2. No, you aren't banning someone from carrying while going to and from work and any stop in-between. You're banning people from bringing guns on your property barring the parking lot. People can choose to do with that what they will.
"It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to." - W. C. Fields
Last edited by Jerry; 08-02-12 at 10:55 PM.
What we're talking about here is "a bill to prevent businesses from banning guns on their property[.]"
I don't think there is a gun rights issue here at all. There is a property rights issue, and it is the NRA trying to infringe on the property rights of business owners to force them to allow guns on their property.
If the second amendment guaranteed the right to be able to take a gun to your workplace, even when your boss doesn't want you to, then this bill wouldn't even be necessary. So second amendment rights do not enter into this picture. This is simply government coercion.
To re-state my argument, employers are already barred from discriminating against applicants and employees: Federal Antidiscrimination Laws | Nolo.com
Each attribute protected from discrimination is either an immutable characteristic (such as race) and/or is a Constitutional right (religion or political opinion).
It follows, therefore, that other constitutional rights should also be protected from discrimination. In this case, the right to keep and bear arms.
Exceptions exist, as exceptions always do, when the employer can demonstrate a bona-fide need. Men shouldn't work in a women's shelter, for example. Likewise an employer with hazardous chemicals on the premises, such as above-ground refueling tanks for heavy equipment, a propane refueling depot, or a paint factory, has a 'need' to not have firearms on the premises.
Without such a 'need', the discrimination is unjustified and should not be allowed.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
There are some things that employers cannot discriminate against, such as race and sex, but this is because of legislation, not because these things are constitutional rights.
You have a constitutional right to freedom of speech, but an employer can fire you for saying the wrong thing. In at will employment states, an employer can fire you for no reason at all, except prohibited reasons like race and sex.
So your argument is fundamentally faulty. But, honestly, not a bad attempt at a rational argument. Kudos