Posted on 10/07/2007 7:54:27 AM PDT by 2Am4Sure
When an employer doesn’t allow guns to be locked in cars in their parking lots, they are preventing their employees the ability to defend themselfs on the trip to work, and the trip home (or wherever one goes after work). Will the company be responsible for any harm to the employees after they leave the parking lot? NO, of course not.
I’m sure the next post will say, “well, they can just get other off-company parking”. That is not always possible.
IMHO, if a company doesn’t want guns in cars in their parking lots, then let them set up a guard station at the entrance and let the employees check their guns on the way in and retrieve them on the way out. Otherwise, the company should completely indemnify the employees for any loss while they are dis-armed because of the company policy.
I don’t understand what you’re saying here. What do communists have to do with this? Communism is the opposite of private property.
***True enough and well said. Before that property was owned by a private individual and it was raw land in the U.S., it was a property that we citizens had 1st & 2nd amendment rights over. Anyone who wanted to could go out to that clump of land and give a sermon with a gun in his hand. But then that property got bought by someone with an authoritarian bent, and he decided that these citizens should not have such rights, so he took them away. I’m not talking about a guy living in his house, I’m talking about a guy setting up shop and engaging citizens in commerce. If the citizens get upset enough, they can picket his property at the sidewalk and carry guns while doing so. Those 1st & 2nd amendment rights existed before that authoritarian bought that property and they still exist. Those citizens could sue him for taking away their rights. If citizens did this on a regular basis, employers would not be engaging in such activity. Those rights STILL EXIST even though there is an authoritarian dude who owns the property and wants to tell these citizens not to exercise their rights. The enforcement of such rights becomes an inductive pursuit.
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.
***No, I’m not saying your house. I’m saying your place of business where you choose to take away the rights of these citizens in this land you chose to set up shop in. Do citizens have a right to come and knock on your door at your house to ask you a question? Probably. And as soon as you tell them to leave, they can be arrested for trespassing if they do not leave because you own the property. We are NOT talking about your private residence — any further redirecting of the argument onto private residency will be pointed out for what it is, a straw argument. But if that property is for commercial use and you’re inviting regular citizens onto it for conducting business, the constitution has a few things to say about the rights of the people you let onto your property. The bill of rights protects certain rights like freedom of speech and religion. If you choose to ban christians from your workplace, your business is likely to get shut down. For now. The tide is changing on this aspect because of the unpopularity of Christ, but that doesn’t mean that right doesn’t exist.
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.
***You are free to set up shop in my country. In my country we have the right to speak our minds, freedom of religion. If you don’t like that, you are free to leave and set up shop in another country.
But you have no right to free speech on private property.
***By engaging in business, it is no longer just a private property where you live.
The same applies to guns or religion. I can ban Christians from my home if I want to.
***Yes, you can ban christians from your home. The constitution protects christians at the work place, the same constitution that delineates private property rights of ownership.
Our Constitutional Rights don’t apply to demands a private citizen makes of visitors to his private property.
***Here’s where the right to private property came from: the constitution. Here’s where the right to 1st & 2nd amendments came from: the constitution. Well, okay, they “came from” the Creator and the constitution outlines certain rights that it chooses to protect for us citizens. It is the same constitution that allows you to buy a piece of property — the same constitution that outlines my rights to freedom of religion. If you want to put up a sign at the front of your business that says, “you no longer have constitutional rights when you cross this line”, your business will be shut down pretty fast. For instance, I don’t give up my rights to freedom, to not be a slave, just because I cross that line. When you put up a business, you are not allowed under the constitution to declare slavery for anyone who comes into your place of business — that’s the 14th amendment. The 1st & 2nd amendments are also still in place. The question of enforcement of those rights is fun and interesting, but that does not mean we do not have those rights.
My position is: I like private property.
Perhaps you would like to narrow down the subject of inquiry.
Scotts Products is firing employees who smoke in their own homes on their own time.
L
Yup.
I've had this debate ad nauseam with some on FR. I side with private property rights over the RKBA when they conflict. The gun owner is on that property voluntarily, so it's up to him whether or not he's disarmed.
Okay, I think I understand your position, BUSINESSES have no right to enforce rules more strict than Federal, State or Local law (at least if they are one of the Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights) even if on the business’ private property.
Someone might be able to convince me of this but for now I remain skeptical. If this is the case, it is only because of the over-reaching interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause.
There is no reason the Interstate Commerce Clause couldn’t be used to take rights of private citizens just like it has been used against commercial enterprises.
There is no reason the Interstate Commerce Clause couldn’t be used to take rights of private citizens just like it has been used against commercial enterprises.
***Well, there are reasons, but I wouldn’t expect Congress to listen to them... Part of the checks & balances in place are the actual gun owners themselves, who provide a hefty pushback whenever someone wants to encroach on their rights. Congress would love to have all that additional power, but they would hate to trigger a civil war, so the usual course is to try to split the baby and keep taking rights away one piece at a time, like building a fence around the pigs.
Here’s the Reason Why All Guns Are Going to be Prohibited
Posted by Kevmo to processing please hold
On General/Chat 10/05/2007 3:44:16 PM PDT · 3 of 280
We’re wild pigs, gettin’ some free corn, watching the fence get built.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1899897/posts
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. -- To rational people the two rights coexist without controversy.
How is your property threatened by an armed visitor or worker?
A couple of things in response to your post.
First, an employer conditioning employment on certain behavior is not a deprivation of constitutional rights.
Conditioning employment on infringing the carrying of arms, -- and/or ownership, -- is a deprivation of 2nd Amendment 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.
Equating working hours agreements, -- with prohibiting employees from carrying arms, -- is not a comparable example.
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.
Private property rights do not trump our rights to carry arms. -- Among rational people the two rights coexist without controversy.
How is your property threatened by an armed visitor or worker?
Can I as an employer....set some rules of employment?
Of course you can.
Employers in the USA however, -- are limited by our fed/state/local laws, -- on the rules they can set. --
-- Our supreme Law of the Land says the right of the people to carry and own arms shall not be infringed. -- And this principle applies to all of us, employees or employers.
Banks routinely prohibit firearms in their buildings. How do distinguish banks from employers— in a legal sense? Under your way of thinking, banks are violating constitutional rights when they don’t let you bring guns to the teller window. Employers can do the same thing. I tend to agree, perhaps, that employers SHOULD not have these rules, but they are allowed to. If you disagree, laws can be passed to require employers to allow guns to be owned and/or carried by employees.
Banks routinely prohibit firearms in their buildings.
We have an inalienable right to carry arms. We've in a sense compromised that right [to appease the delicate sensabilities of banker types] by regulating it to enable 'concealed carry'.
Your banker still has no constitutional power to routinely prohibit concealed carry firearms in their buildings. -- Rational concealed carry States agree.
Under your way of thinking, banks are violating constitutional rights when they don't let you bring guns to the teller window.
You got it.
-- Now, just how is your property [or bank/business] threatened by a visitor or worker carrying a concealed arm?
You posted: — Now, just how is your property [or bank/business] threatened by a visitor or worker carrying a concealed arm?
***
You have gotten the incorrect impression that I support all of the actions I have said are allowed. I do not. The states that allow concealed carry have proven to have less gun crime that those states who do not. Mine is purely a constitutional law point. Governments cannot enforce laws that run contrary to 2nd amendment and other constitutional rights. Private individuals (including businesses and employers) are not like government. Laws may be passed to protect these rights from the private property rights of individuals and businesses. Concealed carry laws are an example of this. But, in the absence of such laws, individuals and private businesses have the right to decide what is and is not allowed on their property. If you want to exercise those rights, stay off of their property.
I don’t necessarily disagree with the positions you take. Those positions just aren’t supported by the law.
I don't necessarily disagree with the positions you take. Those positions just aren't supported by the law.
Our 'Law of the Land' supports my position. Admit it.
Mine is purely a constitutional law point. Governments cannot enforce laws that run contrary to 2nd amendment and other constitutional rights.
Correct. -- But they try. The judges contrary 'ruling' above is a case in point. -- Yet you support the judge. Why?
Private individuals (including businesses and employers) are not like government.
Yet ALL of us are bound to honor the Constitution as our supreme Law of the Land. We should all support concealed carry. The judge and you do not. Why?
Laws may be passed to protect these rights from the private property rights of individuals and businesses. Concealed carry laws are an example of this. But, in the absence of such laws, individuals and private businesses have the right to decide what is and is not allowed on their property.
You claim that in the absence of such [Concealed carry] laws, individuals and private businesses have the right to decide what is and is not allowed on their property.
-- Whereas the "concealed carry law" is embodied in the 2nd Amendment, our supreme Law of the Land. -- Get it yet?
If you want to exercise those [comncealed carry] rights, stay off of their property.
You just disagreed with the position taken by the 2nd.
If you want to prohibit concealed carry rights, find another country. Canada needs immigrants.
You are mistaken, that is, wrong in your legal analysis. I do support concealed carry, but it is not constitutionally required. The constitution applies to government, and not to inviduals or private companies. That is why we have to have laws about race and gender discrimination. The constitution alone does not require compliance by individuals. You have full and absolute control, for example, in your home, as to what is said and what is not said. You can establish a religion in your home and prohibit the free exercise of Islam in your home, if you like. You can prohibit guns in your home and on ANY property you own. The second amendment does not prohibit that. You can say that it does to your heart’s content, but you are mistaken on that point. That is why there are concealed carry laws. If the constitution covered it, the laws would not be needed.
If you think you can freely come onto my property with a gun, try it. I can have a gun on my land and prohibit you from doing so—legally. And I can enforce the law on my private property.
Find some law that supports your position. See you....never, because there is no law (case law, that is) to support you.
The constitution applies to government, and not to inviduals or private companies. The constitution alone does not require compliance by individuals.
You can prohibit guns --- on property you own. The second amendment does not prohibit that.
You can say that it does to your heart's content, but you are mistaken on that point.
The second amendment prohibits infringements on our right to carry arms. You can say that it permits property owners to ignore our "Law of the Land" to your heart's content, but you are mistaken.
If you think you can freely come onto my property with a gun, try it.
If you invite me on your property to visit or do business, why would you object to my concealed carry?
I can have a gun on my land and prohibit you from doing so - legally. And I can enforce the law on my private property.
The question remains, -- why do you want to prohibit concealed carry of guns "on your land"?
Find some law that supports your position. --- there is no law (case law, that is) to support you.
'Case law' - as the judge above proves, -- is our problem, as it ignores our primary law -- the Constitution.
You have full and absolute control, for example, in your home, as to what is said and what is not said. You can establish a religion in your home and prohibit the free exercise of Islam in your home, if you like.
***Apparently, the time appears to be coming when that will no longer be true.
Liberals Send The Truth Up In Smoke
RightBias News ^ | October 9, 2007 | Nancy Morgan
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1908741/posts
Posted on 10/09/2007 10:02:58 AM PDT by nancyvideo
Two cities in California are now considering unprecedented legislation that would ban smoking inside apartments and condos. We’re talking private property and the right to legislate what goes on behind closed doors, in your own, private home. The City of Belmont, CA won initial approval last week to ban smoking in your home, if you live in an apartment or condo.
"-- Ownership in land — the most tangible, and in the early days of the Republic, the most important form of property — had never meant absolute control over that property or an unfettered right to use it in any way the owner wanted.
Traditions going back to English common law have always placed restrictions on property.
The common law doctrine of nuisance, for example, prevented owners from using their land in a way that interfered unreasonably with the rights of their neighbors.
Custom often allowed hunting on private, unenclosed land, or required that an owner allow access to rivers and lakes.
Property in the form of businesses also had regulations on them; taverns, ferries and coach lines, for example, were often heavily regulated in both England and the North American colonies. --"
Rights of the People: Individual Freedom and the Bill of Rights
Address:http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/rightsof/property.htm
It is the public policy of the United States that our right to carry arms shall not be infringed.
Private property owners who prohibit concealed carry of arms by their invited visitors and/or business associates are, in effect, thumbing their nose at one of the Constitutions primary principles.
Nice gun...
It should be on a need to know basis... nobody needs to know.
A Taurus or Baretta .22LR fits in a pocket, a sock, a boot, etc...
Don't ask me no questions and I won't tell you no lies.
A Taurus or Baretta .22LR fits in a pocket, a sock, a boot, etc...
Don't ask me no questions and I won't tell you no lies.
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.