"Guns Have No Place at Work":Gun Owners 1,Miami Herald 0

Status
Not open for further replies.
This bill doesn't infringe upon the private property rights of the business owner. It protects the employee's private property rights.

All it does is allow you to keep your gun in your car when you drive to work and not get fired for it.

Do you think that your car becomes your boss's property when it drives onto your boss's parking lot? That's the only way for this bill to become an infringement of his private property rights.
 
At least the author said "semi-automatic", which is a nice change from "automatic pistol" or "evil machine of death and destruction when weilded by anyone but our trusty police". Then again, a rifle is a rifle, and only a sniper can make it a snipers' rifle. (and I bet $10 that ak-47 was used to describe at least one gun that was not an ak-47.)
 
Last time I checked you could light up when you get it your car. Furthermore, no employer ever tries to tell an employee not to have cigarettes (which are not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution by the way) in their own car.
Most people don't make dumb rules for things like cigarettes, but why wouldn't an employer be able to say no cigarettes on our property at all, even in your car? What does the constitution have to do with anything? The constitution protects you from the government but it doesn't mean I can use my "freedom of speech" at work and not get fired when I answer the phone and tell a customer what I really think of them.

Would it be ok if say Mcdonald's decided thier new "rule" for thier "private property" was no blacks, jews, muslims, or women may enter or work there? I willing to bet 99% of the population would FREAK over that.
I'd be 100% fine with that, the general population may be horrified by the idea and conditioned to believe that this is a job for the government but I don't. Discriminate against who ever you like, let the back lash of the market punish you.

This bill is a MINUSCULE infringement on property rights.
Oddly I dont' think I've ever seen this argument used on THR to support gun control. "But guys, its just a small infringement."
 
Most people don't make dumb rules for things like cigarettes, but why wouldn't an employer be able to say no cigarettes on our property at all, even in your car? What does the constitution have to do with anything? The constitution protects you from the government but it doesn't mean I can use my "freedom of speech" at work and not get fired when I answer the phone and tell a customer what I really think of them.

Funny , using property rights to back a corp/company (constitutional expressed right ) , yet on the other hand those rights are only to protect you from gov . Either we all have them or we don't . Saying a company has "private property rights " but individuals don't , unless it involves gov , is quite contradictory .
 
I do not believe this abridges property rights one bit, on the contrary, it affirms personal property rights.

Isn't a Car an employee owns his or her personal property anyway...what right does Disney or the Miami herald have to tell an employee what he can have in his car.....do they have the right to tell you not to have a bible or Koran locked in your car? Of course not. (The Bible or Koran in the wrong hands is much more dangerous than a firearm anyway)


Miami herald and Disney and others do not have to hire people who can legally own firearms. They can hire Felons who cannot legally own firearms if that makes them feel safer. :evil:
 
Furthermore, no employer ever tries to tell an employee not to have cigarettes (which are not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution by the way) in their own car.
Actually, a gentleman for whom I fly has enacted exactly that policy for his banks. Smoking is forbidden anywhere on company property, even in employees' own vehicles. They have to leave the grounds.

I'm of mixed opinion on this. On one hand, I think it's his bank, and he can do what he like; on the other hand, I think the employee's car should be treated as an extension of his home.

On the third hand, I think an employer ought to be allowed to hire and fire as he sees fit, for whatever reason, so that would cover the problem. If he annoys enough people, he'll find himself with a smaller labor pool, so he'll pay higher prices (reduced supply), and have more turnover to boot. Foolishness has its costs.
 
What does the constitution have to do with anything? The constitution protects you from the government but it doesn't mean I can use my "freedom of speech" at work and not get fired when I answer the phone and tell a customer what I really think of them.

By that logic I suppose the 14th amendment no longer applies to corporation, either. So if I want to start a large company and discriminate against a certain ethnic group, what does the Constitution have to do with it? After all, it's my RIGHT by God!:rolleyes:

What does the Constitution have to do with it? Well gee, I guess nothing - except for the fact that the fourth amendment states I can be secure in my person, house, papers and effects. Certainly my car falls under this. It is my property and I'll be damned if someone is going to tell me what LEGAL things I can have in it.

This bill doesn't infringe upon the private property rights of the business owner. It protects the employee's private property rights.

Bingo.
 
It clashes with federal mandates requiring employers to create a safe work environment.
So, should police not carry guns either? Safe work environment and all...

I'm calling BS on this one. Even if the worker threatens to use it? Sounds like an out and out lie to me.
Probably, but they should be calling the police if someone is making threats like that, not asking if the individual has a gun.
 
By that logic I suppose the 14th amendment no longer applies to corporation, either. So if I want to start a large company and discriminate against a certain ethnic group, what does the Constitution have to do with it? After all, it's my RIGHT by God!

Good luck getting me to shop there.
 
Quote:
Or not.


Just saying, something like that might be the only thing that would change someone's mind on hating guns.

Your wishing that the guy would be held up at knife point, and trying to criticize me?

I call BS.
 
I know I am just repeating what others have said here, but an Employer asks you to park your car on their property. Because they initiate you coming on to their property with your vehicle, they do not have the right to regulate what possessions you have in your vehicle. Not all businesses provide employee parking, (malls, some downtown businesses, etc.) but those that do must realize that in inviting you to park on their property they give up a certain amount of control over what items might end up on their property. Imagine a business declaring that no child car seats were allowed in cars on their property. No one would put up with this as parents need those car seats in order to keep their children safe when they pick them up after work. Likewise, many people need their legally owned and possessed firearms in order to keep themselves and their families safe. Anytime you apply different standards to firearms than you do to any other possession, you are accepting the anti-gun position that a gun, in and of itself, is dangerous, rather than the truth, that a gun is only dangerous when combined with a person who has criminal intentions or behaves in a reckless manner.
 
By that logic I suppose the 14th amendment no longer applies to corporation, either. So if I want to start a large company and discriminate against a certain ethnic group, what does the Constitution have to do with it? After all, it's my RIGHT by God!
I think that should be fine too, it doesn't seem like that should be fine too. Just because the world works that way doesn't mean I think its right. I don't think the post 86 machine gun ban is right even if its accepted law. I don't think government's job is to try to force people treat others as equals either. If you want to open up a racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory business I think you should be able to. I'll probably be there protesting it and trying to put you out of business but freedom should include letting business owners make stupid decisions.

I know I am just repeating what others have said here, but an Employer asks you to park your car on their property. Because they initiate you coming on to their property with your vehicle, they do not have the right to regulate what possessions you have in your vehicle.
Why not? If you ring my door bell I might tell you to please come in but that to do so you'll have to put on a giant sombrero. If you refuse the conditions attached to my invitation then you don't get to come in. I don't see this as being any different. You're welcome to park on my lot but you're to have no weapons and I might even ask to take a look. If you don't like it, don't park here.

Imagine a business declaring that no child car seats were allowed in cars on their property. No one would put up with this as parents need those car seats in order to keep their children safe when they pick them up after work.
Of course not, but is it the government's place to make that property owner fix their dumb rules or is it up to us as consumers to just put them out of business or force them to change their rules on our own?

Gun owners can be a hypocritical bunch. Half the time we have threads talking about how much people hate nosy government and "there ought to be a law" thinking but when the interest is self serving...well its just a small infringement, maybe its alright.
 
Quote:
By that logic I suppose the 14th amendment no longer applies to corporation, either. So if I want to start a large company and discriminate against a certain ethnic group, what does the Constitution have to do with it? After all, it's my RIGHT by God!
Good luck getting me to shop there.

That was sarcasm.
 
By that logic I suppose the 14th amendment no longer applies to corporation, either. So if I want to start a large company and discriminate against a certain ethnic group, what does the Constitution have to do with it?
The Fourteenth Amendment has exactly nothing whatsoever to do with companies not being able to discriminate against certain protected classes.

Those rules come from civil rights legislation, not the Constitution, or any amendment thereto.
 
This isn't about a business owner deciding what happens on his property. This is about insurance companies dictating rates based on firearms ownership. Since all businesses need insurance, it isn't like you can just "go get a job elsewhere"

A closer analogy would be for the insurance industry to decide that Christians are more likely to be injured on the job, so anyone who is found to hire Christians will pay higher insurance rates.

try to find an employer that does not use insurance.
 
I don't think government's job is to try to force people treat others as equals either.

It isn't. It's people who are tired of getting stomped on by corporations and businesses and who take the bigger boot of the government and stomp a little back.



If you want to open up a racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory business I think you should be able to. I'll probably be there protesting it and trying to put you out of business but freedom should include letting business owners make stupid decisions.

I would daresay the only reason you'd be protesting is because of all those laws in the first place to force businesses to treat human beings as human beings. You and most of us seem to take it for granted that we'd be outraged at Starbucks saying "no blacks allowed" but, in reality, in our country's history, all of our stores and people were allowed to discriminate and guess what? No one shopped somewhere else, no one particularly protested this unequal treatment, no one cared.

In reality, in our country's past, there were companies and people with businesses that ran mining towns or what have you. The workers may not have thought of themselves as slaves, but slaves they were. Why? There was no equality in the boss/worker relationship. A miner had to buy from the mine store, had to go to the mine church, work in the mine itself, buy his home from the mine company, and so on. Freedom to go "work somewhere else if you don't like it" is more an ideal than the reality, IMO.

Perhaps it's like thinking it as the government didn't come along and say "we'll fix your problems" but more like people who were downtrodden, powerless, people who just wanted to be like his fellow citizens Told His Government, help make this fair!

Then the rise of the legal fiction of a corporation has been the biggest single destructive factor to this country, IMVHO. Now suddenly one person can own thousands of stores. How can anyone effectively boycott such a monstrosity? The answer: we can't. Look around you. Multinational companies skip out on being beholden to our laws for example. When the only stores around were mom and pop stores, then, yes, your way worked. You could in fact shop somewhere else and you could make your wishes known in cold hard cash walking away. How about now? Aren't there but half dozen megacorps that own several dozen different chains, all with different menus, items for sale, different names and different sales pitches? How do you take your money elsewhere, when the vast majority of people don't even know who owns what? Take your money from Albertsons down to Safeway, but lo and behold, both are owned by the same company! Your money lines thier pockets no matter where you go.

Now what? How else can you possibly try and combat the continual trampling of OUR human rights?

The founding fathers I doubt could have comprehended the industrial revolution and how the very face of society and the world has changed because of it. Please, let us all go back to 1777 again. Kill corporations first. Kill the heavy, heavy tax burden being placed on small businesses. Stop the global new world order.

In the meantime, gimme a law that helps defend my enumerated constitutional rights as opposed to just yet another billion laws that continually take them away.

Of course not, but is it the government's place to make that property owner fix their dumb rules or is it up to us as consumers to just put them out of business or force them to change their rules on our own?

Asked and answered! :)
 
I would daresay the only reason you'd be protesting is because of all those laws in the first place to force businesses to treat human beings as human beings. You and most of us seem to take it for granted that we'd be outraged at Starbucks saying "no blacks allowed" but, in reality, in our country's history, all of our stores and people were allowed to discriminate and guess what? No one shopped somewhere else, no one particularly protested this unequal treatment, no one cared.

Look up the 'Montgomery Bus Boycott'.
 
This bill is a MINUSCULE infringement on property rights.

Isn't that like being a LITTLE pregnant? I've said this before, if you park your car in a friend's driveway with his permission, the car and its contents are no more his property than you are. Why should your employer be any different?
 
Someone else pointed this out.

When the rules are made by a corporation, which is a legally created entity, the corporation is not a private individual with the accompanying rights. As such, I have no problem preventing a legal fiction (corporation) from infringing on the rights of individuals (self-defense).

It's the same argument: If you wish to create an entity that sheilds your assets from liability, then that entity will not be treated as an individual and you will be subject to certain restrictions. (Just as, if you come on my property, you are subject to my rules)

If you have a private business, not subject to limited liability: go ahead, ban guns.

If you are using the law to sheild your assets, then you should have no right to make individuals LESS SAFE because it makes you feel better, especially since you will suffer no personal consequences if your ill-advised policies cause them harm.
 
The interior of your car is never your boss's property. The argument is that your car is located on your boss's property, and thus he has authority to impose restrictions on what you can and cannot bring onto his property in your car.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top