The Employee vs Employer rights debate...

[mljdeckard]

I worked for (put those flamethrowers on safe,) America Online for a couple of years. (I hated them, they hated me, I don't work there anymore, and the place I worked is closing as AOL is pretty much going out of business as they knew it.) Right before I was hired, two guys were fired for exchanging guns from one trunk to another after work, it was caught on camera. They were fired for violating a policy which they read, and signed that they understood it and agreed to it, that there were no guns allowed on premises.

I was split on the issue for a while, because, while I am also a 'gun person', they knew, understood, agreed to, and violated the rules. They didn't HAVE to violate the rules. There was plenty of space to park on public streets, and not violate the company's policy by parking in their controlled areas. (That's what I did, I parked on the street, and left it under the seat.)

They sued, and I made contact with the attorney handling the case for them. I asked him what the legal basis for this case is. He replied:

"Our theory in AOL was that Utah public policy manifest in Utah's
Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms (Art I, sec 6) and statutes
(which do not prohibit guns in the workplace) is clear and substantial and
therefore overrides employer policies. The Utah Supreme Court didn't buy
our argument, so we are introducing legislation this legislative session to
make it even clearer."

And while I had the option at AOL to NOT park on property, I have also worked other places where they had a similar policy and I DID have to park on property.

I have also mentioned a ridiculous policy I have dealt with in Nevada, I always stay at The Luxor, and I called ahead to ask them what their policy was on locking my gun in my car in their protected parking during my stay. They 'required' me to instead carry it cased through the casino floor to the security desk to check it in. (I didn't realize that the desk was on the gaming floor, I NEVER would have asked or carried it through the floor.)

I have come to a couple of personal conclusions, but not total resolution. First of all, while an employer may hold interest and liability with what happens on their property, they do NOT hold the same at the convenience store I stop at ON THE WAY HOME FROM WORK. They may be able to sigh with relief that their liability is eased by the fact there are 'no guns' on property, but this, in return, makes me uneasy when I have to stop for milk and gas on the way home at 0200 in The Holy City of Ogden.

They have these laws ONLY to limit their own liability. They aren't really concerned with what people do in the confines of their own vehicles. They never have authority to SEARCH your vehicle. THEREFORE, I have adopted a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy for taking my gun to work. I keep it under the seat, keep my mouth shut, and what they don't know won't hurt them. If I witness an act on company property which I would normally act to prevent, I would sit tight and call the police. (I would not pull until the point where I saw that a job isn't useful to a dead person.) I would later testify that I WOULD HAVE been in a position to prevent a bad event, if the company had allowed me too. The liability chain goes both ways.

My conflict comes from the fact that I often go on military posts as well. While crime is VERY low on post, and the access and security is tightly controlled, I STILL have to get from the post to home. And while I'm not versed in ALL of the circumstances and ways your car might be searched on post, I know the MPs have no sense of humor at all about sneaking weapons past the checkpoint. If I ever DID get nailed for carrying on post, I would NOT be explaining myself in a Utah court.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Car Knocker

This section of law discusses corporate bylaws. However, employees policy is not set in bylaws but in policy manuals that are not even referred to in bylaws. I don't see that this applies to employees bringing guns onto property or exercising First Amendment rights, or, in fact, any Constitutional issues outside of the bylaws themselves.

Things such as policy manuals ARE THE VERY DEFINITION of what a bylaw would be. There is state corporate law, federal corporate law, and corporate bylaws. Whether it is written in a policy manual or on a sign forbidding employees to throw empty soda cans in the paper trash container, it is a bylaw.

Woody

You all need to remember where the real middle is. It is the Constitution. The Constitution is the biggest compromise - the best compromise - ever written. It is where distribution of power and security of the common good meets with the protection of rights, freedom, and personal sovereignty. B.E.Wood

 

[Gray Peterson]

I don't want to see ANY good guys get hurt. But I know that somewhere, sometime, some ONE is going to get hurt while working at a place that forced him/her to disarm, and then s/he is going to sue the employer. Whether or not the employee wins, hopefully at LEAST the lawyers will sit up and take notice that "no guns" does NOT MEAN "no liability."


As I pointed out earlier in the thread, the best policy liability wise is to not have a policy at all. Again, this issue is not the same as sexual harassment/hostile work environment/discrimination policies.

 

[mons meg]

Oklahoma revised it's parking lot language to include civil immunity for companies should their employees "misuse" firearms on company property. Conocophillips is STILL fighting it, even though all the other companies that had joined the suit dropped out once they read the new law. Bah.

 

[antsi]

------quote--------------
They never have authority to SEARCH your vehicle.
-------------------------

Wondering - if you refuse to let them search your vehicle, can they fire you? For instance, what if a blissninny anti in your workplace finds out that you're an NRA member and wants to stir up crap, so they tell the employer that you've got a gun in your car. The employer "requests" permission to search you car. You decline. They fire you. Do you have cause for action in this scenario?

Or what if there's a bomb threat or something where they try to search everyone's car, and you refuse?

 

[Father Knows Best]

the corporation can not be held liable for an illegal act committed by one of its employees.

I take it from this statement and others you made that you are not an attorney, because this statement is simply flat out wrong.

It sounds like you are thinking of the doctrine of respondeat superior. Under that doctrine, employers are liable for injuries caused by their employees while those employees are acting in the course and scope of their employment. For example, if an employee is hired to drive a dump truck for the company, and he negligently causes an accident that injures a third party, then the employer will be liable for the injuries caused by the employee.

That does not mean, however, that employers are ONLY liable for injuries caused by employees acting in the course and scope of their employment. It only means that they are only liable under that particular doctrine when the acts occur in the course and scope of their employment. There are many other ways in which an employer may be liable for the acts of others. The principle theory is that of negligence.

For example, we all know that it is illegal to drive while intoxicated. If the employee drives the dump truck while intoxicated, is he acting within the course and scope of his employment? Probably not, especially if the employer had specifically instructed the employee to abide by all laws, including not driving while drunk. The employee then breaks the law and violates the employer's policies by driving drunk, anyway, and killing someone. Can the employer be held liable? Yes! The employer is not automatically liable, as it would be under respondeat superior, because the acts was not in the course and scope of employment. However, the plaintiff may be able to establish liability under other theories, such as negligent hiring or negligent entrustment. For example, suppose that the employee had been convicted of DUI in the past. The plaintiff would establish that the employer had a duty to protect the public from the dangers presented by its heavy trucks, and that the employer breached that duty by hiring this guy despite his DUI record and giving him access to the truck, and that the injury was entirely foreseeable and preventable as a result. Cases like that happen all the time.

It would be no different than a stranger coming on to the corporate property and committing a crime.

Believe it or not, companies can also be held liable for injuries caused by third party criminals on their property. Again, the issue is whether the injury was foreseeable and whether the company took reasonable steps to prevent those injuries. If not, they are liable in negligence. The classic example here is the store that knows its customers are routinely being robbed in the parking lot. The store does not take steps to protect its customers, for example by adding lights and fencing, hiring security guards, etc. A customer then gets shot in an robbery while leaving the store. Can the store be held liable? You bet! It's happened.

The bottom line is that companies have to ask what types of injuries are reasonably foreseeable, and how their actions or inactions can be portrayed in the event such injuries occur. It is generally viewed by lawyers as being relatively easy to convince a judge or jury that a random act of violence by someone who brought a gun on to your property without your permission or knowledge was not foreseeable, and therefore not preventable, and you cannot be held liable for injuries that result. This position is helped by the general legal principle that criminal acts are usually deemed "unforeseeable" absent significant evidence to the contrary (such as the robberies-in-store-parking-lot example).

On the other hand, if the employer chooses to permit firearms on its property, even if only in the hands of state-licensed employees and customers, it is probably easy for a plaintiff's attorney to convince a judge that injuries caused by misuse of those firearms, whether accidental (negligent discharge) or intentional (crimes), are entirely foreseeable, and that the company is therefore liable for not taking adequate steps to prevent those injuries.

Again, I'm saying that is the "right" result; I'm just letting you know how the vast majority of lawyers (whose job it is to predict what courts will do) see the situation.

I firmly believe that permitting state-licensed individuals to carry firearms on company property pursuant to state law does NOT increase the risk of injuries, and in fact may reduce it by deterring crimes. Ask yourself how likely it is that a "disgruntled" ex-employee would walk in and start shooting or stabbing people if he knew his victims were prepared to shoot back instead of just cower or run. Unfortunately, the tort liability system doesn't take that into account, because it only looks at an incident in hindsight, and in hindsight it is easy to argue that something was foreseeable while minimizing or dismissing the value of deterring things that in fact did NOT happen.

That's why I think Ohio got it right, and other states should follow. Unless companies are protected against tort liability for acts by CCW holders, whether employees or customers, then those companies will have strong disincentives to permitting the carry of firearms on their property.

 

[Father Knows Best]

The employer "requests" permission to search you car. You decline. They fire you. Do you have cause for action in this scenario?

Generally, no, unless you have a contract that says otherwise. The basic idea is that employment in the U.S. is "at will", meaning you can be fired at any time, for any or no reason, and without notice. Similarly, you can quit at any time, for any or no reason, and without notice, and not be liable to the employer.

The basic "at will" doctrine can be modified by contract, however. This is most commonly found in union shops, where the collective bargaining agreement usually prohibits termination of employees without sufficient cause, advance notice, etc.

Also, even non-union shops typically have employment contracts these days, and a company's employee handbook will usually establish certain additional rights and obligations that are binding on the employer. If your employment agreement or employee contract says you can only be fired for certain things, or only after notice, then a termination for failure to consent to a search may be a violation of those obligations and give you a basis to sue.

Finally, there are certain things for which an employer may NOT fire you, but they are limited. You can not be fired simply for being part of a "protected class", for example, such as certain minorities, military veterans, disabled, over a certain age, etc. You also cannot be fired in retaliation for things like complaining of discrimination or unsafe working conditions.

For the most part, though, employers are generally permitted to fire employees who refuse to consent to searches of their vehicles on company property.

 

[Ryder]

The property where I work is not owned by a person. Where does it say some faceless corporation is entitled to the same rights as me? Company policies are simply a attempt to impose another layer of government upon me (get in line for that! ).

Hard to take serious since not one single aspect of my job description depends on adherance to these rules and hasn't in any job I've worked yet. Seems more like the pencil pushers dreamed this crap up to justify their paychecks since they are unable to provide anything of real worth. Let them have their fantasy. They don't push and I don't shove back. It's a good arrangement.

 

[sigman4rt]

Interesting, Great thread. Very relevent to my upcoming situation. We have a "no carry" policy at work, vehicles are ok. I've just been offered a promotion and one of the perks is a company vehicle. I'm curious about leaving a firearm secured in their company vehicle or even tooling about town in the company vehicle while carrying. Any thoughts?

 

[Green Lantern]

Lonnie - I would tend to agree. The trick would be getting Big Corporate to agree!

Sigman - hmmm....I'd be combing over the rulebook on that one. Since the car is company property, I'd tend to think "no gun," but I could be wrong of course. Could you accept the job but decine the company car (if you would want to)? Of course asking someone might be the fastest way to the best answer....but I don't know if you'd like to draw the attention to yourself!

Well, like I said, MY rule book says that the company can only search your person/locker/car (and "person" may not even be on there) if you're suspected of being on drugs. BUT, "at will," refusing to allow a search if asked for ANY reason would be as good an excuse as any to fire you I suppose.

 

[Father Knows Best]

I agree with Green Lantern -- read the company policies carefully. Most companies that allow firearms at all only allow them in the employee's private vehicles; they generally prohibit them in company-owned vehicles.

 

[Boats]

The ultimate answer, from the gun owners perspective, would be an approach that makes the barring of effective personal defense by either the employer or some other natural or artificial person, so unbearably high that they would not dare prohibit it.

Lift the common workers' compensation lawsuit immunity from employers who bar self-defense weapons. The policy argument here would be twofold: 1) The employer, through their actions, has assumed the duty of protecting the employee from foreseeable criminal harm by barring the employee from providing for his or herself. 2) If the employee dies from reasonably forseeable criminal action and didn't have proactive measures in place to prevent it (bullet shields at convenience stores, armed guards monitoring access to secured facilities, not employing metal detectors to ensure a "gun-free" workplace etc., the employer would face joint and several civil liability for wrongful death as if the employer had pulled the trigger.

Make exceptions to the "coming and going" or "commuting" exceptions to most workers' compensation schemes. If the employer bars the reasonable carry of personal arms from even secured storage in a car in the parking lot, then they would lose these exceptions to claims under the law in the event that the employee were criminally attacked during a direct commute to or from work. Again, the lawsuit bar against the employer would be lifted so that damages would be delimited.

Make certain that the Second Amendment gets recognized as an inalienable civil right and then tweak 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to make private parties who violate one's civil rights subject to liability not only when they act under the color of the law, but also when the act in direct contravention of the law. IOW, one could still control the on site conduct of the employee insofar as it regards performance (No bad mouthing the employer in front of customers, but liability for firing someone for off work hearsay. Could restrict guns in the building, but not deprive them on the commute by restricting them from privately owned cars parked on corporate property).

I believe these simple changes in the law would make it so potentially expensive for the employer or other gun banning entity that most would choose to have no policy regarding gun ownership, especially if such were coupled with a liability shield for the unauthorized criminal acts or civil torts of their employees.

 

[Soybomb]

hose that talk of a slippery slope of eroding property rights - under the current situation, since a boss has the say of what you can and can't keep in your car, then I could easily see:
-A Christian boss firing you for your 'sinful' CD's, or forcing you to hang a cross from your mirror
-An athiest boss firing you for having a Bible in your car
-A Democrat boss making you slap a "Hillary 08" sticker on your car
-A Republican boss making you place a "support Bush" sticker on your car.

I have no trouble with any of these things. If you run a discriminatory business the word will get out and the free market will ensure you won't be running a business much longer. Don't waste my money making the government try to keep the rules fair for all the children playing when it can be done on its own.

Along similar lines I refuse to work for an employer that does drug testing because for my profession my employer has no reason to be concerned for what I do when I'm not at work. I've never even smoked pot, its just a point I feel strongly about. I didn't take what would have been a decent paying job at a christian establishment because they didn't just want a professional to do their job, they also have religious services that employees are expected to participate in. I'm not crying over it. There's plenty of places to work. If someone is too selective about employees they either won't be able to afford the 10 employees that meet their stringent qualifications or no one will want to work there. Either way neither solution required legislation or an enforcement bureas.

If you don't like the policy, just don't work there. Don't ask big brother to come help you out.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Father Knows Best

It sounds like you are thinking of the doctrine of respondeat superior. Under that doctrine, employers are liable for injuries caused by their employees while those employees are acting in the course and scope of their employment. For example, if an employee is hired to drive a dump truck for the company, and he negligently causes an accident that injures a third party, then the employer will be liable for the injuries caused by the employee.

You've quoted me out of context in that I alluded to what you have written here, and also that the illegal act of an employee is not the responsibility of the corporation, especially when the illegal act is not a function of the corporation. We are not talking negligence.

For example, we all know that it is illegal to drive while intoxicated. If the employee drives the dump truck while intoxicated, is he acting within the course and scope of his employment? Probably not, especially if the employer had specifically instructed the employee to abide by all laws, including not driving while drunk. The employee then breaks the law and violates the employer's policies by driving drunk, anyway, and killing someone. Can the employer be held liable? Yes! The employer is not automatically liable, as it would be under respondeat superior, because the acts was not in the course and scope of employment. However, the plaintiff may be able to establish liability under other theories, such as negligent hiring or negligent entrustment. For example, suppose that the employee had been convicted of DUI in the past. The plaintiff would establish that the employer had a duty to protect the public from the dangers presented by its heavy trucks, and that the employer breached that duty by hiring this guy despite his DUI record and giving him access to the truck, and that the injury was entirely foreseeable and preventable as a result. Cases like that happen all the time.

In this case, the employee is violating state law and corporate policy with an object(the substance "alcohol"). It isn't quite the same as an employee having a gun locked up in his vehicle back in the parking lot. The first employee is inebriated. The employee who left his gun locked in his vehicle isn't target practicing as he makes his deliveries. If the second employee has to shoot a third employee who has gone on a murdering spree, the company certainly would not be held liable for the actions of that second employee who "saved the day", and certainly the corporation cannot be held responsible for the illegal actions of the berserk employee. Whatever has been "adjudicated" in tort cases, with the ridiculous awards being handed out, doesn't make it right.

But, back to the driver with a DUI in his past. If he has been subsequently granted a driver's license by the state, the state must be OK with this man driving under what ever license is required for this job that includes driving. Seems to me, a prudent corporate lawyer would bring that point up in such a trial.

The bottom line here is that regardless of whatever foreseeable or unforeseeable consequences may arise from having a rule or not having a rule, what ever rules(bylaws) a company adopts must be within the law. A corporation in Oklahoma cannot have a bylaw that would infringe upon a right of its employees. That would include the right to self defense. That would include the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. I can't say it any more clearly.

Even the United States recognizes that a person cannot be forbidden to keep arms in their vehicles while at the Post Office.

Woody

A law that says you cannot fire your gun in the middle of downtown unless in self defense is not unconstitutional. Laws that prohibit brandishing except in self defense or handling your gun in a threatening or unsafe manner would not be unconstitutional. Laws can be written that govern some of the uses of guns. No law can be written that infringes upon buying, keeping, storing, carrying, limiting caliber, limiting capacity, limiting quantity, limiting action, or any other limit that would infringe upon the keeping or bearing of arms. That is the truth and simple reality of the limits placed upon government by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. B.E.Wood

 

[Phetro]

Employers' "Rights"

The simple fact is, employers have no right to infringe on the civil rights of employees, or anyone else.

If you disagree, you would allow EVERY company the ability to ban guns on their property, creating a nation in which citizens could only be armed at home or on the street. Wake up.

 

[Car Knocker]

The simple fact is, employers have no right to infringe on the civil rights of employees, or anyone else.

Certainly they do.

Companies or corporations (let's use McDonald's as an example) can prevent a religious group from soliciting funds or proslytizing in its restaurants. McDonald's can prohibit staff from wearing NAMBLA buttons while on duty. McDonald's can discipline an employee for uttering derogatory comments to a customer. These are all "rights" normally assured under the First Amendment but they aren't absolute. An employee can contracturally waive rights and the public's ability to enjoy certain rights can be trumped by the ability of a property owner to control actions on its property. Show up in a hood and sheet and holding a KKK sign in the McDonald's parking lot and see how long it takes for the cops to show up and escort you off the property.

If First Amendment rights can be legally curtailed on private property, then cannot Second and Fourth Amendment rights also be legally and Constitutionally curtailed to some degree? As an example, is it Constitutionally permissible to search and disarm visitors at the state prison prior to contact with inmates?

 

[glummer]

Forseen dangers

Father

The bottom line is that companies have to ask what types of injuries are reasonably foreseeable, and how their actions or inactions can be portrayed in the event such injuries occur. It is generally viewed by lawyers as being relatively easy to convince a judge or jury that a random act of violence by someone who brought a gun on to your property without your permission or knowledge was not foreseeable, and therefore not preventable, and you cannot be held liable for injuries that result. This position is helped by the general legal principle that criminal acts are usually deemed "unforeseeable" absent significant evidence to the contrary (such as the robberies-in-store-parking-lot example).

But it seems to me, that by banning guns, the employer is ADMITTING that it forsees some danger; otherwise, why bother?

If the company than makes no effort to physically protect its workers from this FORESEEN danger, why wouldn't this automatically count as negligence, if a disgruntled employee brought a gun in and shot his manager?

 

[Phetro]

Certainly they do.

Companies or corporations (let's use McDonald's as an example) can prevent a religious group from soliciting funds or proslytizing in its restaurants. McDonald's can prohibit staff from wearing NAMBLA buttons while on duty. McDonald's can discipline an employee for uttering derogatory comments to a customer. These are all "rights" normally assured under the First Amendment but they aren't absolute. An employee can contracturally waive rights and the public's ability to enjoy certain rights can be trumped by the ability of a property owner to control actions on its property. Show up in a hood and sheet and holding a KKK sign in the McDonald's parking lot and see how long it takes for the cops to show up and escort you off the property.

If First Amendment rights can be legally curtailed on private property, then cannot Second and Fourth Amendment rights also be legally and Constitutionally curtailed to some degree? As an example, is it Constitutionally permissible to search and disarm visitors at the state prison prior to contact with inmates?

That sounds great. Now read this again, and let it sink in this time:

...you would allow EVERY company the ability to ban guns on their property, creating a nation in which citizens could only be armed at home or on the street. Wake up.

A de facto NATIONWIDE GUN BAN is what you would allow, under the guise of "employer rights."

What's "legal" these days is not by any stretch constitutional. The Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves.

 

[Car Knocker]

You have avoided addressing any of the points I made. Are property rights meaningless in your world?

 

[Soybomb]

What's "legal" these days is not by any stretch constitutional. The Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves.

What isn't legal about it or shouldn't be to you? Would you suggest that if you have the right to carry on my property against my wishes I would also have the right to free speech and assmebly on property you own against your wishes? The constituation provides for protection of rights against federal laws. The rules change when you go on the clock for someone and step foot onto their property.

 

[Phetro]

What isn't legal about it or shouldn't be to you? Would you suggest that if you have the right to carry on my property against my wishes I would also have the right to free speech and assmebly on property you own against your wishes?

If your property and mine are businesses serving the public: YES.

Otherwise: you would allow EVERY company the ability to ban guns on their property, creating a nation in which citizens could only be armed at home or on the street. A de facto NATIONWIDE GUN BAN is what you would allow, under the guise of "employer rights."

It's funny that no "employer rights" advocates will touch this statement. Which is it: are you pro-gun or pro-employer? You cannot have both at the end of the day, after the stigma is concrete.

 

[glummer]

Otherwise: you would allow EVERY company the ability to ban guns on their property, creating a nation in which citizens could only be armed at home or on the street. A de facto NATIONWIDE GUN BAN is what you would allow, under the guise of "employer rights."

That could only occur if EVERY company wanted it, and virtually all the employees accepted it.
A) That won't ever happen in the real world.
B) If it did, it would be in a circumstance where the support for it was so great that your talk of "allowing" it would be totally irrelevant.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

And Again,

Only people have rights; be they the RKBA, the right to self defense, or rights they would enjoy as a result of owning property. Corporations are allowed to own property by state and federal law. Corporations can only operate in accordance with the law, as proscribed by the law, not in accordance with anything that would be considered a right. Corporations are granted powers by the law. A corporation can no more violate an inalienable right of a person than government can(or is not supposed to!).

Any bylaws a corporation might have must fall within the confines proscribed by the law that provides for their creation. The state law that allows for the creation of a corporation comes from powers granted to the state in its constitution, and that power is reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment. All we are talking about here are powers. The state has no, nor could it ever have, power to covey a right upon a corporation. A state cannot even convey a right upon a person, because it is the other way around. States and the Union have powers granted to them by the people - said powers being derived from the rights of the people, for the convenience of the people.

A corporation may be granted power to peacefully conduct its business, free from undue interference. Just as a person's freedom of speech does not give them the right to besmirch someone, it does not give a person the right to interfere with the lawful conduct of a business. What Car Knocker is calling "rights" under the First Amendment are not absolute rights, but aspects of the Freedom of Speech. An action such as holding a KKK rally in a McDonald's parking lot is not protected as an absolute right either. Such a rally is not likely to be peaceable or conducive to the business at McDonald's and would interfere with McDonald's power to conduct its business free from undue interference.

The Second Amendment protected right is absolute and cannot be violated. The PROCESS for reasonable violation of the rights covered in the Fourth Amendment can not be violated either. If a state cannot conduct a search of your property without a warrant, neither can a corporation. That power has been denied to the government and government certainly cannot delegate power it does not have to a corporation. If you are observed shoplifting, even the the store security personnel cannot conduct a search of your person without your permission. Law enforcement must be called in and even then it might be necessary to acquire a warrant to search you. That would be true even if you worked there.

A religious group would not have a "right" to solicit funds or to proselytize in someone's restaurant without the restaurateurs permission. It would be no different than a group of Baptist storming a synagogue and holding its services there and trying to convert all the Jews without their permission.

Forbidding you as a visitor to carry arms into a prison, for all intents and purposes, is a violation of your Second Amendment protected Right to Keep and Bear Arms and a denial of the means for you to defend yourself. If you must be in contact with a prisoner, that prisoner should be restrained, not you. It is the duty of the state to contain prisoners, be it keeping them off the streets or held incapable of causing harm even while they are in prison. On the same token, you can be denied access to a prisoner. It is also the duty of the state to protect anyone it has in custody.

So, back to the heart of the topic at hand, the bottom line is that a corporation cannot adopt any bylaw not allowed by law. Corporations do not have rights nor the power to violate rights. That said, there are instances where It would be practical for a business to disallow weapons in certain areas. The area around an MRI machine is a good example. In those instances provisions should be made for the secure storage and easy access to the bearer of those arms.

Woody.

It seems governments are not the only entities around here usurping power...

 

[Car Knocker]

The Second Amendment protected right is absolute and cannot be violated. The PROCESS for reasonable violation of the rights covered in the Fourth Amendment can not be violated either. If a state cannot conduct a search of your property without a warrant, neither can a corporation.

A person can abrogate his rights by agreeing to searches of his property in an employment contract or in a specific instance and can negate Second Amendment rights by agreement also. A person can chose to curtail Constitutional rights in return for empoyment or he can opt to not work for that company. It's his choice. The courts have long recognized that a person may chose not to exercise rights. Miranda comes to mind.

 

[Sir Aardvark]

I agree with Hankb (amongst the first posts, if you care to go back and look).

If my employer wishes to assume ALL responsibility for me while I am disarmed due to their policy, then sure, let things go on as they are.

It's kinda funny that once you sock someone where it hurts, namely their pocketbook, then they tend to roll over and play things fair.