Posted on 03/13/2007 11:26:20 PM PDT by neverdem
The U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions guarantee the right to keep and bear arms. Transporting a firearm in your vehicle for protection while traveling to and from work, grocery shopping, to the doctor's office, to a shopping center or anywhere else people commonly travel is central to that right.
In Plona v. United Parcel Service, 2007 (U.S. District Court, N.D. Ohio), UPS fired an employee for having a firearm stored in his vehicle in a public-access parking lot used by UPS employees and customers. The court found that "the right to keep and bear arms" is enough to form the basis of a wrongful termination. Further, U.S. District Judge Ann Aldrich found that "allowing an employer to terminate an employee for exercising a clearly established constitutional right jeopardizes that right, even if no state action is involved."
Businesses are prohibited from discriminating because of race, age, sex, religion, nationality, etc. And clearly they are also prohibited from discriminating against those who exercise their right to keep and bear arms for personal protection and other lawful purposes like hunting and target shooting.
Individual constitutional and legal rights do not end when we drive onto a business parking lot. Simply put, business property rights do not trump the Constitution or the law.
State legislatures have a duty to protect the constitutional rights of individuals from abuses. They must act as a shield to protect constitutional rights of the people; they also must act as the point of a sword to punish those who violate our inalienable rights. That is at the heart of this debate.
Businesses cannot substitute their own political philosophies for constitutional rights. And nowhere in the Constitution are businesses given any authority to prohibit rights in their parking lots. Businesses have no more right to ban firearms in private vehicles than they do to ban books. Businesses may impose only restrictions that do not rise to the level of contravening protected rights.
Nor can employers require you to waive your protected rights. They cannot, as a condition of employment, require you to give up your right to vote; neither can they require you to give up your right of self-protection or your right to keep and bear arms.
On the common-sense side, think about a mom who doesn't get off work until midnight. She may drive 30 or 40 miles over dark, desolate roads to get home to her family. She may stop at a convenience store and pick up bread for school lunches the next day.
Her employer has no right to tell her that she'll be fired if she exercises her right to have a firearm in her vehicle for protection.
Think about women who work late hours as cashiers at supermarkets. And what about employees of all-night pharmacies, or nurses or lab technicians who work late shifts and drive to and from work through dangerous areas late at night?
As one female legislator asked, what about lawmakers who travel their districts at night for speaking engagements? Are they not supposed to park anywhere or stop for a cup of coffee or a soda or a bite to eat because they carry a gun in the car for protection?
A woman who is being stalked or who has obtained a domestic violence injunction against an abuser needs protection. Police often advise these women to buy a gun for protection because police can't be there to protect them. An employer violates her rights if the employer attempts to force her to waive her rights and chose between her life and her job.
The keeping of firearms in a vehicle is a preeminent right that is well-grounded in law and public policy. Legislatures must stop the abuse of our most basic and fundamental Second Amendment rights on the part of corporate giants.
How dare you consider self defense. The reeducation classes have started, you just need to...
Thanks for the link!
Utter nonsense. Why would the Second Amendment work differently than the First? My right to free speech is seriously curtailed while I'm at work. I could go to the mall and use abusive language or bad-mouth my company's products. Can't do that at work and remain employed. It's that simple.
Second amendment rights trump private property rights? I don't think so, but it'd be nice if it were so (for 1st amendment too!).
I see your point about property rights, but isn't my car MY property? I park in my employer's parking lot at my employer's pleasure, but it's nobody's business what I keep inside MY car for self defense.
I also understand that an employer can fire anyone for any reason (unless the employment contract says otherwise), but any employer who fires someone for having a gun in his car is an idiot.
Wrong.
but any employer who fires someone for having a gun in his car is an idiot.
AOL fired 3 employees in Utah, the court upheld AOL
Weyerhauser and Conoco-Phillips were fighting the State of Oklahoma over employees with firearms in the trunk of their vehicle.
Conoco - Phillips (the oil company) did file suit against the State of Oklahoma in federal court over a Oklahoma law that protected employees.
I do not have any idea how far this suit has progressed.
Could you keep a hustler in your car?
How about a Cobra in your Cobra?
This sounds nice, but is not the practice. Most states have laws that your guns must be disassembled during transportation. In Massachusetts, they will jail you if you even think about having a gun in your car. (Slight hyperbole there, but check out the laws in that ACLU-run state.)
Most universities ban all guns. That is quite diferent from the way things were in my youth, when my high school had a rifle team, and the members carried their rifles to school on the bus on days when they had meets. The bus driver would wish them good luck in the competitions as they borded. It was a different world then — and in most ways a better one.
This is actually an important article. I've heard lots of incidences where cases were made that took the point of view if you are in somebody's business, their rules trump your rights (Yes, I know the article said business parking lot, not "business" but I think the principle applies. Don't property rights convey with the person, not with the property?).
As I'm sure you know, the First Amendment applies to political speech, not smut speech, Larry Flynt to the contrary, so your reply is specious.
They don't. The employer's property[parking lot] ends at my property[vehicle].
The Constitution does not incorporate private businesses into the State. Your rights enumerated in the Constitution are enforceable against the state only, unless legislation specifically gives you (or the state) a cause of action against a business.
Neither circumstance applies here.
Texas is a 'right-to-work' state. You can get fired for any reason, or no reason.
Oh, really?
Airports can be run by private corporations, yet your rights are certainly trumped there.
Let me add further.
When you sit on an airplane, in flight, you are in a transport vehicle owned by a private corporation, yet regulated by the State.
Think you have any property rights there?
The rights referred to in the Constitution do not exist in transactions between businesses and individuals, except insofar as Congress has provided through regulation of interstate commerce (the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for example).
Hence, while you are riding in someone else's airplane, you cannot make a speech, carry a gun, quarter a soldier under your seat. You are not free from unreasonable searches or seizures, as long as they are not carried out by an agent of the government. You may not freely exercise your religion. You may not peaceably assemble in the aisles or toilets. And so on.
Interesting point and I will cogitate on it.
Thanks!
You are dead wrong. Try firing all women, because they are women.
Wrong, -- and this judge explains why:
In Plona v. United Parcel Service, 2007, -- U.S. District Judge Ann Aldrich found that "allowing an employer to terminate an employee for exercising a clearly established constitutional right jeopardizes that right, even if no state action is involved."
Two questions I would have for any prospective employer would be:
1) Do you yourself carry a firearm on your person or close at hand while restricting that same right to your empployees?
2) Are you prepared to incur potential liability if anything should occur as a result of your restrictive policies?
You could make a more asinine comment, right?
Most Some states have laws that your guns must be disassembled during transportation.
I could keep a Hustler magazine in the car if it wasn't lying on the seat open to a "pictorial" page. Not sure what would happen if it were and I don't want to find out.
The point I should have made is not that my employer restricts my rights, it's that I surrender some of my rights by working there. Look at the military contract. It's even more restrictive. They can't publicly criticize the chain of command. They can't refuse a lawful assignment. Why they can't even commit adultery! - CINC excepted of course if (D)
Second amendment rights trump private property rights? I don't think so, but it'd be nice if it were so (for 1st amendment too!).
Gun-free zones are invitation to become crime zones. Any business owner that's okay with that I don't think has their customer's safety in mind. It' their property to do as they see fit so long as they don't initiate force against anyone or their property. In other words, each person is free to say "no" and walk away. Freedom of association is also the freedom to not associate.
I am a woman, and I have been fired. No reason has to be given. You are saying a reason is necessary. It is not.
Employees that drive 30 miles to a their workplace.
A lot can happen.
I can see law suits just waiting to happen because of this policy.
I see your point about property rights, but isn't my car MY property?
Isn't your body your property too?
Actually, very few states have that as a requirement. Mostly the "extreme blue" states in the Northeast.
Massachusetts has become a disgrace to its own history. I'm sure John and Sam Adams are generating high wattage spinning in their graves.
Employees that drive 30 miles to a their workplace. A lot can happen.
Doesn't freedom of association mean that an employee (or prospect employee) can say no and walk away, just as an employer can say no and walk away? And both of them can do that for any reason or no reason? That's with regard to being honest, not according to the massively corrupt politicians and bureaucrats in government. You know that whole personal responsibility thing.
I can see law suits just waiting to happen because of this policy.
Which is as corrupt as the parasitical elites in government. You know that whole personal responsibility thing.
I'm trying to be polite.
Suggest you do the same.
If you want to rely on bad government laws that's you business. When you or your property are damaged by someone then you have a case. Good luck trying to convince an impartial jury that a picture of a naked body harmed you.
Guns don't kill -- people do.
Pornography doesn't rape people -- people do.
Oh I agree that one can be fired for no reason. I also agree that no reason need be given. But, there are reasons for which no one may be fired, even here in Texas. Unlawful firing and discrimination lawsuits get filed and won all the time here. An unlawful reason need not be given for it to be discerned.
I think you misunderstood my original post. My original comment was a serious one.
I was pissed that I would have to point out something so basic (1st Amendment applies to political speech - original intent of the Founders) to an active reader of this forum. That shouldn't have been necessary.
My comment about Flynt was a sneer at Flynt posturing himself as some kind of paragon of virtue for peddling smut.
AFA "bad government laws" the fewer the better. I'm all about freedom.
amchugh: "Second amendment rights trump private property rights? I don't think so, but it'd be nice if it were so (for 1st amendment too!)."
=======================
I'm getting tired of explaining that this is a Fourth Amendment issue, but...
=======================
You have this all wrong. It is a private property issue: your car is your private property and (for Fourth Amendment purposes) is considered to be an extension of your home. And like your home, the police must have a warrant to examine (search) what is inside of it.
No private party has any right to define what may be (legally) secured inside your home or your car. The employer's property rights end at the point at which your tires contact his pavement.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Employer's rights only extend to telling you whether or not your tires are allowed to contact (park on) his pavement -- or whether or not he will employ you.
And if he conditions that permission on what is in your car? Let's take guns out of the equation. Say an employer makes a rule that you cannot leave valuables in your car in his lot, because he believes that would attract thieves. You agree, but decide to leave some jewelry in the car, because your work precludes its wearing during work. Your boss discovers that, and terminates your employment for violating his rules that you agreed to.
Valid or invalid? Is your fundamental right to own property superior to his fundamental right to decide what is allowed on his property?
It is an interesting decision but only a District Court..
Great analogy.
Lex:
And if he conditions that permission on what is in your car?
Your employers 'conditions' cannot deprive his employees of their constitutional rights.
Let's take guns out of the equation.
Lets not. Guns are beyond question an enumerated right.
Say an employer makes a rule that you cannot leave valuables in your car in his lot, because he believes that would attract thieves. You agree, but decide to leave some jewelry in the car, because your work precludes its wearing during work. Your boss discovers that, and terminates your employment for violating his rules that you agreed to.
Your boss made an unreasonable 'rule', coerced your agreement to it, then violated your property [your vehicle] searching to find his 'contraband'. A jury will laugh him out of court.
Valid or invalid? Is your fundamental right to own property superior to his fundamental right to decide what is allowed on his property?
Property owners who do business in the USA are obligated to obey our "Law of the Land". [just as all of us are] -- Our supreme law says we have a right to own & carry arms, which shall not be infringed.
Trying to restrict the carrying of arms to & from work is an infringement, no matter who initiates the 'ban'.
That's interesting. What if when you apply for employment initially you are asked to sign a "hold harmless" agreement with the understanding that the workplace is a "gun free" zone and with this clear understanding and agreement you undertake employment. Sign and you can't sue because you knew going IN what the situation is, in that regard. Now what? Do you walk away from a good job? Be realistic. Good job, good perks (medical, dental, etc) THat's my situation. As a teacher I'm already forbidden by law from being armed at work. There is no public school where I could teach where that is not in force. But a private employer? What then?
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.