And the rights still exist, like the employer's property rights. If you come to my house and speak ill of my family, I can kick you out of my house. Your right to free speech is not infringed. If you come to my house and you have a weapon and I don't want you to have a weapon in my house I can kick you out. Your right to keep and bear arms has not been infringed.
The right to free speech and the right to keep and bear arms do not extend to the point that they infringe on a property owner (or leaser) to exercise his rights over his property. Your boss does not have to let you speak your mind at work. Likewise you do not have to work at your bosses location.
True case, a guy works for Miller and is photographed in a bar after work drinking a Bud light. The photo is printed in the local newspapers, and when the guy shows up the next day for work, he is told he no longer works for Miller. The boss fired him for basically being in an ad for Bud light. The guy wanted to sue but had no case. The boss does not have to employ you, particularly if you are acting in a manner that he doesn't like. (one of many links to the story http://www.nbc5.com/news/4191531/detail.html??z=dp&dpswid=1260382&dppid=65172)
You said it much better than I have been trying to say it.
Thank you.
As I stated in an earlier post, — any further redirecting of the argument onto private residency will be pointed out for what it is, a straw argument.
Your boss does not have to let you speak your mind at work.
***Yes, your boss does have to let you speak your mind at work, that right has been upheld by the courts.
Likewise you do not have to work at your bosses location.
***The answer to this is stated before as well: Likewise, the company does not have to set up shop here in America.
Here’s a hypothetical for you. Let’s say DPA5923, Inc. is a company with a crapload of lawyers who engage in shakedown lawsuits against companies like Miller and any other company that takes rights away from US citizens on US soil because, well, that’s its charter and they really felt strong about such things when the owner passed away and gave them a $zillion endowment fund. So, that guy who spoke his mind and got fired, goes to DPA5923 , Inc. and files a lawsuit, signs the complaint and DPA5923 Inc. does the rest and collects the money, giving the complaining party a 10% cut in the final settlement. Did that guy lose his rights when he worked for Miller? No. Does he have more of a chance of having his rights upheld when DPA5923 Inc. is on the case? yes. Does the employer still have the right to tell employees that they can’t carry guns in their private cars on the company private lot? Well, no, because that right is protected in the 2nd amendment in our constitution and it is much easier to see with this hypothetical that the company never really had that right in the first place.
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.
If you come to my house and you have a weapon and I don't want you to have a weapon in my house I can kick you out.
Why would you want to 'kick out' an invited visitor or worker, -- who happens to be carrying a concealed weapon? -- Certainly, in a private residence you can 'kick out' anyone at any time, but why are you focused on depriving them of the right to carry?
Your right to keep and bear arms has not been infringed.
--- the right to keep and bear arms do not extend to the point that they infringe on a property owner (or leaser) to exercise his rights over his property.
Yep, that's what the Brady bunch types want everyone in the USA to believe; - that property rights trump our right to carry arms.
Actually, the two rights co-exist quite well, as your visitors who carry - contribute to protecting your property from criminals.