Restrictions cannot contravene the Constitution

The Star-Telegram ^ | Mar. 12, 2007 | MARION P. HAMMER

[tpaine]

No person has the right to enter another person's property. 

Employees are given permission to enter & park their vehicles on the employers property. -- It is an unreasonable infringement to ban guns from being locked up in those vehicles.

Freedom of association is [one of] the root[s] of objective law in society.

Protection of individual rights is another.

It takes two people to mutually agree to associate with one another. It takes just one person to refuse to associate with another person -- just say "no".

'Just say no' to autocratic businessmen who seek to disarm employees.

Only when freedom of association is violated does a person have probable need to defend themselves -- such as a business owner defending his business/property against a person that violates store policy/rules.

Senseless 'rules' that infringe on employees rights to carry arms to and from work cannot be tolerated in a free republic.

Ignorance proclaims that an equal man at home becomes a second-class citizen when he goes to his store/business.

Ignorance proclaims that an equal man at home becomes a second-class citizen when he goes to work disarmed by his employers 'rules'.

Or does it include that a person in their home can't make his own gun rules/policy?

A person in their home can make his own gun rules/policy, affecting only a few visitors. Employers infringements on carrying affect all their employees & customers. -- And contravenes our 'law of the land'.

[LexBaird]

First, tpaine, realize the difference between our arguments, and stop counter arguing something I am not asking. Address the philosophical question I posed honestly.

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?

An employers 'conditions' cannot deprive his employees of their constitutional rights.

Personally, I don't oppose carry by any competent, honest citizen. But I also don't believe that one Right always trumps another Right. When two rights are in conflict, there are only two ways to resolve it. Either you compromise each somewhat by voluntary agreement, or you go your separate ways. But the Government should have no say in that interaction, unless the Government is one party, or one of the two private parties tries to use force on the other. Otherwise, it is the Government who is using the force of coercion to impose a compromise.

Gun owners are not infringing on property rights by carrying arms in their vehicles.

They are if they have no permission to enter the private property with them. If I say you may visit my home any time, as long as you leave your swords at the gate, that in no way infringes on your RKBA. You are free to say, "No thanks, I won't visit," or free to voluntarily comply. You are not free to enter bearing your sword, and carrying that sword within your privately owned scabbard does not change that.

How does your employees gun in his locked car affect your right to be "secure in our property"? -- Get real..

To be secure in your property is what all property rights descend from. It means that others may not do as they will with or on your property. They must first obtain agreement from the owner. Between the 3rd, 4th and 5th amendments, we are protected from entry and forced use of our property without due process of law.

If some private parking lot owner feels that, for whatever stupid reason, weapons on his property are not desirable, it is his right to disallow their presence and the presence of those bearing them. You have no reason to force him to do so just because you wish to remain employed by him. Now, if your services are desirable enough, you may come to some accommodation, such as the compromise of leaving your gun in your car, but you have no right to that accommodation.

If its "just another possession". why are you banning it?

The same reason an employer can ban any other possession on his property. Because it's his property, and his business, and he wants it that way. Just as he can demand you wear a uniform, wash your hands, refrain from political arguments or profanity, not post pictures in your assigned cubicle or park a foreign built vehicle in his lot.

[looscnnn]

I think it time to start taking our business somewhere else and to let UPS know why we are. If they get enough complaints and enough business lost, they will see the light.

[looscnnn]

I think it time to start taking our business somewhere else and to let UPS know why we are. If they get enough complaints and enough business lost, they will see the light.

[LexBaird]

What could be more reasonable as a resolution of those conflicts than to mandate that weapons must be left locked in vehicles, unless the business allows other wise?

What could be more reasonable? How about staying the heck out of the resolution, and not "mandating" anything that should be decided by contract between individual parties?

When you say "mandate", you are saying, "compliance enforceable by Government coercion". You are lending all the power of the Government to one side of a private agreement, and ceding the argument they have any authority or business in the argument to begin with. Once ceded, you have opened the floodgates to things like ADA lawsuits, Affirmative Action mandates, mandatory unionization, etc.

[archy]

I do not believe the Constitution grants the Government the authority to regulate who a private citizen hires or associates with, nor to support members of a particular sect or race; it forbids the Government from doing so. By extension, the Government cannot contract out to businesses which have such practices.

Application; Title VII of the 1968 Civil Rights Act: Workers must be employed by a company with 15 or more employees. The act protects workers from discrimination based on:

Race/color
National origin
Sex (includes gender, pregnancy and sexual harassment)
Religion
Retaliation on the basis of having opposed an unlawful employment practice.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act provides discrimination protection to workers, age 40 and older, in companies of 20 or more employees.

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 protects disabled workers in companies with 15 or more employees.

The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) covers workers in companies with 50 or more employees.

Federal discrimination complaints must be filed within 300 days of the date the discrimination occurred. FMLA complaints must be filed within two years, however. Please note, that Oregon employers covered by both federal and state laws must follow the law that provides the most protection for employees.

[LexBaird]

What's your point? That bigots sometimes run businesses, or that the Government has unconstitutionally seized the authority to ban bigotry?

[archy]

What's your point? That bigots sometimes run businesses, or that the Government has unconstitutionally seized the authority to ban bigotry?

The second. That authority is not enumerated nor described by the constitution that I'm sworn to support and defend. The derivitive question is: by usurping such authority and by cloaking it as *precedent,* are those who do so among the enemies, foreign and domestic from whom the constitution requires protection- and how best to fulfill that obligation.

[tpaine]

First, tpaine, realize the difference between our arguments, and stop counter arguing something I am not asking. Address the philosophical question I posed honestly.

I have answered honestly, arguing the constitutionality of the issue. -- Your inference to the contrary is dishonest.

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?
An employers 'conditions' cannot deprive his employees of their constitutional rights.

Personally, I don't oppose carry by any competent, honest citizen.

Yet you defend businessmen who do.

But I also don't believe that one Right always trumps another Right. When two rights are in conflict, there are only two ways to resolve it. Either you compromise each somewhat by voluntary agreement, or you go your separate ways.

That's exactly my point. Businessmen are free to go elsewhere to do business if they feel our right to carry is wrong. England beckons.

But the Government should have no say in that interaction, unless the Government is one party, or one of the two private parties tries to use force on the other.

Businessmen force the issue by firing employees with guns locked in their cars. -- The courts defend our rights, as is their duty.

Otherwise, it is the Government who is using the force of coercion to impose a compromise.

They're using the constitution to defend an individual right to carry, and you're opposing that right.

Gun owners are not infringing on property rights by carrying arms in their vehicles.

They are if they have no permission to enter the private property with them.

They have permission to park their vehicles. -- What's locked in an employees vehicle is none of the employers concern.

If I say you may visit my home any time, as long as you leave your swords at the gate, that in no way infringes on your RKBA. You are free to say, "No thanks, I won't visit," or free to voluntarily comply. You are not free to enter bearing your sword, and carrying that sword within your privately owned scabbard does not change that.

Your home 'rule' only affects your few visitors. -- Business rules affect many, and infringe on our right to carry arms while going about our business.

How does your employees gun in his locked car affect your right to be "secure in our property"? -- Get real..

To be secure in your property is what all property rights descend from.

That's not an answer.

It means that others may not do as they will with or on your property.

That's not an answer.

They must first obtain agreement from the owner. Between the 3rd, 4th and 5th amendments, we are protected from entry and forced use of our property without due process of law.

That's still not an answer. -- Your security is not affected by a gun in an employees car

If some private parking lot owner feels that, for whatever stupid reason, weapons on his property are not desirable, it is his right to disallow their presence and the presence of those bearing them.

There you go, simply denying that our constitution specifically protects the carrying of arms, and does not protect the "stupid reasoning" of parking lot owners.

You have no reason to force him to do so just because you wish to remain employed by him.

Enforcing our right to carry arms is a excellent reason.

Now, if your services are desirable enough, you may come to some accommodation, such as the compromise of leaving your gun in your car, but you have no right to that accommodation.

Round you go, defending the 'right' to ban guns from parking lots. Why?

If its "just another possession". why are you banning it?

The same reason an employer can ban any other possession on his property. Because it's his property, and his business, and he wants it that way. Just as he can demand you wear a uniform, wash your hands, refrain from political arguments or profanity, not post pictures in your assigned cubicle or park a foreign built vehicle in his lot.

What more need be said? The anti-constitutional gun grabber "wants it that way."

[Zon]

stop counter arguing something I am not asking. Address the philosophical question I posed honestly.

I usually stop responding when obfuscation and stubborn irrationality persists. When it doesn't stop, that's why I cut off responding a couple months ago. Sadly that it has to come to that so often on this forum. Or any forum for that matter.

Either you compromise each somewhat by voluntary agreement, or you go your separate ways.

Same holds for race, sex, age, religion, sexual preference and any other thing that a person can freely chooses to just say "no" to and walk away.

[LexBaird]

Personally, I don't oppose carry by any competent, honest citizen.

Yet you defend businessmen who do.

Yes, I do. Because I would not choose to exercise my property rights in this case does not mean I would deny others that same free choice. You would, and would use the coercive might of the government to force your will on them.

Businessmen are free to go elsewhere to do business if they feel our right to carry is wrong. England beckons.

They are also free to do so here. And you are free not to work for or patronize them, without the government intruding on the association or lack thereof. Instead, you would have the inverse of England's solution. Instead of oppressive coercion to prevent the exercise of the RKBA of the employee, you advocate oppressive coercion to prevent the exercise of property rights of the business owner.

Businessmen force the issue by firing employees with guns locked in their cars. -- The courts defend our rights, as is their duty.

That is not an exercise of force. It is an exercise of the right to free association. Both sides get to decide the conditions under which their association will continue, and both have the power to unilaterally end that association. The employer cannot force the worker to labor, nor can the worker force the employer to give him labor. You would not only force, via government penalty, the infringement of property rights of the 3rd, 4th and 5th amendments, but the association rights of the 1st.

Your home 'rule' only affects your few visitors. -- Business rules affect many, and infringe on our right to carry arms while going about our business.

So, your rights only count if their exercise effects "a few" and not "many"? Alert the Media that their exercise of the Free Press is void, because too many are effected negatively.

You're just like the gun grabbers you condemn, who justify banning various weapons, because too many people are negatively impacted. What you are really saying is you want the rights of others limited by law, so that yours can be blissfully unimpinged by those whose rights you intersect.

There you go, simply denying that our constitution specifically protects the carrying of arms, and does not protect the "stupid reasoning" of parking lot owners.

There you go, simply denying that our constitution specifically protects private property rights, and does not protect the desire of gun owners to convey guns thereon against the owner's will, either in their hip holster or their vehicle.

What more need be said? The anti-constitutional gun grabber "wants it that way."

Who is more "anti-constitutional": he who would balance all of the rights found therein, or he who would use one section to deny the others? I think ALL the provisions of the Constitution deserve respect, even if that occasionally impacts me negatively.

[Non-Sequitur]

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.

Ummm...yes they do.

[neverdem]

Ummm...yes they do.

Good for them. They deserve to be driven out of business for denying the right to self defense. Good folks should not work for them or use their products or services. They should rot in Hades, IMHO.

[Non-Sequitur]

Good for them. They deserve to be driven out of business for denying the right to self defense. Good folks should not work for them or use their products or services. They should rot in Hades, IMHO.

We talking about the same UPS? Good luck.

[tpaine]

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."

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.

Thus, -- we see that 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?

Lex Baird complains about the above argument:

Stop counter arguing something I am not asking. Address the philosophical question I posed honestly.

I contend that the argument above does answer your questions.

Either you compromise each [right] somewhat by voluntary agreement, or you go your separate ways.

Agreed, as per above. --- 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. --
-- That's essentially what this article is about.

Zon 'piles on':

I usually stop responding when obfuscation and stubborn irrationality persists.

Nothing in the above argument entails "obfuscation and stubborn irrationality". -- Feel free to prove otherwise.

When it doesn't stop, that's why I cut off responding a couple months ago.

You 'cut off' our discussion on this issue, -- because you can't refute the arguments I've made defending our right to carry arms. -- I welcome any efforts to prove me/or that stance "irrational".

[Zon]

You 'cut off' our discussion on this issue, -- because you can't refute the arguments I've made defending our right to carry arms. -- I welcome any efforts to prove me/or that stance "irrational".

Myself and several other posters have obliterated your arguments over the past couple months. You're in denial dude. That's your problem -- not mine. Deal with it. Or don't. It makes no difference to me.

[tpaine]

"-- Myself and several other posters have obliterated your arguments over the past couple months. You're in denial dude. --"


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


Amazing concept Zon. -- You refuse to argue the constitutionality of the issue - yet declare you have "obliterated arguments".

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


Years ago I read an essay by a great American, Ezra Taft Benson:

The Proper Role of Government

Address:http://www.usiap.org/Legacy/Addresses/ProperRoleOfGovt.html

In it he does a pretty good job of explaining natural rights, -- and why one man cannot disarm another:



----- Natural Rights -----

"--- In a primitive state, there is no doubt that each man would be justified in using force, if necessary, to defend himself against physical harm, against theft of the fruits of his labor, and against enslavement of another.
This principle was clearly explained by Bastiat:

-- "Each of us has a natural right--from God--to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?" (The Law, p. 6.)

Indeed, the early pioneers found that a great deal of their time and energy was being spent doing all three--defending themselves, their property and their liberty--in what properly was called the "Lawless West."
In order for man to prosper, he cannot afford to spend his time constantly guarding his family, his fields, and his property against attack and theft, so he joins together with his neighbors and hires a sheriff.

At this precise moment, government is born. The individual citizens delegate to the sheriff their unquestionable right to protect themselves. The sheriff now does for them only what they had a right to do for themselves--nothing more. Quoting again form Bastiat:

-- "If every person has the right to defend--even by force--his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right--its reason for existing, it lawfulness--is based on individual right." (The Law, p. 6.)


So far so good. But now we come to the moment of truth. Suppose pioneer "A" wants another horse for his wagon. He doesn't have the money to buy one, but since pioneer "B" has an extra horse, he decides that he is entitled to share in his neighbor's good fortune.
Is he entitled to take his neighbor's horse? Obviously not! If his neighbor wishes to give it or lend it, that is another question. But so long as pioneer "B" wishes to keep his property, pioneer "A" has no just claim to it.

If "A" has no proper power to take "B's" property, can he delegate any such power to the sheriff? No.

Even if everyone in the community desires that "B" give his extra horse to "A", they have no right individually or collectively to force him to do it.

They cannot delegate a power they themselves do not have.

This important principle was clearly understood and explained by John Locke nearly 300 years ago:

-- "For nobody can transfer to another more power than he has in himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life or property of another. (Two Treatises of Civil Government, II, 135,; P.P.N.S., p. 93.)

--The Proper Function Of Government--

This means, then, that the proper function of government is limited only to those spheres of activity within which the individual citizen has the right to act. --"


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


Thus we see:

--- 'Even if everyone in the community desires -- [that employees be disarmed while going to or from work] -- they have no right individually or collectively to force them to do it. --'

"-- They cannot delegate a power they themselves do not have. --"


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


Fairly simple constitutional principle, but a lot of FReepers seem to have a very tough time understanding it...

[FreedomCalls]

"... on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens ..."

Dude, that only applies for deprivation of civil rights that are applied differently according to the above. It does not address and does not apply to the difference between armed and non-armed persons.

[LexBaird]

Either you compromise each [right] somewhat by voluntary agreement, or you go your separate ways.

Agreed, as per above. --- 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. -- -- That's essentially what this article is about.

Apparently, you cannot distinguish between "voluntary agreement" and "imposed by Government Decree".

[tpaine]

Where do you see a government decree?