Me:
"Absent any other consideration, freedom is generally less safe, and our whole system was based on accepting and dealing with this fact. The whole 'benevolentish dictator' thing lies outside our system, but legally within the purview of private business --doesn't make it right"
Agsalaska:
"It is wrong to make decisions regarding thousands of employees that will make them safer? I disagree with that."
I respect your candor. But I find your disagreement disagreeable. Just because you intend to act from benevolence does not change the agency of those you pay or provide service to. Our constitution protects us from the
government, but the inalienable rights it accepts as fundamental apply to
governance. At some point, your authority over the
people on your property ceases, because
they are not your property. Unlike true slaveholders, you aren't
responsible for them in such a scenario as a robbery/negligent discharge.
We've historically given far, far more latitude in this area to business/private citizens than to official governments in the name of protecting the freedom of the individuals running these establishments --and lo, and behold, freedoms were restricted far beyond what a government could legally get away with (and how convenient for the government permitting this
). The purpose of the Bill of Rights and our form of government at large, was to manage and organize individual and collective interests so they do not come into conflict; a manager forbidding arms simply because he can (or for whatever irrelevant reason) despite what the individual employees feel is appropriate for their situation is a conflict. The employees lose because they are less powerful; the exact outcome our system was put into place to prevent.
Now, if the business involves an MRI in the room and the presence of a firearm will by itself pose a danger, then the RKBA is in legitimate conflict with other basic rights and can be managed (weapon storage, posted guards, etc.) to be amenable to all parties. A simple corporate declaration is not sufficient grounds for justifiably curtailing such a basic right, regardless their stated (and unsupported) reasoning. Especially when immunity can be granted to resolve any fragment of legitimacy to the question.
TCB