Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Intentionally Deceptive?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Hawkmoon, Jul 30, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Hawkmoon

    Hawkmoon Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    3,454
    Location:
    Terra
    You be the judge.

    I accepted a part-time job at a Barnes & Noble book store, and began training this week. On Day 1 they have you read and sign a copy of the personnel manual. With a clear recollection of the recent incident at the Barnes & Noble bookstore in New Hampshire, I looked at every page for a rule saying "No guns." To my surprise, I did NOT find any such rule. Until ...

    Buried at the very back of the book is a section on infractions which may result in immediate termination. Mid-way down that list is "Possession of a firearms, explosives, or other deadly weapon on company property." There is a clause which I don't remember verbatim, to the effect that this applies irrespective of any state laws to the contrary. (In other words, Constitutional rights be damned.)

    Nowhere else does it say that firearms are prohibited, This got me to wondering if they are trying to sit on both sides of the fence. There is no rule saying you can't carry, but there is a rule saying that if you are carrying you can be fired. Catch-22? Once I shined up my tin foil hat, I began to think that maybe they are trying to encourage CCW holders to carry, while at the same time retain language that allows them to cover their corporate butt.

    What do you think?
     
  2. Barbara

    Barbara Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2003
    Messages:
    3,230
    Location:
    Michigan
    Standard.
     
  3. Marko Kloos

    Marko Kloos Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    2,587
    Location:
    Enfield, NH
    Constitutional rights do not exist on private property.

    If you do not like their anti-gun policy, you have the choice not to work for them.

    As much as I dislike corporations that are anti-gun, it's their turf and their rules.
     
  4. manwithoutahome

    manwithoutahome member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    503
    Location:
    Eugene, OR
    Carry anyway if you wish.

    My "company" has the same "standard" deal. I didn't sign the letter so as far as I am concerned, it doesn't apply to me. Yet, they can still fire me for it. I'm not the only one with a gun on trust property, a few others have them also.

    It's a job, that's it. If you can't afford to live without it then you put yourself in that situation (and before I get bashed, I am in that situation also, because I put myself there, not anyone or anything else). Yet, if they fired me for doing so (carrying) then so be it.

    What the funny thing is that I work for a Union, which is pro-democrat, but more of all the members are into guns. That, I don't understand.

    Wayne
     
  5. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    Barnes & Noble is open to the public. It can't prohibit blacks from shopping, or Jews, or homosexuals, or American citizens who choose to exercise our Second Amendment civil rights. One's home is private property. One's business—if it's open to the public—is private property that's publicly accessible, and so ought to be accessible by one and all.

    As for employment, I've always figured jobs are easier to replace than lives, although I've to admit I've never tried to replace my life.
     
  6. Das Pferd

    Das Pferd Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2004
    Messages:
    350
    People will do anything for money, inlcuding overlooking thier beliefs.

    Why do you still belong to the union if they are obviously anti when they support democrats?
     
  7. rock jock

    rock jock Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,008
    Location:
    In the moment
    Unfortunately, it is not always clear cut. For some people, carrying would run the risk of not only losing their job, but their profession as well.
     
  8. manwithoutahome

    manwithoutahome member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    503
    Location:
    Eugene, OR
    Das Pferd,

    I said I worked for them, I didn't say that I was a member ;).

    Wayne
     
  9. SMMAssociates

    SMMAssociates Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    950
    Location:
    Youngstown, OH
    Standing Wolf:

    >>Barnes & Noble is open to the public. It can't prohibit blacks from shopping, or Jews, or homosexuals, or American citizens who choose to exercise our Second Amendment civil rights. One's home is private property. One's business—if it's open to the public—is private property that's publicly accessible, and so ought to be accessible by one and all.

    Agreed, but in OH and some other states, the business and/or the property owner can post a CPZ and you're cooked....

    >>As for employment, I've always figured jobs are easier to replace than lives, although I've to admit I've never tried to replace my life.

    Both can be a bummer, but the former is a tad easier. Unless you're into reincarnation. This is probably hell anyway. How else can you explain Clinton and Kerry?

    (Bet you haven't guessed my choice yet....)

    Hm.... Just ruminating on the "wolf" thing.... A friend of mine runs a nice little range. He's got a BIG dog. And a sign: "Forget the dog, the owner is armed."

    After all of the above, there are only a tiny percentage of jobs (places where you may have to change "in public" in a locker room, perhaps, and places with some odd dress codes or dress requirements) where you can't "deep carry" if you've a mind to. As long as you don't have to go through a metal detector....

    (And, if you do, and the place is reasonably sterile, I guess you could leave it in the car. But there are exceptions. I had to apply for my CHL at the Columbiana County OH Sheriff's Office in the Courthouse. One main entrance, with armed security and a metal detector. Two BG's could run through it in seconds and probably get anywhere in the building. Meantime, "trusted" folks can enter at a half-dozen other places - very old building. Sterile? Right....)

    (Why write a quick note when you can write a novel?)
     
  10. Hawkmoon

    Hawkmoon Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    3,454
    Location:
    Terra
    Of course Constitutional rights exist on private property. The problem is that they require employees to sign a document agreeing to waive their legal and Constitutional rights. My question was to ask if anyone else sees the way this statement is worded as being two-faced.

    I fully understand that if I do not like the policy I do not have to work for them. I will be delivering my resignation to the manager this afternoon or tomorrow, explaining EXACTLY why I cannot work for them.
     
  11. Carlos

    Carlos Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2003
    Messages:
    1,196
    Location:
    Portland, Oregon
    Where did you go to law school? That’s nonsense, dude. Yes, they have a right to restrictions when people are on their property, but they’re not beyond the law.

    B&N gets somebody to sign a policy manual, well that’s basically a contract situation - the company’s easy way of enforcing bad policy. Bamm, you signed contract, breached it, you’re fired. Buh bye, end of story.

    I don’t have to shop there, and won’t. Seems like all the gun boards have trained me to fight back from the wallet.

    I appreciate that indoctrination. Let’s hope these companies eventually get it.
     
  12. deanf

    deanf Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    486
    Location:
    N46º 54’ x W122º 34’
    Uh, the rule saying you'll be fired for carrying is the rule against carrying.

    It's not so much that constitutional rights don't exist on private property. It's that the Constitution was written to restrict the actions of government. The Constitution doesn't restrict the actions of the private individual or corporation.

    And what's the difference between Civil Rights and Constitutional Rights? I'm not sure myself, but I think it goes something like this: Civil rights are those memorialized in some sort of legislation. "Thou shalt not discriminate in employment based on race." That's not in the Constitution. It took a legislative act to make it so. Constitutional rights are those memorialized in the Constitution. "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury . . ."
     
  13. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    One of the reasons most of my posts are short is that I'm working on the Great American Novel. It's now in draught five. It's the most hellaciously difficult, demanding work I've ever done. I wouldn't wish the inspiration to write on anybody.
     
  14. SUE ROVR

    SUE ROVR Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    172
    At least based on current law, CCW is being treated as a privilege, until it is treated correctly as a right you will have to put up with the crap.
     
  15. c_yeager

    c_yeager Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    5,479
    Location:
    Seattle
    The difference is that i can step out to the trunk of my car for 5 minutes and cease to be carrying a firearm. I cannot however perform the same action and stop being black or Jewish.

    In other words publically accessable private property has to be AVAILABLE to all people if the meet the restrictions put in place by the property owner. Those restrictions cannot prohibit entrance to a person based on WHO THEY ARE but, they can restrict a person based on the choices that person has made (i.e. convicted fellons, persons who have stolen from the property in the past, persons who have proven themselves to be a jerk etc.) and they can further restrict the items that people are allowed to bring into their property (ex: outside food in movie theaters OR firearms).

    You have a right to keep and bear arms. And a property owner has a right to make the rules that apply to their property.
     
  16. 4v50 Gary

    4v50 Gary Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Messages:
    18,989
    It's hardly doublespeak. It's company policy that you can't bring a firearm onto the premises.
     
  17. SMMAssociates

    SMMAssociates Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    950
    Location:
    Youngstown, OH
    Yeager's correct about the "choices" versus "heredity" comment - you can't stop being Black or Jewish just to go into B&N.

    However (at least in OH if you believe the material on OFCC's site), denying me the _right_ to protect myself leaves B&N open for all kinds of grief should something happen.

    I believe that the _right_ to self-defense is inherent.... Me and the State don't quite agree on the means.... The OH paperwork calls it a "privilege". I don't agree....

    But, with the exception of some places you kind of "must" go - hospitals being about the silliest if you've ever been to the ones around here, as well as things like Turnpike Service Plazas and highway Rest Areas, you generally can vote with your feet and/or wallet and avoid the CPZ's.

    That these idiots don't realize that posting a CPZ is an invitation to criminals and a snub to LAC's may eventually catch up to them. ("Mr. LAC: Even if you don't believe in Concealed Carry, even if you believe that nobody on earth should own handguns, you should realize that we prefer to have criminals patronize us rather than people who are law abiding, because we prefer to keep a large class of law abiding citizens out of our facility.") (Or something like that....)

    As left-wing as it sounds, I don't object to being asked to demonstrate my proficiency and knowledge to acquire a CHL, just as I didn't mind doing the same for my OL, but I must demand that the standards be uniform and reasonable. When you look at the yahoos who seem to have OL's, it kind of makes you wonder about the "reasonable" part, but that's another argument.

    OH's training requirement is barely better than "don't shoot the guy beside you", although the other parts of the classroom session do a fairly good job of covering the pertinent issues of where/when to shoot, how to disengage, etc. But, for 150 years, we've been carrying on a "go buy it and carry it if you feel the need" basis, and if you leave out problems in bars, we don't have "firearms making criminals". We have "criminals using firearms." Big difference.... With CHL's and some kind of proficiency testing, this should improve. (Don't waste your time collecting sponges for the bloodbath. Ain't gonna happen....)

    (Bars - IMHO, if you drink more than a beer or two while carrying, Darwin will get you if the LEO community doesn't. OTOH, there's no reason to not carry in a restaurant that "serves".)

    Wolf: I appreciate your "problem" writing.... Part of my checkered past is as a Technical Writer.... I'm a Computer Consultant and sometimes rent-a-cop. When I write software, my clients usually ask for manuals. Novels require "inspiration" and a good deal of research, but you can kind of wiggle around facts a bit. Software manuals can be funny, but need to be factually accurate. I think I'll stick to the software....

    (I'm not complaining.... Most of my users can read....)
     
  18. Chris Rhines

    Chris Rhines Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,773
    Location:
    Potomac, Maryland - Behind enemy lines!!
    In a society that actually recognized property rights, Barnes and Noble would be perfectly free to deny service (or entry) to gun owners, blacks, jews, women, redheads, tall people, or anyone else they please. Private company, private store, so they get to set their own rules.

    Since this society does not, in general, recognize property rights, B&N doesn't get to do that (at least not openly.) As such, B&N should be legally obligated to permit concealed carry on their- excuse me, on the state's property. *shrug* Guess that gun owners haven't been oppressed enough...

    Am I too bitter?

    - Chris
     
  19. Hawkmoon

    Hawkmoon Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    3,454
    Location:
    Terra
    No signs posted. This isn't about denying service or entry to any class of customer. This is about the way their personnel manual phrased the prohibition against employees possessing firearms on company property.

    It leaves open the issue of what might happen should I work in one store and follow their rule, but go into another B&N store as a customer and be found carrying. Does the prohibition apply only when I am on duty, or does it affect me 24/7 at every B&N property in the country as long as I am on the payroll?

    I'll not be finding out.
     
  20. mountainclmbr

    mountainclmbr Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,289
    Location:
    On top of a mountain in Colorado
    All Violent Crimminals...

    Please go ply your trade at Barnes and Noble book stores. You have decreased chances of being shot. The people there have voluntarily or involuntarilary asked for it so you don't need to question heaven/hell judgements ( I made myself into a sheep and then the wolves ate me, isn't this just Darwinism?). Most importantly, I won't be there!!!
     
  21. Gifted

    Gifted Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Messages:
    1,009
    Location:
    Missouri
    Write sci-fi and fantasy. It's more fun.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page