coltrane679
Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2004
- Messages
- 377
Yes, you can--you say "Get your car the hell off of my property." If they don't, it is a trespass.
Whatever happened to your bosses respecting your right to self defense?
Uh, exactly where is that required in the Constitution--I must have missed it.
So if your boss doesn't respect your "rights", the preferred choice is have the government twist his arm--as opposed to you taking the responsibility to find a boss who will?
Like I said, the left has totally won when it comes to property rights--people here, whom I presume mostly view themselves as "conservatives", cannot even recognize the issue any longer.
That sounds like a great idea until you read the case which brought the whole thing to a head. That company went out and searched employees cars with a dog and then fired everybody who had a gun in their car. Despite the fact that mostly what they found was hunting type shotguns. People who wanted to go hunting after work. (It was dove season.) So just saying that "I'll leave my gun locked in my truck regardless of the law" isn't really a great option. The whole point of the new OK law was that you couldn't be fired from your job because you had a gun in your locked car.
By the way, I am curious- I'm sure that the clause is in there, but what is the clause of the constitution that means that it only controls the government?
Originally posted by GTSteve03: Ok, so what about the laws saying I have to hire/serve women, or minorities, or handicapped people in my private business?
Do I get to ignore the rights of gun owners because they are not in some sort of protected class?
The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution ...
I don't think keeping your employees disarmed is right, but it all comes down to your choice about where to live, work, or to even arm yourself at all.
Quote from Precisionshootist: OK, I have to know how this works. The dogs can smell guns? ammo?
29 USC 652 Definitions
. . .
(5) The term “employer” means a person engaged in a business affecting commerce who has employees, but does not include the United States (not including the United States Postal Service) or any State or political subdivision of a State.
29 USC § 654. Duties of employers and employees
(a) Each employer—
(1) shall furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees;
(2) shall comply with occupational safety and health standards promulgated under this chapter.
(b) Each employee shall comply with occupational safety and health standards and all rules, regulations, and orders issued pursuant to this chapter which are applicable to his own actions and conduct.
Unlike other types of
workplace equipment that may be dangerous only if
misused, e.g., without regard to safety instructions or
without wearing proper equipment, one of the intended
uses of a firearm is to inflict death or bodily harm. In a
situation involving workplace violence, the presence of
an unauthorized firearm on company property
immediately and significantly increases the risk that an
employee will suffer death or serious harm. The presence
of these unauthorized firearms is precisely the type of
"condition" that is likely to lead to death or serious harm
and that employers must abate.
Although the Amendments only seek to force the
allowance of firearms that are inside a locked vehicle,
locked in a vehicle, or locked to a vehicle, see OKLA.
STAT. tit. 21, §§ 1289.7a and 1290.22(B), these
limitations have little substantive impact on the increased
risk of death or harm caused by the presence of firearms
at the workplace.
(quote from pg 42)
In addition to Plaintiffs' subjective opinions that their
policies are effective methods of reducing reduce
gun-related workplace injuries, there is published
evidence that such policies are an effective method of
reducing gun-related workplace injuries. According to a
study published in 2005 in the American Journal of
Public Health, "workplaces where guns were specifically
permitted were 5 to 7 times more likely to be the site of a
worker homicide relative to those where all weapons
were prohibited." Dana Loomis, Stephen W. Marshall,
and Myduc L. Ta, Employer Policies Toward Guns and
the Risk of Homicide in the Workplace, 95 AM. J. OF
PUB. HEALTH 830, 831 (2005).
(quote from pg 45 of opinion)
Although it is a close
question, the Court cannot conclude the [OK parking lot laws] are
wholly arbitrary or irrational methods of promoting
safety and deterring crime. It is not this Court's province
to invalidate state law because the Court disagrees with
the Legislature's chosen method of achieving its
objectives.
Robert Hairless said:Those who know me will confirm that I don't even know the meaning of the words "sarcastic" or "facetious,"
I'm confused. So do private property laws allow me to violate the civil rights of the people on my property or no?
workplaces where guns were specifically
permitted were 5 to 7 times more likely to be the site of a
worker homicide relative to those where all weapons
were prohibited.