NRA Launches National Boycott Against ConocoPhillips

[deanf]

I disagree with the NRA's legal analysis in this case. LaPierre said

Across the country, we’re going to make ConocoPhillips the example of what happens when a corporation takes away your Second Amendment rights

You can't take away a right that doesn't exist. The 2nd Amendment only restricts the actions of government. The RKBA does not exist on private property. Therefore ConocoPhillips cannot "take away" 2nd Amendment rights.

 

[GunGoBoom]

Even if you DON'T use Conoco or Phillips gas, go ahead and write or email them anyway telling them that you're gonna 'quit' using their gas & stores - that's what I'm doing today. Go NRA!

 

[Fletchette]

You can't take away a right that doesn't exist. The 2nd Amendment only restricts the actions of government. The RKBA does not exist on private property.

Hmmm. So Conoco could fire any employess that were secretly Jewish?

 

[Rebar]

The RKBA does not exist on private property.

The inside of your car, is not their property.

 

[Werewolf]

Conoco-Phillips is wrong. Shortsighted and wrong.

But be that as it may Oklahoma is a hire at will - fire at will state by law. It is my understanding (IANAL so please correct me if my understanding is wrong) that that means an employer can pretty much fire an employee for literally no reason at all.

Do employers do that in practice - rarely but they can still do it.

Regarding the law-suit. As much as I loathe what Conoco has done and why - I suspect they are within their legal right to do it and that they will prevail in their suit.

Therefore - the only way to get them to change their policy is to hurt them in the pocket book which for all practical purposes means BOYCOTT!

 

[buzz_knox]

So Conoco could fire any employess that were secretly Jewish?

Under the Constitution, yes. Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its progeny (including various state laws which are the equivalent thereof), no.

 

[deanf]

Hmmm. So Conoco could fire any employess that were secretly Jewish?

Of course. This is not the law as it stands today, but it should be.

The inside of your car, is not their property.

But it's on their property, and they have (or should have) the right to make rules for conduct on their property, and to eject those who don't follow the rules.

And the reason that they have the right to make rules for conduct on their own property that seem to go against the Constitution is because the rights outlined therein only restrict the actions of government against the people, not private entities against the people.

 

[Fletchette]

So Cruikshank was not guilty?...

 

[Edgeofthewoods]

Quote:
I'm pretty sure the majority of corporations have the same policy regarding firearms in cars in a company parking lot. If you don't like it - then don't park your car in their parking lot.

Nope, not true. I've worked for big and small companies and not ONE has had this policy.

BTW - what is GOA doing about this issue?

Medcath Corperation is one of those mid sized companies. In our employee hand book it lays out that "No firearms may be brought on to Medcath Property (Heart Hospital of NM) This is to include but not limited to your personal automobile while parked on a Medcath parking lot" "The issuance of a NM Concealed Carry Permit does not exempt employees from this ruling."


Kind of a stickey situation, but there are ways around it.One is I don't noise about that I have my weapon at all times.

Chuck

 

[alan]

Re the mentioned boycott, it couldn't happen to a more deserving mob, or so it seems to me.

 

[riverdog]

Which is more important, private property or guns?

I'm torn on this issue but not because I'm both an NRA Life member and a Conoco-Phillips (COP) investor. I don't see this as a 2nd Amendment issue but rather as a private property issue.

Oklahoma legislation seems to try to draw a line regarding what can (or rather cannot) be enforced on private property -- essentially limiting private property rights. While the new law specifically allows firearms in vehicles on company proerty, it's really about private property and not the 2nd Amendment. As we saw in Kelo vs New London (taking homes using eminent domain), the SCOTUS doesn't think much of private property rights, leaving the issue to the discretion of the state, in COP's case, Oklahoma.

It will be interesting to see if a Federal court will agree with SCOTUS and uphold Oklahoma's law or rule in favor of private property rights. It's an interesting comparison with Kelo. Regardless, what I see is Conoco-Phillips vs Oklahoma on a private property issue -- then the NRA butts in with this boycott crapola -- like that will impress a federal judge.

Until ConocoPhillips loses in court and the Pro-Gun legislation is allowed to rule, I'm a property rights guy. It's not like I should have a lot of sympathy for guys who can't have a firearm in their trunk -- I live in CA and work on a Naval base, do the math

As for boycotting Conoco-Phillips -- ain't gonna happen with me. BTW, my few piddly shares are up considerably

 

[rick_reno]

Nope, not true. I've worked for big and small companies and not ONE has had this policy.

Which ones are those? All of them that I've worked for had this policy, tho none ever enforced it that I was aware of.

 

[Fletchette]

Is there not a difference between "corporate property" and "Private property"?

Corporations exist at the will of the government. They have charters that can be revoked by the government if the govenrment finds their business is not helping "the public good". Corporations CANNOT fire someone based on their religion. A private person most certainly can exclude someone on his/her property due to religion.

I think people are getting confused. Corporations are public entities, not people. People have rights. Corporations don't.

 

[riverdog]

Fletchette,
There are definitely differences between Kelo as a private homeowner and COP as a corporate property owner. That distinction should make it even more difficult for Conoco-Phillips to win in federal court against Oklahoma law. I still don't understand what the NRA hopes to gain with this boycott. I put Union 76 in my tank because it's the only gas I've found in CA that doesn't have MTBE as an ingredient.

 

[Kurt S.]

Korporate Amerika, you got to love it.

I just love the concept that a legal piece of fiction known as "the corporate entity" or whatever is looked at as having the same property rights as Joe Individual.

This is a little holdover from the 1800's that needs to go the way of some of the other concepts from that era like phlogiston chemistry, bleeding as a medical procedure, legalized slavery etc., etc.

I'm getting a little cranky in my old age, I guess.

 

[jnojr]

LaPierre says NRA will “spare no effort or expense” to defend firearm freedom of employees of anti-gun corporations

Where is the NRA "sparing no expense" to defend the firearms rights of residents of anti-gun states???

 

[antsi]

-------quote-------------------
The NRA only works with the possible. Part of being politically effective is not letting ideology get in the way of making winning bets. If the political climate is very anti-gun, the best strategy is to sabotage what you cant prevent. If the poitical climate is mildly pro-gun you start pushing stuff through, but slowly at first. When things are wildly pro-gun you start repealing stuff left and right. You shouldnt mistake political adeptness for ideological weakness. They just wont push for more than they feel is possible at the moment.
--------------------------------

Agreed.

There may be some issues where you find a gun organization which is more "ideologically pure" and "uncompromising" than the NRA on some pet issue of yours. That's fine. If you want to go out and donate money to the Greater San Francisco Civillian Tactical Nukes Association, that's great. But please don't denigrate the organization that is actually accomplishing something for your gun rights.

 

[deanf]

Whatever you want to call it, corporation, or whatever - if it's not publicly owned land, then it's private, and those treading on it should expect no Constitutional protections.

 

[beerslurpy]

I dont see this completely as a private property issue. In the areas where people are working but the public can walk in off the street and into the work area then that area is a sort of commons. Theoretically you retain absolute sovereignity over any land you own, but in reality you cannot operate a business with many employees and pretend that it is an impenetrable fortress of safety.

Unless you are physically protecting your employees from intruders and agreeing to be held liable for a failure to protect them, they reserve the right to provide for their own armed self defense. I would even go so far as to claim that they retain the right to self defense no matter what.

By the same token, a wal-mart supercenter is technically private property, but in reality it is much more like a public park than like a dinner party. The people there are strangers who may be hostile and there is no real personal relationship between you and the property owner. Wal-Mart would disavow any ability to prevent violent felons from entering its property and harming you. Do you think an oil company would make some different assertion of responsibility if you were harmed? More likely they would claim that the third party who harmed you was the guilty party and that they cannot be responsible for the actions of intruders.

Freedom from liability for failure to protect should not go hand in hand with disarmament of the unprotected.

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

Freedom from liability for failure to protect should not go hand in hand with disarmament of the unprotected.

Excellent statement. The police have no liablility for failure to protect on a public street, therefore EVERYONE should have the freedom to carry. Yeah you too New York and California...

 

[rick_reno]

Has Conoco/Phillips lowered their prices in response to this boycott? I drove by a local Conoco station yesterday and their gas price was $2.41. WalMart, directly across the road was $2.49 and the local Shell/Cheveon were both over $2.50. Last night I was near the state border (Id/Wa) and the Conoco there had diesel at prices lower than the adjacent JJ Truck stop - this is really unusual because the truck stop is a station noted for it's cheap(er) fuel. The Conoco station had a line of trucks/cars waiting to get into it that extended out into the street - and they were operating 6 pumps. I had trouble parking to use their restroom. Conoco isn't usually the cheap place to buy fuel here, generally WalMart undercuts them by a few cents a gallon on gas.