More Anti-gun nonsense in Tulsa


PDA






RoadkingLarry
February 29, 2008, 09:59 AM
A litttle bit on our struggle in Oklahoma.

Tulsa World (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=20080229_1_A1_spanc73577)

Employers join appeal as gun law foes

By ROBERT BOCZKIEWICZ World Correspondent
2/29/2008
DENVER -- A group of Oklahoma employers are making a novel argument in opposing a state law requiring employers to allow workers to have guns in locked vehicles where they work.

ConocoPhillips Co. and other smaller employers in a court case contend the law constitutes "an unconstitutional taking of (their) property" and their right to exclude people from their property. That argument is in a new filing by the employers at the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

They want the court to uphold a decision of U.S. District Judge Terence Kern in Tulsa who struck down the law. The case recently heated up at the Denver-based court when national organizations on both sides of the law submitted their stances to the judges who will decide whether Kern was correct.

The appellate judges recently allowed the National Rifle Association to file "friend of the court" arguments in support of the law. A gun-control advocacy group and two safety and security organizations announced Thursday they have jointly submitted ''friend of the court'' arguments in opposition to the law.

A month ago, Gov. Brad Henry and Attorney General Drew Edmondson told the judges they should overturn
Kern's Oct. 4 decision. The officials contend the law promotes public safety.

This week's response filing by ConocoPhillips and other employers takes an opposing position. They contend Kern correctly concluded the law is not valid because it conflicts with the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act's requirement that employers provide safe workplaces. He issued an injunction barring enforcement of the law.

That position is in addition to the employers' argument that the law unconstitutionally takes their property without due process and impermissibly infringes on their fundamental property rights. They also contend the law is unconstitutionally vague.

In their quest to overturn the law, employers sued the governor and attorney general in 2004.

The lineup of employers at the appeals court in addition to ConocoPhillips are Norris, DP Manufacturing Inc., Tulsa Winch Inc., Ramsey Winch Inc. and Auto Crane Co.

The groups that submitted supportive arguments are the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the American Society of Safety Engineers and ASIS International, which describes itself as an organization of professionals responsible for security at corporate and government facilities.

The Brady Center was founded by Jim Brady, President Reagan's press secretary who was shot in the head in a presidential assassination attempt.

"Our workplaces need to be free from gun violence, and that is most likely to happen when they are free from guns," the center said.

An attorney for the NRA, speaking from its headquarters in Virginia, said the NRA thinks "it's reasonable for law-abiding citizens to store firearms in a locked vehicle on a company parking lot for lawful purposes."

Attorney Mark Bower said the NRA does not advocate a law allowing employees to carry guns on company property or to take guns out of their vehicles on company property. He said the NRA believes OSHA was intended to regulate equipment and other elements inherent in workplaces, not guns or "intentional unlawful acts by employees."

Oklahoma lawmakers passed the law in two stages in 2004 and 2005 in response to Weyerhauser Corp. firing eight workers at a timber mill in southeastern Oklahoma. The workers had guns in their vehicles at the mill in violation of Weyerhauser policy.

By ROBERT BOCZKIEWICZ World Correspondent

Shown in bold are a few of the companies that support disarming the peasants

If you enjoyed reading about "More Anti-gun nonsense in Tulsa" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
black.wing
March 1, 2008, 01:59 AM
The first three companies in bold are all DOVER (based in where else...Dover) companies. the last two are sister companies and have recently been purchased by an out of state holding company.

mgregg85
March 1, 2008, 01:12 PM
If I buy a winch in the future, it won't be a ramsey.

AZAndy
March 1, 2008, 01:50 PM
Wait a minute-- the NRA does not advocate a law allowing employees to carry guns on company property or to take guns out of their vehicles on company property ??? What's up with that? How about the police department, would they be allowed to carry guns on company property? Sheesh.

springer7676
March 1, 2008, 08:43 PM
I am a gun owner. I believe that any American who wants to own a legal gun should have the right to do so. I am an NRA member long standing. I was until recently retired the Plant Manager of a local plant that had in its Operating Policies for employees a stipulation that firearms were not allowed on company property. I know that this was the correct policy for the Plant and its property. A business has the right to so stipulate and any employee who ignores the policy on firearms should be subject to termnation as they are for ignoring any company policy on behavior or action.

langenc
March 1, 2008, 10:10 PM
Put this one in your file for the next time you need it. The police are suggesting 'more guns'!!

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=57641

Rabid Rabbit
March 1, 2008, 10:30 PM
Springer,
As long as I the product/item/device in my car is legal NOBODY has the right to say I cannot carry it in my car. And cut out the "I'm a gun owner crap" it is a cheap and transparent negotiation ploy. Kinda of like I'm not a doctor but I play one on tv so I unerstand......"

A gun in the trunk hurts nobody and anybody that wants to go postal doesn't care what the policy is. Rules only impact honest people.

Fburgtx
March 1, 2008, 11:19 PM
Well, I plan on sending an e-mail to Ramsey tomorrow. I think it is an insult that a company that does so much marketing to hunters(gun owners), would continue to push for this.

NASCAR_MAN
March 2, 2008, 12:31 AM
Springer,
As long as I the product/item/device in my car is legal NOBODY has the right to say I cannot carry it in my car. And cut out the "I'm a gun owner crap" it is a cheap and transparent negotiation ploy. Kinda of like I'm not a doctor but I play one on tv so I unerstand......"

A gun in the trunk hurts nobody and anybody that wants to go postal doesn't care what the policy is. Rules only impact honest people.

Likewise, a gun in one's automobile console or glove compartment is not a bad thing either.

NASCAR


Any man afraid of a good man with a gun has some serious psycholical issues.

springer7676
March 2, 2008, 01:29 PM
First being a gun owner and member of NRA, concealed weapon permit and hunter with many guns are legitimate facts that allow me or any other person with gun ownerhsip the right to offer opinion on gun ownership and reponsibility. Its not crap as stated by some here. Private property is private property. For whatever reason or reasons that an owner of such property decides not to allow firearms, alcohol, drugs, or other potential problems on their property is valid in the USA. Rightful ownership of firearms is not the question. The question is are there responsibilities in ownership of these firearms that are governed by rules and policies dictated by other groups? Of course there are..... Just because you own a firearm and have the right to own it does not lift you above the rules and polices set forth by these other groups in society or the workplace. The quickest way to lose your right to own a firearm is by making that right dominant over other rules and polices. Respect of these other rules and polices show a dedication to society and demonstrate a willingnes of harmony within the total society. A weapon in the trunk on private property whether it will be used on said property or not is still against the policy of the owner of said property. Break that rule then break all the rules.....

scurtis_34471
March 4, 2008, 01:05 AM
My vehicle is my private property and my employer should not have the right to search that property.

Samuel Adams
March 4, 2008, 01:07 AM
This is certainly a dilemma - 2nd A vs private property rights.

Shadowangel
March 4, 2008, 01:17 AM
I'm curious why an employer's right to private property supersedes my right to privacy and unwarranted search and seisure. If i'm not committing a crime, how can my employer have my private property(car) searched for...anything?

Fburgtx
March 4, 2008, 01:20 AM
I love it when this comes up and some guys start spouting off about "property rights", as in, "it's my property and I have the right to tell you what you can and can't do on it". I'm sorry guys, but I'm not aware of any law that states that Constitutional rights only apply on PUBLIC property, and are subject to the owner's wishes on PRIVATE property

Businesses DON'T have the right to discriminate based on race on their property. Heck, you don't even have the right to discriminate against who your property is sold to. How is a nation supposed to function when every single homeowner or business owner has a different set of "laws" that everyone is supposed to follow.

If you don't want someone parking on the premises of your RESIDENCE with a gun in your car, that may be one thing. Heck, you may not want someone who's black or Jewish parking on the premises of your residence. However, when you are running a BUSINESS, that opens up a whole new can of worms regarding what you can and can't do.

MiddleAgedKen
March 4, 2008, 01:22 AM
The company isn't the government, and the Fourth Amendment restricts the government. You are on the company's property by mutual consent (contract). If you don't like the rules, you are free to terminate the contract.

I don't like the policy either; I don't think it makes sense. I'm just laying out the legal argument as I understand it (and IANAL).

Fburgtx
March 4, 2008, 01:30 AM
It was my understanding that in many places, a person's car is considered an extension of their residence. Thus, the reason why an LEO has no right to search it without a warrant or probable cause. Therefore, while they may be granting the privilege of parking in their lot, they are limited in their ability to dictate what can be inside the car that parks on that lot.(IANAL, either)

TwitchALot
March 4, 2008, 07:20 AM
As long as I the product/item/device in my car is legal NOBODY has the right to say I cannot carry it in my car. And cut out the "I'm a gun owner crap" it is a cheap and transparent negotiation ploy. Kinda of like I'm not a doctor but I play one on tv so I unerstand......"

And you do not have the right to put your private property on your company's private property without their permission. If they say you can only park on their lots if you do not have a firearm in your car, and you have a firearm in your car, you do not have a right, or in this case, the permission, to park there.

This is certainly a dilemma - 2nd A vs private property rights.

There is no dilemma. There are only people who want to protect the rights they like, when it suits them. It's no different from gun control advocates being all for your right speech and so forth, but against your right to keep and bear arms for among many things, personal defense.

My vehicle is my private property and my employer should not have the right to search that property.

No, no he shouldn't, unless...

I'm curious why an employer's right to private property supersedes my right to privacy and unwarranted search and seisure. If i'm not committing a crime, how can my employer have my private property(car) searched for...anything?

You agree to let them search vehicles on their lots for prohibited items as a condition for your employment.

Businesses DON'T have the right to discriminate based on race on their property. Heck, you don't even have the right to discriminate against who your property is sold to. How is a nation supposed to function when every single homeowner or business owner has a different set of "laws" that everyone is supposed to follow.

If you don't want someone parking on the premises of your RESIDENCE with a gun in your car, that may be one thing. Heck, you may not want someone who's black or Jewish parking on the premises of your residence. However, when you are running a BUSINESS, that opens up a whole new can of worms regarding what you can and can't do.

Actually, they do. It just so happens to be restricted like many of our rights today. Of course, that bolded argument is very popular today. "My rights should be protected, not yours because X."

Do you not discriminate against people? Ever say, "no," when someone asked to come into your home? You discriminating against strangers, pal?

Of course, we know how things are. It's okay to discriminate against certain groups as long as you'd do it. That's how the people in power run, after all- they try to enforce their views, opinions, and morals, on everyone else through the law. And in my opinion, anyone who tries to do the same is no better.

"Everyone's in favor of free speech... unless you say something they don't like."

It was my understanding that in many places, a person's car is considered an extension of their residence. Thus, the reason why an LEO has no right to search it without a warrant or probable cause. Therefore, while they may be granting the privilege of parking in their lot, they are limited in their ability to dictate what can be inside the car that parks on that lot.(IANAL, either)

Actually, there is another condition upon which LEO's can search your car or home.

With your permission. And if you agree to let your employer search the cars (including yours) on his premise as a condition of your contract, then your employer has every right to search your car. That is, after all, what you agreed to.

Of course, if this is not the case, then the employer has no right to search your car even if it is on his lot. He may not allow guns to be stored in vehicles on HIS lot, but he won't be able to enforce it.

So it's okay to violate agreements and contracts so long as you don't think you're going to get caught. That about right?



Instead of forcing our opinions, lifestyles, and choices on everyone else (like gun control advocates try to do with us), what we SHOULD be doing is writing letters and making phone calls to these companies, telling them how they've lose our business because of their policies.

What we SHOULDN'T be doing is attempting to force other people to conform to our ideas, opinions, and preferences through the force of law.

Some info:

DP Manufacturing Inc.

Exporter
PO Box 471710, Tulsa, OK74146, United States
(918)250-2450, fax


Tulsa Winch Group
PO Box 1130, Jenks, OK 74037-1130 USA
Phone: (918) 298-8300 Fax: (918) 298-8367


Auto Crane AutoCrane Company
P.O. Box 580697 Tulsa, OK 74158-0697
Phone: (918)836-0463 Fax: (918)834-5979
Email: info@autocrane.com

Rabid Rabbit
March 4, 2008, 01:31 PM
Springer and Twitch,
The crap (probably a little strong, sorry) is prefacing your argument with “as a….” as though that gives you more credibility because you are taking a stand contrary to the expected norm. It is a condescending argument no matter what the subject. Your right to an opinion has nothing to do with your NRA status or gun ownership, you are a member and abide by the rules so you are allowed to express your opinion.

Sorry but I'm not buying it. The analogy of guns, alcohol and drugs is bad. I’ve never heard of any company banning alcohol from vehicles, drinking during working hours I’ve heard of, but to carry that analogy over to guns you would have to be carrying or shooting the gun and we’re talking storage in the trunk or hidden. Drugs are illegal, guns are not, however it may be illegal for you to own a gun.

I believe the analogy you are looking for is pornography. Most is legal other like underage, etc.. are not, I’m not discussing the illegal kind. A employer can fire you for harassment for binging pornography (legal kind) into the work area or most likely if you leave it in plain view on your car seat. They do not have the right to search your car for porno. Why are guns different?

This I cannot believe that with all the cases we’ve had dealing with free speech and privacy that you two and many others believe that guns should be exempted.

TwitchALot
March 4, 2008, 02:48 PM
Springer and Twitch,
The crap (probably a little strong, sorry) is prefacing your argument with “as a….” as though that gives you more credibility because you are taking a stand contrary to the expected norm. It is a condescending argument no matter what the subject. Your right to an opinion has nothing to do with your NRA status or gun ownership, you are a member and abide by the rules so you are allowed to express your opinion.

Mind telling me where I said, "as a..."? Because I don't remember saying that (at least in the manner you described).

Sorry but I'm not buying it. The analogy of guns, alcohol and drugs is bad. I’ve never heard of any company banning alcohol from vehicles, drinking during working hours I’ve heard of, but to carry that analogy over to guns you would have to be carrying or shooting the gun and we’re talking storage in the trunk or hidden. Drugs are illegal, guns are not, however it may be illegal for you to own a gun.

I believe the analogy you are looking for is pornography. Most is legal other like underage, etc.. are not, I’m not discussing the illegal kind. A employer can fire you for harassment for binging pornography (legal kind) into the work area or most likely if you leave it in plain view on your car seat. They do not have the right to search your car for porno. Why are guns different?

This I cannot believe that with all the cases we’ve had dealing with free speech and privacy that you two and many others believe that guns should be exempted.

What "exemption" are you talking about? And what "analogy" are you talking about? Certainly not mine. There is no exemption, no analogy, in my post.

Whether you have "heard" of company banning alcohol on their property is irrelevant. If you are working for them, then you should abide by your contract, regardless of whether they can enforce it or not. If that contract YOU SIGNED says that you won't bring firearms on their property, and they happen to own that parking lot, you should abide by it, EVEN IF you did not give them permission to search your vehicle. It's just the honest thing to do- abide by the agreement you made.

If you did give them permission to search your vehicles, then you really can't complain about the company searching your vehicle. If you were so unhappy with it, why did you agree to let them do so in the first place?

I am not "looking" for any analogy because an analogy would be pointless. If the company policy dictates you cannot drink on the job, you cannot drink on the job (or you can, but risk being fired). If the company policy dictates you cannot bring guns on their property, and you hate that so much, either try to get it changed, or don't sign the contract. But don't just ignore the contract you signed because you didn't like it. Again, if you didn't like it, why did you sign it? It doesn't matter what it is. It can be paper, a pencil, mirrors, whatever it may be- it doesn't matter. If the company policy is that you can't bring pencils or paper, and you don't like that policy, don't sign the contract with that company. It's that simple.


And for the record, I try to protect ALL rights, not just the ones I agree with. It is you who is attempting to infringe on privacy and property rights here. If I don't want you in my home, I should be able to refuse you from entering my home. If I say you must take off your shoes before you enter my home, you can either take off your shoes, or stay out of my house. If I say no guns in my house, it's no guns in my house. Deal with it, or stay out of my house. If I say no cussing in my house and you happen to be a cusser, you can either not cuss, or you can stay out of my house. The same applies to private property regardless of whether it is business, from a logical and moral standpoint (legally, that's not the case). If it's a ranch, it still applies. If it's a business, it still applies.

The difference is that some people insist on enforcing their ideals, morals, and way of life on other people. It just never applies to themselves. It's okay to force a business to do something by law on their private property, but it's not okay to force you to do something by law in your house. It's no coincidence, "they serve the public" arguments notwithstanding. Businesses, for the record, aren't in existence to "serve the public," by the way, in case anyone is confused about that.

And to be more clear (if I were not clear enough) and answer your question, guns are not any different from any other object they choose to prohibit. Employers have no right to search your vehicle for guns or other objects unless you give them permission to do so. That can be done verbally, or by the contract you signed when you agreed to work for them doing X job for Y pay under Z conditions. But because they are no different, they also should not receive any special protection. You can either abide by the contract you signed, or you can not sign it at all. But don't sign it and then complain about its terms- if you had issues with it, you should have addressed them before you signed it.

Rabid Rabbit
March 4, 2008, 03:30 PM
Sorry it just doesn't fly, there are many things that you may sign up to but are unenforceable by law, we have certain rights that cannot be taken away no matter what you sign. Discrimination, sexual harassment, privacy etc... Employers cannot fire you for unreasonable reasons even in work at will states. If that were the case there would be no recourse for the employee, and that just doesn't make sense, it is too one sided. The catch phrase “Perform……and all other duties as required” likely has a very different meaning for you than me. I guess that you and I will have to disagree.

TwitchALot
March 4, 2008, 03:48 PM
Sorry it just doesn't fly, there are many things that you may sign up to but are unenforceable by law, we have certain rights that cannot be taken away no matter what you sign. Discrimination, sexual harassment, privacy etc... Employers cannot fire you for unreasonable reasons even in work at will states. If that were the case there would be no recourse for the employee, and that just doesn't make sense, it is too one sided. The catch phrase “Perform……and all other duties as required” likely has a very different meaning for you than me. I guess that you and I will have to disagree.

There is nothing one sided in a free market economy because economics (contrary to popular belief) is not a zero-sum game. People act as if companies have all the power in a free market society (which we do not live in, by the way), but that's hardly the case. Companies need good (morally and practically) people to work for them, want to make money, and need consumers to buy their things. They cannot succeed without workers and money, and as a worker or consumer, you have a degree of control over company policies (some more than others, collectively greater than individually). Good companies try to cater to the desires of their consumers. Bad ones go out of business, or this day and age, get bailed out by our tax dollars. That's why you see more companies "going green" and more hybrids.


Furthermore, whether something is sanctioned by law or not is not really a concern of mine as far as the debate is concerned. Simply because something is a law doesn't make it right. Essentially, what you have done is avoided responding to my criticisms of your system of ideas by saying, "well, it's against the law anyway, so whatever." It's a cop-out (though admittedly, this isn't the proper place to be discussing this). The law in some (two?) states says that civilians can't carry concealed firearms on them, and I think one of them suggests that most citizens should defend themselves with nail files or keys should the need arise.

Should we just accept that and say things are cool because it's the law? Laws are not right or just because they are laws, they are right and just because the morality and principles behind those laws are right and just. Not as far as I'm concerned. Unjust laws should be repealed, and we should be doing everything we can to do that by contacting our legislators. But as I said earlier, what we shouldn't be doing is attempting to put more unjust laws on the books (regardless of whether they are in our favor or not). In this case, we should be contacting the companies and letting them know how we feel. I have left some contact information above.

And for the record, rights cannot be taken away, period. They can however, be waived or repressed. If you waive your right to a trial by jury, and you don't like the sentence you get, you can't go back and complain your right to a trial by jury was infringed upon. You waived it voluntarily. If you choose not to carry or have a gun, and someone breaks into your home and harms a family member, you cannot complain that your right to keep and bear arms (assuming there are no such restrictions) was infringed upon, because you refused to exercise your right to keep and bear arms for your defense. That was your choice.

Wineoceros
March 4, 2008, 03:55 PM
Sorry it just doesn't fly, there are many things that you may sign up to but are unenforceable by law, we have certain rights that cannot be taken away no matter what you sign.
You stand up in the middle of a meeting with one or more customers and begin opining about what crap your company's products really are.

Does the First Amendment prevent your employer from terminating your employment based on your actions? Bear in mind that I'm not asking about whether or not this is analogous to prohibiting firearms in your car. I'm just asking you whether or not the Bill of Rights prevents your employer from restricting your speech on the job as it prevents the state from restricting similar speech?

357WheelGun
March 4, 2008, 08:10 PM
Heck, you don't even have the right to discriminate against who your property is sold to.

Incorrect. As long as the discrimination is not based upon membership in a specifically-enumerated "protected class" (e.g. race, religion, sex, physical disability, etc) it is perfectly legal to discriminate in terms of to whom you will sell your property. If I go into a store and am antagonistic to the owner or to an employee and then try to buy something, it is 100% legal for that store to refuse to sell the item to me based on my verbal abuse. There are plenty of legally-legitimate reasons for a business to refuse to sell an item or service.

The protected classes had to be specifically enumerated in law, which means that there is no Constitutional restriction against discrimination aside from the 15th and 19th amendments which relate only to discrimination with regard to the right to vote in elections.

Rabid Rabbit
March 4, 2008, 10:04 PM
Lies are not protected speech and employers cannot keep you from telling the truth. I dare say I have yet to see a mission statement that says "our people are encouraged to lie to our customers". If the stuff is crap and I have the proof (we can what if this to dooms day) sure I could get fired but then I have the ability to sue and would likely win. If I lied then yep I get fired just like people get sued for slander.

springer7676
March 4, 2008, 10:05 PM
Rabid Rabbit;
I stated that I am a gun owner, NRA member etc simply to offer credentials to this forum. If I were debating Luna Science on a same forum I would expect those in the debate to expect some credentials to participate. Obviously credentials are not important.

My opinion as you wish is that your perceived rights are not more important than the rules and polices that govern the rights of society at large, or a Company, a business, an institution are group within that society. If that society be it a business, a company, or other organization has through legislature or the governing entity (owner) stated what the rules and polices are then you have the responsibility to accept them if you participate. If you participate and break the rules and policies then you will certainly be investigated as to your desire to continue participation.

The ownership of property, Private Property if you will, which is a key backbone of American society has many statutes in America to protect it. Trespass, steal, destroy, and in your case manipulate to your own perceived rights, will certainly be addressed and dealt with in accordance with the policies and rules in affect.

Wineoceros
March 5, 2008, 09:30 AM
Lies are not protected speech and employers cannot keep you from telling the truth. I dare say I have yet to see a mission statement that says "our people are encouraged to lie to our customers". If the stuff is crap and I have the proof (we can what if this to dooms day) sure I could get fired but then I have the ability to sue and would likely win. If I lied then yep I get fired just like people get sued for slander.
You seem to think that the designation "crap" is one that can be legally proven to some objective standard, which betrays some very fundamental misunderstandings. I can say that I think some product is, in my opinion, "crap". As a personal qualitative evaluation it is neither "true" nor "false" in any subjective sense, and so notions of "proof", "slander", et al simply do not apply.

If you seriously believe that such an action would not give your employer justifiable cause for dismissal then you're living in a fantasy world.

But you still didn't answer my question. If you took the action I described - and it was an honest expression of your opinion about the products your comany sells - does the U.S. Constitution provide you with legal protection against being fired by your employer?

Rabid Rabbit
March 5, 2008, 11:47 AM
Wineocerus,
Please reread the second sentence of my answer. Yep most products can be measured by an objective standard, everybody pretty much knows crap when they see it. Juries decide that question all the time so do a number of organizations.

Obviously you're definition of crap is different than mine, so we would go to court after you fired me. I would demonstrate that your product is indeed crap and win the case you would owe me big bucks and I'll laugh all the way to the bank.

I'm sure you can "what if" your scenario all day long as can I but, the short answer is the First Amendment would protect me as long as I was telling the truth and the constitution set up the framework to take you to court. Do I have the resources to take the employer to court and win, yes or no? If yes then I win if not then I cannot then I may get my rights trampled on fired and find another job.

Now come back from your trip around the barn and get back on point with the thread.

Here read this: I believe honestly answering a question and identifying the product as crap would likely come under whistle blower which is protected. Yes sexual harrasment etc... are not and should not.
http://library.findlaw.com/2003/Sep/30/133065.html

Fburgtx
March 5, 2008, 11:55 AM
TwitchaLot,
You failed to read in my post where I distinguish between a place of business and a residence. Read it again and then feel free to comment on what I posted, not on what you think I posted. Even if they are an employer and I am an employee, I am still conducting BUSINESS. Namely, I am offering a service and they are paying for it. I am not there to visit.

357WheelGun,
The property I refer to is REAL ESTATE, not property such as lawnmowers, widgets,etc. There ARE specific federal laws that state you may not discriminate based on race/religion etc. as far as to whom you sell property (read: real estate).

I will make no more posts on the matter, seeing as how this is "activism"

Wineoceros
March 5, 2008, 12:26 PM
Wineocerus,
Please reread the second sentence of my answer. Yep most products can be measured by an objective standard, everybody pretty much knows crap when they see it. Juries decide that question all the time so do a number of organizations.

Obviously you're definition of crap is different than mine, so we would go to court after you fired me. I would demonstrate that your product is indeed crap and win the case you would owe me big bucks and I'll laugh all the way to the bank.
A Microsoft sales rep tells a customer, "I think Outlook is crap as a newsreader."

Legally objective fact...or subjective opinion?

I'm sure you can "what if" your scenario all day long as can I but, the short answer is the First Amendment would protect me as long as I was telling the truth and the constitution set up the framework to take you to court.
And right here you demonstrate that your understanding of the Bill of Rights is deeply flawed.

Now come back from your trip around the barn and get back on point with the thread.
I am on point. I'm trying to get you to understand the underlying principle at work in this topic and your assertions regarding it. That you're going out of your way to resist that understanding does not make me off point.

Here read this: I believe honestly answering a question and identifying the product as crap would likely come under whistle blower which is protected. Yes sexual harrasment etc... are not and should not.
http://library.findlaw.com/2003/Sep/30/133065.html
OK. I read it. Did you? If so, did you make it all the way to the 2nd paragraph?:

"No Constitutional Freedom of Speech in the Private Sector

Employees in the public sector – who work for governmental entities – have First Amendment rights in the workplace, subject to certain restrictions. The case law that has developed over time regarding First Amendment rights in the workplace has come from the public sector, as the government is directly affecting employees in public sector cases. There are no Washington cases that this author is aware of where freedom of speech has been protected under the First Amendment in private sector workplaces."

And your assertion regarding "whistleblower" protection indicates that you need to do some reading on the meaning of that term in this context.

Rabid Rabbit
March 5, 2008, 01:10 PM
I guess this is why we have the court system to address disagreements. :neener:
Given the few facts you gave in your "what if" world I had my version of events, you had yours.

"I think Outlook is crap as a newsreader." When I back opinion with fact yes outlook is crap. And I seriously doubt that there is a MS employee that can say otherwise with a straight face.

Wineoceros
March 5, 2008, 01:22 PM
OK. If you're just going to bail out on the matter when faced with questions you can't address then it would save us both time and effort if you abstained from the debate in the first place.

TwitchALot
March 5, 2008, 01:43 PM
TwitchaLot,
You failed to read in my post where I distinguish between a place of business and a residence. Read it again and then feel free to comment on what I posted, not on what you think I posted. Even if they are an employer and I am an employee, I am still conducting BUSINESS. Namely, I am offering a service and they are paying for it. I am not there to visit.

The ironic part is that it is you who failed to read my post. That's exactly what I addressed. You want protection for residences, but not businesses, even though both can be private property. Which brings me back to what I said earlier- the mentality that almost everyone believes in something until it doesn't suit them. Certain private property is more equal than other private property, of course. It's not okay to tell you what to do on your private property, but it's okay to tell someone else what to do on their private property.

I also mention that people try to distinguish businesses from residences because businesses "serve the public," so they say, but this is false. Many businesses and residences are private property. You insist that businesses are different, and it's okay to force them, who do things on their private property, to follow certain laws and regulations, but it's not okay to force people, who do things on their private property (people in a private residence) to follow certain laws and regulations. Why?

Ash
March 5, 2008, 02:04 PM
Well, if a member of the DNC said he thought Republicans were correct on the economy and on all moral issues, even if done is a respectable manner, said staffer would be fired.

Ash

anotherjohndoe
March 5, 2008, 03:27 PM
Please cancel your NRA membership and join the Brady bunch.

It's sad and shameful to see that anyone here among us would be willing to sacrifice their (and everyone else's) 2A rights and basic tools for self-defense in return for the privilege to earn an honest living and the opportunity to feed and house their families. No one should be allowed to coerce anyone to disarm themselves while traveling to and from an employer.

Fburgtx
March 6, 2008, 03:03 PM
Twitchalot,
Since you asked, I will comment one more time. Are you telling me that the only place that Constitutional rights have any place is on public property??? So my CHL should only be valid if I'm in a park???

What if I'm on a privately owned toll-road??? Do the owners of said toll-road get to tell me what I can have in my car????

You DO have freedom of speech at work. If I say "I support Hillary Clinton, etc." at work during a conversation, I cannot be fired for that. I CAN be fired if I jump up on my desk and scream "I support Hillary Clinton" and disrupt work in the process. By the same token, having a gun on my person at work might cause a disruption. I don't feel it causes a disruption if it is locked in a vehicle out in a parking lot. Do employers get to tell me I can't have a hammer in my car?? A knife??? Dirty underwear??? Do they get to deny me habeas corpus?? Do I have to practice Judaism on their property?? Can they force me into slavery???

Just because I own the real estate you're standing on does not mean I get to declare myself emperor/king/supreme ruler of said property and the rule-maker for all that goes on there!!! If this were the case, OSHA wouldn't be able to enforce regulations on privately owned businesses. By doing business, you open yourself to a different set of rules!

budiceman
March 6, 2008, 03:26 PM
Here they cant say anything about it in the vehicle! In the building is another story!
How else are you to protect yourself on the way to and from work?

TwitchALot
March 7, 2008, 03:34 AM
Twitchalot,
Since you asked, I will comment one more time. Are you telling me that the only place that Constitutional rights have any place is on public property??? So my CHL should only be valid if I'm in a park???

"Rights" have place on private property should the owner allow it. If I own a business and I want people CCWing (and some do (http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/20071019_Robber_killed_in_gunfight_with_recycling_employees.html)), that's fine. The real question is, do you have a right to be on someone else's property without permission?

I say no, you say yes. And yet, you will probably insist I don't have a right to be in your home without your permission. But when it comes to businesses, it's okay? Come on. If you don't have a right to be on my private property to begin with, what makes you think you have the right to do what you want on my private property?

What if I'm on a privately owned toll-road??? Do the owners of said toll-road get to tell me what I can have in my car????

No. But they should be able to decide whether you can use their road or not. If they say you cannot use their road if you have firearms in the car, you do not have permission to use their road, and you would be trespassing if you were caught.

You probably won't be caught in such a situation of course, unless you agreed to let them search your vehicle, but again, is it okay for me to bust into your house if I think I won't get caught? Should I be able to park on your driveway without your permission?

You DO have freedom of speech at work. If I say "I support Hillary Clinton, etc." at work during a conversation, I cannot be fired for that. I CAN be fired if I jump up on my desk and scream "I support Hillary Clinton" and disrupt work in the process. By the same token, having a gun on my person at work might cause a disruption. I don't feel it causes a disruption if it is locked in a vehicle out in a parking lot.

I'm not concerned with how things are. I'm concerned with how things should be.

Do employers get to tell me I can't have a hammer in my car?? A knife??? Dirty underwear??? Do they get to deny me habeas corpus?? Do I have to practice Judaism on their property?? Can they force me into slavery???

No. But they should get to stipulate whether you can park on their private lots or not. If you have guns in your car and your employer says you can't park on their lot if you have guns in your car, park somewhere else. If you choose to park on their lot anyway, you are trespassing. You may not get caught (especially if you don't give them permission to search your vehicle), but I've already gone down that road. If you go to a range and they say guns have to be unloaded when you bring them in (and must be loaded at the bench), you can either not go to that range, or you can abide by their rules. The government shouldn't have any say in the matter.

Just because I own the real estate you're standing on does not mean I get to declare myself emperor/king/supreme ruler of said property and the rule-maker for all that goes on there!!! If this were the case, OSHA wouldn't be able to enforce regulations on privately owned businesses.

Actually, it should. There shouldn't be any regulations on privately owned businesses or any private property, for that matter. If I want to sell hamburgers for 100 dollars, I should be able to. I'll probably go out of business if I do that, but that's my choice. If I don't want to hire you, I shouldn't be forced to. You don't have a right to my money and neither does the government. I shouldn't be forced to give you a job (a job that costs me money) and more than the government should be able to tell you what you spend your money on.

If I want to eat pizza in my home every day, I should be able to. The government shouldn't be able to tell me what I do with my body on my private property. If I want to get drunk in my home, the government shouldn't be able to tell me that I have to keep it within a certain limit. If I don't want to sell my home, the government shouldn't be able to take it from me. It's my house, and it's my business, not yours, and not the governments. It's my private property, and I should be able to do whatever the hell I want with it so long as I don't harm others and prevent them from doing the same.

If I don't want you in my home, you shouldn't have the right to just step in and do whatever the hell you want. My house, my rules. If you don't like them, leave. The same principles apply to, well, private property. How that private property is being used should not be a criteria for whether it should be regulated or not. If my private property is being used to manufacture cartridges, the government shouldn't have any more regulatory authority over me than if I were using my private property as a living space. The concept of government control over private property, based on how it is used, is so dangerous it's not even funny.

We complain about the slippery slope of gun control, and yet, when it comes to private property (and not just any private property mind you- private property being used in a manner you don't like), we are silent. It's just depressing.

By doing business, you open yourself to a different set of rules!

Why? It's still private property. If you'd like to argue that the government has a right to control private property if it's being used for certain purposes ("serving the public," ostensibly), we can go down that road.

Suppose I have a few extra rooms in my home, and I want to rent them out to people (kind of like a business- a motel almost). I'll cook you food, I'll give you a place to stay, I'll let you use my internet, I'll let you watch TV, whenever you want. My conditions are that you pay me $500 a month, can't bring pets, don't make too much noise, and don't make the house too messy. If you break anything, you pay for it. Should the government be able to tell me what to do?

Should they be able to force me to have to take a proportional number of people based on race or sex? Has to be 50:50 men/women or 25:25:25:25 black/white/Asian/Hispanic? Should they be able to tell me how much I can charge, or what rules I can and cannot apply on my private property?


If your answer is yes, no doubt you support government control over your thermostat (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/us/11control.html). Electricity is a public utility and all, and there is a public interest in making sure the power doesn't go out all over the state. Sounds like a good plan, eh? I mean hell, why not control private property as long as it's used "for the greater good," like eminent domain? If I choose to use my private property to sell things, or choose to use it to manufacture things, or choose to use it to live in (and maybe manufacture things while I'm living there, who knows), it makes no difference. It's still private property, and I should be able to do whatever the hell I want with it and on it. Private property is private property. Whether you choose to sell things, make things, buy things, eat things, or watch things, should make no difference as to whether it is private property or not.

If you don't have the right to go on/in my private property, be it my home, business, road, or car, how can you claim to have the right to do whatever you want on it?

How else are you to protect yourself on the way to and from work?

Park somewhere else.

If you enjoyed reading about "More Anti-gun nonsense in Tulsa" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!