Carrying at the Workplace

[jasonguerard]

Other side of the coin.

I'm the ops manager at my company. We technically have the same written policy.
These "policies" are usually just form letters / boilerplate from the insurance provider(ous is). Have you asked the owner how they personally feel about this? The owner has, lets see...... 1911 in desk, .40 glock in van, .380 in briefcase or jacket, and god knows what else. As with my last employer, we are encouraged to take a "friend" with us on after hour service calls.
Outside of that, again check your state laws. Most state your car is your property regardless of where its parked. In Ga you can even pickup your kids as long as it stays in the car and holstered! YMMV

 

[Commander Crusty]

Some here say the employer has the RIGHT to make whatever rules they want because, hey, it's THEIR property. The employee should just suck it up and comply.

So, by this reasoning, any employer could say, "This is my property and I don't want any stinking Jews here! And no darned Catholics, either! No ugly towel heads, negros, danged queers or any of them blood sucking Liberals! This is my property and I can do what I want!!!"

Is THAT what you agree with?

Do you want people to help force people to hide their crosses? Do you feel people should just be forced to lie about the faith, their friends, their lovers, their politics? Or risk being held at gun point while the police search their cars, their clothes, their bodies? Why not their homes? Hey, you never know with those darned Liberals--they may subscribe to "Time" magazine and just never bring it to work! Fire 'em all!

There is a right-and-proper place for "civil disobedience." Their is a time to say, "Okay, I dare you to call the police! No I won't voluntarily let you search my car! Yes, I WILL file a law suit! Yes, I DO have lawyer!"

 

[Shadow1198]

Many people here are missing the point 100% entirely and falling into the same basic mentality as the anti's do. Think about it like this. First off it's about individual property rights, plain and simple. It's about your choice to do what you want on your property. Do you really want the government forcing their way into the situation and telling someone what they can and can't do on their own property?

Let me put it in terms I think more of you may understand. Say that there is an owner of a small business. He or she is very pro gun and decides that they approve of CCW in the workplace, and many times even encourage it. So the company policy is that it's okay for CCW. Well this owner just happens to have his business located in a very liberal part of town and most of his neighbors are very anti-gun. Eventually some jerk raises the issue with the city council as a "danger to society", and eventually gains enough support that a city ordinance gets passed stating that it is illegal for PRIVATE businesses to allow CCW. The city or state involved in passing such a law, just committed an unconstitutional offense and just usurped the rights of a private property owner. You see what I'm getting at. You may not like it but, the alternative of the government telling someone what they can and can't do on their property is equally deplorable.

Here's the solution. Far too many people want the government or state to intervene where they really have no business. Instead of putting the job on them, how about taking it up yourself? We all have the power and ability in this country, if we come across businesses like this we can raise hell, gain support, protest, etc etc heck even file a lawsuit. WE can try to convince them it's not a good idea to force us to be defenseless. WE the people have the power. What we need to do as a nation is to get away from this mentality of letting the government solve all our problems at the cost of constitutional and individual rights. You may not like what an individual is advocating on their own property, you may not like racism, you may not like bigotry, you may not like anti-gun policies, hell you may not like the no shirt no shoes no business policy but the fact of the matter is that individual rights are what this country is all about. No matter how unsavory some individual's choices may be with what they do on their own property, it's THEIR property so they should be allowed to do it.

Commander Crusty, you are correct in your interpretation. If someone wants to be a racist, bigot and have those types of policies on their own property, that's their right. Personally I find such actions deplorable, but the fact of the matter is THE PEOPLE have the power. We don't need the government to tell them it's not okay to do that sort of stuff. We as citizens can do our part in generating support to protest said individual, sue them, etc etc. We don't need the government to be our mommy or daddy, we should all be grown up enough to take care of that stuff on our own.

 

[teknoid]

From some of the comments I've seen in this thread, I'm even happier to live in a state that properly recognizes private property rights. In KY (and other states) an employer can not prohibit an employee from keeping a weapon in their car.

They may prohibit weapons in the building, but your car is YOUR property. It amazes me that some people, especially on this board, fail to recognize that important fact.

 

[dmazur]

I've seen this posted other places, but I can't provide a link. Anyway, I'll try to paraphrase what I remember -

Basically, it goes along the lines of civil rights, and that an employer can't abridge or violate civil rights of customers or employees just because he is a private property owner.

Workplace laws are structured around this, and current company policies address it. It wasn't always so. Hundreds, if not thousands, of civil rights cases have made companies sensitive to civil rights. They can't afford to be otherwise.

So, if the right to keep and bear arms (for self defense and other lawful purposes) is found to be not only an individual right but a civil right, it won't only be states and cities that have to stop infringing. It will be corporations as well.

Private property owners may be permitted to ask someone to leave if they have a gun, as this may not be covered as a violation of civil rights.

A company telling a customer or employee they can't keep their gun on their person will probably be prohibited by new laws. The way things are shaping up, I'm thinking it may take a few years, but this will probably follow other civil rights.

So, the way I understand things, corporations and private property owners have superior rights (the so-called "this trumps that" argument) at present. This may change.

 

[Ergosphere]

I must say, I envy the fact that you can even have this argument.

Try working on a university campus... in California... :banghead:

 

[Happiness Is A Warm Gun]

Many people here are missing the point 100% entirely and falling into the same basic mentality as the anti's do. Think about it like this. First off it's about individual property rights, plain and simple. It's about your choice to do what you want on your property. Do you really want the government forcing their way into the situation and telling someone what they can and can't do on their own property?

The point is you already have a pre-existing right. Private property "rights" can't trump the constitution.

Lets look how foolish this assertion looks in face of other rights.

If I have private property, say a farm. Can I own slaves on the farm as long as they never leave the farm. Do you feel being a private property owner gives me that right?

If I own a business that supports one political party could I say campaign material from one candidate is allowed but not the other? Take it a step further. Could I give my employees the day off to vote if the promise to vote for the "right" candidate?

The 2nd amendment guarantees and pre-existing right to keep and bear arms. If I drive to work and am prohibited from leaving the firearm in my car (personal property) then not only am I unable to defend myself at work I also am unable to defend myself from the minute I leave my house until I return. A property owner has the right to restrict my carry on public land?

It is exactly this reason that Florida recently passed the law allowing anyone to keep a weapon in their car (personal property) in the parking lot.

Commander Crusty, you are correct in your interpretation. If someone wants to be a racist, bigot and have those types of policies on their own property, that's their right. Personally I find such actions deplorable, but the fact of the matter is THE PEOPLE have the power.

Are you serious? You try opening a shop that only serves whites or renting an apartment only to Baptists, or run a business that only hires non minorities. An business has no right or ability to violate anyone (employee, customer, guest) civil rights simply because of their "personal property rights".

 

[TStorm]

This is truly an area of "overlapping" private property rights. I have recognized privacy and civil rights associated with my vehicle. A business has similar rights. If the State is forced to recognize the rights I have in my vehicle, I personally believe a private entity should not be able to override those rights. Call it a draw (no pun intended).

This being said, those not in States with "motorist protection" or parking-lot laws, need to be prepared to suffer the consequences if they break the rules.

 

[spyder1911]

It is the companies property and they can choose to allow or not allow guns, just like any person can allow or not allow guns in their house. The OP has the choice to quit his job or try to get the ruling changed. That is freedom. The government has no right to tell business that they must allow guns if they don't want to. Im not saying that I agree with the company policy, but I think that they are right in this case.

 

[Shadow1198]

Are you serious? You try opening a shop that only serves whites or renting an apartment only to Baptists, or run a business that only hires non minorities. An business has no right or ability to violate anyone (employee, customer, guest) civil rights simply because of their "personal property rights".

That is precisely my point. If someone were to do that in this day and age, society as a whole would look very poorly on that business/business owner, people would boycott it, etc etc. Basically they would end up going out of business very quickly. What I'm saying is it isn't the government's business to be regulating what people can and can't do on their own property. The District of Columbia violates property rights IMMENSELY in still regulating that all firearms in the home must be disassembled. It's the homeowner's home, and none of the governments business, period! We can't pick and choose what to allow and what not to allow. It's about freedom to do what you want on your own property. Sure, you can exercise free speech and carry a gun at your business all you want. Though if the business owner doesn't like what you have to say, or they don't want you carrying a gun, they are well within their rights to fire you as it is THEIR business.

Don't get me wrong though, I still think that it is 100% wrong for any business to try and say that guns are not allowed in your own car. By default, your car is your property so they should have no say whatsoever on what you keep in your own car.

 

[Elza]

For those of us living in a state that doesn’t protect CHL holders there is a way around it. Hide the bloody thing! There are a number of places in a car that you can slip a gun into. Unless the employer is willing to disassemble the interior you are good to go. You might have to make a minor modification so a panel pops loose, a false bottom in a console, or whatever. But it is quite doable, is not difficult and it is easy to place or retrieve your gun. Just stop a block or two from work, hide it, and press on.

 

[ASM826]

Property Rights don't trump individual rights

I can own property, and not even be able to farm it, if it's wetland, or inside a city. I can't as a few have pointed out, violate the rights of others. I can ask them to leave my property, I can ask them to never return to my property, but if I allow them on my property, their rights are theirs.

Even as a business owner, I cannot make an enforceable policy that violates the law. If it's my company's policy to never hire member of a certain race or gender, that's both illegal, immoral, and unenforceable. But I can do it until someone stands up.
Disney's doing it in Florida. Mr. Sotomayor stood up.

http://www.wesh.com/news/16804300/detail.html

Here's a quote:

"Sotomayor said Disney is violating his constitutional rights, so he's willing to fight.

"As much as I love Disney, I have Second Amendment rights," Sotomayor said.

He said he's not doing this just for himself, but for those who have the right to carry a gun and, by law, bring it to work."

 

[Happiness Is A Warm Gun]

That is precisely my point. If someone were to do that in this day and age, society as a whole would look very poorly on that business/business owner, people would boycott it, etc etc. Basically they would end up going out of business very quickly. What I'm saying is it isn't the government's business to be regulating what people can and can't do on their own property.

What if the majority is wrong? You say today such a business would go out of business so their is no need for the govt to be involved. What you are forgetting is that in the south in 1954 such a business would likely have survived. Had courts & government not intervened to protect civil rights it is possible that the "today" you speak of would never arrived. So blacks in the south had no "civil rights" because the majority didn't support them? They should have just left and went somewhere else?

Just because the majority (voting w/ their wallets) supports something in violation of the bill of rights doesn't make it ok. L
et's say 51% of Americans tomorrow believed that Christianity is the only acceptable faith. Some employers began requiring worship on their "private property" by employees. By your logic, anyone who doesn't want to worship should just quit? Since the majority doesn't believe in the 1st amendment it has no meaning.

The government shouldn't stop that because "personal property rights" have more pull than the BoR?
They should just let market forces sort it out? Even if the majority sees no problem?
If the majority is in favor of violating civil rights then I guess people shouldn't have those rights? If so then burn the BoR now. It simply has no value. The rights are rights because they can't be taken away by the government, individuals, or public opinion. If we are going to trust public opinion alone to protect us then there is no need for the BoR.

 

[Sam Adams]

Property rights do NOT trump basic human rights.

In order to conduct business on any property, the property must be zoned properly. Further, most business is conducted by corporations or partnerships (artifical legal "persons" created under state law). IOW, the property rights aren't absolute.

Basic human rights are inalienable. The single most basic right anyone has is the right to protect him- or herself. A business that is subject to zoning laws, anti-discrimination laws, etc., is clearly under the jurisidiction of the governmental entity in question - and that governmental entity is under the jurisdiction of the Constitution which protects our right to self-defense.

 

[Daemon688]

Ding, ding, ding, Sam Adams has it right. Civil rights all derive from natural rights. Natural rights are given by God/Nature and they cannot be taken away except by death. I threw this out in a previous thread that was promptly locked.

I am a business owner, let's call it Walmart. As Walmart, I choose not to hire any homosexuals. It is in my opinion that having homosexual employees would be destroying the family environment I want in my stores. Furthermore, we will no longer serve openly homosexual customers. Federal law does not prohibit this because homosexuals are not a protected class. Since being homosexual is a choice, they can simply quit being homosexuals or find employment/shop elsewhere.

So, with that in mind. Replace homosexual with gun owner.

Hell, if property rights trump everything, then I guess you wouldn't mind if all businesses as a condition of employment requires daily full cavity searches. Afterall, employee theft costs the industry untold billions per year.

Until you understand the concept of natural rights, then these supposed absuridites would all be possible in your bizzaro world.

 

[Flyboy]

These "policies" are usually just form letters / boilerplate from the insurance provider(ous is).

We hear that frequently, and have frequently challenged those making the claim to cite the policies, or at the very least name the insurance companies.

So far, I've not seen any substantiation. Would you please post a scan of the letter, or at least tell us what insurance company it is?

 

[VegasOPM]

I don't care what the company says, I will have a gun in the car- but I don't talk about it. It has been happening for years and nobody has ever asked, or checked, or even cared. Silence is golden and pick your battles. My personal safety is more important to me than proving a point. If it ever comes to a head, that is when it becomes my battle to fight.

 

[Jolly Rogers]

Business that use their property for the purpose to provide a service or to sell etc. in exchange for profit, change the status of the property from truly "private" to some other form of property. Sort of like becoming a public figure exempts one from a certain expectation of privacy. Celebrity's cannot stop photographers from snapping pictures of them in public areas while a private citizen can. I think in this case the personal property of an employee trumps the property claim of the employer.
Whats in my car is nunya.
Joe

 

[Ergosphere]

Celebrity's cannot stop photographers from snapping pictures of them in public areas while a private citizen can

Are you sure about that? I'm pretty certain it is not correct, with the possible exception of minors.

 

[TAB]

Celebrity's cannot stop photographers from snapping pictures of them in public areas while a private citizen can

wrong.

 

[Pilgrim]

They have to call a cop, who has to have a warrant to search for something illegal right?

A peace officer may search a motor vehicle without a warrant if he has probable cause to believe he will find contraband, or fruits of a crime, or implements of a crime.

Said probable cause will be evaluated by a court as if a warrant was applied for.

Pilgrim

 

[gc70]

People that intentionally violate company policy, should be fired.

There are policies where I work that were adopted for CYA purposes and were never intended to be strictly followed. If some of the policies were not ignored, we would never get anything done.

 

[Armueller2001]

It is the companies property and they can choose to allow or not allow guns, just like any person can allow or not allow guns in their house. That is freedom. The government has no right to tell business that they must allow guns if they don't want to.

Changed to...

It is the companies property and they can choose to allow or not allow blacks, just like any person can allow or not allow blacks in their house. That is freedom. The government has no right to tell business that they must allow blacks if they don't want to.

Do you still agree? They're both civil rights.

 

[TAB]

Its is not a civil right...

Just becuase you wish it was, does not make it one.

 

[Tyris]

The time for "property rights" to be thrown under the bus has arrived.
The false argument that concealed carry has any bearing on property rights needs to be burried.


-T