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.
Where does the constitution guarantee you a parking spot? Or a job?
It doesn't, and that's not the issue here.
Guns are beyond question an enumerated right, and 'businessmen' are infringing on our right to carry them.
So are property rights.
Gun owners are not infringing on property rights by carrying arms in their vehicles.
Rather than address the real issue, which is a conflict between two rights of two people, you would rather continue to demagogue.
Bull. The real issue is a conflict between two types of people, -- gun owners & those who would 'boss' them. -- 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.
No, he made a reasonable rule based on local robberies, the worker voluntarily agreed in order to have a convenient parking spot, and left the evidence of noncompliance in plain sight hanging around the rear view mirror. Now that I've stripped away your straw man interpretations of my hypothetical scenario, what should the jury say?
I'd bet they would still throw you out of court.
Our supreme law says we have a right to own & carry arms, which shall not be infringed.
It also says that we are to be secure in our property.
How does your employees gun in his locked car affect your right to be "secure in our property"? -- Get real..
< Your car and all its contents are only on that property by sufferance. If you don't like that, you are free to work or park elsewhere.
You are free to do business in a 'gun free' country. -- If you don't like our way, you are free to go elsewhere. England would welcome you.
Secondly, if your gun is in your car and you are not, you cannot be said to truly be "carrying" it. At that time, it is not a defense, it is just another possession. That's why I posed the question in terms of conflicting property rights.
If its "just another possession". why are you banning it?
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.