View Poll Results: Which right holds sway?

Voters
79. You may not vote on this poll
  • 2nd Amendment

    17 21.52%
  • Property Rights

    62 78.48%
Page 18 of 54 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 538

Thread: Which right holds sway?

  1. #171
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    This has nothing to do with personal opposition to carrying. It is about the right of business owners to exclude guns from their private property and not to be forced by government to allows things they don't want on their PRIVATE PROPERTY.
    If you don't want employee's rights on your property, don't hire employees. Problem solved.

  2. #172
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    If you don't want employee's rights on your property, don't hire employees. Problem solved.
    That only solves the problem if you don't give a **** about the rights of employers.

  3. #173
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    How about this: want to carry your gun on the job but your employer won't let you? Get another job!

  4. #174
    Educator Rosie1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    944

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Property Rights wins. I would think some people would be re-considering gun rights laws, however. Guns aren't for everyone. There should be a better balance between hunters rights and keeping others safe from wackos. I realize that any kind of single gun sales screening law at the national level, would have no chance against a huge opposing group. However, I can see things getting worse and worse. Does each domestic terrorist try to outdo others? We've got an arsenal of guns in our home, and, yes, I know how to load and shoot them, but I prefer my mean dog scare of intruders/Jehovahs. And my only war so far was with the skunks that killed my chickens.
    "The measure off intelligence is the ability to change." Albert Einstein

  5. #175
    Professor
    Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    04-27-17 @ 10:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,782

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    The second amendment is inapplicable in this scenario. The second amendment forbids the government from infringing the right to bear arms, not business owners.
    I find this interesting. Unlike the 1st amendment, which states, congress shall not make a law......., the 2nd simply states "shall not be infringed".
    From the ashes.

  6. #176
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy Incognito View Post
    How about this: want to carry your gun on the job but your employer won't let you? Get another job!
    Nah.

    1234567890

  7. #177
    Sage
    Guy Incognito's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    12-02-17 @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    11,216

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Nah.

    1234567890
    Great answer
    Like I said before, you obviously don't care about liberty, since you have no problem with big government interventionism. You might as well switch your lean to Liberal, at least it would be intellectually honest.

  8. #178
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    [I]On the other side we have a landowner who feels that they do not want just anyone running around in their place of business with a gun concealed or otherwise.
    Your 'want' does not justify infringing on a specifically enumerated right as per SCOTUS 'Strict Scrutiny'.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    (At this point I am going to ignore the anti gun nuts that just want no guns anywhere since that simply is not anywhere near what I want) I am not demanding that all work places are gun free zones. From my personal point of view I just want to be able to stop an employee that perhaps at onetime I trusted the employee with a firearm in my shop or just in his car on my property. But today he seems a little off or actually he has said some things that make me worried that he might go off and shoot me or someone else. No they didnt say enough for me to call the police its more of an hunch. So I want to tell him that today he needs to take his gun home. Which is a judgement call that I am employing to curb a possible bad scene. I could be wrong and up till now the guy was a good worker. So instead of mentioning the gun I just tell him that he is not needed today.

    The next day he shows up looking even more unusual for him. Im not sure that he has a gun or not. So I again send him home.

    Now if the law that you are wanting were be in effect I would not be able to justify a reason for sending this employee home.
    That's correct. An employer should not be able to discriminate at-will. If you can not trust the employee then you need to let them go.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    And at the key time when the guy demands a reason why I keep sending him home would get me in possible trouble.
    That could already get you in trouble today, since employers can't dock hours without cause. The topic of guns aside, you already can't do that, so once again you're presenting an argument which is not specific to guns. He can file an unemployment claim against you for loss of hours, even while he's still employed with you.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    perhaps if he had not had a gun present on himself or in his vehicle I would have just let him work and see how he does. But considering that I do not want to risk being shot or risk having to shoot someone myself I chose a much more civil course and just sent him away to sort out his own problems away from where if he does go off he will not be doing so anywhere near me hopefully.
    And again, if you feel that you at risk then you need to terminate him 'with cause'. You could ban guns all day long but if he's a danger then he'll just find another weapon. All evidence shows that criminals are not detoured by gun bans or the unavailability of any gun, even illegally. If they can't get a gun they're use another weapon. You are using leftist gun-control arguments which don't hold up in court.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    Under OSHA rules if a fear that a employee is potentially dangerous I can send them home. In fact OSHA refused to ban guns in the work place because they felt that OSHA regulations already cover anything including guns. 09/13/2006 - Request for OSHA national policy banning guns from the workplace and OSHA enforcement policy regarding workplace violence. "In a workplace where the risk of violence and serious personal injury are significant enough to be "recognized hazards," the general duty clause [specified by Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act)] would require the employer to take feasible steps to minimize those risks. Failure of an employer to implement feasible means of abatement of these hazards could result in the finding of an OSH Act violation."
    Yes, that's the workplace, and no one would be allowed to carry, not even you, even if it was your property. You just cited a perfect example of what I said earlier, that upon hiring me as a contractor, I'm already bringing infringements into your home, and I cited OSHA specifically.

    If you're a big gun enthusiast, hire me to come do some welding for you, and I designate the aria as a no-gun zone due to the oxy-tank, you can't carry. Even-though it's your property, even your house, your residence, you can't carry, and neither can I.

    You're talking about something different, though. You're talking about one specific employee, and you're talking about you making a judgement call. That is not what the OSHA regulation you quoted is regulating. When that OSHA regulation is executed, not even you would be able to carry.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    Safety and Health Topics | Workplace Violence "How can workplace violence hazards be reduced?

    In most workplaces where risk factors can be identified, the risk of assault can be prevented or minimized if employers take appropriate precautions. One of the best protections employers can offer their workers is to establish a zero-tolerance policy toward workplace violence. This policy should cover all workers, patients, clients, visitors, contractors, and anyone else who may come in contact with company personnel.

    By assessing their worksites, employers can identify methods for reducing the likelihood of incidents occurring. OSHA believes that a well written and implemented Workplace Violence Prevention Program, combined with engineering controls, administrative controls and training can reduce the incidence of workplace violence in both the private sector and Federal workplaces."
    Carrying a gun is not a violent act. Also, CCW carriers are among the least likely demographic to cause workplace violence. For the sake of workplace safety it therefore behoves you to encourage CCWs to carry on the job.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    You seemed to have asserted that the only thing that matters is that you have the legal right to carry your gun on your person. Does this mean that the employer is banned from making a judgement call and sending an employee home on a gut feeling?
    You should always be ready to defend your decision to send an employee home to both the Department of Labor and the Unemployment Agency, regardless of guns being carried by the employee or not. Here again you not presenting an argument which is specific to guns. If the employee is a threat, you should terminate them.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    Bob seem uptight today or Joe lost his house and his family or whatever is causing him such huge distress. Larry keeps yelling at his coworkers or refuses to work. Usually these situations call for some type of decision by the employer. In some cases an employer will give the employee some time off to sort things out. But if any of these employees are carrying a gun the employer may just cut to the chase and send any employee home that seems distressed for any reason. No one wants a person around that isnt themselves while carrying a gun. It doesnt matter where work a bar home or wherever any rational person would be at ease around a distraught person with a gun. But if your law bans employers from making the cautious call of sending a possibly dangerous employee home, well count me and opponent of your movements law.
    You're making many assumptions without any evidence. I hope you realize that. Your post is showing only your fear, but you aren't substantiating any of this.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    I would be happier with a law that bans the government from imposing new laws that limit places that you can take guns. I think that the fight to retain our rights are better fought in more logical locations. IMHO
    Your happiness does not satisfy SCOTUS rules on 'Strict Scrutiny', so you happiness, and any other subjective emotion you feel, is invalid.
    Last edited by Jerry; 08-07-12 at 02:17 PM.

  9. #179
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,042

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Your 'want' does not justify infringing on a specifically enumerated right as per SCOTUS 'Strict Scrutiny'.
    Regardless landowners still have rights that go much further than wants. As I mentioned before I could fire anyone that I want for no good reason to remove them from my property. If I feel that I need to do so I will gladly go to court afterwards.



    That's correct. An employer should not be able to discriminate at-will. If you can not trust the employee then you need to let them go.
    You have noticed the obvious result of your movements laws. That an employer will just drum up something to fire the employer over. You can now claim that it would be illegal to do so, but companies bust unions the same way all the time. Sure they paid fines before it was over. But by the time their done there are no longer unions on their property. The local mine did it by shutting the mine down for a while then hiring non union employees exclusively. All any business would need to do is determine that guns pose a unnecessary risk on the job site. Gun powder and flying projectiles are a danger and can be proven to be a danger. Under OSHA rules about volatile substances gun powder can be legally banned from the work place with little effort. The end result may be no workplace allowing guns on the property if you guys push too hard the lawyers will find a way. Thats what they get paid for.


    That could already get you in trouble today, since employers can't dock hours without cause. The topic of guns aside, you already can't do that, so once again you're presenting an argument which is not specific to guns. He can file an unemployment claim against you for loss of hours, even while he's still employed with you.
    Again some employers are willing to go to court to fight for the right to make decisions own their own. SO gun owners should be prepared to end up in court when they push other people around while hiding behind specialty laws.



    And again, if you feel that you at risk then you need to terminate him 'with cause'. You could ban guns all day long but if he's a danger then he'll just find another weapon. All evidence shows that criminals are not detoured by gun bans or the unavailability of any gun, even illegally. If they can't get a gun they're use another weapon. You are using leftist gun-control arguments which don't hold up in court.
    My point is that an employer may very well jump to the cease employment conclusion well ahead of what they would have done had the employee not had a gun on the property.


    As to for the criminals acquiring guns elsewhere it does not apply at all to anything that I have said. The presumption all along has been that the employee legally owns a gun so I have no idea why you are going on about banning guns. I do not support banning gun ownership, if I did i would be banning my own guns.



    Yes, that's the workplace, and no one would be allowed to carry, not even you, even if it was your property. You just cited a perfect example of what I said earlier, that upon hiring me as a contractor, I'm already bringing infringements into your home, and I cited OSHA specifically.

    If you're a big gun enthusiast, hire me to come do some welding for you, and I designate the aria as a no-gun zone due to the oxy-tank, you can't carry. Even-though it's your property, even your house, your residence, you can't carry, and neither can I.

    You're talking about something different, though. You're talking about one specific employee, and you're talking about you making a judgement call. That is not what the OSHA regulation you quoted is regulating. When that OSHA regulation is executed, not even you would be able to carry.
    Actually if you read the links that I gave you OSHA says that it is the responsibility of the business owner to watch for signs and identify employees that may pose a danger of violence. OSHA feels that it is unnecessary to ban guns in the work place since the employer already retains the right to do so. But OSHA says that if that right of the employer changes then OSHA will also change their rules too.



    Carrying a gun is not a violent act. Also, CCW carriers are among the least likely demographic to cause workplace violence. For the sake of workplace safety it therefore behoves you to encourage CCWs to carry on the job.
    No one said that carrying a gun is a violent act. What I was referring to was that regardless of a gun or not right now an employer can make a judgement call according to OSHA. A specialty law removes the ability legally to make judgement calls if the employee is a legal gun carrier.



    You should always be ready to defend your decision to send an employee home to both the Department of Labor and the Unemployment Agency, regardless of guns being carried by the employee or not. Here again you not presenting an argument which is specific to guns. If the employee is a threat, you should terminate them.
    You need to realize that the laws that your movement wants to be enforced do have gray areas. And all aspects need to be looked at not just the ones that you think that you can argue.



    You're making many assumptions without any evidence. I hope you realize that. Your post is showing only your fear, but you aren't substantiating any of this.
    fear bwhahaha I laugh in your face. No I am not making an assumption without evidence I am exercising my rights as expressed by OSHA. But your laws will take those rights away.



    Your happiness does not satisfy SCOTUS rules on 'Strict Scrutiny', so you happiness, and any other subjective emotion you feel, is invalid.
    Your desire to walk around with a gun on private property is a want. You would have to present evidence that says that a gun is necessary for either your protection or the protection of others. If you store your gun in your vehicle off the property you still retain the same rights that you want this specialty laws to cover. Which is why I made reference to you not actually losing legal possession of your gun. If the argument is for protection from at to work then it is your responsibility to find a location other than on the property that does not allow you to store guns there. I also pointed out to you that the states that do have parking lot laws allow employers to still ban guns in vehicles on their property under certain conditions like a gated parking lot or they may make the gun owners park in a separate parking lot providing that it isnt too far away. Which shows that even under the specialty laws you are still expressing a want and not a strict scrutiny. And since these laws have these loops holes for the employer it shows that it will be nearly impossible to ever make employers allow guns inside the actual work place.


    Ill say it again I would rather see effort going toward stopping the Government from imposing more laws that limit the rights of gun owners and private property owners. Legally speaking the laws that your movement is fighting for actually promotes more Federal intrusion on the States and all Americans. Less laws not more laws!

  10. #180
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    I really wish Chrome would stop changing my instances of "your" to "you".

Page 18 of 54 FirstFirst ... 8161718192028 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •