"Guns Have No Place at Work":Gun Owners 1,Miami Herald 0


PDA






Winchester 73
April 9, 2008, 04:35 PM
The virulently gun hating Miami Herald and their parking lot suffered a severe setback today.This band of Socialists on the Editorial Board will never rest ;no matter how much common sense has been thrown in their face and how little blood is running in the streets with law abiding gun owners being armed.
Note the lies,distortions and half truths in the Ed.The Herald sinking to new lows.Note the comments following the editorial.

http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/editorials/story/488271.html

Guns unsafe at work
OUR OPINION: WEAPONS BAN CAN PROTECT EMPLOYEES, SAVE LIVES
Posted on Wed, Apr. 09, 2008
Who knew getting guns could be that easy? Recently Homestead police confiscated AK-47s, sniper rifles, semi-automatic pistols and more than 5,000 rounds of ammunition. The cache came from a 22-year-old man who says he traded weapons over the Internet.

Such easy access to firearms is exactly what businesses fear. It is too easy for a disgruntled employee or client to make good on threats by bringing a gun to the workplace. This is why many employers -- from Walt Disney to BrandsMart -- ban weapons on their private property. The bans promote safety and peace of mind.

Now the Legislature threatens to upset that peace. The House already passed a bill (HB 503) that would make it illegal for businesses to prohibit employees from keeping a legally permitted gun locked in their car on the company lot. The Senate is set to vote on it Thursday.

The bill would perpetuate danger. It clashes with federal mandates requiring employers to create a safe work environment. At the same time, it violates the right of businesses to manage their business.

Under the bill, employers can't ask workers whether they carry a gun in their car, even if the worker threatens to use it. The bill allows schools to have a gun ban, but the Senate rejected an amendment to allow child-care centers to do so. So school-age children have a greater right to safety than toddlers? That's nonsense.

Florida long has strived to be a business-friendly state. This bill is not good for business or state residents. The privilege of gun owners should not trump the right of workers to be safe or of businesses to decide what is permissible on private property.

Senators should stop this unnecessary bill. If it passes, urge Governor Crist -- Charlie.Crist@MyFlorida.com -- to veto it. Guns have no place at work.

If you enjoyed reading about ""Guns Have No Place at Work":Gun Owners 1,Miami Herald 0" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Darthbauer
April 9, 2008, 04:39 PM
The person that wrote that article needs to be held up at knife point and saved by a CCW'er.

I cant stand stuff like this.

glink
April 9, 2008, 04:43 PM
The person that wrote that article needs to be held up at knife point and saved by a CCW'er.

Or not.

Darthbauer
April 9, 2008, 04:44 PM
Or not.


Just saying, something like that might be the only thing that would change someone's mind on hating guns.

usmarine0352_2005
April 9, 2008, 05:35 PM
The privilege of gun owners should not trump the right of workers to be safe or of businesses to decide what is permissible on private property.


Oops, he meants the "RIGHT" of gun owners.

Big difference in right vs. privilege.

feedthehogs
April 9, 2008, 05:57 PM
Florida long has strived to be a business-friendly state. This bill is not good for business or state residents

Those who don't like this are free to leave the state so we can once again have a quiet peaceful state.

Empty out God's waiting room and send them packing.

misANTHrope
April 9, 2008, 06:02 PM
It is too easy for a disgruntled employee or client to make good on threats by bringing a gun to the workplace. This is why many employers -- from Walt Disney to BrandsMart -- ban weapons on their private property. The bans promote safety and peace of mind.

Yes, because words on a piece of paper somewhere will avert murderous rage. No one would ever dare to bring a gun into a place where they weren't allowed!

Beagle-zebub
April 9, 2008, 08:32 PM
Does [I]anyone/I] ever go into a spontaneous, murderous rage at work and murder someone? I feel like we would hear about it if they did.

If people can't be trusted to carry weapons on the grounds that they might flip out and attack one another, why aren't there ever stabbings in the Boy Scouts? Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of teenaged boys go to camps every year, and they don't live in isolation. I can personally attest to friction existing between Scouts, but I've yet to ever hear of a stabbing.

xsquidgator
April 9, 2008, 09:23 PM
The hell with the Miami Herald. After several years of frustrating failures, a bill has made it's way to the Governor's desk, and it's likely he'll sign it! Go suck a lemon, Miami Herald, a good thing is happening.

After all, if our rights to keep and bear arms may be infringed "for the common good", then property rights may also be infringed for the safety and good of people who have to travel to and from a business that doesn't want guns on it's property. The guns stay locked up inside the property of the gun owner, the business owners can still have the "protection" offered by the no-gun sign, and we're all happy. We get to protect ourselves on the way to and from work, and the foolish business is still in just as much risk from criminals as before.

Next, we can work on expanding the places where legal concealed carry can go. Then perhaps those of us who work for holpohobe employers can be safe AT work and not just to and from work.

orionengnr
April 9, 2008, 09:46 PM
Can't seem to find a link to contact the "journalist" in question. And the quotes were not accidental. :)

divemedic
April 9, 2008, 11:03 PM
An anitgun editorial from the Herald:

must be Pitts

kurtmax
April 9, 2008, 11:09 PM
I'm actually opposed to laws like this. I think it violates private property rights. I don't have a right to bring firearms onto someone else's private property if they don't want me to.

There are already enough violations of private property rights like no-smoking laws, equal-treatment laws, etc.

I do find it hilarious, however, that these socialists rabidly support 'private property' when it suits their own purposes....

Elza
April 9, 2008, 11:39 PM
I don’t have a problem with companies exercising control over the work place even though I think they’re full of crap regarding their “reasons”. I feel the same way about my home. However saying I can’t park my car (said car being my property) on a company parking lot is pure BS. It’s just another useless, feel-good rule that accomplishes absolutely nothing.

They have tried to get such a law passed here in Texas but so far it hasn’t been successful.

Winchester 73
April 10, 2008, 12:01 AM
must be pitts,or journalist

No,No, here are the culprits:the Herald Editorial Board:

EDITORIAL BOARD
David Landsberg
Publisher
Joe Oglesby
Editorial Page Editor
Juan Vasquez
Deputy Editorial Page Editor
Jim Morin
Editorial Cartoonist
Nancy Ancrum
Editorial Writer
Susana Barciela
Editorial Writer
Kathleen Krog
Editorial Writer
Zulay Domínguez Chirinos
Copy Editor

chris in va
April 10, 2008, 12:58 AM
Does [i]anyone/I] ever go into a spontaneous, murderous rage at work and murder someone? I feel like we would hear about it if they did.


Yes. It happens.

Winchester 73
April 10, 2008, 01:07 AM
Yes. It happens.

How often,out of a workforce of over 150(give or take a few) million Chris?

Soybomb
April 10, 2008, 01:15 AM
However saying I can’t park my car (said car being my property) on a company parking lot is pure BS.
How come? Its their property, shouldn't they be able to ask you to put on a frilly dress and sing "I'm a little tea pot" if you want to park on their lot? If you don't like it, don't park there or don't work there.

I'm not a supporter of this, my property, my rules. If you don't like it your freedom is just over the property line. It seems like asking government to be big brother (har) and demand that your employer stop enforcing dumb policies is outside its purpose. I'm no more a fan of this than I am of laws that ban smoking in privately owned establishments.

DWARREN123
April 10, 2008, 02:09 AM
If they knew what they were talking about then they would not be liberal.

Sage of Seattle
April 10, 2008, 03:02 AM
Under the bill, employers can't ask workers whether they carry a gun in their car, even if the worker threatens to use it.

I'm calling BS on this one. Even if the worker threatens to use it? Sounds like an out and out lie to me.

But hey, it's about time that corporations get the smack-down on callously and freely trampling our collective, human rights.

Guitargod1985
April 10, 2008, 04:40 AM
I'm no more a fan of this than I am of laws that ban smoking in privately owned establishments.

Last time I checked you could light up when you get it your car. Furthermore, no employer ever tries to tell an employee not to have cigarettes (which are not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution by the way) in their own car.

jrfoxx
April 10, 2008, 06:56 AM
The way I see it, a business's private property is FAR from the same as someones home or personal land.business make certain concession on LOTS of things in order to BE a business, especially those open to the public.

I'm not a supporter of this, my property, my rules.
If that property is an individuals home or land, I agree, if its a business open to the public, I disagree. Would it be ok if say Mcdonald's decided thier new "rule" for thier "private property" was no blacks, jews, muslims, or women may enter or work there? I willing to bet 99% of the population would FREAK over that. But why? thier property thier rules right? Why can the law say they ban on not employ those mentioned above from a business, but they can bar people from exercising thier 2A right to bear arms and protect thier safety? A business a just not the same as ones home. there is no law I'M aware of that says I cant ban women, blacks, muslims, and jews from my home. again why? Because the 2 places simply are not the same. One is truly "private property" while the other is privately OWNED, yet open to the PUBLIC property.dont want guns on your property? then dont make your property a business open to the public. dont want women on your property? same thing.
There are some things a business can control and ban, and some things they cant.This is just another of those things. They can ban free speech all they want. We allow that. They cant ban women and blacks. We dont allow that. All that has happened now is that another "cant ban" was added to the long list of "can't bans" that already exist for a business. There is also a long list of "can ban" things, and I'm sure things are added and removed all the time. Why should guns be a special case of "can ban" only, when free speech isnt?Why can civil rights/equal oppertunity be a "cant ban only?, but guns arent? See what I'm saying. Society have agreed upon "can" and "can't" thing for businesses. This just switched an item from one list to the other, just like what happened with blacks in the 60's.

sciety has also agreed the "can ban" list for your personal home and property includes nearly everything, while the "cant" list is pretty darn short. Its that way because they just arent the same.

All that said, what goes on what list is 100% based on peoples opinion and judgement. There will ALWAYS be those who think a "can ban" thing should be a "cant", and vice versda, not matter WHAT it is. The rules for business are based on majority opinion, and thus are not set in stone anywhere.

So, the above happens to be MY opinion, and apparently that of at least a majority of those elected to make the rules for the peole of Florida.Other people and other places will disagree, just like here in OR where we have no such law as FL is trying to pass.Apparently here, my opinion happens to be in the minority.If I dont like it, I can a)do nothing and live with it, b)move to someplace like FL, c) get the law changed.

Nobody's_Hero
April 10, 2008, 08:12 AM
So, I take this to mean we refuse to go the boycott or competition route?

Pilot
April 10, 2008, 08:21 AM
All these newspapers are dieing a not so slow death for a reason. They don't report news, they have a far left liberal agenda that they interweave with so called news outside of the editorial page. The sell this "news" as fact instead of opinion. Its deceptive and people have figured that out. They are going down with the mainstream TV network news organizations like CBS who is outsourcing their news to CNN.

Mousegun
April 10, 2008, 09:02 AM
jrfoxx, you nailed it.

xsquidgator
April 10, 2008, 09:47 AM
I'm actually opposed to laws like this. I think it violates private property rights

It does abridge private property rights, a very very slight amount. So what? Our individual rights under the 2nd A are abridged ALL THE TIME in the name of public safety. We may not think it's reasonable, but probably better than 50% of the public thinks that some sort of gun control which interferes with the 2A is ok, short of complete bans. Well, apply the same standard to property rights.

This bill is a MINUSCULE infringement on property rights. As we all know, a business locations prohibition on firearms does NOTHING to make that business safer from gun violence. Gun violence, if it occurs in the workplace, will occur whether or not the business allows firearms on property. All of prohibition does is to prevent the law abiding employees from being able to protect themselves while traveling to and from work.

The full and unfettered exercise of property rights of a few people/businesses in this issue would have a widespread effect on the 2nd Amendment rights of millions of people. Property rights, in this case, take a back seat to 2nd Amendment rights, and properly so. No rights are absolute, and this bill is a very reasonable compromise. As a FL resident, I welcome this bill and have been as active as I could be calling and emailing the Governor and my state senators and representatives.

WayneConrad
April 10, 2008, 10:41 AM
This bill doesn't infringe upon the private property rights of the business owner. It protects the employee's private property rights.

All it does is allow you to keep your gun in your car when you drive to work and not get fired for it.

Do you think that your car becomes your boss's property when it drives onto your boss's parking lot? That's the only way for this bill to become an infringement of his private property rights.

Six O'clock Tactical
April 10, 2008, 10:47 AM
At least the author said "semi-automatic", which is a nice change from "automatic pistol" or "evil machine of death and destruction when weilded by anyone but our trusty police". Then again, a rifle is a rifle, and only a sniper can make it a snipers' rifle. (and I bet $10 that ak-47 was used to describe at least one gun that was not an ak-47.)

Soybomb
April 10, 2008, 12:41 PM
Last time I checked you could light up when you get it your car. Furthermore, no employer ever tries to tell an employee not to have cigarettes (which are not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution by the way) in their own car.
Most people don't make dumb rules for things like cigarettes, but why wouldn't an employer be able to say no cigarettes on our property at all, even in your car? What does the constitution have to do with anything? The constitution protects you from the government but it doesn't mean I can use my "freedom of speech" at work and not get fired when I answer the phone and tell a customer what I really think of them.

Would it be ok if say Mcdonald's decided thier new "rule" for thier "private property" was no blacks, jews, muslims, or women may enter or work there? I willing to bet 99% of the population would FREAK over that.
I'd be 100% fine with that, the general population may be horrified by the idea and conditioned to believe that this is a job for the government but I don't. Discriminate against who ever you like, let the back lash of the market punish you.

This bill is a MINUSCULE infringement on property rights.
Oddly I dont' think I've ever seen this argument used on THR to support gun control. "But guys, its just a small infringement."

ptmmatssc
April 10, 2008, 01:07 PM
Most people don't make dumb rules for things like cigarettes, but why wouldn't an employer be able to say no cigarettes on our property at all, even in your car? What does the constitution have to do with anything? The constitution protects you from the government but it doesn't mean I can use my "freedom of speech" at work and not get fired when I answer the phone and tell a customer what I really think of them.

Funny , using property rights to back a corp/company (constitutional expressed right ) , yet on the other hand those rights are only to protect you from gov . Either we all have them or we don't . Saying a company has "private property rights " but individuals don't , unless it involves gov , is quite contradictory .

PLRinmypocket
April 10, 2008, 03:16 PM
I do not believe this abridges property rights one bit, on the contrary, it affirms personal property rights.

Isn't a Car an employee owns his or her personal property anyway...what right does Disney or the Miami herald have to tell an employee what he can have in his car.....do they have the right to tell you not to have a bible or Koran locked in your car? Of course not. (The Bible or Koran in the wrong hands is much more dangerous than a firearm anyway)


Miami herald and Disney and others do not have to hire people who can legally own firearms. They can hire Felons who cannot legally own firearms if that makes them feel safer. :evil:

Flyboy
April 10, 2008, 03:25 PM
Furthermore, no employer ever tries to tell an employee not to have cigarettes (which are not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution by the way) in their own car.
Actually, a gentleman for whom I fly has enacted exactly that policy for his banks. Smoking is forbidden anywhere on company property, even in employees' own vehicles. They have to leave the grounds.

I'm of mixed opinion on this. On one hand, I think it's his bank, and he can do what he like; on the other hand, I think the employee's car should be treated as an extension of his home.

On the third hand, I think an employer ought to be allowed to hire and fire as he sees fit, for whatever reason, so that would cover the problem. If he annoys enough people, he'll find himself with a smaller labor pool, so he'll pay higher prices (reduced supply), and have more turnover to boot. Foolishness has its costs.

Guitargod1985
April 10, 2008, 03:59 PM
What does the constitution have to do with anything? The constitution protects you from the government but it doesn't mean I can use my "freedom of speech" at work and not get fired when I answer the phone and tell a customer what I really think of them.

By that logic I suppose the 14th amendment no longer applies to corporation, either. So if I want to start a large company and discriminate against a certain ethnic group, what does the Constitution have to do with it? After all, it's my RIGHT by God!:rolleyes:

What does the Constitution have to do with it? Well gee, I guess nothing - except for the fact that the fourth amendment states I can be secure in my person, house, papers and effects. Certainly my car falls under this. It is my property and I'll be damned if someone is going to tell me what LEGAL things I can have in it.

This bill doesn't infringe upon the private property rights of the business owner. It protects the employee's private property rights.


Bingo.

fletcher
April 10, 2008, 04:05 PM
It clashes with federal mandates requiring employers to create a safe work environment.
So, should police not carry guns either? Safe work environment and all...

I'm calling BS on this one. Even if the worker threatens to use it? Sounds like an out and out lie to me.
Probably, but they should be calling the police if someone is making threats like that, not asking if the individual has a gun.

Nobody's_Hero
April 10, 2008, 04:11 PM
By that logic I suppose the 14th amendment no longer applies to corporation, either. So if I want to start a large company and discriminate against a certain ethnic group, what does the Constitution have to do with it? After all, it's my RIGHT by God!

Good luck getting me to shop there.

glink
April 10, 2008, 04:11 PM
Quote:
Or not.


Just saying, something like that might be the only thing that would change someone's mind on hating guns.

Your wishing that the guy would be held up at knife point, and trying to criticize me?

I call BS.

hitbackfirst
April 10, 2008, 04:21 PM
I know I am just repeating what others have said here, but an Employer asks you to park your car on their property. Because they initiate you coming on to their property with your vehicle, they do not have the right to regulate what possessions you have in your vehicle. Not all businesses provide employee parking, (malls, some downtown businesses, etc.) but those that do must realize that in inviting you to park on their property they give up a certain amount of control over what items might end up on their property. Imagine a business declaring that no child car seats were allowed in cars on their property. No one would put up with this as parents need those car seats in order to keep their children safe when they pick them up after work. Likewise, many people need their legally owned and possessed firearms in order to keep themselves and their families safe. Anytime you apply different standards to firearms than you do to any other possession, you are accepting the anti-gun position that a gun, in and of itself, is dangerous, rather than the truth, that a gun is only dangerous when combined with a person who has criminal intentions or behaves in a reckless manner.

Soybomb
April 10, 2008, 05:35 PM
By that logic I suppose the 14th amendment no longer applies to corporation, either. So if I want to start a large company and discriminate against a certain ethnic group, what does the Constitution have to do with it? After all, it's my RIGHT by God!
I think that should be fine too, it doesn't seem like that should be fine too. Just because the world works that way doesn't mean I think its right. I don't think the post 86 machine gun ban is right even if its accepted law. I don't think government's job is to try to force people treat others as equals either. If you want to open up a racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory business I think you should be able to. I'll probably be there protesting it and trying to put you out of business but freedom should include letting business owners make stupid decisions.

I know I am just repeating what others have said here, but an Employer asks you to park your car on their property. Because they initiate you coming on to their property with your vehicle, they do not have the right to regulate what possessions you have in your vehicle.
Why not? If you ring my door bell I might tell you to please come in but that to do so you'll have to put on a giant sombrero. If you refuse the conditions attached to my invitation then you don't get to come in. I don't see this as being any different. You're welcome to park on my lot but you're to have no weapons and I might even ask to take a look. If you don't like it, don't park here.

Imagine a business declaring that no child car seats were allowed in cars on their property. No one would put up with this as parents need those car seats in order to keep their children safe when they pick them up after work.
Of course not, but is it the government's place to make that property owner fix their dumb rules or is it up to us as consumers to just put them out of business or force them to change their rules on our own?

Gun owners can be a hypocritical bunch. Half the time we have threads talking about how much people hate nosy government and "there ought to be a law" thinking but when the interest is self serving...well its just a small infringement, maybe its alright.

Guitargod1985
April 10, 2008, 05:43 PM
Quote:
By that logic I suppose the 14th amendment no longer applies to corporation, either. So if I want to start a large company and discriminate against a certain ethnic group, what does the Constitution have to do with it? After all, it's my RIGHT by God!
Good luck getting me to shop there.

That was sarcasm.

tmajors
April 10, 2008, 06:30 PM
Guns unsafe at work

That's what Louis Javelle was told too.

Nobody's_Hero
April 10, 2008, 06:31 PM
That was sarcasm.

It was recognized as such. Soybomb pretty much spelled out what I was too exhausted to type out at length.

Darthbauer
April 10, 2008, 06:34 PM
and trying to criticize me?


Um no, but whatever. I could careless at this point.

Flyboy
April 10, 2008, 06:50 PM
By that logic I suppose the 14th amendment no longer applies to corporation, either. So if I want to start a large company and discriminate against a certain ethnic group, what does the Constitution have to do with it?
The Fourteenth Amendment has exactly nothing whatsoever to do with companies not being able to discriminate against certain protected classes.

Those rules come from civil rights legislation, not the Constitution, or any amendment thereto.

divemedic
April 10, 2008, 10:50 PM
This isn't about a business owner deciding what happens on his property. This is about insurance companies dictating rates based on firearms ownership. Since all businesses need insurance, it isn't like you can just "go get a job elsewhere"

A closer analogy would be for the insurance industry to decide that Christians are more likely to be injured on the job, so anyone who is found to hire Christians will pay higher insurance rates.

try to find an employer that does not use insurance.

Sage of Seattle
April 11, 2008, 02:29 AM
I don't think government's job is to try to force people treat others as equals either.

It isn't. It's people who are tired of getting stomped on by corporations and businesses and who take the bigger boot of the government and stomp a little back.



If you want to open up a racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory business I think you should be able to. I'll probably be there protesting it and trying to put you out of business but freedom should include letting business owners make stupid decisions.

I would daresay the only reason you'd be protesting is because of all those laws in the first place to force businesses to treat human beings as human beings. You and most of us seem to take it for granted that we'd be outraged at Starbucks saying "no blacks allowed" but, in reality, in our country's history, all of our stores and people were allowed to discriminate and guess what? No one shopped somewhere else, no one particularly protested this unequal treatment, no one cared.

In reality, in our country's past, there were companies and people with businesses that ran mining towns or what have you. The workers may not have thought of themselves as slaves, but slaves they were. Why? There was no equality in the boss/worker relationship. A miner had to buy from the mine store, had to go to the mine church, work in the mine itself, buy his home from the mine company, and so on. Freedom to go "work somewhere else if you don't like it" is more an ideal than the reality, IMO.

Perhaps it's like thinking it as the government didn't come along and say "we'll fix your problems" but more like people who were downtrodden, powerless, people who just wanted to be like his fellow citizens Told His Government, help make this fair!

Then the rise of the legal fiction of a corporation has been the biggest single destructive factor to this country, IMVHO. Now suddenly one person can own thousands of stores. How can anyone effectively boycott such a monstrosity? The answer: we can't. Look around you. Multinational companies skip out on being beholden to our laws for example. When the only stores around were mom and pop stores, then, yes, your way worked. You could in fact shop somewhere else and you could make your wishes known in cold hard cash walking away. How about now? Aren't there but half dozen megacorps that own several dozen different chains, all with different menus, items for sale, different names and different sales pitches? How do you take your money elsewhere, when the vast majority of people don't even know who owns what? Take your money from Albertsons down to Safeway, but lo and behold, both are owned by the same company! Your money lines thier pockets no matter where you go.

Now what? How else can you possibly try and combat the continual trampling of OUR human rights?

The founding fathers I doubt could have comprehended the industrial revolution and how the very face of society and the world has changed because of it. Please, let us all go back to 1777 again. Kill corporations first. Kill the heavy, heavy tax burden being placed on small businesses. Stop the global new world order.

In the meantime, gimme a law that helps defend my enumerated constitutional rights as opposed to just yet another billion laws that continually take them away.

Of course not, but is it the government's place to make that property owner fix their dumb rules or is it up to us as consumers to just put them out of business or force them to change their rules on our own?

Asked and answered! :)

Nobody's_Hero
April 11, 2008, 07:50 AM
I would daresay the only reason you'd be protesting is because of all those laws in the first place to force businesses to treat human beings as human beings. You and most of us seem to take it for granted that we'd be outraged at Starbucks saying "no blacks allowed" but, in reality, in our country's history, all of our stores and people were allowed to discriminate and guess what? No one shopped somewhere else, no one particularly protested this unequal treatment, no one cared.

Look up the 'Montgomery Bus Boycott'.

sacp81170a
April 11, 2008, 07:57 AM
This bill is a MINUSCULE infringement on property rights.

Isn't that like being a LITTLE pregnant? I've said this before, if you park your car in a friend's driveway with his permission, the car and its contents are no more his property than you are. Why should your employer be any different?

MakAttak
April 11, 2008, 09:49 AM
Someone else pointed this out.

When the rules are made by a corporation, which is a legally created entity, the corporation is not a private individual with the accompanying rights. As such, I have no problem preventing a legal fiction (corporation) from infringing on the rights of individuals (self-defense).

It's the same argument: If you wish to create an entity that sheilds your assets from liability, then that entity will not be treated as an individual and you will be subject to certain restrictions. (Just as, if you come on my property, you are subject to my rules)

If you have a private business, not subject to limited liability: go ahead, ban guns.

If you are using the law to sheild your assets, then you should have no right to make individuals LESS SAFE because it makes you feel better, especially since you will suffer no personal consequences if your ill-advised policies cause them harm.

WayneConrad
April 11, 2008, 10:38 AM
Since when is the interior of your car your boss's property?

misANTHrope
April 11, 2008, 11:26 AM
The interior of your car is never your boss's property. The argument is that your car is located on your boss's property, and thus he has authority to impose restrictions on what you can and cannot bring onto his property in your car.

romma
April 11, 2008, 11:48 AM
"Guns Have No Place at Work":

sure they do,,, in my pocket, or on my hip!

Sage of Seattle
April 11, 2008, 12:48 PM
Look up the 'Montgomery Bus Boycott'.

Okay, I guess I should have been a bit more specific in which timeline I was discussing, but the bus boycott was specifically aimed at overturning a city law and it was subsequently declared unconstitutional.

How is that related to private businesses and corporations?

People are literally up in arms if their government tramples their rights, but it's okay if a "private" business does so? Since "private" business sugar coats that pill of oppression by creating the illusion of free choice, it makes it easier to swallow.

Oh, and by the way, I do agree with what you all are saying. I just don't think that complaining about this legislation is the way to go. I am happy, and able, to stand and rail against the government and "why do we need another law on the books" and write to my reps and letters to the editor and so on. So, personally, I don't feel that we're really disagreeing and I thank everyone for putting up with my recent rants in various threads over the past few days.

WayneConrad
April 11, 2008, 12:54 PM
The interior of your car is never your boss's property. The argument is that your car is located on your boss's property, and thus he has authority to impose restrictions on what you can and cannot bring onto his property in your car.
My boss can say that. Doesn't make it so, any more than would he saying that my wallet is his property just because I've carried it onto his property. My car is my mobile embassy on his property, my private property. Within it, I am king. Outside of it, he is king. Piece o' cake, no private property conflict whatsoever.

For that reason, this bill creates no tension of private property rights whatsoever. I don't see why any libertarian should flinch.

Soybomb
April 11, 2008, 01:19 PM
Then the rise of the legal fiction of a corporation has been the biggest single destructive factor to this country, IMVHO. Now suddenly one person can own thousands of stores. How can anyone effectively boycott such a monstrosity? The answer: we can't. Look around you. Multinational companies skip out on being beholden to our laws for example. When the only stores around were mom and pop stores, then, yes, your way worked. You could in fact shop somewhere else and you could make your wishes known in cold hard cash walking away. How about now? Aren't there but half dozen megacorps that own several dozen different chains, all with different menus, items for sale, different names and different sales pitches? How do you take your money elsewhere, when the vast majority of people don't even know who owns what? Take your money from Albertsons down to Safeway, but lo and behold, both are owned by the same company! Your money lines thier pockets no matter where you go.
I get it, big business bad. I'm not willing to sell out my principles to get a little something I want though. And really if your town has an albertsons and a safeway, it probably has several independent neighborhood grocery stores, even my little town does. They're expensive and have less selection but if you really do think that big corporation is bad you might have to give up some of the luxury that comes with shopping there.

My boss can say that. Doesn't make it so, any more than would he saying that my wallet is his property just because I've carried it onto his property. My car is my mobile embassy on his property, my private property. Within it, I am king. Outside of it, he is king. Piece o' cake, no private property conflict whatsoever.

For that reason, this bill creates no tension of private property rights whatsoever. I don't see why any libertarian should flinch.
But your boss isn't trying to take your property or your money, he's just trying to say that while you're on his property, you're going to follow his rules. If you don't like, don't use it. This is the same courtesy I expect from people who visit my home.

divemedic
April 11, 2008, 01:27 PM
Trying to apply this logic to say that a business is the same as a home is a red herring. This law has nothing to do with your home- your home is not open to the public.

WayneConrad
April 11, 2008, 01:29 PM
Soybomb, do you expect your rules to extend to the interior of the cars of people who visit your home?

Soybomb
April 11, 2008, 03:48 PM
Soybomb, do you expect your rules to extend to the interior of the cars of people who visit your home?
Absolutely if they're in my drive way. If they're parked on the street, no. Shouldn't I be able to tell my guests that under no circumstance will I allow a car with french poodles or tree shaped air fresheners to park on my property? I may even demand to look to verify they're following my rules. They of course might tell me that I'm a nut and there isn't a chance they'll let me check their car to see if they're following my crazy rules. Thats when I tell them they are no longer welcome on my property. They're not forced to follow my rules, but I'm not forced to let them stay. If you don't like it, leave.

divemedic
April 11, 2008, 04:37 PM
I fully support that, IN YOUR HOME. Once you open to the public, the rules change.

Ltlabner
April 11, 2008, 04:52 PM
At the same time, it violates the right of businesses to manage their business

Funny that an obviously lib leaning newspaper is now suddenly concerned about the "right of businesses to manage their business".

Didn't stop them from passing state wide smoking bans regardless of whether the owners wanted them or not (in Ohio, anyway).

Didn't stop them from forcing private clubs to open up membership to anybody regardless of how silly the situation.

Didn't stop them from imposing heavy taxes on businesses that prevents them from spending the money as they see fit.

Didn't stop them from mandating healthcare (Mass, for example) which most definatley interfears with an employers right to run their business as they see fit.

There's all sorts of ways the Libs have interjected themselves into how businesses choose to run themselves. But suddenly, when it comes to the EVILLLLLLLL guns, then whoooa nelly. Can't interfear with how businesses choose to run their companies.

What crap.

MakAttak
April 11, 2008, 04:52 PM
They're not forced to follow my rules, but I'm not forced to let them stay. If you don't like it, leave.

My reply:



It's the same argument: If you wish to create an entity that sheilds your assets from liability, then that entity will not be treated as an individual and you will be subject to certain restrictions. (Just as, if you come on my property, you are subject to my rules)

If you have a private business, not subject to limited liability: go ahead, ban guns.

If you are using the law to sheild your assets, then you should have no right to make individuals LESS SAFE because it makes you feel better, especially since you will suffer no personal consequences if your ill-advised policies cause them harm.

Soybomb
April 11, 2008, 06:08 PM
I fully support that, IN YOUR HOME. Once you open to the public, the rules change.
Why? If you don't own the land why do you feel entitled to have a say in the rules? Public property I'd agree with you on. I would also note that I see no distinction in the law for a public or private parking lot. Lets say I have a factory with a gated parking lot. Does that change anything for you or does the employer still not be able to say "whoa no guns in this lot."

WayneConrad
April 11, 2008, 06:53 PM
Why, if you don't own my car, do you feel entitled to have a say about what it is in it just because it is parked on your parking lot?

There is an intersection of private property rights here, and nothing in natural law requires the line to be drawn where you say it does. You can demarcate the property rights at the door of the car just as well, the same way this bill does.

divemedic
April 11, 2008, 08:32 PM
The thing that makes me laugh is that the same people who demand the ability to have absolute control over what happens on their property also deny liability when a consumer/employee is injured by a criminal as a result of their failed control.

They want all of the rights and none of the responsibility.

Kurt S.
April 11, 2008, 09:16 PM
I believe Conoco-Phillips was the company or at least one of the companies that got the Oklahoma take-your-guns-to-work law struck down.

I am absolutely flabbergasted that anyone could really believe that a publicly owned company could be considered as a "person" and enjoy the same rights and privileges thereof.

:cuss: What I do believe is that they need to dig up the bones of John Chandler Bancroft Davis (google him) and feed them to the pigs, and make all his descendents pay reparations to the thousands of folks who have suffered from the ridiculous but evil concept that a corporation is a "juristic person". :cuss:

If you enjoyed reading about ""Guns Have No Place at Work":Gun Owners 1,Miami Herald 0" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!