both LasVegasDave and TonyRo76.
Posted on 08/28/2010 6:25:12 PM PDT by marktwain
Ohio businesses no longer could stop employees with concealed-carry licenses from bringing their guns onto the premises under a House bill that is backed by a bipartisan mix of 31 co-sponsors.
State business groups are not thrilled about the idea.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Joe Uecker, R-Loveland, proposes allowing a licensee to store his or her gun in a locked car while it is parked on an employer's lot. Current law gives businesses the ability to ban guns from any part of company grounds.
"Employees should not be discriminated against just because they choose to exercise their Second Amendment right," Uecker said.
"This legislation will prevent intrusive company policies on personal freedoms and possible dismissal simply based on the merit that management does not agree with the individual's right."
Uecker said 13 other states have similar laws.
Two Franklin County representatives, Cheryl Grossman, R-Grove City, and Nancy Garland, D-New Albany, have signed on in support of House Bill 571.
The National Federation of Independent Business/Ohio has not taken an official position on the bill.
"Our members have told us that private-property rights are important to them, and this seems to scale back some of that," said Chris Ferruso, legislative director for the small-business group. "There is always the slippery-slope argument out there."
(Excerpt) Read more at dispatchpolitics.com ...
The odds of the employee ever needing a weapon stored in a car are really off the chart. And if they do, then they’ll save the day, and I doubt the company will utter a sound.
So, until they put in full car searches, x-rays, or some other invasion of privacy, I’d just not ask and do it anyway.
They can't disarm people and then not be held accountable for leaving them unable to defend themselves.
I believe yours is the correct position.
|
...I would also add that even in the event an employer chooses to bar firearms from the workplace, employees should still be allowed to keep a weapon secured in their vehicles in order to protect themselves during the commute to and from work.
Once again you and I are in agreement.
This is great. Companies don’t have the authority to tell an employee they can’t have a legal item in their own personal vehicle, regardless of where it is parked. It’s sad that states even need to pass such a law.
They need to be held responsible on the way to and from work if I have to leave my .38 at home. I have to go over the rive and through the hood to get to work and go home.
“...I would also add that even in the event an employer chooses to bar firearms from the workplace, employees should still be allowed to keep a weapon secured in their vehicles in order to protect themselves during the commute to and from work.”
I believe that is exactly what this law does.
Ohio ping!
The employers "property rights" end at the outer skin of the employees vehicle. There is no reasonable "property rights" argument to be made here. Why should the employer have more rights than the police?? Cops have to ask to search your vehicle in the absence of "reasonable suspicion" of a criminal act.
Why don't you read my other comments where I already addressed vehicles and the commute to and from work?
"Cops have to ask to search your vehicle in the absence of "reasonable suspicion" of a criminal act."
That's right...a cop has to get your consent. You have entered into a voluntary agreement with your employer, and have consented to follow the rules and conditions he sets for the workplace. If your employer tells you to wear a tie every day and you refuse to, he should have every right to fire you. If he says you can't use company resources for personal email or web-surfing and you do, he should have every right to fire you. If he says he doesn't want you to carry concealed at the office and you do, he should have every right to fire you.
I would tend to agree with that idea but employers are not legally responsible for the results of anti-gun policies. If employees are made vulnerable to wackos who on a rampage kill or injure them, companies are do not bear responsibility of any kind for restricting employees from being able to bear arms.
Tell you what I would go for though. A law should be passed that if an employer has an anti gun policy and as a result an employee is hurt or killed by a wacko then the company must pay the next of kin two million dollars assessed as a penalty for each life lost (less of course if someone is just maimed).
Companies should be held legally responsible if they have a policy that prevents law abiding workers from being able to protect themselves.
That’s my exact point...an employer is perfectly within their rights to enact a policy that prohibits its employees from carrying a weapon in the workplace...just as they can pass a policy requiring them to wear a tie. Likewise, they need to be on notice that in disarming their employees and inhibiting their ability to defend themselves they assume civil, if not criminal liability should an employee be maimed or killed because the employee was prevented from defending themself as a result of the policy.
I agree with you on the work place issue but I still think that they are out of bounds as far as unloaded in the car or trunk goes.
Yeah, I cleared that up way back in reply #6.
Has anyone heard if Kasich supports this?
My take on the article and the proposed law is that this is the extent of the change. Right now, the employees automobile is "on company property," and the employer can ban firearms from their parking lot.
If weapons are banned from the entire property, then most all are subject to dismissal for we have dangerous weapons“tire irons” in the trunks of our cars, and even cars can be considered dangerous weapons if they come crashing through the lobbies...!!!! < /sarc >
It's called "lack of time. I have very little time available to spend on FR, and certainly not enough read every post even on every thread I might comment on.
"You have entered into a voluntary agreement with your employer, and have consented to follow the rules and conditions he sets for the workplace. If your employer tells you to wear a tie every day and you refuse to, he should have every right to fire you. If he says you can't use company resources for personal email or web-surfing and you do, he should have every right to fire you. If he says he doesn't want you to carry concealed at the office and you do, he should have every right to fire you."
None of those are "property rights". They are contractual rights, and the state has always had the right to set limits on what contracts may and may not contain.
Weapons are a self-defense issue. If you'd retaliate with your fists if attacked at work, then you are recognizing that trusting your life to others because of property issues is not reasonable.
It is no accident that the Dec of Ind goes: LIFE, liberty, pursuit of happiness (which would include ownership of property.)
Life is the ultimate issue. At the same time, I agree with you that property is a very serious right and not to be taken lightly.
the state has always had the right to set limits on what contracts may and may not containCorrect. Business contracts don't trump the constitution.
Thank you for the PING, Las Vegas Dave.
If I would want to have a gun while driving to and from work for self-defense, I would not want to leave it locked in my car for someone to steal and use in potential crime. I just don’t think it’s a wise thing to do.
That is the big conundrum. Property rights vs. 2A rights. What is to stop an employer from telling his employees that thay cannot park on the company property if they have firearms in their vehicle? (yeah, I know- don't tell them.)
OK, forget I asked that. I just went back and re-read the article. (I need new glasses).
Which is precisely why the employee must decide if they wish to work for an employer who does not want weapons on his property, just as you must choose to shop at a store, eat at a restaurant, visit an acquaintance or attend a church that prohibits weapons on their property. Once again, the rights of one individual (i.e. the weapon bearer) stop where the rights of others (i.e. the respective property owners) begin.
If a salesman showed up at your door to sell magazine subscriptions, and you invited him in to your house, and he opened up his sales brochures showing the array of marxist literature he was peddling, you would throw him out the door. He has a right to earn a living. He has a First Amendment right to sell his claptrap, but your property rights trump his rights on your property.
Thanks for the ping!
We had a workplace shooting at a sister plant in St Louis earlier, had there been even 1 person with a CC permit maybe so many would not have died or been injured..instead we have a no weapons policy and the lawsuits are flying
That conundrum has actually been fairly resolved here in Louisiana, where the interior of one's automobile is considered an extension of one's household. You can actually conceal a weapon in your car, or on your person in your car without a permit, just as you would in the privacy of your own home. If you step out of the vehicle without a CCW permit you'd just better not have your weapon on you.
NM has the same setup. One place they got it right.
You guys banned cockfighting about the same time we did too!
Pushed it underground. There’s still a lot going on.
Same thing happened here. Pretty bizarre subculture.
I’m saying that Life trumps Property.
I can defend myself on someone else’s private property.
Nobody's denying that. However, the property owner still has every right to decide whether he wants you there or not in the first place. If he has a rule against firearms, swords, neckties, chainsaws, pets, etc. you have no choice but to comply with the rules, leave or knowingly trespass.
Joe, I’m saying that in the hierarchy of Rights, that Life is the ultimate right and that it trumps his ownership rights.
In my opinion, I have a right to be armed in any place, however, there are some places where I’m searched to prevent that.
But...I still have the right.
I was on duty at Ft Knox, Ky, the day a former Knox employee, and husband of one of my daughter’s teachers, killed some people over an employment dispute. The dead needed to have been armed.
And there is no place, if you ask Ft Hood’s Major Hassan, that controls weapons the way a military installation controls weapons.
Nonetheless, this crazy man had one there. And no one else did. They died.
I agree with you. What you miss is that the exercise of rights has consequences when other people choose to assert their rights.
You have the right to tell your employer that he's a foolish clown with horrible body odor, and couldn't find his ass with both hands and a flashlight. Nobody denies you that right. It's just that there may be consequences for doing so.
The mere concept of liberty is not only one that offers personal choices and decisions, but sometimes compels one to make them. You can choose to work for an employer that prohibits weapons in the workplace, or you can look for work elsewhere...
Any protestations aforehand about denying me a right that trumps all other rights is moot.
It is the same as if the policy is never mentioned.
It depends on the specific rights in question. Frankly, I consider my right to self defense, and the tools to do so, as more important than mere property rights. If you'll remember, in the first draft of the Declaration of Independence, it was "Life, liberty, and property" in that order. And there "is" a reason for that order. Without life, you can enjoy neither liberty nor property.
This notion that "property rights" automatically trump all others is simply BS. Such has never been the case.
I'm not sure where you're getting that notion from. I certainly have not argued otherwise: A property owner can not inhibit your right to life, but he can choose whether or not you spend any of your lifetime on his property, and can set conditions that you are free to accept or reject for accessing his property. A private homeowner, employer, etc. can set pretty much any condition they want for allowing people access to their property.
I don't know where you or others get this "hierarchy" of rights business from either. All those rights are "inalienable" meaning they all have equal precedence and weight. Of course you need to be alive to enjoy the others, but that's ridiculously obvious. Yet, just because you have an inaleinable right to free speech does not mean the local baptist church has any obligation to allow you to engage in your nude performance art in their sanctuary. You have an inalienable right to life, but you have absolutely no right to spend any of that life on the couch in my living room. I can voluntarily allow you access to my living room, but I'm also perfectly within my rights to deny you access if I don't like the way you dress, the way you behave or the way you smell. That doesn't mean I don't respect your right to life, and my assertion of my property rights is in no way inhibiting your right to life. You merely have to go live it elsewhere.
How does one inalienable right carry greater weight or precedence than another? I know you're an educated man, and I normally have a lot of respect for your commentary on here, but think this through...
An employer's capital, premises, facilities, equipment, etc. are his means of production...they are in fact his livliehood. He engages employees to operate and utilize them to earn their own livliehoods, and while this remains a somewhat free country, both parties enter into that arrangement voluntarily, accepting the terms of employment and compensation.
The employer does, in many ways have the upper-hand...he's the one that signs the paychecks, and owns the property. He has every right to set the rules as to how it's used...whether that means that employees have to submit to random urinalyses, wear pink and green bowties, show up at work at 4:00 a.m. etc., in exchange for $X.XX per hour....the employer sets the terms which an employee is free to accept or reject.
Nobody is denying that any person has a right to life, or to self-defense, but the employer does have a legitimate right to (in a sense) dictate what means a person on their property and in their employ may use in doing so. The individual is free to accept the terms as conditions of employment or not. To assert that the employee should be able to call the shots and ignore conditions set by the employer while using the employer's facilities and property is tantamount to dictating that the employee actually has more rights to the employer's property than the employer himself!
Moreover, it leads to an almost marxist conclusion that even though the employer may have invested his life, all his wealth and personal time in accruing and purchasing the company's facilities, the employee somehow can dictate the conditions under which he or she can use them because their right to "life" implies some type of obligation on the employer and the use of his property to keep them employed in spite of their disregard for his rules.
If you go way back to my earliest posts on this thread, you'll see where I suggested that even though an employer should have the right to dictate whether or not CCW license holders should be able to carry at work, the law should also hold those very same employers accountable for the safety and security of persons at the workplace and they should have civil, if not in some cases, criminal liability if their employees are injured for want of the ability to protect themselves....but that's another case where liberty forces one to make a decision instead of having the rules dictated.
I agree that we’ve been friendly co-combatants on many threads, and I’m not going to ruin that just to make a point here.
Let’s just say that I think nothing, except intervention by God, comes between a man and his right to defend his own life.
I consider both our positions entirely honorable. The man who violates his employer’s rules (to the extent that they’re legal) has no recourse if fired. He knew the rules and chose himself to disobey them.
The question for me is this: would I disobey those rules? And the answer is yes.
I refuse to put up the “no weapons sign” on our building that the hierarchy has sent me in the mail. I don’t tell them I’m not doing it. I just never find the time to do it.
I want some among those attendees armed in this age of nuts and dingbats.
I'm in perfect agreement with that; however, I also agree with the old adage that it's better to die standing than to live in perpetual subjugation, and in that regard, yes, I believe there are things worse than dying...and the restrictions and mandates over what a person can and can't do with their private property is in fact the first step in that direction towards slavery.
It is putting an external claim on their means of production and the fruits of their labor for the use by others, and when extrapolated and taken to it's logical extreme, that qualifies as virtual slavery. Suppose a young customer service rep couldn't afford a concealable handgun, and the only firearm they had to protect themself with was gramps' M1 Garand. Would you allow them to come to work with it slung over their shoulder? Suppose the arthritic diner waitress couldn't operate a firearm and had a pet pitbull as her only means of protection. Should she be allowed to bring it to her workplace?
In either case, I don't think the employer is against the employee's right to self-defense or their right to life, but they do have a say as to the means the employee's choose to exercise those rights at the workplace, and to deny the employer that say so, and dictate that their business facilities should be accessible to those employees on the employee's terms is not somewhere we want to go.
Then you're in good company with millions, if not billions of slaves throughout history who felt that saving their own life was a fair tradeoff for allowing somebody else to enjoy the fruits of their labor.
I can think of a whole lot of people whose names are engraved in marble, granite and bronze at various locations around this country who felt that liberty was bigger than any individual life including their own. I'll stand with them.
That would be "history", especially the history of the Founding Fathers and their background in "natural rights theory".
"All those rights are "inalienable" meaning they all have equal precedence and weight."
Sorry, Dudley, but the Founding Fathers believed no such thing.
"Of course you need to be alive to enjoy the others, but that's ridiculously obvious.
A lot of "ridiculously obvious" things are often misunderstood, or not understood at all.
Here's a slight clue. I would agree that your "right to property" is of greater worth than my right to keep and bear arms....IN YOUR DOMICILE. There is a statement from English history that goes something like "a man's home is his castle, wherein even the King may not enter without leave", or something to that effect. But at your place of business, especially if located in a "bad neighborhood"......NO!
Sorry, Joe, but that comment is just plain dumb. If you retain life and liberty, how can anyone else "enjoy the fruits of your labor". Note that Jefferson thought that the right to property was of still of sufficient importance to include it in his natural/inalienable rights. I believe it was Franklin who suggested he make the change.
"I can think of a whole lot of people whose names are engraved in marble, granite and bronze at various locations around this country who felt that liberty was bigger than any individual life including their own. I'll stand with them."
I think you need to go back and read a bit more history of the Revolution and the philosophies that led up to it. Yes, the FF offered their lives....VOLUNTARILY. The gov't wasn't forcing them to do so. That is the critical difference.
You feel that an employer, who has expended a portion of his life accumulating property and the means of production must surrender part of that to his employees to use as they see fit, and that the employer has no choice in the matter. That is, as I indicated in my discussion with xzins, a road we don't want to go down.
I'll ask the same questions I asked xzins...What if a McDonald's employee working the counter can't afford a concealable firearm and has as his only defensive weapon an M1 Garand. Should the employer be required to allow the employee to keep the weapon slung over his shoulder as he takes orders from his customers? You and I may think that's pretty cool, but it would probably put a dent in the employer's bottom line that the employer is under no obligation to incur. What if an arthritic diner waitress was incapable of operating a firearm and had as her only means of self defense her pet pitbull or german shepherd...should the diner owner be obliged to allow her to bring her dog to work?
In no case is the employer impinging on the employees right to self defense or life, but he is exercising his right to dictate the means by which they do. It is the employee's choice to accept or reject the terms of employment as they see fit, and which it is fully within the employer's rights to present.
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.