Maine Bill Proposal


PDA






ptmmatssc
May 25, 2007, 02:37 PM
Ok , I need some word wizards . I have contacted my state rep regarding businesses ability to dictate what a person can have in their vehicle while on company grounds . This only pertains to LEGAL items. As it is , the company I work for prohibits any form of "weapon" which includes my leatherman and schrade multi tool from being in MY vehicle while parked in their parking lot while I work . To me , this is making business rights trumping personal rights , which is wholly wrong .
So anyways , my rep said to submit a proposal and he would look it over and submit it . Here's what I wrote so far and I need some constructive criticism/help to flesh it out .

A bill to make unlawful , the prohibition of legal items within a personal vehicle by any business operating within maine . No company or business may make it a condition of employment , nor terms for termination , that any legal item within a personally owned vehicle is prohibited while that vehicle is on business or company property .

Any help would surely be appreciated :D

If you enjoyed reading about "Maine Bill Proposal" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
atk
May 25, 2007, 03:05 PM
I ain't no legal eagle, but I have two thoughts. Don't things sell better when they're sold as protection than as restrictions? Also, you may not want to specify where the item is located.




A bill to protect the individual right to personal property. A company or business may neither make a condition of employment, nor term for termination , ownership or possession of any legal item located on or off company property.

ptmmatssc
May 25, 2007, 03:19 PM
atk , I see what your saying . but it would be a lot harder to get what you wrote passed than having the vehicle statement . I think going along the lines of your vehicle being an extension of your home type of thing . I do like the idea though . Would rather be able to carry a bug at work without fear of termination . Still mulling over changes. Have a few days to get together the phrasing . Thanks for the input btw .

Oh , and it's not a "restriction" when you are allowed to exercise your rights . It IS a restriction when your not . Just trying to get businesses to stop restricting my personal rights , which trump any business rights .

atk
May 25, 2007, 03:48 PM
Oh , and it's not a "restriction"...


A bill to make unlawful ,


Those two phrases seem contradictory to me. The intent is to protect rights. When written as "to make unlawful" it is restricting something. It's just the phrasing I meant to comment on, not the intent. I totally support the intent.

ptmmatssc
May 25, 2007, 04:09 PM
I see what your saying . The reason I used "unlawful" is it would mean that there were repercussions to restriction of rights . Much the same as it's "unlawful" to restrict someone's freedom of speech . Like I said , still working on it . Hence the request for some wordsmiths .

JesseL
May 25, 2007, 05:00 PM
I am strongly opposed to the government restricting people's right to bear arms.
I am strongly opposed to the government restricting people's right to private property.

I am strongly supportive of the right to free association, including the right to have nothing to do with people or businesses the don't respect my right to bear arms.

Laws like the one you are proposing go in my "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" file.

ptmmatssc
May 25, 2007, 05:14 PM
JesseL . Lemme ask you . Is a business a "person"? No it's not . My "good intentions" by no way take away from the rights we the people have , but instead , fortify them . Allowing a "business" to have the rights of an individual is wrong in more ways than one and by no means does what I propose infringe on any "persons" rights . I/we have rights and I am trying to at least make sure that we as a people don't succumb to a fascist state that allows businesses to dictate what the populace can and cannot do .


I am strongly opposed to the government restricting people's right to private property.
Exactly! MY car MY property. Hands and rules off . Again , business is not "people" . thay are an abstract created for one thing , to make money .

I am strongly supportive of the right to free association, including the right to have nothing to do with people or businesses the don't respect my right to bear arms.
The problem is , the non anti-gun establishments are getting pushed aside by box stores and the like that DO have anti-gun policies . I to vote with my wallet , but I also believe the constitution to be the supreme law of the land and will uphold it , good or bad , by by pushing to make laws against the oppressers that look to strip me of my rights and yours .

PPGMD
May 25, 2007, 05:16 PM
Jesse,

The problem is that business as a majority have no weapon policies for whatever reason. It is very rare to find any business with more then 20 or some employees that does not have a no weapons policy. Also many business believe that their work policies extend out into the employee car.

Just as the place of business is the works personal property, your car is your property. What you keep in it, as long as its legal is your business not theirs.

JesseL
May 25, 2007, 05:34 PM
Businesses are owned by people. Often times one person, some times a large group of people. They are not the faceless bogeymen that some people like to think.

Although I don't like it, I fully support the right of business owners to dictate what goes on on their property. If they want to dictate that vehicles parked on their property may not contain weapons, that's their right. Same goes if they want to dictate that vehicles may not have fuzzy dice, political bumper stickers, change in the ashtray, and no blue cars may be parked in the lot on days starting with 'T'.

The fact that so many businesses are making these anti-gun policies is a problem, but the solution is not to make the government start trampling more rights. Talk to your union if you have one, start a competing business, let them know your feelings, let their customers know about their policies in sympathetic forums like this one, etc.

Inviting the government to solve your problems for you is like letting a policeman or vampire into your home.

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

ptmmatssc
May 25, 2007, 06:09 PM
Businesses are owned by people. Often times one person, some times a large group of people. They are not the faceless bogeymen that some people like to think.

Yes they are owned by people . But THEY the business itself is not a "person " . "They" are simply a set of papers for tax purposes etc . I stand by my view and if others would rather "conform" to what a paper construct , invented for one purpose (making money) would have them do , then have at it . I prefer to have and keep my rights .

Btw , I work for the biggest retailer in the US , so union is a no-no and they are only getting bigger . Getting "our" gov to work for us representing "us" is what I'm trying to do . Take it for what it's worth . At least I'm fighting for our rights as citizens rather than going for the quid pro quo .

Oh , and a good read about the "rights" a business has


The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it. Thus, the owners of privately held bridges, ferries, turnpikes and railroads may not operate them as freely as a farmer does his farm. Since these facilities are built and operated primarily to benefit the public and since their operation is essentially a public function, it is subject to state regulation.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/marshvala.html

748
May 25, 2007, 06:40 PM
"letting a policeman or vampire into your home."
I like how you put those 2 together like that. HA!
Unless I'm breaking a real law, I do what I want.

JesseL
May 25, 2007, 07:03 PM
Yes they are owned by people . But THEY the business itself is not a "person " . "They" are simply a set of papers for tax purposes etc . I stand by my view and if others would rather "conform" to what a paper construct , invented for one purpose (making money) would have them do , then have at it .

Would you feel differently if a sole proprietor came out and told you about the policies he uses to run his business? How about if you ran a business out of your garage? Would you appreciate being told you had lost your right to decide what happens in your driveway?

This isn't about a legal fiction telling you what to do, it's about a property owner asserting his rights about how his property is used.

ptmmatssc
May 25, 2007, 07:50 PM
Well Jesse , when you open yourself up to the public for business , you have to respect THEIR rights also , constitutional and state . If you as a business want to regulate or prohibit peoples rights , then you have no right yourself do do business in the US . Try reading the constitution some time and see it says the "people" , not businesses .

Besides , your missing the point . I'm talking about personal vehicles , not walking into a store packing . My vehicle has nothing to do with their property . Inside of it should be off limits to anyone not authorized by fed or state law enforcement . I don't want anyone telling me what i can legally have in my car , just like I wouldn't want them telling me what I could legally have in my house.

Would you appreciate being told you had lost your right to decide what happens in your driveway?

if it's legal , and I'm open to the public , what's the problem? Walk onto my property with a pound of coke and we have a problem . But what's in your car is your own business , not mine (legal of course) .

JesseL
May 25, 2007, 09:18 PM
The bill of rights, including the second amendment, is a set of restrictions on the government - not individuals or businesses. This issue is fundamentally no different than saying that The Communist Party of the United States can't hold a rally on your front lawn - despite their first amendment rights.

You don't have any right at all to park your car on anyone else's property. They may deign to grant you permission to do so and they may revoke that permission for any reason that pleases them.

If you don't like anyone's restrictions on what you can do on their property you can either avoid their property or try to change their mind. Anything else is an abridgment of someone's rights, and when you start disregarding one groups rights it puts everyone's rights in jeopardy.

ptmmatssc
May 25, 2007, 09:34 PM
To each his own I guess . If you are open to the public though , my feeling is you abide by the laws and rights of the public . And again I say , if a business doesn't want guns/knives/etc in their store , that's their choice . But inside MY personal vehicle is beyond their so called "rights" . Just as our homes are . It is a slippery slope that has already gone wrong . Just look at companies that can fire you for what you do IN YOUR HOME, like smoking. Is that the kind of balance that we want ? Not me , and not a lot of those I know . When your foot hits the pavement , then they have a so called right to dictate . Till then , my car is mine and i have the right to carry within it anything legal that I so choose .

JesseL
May 25, 2007, 10:43 PM
Your employer being able to fire you for being a smoker (or any other reason) is the price you pay for being able to quit any time and for any reason. Employment is just an agreement between yourself and your employer for you to sell your labor to them for an agreed upon price.

You have no more right to demand that your employer keep purchasing your labor past the time they don't want to buy it any more than your local supermarket has to demand that you continue patronizing them.

If you don't believe in the right of a business owner to spend his money the way he likes you may as well just lobby to have his business nationalized.

orionengnr
May 25, 2007, 11:53 PM
Your employer being able to fire you for being a smoker (or any other reason) is the price you pay for being able to quit any time and for any reason. Employment is just an agreement between yourself and your employer for you to sell your labor to them for an agreed upon price

Straw man argument.

A company cannot fire you for being a woman.
A company cannot fire you for being black.

A private individual may disallow you from entering his PRIVATE property because he does not like your looks, but:

A business does not have those rights. It opens the doors to the public, and a whole different set of rules apply. If you, as a citizen, are legal to have a pistol in your vehicle, then your employer "may" have the right to disallow you from carrying in the building (note that I said "may") but that ends at the front door.

I am not a lawyer.

JesseL
May 26, 2007, 12:31 AM
A company cannot fire you for being a woman.
A company cannot fire you for being black.

True, that is the law. But as much as I despise the sort of person that would fire someone on the basis of race or gender, I believe that it should fall within a business owner's rights to do so.

A private individual may disallow you from entering his PRIVATE property because he does not like your looks, but:

A business does not have those rights. It opens the doors to the public, and a whole different set of rules apply. If you, as a citizen, are legal to have a pistol in your vehicle, then your employer "may" have the right to disallow you from carrying in the building (note that I said "may") but that ends at the front door.

Private property means that the property is not owned by the government(i.e. the public). A business is just as much private property as your home.

A business does have those rights, and they start at the property line - not the front door. A business may still "reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" (with the legal exceptions of discrimination based on race, gender, religion, etc.). As I said before, you have no right to be on company property whatsoever. You enter the property at the owner's pleasure. A business owner can throw you off his property (including his parking lot) for almost any reason he likes and if you refuse to go he can have you arrested for trespassing and your vehicle towed.

There is fundamentally no difference between the buyer and seller in any transaction, whether the transaction be between an employee and employer, a wholesaler and a retailer, or a retailer their customer. Both sides are exchanging something they have for something they want. To claim that one side is deserving of special protections is fuzzy thinking at best.

Having the government tell business owners who they must do business with is no more morally defensible than the government telling you as a consumer or worker who you must buy from or work for.

PPGMD
May 26, 2007, 01:24 AM
The government isn't telling them who to do business with, the problem is the wording, Florida's version of this law only recognized that a persons car is their private property and allowed them to do whatever they wished in their car, but once they exit their car they are subject to company rules.

You are allowed to defend your car as if it's your home in many states. Your company can not regulate what you do in your homestead. Thus they shouldn't be able to regulate what you keep in your car as long as it stays in your car when you exit it.

ilbob
May 26, 2007, 12:23 PM
I am a fan of private property rights.

I think there is a huge difference between the fiction of a megacorp being a private business and someone having a garage sale. Megacorp is strictly a legal fiction, being an entity created only by law. As such, I don't see how it has any inherent rights. Only people have rights. Now, if the business was a sole proprietorship...

I like the idea of making your car an extension of your domicile for all purposes, not just a single purpose.

pete f
May 30, 2007, 02:07 PM
The right of a person to own and possess legal property in their personal vehicle shall not be infringed.



Your car should be viewed as an extension of your home, and your rights to own and possess should be exactly the same as if you were at home. you are not allowed liquor in your office (in most companies) but having liquor in your car (unopened and not comsumed there) is legal.

Allowing a company to have rights of inspection into your vehicle w/o probable cause and a warrant, is like allowing them to have access to your home. Can they walk into your home and search for anything, heck no, but you are allowing them to search your car without regard to your rights.

I think this is one place where the ACLU, as hated as it is by many here, could be persuaded to assist you in writing this. This goes far beyond guns and weapons. What happened if you had a job application in your car, maybe a magazine of a subject matter disapproved of by management. Maybe your laptop has some data on it that they might find disturbing.

If your company insists on continuing with the policy, get a lawyer to write a letter for you believing that it violates your Constitutional rights and that you respectfully refuse to cooperate. Tell them that if they have reason to believe you are committing an illegal act, that they can ask the police to get a warrant and investigate you. Otherwise, it is not within their powers to demand a search of your vehicle and your possessions.

Rifleman6555
May 31, 2007, 11:52 PM
Check with the NRA ILA they fought this in the midwest and won. I'm sure they can help you with copies of the legislation that was passed out there. The Mall*Wart in Maine I work for does not have such a ban for personal vehicles. They do inside the stores for workers, but nothing prevents having weapons in vehicles.

wjustinen
June 1, 2007, 05:41 AM
How about if you ran a business out of your garage? Would you appreciate being told you had lost your right to decide what happens in your driveway?


If the person in my driveway were the type I would prefer to have disarmed, I fail to see how "my" no firearm rule is likely to be of any greater effect than all the "gun control" we live with daily.

Frankly, telling you that you can't carry on my property is a violation of your rights. Telling me that I can't carry on my property is an even more egregious violation.

But, in the final analysis, it isn't really about our rights. It is about how we feel.:fire::banghead:

ptmmatssc
June 13, 2007, 12:59 AM
Rifleman , WM policy is "no weapons on WP property" . At least that is what the paperwork says . I asked "asset protection" what happens if an employee buys a gun at WM .Are they then going against company policy for having a gun on their property? Couldn't get a straight answer . Just got " what would you need a gun for?"

Btw , the policy is only for employees . Yet to see any signs posted for the public.

Mannix
June 13, 2007, 07:25 AM
You want to know why 95% of those stores and businesses have those rules? Because they fear they could be held liable if something happened if they didn't. If someone brings a gun and starts shooting up the place, and they have a rule against carrying on their property, they have less of a chance to be sued. A business is in it for the money, and law suits are bad for business, even if they don't succeed they can cost 10's of 1000's.

That is why we need these types of laws enacted.

JesseL
June 13, 2007, 12:37 PM
Mannix:

What we need is to establish case law that provides a precedent for making companies responsible for ensuring the safety of everyone disarmed by their policies.

It saddens me to see so many people that think diminishing property rights, even in the defense of gun rights, could be a win for freedom.

ptmmatssc
June 13, 2007, 07:08 PM
It saddens me to see so many people that think diminishing property rights, even in the defense of gun rights, could be a win for freedom.

I completely agree . Diminishing my rights to have something legal within my car , which is my private property , is a bad idea .

JesseL
June 13, 2007, 07:13 PM
I completely agree . Diminishing my rights to have something legal within my car , which is my private property , is a bad idea .
You can have whatever you want in your car. You simply do not have the right to park your car where ever you want. If the owner of a parking lot says that some things aren't allowed within the confines of their parking lot and others are not, that is entirely within their rights. It doesn't matter why they don't want you there, whether it's because your car contains a gun or they just find the color offensive, when someone telss you to get yourself or your stuff off their property, you git (or face a trespassing charge and a towing bill).

If you don't like it - park somewhere else.

I hate to use such a loaded word, but laws like the one being discussed are the very definition of fascism.

ptmmatssc
June 13, 2007, 08:38 PM
fascism :

1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality

That seems to be a lot different than allowing a private citizen his rights within his own personal property vs the rights of a business , who's only goal , is to make profit .

I like how people are so willing to give rights to a business over an individual so easily . If it is so called "private property" , then they should not have fliers inviting people onto their property . Again , my personal rights trump any business rights when it comes to MY personal property , which includes within my vehicle . Once my foot hits the pavement , then they have say .

JesseL
June 13, 2007, 10:37 PM
The original definition of fascism was that private property was allowed but it's use was directed by the state; in contrast with communism where there is no private property.

ptmmatssc
June 13, 2007, 11:54 PM
“If the bourgeoisie - I then said - believe that they have found in us their lightening-conductors, they arc mistaken. We must go towards the people... We wish the working classes to accustom themselves to the responsibilities of management so that they may realize that it is no easy matter to run a business... We will fight both technical and spiritual rear-guirdism... Now that the succession of the re*gime is open we must not be fainthearted. We must rush forward; if the present regime is to be superseded we must take its place. The right of succession is ours, for we urged the country to enter the war and we led it to victory... The existing forms of political representation cannot satisfy us; we want direst representation of the several interests... It may be objected that this program implies a return to the guilds (corporazioni). No matter!. I therefore hope this assembly will accept the economic claims advanced by national syndicalism …

Is it not strange that from the very first day, at Piazza San Sepolcro, the word "guild" (corporazione) was pronounced, a word which, as the Revolution developed, was to express one of the basic legislative and social creations of the regime?

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm

corporazione = corporation . THIS is fascism , stated by the man himself , Mussolini . Giving the corps the rights and subjugating the individual .

Fascism isn't about individual rights , but rather , about gov and corporations "rights" . That's not what this country was founded on , and not what we should be bowing to now . Corporations were GRANTED rights vs individuals having inaliable rights . Granted rights can be taken away , but our inalienable rights cannot. Something created by man does not have the same rights as man himself .

orionengnr
June 14, 2007, 12:10 AM
Good thread.

You've already heard my opinion (post 17). Keep it civil and this one will stay alive.

One more thought--parking arrangements may have some local complications. PM me for details.

nwilliams
June 14, 2007, 06:51 AM
As a former Mainer, I grew up in Camden and lived there for over 20 years and man do I miss those great Maine summers:(

A bill to make unlawful , the prohibition of legal items within a personal vehicle by any business operating within maine . No company or business may make it a condition of employment , nor terms for termination , that any legal item within a personally owned vehicle is prohibited while that vehicle is on business or company property .

What this says to me is that the bill would make it unlawful for employers to prohibit any legally owned items that are in your vehicle. It takes away the ability for employers to mandate what is in a employees car as long as its legal.......

Sounds pretty clear and good to me, I wouldn't have a problem with this.


I agree with the rest of you, your car is your property and no employer should have the right to tell you what you keep in it. Legal or not, if it stays in your car its your responsibility and if it comes out of your car while your on your employers property then its a different matter.

I've worked for some employers who have had policies against guns in vehicles, but that's never stopped me. I never told anyone and nobody ever asked. I never gave any reason to have my car searched and none of my employers ever gave random car searches.

If I were to ever work for an employer who did do random car searches I would still have my gun in the car and just park in a public parking facility or on the street and walk to work. I've never had a job where parking was such an issue that I had no choice but to use the employee parking area, I've always had other options when it came to parking. If you work somewhere where you don't have any other option then its just a judgment call and until you're employer changes their rules you run the risk of being fired.

IMO what you have in your car is your business and yours alone. If an employer feels you have illegal items in your vehicle they need to call the police and let the police deal with it. I would never let an employer search my car, I would sooner quit and give them the finger as I drive off. Not because they would find anything illegal, but to me it would be the same as if they came and searched my home, it ain't gonna happen. Its the principle of the thing, its just not the way I operate. I'm glad I work at a place that doesn't have any policy against having a gun in the car and my boss told me that he keeps one in his.:D

If you enjoyed reading about "Maine Bill Proposal" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!