Intentionally Deceptive?


PDA






Hawkmoon
July 30, 2004, 10:19 PM
You be the judge.

I accepted a part-time job at a Barnes & Noble book store, and began training this week. On Day 1 they have you read and sign a copy of the personnel manual. With a clear recollection of the recent incident at the Barnes & Noble bookstore in New Hampshire, I looked at every page for a rule saying "No guns." To my surprise, I did NOT find any such rule. Until ...

Buried at the very back of the book is a section on infractions which may result in immediate termination. Mid-way down that list is "Possession of a firearms, explosives, or other deadly weapon on company property." There is a clause which I don't remember verbatim, to the effect that this applies irrespective of any state laws to the contrary. (In other words, Constitutional rights be damned.)

Nowhere else does it say that firearms are prohibited, This got me to wondering if they are trying to sit on both sides of the fence. There is no rule saying you can't carry, but there is a rule saying that if you are carrying you can be fired. Catch-22? Once I shined up my tin foil hat, I began to think that maybe they are trying to encourage CCW holders to carry, while at the same time retain language that allows them to cover their corporate butt.

What do you think?

If you enjoyed reading about "Intentionally Deceptive?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Barbara
July 30, 2004, 10:23 PM
Standard.

Marko Kloos
July 30, 2004, 10:26 PM
(In other words, Constitutional rights be damned.)

Constitutional rights do not exist on private property.

If you do not like their anti-gun policy, you have the choice not to work for them.

As much as I dislike corporations that are anti-gun, it's their turf and their rules.

manwithoutahome
July 30, 2004, 10:35 PM
Carry anyway if you wish.

My "company" has the same "standard" deal. I didn't sign the letter so as far as I am concerned, it doesn't apply to me. Yet, they can still fire me for it. I'm not the only one with a gun on trust property, a few others have them also.

It's a job, that's it. If you can't afford to live without it then you put yourself in that situation (and before I get bashed, I am in that situation also, because I put myself there, not anyone or anything else). Yet, if they fired me for doing so (carrying) then so be it.

What the funny thing is that I work for a Union, which is pro-democrat, but more of all the members are into guns. That, I don't understand.

Wayne

Standing Wolf
July 30, 2004, 10:43 PM
Constitutional rights do not exist on private property.

Barnes & Noble is open to the public. It can't prohibit blacks from shopping, or Jews, or homosexuals, or American citizens who choose to exercise our Second Amendment civil rights. One's home is private property. One's business—if it's open to the public—is private property that's publicly accessible, and so ought to be accessible by one and all.

As for employment, I've always figured jobs are easier to replace than lives, although I've to admit I've never tried to replace my life.

Das Pferd
July 30, 2004, 10:45 PM
What the funny thing is that I work for a Union, which is pro-democrat, but more of all the members are into guns. That, I don't understand.

People will do anything for money, inlcuding overlooking thier beliefs.

Why do you still belong to the union if they are obviously anti when they support democrats?

rock jock
July 30, 2004, 10:47 PM
Unfortunately, it is not always clear cut. For some people, carrying would run the risk of not only losing their job, but their profession as well.

manwithoutahome
July 30, 2004, 11:04 PM
Das Pferd,

I said I worked for them, I didn't say that I was a member ;).

Wayne

SMMAssociates
July 31, 2004, 12:07 AM
Standing Wolf:

>>Barnes & Noble is open to the public. It can't prohibit blacks from shopping, or Jews, or homosexuals, or American citizens who choose to exercise our Second Amendment civil rights. One's home is private property. One's business—if it's open to the public—is private property that's publicly accessible, and so ought to be accessible by one and all.

Agreed, but in OH and some other states, the business and/or the property owner can post a CPZ and you're cooked....

>>As for employment, I've always figured jobs are easier to replace than lives, although I've to admit I've never tried to replace my life.

Both can be a bummer, but the former is a tad easier. Unless you're into reincarnation. This is probably hell anyway. How else can you explain Clinton and Kerry?

(Bet you haven't guessed my choice yet....)

Hm.... Just ruminating on the "wolf" thing.... A friend of mine runs a nice little range. He's got a BIG dog. And a sign: "Forget the dog, the owner is armed."

After all of the above, there are only a tiny percentage of jobs (places where you may have to change "in public" in a locker room, perhaps, and places with some odd dress codes or dress requirements) where you can't "deep carry" if you've a mind to. As long as you don't have to go through a metal detector....

(And, if you do, and the place is reasonably sterile, I guess you could leave it in the car. But there are exceptions. I had to apply for my CHL at the Columbiana County OH Sheriff's Office in the Courthouse. One main entrance, with armed security and a metal detector. Two BG's could run through it in seconds and probably get anywhere in the building. Meantime, "trusted" folks can enter at a half-dozen other places - very old building. Sterile? Right....)

(Why write a quick note when you can write a novel?)

Hawkmoon
July 31, 2004, 12:10 PM
Constitutional rights do not exist on private property.

If you do not like their anti-gun policy, you have the choice not to work for them.

As much as I dislike corporations that are anti-gun, it's their turf and their rules.
Of course Constitutional rights exist on private property. The problem is that they require employees to sign a document agreeing to waive their legal and Constitutional rights. My question was to ask if anyone else sees the way this statement is worded as being two-faced.

I fully understand that if I do not like the policy I do not have to work for them. I will be delivering my resignation to the manager this afternoon or tomorrow, explaining EXACTLY why I cannot work for them.

Carlos
July 31, 2004, 12:23 PM
Constitutional rights do not exist on private property.

Where did you go to law school? That’s nonsense, dude. Yes, they have a right to restrictions when people are on their property, but they’re not beyond the law.

B&N gets somebody to sign a policy manual, well that’s basically a contract situation - the company’s easy way of enforcing bad policy. Bamm, you signed contract, breached it, you’re fired. Buh bye, end of story.

I don’t have to shop there, and won’t. Seems like all the gun boards have trained me to fight back from the wallet.

I appreciate that indoctrination. Let’s hope these companies eventually get it.

deanf
July 31, 2004, 09:09 PM
There is no rule saying you can't carry, but there is a rule saying that if you are carrying you can be fired.

Uh, the rule saying you'll be fired for carrying is the rule against carrying.

It's not so much that constitutional rights don't exist on private property. It's that the Constitution was written to restrict the actions of government. The Constitution doesn't restrict the actions of the private individual or corporation.

And what's the difference between Civil Rights and Constitutional Rights? I'm not sure myself, but I think it goes something like this: Civil rights are those memorialized in some sort of legislation. "Thou shalt not discriminate in employment based on race." That's not in the Constitution. It took a legislative act to make it so. Constitutional rights are those memorialized in the Constitution. "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury . . ."

Standing Wolf
July 31, 2004, 09:35 PM
(Why write a quick note when you can write a novel?)

One of the reasons most of my posts are short is that I'm working on the Great American Novel. It's now in draught five. It's the most hellaciously difficult, demanding work I've ever done. I wouldn't wish the inspiration to write on anybody.

SUE ROVR
August 1, 2004, 04:28 AM
At least based on current law, CCW is being treated as a privilege, until it is treated correctly as a right you will have to put up with the crap.

c_yeager
August 1, 2004, 05:46 AM
Barnes & Noble is open to the public. It can't prohibit blacks from shopping, or Jews, or homosexuals, or American citizens who choose to exercise our Second Amendment civil rights. One's home is private property. One's business—if it's open to the public—is private property that's publicly accessible, and so ought to be accessible by one and all.

The difference is that i can step out to the trunk of my car for 5 minutes and cease to be carrying a firearm. I cannot however perform the same action and stop being black or Jewish.

In other words publically accessable private property has to be AVAILABLE to all people if the meet the restrictions put in place by the property owner. Those restrictions cannot prohibit entrance to a person based on WHO THEY ARE but, they can restrict a person based on the choices that person has made (i.e. convicted fellons, persons who have stolen from the property in the past, persons who have proven themselves to be a jerk etc.) and they can further restrict the items that people are allowed to bring into their property (ex: outside food in movie theaters OR firearms).

You have a right to keep and bear arms. And a property owner has a right to make the rules that apply to their property.

4v50 Gary
August 1, 2004, 10:55 AM
It's hardly doublespeak. It's company policy that you can't bring a firearm onto the premises.

SMMAssociates
August 1, 2004, 03:02 PM
Yeager's correct about the "choices" versus "heredity" comment - you can't stop being Black or Jewish just to go into B&N.

However (at least in OH if you believe the material on OFCC's site), denying me the _right_ to protect myself leaves B&N open for all kinds of grief should something happen.

I believe that the _right_ to self-defense is inherent.... Me and the State don't quite agree on the means.... The OH paperwork calls it a "privilege". I don't agree....

But, with the exception of some places you kind of "must" go - hospitals being about the silliest if you've ever been to the ones around here, as well as things like Turnpike Service Plazas and highway Rest Areas, you generally can vote with your feet and/or wallet and avoid the CPZ's.

That these idiots don't realize that posting a CPZ is an invitation to criminals and a snub to LAC's may eventually catch up to them. ("Mr. LAC: Even if you don't believe in Concealed Carry, even if you believe that nobody on earth should own handguns, you should realize that we prefer to have criminals patronize us rather than people who are law abiding, because we prefer to keep a large class of law abiding citizens out of our facility.") (Or something like that....)

As left-wing as it sounds, I don't object to being asked to demonstrate my proficiency and knowledge to acquire a CHL, just as I didn't mind doing the same for my OL, but I must demand that the standards be uniform and reasonable. When you look at the yahoos who seem to have OL's, it kind of makes you wonder about the "reasonable" part, but that's another argument.

OH's training requirement is barely better than "don't shoot the guy beside you", although the other parts of the classroom session do a fairly good job of covering the pertinent issues of where/when to shoot, how to disengage, etc. But, for 150 years, we've been carrying on a "go buy it and carry it if you feel the need" basis, and if you leave out problems in bars, we don't have "firearms making criminals". We have "criminals using firearms." Big difference.... With CHL's and some kind of proficiency testing, this should improve. (Don't waste your time collecting sponges for the bloodbath. Ain't gonna happen....)

(Bars - IMHO, if you drink more than a beer or two while carrying, Darwin will get you if the LEO community doesn't. OTOH, there's no reason to not carry in a restaurant that "serves".)

Wolf: I appreciate your "problem" writing.... Part of my checkered past is as a Technical Writer.... I'm a Computer Consultant and sometimes rent-a-cop. When I write software, my clients usually ask for manuals. Novels require "inspiration" and a good deal of research, but you can kind of wiggle around facts a bit. Software manuals can be funny, but need to be factually accurate. I think I'll stick to the software....

(I'm not complaining.... Most of my users can read....)

Chris Rhines
August 1, 2004, 06:19 PM
In a society that actually recognized property rights, Barnes and Noble would be perfectly free to deny service (or entry) to gun owners, blacks, jews, women, redheads, tall people, or anyone else they please. Private company, private store, so they get to set their own rules.

Since this society does not, in general, recognize property rights, B&N doesn't get to do that (at least not openly.) As such, B&N should be legally obligated to permit concealed carry on their- excuse me, on the state's property. *shrug* Guess that gun owners haven't been oppressed enough...

Am I too bitter?

- Chris

Hawkmoon
August 1, 2004, 08:19 PM
No signs posted. This isn't about denying service or entry to any class of customer. This is about the way their personnel manual phrased the prohibition against employees possessing firearms on company property.

It leaves open the issue of what might happen should I work in one store and follow their rule, but go into another B&N store as a customer and be found carrying. Does the prohibition apply only when I am on duty, or does it affect me 24/7 at every B&N property in the country as long as I am on the payroll?

I'll not be finding out.

mountainclmbr
August 1, 2004, 09:16 PM
Please go ply your trade at Barnes and Noble book stores. You have decreased chances of being shot. The people there have voluntarily or involuntarilary asked for it so you don't need to question heaven/hell judgements ( I made myself into a sheep and then the wolves ate me, isn't this just Darwinism?). Most importantly, I won't be there!!!

Gifted
August 1, 2004, 09:52 PM
One of the reasons most of my posts are short is that I'm working on the Great American Novel. It's now in draught five. It's the most hellaciously difficult, demanding work I've ever done. I wouldn't wish the inspiration to write on anybody. Write sci-fi and fantasy. It's more fun.

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