date))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-271 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson