The Employee vs Employer rights debate...


PDA






Green Lantern
August 17, 2006, 07:30 AM
As I'm sure most of you all know, the NRA has been trying (with no success) to get state laws passed to forbid employers from banning legally owned and carried firearms from being stored in employee vehicles.

Besides the usual enemy, the Brady Bunch, NRA has had to face off against "big-business" interests. But I think one of the main obstacles is the lack of a unified front among gun owners.

Based on my experiences on other boards, a DEPRESSING number of gun owners think that the current situation, which honors the rights of property owners with NO protection for the employees, is acceptable and fair. I'm sure some of them are probably 'the boss,' meaning THEY can carry where they want and to heck with the peons. But I don't think ALL of them can be!

Let's say the tables were turned and state law said a property owner could NOT ban CCW. Then it would be our rights winning the day...but with no protection of the property owner's rights! ALSO unfair.

The perfect compromise to me is to ban CCW IN the workplace if the boss chooses, but to protect your legal property inside YOUR private property, your vehicle! Otherwise, they strip you of your right to self-defense not only on their property, but on every mile of your commute as well!

Those that talk of a slippery slope of eroding property rights - under the current situation, since a boss has the say of what you can and can't keep in your car, then I could easily see:
-A Christian boss firing you for your 'sinful' CD's, or forcing you to hang a cross from your mirror
-An athiest boss firing you for having a Bible in your car
-A Democrat boss making you slap a "Hillary 08" sticker on your car
-A Republican boss making you place a "support Bush" sticker on your car.

Why NOT?

If you enjoyed reading about "The Employee vs Employer rights debate..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Bubbles
August 17, 2006, 07:56 AM
I think it would depend on whether or not the property owner "owns" the parking lot. For instance, I work in an office complex with four separate buildings, each rented by 2-4 different large companies. So, employees of almost a dozen employers share a communal parking lot. The building management company "owns" the buildings and the parking lot while the employers simply rent office space. Under that scenario I could see where leaving your gun in your car is ok, and in fact in my employee handbook is says I may not carry "into the facility/building" but parking areas are not addressed.

Now, there are places where the company owns the building and the land/parking lot around it. In that case then yes, the property owner has the ultimate say in what can/can't happen on that property. I used to work at a site like that, and I parked next door and walked the extra 30 yards or so to my building. Interestingly enough, a few other folks did as well...

geekWithA.45
August 17, 2006, 08:57 AM
Most of the time when this is talked about, people aren't precise, and lump everything into a one size fits all approach that treats all property as if it were private property.

Discussion of this issue is usually clarified by understanding that for all practical purposes, there are different classes of property that exist in a continuum:

-truly private property, such as your ranch or dwelling
-private property open to select folks (such as offices, factories)
-property that is NOT private (ie: property of public accommodation: restaurants, shops, etc)
-truly public property, such as the sidewalk


The rights of the property owner and the visitor vary, based on the scenario.

The bottom line is that the owner and the visitor BOTH have rights, and how they interact and intersect in these 4 main scenes is what to discuss.

In NO scenario are the owner's rights absolute. You may not post up a sign in your yard stating that by entering your property, the visitor enters into a binding contract whereing their life continues at your whim, or that they "voluntarilly" enslave themselves to you.


I've got a 2/3 baked essay on the topic that I'll have to post up when I have time.

HankB
August 17, 2006, 09:10 AM
In the absence of nationwide Vermont carry . . .

What I WOULD like to see is a law that says if an employee, licensed by the Government to carry a concealed handgun for lawful self protection, is disarmed while on the job due to company policy, then the company is 100% responsible for the employee's safety and assumes 100% liability should the employee be mugged, assaulted, raped, or otherwise harmed.

The company should bear the same liability as if they prohibited the use of safety glasses in the company machine shop, removed safety belts from company vehicles used on company roads, or took handrails off of catwalks and stairwells.

knoxx45
August 17, 2006, 09:14 AM
Why would you keep it in your car. When I work in our nj office, which is a bout 25% of my schedule, I carry (and so do alot of other people) even though my company forbids it. I was "made" once. I sitting and to be a little more comfortable, I slid it around so that it was more infront. One of my co-workers said "hey , what's that in your pants?" Havint to be quick on my feet i looked him right in the eye an said "my D*ck! You want to see it?" Ever since then I've never had another problem, although the receptionist smiles at me a little more that she used to.:D

mons meg
August 17, 2006, 09:14 AM
In such cases as we have currently in Oklahoma, where ConocoPhillips got an injunction against the "parking lot" clause in our carry law, gun owners seem to fall into two camps, the "it's my private vehicle" and the "property rights" crowd.

What people forget is ConocoPhllips is a CORPORATION, and as such do NOT enjoy the same "rights" as an individual living breathing person. Each state defines what rights/privilieges a corporation enjoys, and it's usually very limited.

ID_shooting
August 17, 2006, 10:02 AM
I work in one of those evil corporate plots that forbids guns on site. Unlike bubbles, I have a 1.5 mile hike to get to me building if I were to park out side the gate.

My wife has standing orders to litigate the pants off HP should anything happen to me here.

Some say, find somwhere else to work, well, I need to put a roof over my families head and food on the table.

I am of the ilk that I would like to keep my CCW in the car but being a "rule follower" I play by thier rules.

progunner1957
August 17, 2006, 10:21 AM
If an employer can deny an employee their right to arms on company property, can the employer not also deny the employee's right to refuse to perform sexual services for his/her supervisor and all company superiors while on company property?

As long as the employer is given the power to deny employee's rights, what's the difference?

pax
August 17, 2006, 10:38 AM
Historically, one of the reasons European peasants were denied the right to own or carry around weaponry was because other people owned the land upon which they lived and worked. Peasants owning weapons would violate the property rights of the landowning nobility.

Seems to me that America has been headed that direction for awhile now. Poor people rent their dwellings from one company, ride to work on buses or trains owned by another company (or drive on toll roads owned by another company), and work inside office buildings owned by yet a third company.

We are slowly drifting toward a situation in which we agree with the royalty and nobility of a bygone era: the lower classes should never be allowed to exercise any human rights that their betters don't want them to have.

pax

wdlsguy
August 17, 2006, 10:46 AM
An athiest boss firing you for having a Bible in your car

I think this is the best analogy. Firing an employee for having a Bible (or Quran) in his / her car would be a clear infringement of his / her 1st amendment rights. Why is firing an employee for having a firearm in his / her car not an infringement of his / her 2nd amendment rights?

Also, as another person has mentioned, corporations are legal (not natural) "persons" created under state law. Perhaps a sole proprietor should be allowed a bit more discretion than a corporation, but I don't think we want to see a return to indentured servitude.

Lonestar
August 17, 2006, 11:12 AM
Heck I heard of companies that do not allow smoking in their parking lots, even in your car:eek: . I'm not a smoker, and I don't like the stuff, but even that is a little over the line. Granted if your in some sort of ultra secure area, where cars are searched (if you worked in the White House or the pentagon for example) or if your parking your vehicle in an area that already has a firearm restriction (schools, Federal parks, NYC, etc) I would have to agree with the employer, your sneaking in a weapon into a restricted area. However if your company is making widgets and you have a permit to carry, why shouldn't you leave your weapon in your car. The Weapon should not be in plan sight and possibly locked. If your car is your private property, then anything inside it should be private.

ConstitutionCowboy
August 17, 2006, 11:37 AM
Corporations are constructs made possible by state and federal law. Corporations only have the powers granted to them by state and federal law. If your state laws are anything like Oklahoma's corporate law, infringing or violating employee's rights might be forbidden. Oklahoma law grants corporations power to write their own bylaws, but in the same section, Oklahoma's corporate law specifically forbids a corporation to adopt a bylaw that would violate any rights of its shareholders, officers, or employees.

I brought this to the attention of Oklahoma's AG, Drew Edmondson, and he has forwarded it to the team fighting the lawsuit against Oklahoma's recent law forbidding employers from restricting employees from keeping arms locked in their vehicles in parking lots for those vehicles. Clearly, those corporation bylaws violate their employee's right to keep and bear arms - even beyond the parking lots because the ride to and from work is adversely affected.

Even though the law does sometimes treat corporations as individuals, those instances are specific and not general - specifically in the realm of taxes. Corporations do not have rights like people do. They only have powers.

Follow up on this in your own state's corporate law. You may find the cause to take them to court for violating the law - and the rights of its employees - rather than them suing the state for infringing upon a "right" the corporation thinks it has to forbid carrying or storing arms locked in employee's vehicles.

Woody

"The Right of the People to move about freely in a secure manner shall not be infringed. Any manner of self defense shall not be restricted, regardless of the mode of travel or where you stop along the way, as it is the right so enumerated at both the beginning and end of any journey." B.E.Wood

ConstitutionCowboy
August 17, 2006, 11:42 AM
I didn't mean to step on your thunder here. I should have read all the posts before I commented. But, you are right on track. Tonight I'll post the title and verse of that specific Oklahoma law.

Woody

:evil: Yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater should only result in a profusion of bullet holes in the screen where the villain last appeared! B.E.Wood :evil:

Car Knocker
August 17, 2006, 12:47 PM
woodcdi,

Does that mean that in OK, McDonalds can't discipline a counter employee for wearing a button that says "McDonalds Sucks, Go Burger King"?

Father Knows Best
August 17, 2006, 01:14 PM
I may have a bit of insight here. You see, I happen to be the in-house attorney for one of those dreaded corporations.

Corporations are amoral (not "immoral"). Corporate managers have a duty to maximize the return to their shareholders. All they really care about, and all they are really allowed to carry about, is what actions will best maximize the value of the company. That means they also have to evaluate potential liability risks to the company, and find the best means of mitigating those risks.

Regardless of what corporate boards or managers may think or feel about the "rights" of employees, they can only take whatever actions they reasonably believe will best protect the company from liability. It doesn't matter whether the entire board of directors and executive team are diehard supports of the 2nd Amendment and believers in liberty and libertarianism, or are bed-wetting liberals who worship Hillary Clinton and Sarah Brady and tremble at the mere thought of a gun -- their decisions about whether to permit firearms on their property and under what circumstances are going to be driven entirely by a cold cost/benefit analysis. They will ask what it costs them to ban guns, including in vehicles parked in the lot, vs. the benefits. The will ask what it costs NOT to ban guns, vs. the benefits.

Unfortunately, the reality is that it is very easy to foresee potential liability on the part of the employer if an employee brings a gun onto company property with the employer's consent, and that gun is misused. When a customer or employee gets shot by another employee, the employer will get sued for negligence. At that point, the employer wants to be able to say that they TOLD the employee he wasn't allowed to bring a gun, and that because he defied the company instructions the employer cannot be held responsible.

One could argue that an employer might also be held liable if it bans guns, and the lack of a firearm prevents an employee from defending himself or herself against attack. Unfortunately, you would almost certainly NEVER be able to prove that without the employer ban that employee WOULD have had a firearm on that particular day and in those circumstances, and that the presence of the firearm WOULD have prevented the attack. In other words, you will almost certainly NEVER be able to prove that the employer's ban on firearms actually caused injury, but it is at least plausible that a jury might blame an employer who does NOT ban firearms when someone is shot with an employee's gun.

I'm not saying that's the right result, mind you, I'm just telling it like it is.

Given that analysis, it is only reasonable for corporations to try to minimize their liability by banning guns. Does it make anyone safer? No. The companies don't care, though. All they care about is liability, and by banning employees from having any firearms on your property, you are probably reducing the likelihood you will be held liable in the event a firearm is misused.

There is a solution to this perverse incentive -- liability protection for employers. The Ohio concealed carry law contains the best one I've seen. It provides that businesses cannot be held liable to third parties for their decision to ban or not ban weapons on their premises. That means you can't argue that a company is liable in negligence merely because it failed to post its premises, or because it failed to ban employees from having firearms on company property. That provision goes a long way toward undercutting the main reason that most companies choose to adopt policies banning firearms on company property.

I'm proud to say that my current employer has adopted what I think is a fairly reasonable policy, especially considering we're in liberal Minnesota. Our policy prohibits employees from carrying on company business, or in company buildings. It specifically permits firearms in employee vehicles on company property, provided they are properly secured and out of sight, and also provides that employees may expose their firearms briefly for the purpose of securing them in the vehicle when arriving, or retreiving them (say, from the trunk) when departing. Our buildings are not "posted" as banning firearms.

My former employer, by contrast, has posted all of its buildings and has a "no exceptions" ban on all firearms on company property, including in cars parked on company property. That's one of many reasons I don't work there, anymore.

another okie
August 17, 2006, 07:26 PM
"When a customer or employee gets shot by another employee, the employer will get sued for negligence."

This statement is only half right. Check the workers' compensation laws.

Generally a good post.

ConstitutionCowboy
August 17, 2006, 10:05 PM
You've brought up some interesting points:

Regardless of what corporate boards or managers may think or feel about the "rights" of employees, they can only take whatever actions they reasonably believe will best protect the company from liability. ...

Quite true, but they must still act within the law and only as the law allows.

Unfortunately, the reality is that it is very easy to foresee potential liability on the part of the employer if an employee brings a gun onto company property with the employer's consent, and that gun is misused. When a customer or employee gets shot by another employee, the employer will get sued for negligence.

An employer does not have to give an employee permission to bring a gun on corporate property. And, unless the employee shoots someone as a function of the corporation, the corporation is no more liable than the shooter's neighbors, or me for that matter. Remember, a corporation can only act in accordance with the powers granted to it. Any act it wishes to prohibit in its bylaws to its employees must be spelled out.

One could argue that an employer might also be held liable if it bans guns, and the lack of a firearm prevents an employee from defending himself or herself against attack. Unfortunately, you would almost certainly NEVER be able to prove that without the employer ban that employee WOULD have had a firearm on that particular day and in those circumstances, and that the presence of the firearm WOULD have prevented the attack. In other words, you will almost certainly NEVER be able to prove that the employer's ban on firearms actually caused injury, but it is at least plausible that a jury might blame an employer who does NOT ban firearms when someone is shot with an employee's gun.

Here the opposite is true in the liability of the corporation. The corporation IS sticking its neck out by banning employees to keep arms locked in their cars, or quite possibly on their person. And again, the corporation can not be held liable for an illegal act committed by one of its employees. It would be no different than a stranger coming on to the corporate property and committing a crime. Corporate bylaws are more for spelling out corporate functions, delegating who does what as a function of the business. Those bylaws governing the employees' behavior while not engaged in a function of the corporation are more like any other law. Those laws prohibit certain activities, not grant permission for any certain activity. An example: You don't need permission from the corporation to breathe on the job. The corporation can forbid you to smoke on the job.

Oklahoma law, like the law in Ohio, prevents lawsuits against corporations for any crimes an employee might commit as a result of employees having arms locked in their vehicles on company property. Personally, I believe it is not necessary. Suing a company because an employee goes berserk is frivolous. It's a third party thing. I can't sue my neighbor to the North when my neighbor to the South throws his trash over the fence into my yard. I can't sue the homeowners association, either.

Your new employer has it right. Good move!

Woody

ConstitutionCowboy
August 17, 2006, 10:11 PM
18-1013. Bylaws.

BYLAWS

A. The original or other bylaws of a corporation may be adopted, amended or repealed by the incorporators, by the initial directors if they were named in the certificate of incorporation, or, before a corporation has received any payment for any of its stock, by its board of directors. After a corporation has received any payment for any of its stock, except as otherwise provided in its certificate of incorporation, the power to adopt, amend or repeal bylaws shall be in the board of directors, or, in the case of a nonstock corporation, in its governing body.

B. The bylaws may contain any provision, not inconsistent with law or with the certificate of incorporation, relating to the business of the corporation, the conduct of its affairs, and its rights or powers or the rights or powers of its shareholders, directors, officers or employees.

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. If that doesn't convince you to take a stand and protect your inalienable rights and freedoms, nothing will. If that doesn't convince you to maintain your personal sovereignty, you are already someone else's subject. If you don't secure your rights and freedoms to maintain your personal sovereignty now, it'll be too late to come to me for help when they come for you. I will already be dead because I had to stand alone. B.E.Wood

Car Knocker
August 17, 2006, 10:53 PM
This section of law discusses corporate bylaws. However, employees policy is not set in bylaws but in policy manuals that are not even referred to in bylaws. I don't see that this applies to employees bringing guns onto property or exercising First Amendment rights, or, in fact, any Constitutional issues outside of the bylaws themselves.

Standing Wolf
August 17, 2006, 10:59 PM
We are slowly drifting toward a situation in which we agree with the royalty and nobility of a bygone era: the lower classes should never be allowed to exercise any human rights that their betters don't want them to have.

Slowly?

Gray Peterson
August 17, 2006, 11:06 PM
Seems like the safest thing to do liability wise is to have no policy at all one way or another. Firearms are not like sexual harassment/hostile work environment/discrimination where the lack of a policy "invites" the possibility of tort.

antsi
August 17, 2006, 11:12 PM
---------quote----------
And, unless the employee shoots someone as a function of the corporation, the corporation is no more liable than the shooter's neighbors, or me for that matter.

And again, the corporation can not be held liable for an illegal act committed by one of its employees.
------------------------

If you are saying that you would not consider the employer liable, or that the employer shouldn't be held liable, then we are in agreement.

If you are saying that the employer will not or cannot be held liable, you're living in a fantasy world. Corporations get sued, and sued successfully, all the time for things that aren't their fault. Somebody got hurt or killed, and a corporation with large assets was somehow tangentially involved - that's all that's required to establish liability in our system.

Gray Peterson
August 17, 2006, 11:17 PM
Btw, bravo to the folks in the thread pointing out what legal status of corporations are.

Green Lantern
August 17, 2006, 11:24 PM
Unfortunately, you would almost certainly NEVER be able to prove that without the employer ban that employee WOULD have had a firearm on that particular day and in those circumstances, and that the presence of the firearm WOULD have prevented the attack.

In theory I would think a valid CCW permit should do the trick for proving that an empolyee would have had a firearm. Preventing the attack? Hmmm...dunno about arguing that but you could certianly say that the firearm coudl have STOPPED the attack, either by making the BG comply or shooting him if he did not.

Could be worse where I work. It's more or less 'don't ask don't tell' about your cars. The rulebook says you can only be searched if you're suspected of coming to work under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Employees can't carry - but we are NOT posted, so customers can carry. And thus the store dosen't have the "bulls-eye" that posted stores do IMO.

I don't want to see ANY good guys get hurt. But I know that somewhere, sometime, some ONE is going to get hurt while working at a place that forced him/her to disarm, and then s/he is going to sue the employer. Whether or not the employee wins, hopefully at LEAST the lawyers will sit up and take notice that "no guns" does NOT MEAN "no liability."

Let's not forget this is the nation where a customer WON a suit against McDonalds because she spilled coffee on herself, right????

At the very least we need laws nationwide that mirror the aforementioned state law (also in TN) that states that a business having a no guns sign does NOT automatically make them immune to lawsuits involving shootings!

hoppinglark
August 17, 2006, 11:52 PM
I go to a College that has banned weapons from cars also..
so i have a Mag-Lite and a Trailer Hitch Wrench in my front seat,
"they are tools not weapons" :D

mljdeckard
August 18, 2006, 12:00 AM
I worked for (put those flamethrowers on safe,) America Online for a couple of years. (I hated them, they hated me, I don't work there anymore, and the place I worked is closing as AOL is pretty much going out of business as they knew it.) Right before I was hired, two guys were fired for exchanging guns from one trunk to another after work, it was caught on camera. They were fired for violating a policy which they read, and signed that they understood it and agreed to it, that there were no guns allowed on premises.

I was split on the issue for a while, because, while I am also a 'gun person', they knew, understood, agreed to, and violated the rules. They didn't HAVE to violate the rules. There was plenty of space to park on public streets, and not violate the company's policy by parking in their controlled areas. (That's what I did, I parked on the street, and left it under the seat.)

They sued, and I made contact with the attorney handling the case for them. I asked him what the legal basis for this case is. He replied:

"Our theory in AOL was that Utah public policy manifest in Utah's
Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms (Art I, sec 6) and statutes
(which do not prohibit guns in the workplace) is clear and substantial and
therefore overrides employer policies. The Utah Supreme Court didn't buy
our argument, so we are introducing legislation this legislative session to
make it even clearer."

And while I had the option at AOL to NOT park on property, I have also worked other places where they had a similar policy and I DID have to park on property.

I have also mentioned a ridiculous policy I have dealt with in Nevada, I always stay at The Luxor, and I called ahead to ask them what their policy was on locking my gun in my car in their protected parking during my stay. They 'required' me to instead carry it cased through the casino floor to the security desk to check it in. (I didn't realize that the desk was on the gaming floor, I NEVER would have asked or carried it through the floor.)

I have come to a couple of personal conclusions, but not total resolution. First of all, while an employer may hold interest and liability with what happens on their property, they do NOT hold the same at the convenience store I stop at ON THE WAY HOME FROM WORK. They may be able to sigh with relief that their liability is eased by the fact there are 'no guns' on property, but this, in return, makes me uneasy when I have to stop for milk and gas on the way home at 0200 in The Holy City of Ogden.

They have these laws ONLY to limit their own liability. They aren't really concerned with what people do in the confines of their own vehicles. They never have authority to SEARCH your vehicle. THEREFORE, I have adopted a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy for taking my gun to work. I keep it under the seat, keep my mouth shut, and what they don't know won't hurt them. If I witness an act on company property which I would normally act to prevent, I would sit tight and call the police. (I would not pull until the point where I saw that a job isn't useful to a dead person.) I would later testify that I WOULD HAVE been in a position to prevent a bad event, if the company had allowed me too. The liability chain goes both ways.

My conflict comes from the fact that I often go on military posts as well. While crime is VERY low on post, and the access and security is tightly controlled, I STILL have to get from the post to home. And while I'm not versed in ALL of the circumstances and ways your car might be searched on post, I know the MPs have no sense of humor at all about sneaking weapons past the checkpoint. If I ever DID get nailed for carrying on post, I would NOT be explaining myself in a Utah court.

ConstitutionCowboy
August 18, 2006, 12:02 AM
This section of law discusses corporate bylaws. However, employees policy is not set in bylaws but in policy manuals that are not even referred to in bylaws. I don't see that this applies to employees bringing guns onto property or exercising First Amendment rights, or, in fact, any Constitutional issues outside of the bylaws themselves.

Things such as policy manuals ARE THE VERY DEFINITION of what a bylaw would be. There is state corporate law, federal corporate law, and corporate bylaws. Whether it is written in a policy manual or on a sign forbidding employees to throw empty soda cans in the paper trash container, it is a bylaw.

Woody

You all need to remember where the real middle is. It is the Constitution. The Constitution is the biggest compromise - the best compromise - ever written. It is where distribution of power and security of the common good meets with the protection of rights, freedom, and personal sovereignty. B.E.Wood

Gray Peterson
August 18, 2006, 02:14 AM
I don't want to see ANY good guys get hurt. But I know that somewhere, sometime, some ONE is going to get hurt while working at a place that forced him/her to disarm, and then s/he is going to sue the employer. Whether or not the employee wins, hopefully at LEAST the lawyers will sit up and take notice that "no guns" does NOT MEAN "no liability."


As I pointed out earlier in the thread, the best policy liability wise is to not have a policy at all. Again, this issue is not the same as sexual harassment/hostile work environment/discrimination policies.

mons meg
August 18, 2006, 02:31 AM
Oklahoma revised it's parking lot language to include civil immunity for companies should their employees "misuse" firearms on company property. Conocophillips is STILL fighting it, even though all the other companies that had joined the suit dropped out once they read the new law. Bah.

antsi
August 18, 2006, 08:17 AM
------quote--------------
They never have authority to SEARCH your vehicle.
-------------------------

Wondering - if you refuse to let them search your vehicle, can they fire you? For instance, what if a blissninny anti in your workplace finds out that you're an NRA member and wants to stir up crap, so they tell the employer that you've got a gun in your car. The employer "requests" permission to search you car. You decline. They fire you. Do you have cause for action in this scenario?

Or what if there's a bomb threat or something where they try to search everyone's car, and you refuse?

Father Knows Best
August 18, 2006, 08:44 AM
the corporation can not be held liable for an illegal act committed by one of its employees.

I take it from this statement and others you made that you are not an attorney, because this statement is simply flat out wrong.

It sounds like you are thinking of the doctrine of respondeat superior. Under that doctrine, employers are liable for injuries caused by their employees while those employees are acting in the course and scope of their employment. For example, if an employee is hired to drive a dump truck for the company, and he negligently causes an accident that injures a third party, then the employer will be liable for the injuries caused by the employee.

That does not mean, however, that employers are ONLY liable for injuries caused by employees acting in the course and scope of their employment. It only means that they are only liable under that particular doctrine when the acts occur in the course and scope of their employment. There are many other ways in which an employer may be liable for the acts of others. The principle theory is that of negligence.

For example, we all know that it is illegal to drive while intoxicated. If the employee drives the dump truck while intoxicated, is he acting within the course and scope of his employment? Probably not, especially if the employer had specifically instructed the employee to abide by all laws, including not driving while drunk. The employee then breaks the law and violates the employer's policies by driving drunk, anyway, and killing someone. Can the employer be held liable? Yes! The employer is not automatically liable, as it would be under respondeat superior, because the acts was not in the course and scope of employment. However, the plaintiff may be able to establish liability under other theories, such as negligent hiring or negligent entrustment. For example, suppose that the employee had been convicted of DUI in the past. The plaintiff would establish that the employer had a duty to protect the public from the dangers presented by its heavy trucks, and that the employer breached that duty by hiring this guy despite his DUI record and giving him access to the truck, and that the injury was entirely foreseeable and preventable as a result. Cases like that happen all the time.

It would be no different than a stranger coming on to the corporate property and committing a crime.

Believe it or not, companies can also be held liable for injuries caused by third party criminals on their property. Again, the issue is whether the injury was foreseeable and whether the company took reasonable steps to prevent those injuries. If not, they are liable in negligence. The classic example here is the store that knows its customers are routinely being robbed in the parking lot. The store does not take steps to protect its customers, for example by adding lights and fencing, hiring security guards, etc. A customer then gets shot in an robbery while leaving the store. Can the store be held liable? You bet! It's happened.

The bottom line is that companies have to ask what types of injuries are reasonably foreseeable, and how their actions or inactions can be portrayed in the event such injuries occur. It is generally viewed by lawyers as being relatively easy to convince a judge or jury that a random act of violence by someone who brought a gun on to your property without your permission or knowledge was not foreseeable, and therefore not preventable, and you cannot be held liable for injuries that result. This position is helped by the general legal principle that criminal acts are usually deemed "unforeseeable" absent significant evidence to the contrary (such as the robberies-in-store-parking-lot example).

On the other hand, if the employer chooses to permit firearms on its property, even if only in the hands of state-licensed employees and customers, it is probably easy for a plaintiff's attorney to convince a judge that injuries caused by misuse of those firearms, whether accidental (negligent discharge) or intentional (crimes), are entirely foreseeable, and that the company is therefore liable for not taking adequate steps to prevent those injuries.

Again, I'm saying that is the "right" result; I'm just letting you know how the vast majority of lawyers (whose job it is to predict what courts will do) see the situation.

I firmly believe that permitting state-licensed individuals to carry firearms on company property pursuant to state law does NOT increase the risk of injuries, and in fact may reduce it by deterring crimes. Ask yourself how likely it is that a "disgruntled" ex-employee would walk in and start shooting or stabbing people if he knew his victims were prepared to shoot back instead of just cower or run. Unfortunately, the tort liability system doesn't take that into account, because it only looks at an incident in hindsight, and in hindsight it is easy to argue that something was foreseeable while minimizing or dismissing the value of deterring things that in fact did NOT happen.

That's why I think Ohio got it right, and other states should follow. Unless companies are protected against tort liability for acts by CCW holders, whether employees or customers, then those companies will have strong disincentives to permitting the carry of firearms on their property.

Father Knows Best
August 18, 2006, 08:52 AM
The employer "requests" permission to search you car. You decline. They fire you. Do you have cause for action in this scenario?


Generally, no, unless you have a contract that says otherwise. The basic idea is that employment in the U.S. is "at will", meaning you can be fired at any time, for any or no reason, and without notice. Similarly, you can quit at any time, for any or no reason, and without notice, and not be liable to the employer.

The basic "at will" doctrine can be modified by contract, however. This is most commonly found in union shops, where the collective bargaining agreement usually prohibits termination of employees without sufficient cause, advance notice, etc.

Also, even non-union shops typically have employment contracts these days, and a company's employee handbook will usually establish certain additional rights and obligations that are binding on the employer. If your employment agreement or employee contract says you can only be fired for certain things, or only after notice, then a termination for failure to consent to a search may be a violation of those obligations and give you a basis to sue.

Finally, there are certain things for which an employer may NOT fire you, but they are limited. You can not be fired simply for being part of a "protected class", for example, such as certain minorities, military veterans, disabled, over a certain age, etc. You also cannot be fired in retaliation for things like complaining of discrimination or unsafe working conditions.

For the most part, though, employers are generally permitted to fire employees who refuse to consent to searches of their vehicles on company property.

Ryder
August 18, 2006, 10:40 AM
The property where I work is not owned by a person. Where does it say some faceless corporation is entitled to the same rights as me? Company policies are simply a attempt to impose another layer of government upon me (get in line for that! :D).

Hard to take serious since not one single aspect of my job description depends on adherance to these rules and hasn't in any job I've worked yet. Seems more like the pencil pushers dreamed this crap up to justify their paychecks since they are unable to provide anything of real worth. Let them have their fantasy. They don't push and I don't shove back. It's a good arrangement.

sigman4rt
August 18, 2006, 05:03 PM
Interesting, Great thread. Very relevent to my upcoming situation. We have a "no carry" policy at work, vehicles are ok. I've just been offered a promotion and one of the perks is a company vehicle. I'm curious about leaving a firearm secured in their company vehicle or even tooling about town in the company vehicle while carrying. Any thoughts?

Green Lantern
August 18, 2006, 06:30 PM
Lonnie - I would tend to agree. The trick would be getting Big Corporate to agree! ;)

Sigman - hmmm....I'd be combing over the rulebook on that one. Since the car is company property, I'd tend to think "no gun," but I could be wrong of course. Could you accept the job but decine the company car (if you would want to)? Of course asking someone might be the fastest way to the best answer....but I don't know if you'd like to draw the attention to yourself! ;)

Well, like I said, MY rule book says that the company can only search your person/locker/car (and "person" may not even be on there) if you're suspected of being on drugs. BUT, "at will," refusing to allow a search if asked for ANY reason would be as good an excuse as any to fire you I suppose.

Father Knows Best
August 18, 2006, 06:43 PM
I agree with Green Lantern -- read the company policies carefully. Most companies that allow firearms at all only allow them in the employee's private vehicles; they generally prohibit them in company-owned vehicles.

Boats
August 18, 2006, 07:15 PM
The ultimate answer, from the gun owners perspective, would be an approach that makes the barring of effective personal defense by either the employer or some other natural or artificial person, so unbearably high that they would not dare prohibit it.

Lift the common workers' compensation lawsuit immunity from employers who bar self-defense weapons. The policy argument here would be twofold: 1) The employer, through their actions, has assumed the duty of protecting the employee from foreseeable criminal harm by barring the employee from providing for his or herself. 2) If the employee dies from reasonably forseeable criminal action and didn't have proactive measures in place to prevent it (bullet shields at convenience stores, armed guards monitoring access to secured facilities, not employing metal detectors to ensure a "gun-free" workplace etc., the employer would face joint and several civil liability for wrongful death as if the employer had pulled the trigger.

Make exceptions to the "coming and going" or "commuting" exceptions to most workers' compensation schemes. If the employer bars the reasonable carry of personal arms from even secured storage in a car in the parking lot, then they would lose these exceptions to claims under the law in the event that the employee were criminally attacked during a direct commute to or from work. Again, the lawsuit bar against the employer would be lifted so that damages would be delimited.

Make certain that the Second Amendment gets recognized as an inalienable civil right and then tweak 42 U.S.C. 1983 to make private parties who violate one's civil rights subject to liability not only when they act under the color of the law, but also when the act in direct contravention of the law. IOW, one could still control the on site conduct of the employee insofar as it regards performance (No bad mouthing the employer in front of customers, but liability for firing someone for off work hearsay. Could restrict guns in the building, but not deprive them on the commute by restricting them from privately owned cars parked on corporate property).

I believe these simple changes in the law would make it so potentially expensive for the employer or other gun banning entity that most would choose to have no policy regarding gun ownership, especially if such were coupled with a liability shield for the unauthorized criminal acts or civil torts of their employees.

Soybomb
August 18, 2006, 08:19 PM
hose that talk of a slippery slope of eroding property rights - under the current situation, since a boss has the say of what you can and can't keep in your car, then I could easily see:
-A Christian boss firing you for your 'sinful' CD's, or forcing you to hang a cross from your mirror
-An athiest boss firing you for having a Bible in your car
-A Democrat boss making you slap a "Hillary 08" sticker on your car
-A Republican boss making you place a "support Bush" sticker on your car.
I have no trouble with any of these things. If you run a discriminatory business the word will get out and the free market will ensure you won't be running a business much longer. Don't waste my money making the government try to keep the rules fair for all the children playing when it can be done on its own.

Along similar lines I refuse to work for an employer that does drug testing because for my profession my employer has no reason to be concerned for what I do when I'm not at work. I've never even smoked pot, its just a point I feel strongly about. I didn't take what would have been a decent paying job at a christian establishment because they didn't just want a professional to do their job, they also have religious services that employees are expected to participate in. I'm not crying over it. There's plenty of places to work. If someone is too selective about employees they either won't be able to afford the 10 employees that meet their stringent qualifications or no one will want to work there. Either way neither solution required legislation or an enforcement bureas.

If you don't like the policy, just don't work there. Don't ask big brother to come help you out.

ConstitutionCowboy
August 18, 2006, 09:39 PM
It sounds like you are thinking of the doctrine of respondeat superior. Under that doctrine, employers are liable for injuries caused by their employees while those employees are acting in the course and scope of their employment. For example, if an employee is hired to drive a dump truck for the company, and he negligently causes an accident that injures a third party, then the employer will be liable for the injuries caused by the employee.

You've quoted me out of context in that I alluded to what you have written here, and also that the illegal act of an employee is not the responsibility of the corporation, especially when the illegal act is not a function of the corporation. We are not talking negligence.

For example, we all know that it is illegal to drive while intoxicated. If the employee drives the dump truck while intoxicated, is he acting within the course and scope of his employment? Probably not, especially if the employer had specifically instructed the employee to abide by all laws, including not driving while drunk. The employee then breaks the law and violates the employer's policies by driving drunk, anyway, and killing someone. Can the employer be held liable? Yes! The employer is not automatically liable, as it would be under respondeat superior, because the acts was not in the course and scope of employment. However, the plaintiff may be able to establish liability under other theories, such as negligent hiring or negligent entrustment. For example, suppose that the employee had been convicted of DUI in the past. The plaintiff would establish that the employer had a duty to protect the public from the dangers presented by its heavy trucks, and that the employer breached that duty by hiring this guy despite his DUI record and giving him access to the truck, and that the injury was entirely foreseeable and preventable as a result. Cases like that happen all the time.

In this case, the employee is violating state law and corporate policy with an object(the substance "alcohol"). It isn't quite the same as an employee having a gun locked up in his vehicle back in the parking lot. The first employee is inebriated. The employee who left his gun locked in his vehicle isn't target practicing as he makes his deliveries. If the second employee has to shoot a third employee who has gone on a murdering spree, the company certainly would not be held liable for the actions of that second employee who "saved the day", and certainly the corporation cannot be held responsible for the illegal actions of the berserk employee. Whatever has been "adjudicated" in tort cases, with the ridiculous awards being handed out, doesn't make it right.

But, back to the driver with a DUI in his past. If he has been subsequently granted a driver's license by the state, the state must be OK with this man driving under what ever license is required for this job that includes driving. Seems to me, a prudent corporate lawyer would bring that point up in such a trial.

The bottom line here is that regardless of whatever foreseeable or unforeseeable consequences may arise from having a rule or not having a rule, what ever rules(bylaws) a company adopts must be within the law. A corporation in Oklahoma cannot have a bylaw that would infringe upon a right of its employees. That would include the right to self defense. That would include the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. I can't say it any more clearly.

Even the United States recognizes that a person cannot be forbidden to keep arms in their vehicles while at the Post Office.

Woody

A law that says you cannot fire your gun in the middle of downtown unless in self defense is not unconstitutional. Laws that prohibit brandishing except in self defense or handling your gun in a threatening or unsafe manner would not be unconstitutional. Laws can be written that govern some of the uses of guns. No law can be written that infringes upon buying, keeping, storing, carrying, limiting caliber, limiting capacity, limiting quantity, limiting action, or any other limit that would infringe upon the keeping or bearing of arms. That is the truth and simple reality of the limits placed upon government by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. B.E.Wood

Phetro
August 19, 2006, 10:29 AM
The simple fact is, employers have no right to infringe on the civil rights of employees, or anyone else.

If you disagree, you would allow EVERY company the ability to ban guns on their property, creating a nation in which citizens could only be armed at home or on the street. Wake up.

Car Knocker
August 19, 2006, 11:48 AM
The simple fact is, employers have no right to infringe on the civil rights of employees, or anyone else.


Certainly they do.

Companies or corporations (let's use McDonald's as an example) can prevent a religious group from soliciting funds or proslytizing in its restaurants. McDonald's can prohibit staff from wearing NAMBLA buttons while on duty. McDonald's can discipline an employee for uttering derogatory comments to a customer. These are all "rights" normally assured under the First Amendment but they aren't absolute. An employee can contracturally waive rights and the public's ability to enjoy certain rights can be trumped by the ability of a property owner to control actions on its property. Show up in a hood and sheet and holding a KKK sign in the McDonald's parking lot and see how long it takes for the cops to show up and escort you off the property.

If First Amendment rights can be legally curtailed on private property, then cannot Second and Fourth Amendment rights also be legally and Constitutionally curtailed to some degree? As an example, is it Constitutionally permissible to search and disarm visitors at the state prison prior to contact with inmates?

glummer
August 19, 2006, 12:15 PM
Father
The bottom line is that companies have to ask what types of injuries are reasonably foreseeable, and how their actions or inactions can be portrayed in the event such injuries occur. It is generally viewed by lawyers as being relatively easy to convince a judge or jury that a random act of violence by someone who brought a gun on to your property without your permission or knowledge was not foreseeable, and therefore not preventable, and you cannot be held liable for injuries that result. This position is helped by the general legal principle that criminal acts are usually deemed "unforeseeable" absent significant evidence to the contrary (such as the robberies-in-store-parking-lot example).
But it seems to me, that by banning guns, the employer is ADMITTING that it forsees some danger; otherwise, why bother? :scrutiny:

If the company than makes no effort to physically protect its workers from this FORESEEN danger, why wouldn't this automatically count as negligence, if a disgruntled employee brought a gun in and shot his manager? :confused:

Phetro
August 19, 2006, 12:28 PM
Certainly they do.

Companies or corporations (let's use McDonald's as an example) can prevent a religious group from soliciting funds or proslytizing in its restaurants. McDonald's can prohibit staff from wearing NAMBLA buttons while on duty. McDonald's can discipline an employee for uttering derogatory comments to a customer. These are all "rights" normally assured under the First Amendment but they aren't absolute. An employee can contracturally waive rights and the public's ability to enjoy certain rights can be trumped by the ability of a property owner to control actions on its property. Show up in a hood and sheet and holding a KKK sign in the McDonald's parking lot and see how long it takes for the cops to show up and escort you off the property.

If First Amendment rights can be legally curtailed on private property, then cannot Second and Fourth Amendment rights also be legally and Constitutionally curtailed to some degree? As an example, is it Constitutionally permissible to search and disarm visitors at the state prison prior to contact with inmates?

That sounds great. Now read this again, and let it sink in this time:

...you would allow EVERY company the ability to ban guns on their property, creating a nation in which citizens could only be armed at home or on the street. Wake up. A de facto NATIONWIDE GUN BAN is what you would allow, under the guise of "employer rights."

What's "legal" these days is not by any stretch constitutional. The Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves.

Car Knocker
August 19, 2006, 01:40 PM
You have avoided addressing any of the points I made. Are property rights meaningless in your world?

Soybomb
August 19, 2006, 02:05 PM
What's "legal" these days is not by any stretch constitutional. The Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves.
What isn't legal about it or shouldn't be to you? Would you suggest that if you have the right to carry on my property against my wishes I would also have the right to free speech and assmebly on property you own against your wishes? The constituation provides for protection of rights against federal laws. The rules change when you go on the clock for someone and step foot onto their property.

Phetro
August 19, 2006, 02:49 PM
What isn't legal about it or shouldn't be to you? Would you suggest that if you have the right to carry on my property against my wishes I would also have the right to free speech and assmebly on property you own against your wishes?

If your property and mine are businesses serving the public: YES.

Otherwise: you would allow EVERY company the ability to ban guns on their property, creating a nation in which citizens could only be armed at home or on the street. A de facto NATIONWIDE GUN BAN is what you would allow, under the guise of "employer rights."

It's funny that no "employer rights" advocates will touch this statement. Which is it: are you pro-gun or pro-employer? You cannot have both at the end of the day, after the stigma is concrete.

glummer
August 19, 2006, 05:32 PM
Otherwise: you would allow EVERY company the ability to ban guns on their property, creating a nation in which citizens could only be armed at home or on the street. A de facto NATIONWIDE GUN BAN is what you would allow, under the guise of "employer rights."

That could only occur if EVERY company wanted it, and virtually all the employees accepted it.
A) That won't ever happen in the real world. :scrutiny:
B) If it did, it would be in a circumstance where the support for it was so great that your talk of "allowing" it would be totally irrelevant. :uhoh:

ConstitutionCowboy
August 19, 2006, 10:03 PM
Only people have rights; be they the RKBA, the right to self defense, or rights they would enjoy as a result of owning property. Corporations are allowed to own property by state and federal law. Corporations can only operate in accordance with the law, as proscribed by the law, not in accordance with anything that would be considered a right. Corporations are granted powers by the law. A corporation can no more violate an inalienable right of a person than government can(or is not supposed to!).

Any bylaws a corporation might have must fall within the confines proscribed by the law that provides for their creation. The state law that allows for the creation of a corporation comes from powers granted to the state in its constitution, and that power is reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment. All we are talking about here are powers. The state has no, nor could it ever have, power to covey a right upon a corporation. A state cannot even convey a right upon a person, because it is the other way around. States and the Union have powers granted to them by the people - said powers being derived from the rights of the people, for the convenience of the people.

A corporation may be granted power to peacefully conduct its business, free from undue interference. Just as a person's freedom of speech does not give them the right to besmirch someone, it does not give a person the right to interfere with the lawful conduct of a business. What Car Knocker is calling "rights" under the First Amendment are not absolute rights, but aspects of the Freedom of Speech. An action such as holding a KKK rally in a McDonald's parking lot is not protected as an absolute right either. Such a rally is not likely to be peaceable or conducive to the business at McDonald's and would interfere with McDonald's power to conduct its business free from undue interference.

The Second Amendment protected right is absolute and cannot be violated. The PROCESS for reasonable violation of the rights covered in the Fourth Amendment can not be violated either. If a state cannot conduct a search of your property without a warrant, neither can a corporation. That power has been denied to the government and government certainly cannot delegate power it does not have to a corporation. If you are observed shoplifting, even the the store security personnel cannot conduct a search of your person without your permission. Law enforcement must be called in and even then it might be necessary to acquire a warrant to search you. That would be true even if you worked there.

A religious group would not have a "right" to solicit funds or to proselytize in someone's restaurant without the restaurateurs permission. It would be no different than a group of Baptist storming a synagogue and holding its services there and trying to convert all the Jews without their permission.

Forbidding you as a visitor to carry arms into a prison, for all intents and purposes, is a violation of your Second Amendment protected Right to Keep and Bear Arms and a denial of the means for you to defend yourself. If you must be in contact with a prisoner, that prisoner should be restrained, not you. It is the duty of the state to contain prisoners, be it keeping them off the streets or held incapable of causing harm even while they are in prison. On the same token, you can be denied access to a prisoner. It is also the duty of the state to protect anyone it has in custody.

So, back to the heart of the topic at hand, the bottom line is that a corporation cannot adopt any bylaw not allowed by law. Corporations do not have rights nor the power to violate rights. That said, there are instances where It would be practical for a business to disallow weapons in certain areas. The area around an MRI machine is a good example. In those instances provisions should be made for the secure storage and easy access to the bearer of those arms.

Woody.

It seems governments are not the only entities around here usurping power...

Car Knocker
August 19, 2006, 10:40 PM
The Second Amendment protected right is absolute and cannot be violated. The PROCESS for reasonable violation of the rights covered in the Fourth Amendment can not be violated either. If a state cannot conduct a search of your property without a warrant, neither can a corporation.

A person can abrogate his rights by agreeing to searches of his property in an employment contract or in a specific instance and can negate Second Amendment rights by agreement also. A person can chose to curtail Constitutional rights in return for empoyment or he can opt to not work for that company. It's his choice. The courts have long recognized that a person may chose not to exercise rights. Miranda comes to mind.

Sir Aardvark
August 19, 2006, 10:52 PM
I agree with Hankb (amongst the first posts, if you care to go back and look).

If my employer wishes to assume ALL responsibility for me while I am disarmed due to their policy, then sure, let things go on as they are.

It's kinda funny that once you sock someone where it hurts, namely their pocketbook, then they tend to roll over and play things fair.

Soybomb
August 19, 2006, 11:37 PM
Otherwise: you would allow EVERY company the ability to ban guns on their property, creating a nation in which citizens could only be armed at home or on the street. A de facto NATIONWIDE GUN BAN is what you would allow, under the guise of "employer rights."

It's funny that no "employer rights" advocates will touch this statement.
Thats me and I'll gladly do so. Many states with concealed carry already allow businesses to post signs disallowing carry on their property. Oddly enough though on here I read people posting from time to time how they had a talk with the store owner and explained they would be taking their money elsewhere to somewhere without this policy and the store owner took their signs down. If you don't like the owners rules, don't shop there or work there. If your rules are too bad you wont have any employees or workers, they'll all go to the guy on the other side of town. I have no federal protection from pre-employment drug tests. Yet I refuse to take one and I can still find employment. I believe we can fight our own battles more efficiently than the government ever can.

The bottom line is that money speaks the loudest. Let the free market do its job and the lack of money/employees will shut down the business with the dumb rules.

ConstitutionCowboy
August 19, 2006, 11:45 PM
Quote:
The Second Amendment protected right is absolute and cannot be violated. The PROCESS for reasonable violation of the rights covered in the Fourth Amendment can not be violated either. If a state cannot conduct a search of your property without a warrant, neither can a corporation.


A person can abrogate his rights by agreeing to searches of his property in an employment contract or in a specific instance and can negate Second Amendment rights by agreement also. A person can chose to curtail Constitutional rights in return for empoyment or he can opt to not work for that company. It's his choice. The courts have long recognized that a person may chose not to exercise rights. Miranda comes to mind.

I can agree with you to a point. That point being that any contract offered by an employer cannot include compliance with a bylaw prohibited by law. A company cannot have a bylaw that says black people and white people cannot work together. A company cannot ask a person to accept a job and sign a waiver on the guise that said person must keep himself segregated from any other employee(s) of a different race or religion as a condition of employment. It is no different for an inalienable right.

Woody

Waitone
August 21, 2006, 06:39 AM
IIRC the Wakefield, MA shooting resulted in the deaths of seven, one of whom was a NH CCH license holder. MA law being what it is he had to leave his sidearm at home in NH. IIRC he was one of the first killed. One can only speculate how things would have differed had MA decreed different law.

All of which says, corporations must be held accountable for their policies. AAAAAAA lot of what passes for policy is merely the bad dreams of attorneys. I will guarantee you one good neglegence lawsuit will cool the enthusiasm for disarming employees.

Double Naught Spy
August 21, 2006, 08:38 AM
All of which says, corporations must be held accountable for their policies. AAAAAAA lot of what passes for policy is merely the bad dreams of attorneys. I will guarantee you one good neglegence lawsuit will cool the enthusiasm for disarming employees.

It hasn't worked so far.

The simple fact is, employers have no right to infringe on the civil rights of employees, or anyone else.

Really? Says who? The law says otherwise. Freedom of speech? You can be fired for yelling at the boss. Freedom of the press? Your employer doesn't have to let you run a newspaper at his/her business. Right to keep and bear arms...obviously not by this thread.

It is voluntary that employees to give up their rights, specific rights, for a duration while they are getting paid and on company property. If they decide to act otherwise, then they get to have their paid position terminated and leave the property. At which time they refuse to leave, they are trespassing.

We all want to carry in the workplace, including me, but given some of the morons I have seen at the range, I sure as hell would not want them legally carrying in the workplace with me. They may be legal, but that does not make them competent.

Zach S
August 21, 2006, 09:14 AM
The no weapons policy is a feel good policy. It gives the sheeple the illusion of being safe. Since guns arent allowed, no one can go postal.

Gray Peterson
August 22, 2006, 04:38 AM
On the other hand, if the employer chooses to permit firearms on its property, even if only in the hands of state-licensed employees and customers, it is probably easy for a plaintiff's attorney to convince a judge that injuries caused by misuse of those firearms, whether accidental (negligent discharge) or intentional (crimes), are entirely foreseeable, and that the company is therefore liable for not taking adequate steps to prevent those injuries.

I don't think so for the reasons woodcli has stated. There is a difference between "permit by stating" (a policy saying persons can carry if they have weapons licenses), and having no policy at all, as I keep pointing out. Companies are NOT required to have no weapons policies, period, even by implication of tort.

Corporations are not people, and corporations only have rights granted to them by the state under licensing laws. Any state could tommorow pass a law requring all anti-gun rules to go away and they can sue all they want claiming "private property rights", however they will not get anywhere.

c_yeager
August 22, 2006, 04:48 AM
When we start trading one right for another, we are in trouble. The right to bear arms and the right to determine the rules of private property can coexist quite happily. If your employer bans carry, work somewhere else. If your buddy doesnt want guns in his house, dont go there. If you dont like having wierd people ignoring your rules in your home, kick them out. Its all very simple.

The notion that a person has some kind of special right to work for a particular employer is incorrect. You work, they pay you, that is the extent of the relationship.

evan price
August 22, 2006, 05:32 AM
Phetro: I'll jump in here and take it up:

Yes, it would be a defacto gun ban. However anybody who owns property has the right to set the rules on their property. You have the right to observe their rules or not enter their property & patronize their business. That's how this works. You can still carry in public places. What's the big deal?

ConstitutionCowboy
August 22, 2006, 10:50 AM
Yes, it would be a defacto gun ban. However anybody who owns property has the right to set the rules on their property. You have the right to observe their rules or not enter their property & patronize their business. That's how this works. You can still carry in public places. What's the big deal?

The deal, big or small, is that corporations do not have rights. Corporations only have powers granted to them by state law. A person who owns property is a different matter. That said, if a person opens that property up to conduct business with the public, state law governing business comes into effect for what ever portion of property has been set aside for that business.

If state law says a business can restrict carrying arms in its buildings and other property but not in its parking lots set aside for its employees(or customers), that is all a corporation may do. It has no right to do otherwise since it does not have ANY rights.

Disclaimer: The Second Amendment considered notwithstanding for the sake of discussion.

Woody

evan price
August 23, 2006, 11:52 PM
Corporations have been granted the same protections and rights as persons and this was upheld by the Supreme Court in a series of cases cited regularly:


First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978), granted corporations 1st Amendment protections.


Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906) granted corporations 4th Amendment protections.


Noble v. Union River Logging R. Co., 147 U.S. 165 (1893), Granted corporations 5th Amendment rights,

Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922), firmed up corporate 5th amendment rights,

Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U.S. 141 (1962), found that corporations could not be retried for the same act twice, thus finishing the granting of full 5th Amendment rights to corporations.



Justice Brennan has declared, "by 1871, it was well understood that corporations should be treated as natural persons for virtually all purposes of constitutional and statutory analysis."
Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 687 (1978).


Chief Justice Morrison Waite: "...[t]he Court does not wish to hear arguments on the question whether the provision of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."
(emphasis mine)


Briefs from the dismissed & settled San Mateo v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 13 F. 722 (C.C.D. Cal. 1882), were later referenced in
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886)

Due process protection under the 14th Amend. was decided in
Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Company v. Beckwith, 129 U.S. 26 (1889).



Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward grants corporations rights under the Contracts & Commerce clause of the US constitution.



Corporations were found to have the same civil rights as you or I in the
Civil Rights Act of 1964

Section 1983 [53] the 1964 Civil Rights Act states:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress

Since the "Personhood" of corporations had been previously decided as the 14th Amendment cases cited above, corporations were thus granted full rights under the CRA '64. This has been upheld.

So the US Supreme Court has decided that corporations have the same rights and guarantees as "people"; check the sources for yourself. There are numerous cases of law in the Supreme Court that have been decided in corporations' favor based upon these cites; feel free to research.

Thus they can deny anything they want to deny on their property.

The fact that the law states that this is this way doesn't make it right; it just makes it the law of the land.

psychophipps
August 24, 2006, 12:54 AM
As a student of business, I have recently learned that employers acrossed the United States have greater leeway in the firing process than most people realize. In fact, as long as an employer isn't firing an employee for a federal or state forbidden reason (race, creed, sex, religion, etc.) then they can fire them basically at-will.

Gun in your car in the parking lot? You're fired.

Wearing red today? You're fired.

Not dressed casually on Casual Friday? You're fired.

You like mushrooms on your pizza? You're fired.

And there isn't a bloody thing you can do about it. Oh, you can piss, whine, moan and threaten to sue but since it wasn't for a federally or state mandated forbidden reason, you're freakin' hosed...
Mark(psycho)Phipps( HAHAHA! )

Car Knocker
August 24, 2006, 01:17 AM
as long as an employer isn't firing an employee for a federal or state forbidden reason (race, creed, sex, religion, etc.) then they can fire them basically at-will.

The general exception to this would be a union shop. That, of course, has both advantages and disadvantages.

Oleg Volk
August 24, 2006, 01:48 AM
For example, I had to remove a number of photo of friends and many posts on THR because people were threatened with dismissal by their employers. So, in practice, you can be fired for owning guns or posing nude or endorsing vegeterianism...depending on the biases of your employer.

kengrubb
August 24, 2006, 02:30 AM
There was a time when some companies posted signs "No Blacks, No Jews, No Irish".

Generally when this is raised, the defenders of property rights state "Yes, but there's a Constitutional provision addressing that."

This often leads me to wonder if there were no Constitutional protection against racial discrimination, would that make racial discrimination OK?

If not, then we seem to be entering some area of agreement in which we find certain behaviors so morally repugnant that property rights alone is not a sufficiently valid argument for a ban. Be it a ban on black people or guns of any color.

NorthernExtreme
August 24, 2006, 03:45 AM
Here's my take on things,

Any Corporation wanting to do business within US borders, and employ citizens of the U.S. has NO right to deny the Constitutional Rights of it's work force (since when did Corporate liability protection trump Constitutional Rights in the U.S.). The idea that any corporation can operate within the U.S. and pick and choose which rights it wants to support (or has to) for it's employees is beyond my limited intellectual understanding.

The fact that there are legal minds within the U.S. that support that notion is beyond all reason.

RealGun
August 24, 2006, 07:50 AM
Since the "Personhood" of corporations had been previously decided as the 14th Amendment cases cited above, corporations were thus granted full rights under the CRA '64. This has been upheld. - Evan Price

However, I don't believe you included that a private person may exclude someone from his home for any reason, but a business open to the public may not. The two entities are definitely neither the same nor are they actually treated as such.

When open to the public, the public collective will have an interest and will find jurisdiction to address inequities or any other problem in which it does or should have an interest, whether that be the common good or unfair treatment of individuals. It is an aberration when someone supposedly has rights and equality except when entering establishment X under no apparent qualifying test that would withstand scrutiny were it not for property rights being considered the trump card.

The reality is that businesses and other public places are definitely not the same as a private home.

Jeff White
August 24, 2006, 09:36 AM
RealGun said;
However, I don't believe you included that a private person may exclude someone from his home for any reason, but a business open to the public may not. The two entities are definitely neither the same nor are they actually treated as such.

When open to the public, the public collective will have an interest and will find jurisdiction to address inequities or any other problem in which it does or should have an interest, whether that be the common good or unfair treatment of individuals. It is an aberration when someone supposedly has rights and equality except when entering establishment X under no apparent qualifying test that would withstand scrutiny were it not for property rights being considered the trump card.

The reality is that businesses and other public places are definitely not the same as a private home.

Private property is in fact private property even if it's open to the public. If it wasn't there would not be bouncers in bars. I have removed or arrested for trespass many people who were asked to leave businesses for one reason or another. Please read the statute below and show me the exemption that says you can't be removed from a business open to the public.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt%2E+21&ActID=1876&ChapAct=720%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B5%2F&ChapterID=53&ChapterName=CRIMINAL+OFFENSES&SectionID=60736&SeqStart=47900000&SeqEnd=49500000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961%2E


(720 ILCS 5/21‑3) (from Ch. 38, par. 21‑3)
(Text of Section from P.A. 94‑263)
Sec. 21‑3. Criminal trespass to real property.
(a) Whoever:
(1) knowingly and without lawful authority enters or remains within or on a building; or
(2) enters upon the land of another, after receiving, prior to such entry, notice from the owner or occupant that such entry is forbidden; or
(3) remains upon the land of another, after receiving notice from the owner or occupant to depart; or
(3.5) presents false documents or falsely represents his or her identity orally to the owner or occupant of a building or land in order to obtain permission from the owner or occupant to enter or remain in the building or on the land; or
(4) enters upon one of the following areas in or on a motor vehicle (including an off‑road vehicle, motorcycle, moped, or any other powered two‑wheel vehicle), after receiving prior to that entry, notice from the owner or occupant that the entry is forbidden or remains upon or in the area after receiving notice from the owner or occupant to depart:
(A) any field that is used for growing crops or which is capable of being used for growing crops; or
(B) an enclosed area containing livestock; or
(C) or an orchard; or
(D) a barn or other agricultural building containing livestock;
commits a Class B misdemeanor.
For purposes of item (1) of this subsection, this Section shall not apply to being in a building which is open to the public while the building is open to the public during its normal hours of operation; nor shall this Section apply to a person who enters a public building under the reasonable belief that the building is still open to the public.
(b) A person has received notice from the owner or occupant within the meaning of Subsection (a) if he has been notified personally, either orally or in writing including a valid court order as defined by subsection (7) of Section 112A‑3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963 granting remedy (2) of subsection (b) of Section 112A‑14 of that Code, or if a printed or written notice forbidding such entry has been conspicuously posted or exhibited at the main entrance to such land or the forbidden part thereof.
(c) This Section does not apply to any person, whether a migrant worker or otherwise, living on the land with permission of the owner or of his agent having apparent authority to hire workers on such land and assign them living quarters or a place of accommodations for living thereon, nor to anyone living on such land at the request of, or by occupancy, leasing or other agreement or arrangement with the owner or his agent, nor to anyone invited by such migrant worker or other person so living on such land to visit him at the place he is so living upon the land.
(d) A person shall be exempt from prosecution under this Section if he beautifies unoccupied and abandoned residential and industrial properties located within any municipality. For the purpose of this subsection, "unoccupied and abandoned residential and industrial property" means any real estate (1) in which the taxes have not been paid for a period of at least 2 years; and (2) which has been left unoccupied and abandoned for a period of at least one year; and "beautifies" means to landscape, clean up litter, or to repair dilapidated conditions on or to board up windows and doors.
(e) No person shall be liable in any civil action for money damages to the owner of unoccupied and abandoned residential and industrial property which that person beautifies pursuant to subsection (d) of this Section.
(f) This Section does not prohibit a person from entering a building or upon the land of another for emergency purposes. For purposes of this subsection (f), "emergency" means a condition or circumstance in which an individual is or is reasonably believed by the person to be in imminent danger of serious bodily harm or in which property is or is reasonably believed to be in imminent danger of damage or destruction.
(g) Paragraph (3.5) of subsection (a) does not apply to a peace officer or other official of a unit of government who enters a building or land in the performance of his or her official duties.
(Source: P.A. 94‑263, eff. 1‑1‑06.)

About the only thing you'll find in the law will be sanctions against forbidding people from your business on the basis of race, creed, or color.

Jeff

Father Knows Best
August 24, 2006, 09:41 AM
This often leads me to wonder if there were no Constitutional protection against racial discrimination, would that make racial discrimination OK?

I don't know about "OK", but it would certainly make it legal. In general, As U.S. citizens we have the right to decide who we want to associate with, who we want to do business with, etc. It's called "freedom."

The GOVERNMENT is prohibited from discriminating among citizens on arbitrary grounds, because it is generally required to treat people as equals. Until the late 19th century, the same was not true of private citizens, including corporations. That's why businesses could and did prohibit women, minorities, Jews, etc.

Constitutional Amendments, as well as federal and state laws, have since put limitations on the rights of employers and private citizens to discriminate against certain protected classes with respect to public accomodations. Thus, you cannot operate a public business that discriminates against people (either customers or employees) on the basis of their race, national origin, sex, etc. The list keeps getting expanded, and in many situations it is also illegal to discriminate on the basis of age, disability, veteran status, sexual orientation, etc.

None of these restrictions make it illegal to be a bigot, however. You can hate blacks or Jews or gays all you want, and refuse to talk to them or allow them in your house. None of that is illegal. Despite the efforts of the P.C. crowd, prejudicial attitudes are not illegal. They may be "wrong", depending on your particular view of right and wrong, but not illegal.

Father Knows Best
August 24, 2006, 09:43 AM
When open to the public, the public collective will have an interest and will find jurisdiction to address inequities or any other problem in which it does or should have an interest, whether that be the common good or unfair treatment of individuals.

:uhoh:

Does anyone else get a sick feeling when they hear terms like "public collective", "inequities" and "common good"?

RealGun
August 24, 2006, 09:51 AM
Please read the statute below and show me the exemption that says you can't be removed from a business open to the public.

I don't equate being removed for cause with being prohibited from entry without just cause.

RealGun
August 24, 2006, 09:55 AM
Does anyone else get a sick feeling when they hear terms like "public collective", "inequities" and "common good"?

Private property rights die hards would say this, but from their ranks you will find those who want to use property rights for discrimination, whether for race or for guns...whatever. They will argue for property rights, not the right to discriminate. That would be quite disingenuous, pretending to be on the high road.

Jeff White
August 24, 2006, 10:07 AM
RealGun said;
I don't equate being removed for cause with being prohibited from entry without just cause.

It stands to reason that if a property owner can remove you for possessing a firearm or a dog (other then a guide dog in most places) then the property owner can refuse you entry for the same reason.

I doubt the Supreme Court will ever say that No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service signs are unconstitutional.

Jeff

coltrane679
August 24, 2006, 10:18 AM
It would be impossible to address every inane thing posted in this thread, but I take on a couple.

First, all the ranting about "corporations" and their (falsely) alleged lack of "rights".

Let me understand something--is the form in which a business is organized supposed to be significant to the greater issue here? Is that it? Are there going to be different rules for business organized as sole proprietorships or partnerships versus corporations because the latter a creation of statute while the former were recognized under the common law? UH, can anybody explain to me exactly why this is? I guess limited partnerships and LLCs would also fall into the same category as corps, right?

As has been already pointed out, the fact that corps are created by statute (as opposed to having be recognized under common law) is completely irrelevant to this debate. Once states create corporations, those corporations have a whole panoply of Constituional rights--such as those granted by the First Amendment. That is the settled state of the law, period.

Second, the fact that an entity "opens itself" to "the public" to do business does nothing--ZERO--to change the stautus of its property as "private". He/she/they/it still OWN their property, exclusively, unless they agree otherwise (by lease, license, grant of easement, etc.). What "opening to the public" does, however, is create potential LIABILITIES for the owner--if I invite the public to come unto my property to conduct business, I cannot intnetionally, recklessly or negligantly create conditions that harms memebrs of the public--otherwise they will, successfully, be able to sue my ass.

That's it--by "opening to the public" I created potential liabilities, but I do not cede ownership.

Now, it is perfectly true that under the Civil Rights of 1964 and similar legislation, the Federal government has gained the right to dictate a whole range of things to the owners of such private propety. The reasons for this legislation were entirely noble, but the unintended consequences have been a disaster, destroying federalism and creating the government monster that consumed everything in its path. The opponents of such legislation back in the 60s, including Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, made exactly such predictions.

So, the choice now is whether gun owners (generally a conservative lot) are going to happily build on the superstructure of big government (the ends justifies the means!) or stick to principle. If you choose the former, you might win--now. But you are only strengthening (and creating terrible precedents) for those who would use government power to ends you DON'T happen to like. By abandoning principle, you make the rights of every property owner a mere function of raw political power. And if that is all you care about, go for it--you'll be in company with leftists who have defined the terms of discourse in this country for several decades now. I hope you are happy together, telling people how they must obey YOUR wishes about THEIR property.

As for me, I'll stick to my guns, thanks. (puns intended)

Father Knows Best
August 24, 2006, 10:32 AM
you will find those who want to use property rights for discrimination, whether for race or for guns...whatever. They will argue for property rights, not the right to discriminate. That would be quite disingenuous, pretending to be on the high road.

You and I will have to agree to disagree. Personally, I believe that private property is the fundamental building block of liberty. I also believe in the right of free people to choose with whom they will associate, though in your view, I guess that means I support a "right to discriminate." I'm not in favor of arbitrary discrimination, and personally I choose not to associate with bigots, but I will proudly defend their right to be bigoted. As my father likes to say, "it ain't illegal to be ignorant." Nor should it be.

RealGun
August 24, 2006, 10:48 AM
Second, the fact that an entity "opens itself" to "the public" to do business does nothing--ZERO--to change the stautus of its property as "private".

That is your opinion because it serves your point of view. While not entirely dogmatic, considering the law will generally back you up, that doesn't mean the law is correct. Gun owners especially will be painfully aware of how lame the law can be.

I guess what you mean is to totally dismiss any notion of being allowed to carry in all businesses "open to the public"...doors not locked, no membership or age requirements, etc. Thus we have the advice to not patronize a business that posts signs prohibiting CCW. I hope all realize that what you are saying is that you know it isn't right, but there is nothing you can do about it except pretend you can exact some revenge. Meanwhile injustice goes unchallenged. If you are trying to force businesses not to discriminate, violating a sense of personal rights and fairness, why not use the law to do it? Obviously personal property rights applied without exception to businesses allowed racial discrimination, so the whole concept is faulty from the outset. At least the racial thing has been addressed.

Father Knows Best
August 24, 2006, 10:55 AM
If you are trying to force businesses not to discriminate, violating a sense of personal rights and fairness, why not use the law to do it?

[sigh]

I don't advocate trying to "force" anyone not to violate my "sense of personal rights and fairness." And I will never support using the law or the institutions of government to do so. I will choose not to patronize a business that is posted "no guns", and I will hope that they see the error of their ways and ultimately change. But I will not attempt to "force" them to change, via the law or otherwise.

I guess that's what makes me a libertarian. You clearly are not.

Soybomb
August 24, 2006, 11:42 AM
Any Corporation wanting to do business within US borders, and employ citizens of the U.S. has NO right to deny the Constitutional Rights of it's work force
Boss I know I told off the dumb customer, but its my first amendment right to free speech, you can't fire me for it. Sorry doesn't hold up, you are free to leave his property and say what you want or carry whatever you want on your body or in your car. I just really hate this idea that because we like guns private property rights mean nothing.

And to the other guy, I don't think the government should be in the business of trying to keep businesses from having discriminatory hiring practices either. The free market can solve both of these problems on its own with out government spending and expansion of power.

gezzer
August 24, 2006, 09:55 PM
MY /gun/knife/hammer/screwdriver/pencil/rolled magazine or newspaper/diaper pin/sock with coins/rope/car /truck/etc is a tool I am the weapon as is every human. Some of us are more cunning and resourceful however.

Good luck stopping my protecting myself or family.

Green Lantern
August 24, 2006, 10:28 PM
I just really hate this idea that because we like guns private property rights mean nothing.

I just really hate the idea that just because a guy signs my paycheck, my private property rights mean nothing.

And for all of you who say, "park off company property if they ban guns," good theory...

BUT....if they want to search your car, and you can be fired for refusing (and pretty well everyone can, "at will" employment)...I don't see what difference it would make where it was parked. I'd bet that even if they don't/can't go where you do have it parked and search, the very act of you parking elsewhere would cause the 'powers that be' to have enough reason to suspect you're in violation and can you.

It's all about COMPROMISE. I fully accept that the boss can control what I carry on my person when I am inside the 4 walls of my workplace and directly interacting with my co-workers and customer.

I do NOT accept that the boss can fire me for keeping my legally owned handgun locked within a secured safe inside my locked vehicle, where it remains until I am off company property (where I either unlock the safe and move it within reach, or put the gun on my person if I'm going elsewhere besides straight home).

Again I point out that unless you don't have a permit, what I do is 100% legal. Yes, it would be "legal" for me to carry inside the store as well (it's not posted to the general public), but I can see the risks (liability and otherwise) inherent in that for both myself and my employer and abide by the part of the policy that says we can't carry weapons.

And what REALLY bumfoozles me about all the people up in arms against outlawing companies from discriminating against gun carriers is that I think MOST people on "my" side feel the same way! We're not trying to KILL private property rights, but strike a balance!

What about the (apparently novel) idea that your VEHICLE is private property????

Soybomb
August 24, 2006, 10:49 PM
I just really hate the idea that just because a guy signs my paycheck, my private property rights mean nothing.
Your property rights allow you the option of turning down the search.

I don't want the government in the business of trying to keep people from discriminating against each other. its not their job to try to make everyone place nice, it doesn't work, it causese problems, and it wastes my money. I like guns, but that includes discrimination based on guns.

Lets be honest anyway how many people have had their cars searched at work for firearms that weren't running their mouth about what was in their car? If you're joe factory worker and keep your yap shut it will never be an issue.

Green Lantern
August 24, 2006, 11:04 PM
If you're joe factory worker and keep your yap shut it will never be an issue.

Until they bring in the dogs.... ;)

Sure, I can refuse the search...and then be fired. Hey, more on the compromise idea - if they couldn't fire me for finding the safe with my gun in it, I really wouldn't mind them searching at all. They might see the car is a bit of a mess, might laugh at me for my "bug-out/get-home" bag, but so what?

I don't know if this would be acceptable to all, but how about a law that says an employer can STILL search your car (if you sign a consent form with the 1,239,572 OTHER papers you have to sign to get a job anyhow...)

But they can't do SQUAT to you as long as what they find is LEGAL under State laws??? :cool:

I agree though, "keep your eyes and ears open and your mouth shut" = words to live and THRIVE by!

I didn't realize that the big case was (at least supposedly) over drugs. That's the one thing it says in the handbook they can search your person or property for....interesting.

And BTW, FYI, and FWIW...I don't work at a "rabid-anti" company, as you probably guessed when I mentioned it's not posted that the general public can't CCW. We even had a "safety" meeting where they reminded that we could not CCW...but didn't say a word about cars. I read that as "don't ask don't tell."

So I don't have a vendetta as it were, but I still think it's highly unfair that a company can dictate what you can and cannot keep locked up and out of sight in your own vehicle! :fire:

NorthernExtreme
August 25, 2006, 04:17 AM
Boss I know I told off the dumb customer, but its my first amendment right to free speech, you can't fire me for it. Sorry doesn't hold up, you are free to leave his property and say what you want or carry whatever you want on your body or in your car. I just really hate this idea that because we like guns private property rights mean nothing.


Sorry, but we're talking about the difference between a person exercising their Rights vs abusing their Rights. That same Boss wouldn't fire the employee for telling a customer to, "Have a nice day, and come again." would he/she? Nor should a Boss have the right to fire or forbid an employee from peacefully exercising their Rights in a way that doesn't disrupt or hinder the business conducted on the property..

What we are discussing here is a policy that sets grounds for firing an employee equal to firing them for uttering a single word, or expressing them self in any way, not intentionally disrupting business as you use as an example listed above. Forbidding Arms on Company property is the same as a policy forbidding any speech or expression at all.

Soybomb
August 25, 2006, 12:18 PM
Nor should a Boss have the right to fire or forbid an employee from peacefully exercising their Rights in a way that doesn't disrupt or hinder the business conducted on the property
Why is it the governments place to tell a private employer what they have the right to do? I think your boss should have the right to fire you if he doesn't like the color socks you have on that day.

Smurfslayer
August 25, 2006, 12:32 PM
Please read the statute below and show me the exemption that says you can't be removed from a business open to the public

<snipped legislative gibberish>

That's a wild goose chase because it's not codified in statutory law.

It is, however, recognized in the common law should your state honor it.
It's called a "bona fide claim of right". An affirmative defense to trespass should a person, even mistakenly, have a good faith belief they have a right to be in that place - like, for a legitimate business purpose. A claim of right defeats trespass... since, about <carry the 3...> 1607.

Your state's mileage may vary...

http://www.courts.state.va.us/search/textopinions.html

And it's not iron clad, of course. You actually need a reason, a legitimate one, or if you're mistaken, it has to be in good faith.

Father Knows Best
August 25, 2006, 12:32 PM
I agree with Soybomb. I don't want government bureaucrats or judges sticking their noses into my employment decisions. Employment is a matter of private contract between mutually consenting parties. Employees can and should be able to quit at will, for any or no reason. Employers should be able to terminate them just as easily. If the parties want to limit their rights to terminate their relationship, they can do so as a matter of private contract by agreeing between themselves not to quit/terminate without notice or upon just cause. But absent such agreement, the government has no business saying who I hire and fire or why.

NorthernExtreme
August 26, 2006, 02:10 AM
Why is it the governments place to tell a private employer what they have the right to do? I think your boss should have the right to fire you if he doesn't like the color socks you have on that day.

Employment is a matter of contractual law. Both the Employer and Employee have Rights and Limitations. Employment is not meant to be a form of slavery or right to abuse the employee. Nor is it meant to be an opportunity to disrupt the legal business of an Employer by abusing your rights.

If you go to a Hospital I can guarantee you will not see a single Corporation or Business being born in the delivery rooms. Nor will you see a Government being born there. What you will see are Individual People being born there. and only those people have Individual Rights. Everything else is a state of existence born in Law. And that state of existence is subordinate to the Individual Rights of the Individual.

When an Individual grows up and decides they want to start a company or Corporation they do not suddenly have the power to strip individuals of their Rights. Nor do they have the power to decide which rights they will support or deny to those who work for them. What they have a right to do is set forth reasonable guidelines of employment. The employee them has the choice to accept or deny those guidelines. The Company or Corporation (Which is born out of Law) cannot strip an Individual of Natural Rights (which Laws have to Support).

As long as the Employee is not acting in a way that is detrimental to the legal business being done on the property, and is within the requirements set forth in the employment process (Contractual Law) there is no legal right to fire or punish the Employee. In the hiring process both the Employee and Employer enter into a legal contract, and both have to abide by that Contractual agreement. Any violation comitted by either party is in violation of a contractual agreement.

Now, an Employer can say that verbally abusing customers is a grounds for termination. But it cannot say if the Employee expresses him/her self in any manner while it is on the property of the Employer is grounds for termination. One is an agreement to work within the guidelines but still allow 1st Amendment Rights, while the other is using the Company or Corporation (a legal entity born of Law which is required to acknowledge Individual Natural Law not supersede it) to deny Individual Rights. When a Company or Corporation sets a policy of NO ARMS on Company or Corporate property it is using it's legal entity status in an attempt to supersede Individual Constitutional rights (create an Individual Rights free zone).

I know there are Employers who feel they should have the have all the Rights, but you cannot take your business (which is born out of Law "business license") to deny Individual Constitutional Rights of others. I agree you have a right to protest the interests of the Business, and every employee should be expected to comply with reasonable employment guidelines. But in sticking with the intent of the thread; how does an employee who has a concealed firearm on them or in their vehicle interfere in any way the legal business being done on the property? And if it has nothing to do with the legal business being done, and the employee is doing their job the way the Employer said he/she wanted it done; why is this even an issue?

If it's a matter of liability; how is a person peaceably exercising their rights, while proficiently conducting the legal business he/she was hired to do a liability? And since when is liability of greater moral, or legal importance than Individual Rights? And what is wrong with an statement from the Company or Corporation that states, "Any expression of Individual rights exercised by any Employee that causes a disruption to legal business being done on Company/Corporation property, and/or has a negative business effects can be used as cause for termination of employment. Only Employees who possess the State required permit to carry concealed firearms are allowed to carry a handgun on Company/Corporate property. The firearm must remain concealed (not openly visible) at all times, and remain in it's secure legal location unless legally authorized to remove it from it's legal use. Any unwarranted display or use that is not legally permitted by State or Federal law is strictly forbidden and is grounds for termination of employment. If an Individual employee possesses, displays, or uses a firearm that does not comply with local law or company policy, he/she will accepts full legal and financial responsibility for any and all results of his/her actions from doing so. (Name of Company/Corporation) accepts no legal or financial responsibility for any Employees decision to exercise any Individual Right that does not comply with such laws or Company policy.."


Question; Can a Business have a policy that effectively states that an Employee does not have a specific Constitutional Right while on that businesses property? I'm not talking about unacceptable expressions (that run contrary to a business objective like verbally abusing a customer) of their Rights, but having NO Right. Because when a policy exists forbidding the possession of legal Arms on the property; it effectively prohibits the Right entirely. And if it's OK for a Business to create a policy forbidding (or requiring the surrender of) one Individual Right) does it not stand to reason that a Corporation has the right to restrict (or requiring the surrender of) any or all Individual Rights of it's Employees as a condition of employment.

A Business has a responsibility to protect its assets for the Shareholders, and Employees. I support that in every way. But is does not have any Right to require it's Employees to surrender entirely (not restrict) a Constitutional Right as a condition of Employment. If that were the case, is that not like saying every one of us are only guaranteed to have Constitutional Rights when we are home on our own private property? Or are our Rights truly inalienable?

Art Eatman
August 26, 2006, 11:01 AM
Ah, c'mon, Northern Extreme. It's some individual of a corporation who decides some policy about firearms on the property. It's not "the corporation" who makes the decision. An employee can go along with the deal or quit--or go to court.

That's what courts are for: To decide limits, to decide if the perception of a right is a correct perception.

In general: Legislatures get involved because of some public uproar about an issue. You, me, us, go to fussing and then here comes some individual legislator who takes up our cause against corporations. That's how "government" gets into the business of telling anybody what/how to do: We The People stir up a fuss about something, be it guns or pollution or traffic laws.

All anybody needs is peace and quiet. So, to me, the deal oughta be for the corporation, no guns in the building, if that's what is desired. For the CHLer, nobody bothers his car in the parking lot.

Trouble is, folks' egos get involved in these arguments, with a bunch of rudeness, name-calling and all that, and we wind up in an all-or-nothing situation.

Everybody loses.

Art

Double Naught Spy
August 26, 2006, 11:23 AM
It all boils down to the fact that those who are not in control don't want to be controlled, but won't or can't be in control, won't quit for all sorts of backhanded excuses, won't become their own boss, and feel that they should be employed on their terms, not those of their employers. Never mind the fact that they failed to negotiate or poorly negotiated their terms of employment and now can only complain.

You are the master of your own destiny. There is risk branching out on your own, but until you do, you will be under somebody else's thumb. It is simply silly to complain about something you agreed to as a part of your employment and then claim it is a violation of your rights. You gave those away when you hired on and that is your fault, not the employer's.

Vic
August 26, 2006, 11:24 AM
I'm a factory worker. Having a firearm on company property is grounds for termination. I agree with that point...to an extent. Many employees are avid hunters or go to the range after work (as do I). My point is that if the firearm is properly stored in MY vehicle, it is on my property...not company property. Should I remove it from it's storage while on company property, it can now be considered as being on company property...FIRED. Guys have been turned in to the front office for having firearms in their vehicles. The firearms owners explain why it's there (going hunting...etc), that's normally the end of it. The rats that turn them in need to find another job and be BLACK BALLED by the union. If you are in compliance with state and local laws, you are legal to have a firearm in your vehicle.

grislyatoms
August 26, 2006, 11:27 AM
I have been reading this thread with interest, and now I will throw in my $0.02.

Folks have the right to sign an employment contract forfeiting their rights. Whether they agree to such forfeiture is entirely up to them. They can either sign on the dotted line and get the job, sign on and break the rule anyway, or decline.

Whenever I have been asked to sign such a contract, I always put in my own clause right by my signature, as follows:

"Signed under duress 'my signature' date". Then I get a photocopy made.

Will it help? Maybe. Certainly can't hurt, nobody has ever challenged me on it.

As for employers asking folks to sign away their rights to begin with, of course I disagree with it. Gotta pay the bills though, right?:barf:

ConstitutionCowboy
August 26, 2006, 12:52 PM
...to employers who "force" you to sign an agreement for something they have been forbidden to do in the first place.

Woody

"Gun Control" seeks to put bounds upon, and possibly effect the elimination of, our inalienable Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Don't be led astray with the inference that it is "gun" control. What is under attack are rights of the people. Guns are inanimate objects; tools of freedom and self defense, primarily. Dehumanizing the discourse by calling it "gun control" or "gun rights" tends to lessen the impact from what the impact would be if the discussion were to be directed at the HUMAN right being infringed, and attempts to hide it from the strict scrutiny of the Constitution. B.E.Wood

mack
August 26, 2006, 10:58 PM
As it was previously stated in this thread - regardless of what the government says through their courts or legislatures - the government cannot endow inalienable rights - those are endowed by the creator. The government exists to protect individuals god given rights. Corporations are creations of government - any government granted powers are not inalienable rights - no matter what the government says. When engaged in a public business that invites individuals onto corporate/business property to park their private property there is no right for the corporation/business to search an individuals vehicle. That the courts or that the law does not currently recognize this does not mean that the current law/courts are right.

Car Knocker
August 27, 2006, 12:39 AM
When engaged in a public business that invites individuals onto corporate/business property to park their private property there is no right for the corporation/business to search an individuals vehicle.

They have a right if the owner grants them that right.

ConstitutionCowboy
August 27, 2006, 10:32 AM
They have a right if the owner grants them that right.

They can look in your car not if you grant them the right to look in your car, but only if you relinquish your right to be secure in your person, house, papers, and effects. Just as the state cannot grant a right to a corporation, neither can you. You can't even grant a power to a corporation. Only the state can grant a power to a corporation.

Though maybe not as scummy, it is no different than some lecherous boss "requiring" a woman to give in to keep her job. Is she granting him a power or a right, or is she giving up her right to be secure in her underwear? A woman has the right to be secure in her underwear. It is against the law for a boss to engage in "sexual harassment". There has been no power granted to the boss for him to get what he wants, and it is specifically illegal. Short of being raped, the woman is relinquishing her right to be secure in her underwear to satisfy the boss in order to keep her job.

Think about it.

Woody

The most valuable, trusted slave...
...is the one who forges his own chains. Standing Wolf

...Or drops her underwear, or opens his trunk....

Car Knocker
August 27, 2006, 12:26 PM
A woman has the right to be secure in her underwear.

Your analogy falls short. A woman can give up the right to be secure in her underwear by accepting a job that requires skimpy clothing, or, no clothing. If one knows the job conditions and accepts those conditions, then there is no legitimate complaint.

They can look in your car not if you grant them the right to look in your car, but only if you relinquish your right to be secure in your person, house, papers, and effects.

And a lot of people do that. Phone calls made on corporate equipment and e-mails made and received on corporate equipment are not private. A locker at work is not secure from search. And neither is a vehicle if, as a condition of employment, you give permission to search or permission to search is a condition of entry on a property (think military base).

Art Eatman
August 27, 2006, 12:36 PM
woodcdi said, "They can look in your car not if you grant them the right to look in your car, but only if you relinquish your right to be secure in your person, house, papers, and effects."

Sorry, but the part about relinquishing a right applies to governments and warrants and suchlike. A corporation is not bound by the BOR. A corporation can impose such a deal as a condition of employment; a worker has the free choice to work elsewhere.

Not a lot different from the rules here at THR. The First Amendment doesn't apply.

Art

ConstitutionCowboy
August 27, 2006, 12:47 PM
Sorry, but the part about relinquishing a right applies to governments and warrants and suchlike. A corporation is not bound by the BOR. A corporation can impose such a deal as a condition of employment; a worker has the free choice to work elsewhere.


"A corporation is not bound by the BOR." Doesn't matter. A corporation can only do those things permitted by the law that created the corporation, and certainly not anything specifically prohibited by law.

As to the rest, the same applies. A corporation can only do those things permitted by the law that created the corporation, and certainly not anything specifically prohibited by law.

As to THR and the First Amendment, you are absolutely correct.

Woody

Art Eatman
August 27, 2006, 01:01 PM
Well, if a corporation wants to impose conditions of employment, the laws do so allow. Skills, clothing style; lots of other issues, including rules concerning firearms.

The constitution enters in if and only if a legislature passes a law restricting a corporation's ability to impose conditions of employment. The issue then is the constitutionality of that law.

Personally, I think that whoever gets all wadded up over what lawful item is in an employee's car is dumber'n dirt...

Art

WayneConrad
August 27, 2006, 02:19 PM
Corporations can, as a requirement of doing business with you or hiring you, ask you to agree to not exercise certain of your rights.

Government may not.

The clever government official will deal with the public through a corporation hired by the government, so that when doing your business-by-proxy with the government you will be forced to obey the corporation's rules. It's the corporation's property, and all rights come from private property, after all. If we insist upon the view that all rights come from private property, and On My Land I Am King, we must prevent the government from using corporations in its dealings with us.

And then we've got this schizophrenic idea that there are rights which are protected not just from infringement by the government, but by infringement by individuals, and other rights which are only protected from governmental, and not private, interference.

To restate that: Why may you not prevent a black man from shopping in your store, but you may prevent an armed one? In what way is the right to self defense less sacred than the right to be what you were made? Why one right, and not the other? Either a private property owner's rights to be King on His Land trumps the rights of visitors on his property, or they don't. Which is it going to be? Right now, we want it both ways, and that makes it impossible to have a reasoned answer to this question.

carebear
August 27, 2006, 03:53 PM
To restate that: Why may you not prevent a black man from shopping in your store, but you may prevent an armed one? In what way is the right to self defense less sacred than the right to be what you were made? Why one right, and not the other? Either a private property owner's rights to be King on His Land trumps the rights of visitors on his property, or they don't. Which is it going to be? Right now, we want it both ways, and that makes it impossible to have a reasoned answer to this question.

The Constitutionally correct answer is that you should be lawfully able to refuse service to the black man. Just as he should be free to shop in another store, or open his own, or move to a town with stores that will serve him.

There's no "right" to work for a certain business or shop in a certain store.

My company did not have a weapons policy when I was hired. Apparently someone did something stupid and ruined it for everyone about 5 months into my employment, a policy was created barring weapons in the office, on company property (company-owned parking lots), in company vehicles and "while on company business". I wrote a letter of protest demanding an explanation and explaining how ridiculous it is to bar employees from carrying in buildings that are unposted and open to the public. Got nowhere but I'm on record. Our legislature passed a bill allowing possession and storage in any parking lot and solved that portion of the problem.

I had a choice when the policy came out. Live with it or quit. I like the job and the money so I agreed to limit my right to carry. If I occasionally break that agreement, and they catch me, I will have no problem when they fire me for it. I knew the deal going in and I agreed. That's how it works in the grown-up world.

ConstitutionCowboy
August 27, 2006, 07:01 PM
Personally, I think that whoever gets all wadded up over what lawful item is in an employee's car is dumber'n dirt...

I couldn't agree more!

And yes, state law does give employers(corporations) a lot of leeway to incorporate certain bylaws - and rightly so - toward things such as job related issues. I would argue that a corporation would be well within its powers to limit or prohibit carrying firearms within any of its plants, retail spaces, offices, and even certain company owned vehicles. I wouldn't want anyone carrying a book of matches or anything that could create a spark in a powder factory or oil refinery, let alone a gun.

I won't allow anyone to enter my business with a camera because of the proprietary items and processes that can't be justifiably patented(Cost verses return). I do allow them to keep their cameras in their cars, though.

Woody

"I pledge allegiance to the rights that made and keep me free. I will preserve and defend those rights for all who live in this, the country founded on the belief and principles that those rights are inalienable and essential to the pursuit and preservation of life, liberty, and happiness." B.E.Wood

GodLibertyLife
August 27, 2006, 07:40 PM
Just my personal opinion. The truth is we, as law abiding citizens, have to obey the law. If the current law allows an employer, or anyplace actually, (banks, post offices, government offices) lawful restriction of PPD's on their own property, then we must obey that law. It's their right by law. Currently, if I carry to work I must park offsite.

Two decades ago, where I live, you couldn't have believed that the laws of this state would have allowed what is going into affect in less than 90 days, the "stand your ground" law. I advocate the ability to defend yourself with lethal force in public places. But it was through the lawmakers that this came about. It's a subtle difference, I understand, but change comes through the petitions to the legislatures.

If you don't like the current situation, petition your lawmakers to makes changes.

glummer
August 28, 2006, 08:02 PM
There's a little confusion here, I think, about legal rights, the Constitution, and ethical/moral/natural/philosophical "Rights."

Assume, in fact, that corporations currently have the same property rights as natural persons.

So what? Change the law, and they won't.

I see nothing in the Constitution about corporations at all.

And there is certainly no obvious ethical reason to respect the "rights" of a totally artificial "person."

Given the enormous advantages corporate status confers, relative to the rest of us, I would think massive restrictions could be justifiable. Corporations can be immortal for all practical purposes - they cannot be murdered, imprisoned, tortured, nor can they develop cancer or other human ills. They can go dormant at will, existing for years, if necessary, as nothing more than a few reports to the State, and some fees & taxes.
At best, I suggest, such artificial persons have no more "rights" than patent or copyright holders; that is, their status is CREATED by the rest of us, for some general benefit, and is subject to whatever we think is appropriate, legally. There is no ethical or moral reason for the length, or even the existence, of a patent - it is entirely a practical political decision. The same should hold for the property rights of corporations.

As long the suggested legal restrictions on employer/business decisions do not apply to natural persons, I see no good argument against them on ethical grounds.

evan price
September 2, 2006, 04:01 PM
Glummer: Read my post about halfway back that clearly listed the Supreme Court decisions that granted coporations the same rights as "born" persons. Here it is again:

Corporations have been granted the same protections and rights as persons and this was upheld by the Supreme Court in a series of cases cited regularly:


First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978), granted corporations 1st Amendment protections.


Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906) granted corporations 4th Amendment protections.


Noble v. Union River Logging R. Co., 147 U.S. 165 (1893), Granted corporations 5th Amendment rights,

Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922), firmed up corporate 5th amendment rights,

Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U.S. 141 (1962), found that corporations could not be retried for the same act twice, thus finishing the granting of full 5th Amendment rights to corporations.




Quote:
Justice Brennan has declared, "by 1871, it was well understood that corporations should be treated as natural persons for virtually all purposes of constitutional and statutory analysis."

Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 687 (1978).



Quote:
Chief Justice Morrison Waite: "...[t]he Court does not wish to hear arguments on the question whether the provision of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."
(emphasis mine)



Briefs from the dismissed & settled San Mateo v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 13 F. 722 (C.C.D. Cal. 1882), were later referenced in
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886)

Due process protection under the 14th Amend. was decided in
Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Company v. Beckwith, 129 U.S. 26 (1889).



Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward grants corporations rights under the Contracts & Commerce clause of the US constitution.



Corporations were found to have the same civil rights as you or I in the
Civil Rights Act of 1964

Section 1983 [53] the 1964 Civil Rights Act states:

Quote:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress


Since the "Personhood" of corporations had been previously decided as the 14th Amendment cases cited above, corporations were thus granted full rights under the CRA '64. This has been upheld.

So the US Supreme Court has decided that corporations have the same rights and guarantees as "people"; check the sources for yourself. There are numerous cases of law in the Supreme Court that have been decided in corporations' favor based upon these cites; feel free to research.

Thus they can deny anything they want to deny on their property.

The fact that the law states that this is this way doesn't make it right; it just makes it the law of the land.

glummer
September 2, 2006, 04:49 PM
[B]evan price[B]
I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm pointing out that it is ONLY a matter of prevailing precedent. One decision and it changes. There is no obvious Constitutional. moral, or ethical reason to accept the status quo as permanent.

alan
September 2, 2006, 05:01 PM
In the event that this aspect has been raised earlier, please excuse the repeat.

I wonder as to the following. You, the employee have a valid concealed carry license or permit. Your employer, for whatever reason has opted to make his place of business, your place of employment a Gun Free Zone.

As you need the employment, you comply with your employer's expressed wishes. That proverbial Bad Guy doesn't, and you are injured, perhaps killed, by the BG's acts, being without defense, according to your employer's expressed wishes.

Is your employer liable for damages to you or to your survivors, and if so, to what extent?

evan price
September 2, 2006, 05:32 PM
Glummer:

I also do not disagree with you. I hasten to point out that while I can cite the cases in question here, I also do NOT agree with the precedents set by those cases; a corporation should not necessarily (IMHO) have all the same protections as a "real" person despite what the Supremes feel. However, law of the land and all that.

carebear
September 2, 2006, 06:41 PM
Alan,

No. Because As you need the employment, you comply with your employer's expressed wishes..

No one held a gun to your head and forced you to work there. If you feel that only the possession of a gun can keep you safe from some rampaging killer, you need to take the responsibility to work somewhere that doesn't mind you keeping one.

carebear
September 2, 2006, 06:45 PM
If corporations lose those protections, are there practical consequences for the individuals involved?

Say I and a few others wish to pool our resources to accomplish something that cannot be effectively done otherwise. If we are unable to transfer some of the legal and financial risk to another "legal person", will we cause a chilling economic effect?

Didn't the evolution of incorporation (it has been a centuries-long process) help enable the modern state with its benefits?

glummer
September 2, 2006, 07:50 PM
carebear
If corporations lose those protections, are there practical consequences for the individuals involved?

Say I and a few others wish to pool our resources to accomplish something that cannot be effectively done otherwise. If we are unable to transfer some of the legal and financial risk to another "legal person", will we cause a chilling economic effect?

Didn't the evolution of incorporation (it has been a centuries-long process) help enable the modern state with its benefits?

Undoubtedly. But the same can be said of the institutions of slavery, and hereditary royalty.
There can be practical problems, particularly at the extremes.
However, the decisions cited do not go back to the Founding Fathers. So corporate entities have existed without all these rights, in their current degree. Reducing them somewhat should not present any great danger, any more than the restrictions of Civil Rights laws have.

va_1168
September 2, 2006, 10:08 PM
I agree w/ Soybomb, Father Knows Best, and carebear among others. IMO at-will employment is a really good thing.

Say you don't want your employer to be able to fire you for a reason of your choosing, say, for having a gun in your car on their property. By the same logic (the logic that says making exceptions to at-will employment might be a good idea) maybe an employer would like to limit your right to quit for a reason they get to designate. And say they decide something like, "those unhappy w/ their salaries should not be allowed to quit".

At-will employment as it stands is a very good idea IMO, and will not be improved by having the government get more involved in it. If I have a problem w/ an employer's policies I'm free to look elswhere. And as importantly if not more so, they are unable to stop me from leaving.

Like Double Naught Spy touched on, you're always free to start your own business, be your own employer, and set every rule to your own liking.

To Art-
"Personally, I think that whoever gets all wadded up over what lawful item is in an employee's car is dumber'n dirt"

Should that actually be "Personally, I think that whoever gets all wadded up over what item is in a law-abiding employee's car is dumber'n dirt"? Just asking... I certainly get your meaning in any case.

ConstitutionCowboy
September 3, 2006, 12:09 AM
...several facts here. First, corporations are a construct created by state law. Government is pretty much all over corporations from the git-go. Corporations exist at the whim of the legislature in the states where they operate. Corporations can no more break the law than any person can. Corporations do not vote. A corporation can be shut down without a trial.

More tomorrow. Sleep beckons...

Woody

ConstitutionCowboy
September 3, 2006, 10:51 PM
From Hale v. Henkel, Mr. Justice Harlan, concurring:

In my opinion, a corporation-'an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law'-cannot claim the immunity given by the 4th Amendment; for it is not a part of the 'people,' within the meaning of that Amendment. Nor is it embraced by the word 'persons' in the Amendment. If a contrary view obtains, the power of the government, by its representatives, to look into the books, records, and papers of a corporation of its own creation, to ascertain whether that corporation has obeyed or is defying the law, will be greatly curtailed, if not destroyed. If a corporation, when its affairs are under examination by a grand jury [201 U.S. 43, 79] proceeding in its work under the orders of the court, can plead the immunity given by the 4th Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures, may it not equally rely upon that Amendment to protect it even against a statute authorizing or directing the examination by the agents of the government creating it, of its papers, documents, and records, unless they specify the particular papers, documents, and records to be examined? If the order of the court below is to be deemed invalid as an unreasonable search and seizure of the papers, books, and records of the corporation, could it be deemed valid if made under the express authority of an act of Congress? Congress could not, any more than a court, authorize an unreasonable seizure or search in violation of the 4th Amendment. In my judgment when a grand jury, seeking, in the discharge of its public duties, to ascertain whether a corporation has violated the law in any particular, requires the production of the books, papers, and records of such corporation, no officer of that corporation can rightfully refuse, when ordered to do so by the court, to produce such books, papers, and records in his official custody, upon the ground simply that the order was, as to the corporation, an unreasonable search and seizure within the meaning of the 4th Amendment.

Though Justice Harlan agreed with the decision, he did not agree with the implications that the 4th Amendment applied to a corporation.

Mr Justice McKenna, also concurring, disagreed with some of "the propositions declared by the court."

I cannot think that the consequences mentioned are important or necessary to the argument. A more serious matter is the application of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

It is said 'a search implies a quest by an officer of the law; a seizure contemplates a forcible dispossession of the owner.' Nothing can be more direct and plain; nothing more expressive to distinguish a subpoena from a search warrant. Can a subpoena lose this essential distinction from a search warrant by the generality or speciality of its terms? I think not. The distinction is based upon what is authorized or directed to be done,-not upon the form of words by which the authority or command is given. 'The quest of an officer' acts upon the things themselves,-may be secret, intrusive, accompanied by force. The service of a subpoena is but the delivery of a paper to a party,-is open and aboveboard. There is no element of trespass or force in it. It does not disturb the possession of property. It cannot be finally enforced except after challenge, and a judgment of the court upon the challenge. This is a safeguard against abuse the same as it is of other processes of the law; and it is all that can be allowed without serious embarrassment to the administration of justice. Of course, it constrains the will of parties, subjects their property to the uses of proof. But we are surely not prepared to say that such uses are unreasonable, or are sacrifices which the law may not demand.

Justice McKenna indicated that a subpoena is not a warrant, and points out the distinctions between the two. Ergo, no 4th Amendment implications.

In Noble v. Union River Logging R. Co., 147 U.S. 165 (1893), no rights were granted under the 5th Amendment. All that took place here was that the corporation had title to the land and the government couldn't simply take it back without due process. No private property was being taken for public use.

In Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922), 5th Amendment rights were not granted to a corporation. The Court found a statute unconstitutional on the grounds that it amounted to the taking of property without just compensation. The coal under the ground could just as easily been owned and mined by an individual.

In Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U.S. 141 (1962), two individuals were involved. No special granting of 5th amendment rights were conferred upon corporations.

Going any further would be a waste of time. Corporations do not have rights. They only have powers granted them by the law that creates them. No corporation has any power that would be superior to any right of an individual. The protections in the 14th Amendment apply only to individuals. A corporation would have certain protections under the law, however, but not as any direct "right" or "privilege" or "immunity" accorded to it. A corporation would have protection from thievery - not as a privilege accorded to it, but because the act perpetrated against it would be an illegal act by the perpetrator.

Neither a person nor a corporation has a right to private property in the 5th Amendment. The 5th Amendment simply states that private property may not be taken for public use without just compensation. It would not matter that said property was owned by a person or persons, or a corporation. It is the ACT of taking property for public use without compensation that is prohibited. No one has a right to own property.

In the 4th Amendment, only people are protected. I run a corporation out of my home. I must file reports to all levels of government on a regular basis. It is insufficient for me to simply send each government agency a check every so often. I must file reports on the goings-on that created the need for me to send in that check. I do that in accordance with the law. If I fail, the state has the power to shut me down until I file those reports. Its the law. The state does not need a warrant, nor does it need to take me to court to do it. It's the law. If I start brewing meth in my home, the government must get a warrant to search it.

My business, being incorporated, does afford me some protections, but if I do something illegal to, or in the name of my business, the law can come down upon me personally. Example: Ken Lay. If the company honestly fails and it owes a bunch of money, the company assets can be seized and liquidated to meet those obligations, but I'm not liable. Therein lies the trade-off. If I were to abscond with the company assets, though, I AM in trouble.

Bottom line, corporations can only do those things granted to them by the law that creates them, and certainly cannot do anything prohibited by law.

Woody

As the Court said in Boyd v. United States:

"It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon."

We should not wait solely upon the Court to protect our rights for us, but should take an active part in protecting them as well.

WayneConrad
September 4, 2006, 01:27 AM
Suppose that we may place restrictions upon corporations, such as: You may not discriminate based on race, or you may not prohibit the lawful carry of self defense implements. If I understand some of the previous arguments, we may do that because corporations are not people, but creations of law, and being not people, are not endowed with certain unalienable rights.

So, then: What if the employer is not a corporation, but is a sole proprietership? Does his right to be King On His Land once again trump my right to be able to defend my life?

carebear
September 4, 2006, 01:50 AM
So, then: What if the employer is not a corporation, but is a sole proprietership? Does his right to be King On His Land once again trump my right to be able to defend my life?

No, your right to not be forced to accept employment from him trumps his right to be the boss of his land and business. (same as with corporations in my view)

Employment is voluntary, if you don't take the job, you don't have to obey his rules. If you choose, of your own free will, to accept employment from him, you also choose to follow his rules on weapons, just as you choose to follow his rules on amount of pay for amount of work, dress code and such.

You are free to take employment elsewhere that will allow weapons carry or to start your own gun-friendly business. If no other source of employment is available and you lack the means or will to start your own firm you are free to move somewhere else where such is possible.

Nothing in the Constitution says the exercise of your rights has to be particularly convenient, merely possible. That's what individual liberty and responsibility is all about.

WayneConrad
September 4, 2006, 02:56 AM
carebear,

May the non-corporate (sole proprietership) employer refuse to employ me if I am black? If so, why may we force him to allow a black man onto his property, but we may not force him to allow an armed man onto his property? If his right to be King on His Land is not absolute, then why have we drawn the line there?

(Edited to add): She Who Must Be Obeyed asked me to point out that the same argument works for race, gender, religeon, or any other of the classes that employers may not discriminate over. She is afraid y'all will get the idea that I'm a white supremicist. No, no, no. This discussion is not about race, despite my poor example. It's about what principles we use (or ought to use) to resolve conflicting rights.

carebear
September 4, 2006, 03:21 AM
I (also not a white supremacist) think that he should be able to not hire you because you are black, or female, or Dutch or differently-abled or just because he flat out "don't like the look of ya".

As long as you are treated equally by the law and when dealing with other governmental functions, that's where governmental equal rights protections should stop.

The government overreaches by dictating hiring practices of individuals by other private individuals. The Dutch potential employee is absolutely free to seek employment elsewhere, locally or, if necessary, further away or to start his own business.

RealGun
September 4, 2006, 08:48 AM
As the Court said in Boyd v. United States:

"It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon." - quoted by woodci

Thanks for the great post. I just found it interesting to consider the law's double standard in attitude when reading this same platitudinous passage but in reference to the Second Amendment. Would be nice, wouldn't it.

ccw9mm
September 4, 2006, 08:56 AM
As I'm sure most of you all know, the NRA has been trying (with no success) to get state laws passed to forbid employers from banning legally owned and carried firearms from being stored in employee vehicles.
I know it. IMO, it's one of the most seriously misguided things that the NRA is doing. It is, in effect, seeking the destruction of property rights in the USA.

The day a private business is forced by the government to abandon its property rights over even this issue is the day we all see our property rights dissolve into a puff of smoke. I'm against it on this simple basis, despite any desire I might otherwise have for employers to take a more-enlightened approach that's the result of actually thinking the issue through.

va_1168
September 4, 2006, 01:48 PM
I think carebear's got it right. To boil down the employee v. employer rights debate into two ideas, IMO it's that
- the govt need be less involved legislating who private businesses can and can't hire, not more involved, and
- there is already an available solution (that requires no new laws being passed) to the problem of an employer who does not permit firearms on his property: change employers, or be your own employer

I agree this means that a business should be able to discriminate against any group of people when hiring, whether it be by race, sex, age, religion, right-handedness, or anything else. I'd bet an overwhelming percentage of people on this board (including me) as well as in the larger population would not patronize businesses they knew to be racist, sexist, etc.; the problem of bigots running businesses would likely take care of itself.

For those who favor forcing employers to allow guns on their property or concealed carry on their property, would your demands end w/ the domain of employment only? To clarify, would you also demand that a private business (who is not your employer) who disallows concealed carry for customers on their property also be forced to allow you to carry as a customer? Or would you demand a prviate homeowner whom you are visiting allow you to carry in her home even if she opposed it?

I'm not looking to debate the business-v.-customer-rights or visitor-v.-homeowner-rights questions on this thread, I'm trying to understand the scope of what is being asked by those who favor forcing employers to accept certain employee rights.

carebear
September 4, 2006, 02:01 PM
And remember the "slippery slope" problem. Would you as a private employer want your employee's to have free exercise of all their rights in your place of business without recourse?

As a Bill of Rights issue, the right to wear anti-Bush (or Kerry) t-shirts in the office as "free speech" no matter the dress code?

The right to store whatever they want (meth lab, hardcore porn posters) in/on their desk as "security in their possessions"?

Where would a "progressive" administration stop if we open the door that wide? They already have the camel's whole head under the tent.

It could go the other way as well, perhaps the employee's could vote that YOUR gun on your property makes them less safe and thus YOU shouldn't be allowed to have one in your place of business.

We're better off manning up and letting property owners be true owners.

ConstitutionCowboy
September 4, 2006, 10:27 PM
Folks, it is about the law that creates corporations and governs how they run, and the limits upon any bylaws they may adopt. Forget any notions about corporations having rights. They don't, plain and simple.

Remember, also, that corporations don't inherently own property or necessarily need any. A corporation must be created before it can even buy or rent it! Many corporations don't even own property. Many a corporation exist on paper only with records stored in the hands of an accounting or law firm. Its address may only be a P.O. box, or "In Care Of" at that law or accounting firm. A corporation can own assets and not have a postage stamp sized spot of land to hold those assets.

So, then: What if the employer is not a corporation, but is a sole proprietorship? Does his right to be King On His Land once again trump my right to be able to defend my life?

Be it a corporation or partnership, whatever property is being used for business belongs to that entity. The law does not consider the property of the business to be that of the partners or shareholders of the corporation. Since corporations and partnerships are separate entities from their owners, and those corporations and partnerships are created according to state law, those corporations only have those powers granted to them by state law.

In a sole proprietorship, property of the business is the property of the proprietor. For all intents and purposes, you might as well be sitting in his living room. If the sole proprietor is using rented property for his business - let's say a kiosk in a mall - he would have control over whatever property he is renting as if it were his own, limited by what ever rental agreement he has with whomever or whatever he has rented the property from. In that case, leaving your arms in your car in whatever parking lot there is at the mall would be under whatever law was applicable to whomever or whatever owned the mall.

Let's say your sole proprietor boss runs a house painting business. He keeps all his equipment in his truck or at his home, and takes it to whatever job site is being worked on on any given day. You don't necessarily have to ride with him to the job site in the truck, so you drive yourself to the job site. Whether you carry a gun on the job site is up to the owner of the property being painted, not your boss. Surely, there would be no problem leaving your gun locked in your car, parked on the street.

Look. Whatever scenario you choose to explore, delve into your state's laws regarding corporations, partnerships, and the like. Just remember that corporations do not have rights. They can't. They are not people, even though they may be treated as such in regard to such matters as taxation, ability to own property, or to enter into contracts. Rights are reserved to people. Corporations only have those powers granted to them in the law that created them. Also remember that corporations, being a construct of the law, have the law crawling over, under, around, and through them from the moment of each and every corporations inception. The separation of liability between the shareholders and their corporation comes at that price. Without the law that creates those corporations, there are no corporations. Rights are inalienable. A class of entity that could just as well not exist couldn't possibly have inalienable rights.

Woody

"We the People are the government of this land, we decide who writes our laws, we decide who leads us, and we decide who will judge us - for as long as We the People have the arms to keep it that way." B.E.Wood

alan
September 5, 2006, 12:36 AM
carebear:

In your response to my posted question regarding the possible liability of an employer for the death or injury of his employees arising from his declaring his business locale a Gun Free Zone, which rendered his employees defenseless from attack, you wrote the following.

carebear Alan,

No. Because
Quote:
As you need the employment, you comply with your employer's expressed wishes.

.

No one held a gun to your head and forced you to work there. If you feel that only the possession of a gun can keep you safe from some rampaging killer, you need to take the responsibility to work somewhere that doesn't mind you keeping one.

----------------------

Your closing comment was interesting, but it seems to me that nothing you said addresses my original question, which revolves around such employer's responsibility as might arise in particular circumstances, his expressed desires perhaps having lead to undesirable results.

carebear
September 5, 2006, 01:51 AM
Well first, the problem with asserting liability in that case is that you have to demonstrate in court that your possession of a gun would have definitely made you safer, not potentially, definitely. I'm not sure how you'd demonstrate that.

You'd also have to definitively show that the chance of a criminal attacking that particular business was increased by a non-publically posted, internal policy. Otherwise, you can hardly hold the owner responsible for the off chance of a criminal assault by a 3rd party. The criminal made the choice to attack, the owner hardly asked him to enter any more than he did the regular customers.

Second and more important, I wasn't "sidestepping". The simple truth is you'd have a hard time asserting the owner's liability for "removing your ability to defend yourself" when that risk was totally avoidable by the simple expedient of you not taking/keeping the job.

You weren't forced to work there and place yourself at risk. The fact that you chose to voluntarily place yourself in that situation moves the blame and responsibility squarely on you. You knew the risks going in and chose to accept them.

Personal responsibility. Find a different job.

Gray Peterson
September 5, 2006, 04:16 AM
You weren't forced to work there and place yourself at risk. The fact that you chose to voluntarily place yourself in that situation moves the blame and responsibility squarely on you. You knew the risks going in and chose to accept them.

Personal responsibility. Find a different job.

I think the question you need to ask is "find a job where?".

carebear
September 5, 2006, 12:20 PM
If you're pointing out there might not be a gun-friendly employer in your field in town?

Tough. There's no right to having a gun-friendly employer in your field in town nor to convenience in having employment.

If you are a buggy whip maker, and both buggy whip makers in town don't let their employees carry, then you can; a) not carry and be a buggy whip maker for one of those two employers, b) start your own buggy whip making company and carry all you want, c) don't be a buggy whip maker, become a cooper and work for the gun-friendly cooper in town, or d) move to the next town over and work for the gun-friendly buggy whip maker there.

Insuring the individual rights of all sometimes means some individuals will be inconvenienced. Private property rights (and other rights) must trump personal convenience or the Constitution becomes meaningless. We see that proven by all sorts of twisted rulings today.

ConstitutionCowboy
September 5, 2006, 09:15 PM
...do you simply continue on because you have a right to travel?

Insuring the individual rights of all sometimes means some individuals will be inconvenienced.

No one ever has a right that would overlap anyone else's right. I've got property rights. You've got a right to carry a gun. If I don't want you to carry on my property, you may not carry on my property. Yes, that might be an inconvenience to you, but that only means you do not have a right to carry on my property. I may grant you permission, but that is not granting you a right or allowing you to exercise a right, because that right does not exist for you on my property.

But, you see, I'm a human being with inalienable rights, as are you. Corporations are not.

Woody

You all need to remember where the real middle is. It is the Constitution. The Constitution is the biggest compromise - the best compromise - ever written. It is where distribution of power and security of the common good meets with the protection of rights, freedom, and personal sovereignty. B.E.Wood

Car Knocker
September 5, 2006, 09:57 PM
woodcdi,

So, my wife, who owns a small company, can prohibit guns on the property if she ran the company as a sole proprietorship but not if she ran it as an "S" corp?

Gray Peterson
September 5, 2006, 10:15 PM
So, my wife, who owns a small company, can prohibit guns on the property if she ran the company as a sole proprietorship but not if she ran it as an "S" corp?

If state law disallows it, that would be correct. Even as a sole proprietorship she still has to follow state laws that may prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, religion, creed, sexual orientation and gender identity (if the state has a law against it like Washington State), and so on.

I don't understand how people in here can make the leap that we must protect a corporation in order to protect individual rights. Inside of my apartment, my right to disallow firearms is pretty much absolute, unless it's a law enforcement officer serving a search warrant on my home. There are exceptions to every rule, even to my rights.

Gun ownership status will be the next thing to be protected. If the law can protect for choices (like religion, marital status, or familial status), then it certainly should be expanded to protect our right to protect ourselves, our families, and our communities from lawless violence and terrorism.

ConstitutionCowboy
September 5, 2006, 11:13 PM
Does your wife own the property, or does her s-corp?

Woody

evan price
September 5, 2006, 11:31 PM
NOT A THREAD HIJACK, BUT RELEVANT:


Example: In Columbus Ohio they recently passed laws banning smoking in restaurants and bars. One of the more pertenant justifications the supporters of this law used was that 'Employees of establishments which allowed smoking in that establishment were at a high risk for health problems arising from second hand smoke exposure'.
Another justification used was that patrons of smoking establishments feel that exposure to second hand smoke was a potential health issue for them as well.

The relevance to this thread is that at no time did the bill make note of the fact that nobody is holding a gun to the head of the employee and forcing them to work in an establishment that allows smoking; Also nobody is holding a gun to the head of customers and forcing them to patronize an establishment that allows smoking; furthermore, no consideration was given to establishments which allow smoking and prominently post that they are smoking establishments, both at each public entrance to the establishment and also during the hiring process.

It has gone so far that many bars and restaurants built patios to allow smokers to sit outside; now the antismokers are demanding that these patios be made nonsmoking as well so they may enjoy the outdoors without the odor of smoke.


My question is, if employees can require their employers to ban smoking so that they can feel more secure in their personal health, and customers can dictate that a business must change who can do what on their property to suit their needs (specifically, not allow smokers, or specifically, install handicap ramps) why then can we not ban weapons restrictions for the same reason?

carebear
September 6, 2006, 12:21 AM
evan,

Those smoking bans are flat out bad law.

There is no reason folks can't not go to a smoking bar, start their own non-smoking bar, get a job in a non-smoking bar or give up the bartending business entirely.

To trample on the right of a business owner to allow or disallow smoking in their place of business is nothing short of tyranny. The customers and staff can vote with their pocketbooks and their feet if they want to.

Damn nanny-state do-gooders. :banghead:

evan price
September 6, 2006, 01:17 AM
To clarify my previous post: If pressure by employees can result in a requirement for their "benefit" which trumps property ownership laws (Specifically, to disallow smoking in someone's business even if the owners desire to allow smoking) why is this not also being used to further laws allowing weapons in personal vehicles on company property? Would it not be just as apt?

carebear
September 6, 2006, 01:27 AM
Might be as apt, but it would be just as wrong. We can't use bad law and unConstitutionality just because it suits our purposes.

That makes us as bad as the socialist idiots. We're better than they are.

Gray Peterson
September 6, 2006, 01:43 AM
That makes us as bad as the socialist idiots. We're better than they are.

That kind of attitude will get it to where every company eventually will ban gun owners as risks and force us to either give up our guns or be destitute.

carebear
September 6, 2006, 01:48 AM
And what exactly is stopping you, me or anyone else from opening a business that allows carry? Apathy? Lack of ability?

I don't think so. It's a lack of willingness to live by our convictions and accept some personal inconvenience.

That's what will cost us our rights.

Gray Peterson
September 6, 2006, 02:20 AM
And what exactly is stopping you, me or anyone else from opening a business that allows carry? Apathy? Lack of ability?

I don't think so. It's a lack of willingness to live by our convictions and accept some personal inconvenience.

That's what will cost us our rights.

Spouting idealogy will not change the fact that the anti-gunners will use private industry and private business as their next method of gun control. Toby Hoover, the leader of Ohioans Against Gun Violence, went on a campaign to tell Ohio businesses that they should fire anyone with a CHL and refuse to hire those who are CHL holders to apply.

There are two bills in the state of Michigan that may get traction in future sessions:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(yo2ulce4tm1zogeacakkdjzk)/mileg.aspx?page=BillStatus&objectname=2006-HB-5746

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2005-2006/billintroduced/Senate/htm/2006-SIB-1025.htm

It's a start.

Carebear, you keep arguing on issues that was lost many years ago from your perspective. The glory days of when you can fire anyone for any reason, can discriminate against people for their religion, marital status, and familial status and so on, even more so race, gender, and other unchangable characteristics of yourself, is over!

Either we push for this now, or gun owners will become a permanent underclass of society in 20 years when they can't get ANY work in any sector, unless they do it under the table? What good is starting your own business if you can't get enough credit because no bank will extend it to you due to your firearm ownership status? Or the fact that it takes money to make money? How is one going to get the money together for their own business if they can't work ANY job because they ban gun ownership entirely by their employees, even at home?

You are defending the indefensible. You are defending corporate rights over the rights of the individual. The anti-gunners are eventually going to disarm ALL of us via this method, and your only response to this is feeble to say the least.

carebear
September 6, 2006, 02:41 AM
Lonnie,

I'm defending the right of the individual to rule their own property. Your way opens the door for city, state or federal government to ban me from carry in my own business or home under the guise of "public safety".

Your "practical" society, without private property rights, is nowhere I want to live.

Gray Peterson
September 6, 2006, 02:55 AM
I'm defending the right of the individual to rule their own property. Your way opens the door for city, state or federal government to ban me from carry in my own business or home under the guise of "public safety".

Your "practical" society, without private property rights, is nowhere I want to live.

As if this isn't already the case now?

carebear
September 6, 2006, 03:09 AM
Doesn't mean we can't stop it or at least fight it instead of jumping on board the train to nanny town.

Gray Peterson
September 6, 2006, 03:37 AM
Doesn't mean we can't stop it or at least fight it instead of jumping on board the train to nanny town.

Fine, hang yourself.

carebear
September 6, 2006, 03:42 AM
There's worse things than death.

evan price
September 6, 2006, 06:55 AM
Speaking as an Ohioan, my feelings towards Toby Hoover are neither polite nor High Road. I will therefore refrain from discussing her.

By the way, Toby, if one of your hoplophobes are trolling this site for any mention of your name: I have a CHL. I wouldn't hire YOU. Have a nice day.:neener:


Back to the debate:

How does one reconcile ones right to own property and do with it as one pleases with the necessity of opening ones business to the public? The CRA '64 pretty much limits the ability of a property owner to discriminate for any reason as age, religion, etc. and the ADA adds a whole other class to the list. Why is it that otherwise legal law abiding citizens can't get their rights? Seems the more people get confirmed "rights" the fewer actually have 'em.

mons meg
September 6, 2006, 07:23 AM
Say you are a smoker. Say you work at a smoke-free establishment. Ok, fine. Now they tell you you can't bring your cigarettes onto the property and that includes the parking lot, in your own car. (I've even read that there are businesses that have attempted to regulate employee's private behavior wrt smoking in their own homes)

All anyone's been talking about is the dang parking lot, people. Not the interior of any building. I fail to see how a "parking lot law" is effectively any different than a law that might, say , proibit companies from firing people for certain otherwise legal behavior.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/28/eveningnews/main670168.shtml

TaxPhd
September 6, 2006, 08:59 AM
Since corporations and partnerships are separate entities from their owners, and those corporations and partnerships are created according to state law, those corporations only have those powers granted to them by state law.

While corporations are indeed seperate entities from their owners, partnerships are not.

ConstitutionCowboy
September 6, 2006, 08:30 PM
While corporations are indeed seperate entities from their owners, partnerships are not.

Partnerships ARE separate entities from the members. Partnerships are required to have a name and a Federal ID number just like C-Corps, S-Corps, LLC's, etc. The only form of business that is not a separate entity from its owner is a Sole Proprietorship.

Partnerships must file their own tax return on Form 1065, quarterly reports on Form 941, and FUTA tax reports on Form 940. The clincher is that a corporation can be a member of a partnership, same as an individual. Another partnership can be a member of a partnership. Peruse the IRS web site and you can see for yourself.

Woody

"The Second Amendment is absolute. Learn it, live it, love it and be armed in the defense of freedom, our rights, and our sovereignty. If we refuse infringement to our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, as protected by the Second Amendment, we will never be burdened by tyranny, dictatorship, or subjugation - other than to bury those who attempt it. B.E.Wood

glummer
September 7, 2006, 07:38 AM
Another thing to consider is that you ARE forced to deal with corporations, in some manner, whether you want to, or not.
If, say, you are involved in a traffic accident with a corporate-ownedvehicle or corporate-employed driver, you CANNOT sue the real people involved. The law says that the imaginary "person", the corporation, is your only recourse. A "person", who has legally limited liability.
Similarly, a defective product cannot be traced to any real person's responsibility, if it was manufactured or sold by a corporation. And it is not a matter of your choice.

alan
September 7, 2006, 10:03 AM
Care bear:

Re argument put forth in post 124, well said.

Having said this, I supose that the ultimate answer to questions asked by several will only be obtained from actions brought before the courts, and even then, a higher court might reverse or later on, reconsider.

One notes in passing, that even Stari Decisis, pardon possible misspelling, is not immutable.

benEzra
September 7, 2006, 10:47 AM
Say you are a smoker. Say you work at a smoke-free establishment. Ok, fine. Now they tell you you can't bring your cigarettes onto the property and that includes the parking lot, in your own car. (I've even read that there are businesses that have attempted to regulate employee's private behavior wrt smoking in their own homes)

All anyone's been talking about is the dang parking lot, people. Not the interior of any building. I fail to see how a "parking lot law" is effectively any different than a law that might, say , proibit companies from firing people for certain otherwise legal behavior.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in670168.shtml
EXACTLY.

This isn't about whether or not you can carry at work; that's not the issue. The issue is whether or not your employer may dictate your behavior OFF THEIR PROPERTY (i.e., carrying before or after work, somewhere else, on your own time) by allowing them to dictate what you can and cannot have securely locked away inside YOUR property (your car), and more to the point, whether or not an employer should be allowed to randomly search employees' cars in a publicly accessible parking lot in order to dictate their behavior after work hours, which was the crux of the original Weyerhauser case.

Your property does not become my property just because your property is temporarily located near mine.

If you take the position that the ONLY place your car cannot be randomly searched without probable cause is either on a public right-of-way or in your own driveway, you've just given up a huge portion of your right to privacy.

glummer
September 7, 2006, 11:21 AM
benEzra
This isn't about whether or not you can carry at work; that's not the issue. The issue is whether or not your employer may dictate your behavior OFF THEIR PROPERTY ...Uh, no. The issue is whether or not your employer can ASK you to agree with his stupid conditions for working for him (Agreeing is YOUR choice, not his.)
And, secondarily, does it make a difference if the employer is a corporation, rather than a real person.

Your property does not become my property just because your property is temporarily located near mine. In effect it does, if YOU GRANT ME THE RIGHT TO DO IT in return for my giving you a job you want.

It's all about POWER; who has the ultimate power to say yes or no. The employer can only ASK you to do things - you can walk at any time. The employer's power is to decide what he will agree to; you have the same power for your part.
The concern here is that curtailing the employer's power, increases the government's power. And a government that can safely screw big corporations can easily screw individual workers. If even Bill Gates doesn't have rights, then nobody is safe.

ConstitutionCowboy
September 7, 2006, 11:39 AM
Property comes with mineral rights which extend down to the center of the Earth. Those mineral rights can be sold to someone else, or exploited by the owner, or the owner may receive a royalty for allowing someone else to mine those minerals. Now, what about the air above the surface of your land? Do you own the airspace above your land? Do you receive a royalty every time a plane flies over your land? No.

Now, what about the space above a parking lot? By definition and designation, that surface is specifically set aside to park vehicles. Does a corporation own the airspace above the surface of the lot? Then consider that your vehicle is in that airspace and not protruding into the ground where those mineral rights exist. Your vehicle is in contact with that ground but it has not violated the integrity of that ground, nor has your vehicle invaded the space below the surface where those mineral rights exist, nor has your vehicle become part of that land.

The business with the parking lot has already given up that surface(or rented the use of that surface in the case of a commercial parking lot) for use by its employees or customers to the benefit of the business, and that is as far as it goes. No one owns the space above their land or above any improvements(buildings) on the land. Ergo, a business would have no control over what is in your property that has been parked on the surface of that land you have been invited to leave your property on. It would be well within their power to limit what vehicles would be allowed on that property(no 18 wheelers, nothing above a certain weight, no Sherman tanks, etc), but not what is inside that which is not their property.

Woody

"The Right of the People to move about freely in a secure manner shall not be infringed. Any manner of self defense shall not be restricted, regardless of the mode of travel or where you stop along the way, as it is the right so enumerated at both the beginning and end of any journey." B.E.Wood

mmike87
September 7, 2006, 11:55 AM
I just park on a public street and my employer can't say squat. Regardless, I will NEVER let my employer search my car, even if it costs me my job.

Additionally, I am 100% positive I could hide a gun in my car to keep some rent-a-cop from finding it. It's not like they are going to disassemble your car or something.

mons meg
September 8, 2006, 12:48 AM
Uh, no. The issue is whether or not your employer can ASK you to agree with his stupid conditions for working for him (Agreeing is YOUR choice, not his.)
And, secondarily, does it make a difference if the employer is a corporation, rather than a real person.

So, back to the actual, original argument. Oklahoma passed a law (twice) prohibiting employers from establishing policies that prohibit legal weapons stored in a locked vehicle. Several companies filed suit, etc. etc. and our law is still enjoined. I think a state may pass such a law and it passes Constitutional muster, but that's just me. ;)

Secondarily, it just might matter like woodcdi is saying under the articles of incorporation for the state of Oklahoma in this particular case.

ccw9mm
September 9, 2006, 06:52 AM
There are some decent articles posted on the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) web site (http://www.saf.org/), including this one:
This Gun For Hire (http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Mack1.htm): Concealed Weapons Legislation In The Workplace And Beyond, by Roberta Mack, 1997.

benEzra
September 9, 2006, 11:34 AM
woodcdi, well put. That was part of what I was trying to get at, but you put it better than I could.

If you enjoyed reading about "The Employee vs Employer rights debate..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!