Violating company policy WRT to firearms

[Lou McGopher]

Consume the product of other's work through handouts?

In this scenario you've created where I'm unable to get a suitable job anywhere else in the world, and unable to survive via self-employment, then yes, I would accept charity. But I see homeless people getting paid to hold signs on the sidewalk. I don't think your scenario is very realistic, and isn't relevant if it were realistic. One person's desperation is does not result in a valid claim to violate another person's rights.

That would be a conflict.

The application of rights provides us with a framework to reach a peaceful resolution of a conflict. The exercise of rights does not result in conflict.

 

[Sam1911]

1. You don't have an inherent right to any given resources. You have a right to acquire resources, either through trade or original appropriation, and a right act to control the resource once you own it. Without a valid claim to ownership of it, you have no right to a resource.

Oooohkay. So there's one rabbit and two of us. We can feed one of us and that one will live. We can feed both of us a little and both will die. We can fight over it and the winner takes all. Perhaps that doesn't conflict with the loser's right to life. Perhaps the only right to life you have is the right to that existence that transpires until your body runs out of stored reserves of food, water, and air. You have the right to exist, but not the right to the means to continue to exist?

You're dancing REALLY hard to avoid recognizing that rights conflict, but they very clearly can and usually do.

A street is like any other property. Your right to be there doing anything is dependent upon the wishes of the owner of the street. To avoid deviating too far from the narrow focus of this forum, let it suffice to say that ownership of property by the state or "society" is morally illegitimate and a form of theft

Oh. Wow.

Your right to use your property stops at the border of someone else's property. For example, you have the right to have whatever noxious chemicals you want on your property, but the moment they leak onto my property (or even the moment such a leak becomes imminent), you've trespassed.

Many things you can do with your property -- even when they don't physically cross boundaries -- can harm others and their own property interests/rights.

4. There's no reason for you to not have the right to believe whatever you want. But your right to act on those beliefs stops before the point you cause harm to another person's property. The point at which you initiate an attack on someone else is not an exercise of a right, and is an act of aggression.

Many religions REQUIRE (at least in their texts) actions which are directly harmful to others. While most of those are conveniently ignored or explained away in our enlightened "Western" society, they still are what they are. Those moral frameworks do not consider that the "rights" of non-believers, rule-violators, or even other adherents marked for sacrifice exist in any way. You are declaring what "rights" are and aren't based on nothing more valid than your own beliefs and internal ethics.

You only have a right to bear arms on your own property, on unowned property, or on another person's property with the owner's permission.

...if the owner knows about it.

 

[Lou McGopher]

So there's one rabbit and two of us. We can feed one of us and that one will live. We can feed both of us a little and both will die. We can fight over it and the winner takes all. Perhaps that doesn't conflict with the loser's right to life.

The "right to life" doesn't include an obligation on anyone else's part to sustain you, nor is does it imply a right to infringe on the rights of another person. If the rabbit was caught running around in the unowned wilderness, whoever caught it owns it. The conflict is logically settled, as the other person has no right to it (per the "neo-Lockean homesteading principle"- probably too off-topic to get into further). If it was bought from a rabbit breeder, the person who paid for it owns it. The conflict is logically settled, as the other person has no right to it. If both worked together for the acquisition of the rabbit, both own a portion as agreed upon, and there is no conflict in the first place. The "right to life" is the right to act to sustain one's life within the boundaries of the rights of others. Rights aren't independent characteristics of a person. Rights are what we get when we apply reason to resolve conflict. There's no conflict between rights because rights are the rational resolution of conflict (all that's left is to act accordingly). Robinson Crusoe has no rights until Friday shows up on the island, and the possibility for conflict between the two arises.

Many things you can do with your property -- even when they don't physically cross boundaries -- can harm others and their own property interests/rights.

Kindly provide an example.

Many religions REQUIRE (at least in their texts) actions which are directly harmful to others.

People can think whatever they want in their head. But when they act in a way that brings them into conflict with others, religiously motivated or not, that's when rights "kick-in." The right to religious freedom, the right to free speech, the right to life... these are all the same thing. They are the right to act without the uninvited interference of other people, but they do not extend past the point of of the right of others to do the same.

You are declaring what "rights" are and aren't based on nothing more valid than your own beliefs and internal ethics.

People don't live on instinct alone. They use their ability to reason to deal with both the challenges of nature as well as the challenges of interacting with other people. Rights need to be discovered by the application of reason to social conflicts. Anything else, such as simply "making up" rights based on whim or without logic, is to treat man as less than what he is - to make a rule of irrationality, of denying reality - leaving violence, just as it is among the unthinking animals, the only option left for resolving conflict.

So when two people disagree with how to use a given piece of property, are we to settle it with tooth and claw, or with our rational faculty?

...if the owner knows about it.

You can usually get away with it, and you probably don't deserve get in too much trouble if you get caught. But it's still not your right to do it, whether the owner knows or not.

 

[Catshooter]

I am 58 years old. I have carried virtually 100% of the time since about age 18. Yes, far before it was legal for me. Except when behind metal detectors. I view it this way:

We all make agreements. With friends, wives/husbands, co-workers and of course employers. But first and formost, before all those agreements (contracts if you will) are made, you agree with yourself to do your best to keep yourself alive. If you fail in those first agreements then all other agreements become null and void, don't they? You fail not only all those other people, but also yourself. Or so I think.

Thus I have never had moral qualms about if I should carry or not. Seems to me that that is exactly what 3KBs is saying.

The OP is quite correct that you are violating your word if you agreed to not carry at work. But failing to protect yourself is failing yourself in it's most basic form.

I understand what 'concealed' means and I can keep my mouth shut so I was never made at work, ever.

One of the most basic of all human rights is the right to self defense. Every single life form does it, there are no exceptions. It is your right (and your responsibility) to protect your life and saying you can't carry at work is denying that right. Someone else's private property or not. Sooner or later you'll leave that property. Getting gas after working a swingshift is a good example. No weapon on you or in your vehicle (parking lot) leaves you unprotected. Obviously this is my opinion and one that is hardly shared by the majority. Carrying a firearm should never be illegal. Using one wrongly should be. Too bad I'm not Emperor!


Cat

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

It's not that I think that carrying where it's prohibited isn't dishonest; it's that I believe those who do not respect my right to self defense haven't earned my respect of their rules. They didn't earn my honesty. You treated me with disrespect by banning my gun, you deserve no respect from me in return.

 

[3KillerBs]

I'm still waiting for anyone who is arguing against my positions to actually address any of the reasons that I posted.

I'm especially interested in how you will manage to get around the fact that my workplace has already suffered a violent episode -- resulting in ICU time for the victim -- which was not in any way prevented by the "no weapons" policy if you stop completely ignoring it.

 

[Catshooter]

3KBs,

Maybe your statements posess too much logic & intelligence to refute?

Even those who have never experienced violence (work place or not) that don't carry should. They should because 'haven't' isn't the same as 'won't'.

Being a responsible adult means being responsible for your own safety, which means being armed & aware.

I applaud you 3KBs for being a responsible adult. We are in short supply.


Cat

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I'm still waiting for anyone who is arguing against my positions to actually address any of the reasons that I posted.

I'm especially interested in how you will manage to get around the fact that my workplace has already suffered a violent episode -- resulting in ICU time for the victim -- which was not in any way prevented by the "no weapons" policy if you stop completely ignoring it.

Whether or not there has already been an event of violence at your workplace really doesn't change anything except maybe your preception. You think that it provides justification for carrying. Others might argue that it would provide justification for changing jobs

If you choose to violate the company's policy and get caught and end up suspended or fired, then that is just how the whole process works. That is the risk cost of doing business in that manner. You choose the weigh that against your safety that you feel is afforded by carrying and that is your call.

If you get fired, just don't complain to us about it.

In reading a description of a well loved bootlegger caught running moonshine, he was sentenced to the pen but the judge gave him quite a bit of time to get his affairs in order as he was a prominent person in the community and even generous with his illegal income. The night before going to the pen, his buddies threw him a party. They got drunk on 'shine and had a real trial of his peers. They too found him guilty...of being dumb enough to get caught, and sentenced him to a beating. Everyone fought and several went to the hospital in what was reported to be one of the best parties in those parts in a long time. This story was recounted in a local Missouri newspaper article immediately after the event, announcing the bootlegger was off to jail.

I really liked the idea of trial by actual peers (other moonshiners) and the verdict of "being dumb enough to get caught." Concealed means concealed.

 

[Neverwinter]

Does it violate property rights for a lesbian to enter a store which is marked "No homosexuals allowed"? Does it violate property rights for a Christian man to enter a store which has been marked "No Christians allowed"?

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Dibs?

People can think whatever they want in their head. But when they act in a way that brings them into conflict with others, [. . .] that's when rights "kick-in."

You know, in 60+ years of cruising the sunrise on this orb, I don't believe I've ever run into a place where the guy with the gavel subscribed to this notion (of the described framework). At least not where any of us could see it.

Now, it could just be that in every place I've lived and in every legal framework to which I've been witness, they's all just doing it wrong.

Or, it could be that this theoretical framework has certain practical application flaws that make it too hard to implement in its "pure" form.

On yet another hand, it could be that the problem is that Man is actually functionally governed by a different set of dynamics from the ones described in the eloquent, if somewhat lengthy, description of the theoretical framework.

I would not suggest that the lack of an actually working social example of this framework implies that such a thing cannot work, but I suspect that we're looking at something that follows the maxim:

"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not."
― Albert Einstein

By effectively declaring "dibs" on the rules of social interaction and on the definition of "rights," one establishes himself as the "authority of record" for the ensuing discussion.

May I suggest instead that such a framework for defining "rights" be identified with the philosophical school to which it belongs?

Because otherwise it looks a lot like a single individual asserting authority and rightness -- disagreement with which is by definition "wrong" -- a subscription to absolutes, if you will, rather than a discussion of principles with the possibility of give and take.


It would be an error to presume from this suggestion that I have any particular view of human rights or property rights. It would be correct to presume that I object to having a conversation hijacked.

 

[Sam1911]

Kindly provide an example.

At this point I'm simply going to say, "no." I can think of quite a few, all of which I'm sure you have some way of explaining off, but as the question is straying waaay too far away from the guns issue, I'm going to just halt that portion of the debate -- for exactly the reasons ArfinGreebly stated.

 

[Lou McGopher]

Does it violate property rights for a lesbian to enter a store which is marked "No homosexuals allowed"? Does it violate property rights for a Christian man to enter a store which has been marked "No Christians allowed"?

A store is no different from a home or clubhouse when it comes to the rights of the owner. People have a right to exclude others from their property for whatever reason, whether it's gun-related or not, whether most of us find it distasteful or ignorant or not.
In the question of how to resolve conflicts over property, what matters is the relationship between the claimants and the thing, not the relationship between claimants. It doesn't matter if they love you or hate you. What matters is which of you has the superior claim - the superior objective link - to the property in dispute.

Because otherwise it looks a lot like a single individual asserting authority and rightness -- disagreement with which is by definition "wrong" -- a subscription to absolutes, if you will, rather than a discussion of principles with the possibility of give and take.

I think there are certain things that are absolute. I would argue that if there aren't, then concepts such as truth and right/wrong are meaningless, and there's nothing to be gained by discussion except to pass the time (I would also argue that claiming there aren't absolutes results in self-contradiction, but I think the previous sentence is acceptable enough for most on here). While I share the desire to be able to carry my firearm with me everywhere, the various arguments for and against it in this thread are, as I see it, largely based on false premises (or widely differing, at the very least). So to arrive at a truthful conclusion, I have addressed the foundations of the concepts being used.

 

[Shoobee]

Well a private establishment is a private establishment. They can make whatever rules they want. Best not to get caught violating them.

As long as my weapons are in my car, that is close enough for me.

Nobody touches or searches my car without a warrant signed by a judge.

 

[WinThePennant]

A store is no different from a home or clubhouse when it comes to the rights of the owner.

Actually, there is nothing further from the truth. But, seeing as how you are such an expert, I'm not going to waste my breath.

 

[Mikhail Weiss]

A store is no different from a home or clubhouse when it comes to the rights of the owner.

Well, no. Not quite. You are not permitted to violate the civil rights of another if you run, say, a store, which exists to do business with the general public. Neverwinter's examples offer such cases and would lead to violation of Title II of the Civil Rights act (discrimination based on race, color, religion).

People have a right to exclude others from their property for whatever reason, whether it's gun-related or not, whether most of us find it distasteful or ignorant or not.

Yes, but with limited exceptions. Those exceptions include private clubs and other establishments not open to the public. See, for instance, the Augusta National Golf Club, which discriminates against women. Or, for that matter, your own home, in which you can discriminate against whomever you wish.

 

[Mikhail Weiss]

I think there are certain things that are absolute.

I agree. And the simplest absolutes for the matter at hand may depend upon how you view these questions (quite apart from whether or not you're a Pragmatist, Objectivist, or some other -ist):

1. Do you, or do you not, have a right to life?
2. Do you, or do you not, have a right to safeguard that life?
3. Do you, or do you not, have a right to determine by what means you will safeguard that life?

I suspect you would answer “yes” to each of the questions, above. But what about these?

1. Do rules against guns in the workplace respect your right to life?
2. Does carrying a gun in a prohibited workplace materially harm your employer?

 

[razorback2003]

If it is not against the law, carry and keep quiet about it.

 

[Lou McGopher]

Well, no. Not quite. You are not permitted to violate the civil rights of another if you run, say, a store, which exists to do business with the general public. Neverwinter's examples offer such cases and would lead to violation of Title II of the Civil Rights act (discrimination based on race, color, religion).

What's legal or illegal has nothing to do with what is right or wrong. Anyone here looking at the state of gun control laws in the US and around the world should readily understand that.

1. Do rules against guns in the workplace respect your right to life?
2. Does carrying a gun in a prohibited workplace materially harm your employer?

1. If you don't have a right to be there, you don't necessarily have a "right to life" while you're there. I've pointed this out before - you exercise rights in definable areas, those areas may be the property of someone other than you, and you have no claim to take any action there if the owner prohibits it. If, hypothetically speaking, the property owner said, "You're only permitted to come here if you drink this cup of strychnine," well, then you only have a right to be there if you drink it. That property owner may fully support your right to be armed at all times, and to use them to defend yourself, except when you are on his/her property, just as he/she may support your right to speak freely, to say things he/she may find offensive, except when you are on his/her property. Just because someone doesn't want you saying rude or offensive things doesn't mean they don't respect your right to free speech; it just means they don't want you doing it in their place.

2. It may. But it isn't relevant until the property owner pursues you for damages after you've been ejected from the property. It doesn't change owner's claim to the property, or the validity of the rules they set. You could show up to work in nothing but a thong as some form of political or religious expression. It's highly unlikely to cause damage to anything, but the employer will probably find it upsetting, and I bet everyone here would agree the owner has a right to kick you out simply because he/she doesn't want to look at you wearing only a thong.
Now, that's not to say that you automatically lose all rights once you cross the property line. You enter a business or place of work, and you expect to be safe. This is a reasonable assumption the vast majority of the time. If the property owner, though malice or negligence, caused you to become injured, you'd have a claim against him/her. You didn't agree to have that happen to you. But if the owner warns you beforehand that something bad may happen to you, then you are agreeing to whatever that risk is, and have no valid claim against him/her if it does. So if the owner/employer says, "no guns," you know what you may be risking by leaving your gun at home, and you must accept that risk and abide by that rule to avoid trespassing.

 

[3KillerBs]

So, the answer is no, you're not going to actually address my reasons.

I do not believe that I have a moral obligation to obey silly, dangerous rules made by people who have proven that they have little, if any, regard for my well-being.

In a factory of the type I work in there are multiple objects which can be used as weapons within arm's reach of every workstation.

I see no sense to expecting me, a small woman, to provide for defense in case I might need to, with a boxcutter, a pair of thread snips, or a steel yardstick against an angry man armed with a steel bar. Especially when the people expecting this are the people who can't keep the bathrooms stocked with soap and toilet paper, can't keep the fire lanes unobstructed, and have no means of preventing strangers from wandering in off the street.

As I have stated, if they catch me they have the right to fire me. Since I keep my gun concealed the only time I am likely to get caught is if I need to use it. I choose, for the specific reasons that no one has yet addressed, that being fired is not as bad as being dead and that I have no moral obligation to die for someone else's foolishness in making silly, ineffective rules.

 

[sugarmaker]

If I am presented with a choice to work somewhere and not carry a gun or look for employment somewhere else, I'll make the choice and stick by it. Their property, their rules.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Obligations

Let us, for the moment, look at the other side of this. There seems to be a lot of focus on this "property rights" thing.

That's very one-dimensional.

Beyond the explicit terms of the employment contract, what are the employer's moral and ethical obligations to the employee?

None?

Exactly and only what's in the written contract?

Or are there moral/ethical factors that obligate the employer in unwritten ways?

The employer conducts his business under the sufferance of the community at large. Are there obligations the employer has to the community that are expressed as obligations to the employee?


Let us stipulate that at no time and under no circumstances does the employer own the employee, and that the employee cannot be said to be in any way the property of the employer.

Let us further stipulate that the employer's business is morally void if it cannot be shown that there is a benefit from the practice of the business that accrues to the community or society as a whole or to mankind as a whole.

With that in mind, are there other obligations implied for the employer to the employee?


Or is the whole of the employer's obligation to the employer's sole benefit?



And here's a thought: Is disarming employees a form of aggression?

 

[exavid]

Pretty simple to me, if you give your word not to carry, then you don't.

 

[Lou McGopher]

There seems to be a lot of focus on this "property rights" thing.
That's very one-dimensional.

Because all rights are property rights.

Beyond the explicit terms of the employment contract, what are the employer's moral and ethical obligations to the employee?
None?
Exactly and only what's in the written contract?
Or are there moral/ethical factors that obligate the employer in unwritten ways?

I don't think it's realistic to try to come up with agreed upon solutions to all possible questions before they arise. For those stipulations stated explicitly, hold to them as precisely as possible. And as I hinted at before, any questions that arise that were not hashed out beforehand can be resolved rationally, based on reasonable expectations according to previous similar incidents, prevailing norms or common law, etc. So, probably in most situations, carrying concealed to a place of work where there's no explicit prohibition against it is permissible. At the very least, if the property owner became aware of it and decided he/she didn't like it, he/she could eject you from the property, but since there was no prior notice that it was prohibited, it would be doubtful that he/she had any valid claim against you for damages for bringing it in the first place.

Let us further stipulate that the employer's business is morally void if it cannot be shown that there is a benefit from the practice of the business that accrues to the community or society as a whole or to mankind as a whole.

There's really no way to say that something benefits or harms society or mankind "as a whole." People have different desires and needs, different values, and there's no rational way to aggregate these things. Suppose you robbed one guy to pay ten people. Does that benefit society as a whole? Or if you robbed ten guys to pay one person? Does that benefit mankind as a whole? There's no way to calculate such things in a way that's logical or objective. Individuals, not arbitrary groups, benefit from the actions of others. Individuals, not arbitrary groups, are harmed by the actions of others. In any transaction, the only criteria for judging its morality is if all parties to the transaction are consenting, not coerced under the threat of violence. We need not ask if your ownership and possession of a firearm benefits all of mankind. We only need to know that you find it of value to yourself, and that you're not using it in a way that violates the rights of someone else.

And here's a thought: Is disarming employees a form of aggression?

Depends on where and why... on whose property, and for what reason.

BTW, for those who may not have noticed... While I'm making the case that there's no right to bring a firearm onto any private property against the wishes of the owner, I'm also making the case that one has an absolute right to own and possess firearms everywhere else.

A few times in the past I had a firearm in my vehicle even though the parking lot at work had a sign prohibiting it (property owner prohibits it, not my employer). Like many, I figured what they didn't know wouldn't hurt them. But I started thinking about it, and realized it was wrong for me to do so. Trivial in the harm I was doing, perhaps. But still wrong in principle, and I could not keep doing so in good conscience. It was hypocritical, and unethical. So I weighed the risks and rewards. There is of course a risk that I could become the target of a violent crime, and without the firearm be less capable of defending myself. But, it's in a low-crime area. I'm only there during regular business hours. It's a 6 mile drive from home. I don't pass through any high crime areas on my way to and from work. The pay is good and in a couple more years I'll probably get a better job elsewhere with the experience I'm getting now. So for now, weighing the risks against the rewards, I'll keep the job, and leave the gun at home (or maybe park across the street in another lot). When I look for another job, being able to carry to work is high on the priority list. If there are two jobs, one that permits guns, and one that prohibits guns but pays about $2-4000 more a year, all else being equal, I'll take the lower pay for the ability to carry.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

In this scenario you've created where I'm unable to get a suitable job anywhere else in the world, and unable to survive via self-employment, then yes, I would accept charity. But I see homeless people getting paid to hold signs on the sidewalk. I don't think your scenario is very realistic, and isn't relevant if it were realistic. One person's desperation is does not result in a valid claim to violate another person's rights.

Funny you should phrase it that way, since by choosing to take government handouts instead of working the job you were offered while carrying, you would steal the product of my work and consume that which you have not earned. The government taking money from me by force, and you knowing this and choosing to leech of me through that money, especially when another option exists, is a far more grievous affront to rights that carrying a gun on someone's property.

 

[Sam1911]

As I have stated, if they catch me they have the right to fire me. Since I keep my gun concealed the only time I am likely to get caught is if I need to use it. I choose, for the specific reasons that no one has yet addressed, that being fired is not as bad as being dead and that I have no moral obligation to die.

That is a beautiful summary of the issue. Nicely said and hats off to you!