The Employee vs Employer rights debate...

[carebear]

If you're pointing out there might not be a gun-friendly employer in your field in town?

Tough. There's no right to having a gun-friendly employer in your field in town nor to convenience in having employment.

If you are a buggy whip maker, and both buggy whip makers in town don't let their employees carry, then you can; a) not carry and be a buggy whip maker for one of those two employers, b) start your own buggy whip making company and carry all you want, c) don't be a buggy whip maker, become a cooper and work for the gun-friendly cooper in town, or d) move to the next town over and work for the gun-friendly buggy whip maker there.

Insuring the individual rights of all sometimes means some individuals will be inconvenienced. Private property rights (and other rights) must trump personal convenience or the Constitution becomes meaningless. We see that proven by all sorts of twisted rulings today.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

When the light turns red, but you still want to go,

...do you simply continue on because you have a right to travel?

Insuring the individual rights of all sometimes means some individuals will be inconvenienced.

No one ever has a right that would overlap anyone else's right. I've got property rights. You've got a right to carry a gun. If I don't want you to carry on my property, you may not carry on my property. Yes, that might be an inconvenience to you, but that only means you do not have a right to carry on my property. I may grant you permission, but that is not granting you a right or allowing you to exercise a right, because that right does not exist for you on my property.

But, you see, I'm a human being with inalienable rights, as are you. Corporations are not.

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

 

[Car Knocker]

woodcdi,

So, my wife, who owns a small company, can prohibit guns on the property if she ran the company as a sole proprietorship but not if she ran it as an "S" corp?

 

[Gray Peterson]

....

So, my wife, who owns a small company, can prohibit guns on the property if she ran the company as a sole proprietorship but not if she ran it as an "S" corp?

If state law disallows it, that would be correct. Even as a sole proprietorship she still has to follow state laws that may prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, religion, creed, sexual orientation and gender identity (if the state has a law against it like Washington State), and so on.

I don't understand how people in here can make the leap that we must protect a corporation in order to protect individual rights. Inside of my apartment, my right to disallow firearms is pretty much absolute, unless it's a law enforcement officer serving a search warrant on my home. There are exceptions to every rule, even to my rights.

Gun ownership status will be the next thing to be protected. If the law can protect for choices (like religion, marital status, or familial status), then it certainly should be expanded to protect our right to protect ourselves, our families, and our communities from lawless violence and terrorism.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Car Knocker

Does your wife own the property, or does her s-corp?

Woody

 

[evan price]

NOT A THREAD HIJACK, BUT RELEVANT:


Example: In Columbus Ohio they recently passed laws banning smoking in restaurants and bars. One of the more pertenant justifications the supporters of this law used was that 'Employees of establishments which allowed smoking in that establishment were at a high risk for health problems arising from second hand smoke exposure'.
Another justification used was that patrons of smoking establishments feel that exposure to second hand smoke was a potential health issue for them as well.

The relevance to this thread is that at no time did the bill make note of the fact that nobody is holding a gun to the head of the employee and forcing them to work in an establishment that allows smoking; Also nobody is holding a gun to the head of customers and forcing them to patronize an establishment that allows smoking; furthermore, no consideration was given to establishments which allow smoking and prominently post that they are smoking establishments, both at each public entrance to the establishment and also during the hiring process.

It has gone so far that many bars and restaurants built patios to allow smokers to sit outside; now the antismokers are demanding that these patios be made nonsmoking as well so they may enjoy the outdoors without the odor of smoke.


My question is, if employees can require their employers to ban smoking so that they can feel more secure in their personal health, and customers can dictate that a business must change who can do what on their property to suit their needs (specifically, not allow smokers, or specifically, install handicap ramps) why then can we not ban weapons restrictions for the same reason?

 

[carebear]

evan,

Those smoking bans are flat out bad law.

There is no reason folks can't not go to a smoking bar, start their own non-smoking bar, get a job in a non-smoking bar or give up the bartending business entirely.

To trample on the right of a business owner to allow or disallow smoking in their place of business is nothing short of tyranny. The customers and staff can vote with their pocketbooks and their feet if they want to.

Damn nanny-state do-gooders. :banghead:

 

[evan price]

To clarify my previous post: If pressure by employees can result in a requirement for their "benefit" which trumps property ownership laws (Specifically, to disallow smoking in someone's business even if the owners desire to allow smoking) why is this not also being used to further laws allowing weapons in personal vehicles on company property? Would it not be just as apt?

 

[carebear]

Might be as apt, but it would be just as wrong. We can't use bad law and unConstitutionality just because it suits our purposes.

That makes us as bad as the socialist idiots. We're better than they are.

 

[Gray Peterson]

That makes us as bad as the socialist idiots. We're better than they are.

That kind of attitude will get it to where every company eventually will ban gun owners as risks and force us to either give up our guns or be destitute.

 

[carebear]

And what exactly is stopping you, me or anyone else from opening a business that allows carry? Apathy? Lack of ability?

I don't think so. It's a lack of willingness to live by our convictions and accept some personal inconvenience.

That's what will cost us our rights.

 

[Gray Peterson]

And what exactly is stopping you, me or anyone else from opening a business that allows carry? Apathy? Lack of ability?

I don't think so. It's a lack of willingness to live by our convictions and accept some personal inconvenience.

That's what will cost us our rights.

Spouting idealogy will not change the fact that the anti-gunners will use private industry and private business as their next method of gun control. Toby Hoover, the leader of Ohioans Against Gun Violence, went on a campaign to tell Ohio businesses that they should fire anyone with a CHL and refuse to hire those who are CHL holders to apply.

There are two bills in the state of Michigan that may get traction in future sessions:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(yo2u....aspx?page=BillStatus&objectname=2006-HB-5746

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2005-2006/billintroduced/Senate/htm/2006-SIB-1025.htm

It's a start.

Carebear, you keep arguing on issues that was lost many years ago from your perspective. The glory days of when you can fire anyone for any reason, can discriminate against people for their religion, marital status, and familial status and so on, even more so race, gender, and other unchangable characteristics of yourself, is over!

Either we push for this now, or gun owners will become a permanent underclass of society in 20 years when they can't get ANY work in any sector, unless they do it under the table? What good is starting your own business if you can't get enough credit because no bank will extend it to you due to your firearm ownership status? Or the fact that it takes money to make money? How is one going to get the money together for their own business if they can't work ANY job because they ban gun ownership entirely by their employees, even at home?

You are defending the indefensible. You are defending corporate rights over the rights of the individual. The anti-gunners are eventually going to disarm ALL of us via this method, and your only response to this is feeble to say the least.

 

[carebear]

Lonnie,

I'm defending the right of the individual to rule their own property. Your way opens the door for city, state or federal government to ban me from carry in my own business or home under the guise of "public safety".

Your "practical" society, without private property rights, is nowhere I want to live.

 

[Gray Peterson]

I'm defending the right of the individual to rule their own property. Your way opens the door for city, state or federal government to ban me from carry in my own business or home under the guise of "public safety".

Your "practical" society, without private property rights, is nowhere I want to live.

As if this isn't already the case now?

 

[carebear]

Doesn't mean we can't stop it or at least fight it instead of jumping on board the train to nanny town.

 

[Gray Peterson]

Doesn't mean we can't stop it or at least fight it instead of jumping on board the train to nanny town.

Fine, hang yourself.

 

[carebear]

There's worse things than death.

 

[evan price]

Speaking as an Ohioan, my feelings towards Toby Hoover are neither polite nor High Road. I will therefore refrain from discussing her.

By the way, Toby, if one of your hoplophobes are trolling this site for any mention of your name: I have a CHL. I wouldn't hire YOU. Have a nice day.


Back to the debate:

How does one reconcile ones right to own property and do with it as one pleases with the necessity of opening ones business to the public? The CRA '64 pretty much limits the ability of a property owner to discriminate for any reason as age, religion, etc. and the ADA adds a whole other class to the list. Why is it that otherwise legal law abiding citizens can't get their rights? Seems the more people get confirmed "rights" the fewer actually have 'em.

 

[mons meg]

Say you are a smoker. Say you work at a smoke-free establishment. Ok, fine. Now they tell you you can't bring your cigarettes onto the property and that includes the parking lot, in your own car. (I've even read that there are businesses that have attempted to regulate employee's private behavior wrt smoking in their own homes)

All anyone's been talking about is the dang parking lot, people. Not the interior of any building. I fail to see how a "parking lot law" is effectively any different than a law that might, say , proibit companies from firing people for certain otherwise legal behavior.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/28/eveningnews/main670168.shtml

 

[TaxPhd]

Since corporations and partnerships are separate entities from their owners, and those corporations and partnerships are created according to state law, those corporations only have those powers granted to them by state law.

While corporations are indeed seperate entities from their owners, partnerships are not.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

TaxPhd

While corporations are indeed seperate entities from their owners, partnerships are not.

Partnerships ARE separate entities from the members. Partnerships are required to have a name and a Federal ID number just like C-Corps, S-Corps, LLC's, etc. The only form of business that is not a separate entity from its owner is a Sole Proprietorship.

Partnerships must file their own tax return on Form 1065, quarterly reports on Form 941, and FUTA tax reports on Form 940. The clincher is that a corporation can be a member of a partnership, same as an individual. Another partnership can be a member of a partnership. Peruse the IRS web site and you can see for yourself.

Woody

"The Second Amendment is absolute. Learn it, live it, love it and be armed in the defense of freedom, our rights, and our sovereignty. If we refuse infringement to our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, as protected by the Second Amendment, we will never be burdened by tyranny, dictatorship, or subjugation - other than to bury those who attempt it. B.E.Wood

 

[glummer]

Another thing to consider is that you ARE forced to deal with corporations, in some manner, whether you want to, or not.
If, say, you are involved in a traffic accident with a corporate-ownedvehicle or corporate-employed driver, you CANNOT sue the real people involved. The law says that the imaginary "person", the corporation, is your only recourse. A "person", who has legally limited liability.
Similarly, a defective product cannot be traced to any real person's responsibility, if it was manufactured or sold by a corporation. And it is not a matter of your choice.

 

[alan]

Care bear:

Re argument put forth in post 124, well said.

Having said this, I supose that the ultimate answer to questions asked by several will only be obtained from actions brought before the courts, and even then, a higher court might reverse or later on, reconsider.

One notes in passing, that even Stari Decisis, pardon possible misspelling, is not immutable.

 

[benEzra]

Say you are a smoker. Say you work at a smoke-free establishment. Ok, fine. Now they tell you you can't bring your cigarettes onto the property and that includes the parking lot, in your own car. (I've even read that there are businesses that have attempted to regulate employee's private behavior wrt smoking in their own homes)

All anyone's been talking about is the dang parking lot, people. Not the interior of any building. I fail to see how a "parking lot law" is effectively any different than a law that might, say , proibit companies from firing people for certain otherwise legal behavior.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in670168.shtml

EXACTLY.

This isn't about whether or not you can carry at work; that's not the issue. The issue is whether or not your employer may dictate your behavior OFF THEIR PROPERTY (i.e., carrying before or after work, somewhere else, on your own time) by allowing them to dictate what you can and cannot have securely locked away inside YOUR property (your car), and more to the point, whether or not an employer should be allowed to randomly search employees' cars in a publicly accessible parking lot in order to dictate their behavior after work hours, which was the crux of the original Weyerhauser case.

Your property does not become my property just because your property is temporarily located near mine.

If you take the position that the ONLY place your car cannot be randomly searched without probable cause is either on a public right-of-way or in your own driveway, you've just given up a huge portion of your right to privacy.

 

[glummer]

benEzra

This isn't about whether or not you can carry at work; that's not the issue. The issue is whether or not your employer may dictate your behavior OFF THEIR PROPERTY ...

Uh, no. The issue is whether or not your employer can ASK you to agree with his stupid conditions for working for him (Agreeing is YOUR choice, not his.)
And, secondarily, does it make a difference if the employer is a corporation, rather than a real person.

Your property does not become my property just because your property is temporarily located near mine.

In effect it does, if YOU GRANT ME THE RIGHT TO DO IT in return for my giving you a job you want.

It's all about POWER; who has the ultimate power to say yes or no. The employer can only ASK you to do things - you can walk at any time. The employer's power is to decide what he will agree to; you have the same power for your part.
The concern here is that curtailing the employer's power, increases the government's power. And a government that can safely screw big corporations can easily screw individual workers. If even Bill Gates doesn't have rights, then nobody is safe.