Posted on 03/13/2007 11:26:20 PM PDT by neverdem
Documentation?
Since 1986, federal law has protected the right to transport firearms in vehicles interstate. USC sec 926a
Show me where "we the people" decided that you can violate other people's property restrictions merely by enclosing the violating item within a vehicle.
No ones property rights/"restrictions" are being violated by a gun in the employees vehicle.
Show me where "we the people" decided that you can violate other people's right to carry arms in vehicles merely by claiming "property restrictions" apply to items within another persons vehicle.
You own the vehicle, and are authorized by the business to park it on the lot while working. There is no 'authority' or power delegated to a business to ban arms from that private vehicle.
You may also own a purse, briefcase, backpack, or pair of trousers which are authorized by the business. Does that mean you can carry a gun in them, against company policy?
Silly, senseless point. -- The gun is not leaving the employees vehicle.-- A purse, briefcase, backpack, or pair of trousers enter the workplace with the employee.
Again, the company is not banning your arms from your vehicle.
Another silly comment. That is the issue here.
It is banning vehicles which are being used to store arms. Keep your arms in your car and park off site. Conflict resolved.
Keep your arms locked in your car and park in the company lot.
Conflict resolved; because a locked vehicle on your parking lot imposes no 'force' upon you, no matter if it contains arms. - Admit it.
Never argued otherwise -- I don't mind if responsible adults carry weapons, but won't force others to accept it on their property.
You seriously need to address the issue rationally. -- No one is forcing "others to accept it [carrying arms] on their property. -- The arms are being carried on the employees property, locked in their vehicles.
Admit it; you believe your property right has automatic precedence over an employees right to carry in their vehicle.
"--- Big business is claiming that their property rights trump the rights guaranteed to you by the Constitution.
Companies claim an absolute right to regulate behavior in the workplace, just as they can set and enforce a dress code. But the Constitution doesn't guarantee your right to dress as you please. And let's be honest -- a parking lot isn't a workplace. It's more like a locker room, where your personal belongings are stored until your workday is finished.
A "gun free" parking lot doesn't equate to a "safe workplace." Just the opposite is true. By banning employees' guns from parking lots, employers are advertising to criminals that their employees are unable to defend themselves from criminal attack when traversing company property.
The truth is that our opponents are simply scared. The undertone to nearly all of the objections voiced by big business is plain and simple fear, particularly of potential liability. That's why our model Workers Protection laws protect employers from liability lawsuits. But apparently that's not enough to overcome the knee-jerk hysteria of our opponents.
We've sent the gun-ban activists at the group formerly known as Handgun Control, Inc. into sheer apoplexy. And true to form, their response has been organized around the formation of derogatory buzzwords intended to spark baseless fears.
"Forced Entry" is what they call our Workers Protection proposal. What exactly is "forced" about an employee reporting for work? And how does "entry" apply to a law whose effect is limited to the parking lot? --"
Workers Protection and Private Property
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1804004/posts
Not applicable here. That law deals with transport on public roads to and from where you may lawfully possess a firearm. Try again.
Silly, senseless point. -- The gun is not leaving the employees vehicle.-- A purse, briefcase, backpack, or pair of trousers enter the workplace with the employee.
The parking lot is as much the property of the business as your office. It is all part of the workplace, as any slip-and-fall lawyer will tell you if someone injures themselves in your parking lot. Your car "entered the workplace with the employee" as well. What makes your car exempt from compliance, but your briefcase not?
Again, the company is not banning your arms from your vehicle.
Another silly comment. That is the issue here.
I know you really, really want this to be so. But it isn't. As I have been patiently explaining since my first post on this thread, this is about property rights, not bearing arms. If the boss wants to ban cars with leather seats and fuzzy dice except on the third Wednesday of the month, he can do so. Your car and all it contains, and you too, are there conditionally, and the property owner sets the conditions. Period.
Keep your arms locked in your car and park in the company lot. Conflict resolved;...
That doesn't solve the conflict. That IS the conflict. You brought the guns to the property; the owner didn't bring his property to your guns.
...because a locked vehicle on your parking lot imposes no 'force' upon you, no matter if it contains arms. - Admit it.
That's a dead strawman that you've already attempted to beat last post. Repetition doesn't make it more valid.
You cannot place that car on that spot with those guns inside, against the will of the owner, without using force or deception. You propose to use the force of the government to make the owner accept your terms.
Not applicable here. That law deals with transport on public roads to and from where you may lawfully possess a firearm. Try again.
How lame, - try again yourself. -- That law deals with transport on public roads to and from your home; --where you may lawfully possess a firearm.
-- The gun is not leaving the employees vehicle.-- A purse, briefcase, backpack, or pair of trousers enter the workplace with the employee.
The parking lot is as much the property of the business as your office.
"-- let's be honest -- a parking lot isn't a workplace. It's more like a locker room, where your personal belongings are stored until your workday is finished. -- "
It is all part of the workplace, as any slip-and-fall lawyer will tell you if someone injures themselves in your parking lot. Your car "entered the workplace with the employee" as well. What makes your car exempt from compliance, but your briefcase not?
Your car doesn't enter the actual workplace. It remains parked in the lot..
Again, the company is not banning your arms from your vehicle.
Another silly comment. That is the issue here.
I know you really, really want this to be so. But it isn't. As I have been patiently explaining since my first post on this thread, this is about property rights, not bearing arms. If the boss wants to ban cars with leather seats and fuzzy dice except on the third Wednesday of the month, he can do so. Your car and all it contains, and you too, are there conditionally, and the property owner sets the conditions. Period.
"--- The truth is that our opponents are simply scared. The undertone to nearly all of the objections voiced by big business is plain and simple fear, particularly of potential liability.
['Slip & fall' anyone?]
That's why our model Workers Protection laws protect employers from liability lawsuits. But apparently that's not enough to overcome the knee-jerk hysteria of our opponents. We've sent the gun-ban activists at the group formerly known as Handgun Control, Inc. into sheer apoplexy. And true to form, their response has been organized around the formation of derogatory buzzwords intended to spark baseless fears.
"Forced Entry" is what they call our Workers Protection proposal. What exactly is "forced" about an employee reporting for work? And how does "entry" apply to a law whose effect is limited to the parking lot? --"
Keep your arms locked in your car and park in the company lot. Conflict resolved;...
That doesn't solve the conflict. That IS the conflict. You brought the guns to the property; the owner didn't bring his property to your guns.
I came to work in my car, parked it in the company lot, and you want a 'conflict' over whether my vehicle contains a gun. --- Why? -- Why do you go into near apoplexy at the thought of a gun in my car?
...a locked vehicle on your parking lot imposes no 'force' upon you, no matter if it contains arms. - Admit it.
That's a dead strawman that you've already attempted to beat last post. Repetition doesn't make it more valid. You cannot place that car on that spot with those guns inside, against the will of the owner, without using force or deception.
"--- Forced Entry" is what they call our Workers Protection proposal. What exactly is "forced" about an employee reporting for work? And how does "entry" apply to a law whose effect is limited to the parking lot? --"
You propose to use the force of the government to make the owner accept your terms.
Because the business owner is using force to fire employees who do not meet ~his~ irrational terms.
I propose we use the rationality of our Constitution to convince business owners to accept our right to carry arms to & from work.
You are wrong about USC sec 926a. It does not regulate private property, and therefore has nothing to do with this issue.
You are wrong about the parking lot not being part of the workplace. It is. And so is the loading dock, the driveway, the perimeter fence, the " locker room, where your personal belongings are stored until your workday is finished", and every other square inch of property owned by the businessman doing business at that place. And it would not matter a whit if it were not associated with your actual office space; it is still private property, subject to the owner's permission.
You are wrong that your car is not on the site of the workplace when you park in the company's private lot.
You are wrong when you describe the termination of an business association as "force", for whatever reason, rational or irrational. It is the exercise of a 1st amendment right.
You are wrong when you describe principled opposition to the trampling of property rights as "near apoplexy", and try to infer it is fear of guns. I have no fear of guns, but I have an abiding distaste for "good intentioned" individuals like you using the government to erode property rights, whether it is to "cure institutional racism" or "give access to handicapped" or "promote the exercise of the 2nd amendment".
In short, you have been wrong on every single point of argument and counterargument on this thread, even when you manage to abandon the logical fallacies of straw man attacks, ad hominums, and begging questions and attempt one.
I am actually tired of flogging you so overwhelmingly. What you have not managed to do with logic and argument, you have done by sheer imperviousness to reason. I surrender the thread to you, and let our posts speak for themselves to any future reader to decide.
Not applicable here. That law deals with transport on public roads to and from where you may lawfully possess a firearm. Try again.
How lame, - try again yourself. -- That law deals with transport on public roads to and from your home; --where you may lawfully possess a firearm.
You are wrong about USC sec 926a. It does not regulate private property, and therefore has nothing to do with this issue
Just above you admitted: "-- That law deals with transport on public roads to and from where --" [your home] "-- you may lawfully possess a firearm. --"
In short, you have been wrong on every single point of argument and counterargument on this thread, even when you manage to abandon the logical fallacies of straw man attacks, ad hominums, and begging questions and attempt one.
You can't post ~any~ "-- straw man attacks, ad hominums, and begging questions --" from me, -- so you simply make up your own.
I am actually tired of flogging you so overwhelmingly.
Boasting is a form of cheap self-flogging.
What you have not managed to do with logic and argument, you have done by sheer imperviousness to reason. I surrender the thread to you, and let our posts speak for themselves to any future reader to decide.
I'm happy to let our posts speak for themselves, and for any future reader to decide who has been reasonable.
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.