I’m not going to respond to everything, but I will say that I agree with the judge’s ruling (although not necessarily his reasoning).
Joshua said:
I view residences and businesses to be different. I have no trouble if someone says "no guns in this house" because probably less than 4 people go in and out all day. But a business, where you're talking hundreds of random people, I feel is different.
But it is no different in principle. And as far as the issue goes, that’s what really matters. Whether something is allowed by the Civil Rights Act of 64 or whatever is irrelevant as far as this discussion is concerned. Just because something is law doesn’t mean it is right, or just. As such, the discussion should center around whether something
should or
shouldn’t be law. I’ll get to that. Your "feelings" shouldn't have anything to do with the discussion. Gun control advocates "feel" like guns are dangerous, menacing, and worth banning. But sound policy and sound argument does not come from feelings. Think about the
reasons you "feel" that way. Justify it, and think about it.
Robert, (and I'm not trying to be snide here) since you know the constitution so well, what is the portion of the constitution that makes it so that the constitution applies only to the government? I know that the 1st amendment explicitly states congress..... I am wanting to know. So I don't wind up being on the losing side of the argument.
You must know the history of this country and the Constitution, along with the views of the Founding Fathers, to know that the Constitution is a limit on government power. Your best bet would probably be to start with the Federalist Papers.
mons said:
Here's a thought: I think we're missing a subtle point. The OK law actually prohibits a business from adopting any "policy or rule" that prohibits employees from leaving legal firearms in locked vehicles in "any space set aside for any vehicle". Can we not think of other examples of laws that govern employer policies? Are all those wrong as well?
Yes, they are wrong. Provided of course, that you desire and believe in a free society. No government should have any say about how I run my
private businesses. If I only want to hire white people with blond hair, that should be my decision. If I don’t want to hire women, that should be my decision. This has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong, or whether you disagree or disagree with it.
It is about the very basis and meaning of a free society. The issue here is that some people are letting their emotions and personal beliefs get the better of them. In this respect, such people are no different from gun-control activists who are trying to take away our guns.
By the way, I don't personally believe in discrimination or sexism, what have you. But then, I don't believe that I have the right to control how someone else runs their business. If society really doesn't believe in discrimination and finds it wrong and morally reprehensible, any business that engages in such practices will suffer. Businesses that make economic decisions on non-economic factors will pay the price for it. No business should be forced to hire someone because they have a different skin color any more than they should be forcibly prevented from hiring hiring someone because they have a different skin color.
Robert said:
For we all recognize that when an employer prohibits employees from even leaving their self defense firearms in their own locked vehicles on the employer's property there is no way for the employee to have them on the trip to and from work every day.
Yes, there is. Don’t park on their property.
Outlaws said:
The Constitution is about the inner workings of government, the limits of government, and checks on government power.
The Bill of Rights is further restrictions on government power.
Further, the Preamble to both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights state that. Its all about personal freedom. But that personal freedom stops at someones private property. That is where their rules kick in. You cannot infringe on their personal freedom. And as far as I am concerned, anything and everything should be property owners choice, no matter how sexist, racist, or homophobic it might be, no matter how communist, socialist, fascist or anarchist.
That is correct and consistent with the principles of freedom and liberty. It is also the society I believe the Founding Fathers wished us to have. Nice work.
wide said:
I'm of two minds about this, on one hand gun owners rights are being chipped away and on the other hand private property rights are strenthened.
The rights of gun owners are not being chipped away by this perse. Gun control advocates may seize upon it and try to institute more gun control, but the act itself does not restrict your right whatsoever. If I own a car, and you wish to ride in it, you should follow my rules. It is not your right to do whatever you want on
my property. If it’s your car, go ahead and carry, but if I say no, the answer is no. You cannot say that I am violating your rights, because I’m not. I own the car, and
if I don’t want you to carry, then either you don’t carry, or you don’t ride. It’s that simple. I should not be forced to give you a ride against my will. Nor should I be forced to follow your rules in my car.
If it is my property, I have the right to do whatever I want with it so long as I don’t infringe upon the rights of someone else. Since it is you who
chooses to ride in
my vehicle (property), you must follow my rules. If you don’t want to, I have no power to force you to. But then, neither do you have the power (justly, anyway) to force me to give you a ride.
This scenario is again, the very basis of a free society. I might find smoking marijuana to be morally reprehensible. But do I have the right to stop you from smoking it, so long as you don’t affect others? In my opinion, no.
I may find something completely distasteful and morally reprehensible, but I will defend your right to choose, and your right to do it, so long as you do not infringe upon the rights of other people.
Romulus said:
The implication of the ruling is that federal law REQUIRES employers to ban all firearms in workplaces that are covered by OSHA. That is a HUGE win for the anti's unless OK can win in appeal.
First of all, this is a state law, so federal law has nothing to do with it. Second of all, there is no implication whatsoever. The obvious alternative is that no law is instated that forces one party to do one thing or another.
1X2 said:
I'd like to leave property rights aside as they are not the basis for the federal judge's ruling; however,
to address property rights for a moment, it's my opinion that all the protections of the constitution (and state law) are available to citizens regardless of ownership of the property that they happen to be standing on. This was "pointed to" above regarding enslaving your barbeque invitees, etc. IMO correct law sets out that a property owner cannot abridge another's rights, but in the simple case that the property owner wants to stifle a guest's behavior or presence on the property, the owner can enforce a request to leave (trespassing) or disturbing the peace, etc. It's two sides of the same coin. You can uninvite me with respect to your property, but if you accept me on your property, you can't disarm me, as arming myself is a constitutionally protected status.
Further, as long as people make laws, there will be some laws that may be deemed poor in intent, poorly crafted, or poorly enforced. I think the SCOTUS eminent domain decision should have been quite narrowly decided, as the "public good" is too easily abused. I think the cost of the taking of private land should be almost prohibitvely expensive, and the lesson is that the states and federal government should hang onto the "public" lands "we" have now- you know, "read my lips, no net loss"- that sort of thing. It won't be very long until we can't feed ourselves... Fred Thompson mentioned "guns AND butter" the other night...[ramble ramble].
First of all, the Bill of Rights, again, applies to the federal and state governments. Second of all, if you choose to enter my property, you forfeit those rights. If I choose to let you on my property, I should be able to kick you out at any time. It may be because you put butter on your bread. It may be because you have a gun. It may be because I don’t like your haircut. I shouldn’t need a reason. It is
my property, and I may do with it as I wish (again, provided that I don’t infringe upon the rights of others). If you
choose to be there, then you choose to accept my rules. If you don’t like them, you can leave. Simply because I allow you to be on my property doesn’t mean I suddenly lose my ownership of it. As such, just because I allow you to be on my property at one point doesn’t mean I can’t kick you off later. That said, you are correct- I cannot disarm you (unless I own the gun). But it’s not because of the Second Amendment (Please note that some of my comments aren't necessarily in relation to your arguments- some of them are here just because of convenience and organization).
dance said:
Oklahoma's response to this should be to institute a "private property permit" system where companies who want the right to ban firearms on their property must submit an elaborate application, corporate character references, and a substantial fee to an understaffed bureaucracy (possibly biased in favor of gun rights, hm?) which will duly consider the company's suitability, and if approved, shall issue a private property permit within 60,000,000 days.
This line of reasoning, as seems prevalent in this thread, not only ignores history and slippery slope arguments, but also important concepts like “precedent.” Property rights was one of the biggest issues during the creation of our Constitution, and the respect for private property amongst the Founding Fathers was second to none.
feedthehogs said:
As long as the people continue to buy the "American Dream" concept and put themselves in debt to where you live paycheck to paycheck, you can't possibly afford to stay home from work for 6 months to change a companies policies or take a pay cut and go somewhere else.
One person cannot. But if the employees of the company are sincere about refusing to accept this, then they should work together. I guarantee you that if a majority of the employees of a company decided to quit because of this, management would be quite interested in resolving the issue.
Indentured slaves have been around for centuries. It just so happens its under a free society in this country.
If anyone gets anything out of this thread, let it be this-
we do not live in a free society.
okie said:
The reason property rights is not the basis of the decision is because an ungated, unlocked parking lot is a place of public access, and property owners do not have the same rights over those places as they do over an office, which has less public access, or than they do over places of no public access, such as private homes.
If someone owns that property, then they may do what they wish with it. Whether it is accessible or not is irrelevant. My driveway is accessible to anyone with a car. Should anyone have the right to park on my driveway because it is accessible, and is ungated and unlocked?
Now let me discuss the issue in general terms (as such, when I say “you,” I am not referring to anyone in particular). The issue here is that some people are letting their biases get the better of them. But in order to be logically consistent and true to ones principles, one must either separate themselves from the issue, or temporarily fool themselves into believing that they love whatever is being banned, or what have you. It is, I think, human nature to try to shape the world as one believes it should be. That said, I believe that the United States was meant to be a free society, where individuals have control not just their destiny, but their property and lives as well. To make this more personal to all of you, how would you feel if the state said, “you can own guns, but you can only use them where we say you can- namely at supervised, state-funded, ranges”? Presumably, none of you would agree with this decision.
And in principle, how is this different from any of you trying to dictate what this company does on its property? Agreeing with a law that forces companies to allow firearms on its private property is no different, as a matter of principle, from agreeing with a law that forces companies to ban firearms on its private property. You probably that we have a right to keep and bear arms, for various reasons. But how can you possibly believe that governments have the right to control how, when, and where we use firearms so long as we are not infringing upon the rights of other people? How can you believe that
you have the right to decide what is right for everyone else?
Because that’s essentially what you’re advocating if you believe that this law is just. Nobody should be forced to do anything with and on their private property, again, so long as they are not infringing upon the rights of others. And although I believe that I have a right to keep and bear arms, I don’t believe that I have a right to force a property owner to do something, or allow something, on his property. If I want to be at his place, then I believe that I must respect his rules. Conversely, if I want to say, “you can’t come into my home unless you’re armed,” then I should have that right as well.
The basis of a free society is that everyone can choose to do what he or she wants without repercussion (unless of course, they infringe upon the rights of another). This law is not about the Second Amendment. It is about the right of a person to own and control his or her property in a manner that he or she sees fit. It just so happens to deal with firearms. Don’t let that get the better of you.