In Oklahoma, a Ban On Guns Pits State Against Big Firms (Weyerhaeuser Fired Workers w guns in Cars)

WSJ ^ | Nov. 26, 2004 | SUSAN WARREN

[TexasCowboy]

"There is a difference between a public enterprise and a private individual."

When it comes to the matter of private property, I don't think so.

[Desron13]

I agree with you on private property. The parking lot of a business is public property by it's very nature. If you are in business, do you get to dictate what your customers keep in their cars when they pull into your parking lot. If we are not living in a corporacy, why should we let company's dictate these rules to us?

[TexasCowboy]

"The border between my employer and myself stops at the door to my car. ie my personal property."

Not if that car is on your employer's property.

It is no different than your body being on company property.
They have the right to take urine samples from your body, and they have the right to make you pass through a scanner for weapons.
If you don't like it, you can work someplace else.

[Flint]

"The truth is that we don't need weapons in the workplace"

You cannot be serious. Who are you or anyone else to determine that I cannot exercise my God given right to protection? You may feel what your "need" is but don't you go telling me what my needs are. I go about armed all day everywhere, except for a few places that the government would put me in jail for.

At work I am armed, have been for many years. Only one person there knows it besides me and she is occasionally armed.

I cannot imagine anyone that is not willing to protect them self.

[TexasCowboy]

"The parking lot of a business is public property by it's very nature."

Unless I misread this article, this particular parking area was for employees only. That makes it private.

[Flint]

"Not if that car is on your employer's property."

I think you are wrong on that one. If a cop stops you on the street he cannot search your car without a warrent. It should be no different in a parking lot at a business.

[TexasCowboy]

"If you are in business, do you get to dictate what your customers keep in their cars when they pull into your parking lot."

Of course. There are many businesses with parking areas for employees and parking areas for customers, and they're clearly marked.

[TexasCowboy]

"If a cop stops you on the street he cannot search your car without a warrent."

In that case, you're on public property.

[TexasCajun]

What happens if a company is having Union trouble and fears guns may be used to intimidate, should they have to allow guns in the parking lot?

Well, how about checking each person or vehicle for a butter knife? Yeah! A butter knife!

A butter knife into the eye socket, deep into the brain would do the same as a bullet!

Outlaw Butter Knives Now!

[Desron13]

They hired me. That does not give them permission to delve into my private life. If I perform poorly they can fire me. Even the Police require serious probable cause to forcibly inspect my vehicle. If my current employer sent dogs into the parking lot to look for guns, I would immediately quit and find employment with someone who was a little less concerned with trampling the rights of their employees.

[deport]

I'd be surprised if their Company rules didn't include a ban on substances such as drugs and even alcohol in a vehicle in the company parking lot.

[TexasCowboy]

I agree with you, and that's exactly what I would do.

The point is that if we support a business owner's right to run his own business without governmental control, we have to support it in every instance, not just the ones we like.

[TexasCowboy]

Of course.
Most employee parking lots you drive into have signs saying, "No guns, no alcohol, no drugs", or something to that effect.
When you drive into their parking lot, you're under their authority, and that's the way it should be.

[two23]

"Someone brought up a good point... Females.. How about a woman that leaves the work place and wants a gun to defend herself on the way home?"

I know some men who would not be happy to have their wives driving around without their personal security device. Me, I would have to hand in my letter of resignation. The company is essentially telling me, I am not only working for them, but willing to die for them. Nope.

[Mulder]

Agreed, but it is their property

The private vehicles of their employees are NOT their property, as another FReeper pointed out on a different thread.

The employees themselves are not their property either.

Governments are instituted to defend our Rights as Free men, regardless of where the threat comes from. The Oklahoma legislature has not only the power, but also the duty to pass this law.

A corporation cannot infringe upon your basic rights simply because you are invited onto their property.

For those of you that think otherwise, simply take this out to it's logical conclusion. The gov't could simply transfer it's assets, such as roads, etc.... to "private corporations". (Of course, the gov't would still retain control, such as with the airlines). Then this "private corporation" could simply conduct random searches of passenger cars, and even set up checkpoints.

And I suspect that many "free market" posters here would have no problem whatsoever with this.

[Mulder]

The truth is that we don't need weapons in the workplace...and we all know this

BS. Your Right to self defense doesn't end when you go to work.

Furthermore, I think you'll find that most of the workplace shootings occur when guns are banned, and only the submissive and honest employees follows the edicts.

[Mulder]

If they can temporarily find a means to legally remove your right to self defense, then you can sue them for injury because they failed to protect you

I think the Utah legislature is in the process of doing exactly this.

Most big corporations do not care about the lives, Freedom, or property of their employees. Quoting Jefferson doesn't appeal to them whatsoever.

What they do understand, however, is money. Hit them where it hurts.

[Mulder]

Companies do not have what amounts to a de facto right to limit your consitutional rights in every way, shape and form simply because you work there.

Exactly correct!

[Desron13]

The problem is that the government can force this mandate through business' and that is what's really happening.

[Mulder]

A company has the right to make policy about THEIR property.

That's not what this judge said. You'll notice that he didn't overturn ANY of the other gov't regulations on company policy, included but not limited to: sexual harassment, diversity, environment, taxes, etc....

As such this has nothing to with the property rights of a corporation and everything to do with restricting the 2nd Rights of gunowners.

This decision is nothing less than harassment of gunowners, who happen to live in a state where the legislature recognizes their basic Rights.

To treat it as anything else, is foolish and short-sighted.