Violating company policy WRT to firearms


PDA






Trunk Monkey
April 7, 2012, 07:54 PM
The question of carrying an illicit weapon on company time came up in another thread and rather than hijack that thread I thought I’d start this one.

In my opinion, if I am offered a position with a company in which carrying a firearm on the clock is expressly forbidden and I take that position I am agreeing to be bound by the company’s conditions of employment.

Essentially, I am giving my word that I will not carry a firearm on company time.

Regardless of the company’s stance or whether or not my safety is their prime concern, I don’t believe I, having given my word to the contrary, can carry a firearm on company time and claim the moral high ground.

Any opposing views?

If you enjoyed reading about "Violating company policy WRT to firearms" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
dprice3844444
April 7, 2012, 08:00 PM
guess who's gonna get fired and have no recourse?

mnrivrat
April 7, 2012, 08:04 PM
guess who's gonna get fired and have no recourse?

The person who carries against company policy .

Sam1911
April 7, 2012, 08:09 PM
To whom, or by what standard are you "claiming the moral high ground?" As the company really doesn't care about your moral compunctions -- only compliance with policy -- the morality of it is just between you and yourself. If you consider signing an employment agreement a solemn pledge that you bind yourself to follow, then you are breaking trust and harming yourself if you do.

A more realpolitik view of how contracts work and how legal documents are machines or instruments to be played by the lawyers of the parties involved might produce a different view of the matter.

Personally, I would NEVER carry at work if I couldn't accept the repercussions of being discovered. Beyond that, the question would be irrelevant.

Trunk Monkey
April 7, 2012, 08:14 PM
Again, if I accept the position knowing that carrying a firearm on the clock is verboten I am agreeing to be bound by that rule. If I don’t agree to be bound by that rule I don’t accept the position.

Is that really so hard to understand?

Sam1911
April 7, 2012, 08:17 PM
Is that really so hard to understand?

Are you asking for opinions, or telling us what to think?

[EDIT: Fair enough...I did ask a question, though I intended it to be rhetorical in nature.]

MICHAEL T
April 7, 2012, 08:26 PM
I always carried at work . I can find another job. Only have one life. I was home on medical leave .When guy come in killed 2 and wounded 2 more where I worked . If I had been working or another person in office been armed, might have ended faster.
Their dead, many lives ruined and he got life. Big deal firing squad been better

Ragnar Danneskjold
April 7, 2012, 08:27 PM
Do what you feel is best for you, so long as you are aware of the possible consequences, and accept them.

The company's first allegiance is to itself. It makes those policies out of self-interest. Whether insurance costs will be too high, bad PR for a shooting on site, guns in the hands of employees clashing with their public image, etc. A "no guns" policy makes one point very clear: "We, the company, hold our own interests above all else, including your life".

That's fine. They can choose to act that way if they wish. You have a few options in response with corresponding outcomes for you.

-Don't accept the job. You don't get paid, but you also assume no risk of getting fire or prosecuted.

-Accept the job and don't carry. You do get paid but you place your own life in the hands of whoever may seek to take it.

-Accept the job and carry anyways. You get paid, get a better chance to preserve your own life if the need arises, but you take upon you the risk of getting fired or prosecuted legally if you are caught or involved in a shooting.

I don't care which one you pick, just accept the full outcome of your choice. I will not tell someone "a pledge to follow company policy is worth more than your life". A rule has not yet been written that I would value following over keeping myself alive, and I won't begrudge anyone for thinking the same. The day may come where you get found out, fired or even prosecuted. But you'll be alive.

Mrcymstr
April 7, 2012, 08:35 PM
Since your asking about morality. I see a job as a transaction, I give you X you give me Y, not a contract , you must do X because I gave you Y. With that said I see no moral issue (ignoring risk to your job and legal issues) with carrying at work.

marksman13
April 7, 2012, 08:36 PM
Or a fourth option, seek out an employer that cares about your rights and personal safety. I realize that this is not often possible, but in my past three jobs, my boss always gave me the green light to carry discreetly and in my current job, openly if I so choose. I work for a firearms dealership now, so it's a little different situation than many people's but I'm extremely happy with it.

It's good to know that your boss cares about your safety.

Ragnar Danneskjold
April 7, 2012, 08:41 PM
Or a fourth option, seek out an employer that cares about your rights and personal safety

If that was a response to what I wrote, that would actually fall under the first "don't accept the job" option.

3KillerBs
April 7, 2012, 08:48 PM
When I was hired my employer had no policy about weapons. Somewhat over a year later the factory's owners adopted a "no weapons" policy. Which is absolutely ridiculous since we have multiple objects within arms reach than can be used as improvised weapons and use things such as box cutters and razor-sharp thread snips in our daily work.

Considering that I used to work 15 feet from a woman who carried her protection order on her body because her crazy ex had come to previous workplaces to make trouble, that my husband owns a collections agency and has had his family threatened by debtors, that I argue politics on the internet under another name and have gotten death threats, that I currently work with a woman who is involved in a nasty child custody dispute with accusations of child abuse from both sides and a guy involved who has both made threats and violated the restraining order against him, and that the "no weapons" policy did not prevent a guy who was mad about being fired from putting a manager into the ICU with a piece of pipe that had been lying nearby I have continued to carry at work.

If I'm caught they have the right to fire me and I will go quietly when asked. But in addition to the other things I mentioned, I live half an hour from the NC nursing home shooting scene. If someone comes in that way I want something more effective than a pair of thread snips with a mere 1.5" of blade, razor-sharp though they be, to use against him.

brboyer
April 7, 2012, 08:48 PM
Any opposing views?

Yep.
The huge overwhelming percentage of company policies are a misguided attempt to reduce the company's liability. I feel no moral compunction ignoring such a policy when it interferes with my ability to defend myself in whatever manner/method I choose. I find such policies immoral.

My life/well-being is far more important than the minute possibility of increased insurance premiums.

As with any company policy, I fully understand the consequences of violation.

Trunk Monkey
April 7, 2012, 08:48 PM
To me, the question boils down to what is your word worth.

Ragnar, you have admitted that you'll lie to your employer about carrying if it suits you, what else will you lie about?

jeepnik
April 7, 2012, 08:49 PM
I am so glad I work for myself.

Ragnar Danneskjold
April 7, 2012, 08:50 PM
Ragnar, you have admitted that you'll lie to your employer about carrying if it suits you, what else will you lie about?

If you're insinuating something, come out and say it.

To me, the question boils down to what is your word worth.

In some instances, it could be worth my life. In some, it's not. When I swore to defend the Constitution against all enemies, it was worth my life and still is. I swore no such oath to Domino's pizza when I worked for them. The United States is worth defending with my life. Your dinner is not.

What I am or am not willing to risk my life or freedom for is up to me. You seem to be trying to make this into a "two camp" issue. Either you're a man of honor who would never lie in any circumstance, and would sacrifice your life because by damn you signed an employment contract and your word is your life....or you're a villain who if willing to be dishonest in one instance you must be dishonest in all. Sorry, but that's not reality. The things I will risk my life and freedom for are my choice. To save other lives? Yes. To protect the US? Yes. To complete an employment agreement for $8.00 an hour? No. I choose to draw the line where I feel my values lie. You can draw your own line. The fact that they may be in different places does not make any who disagree with you into some sort of villain.

Big Boy
April 7, 2012, 08:56 PM
Ragnar, you have admitted that you'll lie to your employer about carrying if it suits you, what else will you lie about?

Don't be an idiotic troll acting like you've never lied before in your life.

That'd be like saying "you've shot and killed a deer before, obviously you are a killer"

Just because once I ran across the street to catch the ice cream truck doesn't make me a runner.

brboyer
April 7, 2012, 08:57 PM
what else will you lie about?

Can I answer that one?

Honey, does this dress make my butt look big?

Isn't she the cutest baby you've ever seen?

Sir, are there any guns or drugs in the car?

And so on......

wrs840
April 7, 2012, 09:12 PM
The huge overwhelming percentage of company policies are a misguided attempt to reduce the company's liability.

Bingo. ...though not really "misguided".

I know quite a few employers that really wanted the NC Legislature to outlaw employer-imposed prohibitions against work-carry when it came up in our recent revamp of firearms laws, in order to relieve them from the liability exposure that made them listen to lawyers and put the prohibition into company policy in the first place. The corporation has to concern itself corporate viability (self-preservation) first and foremost, and removing liability exposure wherever possible is a big part of that.

writerinmo
April 7, 2012, 09:21 PM
This thread smells of troll for some reason...maybe the fact that the scenario is just thrown out, and then random comments made attacking people's responses... anyways, I'm taking my ball and going home. What people decide as far as their "moral high grounds" is not for either you or myself to approve or condemn as far as protecting themselves while at work. Personally, I carried at work, but I didn't advertise it. I came to work, I did my job, the fact that I carried a concealed weapon while doing so was no one's business but my own in my opinion. I never went and told anyone "No, I'm not carrying a weapon", but then again no one ever asked.

marksman13
April 7, 2012, 09:22 PM
Ragnar, I wasn't arguing against you. Not taking the job does not equate to seeking out employment with a company more freedom friendly. It could equate to sitting at home doing nothing because the employer you wanted to work for wouldn't let you carry at work. I realize that argument is nitpicky and a bit trivial though.

Trunk Monkey, questioning Ragnar's honor is a bit below the belt don't you think? The man has simply stated that his life (and quite possibly the lives of others) means more to him than a company's policy. I would wager that Ragnar is more than trustworthy. In fact, A person like Ragnar is who I want on my side when the chips are down, someone who can adapt, improvise and overcome.

wyohome
April 7, 2012, 09:23 PM
The huge overwhelming percentage of company policies are a misguided attempt to reduce the company's liability.
I don't look at it as misguided, they have their ass to cover, I have mine. In 45 years of working for others, I have never been asked if I was carrying.

oneounceload
April 7, 2012, 09:31 PM
Obviously, no one here so far works for a power utility at a power plant, especially a nuclear one. Carrying at work is illegal - a felony, even the laws allowing a gun in the parking lot are suspended. If caught, you go to the federal pen and lose your gun rights forever

Still worth the risk of acting illegally?

Don't like the rules of the job, don't take it. Most employers now run credit checks, background checks and all sorts of investigations into your background before hiring and lying on employment apps or going against the signed employee handbook rules are grounds for dismissal and can come back to haunt you down the road

Agsalaska
April 7, 2012, 09:35 PM
Trunk Monkey, as you probably know from the last thread, I absolutely agree with you. If you cannot meet the terms of employment by the employer than you should not accept the position.

brboyer
April 7, 2012, 09:35 PM
Bingo. ...though not really "misguided".

.
I don't look at it as misguided, they have their ass to cover, I have mine. In 45 years of working for others, I have never been asked if I was carrying.

Perhaps "misguided" was not the proper term.

How about 'The huge overwhelming percentage of company policies are the result of an overly optimistic expectation in liability reduction."

Sam1911
April 7, 2012, 09:36 PM
Obviously, no one here so far works for a power utility at a power plant, especially a nuclear one. Carrying at work is illegal - a felony, even the laws allowing a gun in the parking lot are suspended. If caught, you go to the federal pen and lose your gun rights forever
That would seem to be a very special case. Very few places of private employment in the country are illegal by federal law -- or even state law -- to carry a gun in. Some, but not many.

I do not read anywhere in the OP where he was asking if folks would break the law, only their agreement to the employer's terms.

Still worth the risk of acting illegally?So this is a disingenuous question. The question did not involve any illegal act and if your work IS a prohibited location then your special case really doesn't fit the premise.

Trunk Monkey
April 7, 2012, 09:37 PM
Obviously, no one here so far works for a power utility at a power plant, especially a nuclear one.

I actually do and for the client employees thay are allowed to have a gun in their car as long as it remains in their car

brboyer
April 7, 2012, 09:38 PM
Obviously, no one here so far works for a power utility at a power plant, especially a nuclear one. Carrying at work is illegal - a felony, even the laws allowing a gun in the parking lot are suspended. If caught, you go to the federal pen and lose your gun rights forever

Still worth the risk of acting illegally?

Don't like the rules of the job, don't take it. Most employers now run credit checks, background checks and all sorts of investigations into your background before hiring and lying on employment apps or going against the signed employee handbook rules are grounds for dismissal and can come back to haunt you down the road
No one is talking about unlawful carry, simply carry in violation of company policy.

Ragnar Danneskjold
April 7, 2012, 09:41 PM
Thank you for your kind words marksman. I do appreciate that.

I don't think Trunk Monkey is trolling however, and I think this thread is one worth discussing. The thread he spoke of, the security guard thread, sparked this discussion and there are a number of points that can be brought up. Life vs. company policy. The right of a business to ban guns as a private non-governmental entity vs. your 2A rights. And yes, how honest one chooses to be when engaging in a contract.

To affirm Trunk Monkey's point, just as true capitalism is the honest exchange of the best value for the best value, work for work, service for service; one could also say that the pact between an employer and employee should be honorable and based on honesty. You give your best work and he pays you what it is honestly worth. You agree to follow his rules of the workplace, and he abides by his obligations to pay you what your work is worth, on time, and without subterfuge.

That's a good point and should be the goal of all who both employ others or are employed themselves. My issue is that the honor of the employer is already undermined when he places his own liability over my life. I choose to deal with others as they first choose to deal with me. I let others decide how our relationship will work. Treat me well, I will do the same. Treat me poorly, and I will not feel an obligation to go out of my way to be nice. You define the parameters as you will. An employer who states, in writing no less "I value myself and my company more than your life" is essentially tell me to value myself more than them. They set the parameters. They place themselves first, so I place myself first.

Trunk Monkey
April 7, 2012, 09:42 PM
As some posters have pointed out, we all lie at some point and that includes me so I apologize for that question.

To rephrase the question, my personal morals will not permit me to carry a firearm at work after (in my mind) making a promise not to.

Having said that, I’d like to hear from people who hold a different point of view and I’d like to hear them explain their rationale and what makes it OK for them.

Agsalaska
April 7, 2012, 09:43 PM
Yep.
The huge overwhelming percentage of company policies are a misguided attempt to reduce the company's liability. I feel no moral compunction ignoring such a policy when it interferes with my ability to defend myself in whatever manner/method I choose. I find such policies immoral.

My life/well-being is far more important than the minute possibility of increased insurance premiums.

As with any company policy, I fully understand the consequences of violation.
I heard this argument earlier. I totally disagree. It is not telling the entire story. It may very well help insurance and decrease liability of companies, but it is also common knowledge, at least in the retail business world, that employees are safer as a whole when they submit to a robbers demands and allow them to take whatever they are after. That is why most common businesses most of you shop in ie Radio Shack, Best Buy, The Limited, etc. do not allow firearms. They cannot possibly ensure that their employees have the proper training really needed in that kind of situation. As we all know the fact that they can legally carry does not mean they will show good judgement in such a terrible event. Is it perfect. Of course not. But in the aggregate it is more effective. Thats also why the insurance and liability is cheaper. Cause it works better.

As for other environments, I don't really get it either. A factory, some kind of business office, doctors office, money movers, etc. It seems to me to be backwards thinking in that kind of environment.

Ragnar Danneskjold
April 7, 2012, 09:46 PM
that employees are safer as a whole when they submit to a robbers demands and allow them to take whatever they are after.

That has been discussed to great length, and is IMO, utter nonsense. Furthermore, it really has nothing to do with the premise of this thread. If you wish to discuss whether submitting to a criminal is a good way to save your own life, I would suggest you make a new thread about just that.

No seriously and not as an insult. That's a topic that will get a lot of attention and contribution. And a new thread about just that would not detract from the issue of this thread.

brboyer
April 7, 2012, 09:57 PM
As some posters have pointed out, we all lie at some point and that includes me so I apologize for that question.

To rephrase the question, my personal morals will not permit me to carry a firearm at work after (in my mind) making a promise not to.

Having said that, Id like to hear from people who hold a different point of view and Id like to hear them explain their rationale and what makes it OK for them.
Go back and read the thread.

marksman13
April 7, 2012, 09:58 PM
Here's my honest take on it. I've had the fortune of working for mostly small companies in my life, the two exceptions being the US Army and Wal-Mart. Working for a small company gives me a certain amount of appreciation for the owner of the business. If I am interacting with the owner of the business every day it becomes very difficult to ignore his wishes. It also gives him more of a chance to explain why he has enacted certain policies. It also makes him more keenly aware of my personality and my thought processes. He can better judge my morals, maturity and problem solving abilities. He is then better prepared to make a decision on whether or not I am allowed to carry at work. If he says I can not carry and I have made a concious decision to continue working for him, then I have decided to play by his rules and therefor not carry while on the clock.

What I take issue with is a large company, Wal-Mart as an example, that can not possibly get to know all of its employees and therefor assumes a position of planning for the worst. A large corporation basically assumes that it's employees can not function outside of its system and therefor must be lorded over with greater degrees of restrictions. It's a policy of covering their own butts and it makes sense in a business model, but itmakes no sense to me to seek employment with such an establishment.

That said, for most people it is easier to disregard the will of a large, impersonal employer than a small business owner that we must face every day.

Agsalaska
April 7, 2012, 10:12 PM
That has been discussed to great length, and is IMO, utter nonsense. Furthermore, it really has nothing to do with the premise of this thread. If you wish to discuss whether submitting to a criminal is a good way to save your own life, I would suggest you make a new thread about just that.

- No seriously and not as an insult. That's a topic that will get a lot of attention and contribution. And a new thread about just that would not detract from the issue of this thread.


Sorry. Had to delete what I posted. Its been a long day and my frustration is coming out.


Your right. Shouldnt derail the thread.

oneounceload
April 7, 2012, 10:17 PM
That would seem to be a very special case. Very few places of private employment in the country are illegal by federal law -- or even state law -- to carry a gun in. Some, but not many.

It also covers airports, shipyards and ports, basically anywhere that HS claims as their domain, then there are all of the federal employment areas

That's a LOT of folks who have to obey the no gun at work rule

wrs840
April 7, 2012, 10:31 PM
How about 'The huge overwhelming percentage of company policies are the result of an overly optimistic expectation in liability reduction."

I'll go along with that. You can sue a corporation for having a paved parking lot. Doesn't mean you'll win. If there's a workplace shooting, they'll get sued, published prohibition or not. The plaintiff's attorney will assemble (for the summary judgement hearing) a roster of corporate policies at that specific workplace that he will argue weren't enforced therefore implying a cavalier attitude about "corporate policies", and then point to the shooting as a defacto massive failure of enforcement. The corporation will then make a business decision about putting their fate in the hands of a jury over a fatality (several million $ exposure), and then the settlement negotiation begins. That's the US system, and the lawyers love it.

brboyer
April 7, 2012, 10:34 PM
It also covers airports, shipyards and ports, basically anywhere that HS claims as their domain, then there are all of the federal employment areas

That's a LOT of folks who have to obey the no gun at work rule

No, that's a whole lot of people that choose to comply with Federal/State laws.


Please stop trying to derail the thread by introducing legality into a discussion of company policy.


ETA: Airports/Seaports - Federal law only covers the 'secure' portions.

hso
April 7, 2012, 10:46 PM
It is obvious that some will agree that taking an employer's money obligates you to follow the employer's rules while on the clock while others will say that no employer's requirement to disarm is to be followed. The third perspective is that following the employer's requirement to disarm on the clock will be followed, but firearms will be secured in the employee's personal vehicle since the employer can't be allowed to dictate the safety measures taken to and from work.

That's pretty much the 3 positions, full compliance, partial compliance, and no compliance with an employer disarming an employee.

There is the unique situation in which the employer operates a secure facility in which crossing the property line puts you within a security perimeter with armed security. That makes the discussion moot as there is no practical option to ignore the employer's requirement. If they're government facilities it is illegal to violate the rule.

gearhead
April 7, 2012, 10:47 PM
Except in unusual circumstances I don't see an Employee Handbook to be a contract. It's a set of rules that HR expects their employees to abide by, and it's set up to establish a set of objective rather than subjective guidelines. Setting the cruise control at 5MPH over the limit in the company car is a worse violation in my opinion, at least that action actually violates a law. Might seem like splitting hairs (and in the interest of full disclosure I work in a facility that's guarded with metal detectors so carrying on the premises isn't even a question) but IMHO there is a distinction between breaking a negotiated contract and occasionally failing to follow a rule in the employee handbook.

Agsalaska
April 7, 2012, 10:53 PM
Except in unusual circumstances I don't see an Employee Handbook to be a contract. It's a set of rules that HR expects their employees to abide by, and it's set up to establish a set of objective rather than subjective guidelines. Setting the cruise control at 5MPH over the limit in the company car is a worse violation in my opinion, at least that action actually violates a law. Might seem like splitting hairs (and in the interest of full disclosure I work in a facility that's guarded with metal detectors so carrying on the premises isn't even a question) but IMHO there is a distinction between breaking a negotiated contract and occasionally failing to follow a rule in the employee handbook.
The fact that it is not a contract does not allow you to violate the rules no matter what they are. If the have a no handgun policy and catch you, they will fire you. And in the vast majority of circumstances you would have little or no recourse. So having said that I am not sure why it would be necessary to distinguish a company policy as a contract or guideline. It wouldn't matter.

FROGO207
April 7, 2012, 10:54 PM
I am really lucky then, we have "show and tell" every so often at work and the players will drool over the others newest purchase and get to fondle it for a bit before going back to work.:D Also I am known by my good friends that it is understood that I am usually "live".:cool: I am a man of my word and will keep it.

Ragnar Danneskjold
April 7, 2012, 11:00 PM
If the have a no handgun policy and catch you, they will fire you.

And some of us are OK with that. It's a matter of asking yourself what the worst case scenario is, and if you're ok with that. Get caught with a gun and the worst case is getting fired, and possible legal ramifications. Get caught by a criminal without a gun and the worse case is death. I choose the first option.

Agsalaska
April 7, 2012, 11:14 PM
And some of us are OK with that. It's a matter of asking yourself what the worst case scenario is, and if you're ok with that. Get caught with a gun and the worst case is getting fired, and possible legal ramifications. Get caught by a criminal without a gun and the worse case is death. I choose the first option.
Now your doing it to me Ragnar. That wasn't the point or the context of my post. It was referring to the other posters comments about contract obligations.

Never mind. I need to get off this board.

longhair75
April 8, 2012, 12:09 AM
I work for a small business. It is against company policy for any employee to carry a concealed weapon in company vehicles on company time. I have worked there for a long time, and have no trouble talking directly to the owner. He said it was a liability issue.

I am responsible for our largest (and most lucrative) clients. All of them have a no weapons on company property policy.

It is in my best interest to comply with the company policy.

USAF_Vet
April 8, 2012, 02:50 AM
I'm a mechanic. Carrying at work is forbidden, but even if it were not, I still wouldn't do it. I'm always climbing on top of and into machinery and have enough stuff getting caught or snagged or dropped. Not really the ideal place for a pistol. Add to that, the building is secure (although anyone with a crowbar and a few minutes could gain entry). In the building on the job, I don't and won't carry. In my car in the parking lot for the drive home at night, you betcha. If I happen to run afoul of someone between the door of the building and the door of my car, that's why I have a knife in my pocket and a kubotan on my keys, as well as the option of turning around and going back inside.

ArfinGreebly
April 8, 2012, 03:56 AM
I work for a middle-sized company (100+) with a written policy of "No Firearms or Weapons" on the premises.

It's a deliberately ambiguous wording, allowing the management to declare, ad hoc, that [whatever] is a weapon.

It's a building full of geeks.

The guy whose desk is beside mine carries a Cold Steel folding knife that's bigger than any folder I own. Other guys carry various things clipped to their pockets (I've seen several different knives and tools). I myself carry a full-sized folder, a Leatherman Wave, and at least one other 3-inch knife on a daily basis. No one even blinks. I make salad with my "weapon," and other guys open boxes and envelopes with theirs. We have a 10-inch carving knife in a drawer in one of the kitchens on my floor, and a very pointy 4.5 inch tomato/bagel knife.

Evidently the "or weapons" phrasing doesn't include pocket knives -- even large ones -- in common application, neither does it include sizable kitchen knives.

I would imagine, however, if some sort of violent event were to happen and someone's knife became a significant component of that event, the "or weapons" clause certainly gives the company the justification for a firing.


There is always the question of "would I bring a gun into the building," and the answer would be "not usually."

If it became clear that there was a plausible threat to life & limb and that my personal security required my personal intervention, I might take measures to balance the threat.

Companies do what they can to employ policies to standardize practices and provide a foundation for common understanding, generally oriented toward the benefit of the group considered as a whole, and only incidentally its individual members. Policy establishes standards and guidelines, but frankly cannot account for every kind of thing that can happen, and this is where one's individual responsibility and judgment comes into play. A responsible employee will take any necessary measures to see to it that company assets -- and that includes other employees -- are not subjected to undue risk. There are circumstances where a responsible employee would arm himself by way of mitigating a risk of specific character.

I have worked in places where it was explicitly stated in policy that whenever it was found that policy, as written, would act to the detriment of production or personnel, policy can and must be set aside until it can be remedied.

Policy is not awareness, policy is not thought, policy is not judgment. Those are qualities only people possess.

And so, come the day that being armed is more prudent than "following the rules," that's the day I go armed. And should that result in a rigid and poorly calibrated response from management, then so be it.


A friend of mine, riding in a cab in Italy, was surprised that the cabbie would slow down somewhat, but not stop, for some red lights. He noticed that the practice didn't seem to be limited to the vehicle he was in. When he asked about it, the cabbie advised him, "the light, she cannot see; for this we have eyes."

And so it is in life.

For this we have eyes.

mljdeckard
April 8, 2012, 04:30 AM
There is a 'none of your beeswax' line between employers and employees. They might try to tell you you are or are not allowed to do any number of things that are not within their scope of interest or influence. If a company had a policy that said I couldn't use facebook at home because they disagreed with them ethically, I would flat ignore them. Regardless of what policy I agreed to.

There was a time when I agreed that an employee had no say in whether or not they should be allowed to keep guns in their cars at work. Private property, not your call, deal with it. But what I had explained to me was, the influence isn't limited to the parking lot. If your employer tells you that you can't have a gun on-property, they are also telling you that you can't carry to and from work, and that THEY get to decide that when you are getting gas on your way home from a swing shift, you should just ignore any risk, because you can't do anything about it anyway.

Any company big enough to have talked to a lawyer will have a boilerplate policy forbidding weapons on premises. They see no upside. I was surprised when Utah's parking lot law passed, but I still don't see any significant change to the status quo here.

Ridgerunner665
April 8, 2012, 04:53 AM
Just do whatever allows you to sleep at night...myself, I don't have a guilty conscience and would carry provided the pistol did not interfere with me doing my job...thats the ONLY promise I make to an employer...to do my job...an honest days work for an honest days pay.

I'm a truck driver...the company I drive for does not have a policy on guns. Its a pretty big company...I'm sure many of you pass their trucks every day on the highway, but rest assured...they don't hire just anybody like many companies...their hiring practices are EXTREMELY strict.

Some of the places my job takes me DO have policies, when I'm at these places I will respect their wishes by leaving the gun in the truck...thats the best deal they are gonna get from me.

Laws...yeah those can be a pain...I also frequent military bases and we all know those are "no guns allowed". For these I have to get creative but I do not take the gun in the gate. A few "depots" (not bases) will check the gun at the gate...I wish they were all like that.

Gtimothy
April 8, 2012, 09:27 AM
As with everything in life we have choices. If you work for a company that does NOT allow carrying a weapon of any kind, including "non-lethal", and YOU decide to flex your 2A rights, expect to be fired if you're caught! :what: It's that simple! Weather or not the company cares about your welfare or not is NOT the issue! The issue is, THEIR company, THEIR rules, THEIR liability!

Florida, where I live, is a "Right to Work" state. You can be fired for just about anything. In Florida, good jobs are hard to find so sometimes you just have to decide which is more important...working or risking losing your job! If you don't like the policy, don't work for them!

And no, I don't carry on the job (Security Guard) even though I have ALL of the required licences to do so. My post is not an armed post and I honor my company's NO CARRY policy.

Pilot
April 8, 2012, 10:39 AM
For me, the only thing we have in life is our character and reputation. If I sign a document, and/or give my word that I will take employment, and follow company policy I will do just that. I know the risk of being unarmed, and I know the risk of being unemployed, but the greater risk for me is harming my character and reputation.

3KillerBs
April 8, 2012, 12:04 PM
To me, the question boils down to what is your word worth.

Ragnar, you have admitted that you'll lie to your employer about carrying if it suits you, what else will you lie about?

I never gave anyone my word in this matter.

I am under no illusions that my employer gives 2 cents about my welfare beyond the barest minimum of OSHA requirements and I know from experience that they will violate those standards any time they think they can get away with it -- which is frequently because in this economy people are too afraid of losing their job if OSHA shuts the place down.

Whether I carry a gun or not is no more my employer's business than whether I wear bikini briefs or granny panties.

Double Naught Spy
April 8, 2012, 12:06 PM
Keeping your word true is admirable. It is a shame more people don't. However, what bothers me about people carrying in violation of company policies is that they of cry and whine when they get busted for carrying and about how unfair it is to be fired as a result.

There seem to be two types of firings. There are the firings where the person has to use his/her gun in self defense and then there are those who get fired because they stupidly allowed for their concealed gun to be discovered. It is this second group that seems to whine the loudest.

If you take a job where you don't agree with the rules and opt not to follow the rules, then it really should come as no surprise when you get fired for violating the rules. Take responsibility for your actions of violating the policy and find another job.

WinThePennant
April 8, 2012, 12:07 PM
My view is that it is IMMORAL to require people to choose between personal safety and company policy (or, the law).

If you think you need to protect yourself, then you protect yourself. Just be prepared to live with the consequences involved with living in an unfree society.

3KillerBs
April 8, 2012, 12:09 PM
.
I don't look at it as misguided, they have their ass to cover, I have mine. In 45 years of working for others, I have never been asked if I was carrying.
Its misguided because its ineffective.

As I said in my original post, the company "no weapons" policy didn't prevent a guy who was mad about being fired from picking up a piece of pipe (pipe, metal bars, assorted tools, pieces of 2x4, and razor-sharp blades are commonplace items in our factory), and putting one of the supervisors into the ICU.

3KillerBs
April 8, 2012, 12:11 PM
Trunk Monkey, as you probably know from the last thread, I absolutely agree with you. If you cannot meet the terms of employment by the employer than you should not accept the position.
And if the employer changes the rule on you what then?

My employer went from no policy at all to "no weapons" after I'd been working there for over a year.

I didn't agree to anything. Am I supposed to put my family on food stamps to suit your sense of honor?

chhodge69
April 8, 2012, 12:14 PM
"I'd rather git caught wid it dan widout it"
Saggy Pants Street Thug

3KillerBs
April 8, 2012, 12:17 PM
And some of us are OK with that. It's a matter of asking yourself what the worst case scenario is, and if you're ok with that. Get caught with a gun and the worst case is getting fired, and possible legal ramifications. Get caught by a criminal without a gun and the worse case is death. I choose the first option.
That's how I see it.

Had I been on shift and aware of the altercation that I referenced earlier I hope that I would have had the quickness and courage to have shot the guy who was in the process of beating the supervisor to death -- interrupted short of fatality only because the police arrived very quickly. If the company had still wished to fire me for violating policy it would have been their right. But my conscience would have been clear.

3KillerBs
April 8, 2012, 12:24 PM
...

Having said that, Id like to hear from people who hold a different point of view and Id like to hear them explain their rationale and what makes it OK for them.

I did so in my original post.

If you're going to continue to condemn my practices please do me the courtesy of responding to my reasons.

For your convenience, I quote said post:

When I was hired my employer had no policy about weapons. Somewhat over a year later the factory's owners adopted a "no weapons" policy. Which is absolutely ridiculous since we have multiple objects within arms reach than can be used as improvised weapons and use things such as box cutters and razor-sharp thread snips in our daily work.

Considering that I used to work 15 feet from a woman who carried her protection order on her body because her crazy ex had come to previous workplaces to make trouble, that my husband owns a collections agency and has had his family threatened by debtors, that I argue politics on the internet under another name and have gotten death threats, that I currently work with a woman who is involved in a nasty child custody dispute with accusations of child abuse from both sides and a guy involved who has both made threats and violated the restraining order against him, and that the "no weapons" policy did not prevent a guy who was mad about being fired from putting a manager into the ICU with a piece of pipe that had been lying nearby I have continued to carry at work.

Ankeny
April 8, 2012, 12:43 PM
If I sign a document, and/or give my word that I will take employment, and follow company policy I will do just that. Same here. If I can't follow the rules, it's time to seek employment elsewhere.

Ragnar Danneskjold
April 8, 2012, 12:47 PM
And if there is no other employment available? If the choice is either take the one job offered or become a moocher? Especially these days "just go find another job that lets you carry" is not always possible.

As 3KillerBs said, should one put their family on food stamps and leech off the taxpayers just to appease a sense of honor?

wyohome
April 8, 2012, 12:55 PM
I also believe that signing a company policy statement only indicates that it has been read. There may be provisions about reading a newspaper or taking 30 minutes or less for lunch. These have been read and understood. What direction you wish to take is up to you.

Pilot
April 8, 2012, 12:57 PM
So if you owned a company, and had a policy that employees wear a uniform, or follow other rules of employent, you'd be OK with them willingly violating that rule for personal reasons?

How about if it raised your insurance rates or made you un-insurable?

When you agree to work for a company you are entering into a form of contract. The rules and regs of employment are part of that contract.

Onward Allusion
April 8, 2012, 01:14 PM
Sam1911
To whom, or by what standard are you "claiming the moral high ground?" As the company really doesn't care about your moral compunctions -- only compliance with policy -- the morality of it is just between you and yourself. If you consider signing an employment agreement a solemn pledge that you bind yourself to follow, then you are breaking trust and harming yourself if you do.

A more realpolitik view of how contracts work and how legal documents are machines or instruments to be played by the lawyers of the parties involved might produce a different view of the matter.

Personally, I would NEVER carry at work if I couldn't accept the repercussions of being discovered. Beyond that, the question would be irrelevant.

If it is strictly company policy and they do not have anything posted at the front door or if it is not a violation of the law, I would do whatever my situation warranted. I personally do not generally carry at work. Even when I do it is a little fairly useless NAA Mini - but that is another discussion.

Ragnar Danneskjold
April 8, 2012, 01:21 PM
So if you owned a company, and had a policy that employees wear a uniform, or follow other rules of employent, you'd be OK with them willingly violating that rule for personal reasons?

No. I'd fire them. And every single person in this thread who has said they would carry at work if it were prohibited has also said they know they would probably get fired and accept that risk.

What's your point?

gym
April 8, 2012, 01:34 PM
As long as you are willing to take resposibility for your actions, do as you wish.

wyohome
April 8, 2012, 02:14 PM
As long as you are willing to take resposibility for your actions, do as you wish. Exactly

jahwarrior
April 8, 2012, 02:21 PM
Awhile back, I posted about how I violated a hospital's Gun Free Zone policy when I was admitted for pneumonia, and I caught a lot of grief over it, and was called a liar, both told publicly and through private messages, among other foul names. I stand by my actions; my life is morth more than a private entity's rules that were put in place not for safety reasons, but for the sake of liability and insurance. If you choose to carry at work against company policy, that's your decision, but accept the fact that you will be fired, and not be able to collect unemployment, and may be unemployable in the future.

Trunk Monkey
April 8, 2012, 02:31 PM
Some one mentioned Domino's driver, to me that would fall under if you won't do it with out a gun you shouldn't do it with a gun. That's one of those jobs that I wouldn't take unless I had no other option.

What about a job like 3killerbees ? She took the job under one set of conditions then the company changed conditions on her. How would you respond?

ETA

As 3KillerBs said, should one put their family on food stamps and leech off the taxpayers just to appease a sense of honor?

That's actually not what she said but it's close enough.

How about I abide by the company's rules to appease my sense of honor?

Ragnar Danneskjold
April 8, 2012, 02:46 PM
How about I abide by the company's rules to appease my sense of honor?

Because you could die.

Trunk Monkey
April 8, 2012, 02:56 PM
Because you could die.

That may be. In my job it would be highly unlikely though so I guess I'm willing to risk it

76shuvlinoff
April 8, 2012, 03:02 PM
My sense of honor tells me I would rather be around to fight for my unemployment benefits and look for another job to feed my family than be dead and hope my life insurance policy will carry them through. Having a fighting chance to accept the consequences trumps policy.

My employer pays me for a service and I have been there 32 years but they are not my higher moral authority.

Ragnar Danneskjold
April 8, 2012, 03:07 PM
It's generally highly unlikely that any of us will need our firearms in everyday life at all. Yet most of us go out of our way to carry anyways because we know they one time it is needed, we'd better have it.

And when others are faced with certain conditions:
1: Bills must be paid.
2: Only one job available, which bans firearms.
3: A desire to defend oneself, and unwillingness to place oneself at the mercy of criminals.

Under those conditions one can either take the job and violate the policy, or leech off the government. Not only is leeching off the government undesirable, but it's also physically the worse choice. By not taking the job, I would be consuming the tax dollars of others for certain. Not to mention that choosing to consume my tax dollars through unemployment just so that you can feel honorable is actually a pretty dishonorable thing to do. So you must have an actual job and pay your own bills. If the only job available is one where you are not allowed to carry, you either are ok with being disarmed, or you break the policy.

I'm not ok with being disarmed. Not for a rule. The law is another story, but rules? Nope.

brboyer
April 8, 2012, 07:24 PM
As with everything in life we have choices. If you work for a company that does NOT allow carrying a weapon of any kind, including "non-lethal", and YOU decide to flex your 2A rights, expect to be fired if you're caught! :what: It's that simple! Weather or not the company cares about your welfare or not is NOT the issue! The issue is, THEIR company, THEIR rules, THEIR liability!

Florida, where I live, is a "Right to Work" state. You can be fired for just about anything. In Florida, good jobs are hard to find so sometimes you just have to decide which is more important...working or risking losing your job! If you don't like the policy, don't work for them!

And no, I don't carry on the job (Security Guard) even though I have ALL of the required licences to do so. My post is not an armed post and I honor my company's NO CARRY policy.
Ah, but in your case, it is a violation of state law for you to carry at work on an unarmed post.

we are not amused
April 8, 2012, 08:26 PM
Same here. If I can't follow the rules, it's time to seek employment elsewhere.

So, you have never taken a 15 minute break instead of 10, or 35 minutes for lunch instead of 30? You never took home the obsolete computer disk that would have been thrown away instead? Never talked to your coworker on company time, or joined the basketball pool in violation of the company's anti-gambling policies?

Ankeny
April 8, 2012, 09:30 PM
And if there is no other employment available? Then follow the rules.

WinThePennant
April 8, 2012, 09:39 PM
Where would this country be if George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and many other famous persons had "followed the rules?"

Agsalaska
April 8, 2012, 10:15 PM
I never gave anyone my word in this matter.

I am under no illusions that my employer gives 2 cents about my welfare beyond the barest minimum of OSHA requirements and I know from experience that they will violate those standards any time they think they can get away with it -- which is frequently because in this economy people are too afraid of losing their job if OSHA shuts the place down.

Whether I carry a gun or not is no more my employer's business than whether I wear bikini briefs or granny panties.
Wow. Some of you guys need to find some better companies to work for. You really think employers dont care about employees? I get it in certain areas but most companies actually do not view their employees this way. Thats a tired argument.

351 WINCHESTER
April 8, 2012, 10:56 PM
I was a boarding agent for cargo ships and from time to time I had to carry ships payroll by myself (stupid, I know). I was always armed even though our employee handbook forbid weapons of any kind. My boss knew I carried, but never cared.

I was given special consideration by the Military Sealift Command insomuch as they would allow me to give them my weapon upon entering their facility, holding it upon my departure. I never had a problem, but I retired shortly after 9/11 as things went south real quick.

gearhead
April 8, 2012, 11:23 PM
Wow. Some of you guys need to find some better companies to work for. You really think employers dont care about employees? I get it in certain areas but most companies actually do not view their employees this way. Thats a tired argument.
Do you truly know for sure?

I've had my honor questioned in this thread but I've willingly resigned from a job where the Sr. VP personally instructed me to disregard any resume submitted by a female for a position I was interviewing applicants for. No, I didn't leave immediately but I began seriously seeking a new position at that point. On my last day, since I wasn't offered the courtesy of an exit interview I prepared a package of information that documented this and a couple of other borderline actions I had been instructed to take. I dropped that package into the mailbox of the President of the company on my way out the door. I heard through the grapevine that it caused a stir for about a week then it was back to business as usual. So I don't have a lot of faith in businesses putting their employees' best interests above their own and while your morals may have compelled you to resign immediately upon being asked to do something illegal I felt I owed it to my family to line up another job first.

Mikhail Weiss
April 9, 2012, 12:08 AM
...I dont believe I, having given my word to the contrary, can carry a firearm on company time and claim the moral high ground.

Any opposing views?

Yes.

No one can guarantee your safety and security.

You are responsible for your own safety and security.

It is immoral for one to violate the safety and security of another.

Adults make their own decisions and accept the consequences of those decisions.

Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp followed a Texas law (not a workplace rule) that violated her safety and security by forbidding carry of concealed weapons. As a consequence, she could not provide for that safety and security, nor that of her parents, when George Hennard used a pair of pistols to massacre her parents, and 21 others, in a Texas Luby's in 1991.

George Hennard's actions were immoral. The law demanding that Dr. Hupp disarm before entering the restaurant was immoral.

Dr. Hupp could have chosen to enter Luby's with her gun illegally concealed in her purse, conducting her business without harm or interruption to others, and might therefore have had a chance to save lives when Hennard embarked upon his killing spree. She instead chose to follow an immoral law. She lives with the consequences.

It's highly unlikely that one will be murdered while dining at a San Ysidro McDonald's, attending college in Virginia, riding a train on Long Island, visiting a mall in Salt Lake City, attending a church in Colorado Springs but such things happen.

As has been said here many times before, it's not the odds, but the stakes.

Adults get to make their own decisions, and live with them.

Agsalaska
April 9, 2012, 12:51 AM
Do you truly know for sure?

I've had my honor questioned in this thread but I've willingly resigned from a job where the Sr. VP personally instructed me to disregard any resume submitted by a female for a position I was interviewing applicants for. No, I didn't leave immediately but I began seriously seeking a new position at that point. On my last day, since I wasn't offered the courtesy of an exit interview I prepared a package of information that documented this and a couple of other borderline actions I had been instructed to take. I dropped that package into the mailbox of the President of the company on my way out the door. I heard through the grapevine that it caused a stir for about a week then it was back to business as usual. So I don't have a lot of faith in businesses putting their employees' best interests above their own and while your morals may have compelled you to resign immediately upon being asked to do something illegal I felt I owed it to my family to line up another job first.
gearhead let me rephrase that because you bring up a good point. There are plenty of bad companies out there. In fact a friend of mine, a 2010 cancer survivor, was just let go after 20 years with the same wholesale company. He was a sales manager for a state. During his last review his boss said it was the best review he had ever given. He was let go three weeks after telling their HR department that he had to go in for some minor operations. Bad performance they said even though he had only missed budget for the quarter twice in the last 10 years. He is suing. But while there are bad bosses and bad companies to work for with regards to how they treat there employees, there are also thousands of companies hiring millions of workers in the US that treat their employees extremely well. They range from some of the largest companies in the US to two and three man operations. My point is a blanket statement like 'all companies care about is bottom line income' is too sweeping. There a lot of great companies out there.

Lou McGopher
April 9, 2012, 06:53 PM
The huge overwhelming percentage of company policies are a misguided attempt to reduce the company's liability. I feel no moral compunction ignoring such a policy when it interferes with my ability to defend myself in whatever manner/method I choose. I find such policies immoral.

You feel no moral compunction against trespassing and fraud?

And if there is no other employment available?

Then become self-employed.

This is private property we're talking about, not public streets and parks paid for with stolen money and controlled by whatever politicians happen to be in office at the time. When someone sets rules for the use of their property, you abide by those rules or you are trespassing. Trespassing is a form of theft. It's the unauthorized use of someone else's property. The fact that you've gotten yourself into a situation where there is only one place of employment available to you does not give you a right to violate the rights of someone else. Some people seem to think that just because a place is owned in the name of a business that there aren't real people who own that property - that there aren't real people who have the right to say how that property is to be used. I'm sure you have rules for your own property - your home, your car, your place of business, even your body - and you expect people to follow those rules while there. If you trespass, you deserve to be not only evicted, but also prosecuted for the cost of evicting and prosecuting you (at a minimum). If you can't follow the rules, go somewhere else.

gearhead
April 9, 2012, 07:07 PM
And when the private property is the company vehicle? A vehicle that I'm only driving on a business trip because the company policy is to require me to use a company vehicle if available because it's cheaper for them to pay for the fuel than to pay me the IRS-mandated per-mile rate for traveling in my own car? I've found myself in enough pretty disreputable parts of town while trying to find my way around a strange place to make it a personal rule to never travel out of town unarmed where legal. I've been verbally threatened on one occasion and felt threatened by the way the crowd of locals looked me over on a few other occasions, simply for the act of being a stranger with out of state license plates in their neighborhood.

WinThePennant
April 9, 2012, 07:15 PM
What rational relationship exists between your job and being denied a civil right? CCWers are people who are state certified "good guys." They've had a background check. They've had their fingerprints taken. They've successfully finished a course on the subject of carrying a concealed handgun.

We all (should) know that people with concealed carry handgun permits are much, much, much less likely than the general population to commit crime.

What rational relationship is there for a database programmer, a nurse, a doctor, an accountant, or a construction worker to be denied the means to protect himself/herself?

NONE.

It makes no sense. This country would be a d*mn sight better off if people just refused to take this kind of abuse any longer.

This is a civil right. IMHO, denying a gun owner his/her civil rights is right up there with segregated restaurants and buses in Selma, AL seventy years ago.

brickeyee
April 9, 2012, 07:21 PM
guess who's gonna get fired and have no recourse?

Guess who will end up dead and have no recourse?

Lou McGopher
April 9, 2012, 10:07 PM
And when the private property is the company vehicle?

If it's their property, you follow their rules when using it.

What rational relationship exists between your job and being denied a civil right?

You're not being denied a civil right because a property owner has rules to be followed while on their property. You should be free to exercise your rights - whatever they are - in public, on your own property, or on the property of someone else with their permission.

If I hire someone to install carpet in my house, but refuse to let them keep their lunch in my 'fridge, am I denying them their right to eat or keep their food preserved? Or if they're wearing a shirt or sign with some message I find offensive, am I violating their right to free speech by insisting they take it off or be fired?

Your rights are your freedom to act within the boundaries of the rights of others. Once you infringe upon the rights of someone else, you are no longer exercising a right; you're trespassing, you're committing aggression.

Humans are physical, 3-dimensional beings. They exist in space. Space is rivalrous. That is, control over an area (or any other tangible thing) cannot be exercised by two people simultaneously. You and I cannot both eat this ice cream sandwich sitting next to me. Any attempt to do so would result in conflict. Control over tangible things is exclusionary. Property the manner in which we determine who has the best claim to exercise that control. Thus, your right to carry a gun, your right to speak freely... actually, your right to be anywhere, regardless of what you are doing... is dependent upon you having the permission of the owner of the property where you are. If the person who owns a building or piece of land states "no guns," it's their right to do so, and as a guest, you have no right to act otherwise.

Trying to defend a right by negating other rights is foolish. What's the point having a firearm if you have nothing to protect? I want to be able to carry my firearm with me wherever I go. But I don't have a right to something simply because I want it. When a government places restrictions on your ownership and possession of firearms, your property rights are being violated. Encourage other people to respect your rights by respecting theirs.

3KillerBs
April 9, 2012, 10:41 PM
So if you owned a company, and had a policy that employees wear a uniform, or follow other rules of employent, you'd be OK with them willingly violating that rule for personal reasons?
...

I would not be so idiotic as to attempt to determine my employee's choices of underwear (assuming it was not visible). A concealed gun is on the same level. It stays inside one's clothes, concealed. It has no impact on the company image as a uniform would. It does not create a workplace disruption as playing loud music or arguing with co-workers would. It is a completely private matter.

3KillerBs
April 9, 2012, 10:49 PM
...

That's actually not what she said but it's close enough.

How about I abide by the company's rules to appease my sense of honor?

You could try responding to what I actually said.

As for "honor", ...

Let's try some Kipling here, ...

...
Man, a bear in most relations worm and savage otherwise,
Man propounds negotiations, Man accepts the compromise.
Very rarely will he squarely push the logic of a fact
To its ultimate conclusion in unmitigated act.

Fear, or foolishness, impels him, ere he lay the wicked low,
To concede some form of trial even to his fiercest foe.
Mirth obscene diverts his anger Doubt and Pity oft perplex
Him in dealing with an issue to the scandal of The Sex!

But the Woman that God gave him, every fibre of her frame
Proves her launched for one sole issue, armed and engined for the same;
And to serve that single issue, lest the generations fail,
The female of the species must be deadlier than the male.

She who faces Death by torture for each life beneath her breast
May not deal in doubt or pity must not swerve for fact or jest.
These be purely male diversions not in these her honour dwells
She the Other Law we live by, is that Law and nothing else.

She can bring no more to living than the powers that make her great
As the Mother of the Infant and the Mistress of the Mate.
And when Babe and Man are lacking and she strides unclaimed to claim
Her right as femme (and baron), her equipment is the same.

She is wedded to convictions in default of grosser ties;
Her contentions are her children, Heaven help him who denies!
He will meet no suave discussion, but the instant, white-hot, wild,
Wakened female of the species warring as for spouse and child.
...

http://www.corneredcat.com/The_Female_of_the_Species/

3KillerBs
April 9, 2012, 11:13 PM
Wow. Some of you guys need to find some better companies to work for. You really think employers dont care about employees? I get it in certain areas but most companies actually do not view their employees this way. Thats a tired argument.

What part of my explanation that the company I work for ROUTINELY violates OSHA rules did you fail to understand? I said nothing about companies in general, just about my personal experience with the specific factory I work in.

If I could just run out and get another job that payed a comparable rate, was a comparable commute from my home, suited my physical capabilities, and had significantly better working conditions I would. But I can't. I've tried.

I'm not going to starve my kids or go on food stamps because of some self-righteous blather about "honor". Especially from people who have continued to fail to honestly address the detailed reasons I provided in my original post.

I owe my employer an honest day's labor, nothing more. I do not in any way shirk that duty. I do any job I'm assigned to and do it to the best of my ability. I am more likely to come back from break 3 minutes early than 3 minutes late.

I have a family to feed. My self-employed husband saw the recession chop our income by 2/3. I don't have the luxury of being picky about my job.

But I have no moral obligation to obey a silly, ineffective rule that, as I have related multiple times, did not prevent a man who had just been fired from picking up a piece of pipe and nearly killing one of the supervisors -- especially when they instituted that rule after I had worked there for a year already.

Ragnar Danneskjold
April 9, 2012, 11:18 PM
Then follow the rules.

I value both my life and the means to provide for it more than any rule. I'm on this earth for me. You do what you will for you.

You're not going to pay my bills or defend my life. My boss isn't going to pay my bills and defend my life. I wouldn't ask anyone to do those things anyways.

I must do both. And I won't pick between one or the other.

WinThePennant
April 10, 2012, 12:31 AM
If it's their property, you follow their rules when using it.



You're not being denied a civil right because a property owner has rules to be followed while on their property. You should be free to exercise your rights - whatever they are - in public, on your own property, or on the property of someone else with their permission.

If I hire someone to install carpet in my house, but refuse to let them keep their lunch in my 'fridge, am I denying them their right to eat or keep their food preserved? Or if they're wearing a shirt or sign with some message I find offensive, am I violating their right to free speech by insisting they take it off or be fired?

Your rights are your freedom to act within the boundaries of the rights of others. Once you infringe upon the rights of someone else, you are no longer exercising a right; you're trespassing, you're committing aggression.

Humans are physical, 3-dimensional beings. They exist in space. Space is rivalrous. That is, control over an area (or any other tangible thing) cannot be exercised by two people simultaneously. You and I cannot both eat this ice cream sandwich sitting next to me. Any attempt to do so would result in conflict. Control over tangible things is exclusionary. Property the manner in which we determine who has the best claim to exercise that control. Thus, your right to carry a gun, your right to speak freely... actually, your right to be anywhere, regardless of what you are doing... is dependent upon you having the permission of the owner of the property where you are. If the person who owns a building or piece of land states "no guns," it's their right to do so, and as a guest, you have no right to act otherwise.

Trying to defend a right by negating other rights is foolish. What's the point having a firearm if you have nothing to protect? I want to be able to carry my firearm with me wherever I go. But I don't have a right to something simply because I want it. When a government places restrictions on your ownership and possession of firearms, your property rights are being violated. Encourage other people to respect your rights by respecting theirs.
Everything you said could apply to the Jim Crow laws of the Old South. If black folks don't like sitting in their section, then they just aren't respecting your property rights.

The corporate state, and the corporate mentality, is a prison of the human mind.

Agsalaska
April 10, 2012, 02:02 AM
What rational relationship exists between your job and being denied a civil right? CCWers are people who are state certified "good guys." They've had a background check. They've had their fingerprints taken. They've successfully finished a course on the subject of carrying a concealed handgun.

We all (should) know that people with concealed carry handgun permits are much, much, much less likely than the general population to commit crime.

What rational relationship is there for a database programmer, a nurse, a doctor, an accountant, or a construction worker to be denied the means to protect himself/herself?

NONE.

It makes no sense. This country would be a d*mn sight better off if people just refused to take this kind of abuse any longer.

This is a civil right. IMHO, denying a gun owner his/her civil rights is right up there with segregated restaurants and buses in Selma, AL seventy years ago.
It has nothing to do with good guys or bad guys. It has to do with competency and protecting those that are not. The fact that you can pass a background check and pass a shooting or safety course may make you legal, but it certainly does not make you competent to use that weapon in a robbery situation like a Radio Shack or Pizza Hut face too often. I know, as I am sure you do, plenty of CCW holsters that would probably be better off not carrying in a situation where, for example, they were outdrawn or surprised. I certainly wouldnt want to be anywhere near them. Employers, insurance companies, and lawyers know that. That is why, especially in the retail world, they have those restrictions. They are right and it makes perfect sense.

brboyer
April 10, 2012, 02:07 AM
You feel no moral compunction against trespassing and fraud?

[snip]
This is private property we're talking about, not public streets and parks paid for with stolen money and controlled by whatever politicians happen to be in office at the time. When someone sets rules for the use of their property, you abide by those rules or you are trespassing. Trespassing is a form of theft. It's the unauthorized use of someone else's property. The fact that you've gotten yourself into a situation where there is only one place of employment available to you does not give you a right to violate the rights of someone else. Some people seem to think that just because a place is owned in the name of a business that there aren't real people who own that property - that there aren't real people who have the right to say how that property is to be used. I'm sure you have rules for your own property - your home, your car, your place of business, even your body - and you expect people to follow those rules while there. If you trespass, you deserve to be not only evicted, but also prosecuted for the cost of evicting and prosecuting you (at a minimum). If you can't follow the rules, go somewhere else.

Trespassing is illegal, I don't do that because I do not want to go to jail. Florida's trespassing statutes are very specific, I abide by them.

Fraud is also illegal. I do not commit that crime either. Those statutes are also quite specific.

Shoobee
April 10, 2012, 02:29 AM
In the "shall issue" states, I can sympathize with employers forbidding employees to bring guns into their establishments. I cannot sympathize when they go so far as to say not in your car either however.

If the employer wants to take responsibility for the employee's safety while on the premesis, then I think they are within their rights, but they better have a pretty good security and metal detectors etc.

But the parking lot is where the employees are then forced to keep their gun(s). Forbidding this in the parking lots is going too far, in my opinion.

These are all issues that come up in the "shall issue" states. In the "may issue" states which by and large *do not* issue, it is a pipe dream.

I suppose if I lived in a "shall issue" state, I would keep my 45ACP in my car whether the company liked it or not. I just would not let them find out.

If I worked for such a company, I would want a seat near an exit, so I could get out fast if there was a shootout or workplace massacre, so I could get to my car, at least, and get away.

Chris-bob
April 10, 2012, 02:49 AM
There is the unique situation in which the employer operates a secure facility in which crossing the property line puts you within a security perimeter with armed security. That makes the discussion moot as there is no practical option to ignore the employer's requirement. If they're government facilities it is illegal to violate the rule.
My company has a no firearms policy. I also work in the SIDA area of airports(more than one). If I could carry, I would. But unfortunately, I need the job. If there was a way to carry without breaking state and federal laws, I would. But me in prison will not help my family. Given the choice, I would carry even in those places if there was no jail time attached to being caught.

If I was in different employment, I would hope that my co-workers also violated the no firearms policy with me.

Shoobee
April 10, 2012, 02:51 AM
It's never "moot" because you still need to drive from your home to the property.

That's why it's never "moot."

Unless they also come and pick you up in an armored car, it's never "moot."

WinThePennant
April 10, 2012, 09:30 AM
It has nothing to do with good guys or bad guys. It has to do with competency and protecting those that are not. The fact that you can pass a background check and pass a shooting or safety course may make you legal, but it certainly does not make you competent to use that weapon in a robbery situation like a Radio Shack or Pizza Hut face too often. I know, as I am sure you do, plenty of CCW holsters that would probably be better off not carrying in a situation where, for example, they were outdrawn or surprised. I certainly wouldnt want to be anywhere near them. Employers, insurance companies, and lawyers know that. That is why, especially in the retail world, they have those restrictions. They are right and it makes perfect sense.
Very high-minded of you. You've got it all figured it, don't you?

I'd like you to introduce yourself to Suzanna Hupp. Kindly explain to her how important it is follow the rules (which she did), and how those rules got her family and many others killed in Luby's Cafeteria.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanna_Hupp

WinThePennant
April 10, 2012, 09:32 AM
Keeping it in the car is pretty much a no-go since most companies that have anti-gun policies also pair those policies with a "right" to search your car.

ForumSurfer
April 10, 2012, 10:26 AM
To me, the question boils down to what is your word worth.

I don't hold my signing of a contract with an employer on the same level as my word. If that is the case, then my word is meaningless. I signed an non-competition agreement specifically stating that I am not to use any knowledge gained during employment at future jobs. I have had more than one job in my career and I have taken knowledge gained with me each time. If I took that clause literal, I'd need to change careers every time I change jobs.

Doc3402
April 10, 2012, 10:44 AM
If the company says don't carry, and you choose to disobey the rules, they have every right to terminate your employment, but there are exceptions here in Florida.

With your definition of company time you leave some loopholes. If you are required to use your own car for company business, and if your company doesn't fall into a certain few categories, your employer is barred under FS 790.251 from asking if you have a firearm or any other weapon in your car, and they are required by law to allow you to keep a firearm on their property as long as it remains secured in your vehicle.

The exceptions:

(7) EXCEPTIONS.The prohibitions in subsection (4) do not apply to:
(a) Any school property as defined and regulated under s. 790.115.
(b) Any correctional institution regulated under s. 944.47 or chapter 957.
(c) Any property where a nuclear-powered electricity generation facility is located.
(d) Property owned or leased by a public or private employer or the landlord of a public or private employer upon which are conducted substantial activities involving national defense, aerospace, or homeland security.
(e) Property owned or leased by a public or private employer or the landlord of a public or private employer upon which the primary business conducted is the manufacture, use, storage, or transportation of combustible or explosive materials regulated under state or federal law, or property owned or leased by an employer who has obtained a permit required under 18 U.S.C. s. 842 to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials on such property.
(f) A motor vehicle owned, leased, or rented by a public or private employer or the landlord of a public or private employer.
(g) Any other property owned or leased by a public or private employer or the landlord of a public or private employer upon which possession of a firearm or other legal product by a customer, employee, or invitee is prohibited pursuant to any federal law, contract with a federal government entity, or general law of this state.

Agsalaska
April 10, 2012, 10:53 AM
Very high-minded of you. You've got it all figured it, don't you?

I'd like you to introduce yourself to Suzanna Hupp. Kindly explain to her how important it is follow the rules (which she did), and how those rules got her family and many others killed in Luby's Cafeteria.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzanna_Hupp
High minded of me?

I am well aware of the Lubys incident as well as hundreds of others. I am not sure what your point is. Of course the Lubys situation could have ended much different if the gun was not left in the car. I believe that is what spurred the CCW movement in Texas. That doenst at all change anything in my post or contradict anything I said.

Lou McGopher
April 10, 2012, 01:07 PM
I would not be so idiotic as to attempt to determine my employee's choices of underwear (assuming it was not visible). A concealed gun is on the same level. It stays inside one's clothes, concealed. It has no impact on the company image as a uniform would. It does not create a workplace disruption as playing loud music or arguing with co-workers would. It is a completely private matter.

What right do you have use the property of someone else against their wishes? Is it okay for people to come into your house and do whatever they want so long as they hide their activities from you?

I value both my life and the means to provide for it more than any rule. I'm on this earth for me. You do what you will for you.

Would you accept that as a valid answer if your boss refused to pay you for work performed?

"Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life."

To throw away the rights of someone else when you find them inconvenient is to throw away any argument that you have a right to your own property - to your own life.

Everything you said could apply to the Jim Crow laws of the Old South.

Jim Crow laws were just that - LAWS. The decision to segregate customers was not left up to the private property owners, it was forced on them. Jim Crow laws are an example of property rights being infringed.

Trespassing is illegal, I don't do that because I do not want to go to jail. Florida's trespassing statutes are very specific, I abide by them.
Fraud is also illegal. I do not commit that crime either. Those statutes are also quite specific.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_in_se

But the parking lot is where the employees are then forced to keep their gun(s). Forbidding this in the parking lots is going too far, in my opinion.

Why respect property rights for a person's building but not the parking lot surrounding that building? What principle changes at the door leading to the parking lot? Do you have less of a right to say what is permitted in your back yard versus what is permitted in your home?

WinThePennant
April 10, 2012, 01:17 PM
Jim Crow was a legal denial of rights. As is denying one the right to self defense.

WinThePennant
April 10, 2012, 01:19 PM
High minded of me?

I am well aware of the Lubys incident as well as hundreds of others. I am not sure what your point is. Of course the Lubys situation could have ended much different if the gun was not left in the car. I believe that is what spurred the CCW movement in Texas. That doenst at all change anything in my post or contradict anything I said.

Aren't you the one who was suggesting that people shouldn't have a gun because they might be slow out of the holster?

:banghead:

Sam1911
April 10, 2012, 01:31 PM
What right do you have use the property of someone else against their wishes?

Seems there's lots of rights these days. And anything someone might want can be a "right." The right to affordable housing, or the right to an education, for examples. (Many of us don't agree with the encroachment of all these new "rights," but that's a different matter.)

But while we don't all accept that everything someone may claim is a right, we all do accept that there are some rights which take precidence over others. Your right to LIFE is greater than your right to VOTE, for example. Your right to worship as you please may be greater than your right to be free from quartering troops, etc. Those are all personal value judgments, of course.

So your right to LIFE may be legitimately more important than your (or someone else's) property rights.

But what is a property right, anyway? Sort of a nebulous collection of things, it seems. They cover owning property, obviously, at least some kinds and to some degree of security, subject to revocation. They also cover how you choose to use the property...somewhat, and with restrictions. And your property rights include the right to refuse admittance to someone else to your property ... generally, with caveats. And they give you the ability to request certain things of your visitors, and the presumed ability to enforce those requests to what ever degree you are financially, socially, and lawfully able to do so. (i.e. Metal Detectors, guards, pat-downs, explosives sniffers... sky's the limit, right?)

It all gets pretty muddy. Do you have the "right" to demand that someone disarm? Sure. Do you have the "right" to run a metal detector and make sure they do? Probably. Do you have the right to evict them if they don't? Yeah, usually. Do you have any reasonable expectation of compliance if you don't exert the effort to force the issue? Not really. Are your "rights" being violated if you put up a sign on your buisness that says "no guns" and someone carries their concealed pistol past that sign? Well...only in your head. With no physical or monetary harm, there is no real, tangible, violation of anything.

Worrying that someone is violating this most ephemeral of "property rights" when all you can do is quiver in worry that someone, somewhere is doing whatever you said not to do, but you don't know who, or when, because you aren't exerting your options to make certain they comply -- and there's no damage, harm, or loss from it anyway -- seems like a fool's errand.

With that in mind, we go back to the question of one right being more valuable than another: IF I ever feel the need to save my life through the use of a weapon, then my right to do so is more important than your "right" to this particular kind of ephemeral property right.

Sam1911
April 10, 2012, 01:45 PM
Worrying that someone is violating this most ephemeral of "property rights" when all you can do is quiver in worry that someone, somewhere is doing whatever you said not to do, but you don't know who, or when, because you aren't exerting your options to make certain they comply -- and there's no damage, harm, or loss from it anyway -- seems like a fool's errand.

Do I have the right to say, "NO GUNS on my property?" Yes. I also have the right to remove any I find.

Do I have the right to say, "No field mice on my property?" Absolutely! I also have the right to remove any I find. (Unless they're endangered now. :rolleyes:)

If I am unwilling or unable to find all the mice, or see all the guns being brought onto my property, are my rights being violated? Nope.

If the government tells me I CAN'T remove/restrict to the extent of my ability to do so, THEN my property rights are being infringed.

Big difference, there, between the government infringing my rights to act as I wish, and Joe Average Guy (or a half-million field mice) violating whatever policy I have set in place. (And, especially, without me ever suffering harm or even knowing about it.)

brboyer
April 10, 2012, 02:18 PM
[Snip]
Originally Posted by brboyer
Trespassing is illegal, I don't do that because I do not want to go to jail. Florida's trespassing statutes are very specific, I abide by them.
Fraud is also illegal. I do not commit that crime either. Those statutes are also quite specific.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum_in_se
[Snip]


Thankfully no one is bound (or most likely, even concerned) by your beliefs on what is "Wrong".

And I sleep very well each night, thank you very much.

Double Naught Spy
April 10, 2012, 02:23 PM
Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp followed a Texas law (not a workplace rule) that violated her safety and security by forbidding carry of concealed weapons. As a consequence, she could not provide for that safety and security, nor that of her parents, when George Hennard used a pair of pistols to massacre her parents, and 21 others, in a Texas Luby's in 1991.

George Hennard's actions were immoral. The law demanding that Dr. Hupp disarm before entering the restaurant was immoral.

Dr. Hupp could have chosen to enter Luby's with her gun illegally concealed in her purse, conducting her business without harm or interruption to others, and might therefore have had a chance to save lives when Hennard embarked upon his killing spree. She instead chose to follow an immoral law. She lives with the consequences.

Adults get to make their own decisions, and live with them.

LOL, let's get this straight on Hupp, shall we? You make it sound like she was some really law-abiding citizen. She wasn't. Gratia-Hupp was already violating the law by carrying her gun with her in her vehicle in the passenger compartment. Previously by her own admission, she had been carrying it on her person (in her purse) until she started feeling paranoid. At the time, that might have been partially legal under Texas' poorly defined "traveling" law for vehicle carry, although by her own statements, she wasn't traveling. She was already breaking the law and she had already engaged in breaking the law by carrying a concealed gun on her person and she kept the gun under the passenger regularly...in violation of Texas law.

http://www.gunownersalliance.com/hupp-10.htm

There was no law at the time that demanded people disarm before going into the restaurant. In fact, if she was so concerned about her safety, she could have asked for permission from Luby's management and would have been allowed to have her gun with her on their private property. She didn't.

At the time, she apparently didn't think enough of her safety to have been involved with changing Texas law.

And tragic as it was, both of her parents did not have to die. Her mother could have escaped with her, but she instead went to be with her mortally wounded or already dead husband. Gratia-Hupp tells the story in excrutiatingly painful detail. Her mother made what you call an "adult decision" that knowingly put her into harm's way and by the way Gratia-Hupp explains it, was going to have an obvious outcome. The mother chose to die with the father. It is tragic, but the mother didn't have to die, but chose to do so. As Gratia-Hupp described it, her mother could not see continuing life without her husband. It is a shame that Gratia-Hupp's mother was ever put into such a position to have to make such a decision, but that is what she did.

So yeah, Texas law back then sucked. It still does because we have to have licenses to carry. Gratia-Hupp had no problem with selectively breaking the law at her convenience, however. Her real regret was not in breaking the law further that day.

Of course, had Texas had its CHL and had Luby's been properly 30.06 posted, do you think she would have trespassed or would she be campaigning for the abolition of 30.06?

forestdavegump
April 10, 2012, 03:00 PM
Again, if I accept the position knowing that carrying a firearm on the clock is verboten I am agreeing to be bound by that rule. If I dont agree to be bound by that rule I dont accept the position.

Is that really so hard to understand?I had a job that changed ownership, and they asked us IF we had any objections to their NO gun policies, guns on the property(IE in my vehicle in parking lot) or on company time and I said "YES". I said I object. They called me aside later and had me sign a few forms and I kept my gun rights and my job. As far as I know no one else said anything or retained their rights to have guns. That job ended as the company went out of buisness years later and went over seas?:cuss: But, I spoke up and for once it helped me:eek:
In today's market take the job, don't carry on work property and if carrying during work(different than on their property) is not against the law and only against company policy make your choice. There is a big difference between a law and a policy. I don't advocated anything you have not thought out or understand the ramifications of really well. Knowledge is power. Grownups can decide for themselves. Cicero was a proponent of what ever is necessary is legal, and you know how he fared. Also I am not someone who dislikes freedoms, and my sig tells the story of my willingness to do RIGHT regardless of consequences. There is right and wrong and legal and not and they are not all the same. There is right and illegal!:banghead:

WinThePennant
April 10, 2012, 03:54 PM
Hupp was trying to balance following the law with her own good sense and right of self protection.

The law won that day -- And, she lost both her parents.

Suggesting that her mother could have survived is truly callous as she was killed while showing mercy to her husband.

Mikhail Weiss
April 10, 2012, 06:47 PM
LOL, let's get this straight on Hupp, shall we? You make it sound like she was some really law-abiding citizen.

That wasn't quite my intent, though I can see why you might have drawn that conclusion. My aim was to address the moral issue of the OP, not so much the legal one.

Perhaps your post clarifies the legal matter: Dr. Hupp could only have been carrying illegally that day no matter if her gun was in her car, her purse, or in the restaurant. Okay.

But the larger moral issue goes like this: if citizens are not permitted the exercise of liberty when that liberty does not materially interfere with others, such restriction is unjust. When such interference restricts a natural right, such as the right to self protection, the restriction is not merely unjust, but immoral.


Of course, had Texas had its CHL and had Luby's been properly 30.06 posted, do you think she would have trespassed or would she be campaigning for the abolition of 30.06?


I suspect she still would not have carried into the restaurant had it been posted with a 30.06 sign, whether or not she had a CHL. Were events to have unfolded as they did, yes, I suspect she would campaign for the abolition of 30.06.

But so what?

A peaceful restaurant patron with a gun in her purse, albeit illegally, is not a threat.

A guy crashing his truck into a restaurant and shooting people is.

Lou McGopher
April 10, 2012, 07:31 PM
Jim Crow was a legal denial of rights. As is denying one the right to self defense.

Is that what you were referring to when you wrote the following....

If black folks don't like sitting in their section, then they just aren't respecting your property rights.

...because Jim Crow laws covered a lot of things, and it sure seems like you were refering to the segregation required by law in private businesses (acceptable behavior in a private place of business being the topic of this thread).

But while we don't all accept that everything someone may claim is a right, we all do accept that there are some rights which take precidence over others. Your right to LIFE is greater than your right to VOTE, for example. Your right to worship as you please may be greater than your right to be free from quartering troops, etc. Those are all personal value judgments, of course.

So your right to LIFE may be legitimately more important than your (or someone else's) property rights.

I don't accept that at all. There's no conflict between rights. For example, you don't have a right to be on your employer's property. You are there by invitation.

But what is a property right, anyway? Sort of a nebulous collection of things, it seems.

It's the assignment of exclusive control over a resource. Your right to life is itself a property right. You alone have the right to exercise control over your body, and anyone who attacks you or threatens to attack you is acting with disregard for your ownership of your body.

Are your "rights" being violated if you put up a sign on your buisness that says "no guns" and someone carries their concealed pistol past that sign? Well...only in your head. With no physical or monetary harm, there is no real, tangible, violation of anything.

The answer is an unqualified "yes." The fact that damages may be trivial or difficult to quantify does not change this.

Do I have the right to say, "No field mice on my property?" Absolutely! I also have the right to remove any I find.

Mice are unable to reason, let alone read signs and enter into contracts. Rights are rules for people.

Thankfully I'm not bound (or for that matter, even concerned) by your beliefs on what is "Wrong".

And yet you felt compelled to try to justify your own beliefs.


Folks, whenever you try to argue the truth or validity of a claim, there are certain things that are automatically implied.

Any claim regarding the truth of any proposition must be settled by argumentation. This cannot logically be disputed - one cannot communicate and argue that one cannot communicate and argue. It is also implied that everyone who engages in argumentation understands what it means to claim that something is true. This also cannot be logically disputed - one canot deny this without claiming that the negation of that is true.

Argument is a conflict-free way to interact with others, in the sense that so long as argumentation is occurring, it is always possible to agree, at the very least, that there is disagreement about the claim being debated. Engaging in an argument demonstrates a preference for the willingness to rely on argumentation to convince oneself and others as to the truth of something.

Engaging in argument is a form of action, and requires that one use of one's own body. This cannot logically be disputed - one cannot argue to the contrary without using a body to do so. Your body is a scarce resource. There is only one you. And since they are scarce, they are rivalrous. Only one person can exercise control of your body at a time. Your body needs things that are external to it in order to continue living (e.g. food) that you must be able to acquire and control exclusively, otherwise you will die, and be unable to argue anything at all. By arguing, one automatically implies the right to have property in things. Not just any sort of property, but private property - exclusive control. The alternative is that without the right to exclusively control property, one could not live and would thus be unable to argue for or against anything.

Hence, the act of arguing for the truthfulness of any claim automatically implies the necessity and acceptance of an ethic that respects private property. Arguments in favor of violating private property rights are illogical and automatically detonate in self-contradiction.

While some of you may feel just fine about violating the property rights of others, the fact is that you cannot make a logically valid argument in favor of it.

Shoobee
April 10, 2012, 07:54 PM
Its a good thing that Texas has cleaned up their act since Suzanna Gratia's family was all gunned down. Now all Texas needs to do is go the final yard and emulate Arizona on this. As do the other states as well. With deepest respect for Suzanna Gratia.

Normally when a company hires you, they are in a big hurry to sign you, therefore they keep the HR monsters in their cages.

The HR monsters come out when you finally show up for work.

If they have a no gun no knife rule I can live with that. I'll just keep them in the car.

My car is a hot-car ... Hands Off This car. No searches. No touching.

Sam1911
April 10, 2012, 10:49 PM
There's no conflict between rights.If that's your honest belief, then we're really at a "agree to disagree" point. It would see to me to be almost the most self-evident fact ever presented that rights are in constant conflict. If we can't accept that as a given there is probably no common ground from which to reason in concert.

gym
April 10, 2012, 11:03 PM
This sounds like the tree falls in the forest anecdote. If no one heard it, did it make a noise?
If I know that I want to go to a place where there is a sign that says I can't carry, but no one to enforce it and no way to tell, then who realy knows unless I tell them. The only wy they would know, is if I had to shoot someone, in which case I would think the tradeoff is well worth it. I wouldn't be shooting anyone unless they were shooting at me of others in my area.
My concience wouldn't be the least bit offended that I didn't obey some guy who doesn't know me.

Lou McGopher
April 10, 2012, 11:35 PM
It would see to me to be almost the most self-evident fact ever presented that rights are in constant conflict.

Perhaps you could provide an example?

Lou McGopher
April 11, 2012, 01:07 AM
If I know that I want to go to a place where there is a sign that says I can't carry, but no one to enforce it and no way to tell, then who realy knows unless I tell them....
My concience wouldn't be the least bit offended that I didn't obey some guy who doesn't know me.

My conscience would definitely bug me. I'm pretty big on the Silver Rule: "Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you." I don't want people breaking my rules when on my property, so I don't break the rules when on their property. And, on a more personal level, it's also an issue of honesty. If someone agrees to let you onto their property on the condition that you agree to follow their rules, and you secretly break those rules, you're being dishonest. Aside from that being trespassing, it's also being untrustworthy. If someone prohibits me from carrying my firearm on their property, and I am not comfortable with that, I will go somewhere else, maintaining both my integrity and my ability to fight in defense of my life.

Ragnar Danneskjold
April 11, 2012, 03:07 AM
If someone prohibits me from carrying my firearm on their property, and I am not comfortable with that, I will go somewhere else, maintaining both my integrity and my ability to fight in defense of my life.

And if you can no longer be employed while following that ideal, what then? Consume the product of other's work through handouts?

Lex Luthier
April 11, 2012, 08:44 AM
We have the same policy at my company, though we are in a very rough neighborhood and are often working in even rougher neighborhoods. Leaving it in the car doesn't seem right either, but at least that way I can have some security there and back.

Sam1911
April 11, 2012, 09:03 AM
Perhaps you could provide an example?

Really? Sure.

1) Competing resources. My right to eat/live vs. your right to eat/live. Not enough for both? Sucks to be you. Or me. Or maybe both.
2) My right to free speech via protest vs. your rights. Perhaps my protest impedes your right to peruse your business interests, or your right to free passage down a particular street.
3) My property rights vs. society's & the government's interest in what I do on or with my property. OR simply vs. your property rights as my uses affect what you can do with yours.
4) My rights of literalist, fundamentalist religious practice, vs. someone else's rights to (almost anything...) or even life, if my religion tells me to take action against them.
5) My right to bear arms, which shall not be infringed, vs your "right," as you see it, to not have my weapon (or my purple thong underwear, etc.) present on your property, unbeknown to you, against your wishes.
Etc., ad infinitum.

Rights, by their nature, are in conflict at all times. That's a huge part of our court system's job -- trying to figure out whose right to what takes precedence over someone else's right to that same thing, or their competing interest.

Sam1911
April 11, 2012, 09:10 AM
The only wy they would know, is if I had to shoot someone, in which case I would think the tradeoff is well worth it. ... My concience wouldn't be the least bit offended that I didn't obey some guy who doesn't know me.
My conscience would definitely bug me.
Ahh, but you'd be alive to nurse your poor wounded conscience back to health.

And regardless of any protestations to the contrary, THAT is worth more than your survivor's guilt!

Lou McGopher
April 11, 2012, 11:10 AM
And if you can no longer be employed while following that ideal, what then? Consume the product of other's work through handouts?

Then I kick myself for getting into a situation where I have only one option for employment and have become wholly dependent on it. But in no way does it give me any right to use that property in a manner that violates the wishes of its owner. Just because I may be in a tough situation does not mean that the property owner has a duty or obligation to give up his/her rights. The employer/property owner owes you nothing except to leave you alone or do what you both agreed to do. To argue that you have a right to use that property as you see fit is to declare yourself to be the owner of it.

1) Competing resources. My right to eat/live vs. your right to eat/live. Not enough for both? Sucks to be you. Or me. Or maybe both.
2) My right to free speech via protest vs. your rights. Perhaps my protest impedes your right to peruse your business interests, or your right to free passage down a particular street.
3) My property rights vs. society's & the government's interest in what I do on or with my property. OR simply vs. your property rights as my uses affect what you can do with yours.
4) My rights of literalist, fundamentalist religious practice, vs. someone else's rights to (almost anything...) or even life, if my religion tells me to take action against them.
5) My right to bear arms, which shall not be infringed, vs your "right," as you see it, to not have my weapon (or my purple thong underwear, etc.) present on your property, unbeknown to you, against your wishes.

1. You don't have an inherent right to any given resources. You have a right to acquire resources, either through trade or original appropriation, and a right act to control the resource once you own it. Without a valid claim to ownership of it, you have no right to a resource.

2. A street is like any other property. Your right to be there doing anything is dependent upon the wishes of the owner of the street. To avoid deviating too far from the narrow focus of this forum, let it suffice to say that ownership of property by the state or "society" is morally illegitimate and a form of theft, and it is moral to view it as being unowned until another person asserts a valid claim by having appropriated it (e.g. a shopkeeper claiming the sidewalk in front of his store and the entrance leading to his parking lot). I recognize that it's at least difficult and often impossible to resolve conflicts in this way when they occur on public property, but the point is that these conflicts are not inherent in the nature of rights, but rather a result of the interference of the state.

3. Your right to use your property stops at the border of someone else's property. For example, you have the right to have whatever noxious chemicals you want on your property, but the moment they leak onto my property (or even the moment such a leak becomes imminent), you've trespassed.

4. There's no reason for you to not have the right to believe whatever you want. But your right to act on those beliefs stops before the point you cause harm to another person's property. The point at which you initiate an attack on someone else is not an exercise of a right, and is an act of aggression.

5. As previously stated, you don't even have a right to be on my property at all, except by my permission and in accordance with my rules. Yes, I have a right to tell you what sort of underwear is permitted to be worn on my property. Your right to bear arms (or scream obscenities at the top of your lungs, or juggle rapid weasels, etc) doesn't occur in some void in the space-time continuum. They happen in measurable, definable areas here on Earth. And those areas, being of finite quantity, get allocated as property, the use of which is rightfully determined by the owners. You only have a right to bear arms on your own property, on unowned property, or on another person's property with the owner's permission.

Ragnar Danneskjold
April 11, 2012, 12:01 PM
Originally Posted by Ragnar Danneskjold
And if you can no longer be employed while following that ideal, what then? Consume the product of other's work through handouts?
Then I kick myself for getting into a situation where I have only one option for employment and have become wholly dependent on it. But in no way does it give me any right to use that property in a manner that violates the wishes of its owner. Just because I may be in a tough situation does not mean that the property owner has a duty or obligation to give up his/her rights. The employer/property owner owes you nothing except to leave you alone or do what you both agreed to do. To argue that you have a right to use that property as you see fit is to declare yourself to be the owner of it.


You didn't actually answer the question. I'll ask again.

And if you can no longer be employed while following that ideal, what then? Consume the product of other's work through handouts?

brickeyee
April 11, 2012, 12:09 PM
But your right to act on those beliefs stops before the point you cause harm to another person's property.

That would be a conflict.

Lou McGopher
April 11, 2012, 12:46 PM
Consume the product of other's work through handouts?

In this scenario you've created where I'm unable to get a suitable job anywhere else in the world, and unable to survive via self-employment, then yes, I would accept charity. But I see homeless people getting paid to hold signs on the sidewalk. I don't think your scenario is very realistic, and isn't relevant if it were realistic. One person's desperation is does not result in a valid claim to violate another person's rights.

That would be a conflict.

The application of rights provides us with a framework to reach a peaceful resolution of a conflict. The exercise of rights does not result in conflict.

Sam1911
April 11, 2012, 12:51 PM
1. You don't have an inherent right to any given resources. You have a right to acquire resources, either through trade or original appropriation, and a right act to control the resource once you own it. Without a valid claim to ownership of it, you have no right to a resource.Oooohkay. So there's one rabbit and two of us. We can feed one of us and that one will live. We can feed both of us a little and both will die. We can fight over it and the winner takes all. Perhaps that doesn't conflict with the loser's right to life. Perhaps the only right to life you have is the right to that existence that transpires until your body runs out of stored reserves of food, water, and air. You have the right to exist, but not the right to the means to continue to exist?

You're dancing REALLY hard to avoid recognizing that rights conflict, but they very clearly can and usually do.

A street is like any other property. Your right to be there doing anything is dependent upon the wishes of the owner of the street. To avoid deviating too far from the narrow focus of this forum, let it suffice to say that ownership of property by the state or "society" is morally illegitimate and a form of theftOh. Wow.

Your right to use your property stops at the border of someone else's property. For example, you have the right to have whatever noxious chemicals you want on your property, but the moment they leak onto my property (or even the moment such a leak becomes imminent), you've trespassed.Many things you can do with your property -- even when they don't physically cross boundaries -- can harm others and their own property interests/rights.

4. There's no reason for you to not have the right to believe whatever you want. But your right to act on those beliefs stops before the point you cause harm to another person's property. The point at which you initiate an attack on someone else is not an exercise of a right, and is an act of aggression.Many religions REQUIRE (at least in their texts) actions which are directly harmful to others. While most of those are conveniently ignored or explained away in our enlightened "Western" society, they still are what they are. Those moral frameworks do not consider that the "rights" of non-believers, rule-violators, or even other adherents marked for sacrifice exist in any way. You are declaring what "rights" are and aren't based on nothing more valid than your own beliefs and internal ethics.

You only have a right to bear arms on your own property, on unowned property, or on another person's property with the owner's permission....if the owner knows about it. ;)

Lou McGopher
April 11, 2012, 03:32 PM
So there's one rabbit and two of us. We can feed one of us and that one will live. We can feed both of us a little and both will die. We can fight over it and the winner takes all. Perhaps that doesn't conflict with the loser's right to life.

The "right to life" doesn't include an obligation on anyone else's part to sustain you, nor is does it imply a right to infringe on the rights of another person. If the rabbit was caught running around in the unowned wilderness, whoever caught it owns it. The conflict is logically settled, as the other person has no right to it (per the "neo-Lockean homesteading principle"- probably too off-topic to get into further). If it was bought from a rabbit breeder, the person who paid for it owns it. The conflict is logically settled, as the other person has no right to it. If both worked together for the acquisition of the rabbit, both own a portion as agreed upon, and there is no conflict in the first place. The "right to life" is the right to act to sustain one's life within the boundaries of the rights of others. Rights aren't independent characteristics of a person. Rights are what we get when we apply reason to resolve conflict. There's no conflict between rights because rights are the rational resolution of conflict (all that's left is to act accordingly). Robinson Crusoe has no rights until Friday shows up on the island, and the possibility for conflict between the two arises.

Many things you can do with your property -- even when they don't physically cross boundaries -- can harm others and their own property interests/rights.

Kindly provide an example.

Many religions REQUIRE (at least in their texts) actions which are directly harmful to others.

People can think whatever they want in their head. But when they act in a way that brings them into conflict with others, religiously motivated or not, that's when rights "kick-in." The right to religious freedom, the right to free speech, the right to life... these are all the same thing. They are the right to act without the uninvited interference of other people, but they do not extend past the point of of the right of others to do the same.

You are declaring what "rights" are and aren't based on nothing more valid than your own beliefs and internal ethics.

People don't live on instinct alone. They use their ability to reason to deal with both the challenges of nature as well as the challenges of interacting with other people. Rights need to be discovered by the application of reason to social conflicts. Anything else, such as simply "making up" rights based on whim or without logic, is to treat man as less than what he is - to make a rule of irrationality, of denying reality - leaving violence, just as it is among the unthinking animals, the only option left for resolving conflict.

So when two people disagree with how to use a given piece of property, are we to settle it with tooth and claw, or with our rational faculty?

...if the owner knows about it.

You can usually get away with it, and you probably don't deserve get in too much trouble if you get caught. But it's still not your right to do it, whether the owner knows or not.

Catshooter
April 11, 2012, 08:09 PM
I am 58 years old. I have carried virtually 100% of the time since about age 18. Yes, far before it was legal for me. Except when behind metal detectors. I view it this way:

We all make agreements. With friends, wives/husbands, co-workers and of course employers. But first and formost, before all those agreements (contracts if you will) are made, you agree with yourself to do your best to keep yourself alive. If you fail in those first agreements then all other agreements become null and void, don't they? You fail not only all those other people, but also yourself. Or so I think.

Thus I have never had moral qualms about if I should carry or not. Seems to me that that is exactly what 3KBs is saying.

The OP is quite correct that you are violating your word if you agreed to not carry at work. But failing to protect yourself is failing yourself in it's most basic form.

I understand what 'concealed' means and I can keep my mouth shut so I was never made at work, ever.

One of the most basic of all human rights is the right to self defense. Every single life form does it, there are no exceptions. It is your right (and your responsibility) to protect your life and saying you can't carry at work is denying that right. Someone else's private property or not. Sooner or later you'll leave that property. Getting gas after working a swingshift is a good example. No weapon on you or in your vehicle (parking lot) leaves you unprotected. Obviously this is my opinion and one that is hardly shared by the majority. Carrying a firearm should never be illegal. Using one wrongly should be. Too bad I'm not Emperor! :)


Cat

Ragnar Danneskjold
April 11, 2012, 08:17 PM
It's not that I think that carrying where it's prohibited isn't dishonest; it's that I believe those who do not respect my right to self defense haven't earned my respect of their rules. They didn't earn my honesty. You treated me with disrespect by banning my gun, you deserve no respect from me in return.

3KillerBs
April 11, 2012, 09:26 PM
I'm still waiting for anyone who is arguing against my positions to actually address any of the reasons that I posted.

I'm especially interested in how you will manage to get around the fact that my workplace has already suffered a violent episode -- resulting in ICU time for the victim -- which was not in any way prevented by the "no weapons" policy if you stop completely ignoring it.

Catshooter
April 11, 2012, 10:22 PM
3KBs,

Maybe your statements posess too much logic & intelligence to refute? :)

Even those who have never experienced violence (work place or not) that don't carry should. They should because 'haven't' isn't the same as 'won't'.

Being a responsible adult means being responsible for your own safety, which means being armed & aware.

I applaud you 3KBs for being a responsible adult. We are in short supply.


Cat

Double Naught Spy
April 12, 2012, 12:57 AM
I'm still waiting for anyone who is arguing against my positions to actually address any of the reasons that I posted.

I'm especially interested in how you will manage to get around the fact that my workplace has already suffered a violent episode -- resulting in ICU time for the victim -- which was not in any way prevented by the "no weapons" policy if you stop completely ignoring it.

Whether or not there has already been an event of violence at your workplace really doesn't change anything except maybe your preception. You think that it provides justification for carrying. Others might argue that it would provide justification for changing jobs

If you choose to violate the company's policy and get caught and end up suspended or fired, then that is just how the whole process works. That is the risk cost of doing business in that manner. You choose the weigh that against your safety that you feel is afforded by carrying and that is your call.

If you get fired, just don't complain to us about it.

In reading a description of a well loved bootlegger caught running moonshine, he was sentenced to the pen but the judge gave him quite a bit of time to get his affairs in order as he was a prominent person in the community and even generous with his illegal income. The night before going to the pen, his buddies threw him a party. They got drunk on 'shine and had a real trial of his peers. They too found him guilty...of being dumb enough to get caught, and sentenced him to a beating. Everyone fought and several went to the hospital in what was reported to be one of the best parties in those parts in a long time. This story was recounted in a local Missouri newspaper article immediately after the event, announcing the bootlegger was off to jail.

I really liked the idea of trial by actual peers (other moonshiners) and the verdict of "being dumb enough to get caught." Concealed means concealed.

Neverwinter
April 12, 2012, 01:45 AM
Does it violate property rights for a lesbian to enter a store which is marked "No homosexuals allowed"? Does it violate property rights for a Christian man to enter a store which has been marked "No Christians allowed"?

ArfinGreebly
April 12, 2012, 02:37 AM
People can think whatever they want in their head. But when they act in a way that brings them into conflict with others, [. . .] that's when rights "kick-in."

You know, in 60+ years of cruising the sunrise on this orb, I don't believe I've ever run into a place where the guy with the gavel subscribed to this notion (of the described framework). At least not where any of us could see it.

Now, it could just be that in every place I've lived and in every legal framework to which I've been witness, they's all just doing it wrong.

Or, it could be that this theoretical framework has certain practical application flaws that make it too hard to implement in its "pure" form.

On yet another hand, it could be that the problem is that Man is actually functionally governed by a different set of dynamics from the ones described in the eloquent, if somewhat lengthy, description of the theoretical framework.

I would not suggest that the lack of an actually working social example of this framework implies that such a thing cannot work, but I suspect that we're looking at something that follows the maxim:
"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not."
― Albert Einstein


By effectively declaring "dibs" on the rules of social interaction and on the definition of "rights," one establishes himself as the "authority of record" for the ensuing discussion.

May I suggest instead that such a framework for defining "rights" be identified with the philosophical school to which it belongs?

Because otherwise it looks a lot like a single individual asserting authority and rightness -- disagreement with which is by definition "wrong" -- a subscription to absolutes, if you will, rather than a discussion of principles with the possibility of give and take.


It would be an error to presume from this suggestion that I have any particular view of human rights or property rights. It would be correct to presume that I object to having a conversation hijacked.

Sam1911
April 12, 2012, 08:44 AM
Kindly provide an example.At this point I'm simply going to say, "no." I can think of quite a few, all of which I'm sure you have some way of explaining off, but as the question is straying waaay too far away from the guns issue, I'm going to just halt that portion of the debate -- for exactly the reasons ArfinGreebly stated.

Lou McGopher
April 12, 2012, 01:15 PM
Does it violate property rights for a lesbian to enter a store which is marked "No homosexuals allowed"? Does it violate property rights for a Christian man to enter a store which has been marked "No Christians allowed"?

A store is no different from a home or clubhouse when it comes to the rights of the owner. People have a right to exclude others from their property for whatever reason, whether it's gun-related or not, whether most of us find it distasteful or ignorant or not.
In the question of how to resolve conflicts over property, what matters is the relationship between the claimants and the thing, not the relationship between claimants. It doesn't matter if they love you or hate you. What matters is which of you has the superior claim - the superior objective link - to the property in dispute.

Because otherwise it looks a lot like a single individual asserting authority and rightness -- disagreement with which is by definition "wrong" -- a subscription to absolutes, if you will, rather than a discussion of principles with the possibility of give and take.

I think there are certain things that are absolute. I would argue that if there aren't, then concepts such as truth and right/wrong are meaningless, and there's nothing to be gained by discussion except to pass the time (I would also argue that claiming there aren't absolutes results in self-contradiction, but I think the previous sentence is acceptable enough for most on here). While I share the desire to be able to carry my firearm with me everywhere, the various arguments for and against it in this thread are, as I see it, largely based on false premises (or widely differing, at the very least). So to arrive at a truthful conclusion, I have addressed the foundations of the concepts being used.

Shoobee
April 12, 2012, 01:23 PM
Well a private establishment is a private establishment. They can make whatever rules they want. Best not to get caught violating them.

As long as my weapons are in my car, that is close enough for me.

Nobody touches or searches my car without a warrant signed by a judge.

WinThePennant
April 12, 2012, 05:21 PM
A store is no different from a home or clubhouse when it comes to the rights of the owner.

Actually, there is nothing further from the truth. But, seeing as how you are such an expert, I'm not going to waste my breath.

Mikhail Weiss
April 12, 2012, 06:22 PM
A store is no different from a home or clubhouse when it comes to the rights of the owner.

Well, no. Not quite. You are not permitted to violate the civil rights of another if you run, say, a store, which exists to do business with the general public. Neverwinter's examples offer such cases and would lead to violation of Title II of the Civil Rights act (discrimination based on race, color, religion).

People have a right to exclude others from their property for whatever reason, whether it's gun-related or not, whether most of us find it distasteful or ignorant or not.

Yes, but with limited exceptions. Those exceptions include private clubs and other establishments not open to the public. See, for instance, the Augusta National Golf Club, which discriminates against women. Or, for that matter, your own home, in which you can discriminate against whomever you wish.

Mikhail Weiss
April 12, 2012, 07:01 PM
I think there are certain things that are absolute.

I agree. And the simplest absolutes for the matter at hand may depend upon how you view these questions (quite apart from whether or not you're a Pragmatist, Objectivist, or some other -ist):


Do you, or do you not, have a right to life?
Do you, or do you not, have a right to safeguard that life?
Do you, or do you not, have a right to determine by what means you will safeguard that life?

I suspect you would answer yes to each of the questions, above. But what about these?


Do rules against guns in the workplace respect your right to life?
Does carrying a gun in a prohibited workplace materially harm your employer?

razorback2003
April 13, 2012, 12:03 AM
If it is not against the law, carry and keep quiet about it.

Lou McGopher
April 13, 2012, 12:21 AM
Well, no. Not quite. You are not permitted to violate the civil rights of another if you run, say, a store, which exists to do business with the general public. Neverwinter's examples offer such cases and would lead to violation of Title II of the Civil Rights act (discrimination based on race, color, religion).

What's legal or illegal has nothing to do with what is right or wrong. Anyone here looking at the state of gun control laws in the US and around the world should readily understand that.

1. Do rules against guns in the workplace respect your right to life?
2. Does carrying a gun in a prohibited workplace materially harm your employer?

1. If you don't have a right to be there, you don't necessarily have a "right to life" while you're there. I've pointed this out before - you exercise rights in definable areas, those areas may be the property of someone other than you, and you have no claim to take any action there if the owner prohibits it. If, hypothetically speaking, the property owner said, "You're only permitted to come here if you drink this cup of strychnine," well, then you only have a right to be there if you drink it. That property owner may fully support your right to be armed at all times, and to use them to defend yourself, except when you are on his/her property, just as he/she may support your right to speak freely, to say things he/she may find offensive, except when you are on his/her property. Just because someone doesn't want you saying rude or offensive things doesn't mean they don't respect your right to free speech; it just means they don't want you doing it in their place.

2. It may. But it isn't relevant until the property owner pursues you for damages after you've been ejected from the property. It doesn't change owner's claim to the property, or the validity of the rules they set. You could show up to work in nothing but a thong as some form of political or religious expression. It's highly unlikely to cause damage to anything, but the employer will probably find it upsetting, and I bet everyone here would agree the owner has a right to kick you out simply because he/she doesn't want to look at you wearing only a thong.
Now, that's not to say that you automatically lose all rights once you cross the property line. You enter a business or place of work, and you expect to be safe. This is a reasonable assumption the vast majority of the time. If the property owner, though malice or negligence, caused you to become injured, you'd have a claim against him/her. You didn't agree to have that happen to you. But if the owner warns you beforehand that something bad may happen to you, then you are agreeing to whatever that risk is, and have no valid claim against him/her if it does. So if the owner/employer says, "no guns," you know what you may be risking by leaving your gun at home, and you must accept that risk and abide by that rule to avoid trespassing.

3KillerBs
April 13, 2012, 08:21 PM
So, the answer is no, you're not going to actually address my reasons.

I do not believe that I have a moral obligation to obey silly, dangerous rules made by people who have proven that they have little, if any, regard for my well-being.

In a factory of the type I work in there are multiple objects which can be used as weapons within arm's reach of every workstation.

I see no sense to expecting me, a small woman, to provide for defense in case I might need to, with a boxcutter, a pair of thread snips, or a steel yardstick against an angry man armed with a steel bar. Especially when the people expecting this are the people who can't keep the bathrooms stocked with soap and toilet paper, can't keep the fire lanes unobstructed, and have no means of preventing strangers from wandering in off the street.

As I have stated, if they catch me they have the right to fire me. Since I keep my gun concealed the only time I am likely to get caught is if I need to use it. I choose, for the specific reasons that no one has yet addressed, that being fired is not as bad as being dead and that I have no moral obligation to die for someone else's foolishness in making silly, ineffective rules.

sugarmaker
April 13, 2012, 08:58 PM
If I am presented with a choice to work somewhere and not carry a gun or look for employment somewhere else, I'll make the choice and stick by it. Their property, their rules.

ArfinGreebly
April 13, 2012, 09:33 PM
Let us, for the moment, look at the other side of this. There seems to be a lot of focus on this "property rights" thing.

That's very one-dimensional.

Beyond the explicit terms of the employment contract, what are the employer's moral and ethical obligations to the employee?

None?

Exactly and only what's in the written contract?

Or are there moral/ethical factors that obligate the employer in unwritten ways?

The employer conducts his business under the sufferance of the community at large. Are there obligations the employer has to the community that are expressed as obligations to the employee?


Let us stipulate that at no time and under no circumstances does the employer own the employee, and that the employee cannot be said to be in any way the property of the employer.

Let us further stipulate that the employer's business is morally void if it cannot be shown that there is a benefit from the practice of the business that accrues to the community or society as a whole or to mankind as a whole.

With that in mind, are there other obligations implied for the employer to the employee?


Or is the whole of the employer's obligation to the employer's sole benefit?



And here's a thought: Is disarming employees a form of aggression?

exavid
April 13, 2012, 10:45 PM
Pretty simple to me, if you give your word not to carry, then you don't.

Lou McGopher
April 14, 2012, 12:32 AM
There seems to be a lot of focus on this "property rights" thing.
That's very one-dimensional.

Because all rights are property rights.

Beyond the explicit terms of the employment contract, what are the employer's moral and ethical obligations to the employee?
None?
Exactly and only what's in the written contract?
Or are there moral/ethical factors that obligate the employer in unwritten ways?

I don't think it's realistic to try to come up with agreed upon solutions to all possible questions before they arise. For those stipulations stated explicitly, hold to them as precisely as possible. And as I hinted at before, any questions that arise that were not hashed out beforehand can be resolved rationally, based on reasonable expectations according to previous similar incidents, prevailing norms or common law, etc. So, probably in most situations, carrying concealed to a place of work where there's no explicit prohibition against it is permissible. At the very least, if the property owner became aware of it and decided he/she didn't like it, he/she could eject you from the property, but since there was no prior notice that it was prohibited, it would be doubtful that he/she had any valid claim against you for damages for bringing it in the first place.

Let us further stipulate that the employer's business is morally void if it cannot be shown that there is a benefit from the practice of the business that accrues to the community or society as a whole or to mankind as a whole.

There's really no way to say that something benefits or harms society or mankind "as a whole." People have different desires and needs, different values, and there's no rational way to aggregate these things. Suppose you robbed one guy to pay ten people. Does that benefit society as a whole? Or if you robbed ten guys to pay one person? Does that benefit mankind as a whole? There's no way to calculate such things in a way that's logical or objective. Individuals, not arbitrary groups, benefit from the actions of others. Individuals, not arbitrary groups, are harmed by the actions of others. In any transaction, the only criteria for judging its morality is if all parties to the transaction are consenting, not coerced under the threat of violence. We need not ask if your ownership and possession of a firearm benefits all of mankind. We only need to know that you find it of value to yourself, and that you're not using it in a way that violates the rights of someone else.

And here's a thought: Is disarming employees a form of aggression?

Depends on where and why... on whose property, and for what reason.

BTW, for those who may not have noticed... While I'm making the case that there's no right to bring a firearm onto any private property against the wishes of the owner, I'm also making the case that one has an absolute right to own and possess firearms everywhere else.

A few times in the past I had a firearm in my vehicle even though the parking lot at work had a sign prohibiting it (property owner prohibits it, not my employer). Like many, I figured what they didn't know wouldn't hurt them. But I started thinking about it, and realized it was wrong for me to do so. Trivial in the harm I was doing, perhaps. But still wrong in principle, and I could not keep doing so in good conscience. It was hypocritical, and unethical. So I weighed the risks and rewards. There is of course a risk that I could become the target of a violent crime, and without the firearm be less capable of defending myself. But, it's in a low-crime area. I'm only there during regular business hours. It's a 6 mile drive from home. I don't pass through any high crime areas on my way to and from work. The pay is good and in a couple more years I'll probably get a better job elsewhere with the experience I'm getting now. So for now, weighing the risks against the rewards, I'll keep the job, and leave the gun at home (or maybe park across the street in another lot). When I look for another job, being able to carry to work is high on the priority list. If there are two jobs, one that permits guns, and one that prohibits guns but pays about $2-4000 more a year, all else being equal, I'll take the lower pay for the ability to carry.

Ragnar Danneskjold
April 14, 2012, 01:26 AM
In this scenario you've created where I'm unable to get a suitable job anywhere else in the world, and unable to survive via self-employment, then yes, I would accept charity. But I see homeless people getting paid to hold signs on the sidewalk. I don't think your scenario is very realistic, and isn't relevant if it were realistic. One person's desperation is does not result in a valid claim to violate another person's rights.


Funny you should phrase it that way, since by choosing to take government handouts instead of working the job you were offered while carrying, you would steal the product of my work and consume that which you have not earned. The government taking money from me by force, and you knowing this and choosing to leech of me through that money, especially when another option exists, is a far more grievous affront to rights that carrying a gun on someone's property.

Sam1911
April 14, 2012, 09:02 AM
As I have stated, if they catch me they have the right to fire me. Since I keep my gun concealed the only time I am likely to get caught is if I need to use it. I choose, for the specific reasons that no one has yet addressed, that being fired is not as bad as being dead and that I have no moral obligation to die.

That is a beautiful summary of the issue. Nicely said and hats off to you!

bikerdoc
April 14, 2012, 08:19 PM
The government taking money from me by force, and you knowing this and choosing to leech of me through that money, especially when another option exists, is a far more grievous affront to rights that carrying a gun on someone's property.


Wow, tell us how you really feel.

-eaux-
April 15, 2012, 01:14 AM
i really don't see how this is such a matter of honor or respect as much as common sense. if you want to break the rules, you reap what you sow. don't act surprised or indignant when it bites you in the a++. if you think you're stickin' it to tha man, wake up. an old proverb says "i was looking for a job when i found this one".
if the SOP doesn't conform to your views on carry, look elsewhere. don't break the rules thinking you're proving a point.

Ragnar Danneskjold
April 15, 2012, 02:07 AM
if you want to break the rules, you reap what you sow. don't act surprised or indignant when it bites you in the a++. if you think you're stickin' it to tha man, wake up.

No one has said they're "stickin it to the man". Every single poster who has said they would carry even when prohibited, has also said they are willing to accept the possible consequences.

Sam1911
April 15, 2012, 09:59 AM
i really don't see how this is such a matter of honor or respect as much as common sense. if you want to break the rules, you reap what you sow. don't act surprised or indignant when it bites you in the a++. if you think you're stickin' it to tha man, wake up. an old proverb says "i was looking for a job when i found this one".
if the SOP doesn't conform to your views on carry, look elsewhere. don't break the rules thinking you're proving a point.

Surprised, indignant?

As Ragnar points out, once again we're arguing right past each other. Those who carry contrary to company policies are NOT saying they're "sticking it to the man" or that they're "proving a point." Every single one has said, "If I'm caught, I'll be looking for another job," and accepting that as the right of the employer to fire them if he/she/it so chooses.

Big JJ
April 15, 2012, 11:40 AM
Most of us are not lawyers so the legal opinions probably just do not matter and the laws vary from state to state anyway.
That high moral ground BS can go right out the window when you are talking about life or death situations.
What it really comes down to is one of the following two options.
A. You carry regardless of company policy and protect your life and maybe your co workers lives? The worst case scenario is you lose your job and you find another job.
B. You do not carry and you have peace of mind about abiding by company policy. Worst case scenario you or one of your co workers loses your life and you just cant find another life.
Me I am taking option #A. You have to do what you feel is right for you.

Lou McGopher
April 15, 2012, 03:32 PM
Funny you should phrase it that way, since by choosing to take government handouts instead of working the job you were offered while carrying, you would steal the product of my work and consume that which you have not earned. The government taking money from me by force, and you knowing this and choosing to leech of me through that money, especially when another option exists, is a far more grievous affront to rights that carrying a gun on someone's property.

I said charity, not welfare. It's there in the section of text you quoted. You didn't specify "handouts" as referring only to state welfare, so I specified it in my response.

Lou McGopher
April 15, 2012, 10:05 PM
For those who carry to work where it's prohibited (whether left in the car, or concealed on person or in a purse/briefcase/box): If agreeing to a search on demand became a condition of employment... that is, if getting caught were a certainty... if you could no longer get away with breaking the rules... would you quit the job or quit carrying to work?

Mikhail Weiss
April 15, 2012, 10:49 PM
I'm still waiting for anyone who is arguing against my positions to actually address any of the reasons that I posted.

I'm especially interested in how you will manage to get around the fact that my workplace has already suffered a violent episode -- resulting in ICU time for the victim -- which was not in any way prevented by the "no weapons" policy if you stop completely ignoring it.

In answer to the bolded, above:
COMPANY MEMO: Past incidents of violence are not predictors of future incidents.

The Cynical Argument

The Company is more important than you.*
Workers are disposable. Rules are indispensable.
It is easier to replace workers than The Company.
The Company would rather you die than It get sued for something you did.
Pragmatism is reserved for The Company, not its workers.

* The city, the state, and the federal government take more money from The Company than from you. Thus The Company is entitled to more consideration under the law than you.

The Private Property Argument

You are private property and have private property rights to establish rules regarding your private property. (Don't touch my privates, for instance.*)

The Company is private property and has private property rights to establish rules regarding Its private property. (Don't bring guns here, for instance.)

The Company may violate your private property rights (touching your privates) by the rules it has established regarding Its private property.

Your private property rights and the rules you've established regarding that private property (don't touch my privates) may be violated by The Company, whose rights supersede yours.

* The Company cannot, under law, touch your private privates, lest It get sued, but It can touch some of your privates, even depriving you of them, which is okay.

The Most Likely Argument
(or at least a version of it)

The company's right to establish rules that "endanger" you in only the most exceptional of circumstances is more important than your "right" to "self defense" in the event of such circumstances.

Now, why is that?

1. Workplace violence is rare.
2. Workplace murder is exceptionally rare.
3. The chances that anyone will be murdered at work are remote.
4. The chances that you, specifically, will be murdered at work, are exceptionally remote.

Therefore:

5. Your workplace has good reason to establish a "no guns" policy: guns in the workplace are a solution to a virtually non-existent problem.

Furthermore:

6. You are not trained.
7. If you are trained, your training is insufficient, or irrelevant (see 5).
8. The chances that you and your gun will cause a problem at work are much more likely than you saving yourself (or anyone else) from a murderer, while at work, with your gun.

razorback2003
April 15, 2012, 11:10 PM
Use the right sized holster and right sized gun and you can carry a gun anywhere it is legal. I carried at workplaces before and will continue to at my own office and others. It is no one else's business because no one else has the responsibility to take care of me.

Mikhail Weiss
April 15, 2012, 11:18 PM
What's legal or illegal has nothing to do with what is right or wrong...

Yes. That's pretty much been my point all along (albeit in the context of an office policy, per this thread's OP). What others permit or do not permit exists separately from what is moral or immoral.

So: if what's legal or illegal has nothing to do with what's right or wrong, does this then mean that one might break the law (or an office policy) in order to do that which is right?

Confederate51
April 15, 2012, 11:39 PM
Just thought I'd put my two cents in here. After reading alot of the posts submitted here, it seems it's only a matter of opinions, morals, and policy in question. My simple solution to the one's decision to or not to carry is: Do what's going to bring you peace of mind. If fear of losing the job is the issue, then don't carry. If fear of losing your life is the issue, then carry. We all have to live our lives by the rules we set for ourselves, and not always by the rules set by others. Thanks.

Dr T
April 16, 2012, 12:20 AM
I view this as a matter of professional ethics.

If you agree to take the job as offered, you are ethically bound to adhere to the terms and conditions of the job. If you cannot adhere to those terms and conditions, you should not ethically accept the employment.

If you feel strongly that you are endangered in the workplace, you probably should not take the job anyway.

WinThePennant
April 16, 2012, 12:29 AM
I view this as a matter of professional ethics.

If you agree to take the job as offered, you are ethically bound to adhere to the terms and conditions of the job. If you cannot adhere to those terms and conditions, you should not ethically accept the employment.

If you feel strongly that you are endangered in the workplace, you probably should not take the job anyway.

As a statistical measure, there will always be people at the margins who will never have the good fortune to be so selective with their work.

So, you are basically hinging civil liberties on economics.

Dr T
April 16, 2012, 12:40 AM
Unfortunately, most ethical decisions in business involve economic elements.

Also, you have no civil liberties in the workplace if you are not working for a governmental institution. Constitutional protections (except for the discrimination-related items) only extend to governmental actions.

Most employees in the U.S. are "at will." You can be fired at any time for any reason.

WinThePennant
April 16, 2012, 01:41 AM
Unfortunately, most ethical decisions in business involve economic elements.

Also, you have no civil liberties in the workplace if you are not working for a governmental institution. Constitutional protections (except for the discrimination-related items) only extend to governmental actions.

Most employees in the U.S. are "at will." You can be fired at any time for any reason.
And, this is PRECISELY why I loathe the corporation. Everything is subjugated to the profit motive of the corporation.

So, as a statistical measure, as the standard deviations increase and freedom is further subjugated to the extreme psychopathy of the corporation, you can expect greater numbers to join the disobedient crowd.

Lou McGopher
April 16, 2012, 11:24 AM
So: if what's legal or illegal has nothing to do with what's right or wrong, does this then mean that one might break the law (or an office policy) in order to do that which is right?

If the office rule somehow violated the morality of private property, yes. But as I've laid out earlier, setting rules for peaceful behavior wouldn't do that.

And, this is PRECISELY why I loathe the corporation. Everything is subjugated to the profit motive of the corporation.

Are the employees there out of a sense of charity?
No, they're there out of a motivation for profit as well.
The nature of the job is irrelevant here. The profit isn't relevant. The only thing relevant are the rights of those involved - on whose property does this take place, what have the parties contracted to do. Whether the employer is greedy and selfish, whether the workplace is safe or not - these are things to be considered before agreeing to do the job.

you can expect greater numbers to join the disobedient crowd.

How about getting a greater number of people to openly refuse to work at places that don't permit employees to carry firearms? Try encouraging the use of persuasion instead of dishonesty.

exavid
April 16, 2012, 01:24 PM
So okay, work for the USPS and carry to work. Good luck. Good luck getting others to risk their job standing up for you. I hate to be a wet blanket but the whole thread is becoming a bit ridiculous, it isn't philosophy it's real world. If you want to carry where it's against the rules be prepared to collect unemployment for awhile when you're eventually found out. Take the risk if you wish but don't whine if you pay the penalty.

Lou McGopher
April 16, 2012, 01:44 PM
A. You carry regardless of company policy and protect your life and maybe your co workers lives? The worst case scenario is you lose your job and you find another job.
B. You do not carry and you have peace of mind about abiding by company policy. Worst case scenario you or one of your co workers loses your life and you just can’t find another life.
Me I am taking option #A. You have to do what you feel is right for you.

If you're willing to accept getting fired because you violated company policy, why take the job (or stay there) in the first place? Instead of violating someone's private property and getting fired for bringing a gun to work, why not just work somewhere else that permits it? Is it going to be easier to find a new job after getting tossed for carrying a gun to the last one? Even if the new place is a gun-friendly establishment, how are they likely to view you for your cavalier attitude toward following agreed-upon rules... your shortcoming in integrity? Is it not wiser to get a more suitable job before you have that sort of black mark on your work history?


For those who will respect private property rights only when it is convenient for them, and view the question similar to this argument:

A concealed gun ... stays inside one's clothes, concealed. It has no impact on the company image as a uniform would. It does not create a workplace disruption as playing loud music or arguing with co-workers would. It is a completely private matter.

Suppose your company gave you a laptop to use that you took home on a daily basis. While your laptop was in your house, suppose they secretly activated its built-in webcam to record what you do and say, just to make sure you're not stealing from them or colluding with a competitor. Sure, they're recording what you do in the secrecy of your own property... but hey, it's not disruptive to you and has no impact on what you can do at home, and the company has a right to not be stolen from, and a right to have non-disclosure agreements kept. Maybe they even have a published policy of respecting employee privacy. But in the same way that you keep your gun hidden under your clothes in their building, or in your car in their parking lot, they keep their recording activities hidden in their computer in your house. Would you be okay with this? Would you be okay with them violating your property rights the way you think it's okay to violate their property rights?

Lou McGopher
April 16, 2012, 01:49 PM
it isn't philosophy it's real world.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you find it impossible to adhere to a property owner's rules? Is that the disconnection you're detecting between philosophy and reality? The philosophy describes something that cannot happen?

exavid
April 16, 2012, 02:02 PM
Nothing so complex. What I mean is that reality usually dictates one obeying the rules of one's employer while on the job. If one doesn't like the rules, go somewhere else and keep your integrit intact rather than sneaking a firearm
onto the employer's property.

brickeyee
April 16, 2012, 04:58 PM
So okay, work for the USPS and carry to work.

Apples and oranges.

There are federal laws about carrying on USPS property. it is not just 'company policy.'

hermannr
April 16, 2012, 05:16 PM
Again, if I accept the position knowing that carrying a firearm on the clock is verboten I am agreeing to be bound by that rule. If I don’t agree to be bound by that rule I don’t accept the position.

Is that really so hard to understand?
Just a couple statements from a retired employer. Most, if not all, companies will give you a paper that you sign that says you will be bound by their employee handbook. Then after you sign, they give you the handbook...

Guess what, you are not legally bound to the policies in that handbook unless they give it to you to review BEFORE you sign. You cannot agree to something you have not read, and anything that even smells like coercion on the part of Mr Big V Mr. Little is generally thrown out of court. Same goes for "revisions" to enployee policy handbooks.

If they want their handbook to be legally binding, you must read it FIRST before you sign the agreement to work for them. When you read the handbook and don't like something, you can run a single line through it, initial and date, have them initial and date the lineout, and it doesn't exist for you. You do this BEFORE you sign the employment agreement, but you do have to be confident enough to walk if they will not initial and date it.

ArfinGreebly
April 16, 2012, 07:20 PM
Suppose your company gave you a laptop to use that you took home on a daily basis. While your laptop was in your house, suppose they secretly activated its built-in webcam to record what you do and say, just to make sure you're not stealing from them or colluding with a competitor. Sure, they're recording what you do in the secrecy of your own property... but hey, it's not disruptive to you and has no impact on what you can do at home, and the company has a right to not be stolen from, and a right to have non-disclosure agreements kept. Maybe they even have a published policy of respecting employee privacy. But in the same way that you keep your gun hidden under your clothes in their building, or in your car in their parking lot, they keep their recording activities hidden in their computer in your house. Would you be okay with this? Would you be okay with them violating your property rights the way you think it's okay to violate their property rights?

Assumed similarities are not similar.

Carrying an item of personal property on the premises of another entity is not intrusive or invasive, and has no immediately implied harmful consequences.

Bugging or wiretapping someone's home, on the other hand, does.

If you want to propose similar violations, then the other side of bugging your bedroom would be your bugging of the company boardroom. Assume that this is possible without engaging in breaking & entering or theft. Assume, for example, that the electronic bug is embedded in some innocuous object commonly carried into the boardroom by meeting participants.

Now you have achieve comparable levels of invasion.

Since neither you nor the company has no intent to abuse the information thus obtained, no harm, no foul, right?

Unless, of course, the company has something to hide? Nah. That couldn't be. What could they possibly discuss in the boardroom that would be of interest to anyone else? After all, I never discuss anything, at all, ever, within the confines of my home that would be of interest to anyone else.


So, no, there is no valid comparison between my carrying a concealed pistol (or a concealed crucifix, or a concealed class ring, or a concealed thong) and the company's establishment of a spying outpost in my home.

I do believe, in fact, that such a company action qualifies as a genuine crime -- an actual act of aggression.

B!ngo
April 16, 2012, 07:48 PM
That's quite a list of challenges you have there. But it still doesn't work for me.
Here in Silicon Valley, there is a standing rule in most companies that if you are caught reading someone else's documents coming off of the shared (i.e. in the hallway) printer, you will be fired. Seen people ushered out a few times for that one. And I support those rules for the sake of privacy.
So by your rules, these people could read all they want so long as they don't get caught, but be willing to leave without argument if they got caught. Violating someone's privacy is OK so long as they don't get caught?
Nope, I stand by the model that if you don't like the rules either get them changed (and while you are trying, alter your behavior), or leave.
And re the OP? Ditto.
Sorry.

Do what you feel is best for you, so long as you are aware of the possible consequences, and accept them.

The company's first allegiance is to itself. It makes those policies out of self-interest. Whether insurance costs will be too high, bad PR for a shooting on site, guns in the hands of employees clashing with their public image, etc. A "no guns" policy makes one point very clear: "We, the company, hold our own interests above all else, including your life".

That's fine. They can choose to act that way if they wish. You have a few options in response with corresponding outcomes for you.

-Don't accept the job. You don't get paid, but you also assume no risk of getting fire or prosecuted.

-Accept the job and don't carry. You do get paid but you place your own life in the hands of whoever may seek to take it.

-Accept the job and carry anyways. You get paid, get a better chance to preserve your own life if the need arises, but you take upon you the risk of getting fired or prosecuted legally if you are caught or involved in a shooting.

I don't care which one you pick, just accept the full outcome of your choice. I will not tell someone "a pledge to follow company policy is worth more than your life". A rule has not yet been written that I would value following over keeping myself alive, and I won't begrudge anyone for thinking the same. The day may come where you get found out, fired or even prosecuted. But you'll be alive.

Ragnar Danneskjold
April 16, 2012, 07:50 PM
When lives are on the line? Yes.

Neverwinter
April 16, 2012, 08:27 PM
Here in Silicon Valley, there is a standing rule in most companies that if you are caught reading someone else's documents coming off of the shared (i.e. in the hallway) printer, you will be fired. Seen people ushered out a few times for that one. And I support those rules for the sake of privacy.
So by your rules, these people could read all they want so long as they don't get caught, but be willing to leave without argument if they got caught. Violating someone's privacy is OK so long as they don't get caught?

Violating someone's privacy is okay as long as you are the property owner of the location where the privacy violation occurs. The primacy of property rights subjugates the individual rights of the serfs.

Sent using Tapatalk 2

exavid
April 16, 2012, 08:34 PM
Apples and oranges.

There are federal laws about carrying on USPS property. it is not just 'company policy.'
Morally it's the same, just different penalties, larger risk to the offender.

Lou McGopher
April 16, 2012, 08:47 PM
Carrying an item of personal property on the premises of another entity is not intrusive or invasive, and has no immediately implied harmful consequences.

Then a person possessing male anatomy entering a room designated for females only would not be intruding because his anatomy is concealed, right?

A property owner says that no persons carrying guns are permitted, and someone carrying a gun enters the property, that is a perfect example of an intrusion. It's an intrusion regardless of what is stipulated for admittance to the property. It doesn't matter if the stipulation is no guns, no outside food or beverages, no cameras, no Democrats, no rednecks, no guests, etc. It's the use of someone's property against their wishes. Concealing the wrongdoing doesn't make it any less wrong. Why would it? This is the point of my scenario. The wrongfulness is in the action, not in the knowledge of it.

Lou McGopher
April 16, 2012, 08:50 PM
When lives are on the line? Yes.

That is a risk explicitly agreed to by entering a place with an explicit prohibition on firearms.

Ragnar Danneskjold
April 16, 2012, 08:50 PM
That is a risk explicitly agreed to by entering a place with an explicit prohibition on firearms.

No. It's not.

mljdeckard
April 16, 2012, 08:52 PM
I THINK, the only absolute way to retain all control of who and what comes and goes onto your property is to close access to it entirely. You have the right to keep people off of it. It's yours. When you open it to let people come onto it for one reason or another, you are going to overlap into THEIR rights. When you have a business that is open to the public, certainly it will be compromised further.

Neverwinter
April 16, 2012, 10:00 PM
Then a person possessing male anatomy entering a room designated for females only would not be intruding because his anatomy is concealed, right?No, because women can have male anatomy and enter the women's bathroom.

A property owner says that no persons carrying guns are permitted, and someone carrying a gun enters the property, that is a perfect example of an intrusion. It's an intrusion regardless of what is stipulated for admittance to the property.
That falls apart when taking into account how admissible the specified restrictions are to the level of access provided to others. There isn't anyone here proposing that a location restricted to private membership can't have those conditions as a requirement for membership. The discussion is for facilities open to the public making restrictions on admission which society has consensually accepted as deleterious. If I were to find the situation of my locale disagreeable then I would just have to kick myself for getting into a situation where I had no other options for property ownership and had become solely dependent on it.

Sent using Tapatalk 2

WinThePennant
April 16, 2012, 11:05 PM
Violating someone's privacy is okay as long as you are the property owner of the location where the privacy violation occurs. The primacy of property rights subjugates the individual rights of the serfs.

Sent using Tapatalk 2
This is manifestly UNTRUE.

A perfect example is that it's against the law to place surveillance cameras inside restrooms.

Lou McGopher
April 17, 2012, 12:45 AM
Violating someone's privacy is okay as long as you are the property owner of the location where the privacy violation occurs.

It's not a violation if the guest has to agree to forgo privacy as condition of admittance. The guest or employee isn't a serf. They aren't forced to be there in the first place, let alone continue coming back on a regular basis.

No. It's not.

Yes, it is. If your employer sets a rule as a condition of your employment, and you work there knowing what the rule is, you have agreed to follow that rule. Ask your employer if they think you agreed to that rule, and if agreeing to that rule is a condition of employment. Then explain you haven't been following that rule and plan to continue working there anyway. You should find out pretty quick whether you've agreed to accept the risk associated with being unarmed as a condition of employment. Going armed to a job where it's prohibited is not an act of having never agreed - it's breaking that agreement.

When you have a business that is open to the public
The discussion is for facilities open to the public making restrictions on admission which society has consensually accepted as deleterious.

The facilities aren't open to the public, if "the public" means any ol' person... They're open to specific people - those who aren't carrying firearms (or whatever the criteria may be).
And "society" is a non-entity. It cannot think or do anything.

Ragnar Danneskjold
April 17, 2012, 12:51 AM
Yes, it is. If your employer sets a rule as a condition of your employment, and you work there knowing what the rule is, you have agreed to follow that rule. Ask your employer if they think you agreed to that rule, and if agreeing to that rule is a condition of employment. Then explain you haven't been following that rule and plan to continue working there anyway. You should find out pretty quick whether you've agreed to accept the risk associated with being unarmed as a condition of employment. Going armed to a job where it's prohibited is not an act of having never agreed - it's breaking that agreement.

Yep. And you're still missing my point.


I don't care.


If the employer does not care about allowing me to keep myself alive, I don't care about his handbook, his rules, the agreement, or the paper it's printed on. Disregard my safety, I disregard you in return.

Go ahead and fire me when you find out. That's your right, and I fully expect and accept it. But I still don't care about offending someone if they don't care about my safety.

Mikhail Weiss
April 17, 2012, 12:51 AM
So okay, work for the USPS and carry to work. Good luck...

Interesting that you should bring this up.

I used to do business with folks at a post office in Edmond, Oklahoma. On August 20, 1986, Patrick Sherrill killed 14 of them. I still do business at that post office, but not with those people. Here's why: they're dead.

It seems absurd that in the land of the second amendment, none of those peaceful 14 were permitted to carry. At the time there was no concealed carry law in Oklahoma, and carry in a post office was then, and remains today, illegal.

Yet if only one of the victims had been armed, the outcome may have been different that day.

Simple lesson:

It is your moral duty to look out for yourself. No one else will do it for you. Those who would make you vulnerable in the face of danger are little better than those who perpetrate that danger.

Violating a stated policy doesn't require others to risk their jobs standing up for another, and remains merely a personal decision on a matter of importance.

So, in the real world, some who violate such policies will be discovered and fired. Some will never be discovered. And some who abide by such policies will be murdered.

As mentioned, the decision concerning how to respond to such policies remains a personal one.

mljdeckard
April 17, 2012, 12:55 AM
genuisiknowit is insisting that there is no overlap of rights when one person goes onto another person's property. It simply cannot be that way.

Ragnar Danneskjold
April 17, 2012, 12:55 AM
Those who would make you vulnerable in the face of danger are little better than those who perpetrate that danger.

This. And as such, they warrant absolutely zero respect from me or anyone else. They are not thinking of me, the employee, as a person. They are thinking of me as a cog in their machine, to be used and manipulated to lower their bottom line. My life is worth less than the price they pay the insurance company. Ok. Got it.

Use me, I'll use you right back. I'll work the job because I want the paycheck, but that's it. The element of respect between employee and employer has already been thrown out the window. They destroyed that when they gambled my life for a low insurance premium. Now all we have is them using me, and me using them in return. That's the paradigm they set, and that's the paradigm I'll work under.

Neverwinter
April 17, 2012, 01:02 AM
It's not a violation if the guest has to agree to forgo privacy as condition of admittance. The guest or employee isn't a serf. They aren't forced to be there in the first place, let alone continue coming back on a regular basis.
They're forced to go somewhere on a regular basis, unless they find that the feudalistic system doesn't accept them. At which point their either starve, or others pay for the negative externalities caused by that system.

The facilities aren't open to the public, if "the public" means any ol' person... They're open to specific people - those who aren't carrying firearms (or whatever the criteria may be).
Public means facilities other than private clubs and other establishments not actually open to the general public.

And "society" is a non-entity. It cannot think or do anything.
Society is as much of an entity as any other corporation in representing the interests of more than one person.

Lou McGopher
April 29, 2012, 04:33 AM
Yep. And you're still missing my point. I don't care. If the employer does not care about allowing me to keep myself alive, I don't care about his handbook, his rules, the agreement, or the paper it's printed on. Disregard my safety, I disregard you in return. Go ahead and fire me when you find out. That's your right, and I fully expect and accept it.
No, I get that. I also get that the person willing to hurt you to get what he wants is using the exact same thought process. I don't care if it's wrong. I'm going to do it anyway. But why do you not respect their rights until you get fired? Why not just maintain your disregard for their rights and say, "Whatever. I'm going to keep working here anyway." You can't keep yourself alive if you don't eat, right? Let them fire you. Just continue showing up, working, and taking money for it at the end of every week.

genuisiknowit is insisting that there is no overlap of rights when one person goes onto another person's property. It simply cannot be that way.
I've explained both how (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=8091686&postcount=87) and why (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=8095096&postcount=128). If you perceive a conflict in rights, you've mistakenly identified an aggressor as someone exercising rights. It's a contradiction of terms to say that there can be a conflict of rights. You can have conflicting desires, but desires are not rights. Rights are the logical resolution of conflict.

What else could they be? I would very much like to hear a valid explanation for what a right actually is, if not what I've described.

They destroyed that when they gambled my life for a low insurance premium.
Do you always buy the safest car on the market regardless of cost, and spend 100% of your life within the safest neighborhood in the world regardless of cost? Or do you, like the company, sometimes make trade-offs for lower costs? Ever drive over the speed limit even though it increases the risk you pose to other drivers? The fact is that the company hasn't disregarded your safety. On the contrary, they warned you beforehand about the risk. You knew and understood this. Why bother trying to rationalize your decision to act out of a sense of resentment and do something you've already admitted you don't have the right to do?

They're forced to go somewhere on a regular basis, unless they find that the feudalistic system doesn't accept them.
We're not talking about prisoners here. The fact that nature "forces" you to meet your basic survival needs will remain unchanged under any political or economic organization. The fact that the resources available to meet those needs are finite means they have to be allocated somehow. Regardless of the political or economic organization, at some point in time a resource must be controlled exclusively by someone. That doesn't mean the person who is in exclusive control of the resource is forcing those not in control of the resource to do anything.

negative externalities

I've been implicitly discussing these in almost every post I made in here.
Negative externalities = Violating someone else's property rights. Taking a firearm onto private property where it's prohibited creates a negative externality.

Public means facilities other than private clubs and other establishments not actually open to the general public.

If admittance is conditional, then they're not open to the "general" public, are they?

Society is as much of an entity as any other corporation in representing the interests of more than one person.

It's not an entity. Nor is a corporation. But a corporation refers to specific people (the owners) who have rights - and it's those people whose rights are violated when you trespass. Society refers to no one at all. Society is simply a term for the interactions of people.

Neverwinter
April 29, 2012, 11:44 AM
No, I get that. I also get that the person willing to hurt you to get what he wants is using the exact same thought process. I don't care if it's wrong. I'm going to do it anyway.
You're conflating following the rule of law as consented to by the governed with the rule of the property owner.

We're not talking about prisoners here. The fact that nature "forces" you to meet your basic survival needs will remain unchanged under any political or economic organization. The fact that the resources available to meet those needs are finite means they have to be allocated somehow. Regardless of the political or economic organization, at some point in time a resource must be controlled exclusively by someone. That doesn't mean the person who is in exclusive control of the resource is forcing those not in control of the resource to do anything.
We're talking about the exclusion of choice by people who have to obtain the resources to live. That choice remains if there is a minority who have that restriction, then there isn't an issue because they can make that choice to go somewhere else to make their livelihood. When it becomes a significant majority or totality, then that choice is taken away and leads to the following.

I've been implicitly discussing these in almost every post I made in here.
Negative externalities = Violating someone else's property rights. Taking a firearm onto private property where it's prohibited creates a negative externality.
That is a misuse of negative externality. There is a cost to keeping someone alive, and the government is paying it at the expense of society in the example by increasing the deficit.

If admittance is conditional, then they're not open to the "general" public, are they?Conditional admittance as decided by your posts makes the word "public" take on a definition that conflicts with the current understanding of the word, making things that people agree on as being public no longer public.

It's not an entity. Nor is a corporation. But a corporation refers to specific people (the owners) who have rights - and it's those people whose rights are violated when you trespass. Society refers to no one at all. Society is simply a term for the interactions of people.Society includes the people with their interactions. If that amalgamation of people have decided that there are limitations on the behavior of businesses that operate with them, much like the owners of a business can decide to place limitations on the people who visit them, they can choose not to do business in that society.

Lou McGopher
April 29, 2012, 06:26 PM
You're conflating following the rule of law as consented to by the governed with the rule of the property owner.
I've been discussing the rights of the property owner this entire time. The government's law is not relevant to the question of what's good or bad in principle, as it is derived from fiat rather than from a systematic application of rights.

We're talking about the exclusion of choice by people who have to obtain the resources to live.
The employers who prohibit firearms on their property aren't excluding others from any choice. There's no choice in the first place until the would-be employer offers that job.

That is a misuse of negative externality.

That's the only definition of externality that makes sense. Value is subjective. Whether the result of something is good or bad is dependent upon the opinions of the person who owns the property being affected. If the state, through some sort of social program, imposes a cost upon taxpayers allegedly in response to the actions of some business(es), it's not the business(es) imposing that negative externaltity on the taxpayers - it's the state.

Conditional admittance as decided by your posts makes the word "public" take on a definition that conflicts with the current understanding of the word, making things that people agree on as being public no longer public.

The problem stems from your confusion of what is public and what is private. In regards to the rights of the owner, a business or place of work is inherently no less private than a home.

If that amalgamation of people have decided
Only individuals can make decisions. They may or may not come to the same decision, but it's still individuals doing the deciding.
For example, if the majority of a population decide that guns should be banned, the decision isn't somehow more correct; it doesn't create some new higher-order decision that is born from the multitude of individual decisions. The actions and values of people do not exist in definable, discreet units than can be mathematically combined. There's no way to add together all the decisions for and against it and arrive a sum total decision that is still representative of those who were presented with the choice. It's still just individuals each making the individual decision to participate in the oppression of people who have each decided something else. There's no such thing as the will of the people, no such thing as society deciding or choosing to do something.

they can choose not to do business in that society.
Nobody has the right to coercively regulate the way that a person may peacefully use their own property. That is as true for those who want to have guns on their own property as it is for those who don't want them on their own property.

we are not amused
April 30, 2012, 01:28 AM
Just a little advice people;Don't feed the trolls!

That said, If you, as a condition of employment, agree to your employers no gun policy, then you violate that policy at your peril. If he catches you carrying, your may be fired, no ifs, thans or butts.

On the other hand it is called "concealed carry" for a reason.

Your choice. :)

Neverwinter
April 30, 2012, 11:26 PM
I've been discussing the rights of the property owner this entire time. The government's law is not relevant to the question of what's good or bad in principle, as it is derived from fiat rather than from a systematic application of rights.The government's law is no more fiat than the decisions of property owners unless you are willing to discount the understanding of post-Enlightenment democratic government.

The employers who prohibit firearms on their property aren't excluding others from any choice. There's no choice in the first place until the would-be employer offers that job.And likewise if the government places restrictions on the jobs they do offer. They don't have to comply with those regulations if they don't offer the job.

That's the only definition of externality that makes sense. Value is subjective. Whether the result of something is good or bad is dependent upon the opinions of the person who owns the property being affected. If the state, through some sort of social program, imposes a cost upon taxpayers allegedly in response to the actions of some business(es), it's not the business(es) imposing that negative externaltity on the taxpayers - it's the state.Value is subjective, but it is based on quantifiable characteristics, whether it's the pollutive effects of waste dumping or the depletive effect of overfarming.

The problem stems from your confusion of what is public and what is private. In regards to the rights of the owner, a business or place of work is inherently no less private than a home.There's not much that can be said if the argument consists of the concept that a public and private space are to be treated similarly despite being significantly different in their use.

Only individuals can make decisions. They may or may not come to the same decision, but it's still individuals doing the deciding.
For example, if the majority of a population decide that guns should be banned, the decision isn't somehow more correct; it doesn't create some new higher-order decision that is born from the multitude of individual decisions. The actions and values of people do not exist in definable, discreet units than can be mathematically combined. There's no way to add together all the decisions for and against it and arrive a sum total decision that is still representative of those who were presented with the choice. It's still just individuals each making the individual decision to participate in the oppression of people who have each decided something else. There's no such thing as the will of the people, no such thing as society deciding or choosing to do something.This is not a sustainable model for a democracy or other incorporated assemblies of any meaningful size. With every additional person, you geometrically devalue the decisions of all the other stakeholders.

Nobody has the right to coercively regulate the way that a person may peacefully use their own property. That is as true for those who want to have guns on their own property as it is for those who don't want them on their own property.No one has the right to use their own property in a way which encroaches with another's peaceful use of their own property. It would not be okay for a person to pollute the portion of the water table which is on their property.

Lou McGopher
May 1, 2012, 10:50 AM
unless you are willing to discount the understanding of post-Enlightenment democratic government.

I threw that out back in posts #113 and 123. Social Contract theory is old and busted (http://praxeology.net/LS-NT-6.htm), and what's more, it's at the heart of every argument for increased gun control. A person has the right to defend and peacefully control what's theirs no matter how those around them feel about it.

And likewise if the government places restrictions on the jobs they do offer. They don't have to comply with those regulations if they don't offer the job.

You may have overlooked much of what I've written. I've been explaining how nobody, not even those in the government have a right to do such a thing, whether it's regulating a person's ownership or carrying of firearms, or who they let into their place of business.

Value is subjective, but it is based on quantifiable characteristics, whether it's the pollutive effects of waste dumping or the depletive effect of overfarming.

People can value things for reasons they cannot quantify (e.g. I'd rather have an autographed album from John Lee Hooker than from Justin Bieber, though there's no way to quantify that), but that's beside the point. Whether something constitutes pollution or improvement depends upon the valuations of the person whose property is being modified.

if the argument consists of the concept that a public and private space are to be treated similarly despite being significantly different in their use.

The rights of the property owner are dependent upon the link between the owner and the property, not the manner in which property is used (again, so long as that use is peaceful).

This is not a sustainable model for a democracy or other incorporated assemblies of any meaningful size.

Corporations, clubs, etc, are joined voluntarily. However such organizations make decisions, that decision is representative of those who choose to remain a part of that organization and adhere to the decisions, even if they would prefer different decisions were made. It is not accurate to say the same about vaguely defined groups such "society," nor groups with coerced membership such as the state.

It would not be okay for a person to pollute the portion of the water table which is on their property.

If, hypothetically, they could keep that chemical or whatever strictly within their own portion of the water table, yes it would be okay. If it seeped onto the property of someone else, then no, it's not okay. The problem isn't what changes they make to their own property, the problem is the unauthorized changes they make to the property of someone else.

Certaindeaf
May 1, 2012, 11:21 AM
I wonder how many in this thread are violating company policy WRT internet usage.

Neverwinter
May 9, 2012, 12:34 AM
I threw that out back in posts #113 and 123.These are the same posts in which you make statements regarding one corporation contradictory to the ones being made regarding another corporation.

You may have overlooked much of what I've written. I've been explaining how nobody, not even those in the government have a right to do such a thing, whether it's regulating a person's ownership or carrying of firearms, or who they let into their place of business.And yet that's exactly what your framework allows: businesses to regulate the right to keep and bear arms, where one cannot even walk down the street because public property is illegitimate and the sidewalk belongs to the nearby property owner who can ban the carrying of arms.

People can value things for reasons they cannot quantify (e.g. I'd rather have an autographed album from John Lee Hooker than from Justin Bieber, though there's no way to quantify that), but that's beside the point. Whether something constitutes pollution or improvement depends upon the valuations of the person whose property is being modified.
The degree of the valuation is there, but there are quantifiable differences between a Bieber and Hooker album. Just ask anyone educated in music.

The rights of the property owner are dependent upon the link between the owner and the property, not the manner in which property is used (again, so long as that use is peaceful).If this were true, your peaceful spy camera example could not be prohibited. The arbitrary delineation of peaceful instead of non-infringing is at least consistent with the spy camera example.

Corporations, clubs, etc, are joined voluntarily. However such organizations make decisions, that decision is representative of those who choose to remain a part of that organization and adhere to the decisions, even if they would prefer different decisions were made. It is not accurate to say the same about vaguely defined groups such "society," nor groups with coerced membership such as the state.Membership in your current state is no more coercive than presence at a place of business. Barring an emigration prohibition, you are free to leave and find a different one just like you mention a worker in post 123 being able to move as necessary to secure their rights.

If, hypothetically, they could keep that chemical or whatever strictly within their own portion of the water table, yes it would be okay. If it seeped onto the property of someone else, then no, it's not okay. The problem isn't what changes they make to their own property, the problem is the unauthorized changes they make to the property of someone else.Property like another's personage.

kb58
May 9, 2012, 10:58 AM
I wonder how many in this thread are violating company policy WRT internet usage.

The secret appears to be to not care...

Lou McGopher
May 9, 2012, 11:02 AM
These are the same posts in which you make statements regarding one corporation contradictory to the ones being made regarding another corporation.

The only contradiction is with your assumptions.

And yet that's exactly what your framework allows: businesses to regulate the right to keep and bear arms

Only on their own property.

and the sidewalk belongs to the nearby property owner who can ban the carrying of arms.

The difference being that the owner of that portion of the street would have a legitimate right for doing so, and you would also have the legitimate right to build your own street right next to it to permit people to carry their guns. Compare that to the current situation where 95% of the world that prohibits you from carrying your gun down the street, and you're always a few shooting sprees away from having people living hundreds of miles away from you voting to prohibit you from having guns at all.

The degree of the valuation is there, but there are quantifiable differences between a Bieber and Hooker album. Just ask anyone educated in music.

If you can quantify it, then you must have a unit for measuring it, just like you can use joules to quantify bullet energy, or fps to quantify bullet velocity. Tell me, what unit do you use to quantify measurments of the value of a piece of music?
Remember that we're talking about how people value things, in particular, one possibility for using a piece property versus another possible use. How do you quantitatively measure the property owner's beliefs about those possible uses?

If this were true, your peaceful spy camera example could not be prohibited.

The morality of the camera depends upon its location and the agreements (whether explicit or implicit) made regarding the use of that location.

Membership in your current state is no more coercive than presence at a place of business.

It's coercive in exactly the same way it would be if mafiosi from your city showed up, claimed they owned you and your property, started making rules for how you could act and use that property, and claimed you owed them protection money because they don't want bad things to happen to you. Neither the mafia nor anyone else have any right to do such a thing, so there's no onus on you to move away in order to exercise your rights on your property.

Ragnar Danneskjold
May 9, 2012, 12:20 PM
I wonder how many in this thread are violating company policy WRT internet usage.

THAT is a great point. We'll never know how many people who have posted on this thread did so from work, or whether their particular employer disallows using work computers for personal entertainment. But I would bet it's not a small number. Or people who just post on THR in general.

But the point remains. If using a work computer for personal entertainment is not allowed by your boss, and you want to do it, according to some in this thread, you should quit rather than spend 30 seconds checking your email or a few minutes posting on THR. Of course people don't quit over this. Nor will they likely be fired. The risk of getting caught is low, and the punishment for doing so, at least a first offence, is probably a taking to and that's it. And so people post on THR from work, knowing they're not supposed to. That decide "I want to ______ more than I want to follow company policy, so I'm going to _______ anyways even though it's prohibited".

Is that wrong if the ______ is carry a gun? Yep. Is it wrong if it's checking your personal email? Also yes. But each person decides on his own what they want to do. Some will break policy to defend their very lives. Some will break it to stay entertained. I personally don't care. That's the game you play. Get caught, suffer the consequence. Don't get caught, reap the rewards.

If you enjoyed reading about "Violating company policy WRT to firearms" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!