Judge Nixes Oklahoma's Guns-in-Locked-Cars Law

[benEzra]

OK, I have to know how this works. The dogs can smell guns? ammo?

Yes.

even if dogs could smell guns or ammo how did they employer force the employee to open their cars to confirm what the dog found.

"Unlock the car and let us search it, or you're fired."

What's wrong with said employee saying "I don't have any guns or know what you are talking about" and decline to open the car for inspection.

The company promised to fire them if they didn't allow their cars to be searched. Some refused, and were fired, as I recall.

And what employer other than maybe the Fed Gov. would have access to a dog with this type of training. I have never heard of a dog that can sniff out guns or ammunition.

Any employer who wishes to shell out a few hundred dollars for a security company to sweep the parking lot with the security company's dog.

Or, your employer could contract to have the parking lot periodically swept with one of these:

http://www.as-e.com/products_solutions/zbv.asp

 

[dance varmint]

Whirlpool, the Williams Cos., and Conoco Phillips, all of which objected to the Oklahoma law on the grounds that it violated their private property rights

Oklahoma's response to this should be to institute a "private property permit" system where companies who want the right to ban firearms on their property must submit an elaborate application, corporate character references, and a substantial fee to an understaffed bureaucracy (possibly biased in favor of gun rights, hm?) which will duly consider the company's suitability, and if approved, shall issue a private property permit within 60,000,000 days.

 

[feedthehogs]

but it is a scary thing to put a 20 year career at risk

And there the problem is clear.

We compromise our rights and beliefs for security and comfort.

They know it and continue to tread.

After all, it was really only a small minority of the people that were willing to give all to break themselves away from the king.

Things haven't changed much over a few hundred years except that we have gravitated back to a kings rule.

Its always a simple idea that if you don't like the employers rules, go somewhere else.

If enough people do it, things will change.

Anyone of those companies would change their policies if no one showed up to work.

As long as the people continue to buy the "American Dream" concept and put themselves in debt to where you live paycheck to paycheck, you can't possibly afford to stay home from work for 6 months to change a companies policies or take a pay cut and go somewhere else.

Indentured slaves have been around for centuries. It just so happens its under a free society in this country.

 

[Augustwest]

Though the Judge's reasoning is repugnant, I think the decision is correct, despite any reductum ad absurdum arguments to the contrary.

Conservatism isn't about getting your way all the time.

 

[JN01]

With rights comes responsibility.

If a property owner wants to exercise his rights by denying employees the means of self-defense, OK, but they should then be required to assume civil liability if that employee is attacked at work.

 

[Outlaws]

You can uninvite me with respect to your property, but if you accept me on your property, you can't disarm me, as arming myself is a constitutionally protected status.

I think you have that one slightly off kilter. I could not use force to disarm you, but I could say, disarm or leave, which basically serves the same exact same purpose.

 

[1x2]

Outlaw,

I see no difference in our two posts, so probably I wasn't clear enough. Unless you mean that a propowner could cite a law requiring an invitee to disarm, there is no valid law, the only alternative is to ask (demand) the invitee to leave. A demand to vacate can be upheld, you could get a policeman to enforce it. I think you mean "If the invitee accepts the invitation to stay, he/she must disarm" the corollary (?) is that (using past tense) "since the invitee did not disarm, the invitee should have left the premises".

1x2

 

[hugh damright]

You can uninvite me with respect to your property, but if you accept me on your property, you can't disarm me, as arming myself is a constitutionally protected status.

Being armed is not a "constitutionally protected status", the 2nd Amendment protects our RKBA against the federal government.

 

[another okie]

As said above, property rights is not the basis of the decision. The judge is saying that the employer's gun ban is a rational way to achieve a safer workplace, which the employer is required to do under OSHA.

It seems to me that opens the way for employers to say employees can't even own a gun, or smoke, or drive a fast car. I know there are companies that ban drinking already, so maybe those other restrictions are on the way.

The reason property rights is not the basis of the decision is because an ungated, unlocked parking lot is a place of public access, and property owners do not have the same rights over those places as they do over an office, which has less public access, or than they do over places of no public access, such as private homes.

 

[1x2]

...against the federal government.

You mean "against the federal government's interference with my being armed", or that "I am allowed to be armed so as to affect resistance against a tyrannical government"?

Yeah, it is a constitutionally protected status. To paraphrase the tenth "What's not enumerated in here is left to the states, or the people". That doesn't give a state the right to decide which rights belong to the people. States don't get first crack at this and the people get what's left. Truly, this is clarified and abused and corrected over time, like slavery and other forms of discrimination.

This is not that much different than the misconception of certain rights requiring incorporation under the 14th amendment.

I take a strict constructionist view (I think) but what's exhausting is the moral requirement to interpret law in the context of the whole, not "narrow construance".

I disagree with the case not being about property rights. I think it is about property rights (and employment law). I don't believe the judge's ruling based on OSHA has merit. Just because someone starts me down a road based on what I perceive to be a fallacy doesn't mean I'm obliged to chase them down that road and rebut whatever argument they throw into my path. I need to stick to the point. So, I refuse to argue OSHA anything in this case; OSHA doesn't apply. That would be the basis of what I hope to be an appeal.

OSHA- the second coming of the commerce clause...solves all your employment issues....cuz it's vague...oh, but wait, it's not? What're all those attendant regs for?

1x2

 

[Green Lantern]

As said above, property rights is not the basis of the decision. The judge is saying that the employer's gun ban is a rational way to achieve a safer workplace, which the employer is required to do under OSHA.

What really, REALLY steams me about this is that letting OHSA define a "safe workplace" is like asking Sarah Brady for advice on which CCW gun to get - useless!

A place I worked for had some serious security concerns, "Loss Prevention" and the company bean counters brushed them off repeatedly. Frustrated, we turned to OSHA, and were told in effect "sorry, not OUR jurisdiction, even if you feel that conditions where you work make you a prime target for a robbery or worse."

"Safe workplace," my backside.

Anyhow, here's another way to look at it. When you're ON THE CLOCK, "the company" has a lot of say in everything you do. This should not be so when you're OFF the clock.

What these policies do, in effect, is tell employees that they are not allowed to carry a gun for defense at all on their commute to or from work, or to any other stops they may need to make along the way.

This might have some merit if one drives a company car, or even if the company pays you for your commute time. But other than that, it can't be justified.

It's the same as the company telling me I'll lose my job if I don't answer my HOME phone in under 20 seconds, just like the one at work.

 

[txgho1911]

Just a quick read on some of the 10 Amendments that make up the Bill of Rights. Roberts commentary got me thinking. Who or what is restricted. Above all the Federal Gov is clearly restricted for all of these. Amd 10
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
In the last part of this sentence the "or" is very telling. Some of these items in the Bill of Rights long over due are not just a restriction on the fed but the states as well. This is reading and taking them to mean what they say as written.

Amd 1 includes "Congress shall make no law" and this tells me the States have more liberty in the treatment and respects for religious rights, implements, or adornments where the fed is disallowed. Is this a place where freedom of the press could in fact meet the moral fiber of the people through the many state's legislative branches?

Amd 2 "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I do not read authority in this left to the states. I say this is levied to the people.

Amd 3 "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
Still no state authority to board soldiers on your own bed in times of war or peace. Now if she was cute and in no hurry... This is square on the people. Word state is not to be seen.

I think I am learning in this way of thinking how twisted the reality of this world is compared to the beginning over 200 years ago. Wonder how long it will last.
Strange read?

 

[TwitchALot]

I’m not going to respond to everything, but I will say that I agree with the judge’s ruling (although not necessarily his reasoning).

I view residences and businesses to be different. I have no trouble if someone says "no guns in this house" because probably less than 4 people go in and out all day. But a business, where you're talking hundreds of random people, I feel is different.

But it is no different in principle. And as far as the issue goes, that’s what really matters. Whether something is allowed by the Civil Rights Act of 64 or whatever is irrelevant as far as this discussion is concerned. Just because something is law doesn’t mean it is right, or just. As such, the discussion should center around whether something should or shouldn’t be law. I’ll get to that. Your "feelings" shouldn't have anything to do with the discussion. Gun control advocates "feel" like guns are dangerous, menacing, and worth banning. But sound policy and sound argument does not come from feelings. Think about the reasons you "feel" that way. Justify it, and think about it.

Robert, (and I'm not trying to be snide here) since you know the constitution so well, what is the portion of the constitution that makes it so that the constitution applies only to the government? I know that the 1st amendment explicitly states congress..... I am wanting to know. So I don't wind up being on the losing side of the argument.

You must know the history of this country and the Constitution, along with the views of the Founding Fathers, to know that the Constitution is a limit on government power. Your best bet would probably be to start with the Federalist Papers.

Here's a thought: I think we're missing a subtle point. The OK law actually prohibits a business from adopting any "policy or rule" that prohibits employees from leaving legal firearms in locked vehicles in "any space set aside for any vehicle". Can we not think of other examples of laws that govern employer policies? Are all those wrong as well?

Yes, they are wrong. Provided of course, that you desire and believe in a free society. No government should have any say about how I run my private businesses. If I only want to hire white people with blond hair, that should be my decision. If I don’t want to hire women, that should be my decision. This has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong, or whether you disagree or disagree with it. It is about the very basis and meaning of a free society. The issue here is that some people are letting their emotions and personal beliefs get the better of them. In this respect, such people are no different from gun-control activists who are trying to take away our guns.

By the way, I don't personally believe in discrimination or sexism, what have you. But then, I don't believe that I have the right to control how someone else runs their business. If society really doesn't believe in discrimination and finds it wrong and morally reprehensible, any business that engages in such practices will suffer. Businesses that make economic decisions on non-economic factors will pay the price for it. No business should be forced to hire someone because they have a different skin color any more than they should be forcibly prevented from hiring hiring someone because they have a different skin color.

For we all recognize that when an employer prohibits employees from even leaving their self defense firearms in their own locked vehicles on the employer's property there is no way for the employee to have them on the trip to and from work every day.

Yes, there is. Don’t park on their property.

The Constitution is about the inner workings of government, the limits of government, and checks on government power.

The Bill of Rights is further restrictions on government power.

Further, the Preamble to both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights state that. Its all about personal freedom. But that personal freedom stops at someones private property. That is where their rules kick in. You cannot infringe on their personal freedom. And as far as I am concerned, anything and everything should be property owners choice, no matter how sexist, racist, or homophobic it might be, no matter how communist, socialist, fascist or anarchist.

That is correct and consistent with the principles of freedom and liberty. It is also the society I believe the Founding Fathers wished us to have. Nice work.

I'm of two minds about this, on one hand gun owners rights are being chipped away and on the other hand private property rights are strenthened.

The rights of gun owners are not being chipped away by this perse. Gun control advocates may seize upon it and try to institute more gun control, but the act itself does not restrict your right whatsoever. If I own a car, and you wish to ride in it, you should follow my rules. It is not your right to do whatever you want on my property. If it’s your car, go ahead and carry, but if I say no, the answer is no. You cannot say that I am violating your rights, because I’m not. I own the car, and if I don’t want you to carry, then either you don’t carry, or you don’t ride. It’s that simple. I should not be forced to give you a ride against my will. Nor should I be forced to follow your rules in my car.

If it is my property, I have the right to do whatever I want with it so long as I don’t infringe upon the rights of someone else. Since it is you who chooses to ride in my vehicle (property), you must follow my rules. If you don’t want to, I have no power to force you to. But then, neither do you have the power (justly, anyway) to force me to give you a ride.

This scenario is again, the very basis of a free society. I might find smoking marijuana to be morally reprehensible. But do I have the right to stop you from smoking it, so long as you don’t affect others? In my opinion, no. I may find something completely distasteful and morally reprehensible, but I will defend your right to choose, and your right to do it, so long as you do not infringe upon the rights of other people.

The implication of the ruling is that federal law REQUIRES employers to ban all firearms in workplaces that are covered by OSHA. That is a HUGE win for the anti's unless OK can win in appeal.

First of all, this is a state law, so federal law has nothing to do with it. Second of all, there is no implication whatsoever. The obvious alternative is that no law is instated that forces one party to do one thing or another.

I'd like to leave property rights aside as they are not the basis for the federal judge's ruling; however,

to address property rights for a moment, it's my opinion that all the protections of the constitution (and state law) are available to citizens regardless of ownership of the property that they happen to be standing on. This was "pointed to" above regarding enslaving your barbeque invitees, etc. IMO correct law sets out that a property owner cannot abridge another's rights, but in the simple case that the property owner wants to stifle a guest's behavior or presence on the property, the owner can enforce a request to leave (trespassing) or disturbing the peace, etc. It's two sides of the same coin. You can uninvite me with respect to your property, but if you accept me on your property, you can't disarm me, as arming myself is a constitutionally protected status.

Further, as long as people make laws, there will be some laws that may be deemed poor in intent, poorly crafted, or poorly enforced. I think the SCOTUS eminent domain decision should have been quite narrowly decided, as the "public good" is too easily abused. I think the cost of the taking of private land should be almost prohibitvely expensive, and the lesson is that the states and federal government should hang onto the "public" lands "we" have now- you know, "read my lips, no net loss"- that sort of thing. It won't be very long until we can't feed ourselves... Fred Thompson mentioned "guns AND butter" the other night...[ramble ramble].

First of all, the Bill of Rights, again, applies to the federal and state governments. Second of all, if you choose to enter my property, you forfeit those rights. If I choose to let you on my property, I should be able to kick you out at any time. It may be because you put butter on your bread. It may be because you have a gun. It may be because I don’t like your haircut. I shouldn’t need a reason. It is my property, and I may do with it as I wish (again, provided that I don’t infringe upon the rights of others). If you choose to be there, then you choose to accept my rules. If you don’t like them, you can leave. Simply because I allow you to be on my property doesn’t mean I suddenly lose my ownership of it. As such, just because I allow you to be on my property at one point doesn’t mean I can’t kick you off later. That said, you are correct- I cannot disarm you (unless I own the gun). But it’s not because of the Second Amendment (Please note that some of my comments aren't necessarily in relation to your arguments- some of them are here just because of convenience and organization).

Oklahoma's response to this should be to institute a "private property permit" system where companies who want the right to ban firearms on their property must submit an elaborate application, corporate character references, and a substantial fee to an understaffed bureaucracy (possibly biased in favor of gun rights, hm?) which will duly consider the company's suitability, and if approved, shall issue a private property permit within 60,000,000 days.

This line of reasoning, as seems prevalent in this thread, not only ignores history and slippery slope arguments, but also important concepts like “precedent.” Property rights was one of the biggest issues during the creation of our Constitution, and the respect for private property amongst the Founding Fathers was second to none.

As long as the people continue to buy the "American Dream" concept and put themselves in debt to where you live paycheck to paycheck, you can't possibly afford to stay home from work for 6 months to change a companies policies or take a pay cut and go somewhere else.

One person cannot. But if the employees of the company are sincere about refusing to accept this, then they should work together. I guarantee you that if a majority of the employees of a company decided to quit because of this, management would be quite interested in resolving the issue.

Indentured slaves have been around for centuries. It just so happens its under a free society in this country.

If anyone gets anything out of this thread, let it be this- we do not live in a free society.

The reason property rights is not the basis of the decision is because an ungated, unlocked parking lot is a place of public access, and property owners do not have the same rights over those places as they do over an office, which has less public access, or than they do over places of no public access, such as private homes.

If someone owns that property, then they may do what they wish with it. Whether it is accessible or not is irrelevant. My driveway is accessible to anyone with a car. Should anyone have the right to park on my driveway because it is accessible, and is ungated and unlocked?


Now let me discuss the issue in general terms (as such, when I say “you,” I am not referring to anyone in particular). The issue here is that some people are letting their biases get the better of them. But in order to be logically consistent and true to ones principles, one must either separate themselves from the issue, or temporarily fool themselves into believing that they love whatever is being banned, or what have you. It is, I think, human nature to try to shape the world as one believes it should be. That said, I believe that the United States was meant to be a free society, where individuals have control not just their destiny, but their property and lives as well. To make this more personal to all of you, how would you feel if the state said, “you can own guns, but you can only use them where we say you can- namely at supervised, state-funded, ranges”? Presumably, none of you would agree with this decision.

And in principle, how is this different from any of you trying to dictate what this company does on its property? Agreeing with a law that forces companies to allow firearms on its private property is no different, as a matter of principle, from agreeing with a law that forces companies to ban firearms on its private property. You probably that we have a right to keep and bear arms, for various reasons. But how can you possibly believe that governments have the right to control how, when, and where we use firearms so long as we are not infringing upon the rights of other people? How can you believe that you have the right to decide what is right for everyone else?

Because that’s essentially what you’re advocating if you believe that this law is just. Nobody should be forced to do anything with and on their private property, again, so long as they are not infringing upon the rights of others. And although I believe that I have a right to keep and bear arms, I don’t believe that I have a right to force a property owner to do something, or allow something, on his property. If I want to be at his place, then I believe that I must respect his rules. Conversely, if I want to say, “you can’t come into my home unless you’re armed,” then I should have that right as well.

The basis of a free society is that everyone can choose to do what he or she wants without repercussion (unless of course, they infringe upon the rights of another). This law is not about the Second Amendment. It is about the right of a person to own and control his or her property in a manner that he or she sees fit. It just so happens to deal with firearms. Don’t let that get the better of you.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Ah for the Good Old Days

By the way, I don't personally believe in discrimination or sexism, what have you. But then, I don't believe that I have the right to control how someone else runs their business. If society really doesn't believe in discrimination and finds it wrong and morally reprehensible, any business that engages in such practices will suffer. Businesses that make economic decisions on non-economic factors will pay the price for it. No business should be forced to hire someone because they have a different skin color any more than they should be forcibly prevented from hiring hiring someone because they have a different skin color.

Your approach has been well tested in many countries for many years, including in the United States of America.

Any Jew that didn't like signs that read "No dogs or Jews allowed" just didn't understand the rights of business owners and property owners, but they could always go somewhere else, which was the point of such signs. Black people who got bent out of shape because business and property owners had "No coloreds allowed" policies probably needed sensitivity training so they could be more sensitive to the needs of property owners and business owners. Women who didn't like not being promoted or who weren't satisfied being paid less than men who did the same job could always take your suggestion and get another job, at which they also would be paid less than men for the same job. What's important, though, is that they did have the option of refusing to take such jobs.

White miners who didn't like conditions in the coal mines, textile workers who knew they would die of tuberculosis in the mills, immigrant laborers who were paid little and were induced to buy necessaries at company stores where they were overcharged and kept in debt, industrial workers who lived and labored in company towns in which they either accepted the company's wages and followed the company's rule or were told to get out ....

Ah, those were the good old days. People really did understand the rights of property and business owners then. If they didn't like it they could lump it, and if they put up a fuss they knew what to expect. But why be nostalgic for the past when it's possible to return to those golden days of yesteryear with the complete approval of those who will be affected. Who could possibly object to the rights of business and property owners to do exactly as they please. After all, it's their business and their property and it's not as if what they do affects the rest of society.

Though the Judge's reasoning is repugnant, I think the decision is correct, despite any reductum ad absurdum arguments to the contrary.

All issues thus resolved forever and there being no further business we may now adjourn.

 

[denfoote]

Once again we have another Federal Judge that needs to be impeached and removed from the bench!!

Time to start pestering your House critters!!

 

[ptmmatssc]

I know this sounds odd , but if you own a single stock in a company , are you not considered a partial "owner" ? Whirlpool,Williams Cos, and Conoco Phillips are all publicly traded stocks , therefore you could buy a single stock as an employee and not be subject to being disarmed (off the clock) since you are essentially part owner and are exercising your "private property " rights?

Companies generally issue one or more of types of securities. The better
known are common stock, preferred stock and debentures or bonds.
Investors who buy a share or shares of common or preferred stock are
actually buying an equity or ownership interest in a company.

Btw , if a company is "public" ( sells stock ) then they do not get the same protection of property rights as a "private" company (owned by an individual ,family,etc" ).

Noticed that the companies that tend to lean toward employee gun bans are also the ones that are publicly traded , therefore not true "private" businesses .

Just my weird take on it .

 

[TargetTerror]

HOWEVER, I'm confused about how this is a Federal case.

There are several ways in which cases which claim relief under state law can be tried in Federal court, but in this case I would imagine it is under the "Federal Question" jurisdiction afforded by 28 USC s 1331.

Basically, if you claim that a law/action violates the Constitution or a Federal law, your case can be tried in Federal court. In this case, I presume that the OSHA regulations satisfied the Federal Question requirement, giving the Federal court jurisdiction over the case.

 

[Car Knocker]

Once again we have another Federal Judge that needs to be impeached and removed from the bench!!

Out of curiosity, on what grounds?

 

[TwitchALot]

Your approach has been well tested in many countries for many years, including in the United States of America.

Any Jew that didn't like signs that read "No dogs or Jews allowed" just didn't understand the rights of business owners and property owners, but they could always go somewhere else, which was the point of such signs.

Correct.

Black people who got bent out of shape because business and property owners had "No coloreds allowed" policies probably needed sensitivity training so they could be more sensitive to the needs of property owners and business owners. Women who didn't like not being promoted or who weren't satisfied being paid less than men who did the same job could always take your suggestion and get another job, at which they also would be paid less than men for the same job. What's important, though, is that they did have the option of refusing to take such jobs.

No, what is is important is that black people, or anyone else for that matter, has the freedom do the exact same thing to "white" people, or anyone they choose.

White miners who didn't like conditions in the coal mines, textile workers who knew they would die of tuberculosis in the mills, immigrant laborers who were paid little and were induced to buy necessaries at company stores where they were overcharged and kept in debt, industrial workers who lived and labored in company towns in which they either accepted the company's wages and followed the company's rule or were told to get out ....

Aside from the fact that I think it's perfectly okay for workers to ask for more, let me ask you a question. If working in the coal mines and mills were so bad, why did people get out of the farming business in the first place?

Ah, those were the good old days. People really did understand the rights of property and business owners then. If they didn't like it they could lump it, and if they put up a fuss they knew what to expect. But why be nostalgic for the past when it's possible to return to those golden days of yesteryear with the complete approval of those who will be affected. Who could possibly object to the rights of business and property owners to do exactly as they please. After all, it's their business and their property and it's not as if what they do affects the rest of society.

Everyone wants everything for free. But it doesn't work that way. If the workers thought the coal mines were so bad, why didn't they strike, Robert? Do you honestly think every company would purposely put themselves out of business instead of compromise if the stakes are high enough?

All your line of reasoning does is support the very government that has taken away much of our freedoms today. The government should "fix" this. The government should "fix" that. The government should protect us from everything, including ourselves. All that has led to is increasing government control over our lives. If I want to drink alcohol in my house, then I believe I damn well have the right to do it. The government shouldn't have any say on the matter. So what if it's bad for my liver? I should have the freedom to choose.

Tell me Robert- if you believe the government should have a say over what I do on my private property, and how I run my business, where, if any, should the line be drawn?

 

[Joshua C]

Think about the reasons you "feel"

I have. Would be nice if I could think of a way to hold my own in a debate.

edit: I did some thinking.... I'm not really in favor of the gumment saying they have to let me keep a gun in my car. But, I do think that the employer shouldn't prevent me from keeping a gun, by their choice. Can we agree on that?

 

[TwitchALot]

I have. Would be nice if I could think of a way to hold my own in a debate.

edit: I did some thinking.... I'm not really in favor of the gumment saying they have to let me keep a gun in my car. But, I do think that the employer shouldn't prevent me from keeping a gun, by their choice. Can we agree on that?

Well, I'm not going to get into the finer points of debate, so I'll leave that.

Of course I think the employer shouldn't prevent me from keeping a gun. But then, I also think they have the right to if they wish.

 

[zxcvbob]

Why is everybody so protective of the employer's property rights, but totally ignoring the property rights of the employee? The car is the property of the employee and not the employer. There's a boundary involved; the employer should have no say whatsoever about what's inside the vehicle as long as it stays inside.

Tell me Robert- if you believe the government should have a say over what I do on my private property, and how I run my business, where, if any, should the line be drawn?

The line is drawn at the locked car door. that's where the employer's property ends and the employee's property starts.

 

[TwitchALot]

The line is drawn at the locked car door. that's where the employer's property ends and the employee's property starts.

And where is this car? Should I be allowed to carry a weapon on me anywhere, any time, because it is on my person, and I am... well, in charge of my person? If the contract stipulates that the company can change its rules at any time without notice, and you sign that contract, you've put yourself at the mercy of the company. And as such, if they say no firearms on company property, it means no firearms on company property. If your car is on company property, the fact that the firearm is in the car isn't relevant.

Also, if you're going to argue that the line starts with the car, why can't I just argue that the line starts with my person and thus carry wherever I want?

 

[Robert Hairless]

No, what is is important is that black people, or anyone else for that matter, has the freedom do the exact same thing to "white" people, or anyone they choose.

Your position is much clearer now.

The rest of what you say is some bizarre game you're playing by denial of history and fact. When you say "If the workers thought the coal mines were so bad, why didn't they strike, Robert," you want people to believe that they did not.

In fact the mine workers did strike a great many times throughout the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, not only in the United States but also in the U.K., Canada, and other countries. Mineworker strikes were frequent and are well known. So were the inevitable results. The mine owners hired private agencies of armed men who were supplemented by local law enforcement and the National Guard to ensure their rights as property owners and business owners. Striking miners were beaten or shot.

Your suggestion of a level playing field between employers and employees is absurd. Coal miners who earned a dollar were paid in scrip--paper issued by the company--that was useful only to pay their rent for shacks owned by the company or to buy things sold for inflated prices at the company store. A coal miner who insisted upon being paid in U.S. currency received it at a discounted rate so that his dollar in scrip bought 80 cents in money. These are the people you portray as having some real ability to either leave for other work or to strike for higher wages from the mines that employed them.

Nonsense. Neither Hobson's Choice nor Sophie's Choice are real choices. They are fictions created by those who attempt to delude the ignorant and those too weak to resist.

Coal miners lived a bare subsistence existence. They worked long and hard, died early from accidents or negligence, and existed with disease and poverty. Even in the very first decade of the supposedly enlighted Twenty-First Century a news article on six coal miners trapped in a Utah mine collapse noted that "Government mine inspectors have issued 325 citations against the mine since January 2004, according to a quick analysis of federal Mine Safety and Health Administration online records. Of those, 116 were what the government considered "significant and substantial," meaning they are likely to cause injury." People with real choices don't often choose such employment.

Your question is twisted: "Do you honestly think every company would purposely put themselves out of business instead of compromise if the stakes are high enough?" These companies did not "put themselves out of business" and were never at any such risk. They exercised their rights to put the coal miners down and keep them there. The record is history, well known and readily available.

"Last month," continued that news story I cited about the 2006 Utah coal mine collapse on six coal miner, "inspectors cited the mine for violating a rule requiring that at least two separate passageways be designated for escape in an emergency."

It was the third time in less than two years that the mine had been cited for the same problem, according to MSHA records. In 2005, MSHA ordered the mine owners to pay $963 for not having escapeways and the 2006 fine for the same problem was just $60.

Overall, the federal government has ordered the mine owner to pay nearly $152,000 in penalties for its 325 violations with many citations having no fines calculated yet. Since January, the mine owner has paid $130,678 in fines, according to MSHA records.

Asked about safety, Murray told reporters: "I believe we run a very safe coal mine. We've had an excellent record."

Mr. Murray, who told reporters that his company ran "a very safe coal mine" with "an excellent record," is chairman of Murray Energy Corp. of Cleveland, a part owner of the Crandall Canyon mine. He is exercising his company's property rights and business rights. As for the miners: http://blog.aflcio.org/2007/08/14/danger-signs-at-crandall-canyon-mine-raised-five-months-ago/

 

[flynlr]

as a postal worker there is probably no chance in $#@# that I would ever be able to even leave a firearm in my car while on postal Property. that being said.
I sometimes park on the public street right next to our building. heck \
its a shorter walk to the door most of the time.