No Guns in Parking Lot - Unconstitutional?

[rangermonroe]

I have had to retink my position on this issue.

I have always been a 'property rights' guy, and still am.

We are walking the line between civil and property rights with this arguement.

I hold the position that the employers property ends at my tires. As do my rights as a property owner end at the tires of my guests/ employees.

As an employee, you certainly do have the "right" to seek employment elsewhere at any time, but not always the ability. Labor laws are there to protect the rights of employees against unfair management practices.

Some pinhead in HR decides that some other "object" is now against company policy, say "prescription medicine bottles" and at age 57, you need BP meds. Do you say, "property rights... guess I'll pick up the help wanted section."

Perhaps you all would think a little differently of employers rights to ban objects from their property if wife/mother/sisters' boss decided to ban shirts and bras from the workplace.

But I don't recall a Playtex in the Constitution any where.

 

[pacodelahoya]

Nope you guys are close but not quite. 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. Look at the words that are capitalized. You guys are confusing the right to be armed with a right to own and carry around personal property.(not real estate)

The right to bear arms is a fundamental basic right. As much as the right to be free from involuntary servitude. Or the right to be able to go into Wallyworld and buy goods regardless of sex or gender.

 

[Robert Hairless]

antsi:

You and Robert Hairless seem to be saying that my constitutional rights are inviolable at any time and any place, and that they trump your private property rights under any circumstances.

No, that's not what I am saying at all. I'm sorry if I seemed unclear. I wasn't talking about your constitutional rights in my original message. I was talking about my rights, or--to be clearer still--my rights as they would exist according to the principle in the message to which I responded.

That principle is that a property owner had the absolute ability to set rules for people who entered upon its property, and that those rules trumped the Constitution and laws. It is a silly assertion and I treated it as such.

I could have applied that person's principle differently, perhaps by suggesting that the property owner might establish a rule that all smokers would be hung, drawn, and quartered. Nobody likes a smoker. That example might have been clearer.

Instead I chose to burlesque that silly principle by talking about seizing a UPS truck that entered my driveway. I hadn't contemplated anyone silly enough to try topping my silliness too. You're third generation silly, which is an achievement of sorts, but not one for which certificates are yet awarded. It's good that you're continuing to push the silliness meter, though, because you could eventually reach the point of being certifiable.

You're not aware that U.S. businesses are regulated by federal, state, and local laws, and that they are required to operate in accordance with Constitutional protections for their employees as well as their customers and others who enter upon their property. Educational institutions today don't do a good job.

 

[pacodelahoya]

Honey and vinegar Robert, honey and vinegar.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Honey and vinegar Robert, honey and vinegar

Using honey all the time gets boring.......

 

[Aguila Blanca]

PS: do you have a printer on your computer? I'd like to exercise my freedom of the press while I'm there.

"Freedom of the press"?

And that would be spelled out in which Amendment under the Bill of Rights?

 

[pacodelahoya]

EEW, EEW, I know.....The first?

 

[KINGMAX]

Loose lips sinks ships

Those loose lips have sunk his own ship. I have a feeling that someone should have kept his mouth shut, never let anyone know your personal business. Just remember - If you don't want it broadcasted, never tell it the first time.

I know of only a few reasons why an employer whould even allow you to have a gun on company property.

a). LED
b). Wells-Fargo
c). ATM service unit

You get the general idea. If you are designing international postage stamps you don't need your gun at your desk or on your hip either.

If you are a person that has to commute a long distance, or work off-shift hours, you may choose to carry a gun. DON"T TELL ANYONE that you do. No one needs to know. :banghead:

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Nor can employers require you to waive your protected rights. They cannot, as a condition of employment, require you to give up your right to vote; neither can they require you to give up your right of self-protection or your right to keep and bear arms.

I love it when folks make statements of fact when the "facts" are in error.

Conditions of employment can be very specific about employee activities while on the clock. No, the employer cannot make you give up your right to vote, but the employer does not have to allow you time off to vote. By not allowing you time off to vote is not a violation of your rights.

An employer most definitely can deny your right to keep and bear arms in the workplace, on your person, and in some cases, on the premises, as conditions of employment. Some states do allow for firearms to remain in vehicles, others do not.

In fact, the conditions of employment often specifically stipulate certain things such as the carrying of weapons. If you violate the rule that you agreed to as part of employment, then you can lose your job.

An employer may limit your right to freedom of speech. If you violate that right in some manner, you may be terminated, for example in verbal insubordination.

If you are going to violate your terms of employment, then you should be big enough to accept the fact that you were dumb enough to get caught and that the fault isn't with the employer, but you. You shot craps and crapped out.

 

[TexasRifleman]

You shot craps and crapped out.

Well in this case he appears to have rolled the point since the court agreed with him.

 

[morcoth]

Some still seem confused

He kept the firearm in his car, not on his hip, nor on his desk, Im saying that that is none of the employers business.

Since the court did in fact agree with that, then I think a cheer is in order for another courth that got it right.

Lets see:

DC ban, Check
MD ban, Check
UPS idiocy, Check
86, 68, 34, still working on those

Morcoth

 

[Car Knocker]

DC ban, Check

Still needs to be played out. Not a done deal.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Companies, Corporations, Etc...

...exist at the pleasure of the people through law written and passed by our legislatures. Ergo, corporations and all other such companies do not have rights, only powers granted them by state law.

Since these companies are constructs made possible by states that only have powers themselves, how could a state grant or confer a right upon any company? Sorry, but it can't be done.

Individuals have rights that come with any property they might own. Any limitations on the use of property owned by an individual must be passed into law. Otherwise, anything goes. Companies must have permission from the state to do what ever they want to do with the property they may own. Otherwise, nothing goes.

The only way to get law enforcement, the courts, and our legislators to abide these laws is to prohibit corporations from making political contributions. Money speaks loudly when it comes to this sort of thing.

Woody

If you want security, buy a gun. If you want longevity, learn how to use it. If you want freedom, carry it. There is nothing worth more than freedom you win for yourself. There is nothing more valuable than the tools of the right that make it possible. B.E.Wood

 

[scurtis_34471]

The real question here is whether or not your car is considered your property and whether or not you have the reasonable expectation of privacy in your car. I like the approach taken by a bill currently under consideration in Florida. The bill simply states that employers do not have the right to search your car and cannot fire you for refusing to give consent to search your vehicle. I think that approach respects the employer's property rights, because they still control what happens on their property outside of your private vehicle. It also protects the employee's property and privacy rights, by keeping the employer from snooping around inside your car.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Since the court did in fact agree with that, then I think a cheer is in order for another courth that got it right.

You are right, it is none of their business. Apparently the gun owner made that information public in some manner that then made it UPS' business because of their policy.

Their policy was found to be wrong in Ohio. As noted, states like Utah are another story.

You have to like the spin doctored article in the Star Telegram posted by ArfinGreebly on the first page. The court case involved a guy name Plona, but most of the examples of people needing protection were female, like the poor mom getting off work late and who has to stop by a convenience store to get things for her kids' lunch the following day. So the article was no longer about rights per se, but about the protection of wholesome, hardworking mothers who have to care for their children. Then there are the women who work late hours as cashiers at supermarkets. And what about employees of all-night pharmacies, or nurses or lab technicians who work late shifts and drive to and from work through dangerous areas late at night, or female legislators who travel at night, or women who are stalked or who who have obtained domestic violence injunctions. I am surprised the writer found any justification for Plona having a gun given that he was a male as apparently only females need guns for protection. The article was by Ms. Marion Hammer.

 

[TexasRifleman]

You have to like the spin doctored article

Why is it spin doctoring for a woman to write anything from a woman's viewpoint?

And it was an editorial not an article "reporting the news" , which sort of means you editorialize:

editorialize - insert personal opinions into an objective statement

She's a former NRA president also, the first woman president of the NRA.

I'm having a real hard time finding a problem with anything she wrote, maybe I've been brainwashed......

 

[lacoochee]

First, in regards to the facts as originally posted, the parking lot did not belong to UPS, therefore there are no property right considerations. They wrongfully terminated their employee after abusing their power as an employer to search his vehicle on public property. Essentially, this is the same as your employer showing up at your home and demanding to search the premises of your abode for firearms, on the grounds that he pays part of the premiums for your medical insurance and that in his opinion you should be fired if your ownership of a rifle increased those premiums. (This is not tongue in cheek, employers have been firing people for smoking in their own homes on this premise with varying degrees of success, scared yet?)

That said, the parking lot issue is an ongoing issue in Florida.

Last year a parking lot bill allowing employees to keep firearms in their vehicles at their discretion while giving their employers immunity for any actions taken by their employees with those firearms, was eventually defeated in the state legislature after being (stupidly in my opinion) opposed by various corporations, newspapers, and chambers of commerce.

As stated above, the same law has been proposed again, this time with no mention of firearms and no immunities for employers, as a right to privacy issue at my suggestion and I am sure many others. This time ironically because of the non-mention of firearms the newspapers are supporting it (because after all who wants a drug dealing employee or worse found out by their employer, even if they suspect their employee of such activities). I am fairly certain that it will pass this time with many more votes from the Democrats in Tallahassee.

And to those of you who would argue about private business rights, you have a state charter or license allowing you to be a business, giving the state the right to regulate your hiring practices, work environment, wages, required breaks, you name it and that's just at the state level, then there are federal work rules. So the argument that an employers rights trump all other rights is naive at best.

 

[okcorral]

Oklahoma made a law in 2005 that stated employers could not make a policy against employees storing firearms in their vehicles. This was appealed to our district federal court and the judge created an injunction stating the employers had this right until a ruling could be made. So in Oklahoma employers in 9 out of the 60 something counties have the right to terminate an employee for carrying a gun in their car. I don't really understand how the injunction only applies in a handful of the counties and the rest of the state the state law still applies.

Conoco Phillips is to blame for this.

 

[antsi]

Robert Hairless

-quote-----
Instead I chose to burlesque that silly principle
-----------

So, you use a reductio ad absurdum and it's a brilliant argumentative tactic.

I use a reductio ad absurdum, and I'm certifiable.

I have not used any rudeness, insults, or name-calling. Congratulations on your brilliant introduction of reductio ad jerk into the discussion.

For the record:

I never argued that a property owner has absolute dictatorial rights on his own turf. I've never seen anyone on this forum advance that viewpoint, and I certainly have not. You were "burlesqueing" a proposition that I never made; one that in fact nobody has made.

Congratulations: you have brilliantly defeated an argument that nobody but you was making.

I was arguing against the notion that constutional rights are absolute and inviolable and can never be restricted in any way whatsoever. I have frequently seen people on this forum advance that viewpoint. I was "burlesqueing" a proposition that is frequently made on this forum.

My position is that one party's legitimate rights may, in some situations, come into conflict with another party's legitimate rights, and that such situations have to be judged according to whose more basic right is being more seriously threatened or infringed. I don't believe these kind of conflicts can always be settled by the rote application of a general principle that will always result in the same answer.

In the situation described in this case, I do not believe the employer has reasonable grounds to restrict firearms in an employee's car. However, I do believe that employers can reasonably ask their employees to refrain from exercising certain freedoms while they are on company time and on company property as a condition of employment.

 

[Geno]

The idea that an employer has the right to decide the employees' Constitutional rights is unfounded, as evidenced by the court's ruling. Too many liberals are trying to force their lack-of-values on the rest of us. After 70 years of 2nd Amendment abuse, the pendulum has commenced to swing to the other direction. I don't need for anyone to tell me where I can tout my firearm outside of work. I am a grown boy; I have a brain, and I have uncommon sense. There is, IMHO, something fundamentally wrong with people who feel an insatiable compulsion to control the lives, actions and even thoughts of others. Change is good. Let's keep up the current trend of change to historic 2nd Amendment abuses.

 

[rangermonroe]

You get the general idea. If you are designing international postage stamps you don't need your gun at your desk or on your hip either.

And with friends like this...

 

[pacodelahoya]

Antsi, I understand what you are saying about rights not being 100% total. Will you agree that your rights are inviolate up to the point where they would infringe on another?

If indeed you agree on this then noone can tell you where or where not to carry your firearms, switchblade or slingshots as long as you don't use them for anything other than defense while on their property.

That is the way the 2A was written and that is the way it should be.

 

[antsi]

-----quote--------
Will you agree that your rights are inviolate up to the point where they would infringe on another?
------------------

Definitely. I think there has to be a very high bar to justify any restriction of anyone's rights. If nobody else's rights are being violated, then there is no such justification.

As for how that would apply to carrying a firearm - let me try to think of an example. Let's say you are the manager of a fast food restaraunt and you have an employee who insists on carrying his AR-15 on a sling and three bandoleers of ammo while greeting customers at the front counter. Say you get a lot of patrons complaining about this, and you ask the employee: "Could you please carry a concealed pistol, instead of your AR, while you are on duty at the front counter? I don't mind you carrying the AR in the kitchen or storeroom, but when you carry it out front, you're freaking people out and driving off my customers." The employee replies; "It's my constitutional right to keep and bear arms. You have no right to tell me what kind of gun I can carry and what kind I can't. Screw you, Bradyite Gun-grabber!" Under these circumstances, do you think you have the right to fire this employee? Or is his right to carry on company property on company time truly inviolable?

Generally, I believe employers have some degree of right to regulate the appearance and behavior of employees when they are on the job and dealing with the public in that company's name. The employee certainly has a right to "keep and bear" his AR. In this situation, the employer's right and the employee's right seem to be in conflict. In such a case, which right do you believe takes precedence?

As an aside, I know people are going to say "that's an extreme example." But really, most court cases are about unusual, extreme cases. Nobody winds up in the Supreme Court arguing freedom of the press because they published a Chamber of Commerce brochure; it's people like Larry Flynt arguing freedom of the press when he published a parody accusing Jerry Falwell of incest. It is precisely because extreme cases are the ones that test the limits (if any) of our rights that extreme cases are the ones we wind up arguing. Similarly, I think the DC gun ban is a great Second Ammendment case precisely because it is such an extreme violation of RKBA and thus tends to "force the issue."

 

[pacodelahoya]

Greet people at the door with it? NO. Keep it in his employee locker or car? Absolutely. Carry concealed while he serves up those tasty kahuna burgers? You betcha!

 

[antsi]

-------quote-------
Greet people at the door with it? NO. Keep it in his employee locker or car? Absolutely. Carry concealed while he serves up those tasty kahuna burgers? You betcha!
--------------------

That's exactly the way I would decide it.

If only the Supreme Court was two justices, you and me, we'd have it made