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

Skip to comments.

Restrictions cannot contravene the Constitution
The Star-Telegram ^ | Mar. 12, 2007 | MARION P. HAMMER

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.


Marion P. Hammer is a past president of the National Rifle Association. www.nra.org


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; banglist; heat; rkba; secondamendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-146 next last

1 posted on 03/13/2007 11:26:29 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem

How dare you consider self defense. The reeducation classes have started, you just need to...


2 posted on 03/13/2007 11:40:40 PM PDT by kinoxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j73SsNFgBO4


3 posted on 03/13/2007 11:48:09 PM PDT by Dick Bachert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dick Bachert

Thanks for the link!


4 posted on 03/14/2007 12:06:06 AM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

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.


5 posted on 03/14/2007 12:24:49 AM PDT by Dilbert56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

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!).


6 posted on 03/14/2007 12:31:57 AM PDT by amchugh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert56

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.


7 posted on 03/14/2007 12:53:32 AM PDT by Old Dirty Bastiat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Old Dirty Bastiat
"I also understand that an employer can fire anyone for any reason"

Wrong.

8 posted on 03/14/2007 2:10:20 AM PDT by bruoz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Old Dirty Bastiat
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.

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.

9 posted on 03/14/2007 3:09:05 AM PDT by TYVets (God so loved the world he didn't send a committee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert56

Could you keep a hustler in your car?


10 posted on 03/14/2007 3:24:42 AM PDT by 2ndClassCitizen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 2ndClassCitizen

How about a Cobra in your Cobra?


11 posted on 03/14/2007 4:53:53 AM PDT by TYVets (God so loved the world he didn't send a committee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

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.


12 posted on 03/14/2007 4:57:19 AM PDT by docbnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; Congressman Billybob; Carry_Okie; Joe Brower; nothingnew; Noumenon; hellinahandcart
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.

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?).

13 posted on 03/14/2007 5:03:59 AM PDT by sauropod ("An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools." Ernest Hemingway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert56

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.


14 posted on 03/14/2007 5:05:29 AM PDT by sauropod ("An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools." Ernest Hemingway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: amchugh

They don't. The employer's property[parking lot] ends at my property[vehicle].


15 posted on 03/14/2007 5:16:50 AM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (Vote a Straight Republican Ballot. Rid the country of dems. NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
if you are in somebody's business, their rules trump your rights

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.

16 posted on 03/14/2007 5:21:18 AM PDT by Jim Noble (But that's why they play the games)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: bruoz

Texas is a 'right-to-work' state. You can get fired for any reason, or no reason.


17 posted on 03/14/2007 5:25:33 AM PDT by mathluv (Never Forget!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
Neither circumstance applies here.

Oh, really?

Airports can be run by private corporations, yet your rights are certainly trumped there.

18 posted on 03/14/2007 5:27:15 AM PDT by sauropod ("An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools." Ernest Hemingway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

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?


19 posted on 03/14/2007 5:30:03 AM PDT by sauropod ("An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools." Ernest Hemingway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
Maybe you misinterpreted what I said.

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.

20 posted on 03/14/2007 5:36:17 AM PDT by Jim Noble (But that's why they play the games)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

Interesting point and I will cogitate on it.

Thanks!


21 posted on 03/14/2007 6:42:51 AM PDT by sauropod ("An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools." Ernest Hemingway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: mathluv
You can get fired for any reason

You are dead wrong. Try firing all women, because they are women.

22 posted on 03/14/2007 6:58:44 AM PDT by green iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
The rights referred to in the Constitution do not exist in transactions between businesses and individuals,

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."

23 posted on 03/14/2007 7:02:45 AM PDT by tpaine (" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: docbnj
"Most states have laws that your guns must be disassembled during transportation."

Not true. I suspect that your views have been influenced by living in one of the few rabidly antigun states on the east coast.

Most states allow you to carry your gun assembled. 48 states have a system for obtaining a concealed carry permit.

In many states, you have the right to carry a gun in your car for self defense, without a permit, and in most of the states that have permit system, the permit is easy to get.
24 posted on 03/14/2007 7:04:42 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert56
"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."

True, but your employer cannot require that your vocal cords be cut. The right to bear arms is restricted, you are not allowed to carry on your person while at work. But simply keeping the personal firearm in your vehicle, in a parking lot that is open to the public, is a restriction on your rights, because it prevents the exercise of those rights before and after work. It is no different than if your employer would choose to say that you could not have a bible stored in your vehicle, and I think the courts would react the same way to that.
25 posted on 03/14/2007 7:14:23 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert56
"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."

True, but your employer cannot require that your vocal cords be cut. The right to bear arms is restricted, you are not allowed to carry on your person while at work. But simply keeping the personal firearm in your vehicle, in a parking lot that is open to the public, is a restriction on your rights, because it prevents the exercise of those rights before and after work. It is no different than if your employer would choose to say that you could not have a bible stored in your vehicle, and I think the courts would react the same way to that.
26 posted on 03/14/2007 7:14:30 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: harpseal; TexasCowboy; AAABEST; Travis McGee; Squantos; Shooter 2.5; wku man; SLB; ...
There are colorable arguments on both sides of this debate.

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?

Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!

27 posted on 03/14/2007 7:14:46 AM PDT by Joe Brower (Sheep have two speeds: "graze" and "stampede".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sauropod

You could make a more asinine comment, right?


28 posted on 03/14/2007 7:19:34 AM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: docbnj
Most states have laws that your guns must be disassembled during transportation.

Most Some states have laws that your guns must be disassembled during transportation.

29 posted on 03/14/2007 7:20:13 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your most dangerous enemy is your own government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 2ndClassCitizen
Could you keep a hustler in your car?

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)

30 posted on 03/14/2007 7:24:19 AM PDT by Dilbert56
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: 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!).

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.

31 posted on 03/14/2007 7:25:49 AM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: green iguana

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.


32 posted on 03/14/2007 7:26:15 AM PDT by mathluv (Never Forget!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
Are you prepared to incur potential liability if anything should occur as a result of your restrictive policies

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.

33 posted on 03/14/2007 7:27:23 AM PDT by TYVets (God so loved the world he didn't send a committee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Old Dirty Bastiat

I see your point about property rights, but isn't my car MY property?

Isn't your body your property too?

34 posted on 03/14/2007 7:27:58 AM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: docbnj
"Most states have laws that your guns must be disassembled during transportation."

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.

35 posted on 03/14/2007 7:30:33 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel-NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TYVets

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.

36 posted on 03/14/2007 7:41:09 AM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Zon

I'm trying to be polite.

Suggest you do the same.


37 posted on 03/14/2007 7:42:54 AM PDT by sauropod ("An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools." Ernest Hemingway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: sauropod
Do as you choose and I'll do the same. Perhaps you'd prefer if I said you could make a more disingenuous comment, okay? 

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.

38 posted on 03/14/2007 7:50:13 AM PDT by Zon (Honesty outlives the lie, spin and deception -- It always has -- It always will.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: mathluv

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.


39 posted on 03/14/2007 7:54:18 AM PDT by green iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Zon

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.


40 posted on 03/14/2007 8:03:50 AM PDT by sauropod ("An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools." Ernest Hemingway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Zon; Old Dirty Bastiat; y'all
"-- 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 --"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


old dirty bastiat:

I see your point about property rights, but isn't my car MY property?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Zon:

Isn't your body your property too?


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A [constitutionally based] 'public policy' compromise has been made [in the workplace] between an absolute personal right to be armed, and a business owners right to control employees behavior on the job.

Employees can carry ~to~ the job, and leave their arms locked in their vehicles while working.

Why is this compromise opposed? Who benefits by restricting the individuals right to carry?
41 posted on 03/14/2007 8:05:37 AM PDT by tpaine (" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: amchugh; Dilbert56; neverdem
Dilbert56: "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."

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.

42 posted on 03/14/2007 8:20:41 AM PDT by TXnMA ("Allah": Satan's current alias...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble; sauropod; y'all
Noble claims:

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.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Hammer & the court case cited above differ:

"-- 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.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


sauropod:

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?).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


See last fridays DC decision on how our individual right to own & carry arms 'trumps' majority rule efforts to restrict that right.


Rearming - The D.C. gun ban gets overruled
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1800480/posts
43 posted on 03/14/2007 8:33:32 AM PDT by tpaine (" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: TXnMA
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?

44 posted on 03/14/2007 8:48:43 AM PDT by LexBaird (98% satisfaction guaranteed. There's just no pleasing some people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

It is an interesting decision but only a District Court..


45 posted on 03/14/2007 8:48:59 AM PDT by Jim Verdolini
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
... It is no different than if your employer would choose to say that you could not have a bible stored in your vehicle ...

Great analogy.

46 posted on 03/14/2007 8:58:36 AM PDT by relee ('Till the blue skies drive the dark clouds far away)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: LexBaird; TXnMA
TXnMA: "--- 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. --"

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'.

47 posted on 03/14/2007 9:15:14 AM PDT by tpaine (" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert56
You have no First Amendment rights at work: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ...". Your employer does not have to honor your right to speak, especially if it is derogatory to the company you work for.
48 posted on 03/14/2007 9:25:38 AM PDT by Will_Kansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
Are you prepared to incur potential liability if anything should occur as a result of your restrictive policies?

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?

49 posted on 03/14/2007 9:37:41 AM 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 27 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Bookmark
Bump
50 posted on 03/14/2007 9:39:02 AM PDT by Fiddlstix (Warning! This Is A Subliminal Tagline! Read it at your own risk!(Presented by TagLines R US))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-146 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