Posted on 10/07/2007 7:54:27 AM PDT by 2Am4Sure
The City of Chicago bans handguns. The Village of Morton Grove in Illinois bans handguns. As a matter of fact, there was a federal case regarding that: Quilici v Morton Grove where the 7th Circuit Court ruled,
"Because the second amendment is not applicable to Morton Grove and possession of handguns by individuals is not part of the right to keep and bear arms, Ordinance No. 81-11 does not violate the second amendment."
Comments?
Using that logic implies I have no rights, that I am a slave to my government. Wrong. I do have rights. I am no slave. I have property rights and so do you.
Maybe I should have said “IN THEORY, the government is not allowed to ban gun ownership.”
Illinois, New York, DC need to be slapped down for what I consider illegal taking of our Constitutional rights.
The Constitution has little bearing on our current government. It is used when it is convenient, ignored when it is convenient.
but can customers be prohibited?
There are limits, for example an employeer can not forbid an employee from voting or from going to jury duty.
but can customers be prohibited?
There are limits, for example an employeer can not forbid an employee from voting or from going to jury duty.
Well, in theory, the government is not allowed to infringe speech either. But the courts have ruled that Congress may "reasonably regulate" both the first and second amendments.
“Well, in theory, the government is not allowed to infringe speech either. But the courts have ruled that Congress may “reasonably regulate” both the first and second amendments.”
Your statement is both true and saddening.
El Gato erroneously claims:
The Constitution and Bill of Rights applies to government, not to private entities.
BearCub quotes 18 U.S.C. § 241, which makes it a crime to conspire to deprive someone of their constitutional rights:
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States...,
As we see above in the code, - your constitutional rights do not 'end' at your employer's doorstep (or gate, or whatever).
Our rights to own and carry arms are part of our "Law of the Land"
I think any employer [or 'private entity'] attempting to deprive a worker of his/her constitutional rights, both inside or outside of the workplace, - should have a long look at their own concepts about our constitution, and its protection of individual rights.
Private property rights do not trump our rights to carry arms. -- In rational people the two rights coexist without controversy.
How is your property threatened by an armed visitor or worker?
What right of theirs should I be concerned with? Where does this "right to not have firearms anywhere near me and to make my employees easy targets for criminals" come from?
Maybe so, but don't you think that is your employers decision and not yours?
Acting in an "open carry" position, you'd have a point. For keeping a personal firearm either concealed or within my PRIVATE vehicle, no.
Ahhh, the ubiquitous FReeper knee jerk to reach for the ad hominum insult when losing an argument. How liberal of you.
Losing? That was an accurate description of your position. You don't want employees, you want slaves that adhere to your every whim no matter how idiotic or dangerous. This, you have done nothing to refute. In fact:
I'm also an employer with hundreds of employees and don't allow any of them to carry while on duty.
Game. Set. Match. I hope your policy of enforced pacifism through "blackmail with the threat of loss of employment" doesn't get some of your employees killed some day.
I'm expected to abide by them, if I want to keep working there.
No, different in this case.
It depends on the type of property. If it's a "public accomodation" like a restaurant or hotel AND it is engaged in interstate commerce then no, you cannot discriminate. As an interesting side note: A small cafe in LA or MS wasn't serving blacks. The Federal Gov't got involved and a court ruled that since they were buying their ketchup packets (or something like that) from out of state, they were engaged in interstate commerce & the civil rights laws applied.
If you're talking about a truly private place like a home, then you can discriminate all day long.
The rule [prohibiting arms in private cars] is probably part of their lease agreement. They may have no choice.
The 'rule', is an unenforceable contract clause, - void, - because it infringes on our right to carry arms.
As you aptly put it:
It's a load of crap.
As long as we have a logic exercise here, the employer might also require that the employees are well armed at work and in the home.
Your logic is straw argumentation. Try again.
Before you had that property, did you have rights in this society? Yes, as protected in the Billorights. Before some communist bought it, fenced it off, and decided it was a communist parking lot, did someone passing by have rights to freedom of speech and to carry a gun on that property? Yes.
The constitution is very clear on which rights it deems worthy of protection.
Owning and carrying are two different things.
***One is the right to keep, the other is the right to bear — both rights protected in the constitution, not that it matters much to so many congressmen and others around here.
Well, that may be your opinion, but in your world where only your opinions and your rights are considered it may be functional. What about the opinions and rights of your employer and his customers?
***I’ve noticed that with gun ownership & carry conversations, the topic immediately gets moved to utilitarian levels. You point out that your opponent’s viewpoint is somehow not “functional” and don’t apply in the real world. Here’s an example: I was talking to an acquaintance when we were at a church camping trip, pointing out that we have the right to keep & bear arms. He said that if the ranger came around and saw that I had a gun, I wouldn’t be able to keep it for long. Note that the argument is no longer on whether or not I have that right, just whether or not it survives contact with someone whose job it is to enforce the law and the constitution. So I suggested that the enforcement only exists with sissy law enforcement officers in place, because when they ran across a group of Hell’s Angels camping [yes I have personally seen this], they did nothing nor said nothing about all the guns these guys were showing off. Those Hell’s Angels characters were exercising their rights and a lone camper has the same rights, but law enforcement officers can get a good feather in their cap if they bring in one concealed carry guy and further their career. LEOs don’t like to take on guys like the Hell’s Angels because they have more of a chance of getting hurt.
In your world, the utilitarian argument against your position would be something like this: If the NRA slapped a hefty lawsuit on your business and put protesters on the entrance to your property to discourage business, you’d reconsider your decision to take away 2nd Amendment rights from your employees.
I’m also an employer with hundreds of employees and don’t allow any of them to carry while on duty.
***Are there any other rights delineated in the constitution which you deny your employees? Any 1st amendment rights? How about the 14th amendment? Are you proud of your position with respect to not allowing your employees to exercise their rights?
“Before you had that property, did you have rights in this society? Yes, as protected in the Billorights. Before some communist bought it, fenced it off, and decided it was a communist parking lot, did someone passing by have rights to freedom of speech and to carry a gun on that property? Yes.”
I don’t understand what you’re saying here. What do communists have to do with this? Communism is the opposite of private property.
If you are suggesting that someone can come to my house and say anything he wants to because of freedom of speech, you don’t understand freedom of speech. You are free to speak in public. On my property I can make demands upon your behavior. If you don’t like my demands you are free to leave. But you have no right to free speech on private property. The same applies to guns or religion. I can ban Christians from my home if I want to.
Our Constitutional Rights don’t apply to demands a private citizen makes of visitors to his private property.
What is your position on private property rights?
A couple of things in response to your post. First, an employer conditioning employment on certain behavior is not a deprivation of constitutional rights. For example, requiring that an employee work certain hours is not a deprivation of freedom, but it is allowed. That is because no one is forced to comply. Either party can “quit” at any time.
Second, any of these protections COULD be done by statute even though there is no constitutional protection against private entities. A state or federal law could prohibit job discrimination based on whether one smokes or drinks off the job (or on the job, for that matter), or a law could protect the right to carry guns on the job. But without such laws, the rights of private property and personal choice rule.
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.