• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which right holds sway?

Which right holds sway?

  • 2nd Amendment

    Votes: 15 21.7%
  • Property Rights

    Votes: 54 78.3%

  • Total voters
    69
This is where it gets sticky, indeed. If you are not allowed to bring a weapon onto the private/public property what LAW are you violating? In addition, should someone harm you while on that property, as in the case of the Batman (Joker?) shooting, is that property owner then liable for NOT enforcing the ban? After all, if they (property owner/gov't) do not allow you to defend yourself then are they not liable for allowing you harm for denying your RIGHT to do so? Many states have laws prohibiting being armed in bars and schools, yet provide ZERO security or enforcement. It should work BOTH ways, if you impose the ban then you are responsible for enforcing it, and GUILTY (at least civilly liable) if you do not do so. We see cities, such as Chicago and DC tha prohibit LAWFUL possession of arms yet they take NO responsibility for your protection or strict enforcement of these "gun free zones". Just what penalty would be imposed for one having a gun in their vehicle and how would it be enforced?

Great points. I agree, additional immediate security should be provided if firearms are prohibited. I think making that law would severely discourage employers from restricting firearms on their property. Why? It costs money to pay security guards.
 
As long as you are complying with the gun laws of your state/city/etc, unless there is clear indication that a location requires no firearms then the default expectation on the part of an individual should be whatever is the baseline law of the land. It would only be in cases where private property is marked clearly as requiring no firearms on the premises to enter, or it's agreed upon as part of the condition to be on the property (Such as being employed), that it should allow the private property owner the right to deny you access to their property and take actions appropriate for individuals who attempt to enter/remain in private property when they are not invited to be there.
That's why I just never bring it up. I'm there to work, not advertise for Smith and Wesson.

On the other hand, this Christian has entered the homes of a few somewhat (not overly so) anti-Christians. One was an atheist couple and one was a pagan couple. I wear a rosewood crucifix, so I put it on a longer cord (I usually wear a choker style cord) and went about my work. No harm don.

Had either couple discovered my faith and ordered me to leave for that reason, I would have been entitled to compensation. Now since the 1st Amendment is just as specifically enumerated as the 2nd Amendment, I should therefore also be entitled to protected and compensation were I ordered to leave for carrying a pistol.

When a private resident hires me, they have signed a contract agreeing to allow me onto their property and in so doing have accepted a temporary level of infringement upon their rights through the enforcement of workplace safety rules and employee rights.
 
I am in favor of allowing Private Businesses to decide themselves that their property is a gun-free zone. Any enforcement of this would be private. IE the Business could terminate you as an employee if you violate the agreements of your employement (By bringing a gun on the premises) or they could instruct you to leave if you're a patron (and if you refuse, if that justifies as tresspassing, then the law could come into effect).

I am NOT in favor of the government dictating to private businesses that their locatoins MUST be gun-free zones, under penalty of law. That is the government forcing it upon people and it would require government enforcement of the ban.

The government stating that private property owners have a right to forbid guns on their property does not equal the government taking action against your rights, it simply is affirming the rights of the property owner.

That depands on the wording of the local statutes, if you are by definition trespassing (simply by being armed) is that NOT then comitting that crime (trespassing) "while armed"? Many states have added penalties (even mandatory minimum prison sentences) specifically for the "while armed" part of their laws. It would indeed be WRONG to be charged (and convicted) with trespassing WHILE ARMED simply for having a firearm locked in your trunk in a parking lot that the owner has designated as a "gun free" zone.
 
The one issue with the civily liable part is that you could argue it in either way. In our sue happy world, we can't sit here and honestly think that people wouldn't sue and claim the business civily liable for NOT banning guns and a shooting end up happening just as much as they'd attempt to sue and claim the business is civily liable FOR banning guns and a shooting ending up happening. And while I may agree with one side more than the other, if I'm not attempting to be biased I don't really see how you can say one is less correct than the other. You COULD argue that "The guy would've brought a gun in anyways if it was a no gun zone" but that's speculation, not fact. The fact would be it wasn't a gun free zone, he brought a gun, he shot someone. I can understand someone arguing that should be allowed to make the business as civily liable as you're suggesting for the other way.

The one counter to that I think would be that a business should not be liable for not taking additional messures BEYOND what is required by the law.
 
It would seem clear that a business could ban employees (or anyone else) from having guns on their property. However, that power ends at the property line.

HOWEVER, there could be some civil liabilities resulting from that restriction.
 
Yay for expansion of government power, regulation, and encroachment into the private sector!
Just like the expansion of government power forbidding employers to discriminate based on sex, religion, nationality, etc, etc. This is no different.
 
Had either couple discovered my faith and ordered me to leave for that reason, I would have been entitled to compensation. Now since the 1st Amendment is just as specifically enumerated as the 2nd Amendment, I should therefore also be entitled to protected and compensation were I ordered to leave for carrying a pistol.

Absolutely, but then that's interjecting a third issue into it in regards to contract rights. If they hire you for a job, make no statements regarding possible issues with a particular religion, you show up, they see your necklace and go "GET OUT"...they still hired you, you showed, they then chose to break the contract. That's on them. Same thing with a gun in that situation.

However, if at the time they were hiring you they said "Look, we are a Pagan family and we do not tolerate other religions in our household. If you take this job, we don't want to see symbols or hear the words of another religion while you perform your duties" and you said "okay" and then showed up with a cross on and they booted you out...they shouldn't have to pay, because YOU violated the agreement in that case which led to the termination. Same with guns and being told upon employment that the workplace is a gun free zone.

When a private resident hires me, they have signed a contract agreeing to allow me onto their property and in so doing have accepted a temporary level of infringement upon their rights through the enforcement of workplace safety rules and employee rights.

Absolutely. Unless that contract establishes from the onset that certain infringements will not be allowed.
 
Just like the expansion of government power forbidding employers to discriminate based on sex, religion, nationality, etc, etc. This is no different.

Slightly different. One can not leave behind their nationality, go to work, and then pick their nationality back up. Same with their sex. Same really with religion in any kind of practical way, though that becomes more problematic as an abstract concept. However, with a gun you can absolutely do that. They're not discriminating against gun ownership, they're discriminating against bringing a certain item onto their premises. This would be more like passing a law to disallow shop keepers from having a "No shoes, no shirt, no service" policy more so than keeping them from having a "We don't hire black people" policy.
 
That depands on the wording of the local statutes, if you are by definition trespassing (simply by being armed) is that NOT then comitting that crime (trespassing) "while armed"?

If you know that the rule is there and you come on the property anyways, and that suits the tresspassing laws then yeah...you're tresspassing. However, again, that's not strictly because you have a gun...it's because you're violating a rule which is a stated requirement for access to the property. Even then, I think many places with regards to tresspassing you have to...even if it's a stated rule...ask the person to leave the proprety before the cops would actually do anything. Though not sure on that.

Many states have added penalties (even mandatory minimum prison sentences) specifically for the "while armed" part of their laws.

And there you get to the part where I do have issue with, because in this part it's not a private citizen with rules/regulations on their private property but the gvoernment actively providing additional punishment for your carrying a weapon.

Again...I have no issue with it up until the point that the government is actively enforcing punishment on you specifically because you're carrying your gun/having your gun near you in a way that is legal.
 
Absolutely, but then that's interjecting a third issue into it in regards to contract rights. If they hire you for a job, make no statements regarding possible issues with a particular religion, you show up, they see your necklace and go "GET OUT"...they still hired you, you showed, they then chose to break the contract. That's on them. Same thing with a gun in that situation.

However, if at the time they were hiring you they said "Look, we are a Pagan family and we do not tolerate other religions in our household. If you take this job, we don't want to see symbols or hear the words of another religion while you perform your duties" and you said "okay" and then showed up with a cross on and they booted you out...they shouldn't have to pay, because YOU violated the agreement in that case which led to the termination. Same with guns and being told upon employment that the workplace is a gun free zone.

Absolutely. Unless that contract establishes from the onset that certain infringements will not be allowed.
If they said that, and If I could prove it, I could sue for the value of the contract. I may only be awarded a portion of the value, but I would have grounds since I would have otherwise gotten that income.

Defending an employer's 'right' to hold a gun-free zone is exactly like defending their 'right' to discriminate against race. It's exactly the same. Lawful carrying of a personal firearm is a protected right, and employers are no more justified in banning a personal firearm then they are in banning a religion from the payroll.

Its not enough to simply say 'well if you agreed'....the employer must not be allowed to discriminate in the way. It harms the employee unless the employer can demonstrate a need, such as the presence of hazardous chemicals or the business.
 
If they said that, and If I could prove it, I could sue for the value of the contract. I may only be awarded a portion of the value, but I would have grounds since I would have otherwise gotten that income.

Defending an employer's 'right' to hold a gun-free zone is exactly like defending their 'right' to discriminate against race. It's exactly the same. Lawful carrying of a personal firearm is a protected right, and employers are no more justified in banning a personal firearm then they are in banning a religion from the payroll.

Its not enough to simply say 'well if you agreed'....the employer must not be allowed to discriminate in the way. It harms the employee unless the employer can demonstrate a need, such as the presence of hazardous chemicals or the business.

If I say, "You are not allowed to bring guns into my home," I have every right to do so. The right of an employer is no different. Period.
 
I disagree. I think they would rule it based on property rights vs 2nd Amendment rights. Reason being, the private property is still in the US and Americans are working there. Those Americans have rights. Owners of private property can't take away Constitutional rights can they? I'm being the devil's advocate btw. Personally, I believe the property rights should hold sway. I'm just thinking out loud.

Sure they can...you couldn't come on my property and burn an American flag yet that's protected by free speech.

Edit: I'd like to point out...it's freaking crazy that the 2nd Amendment is treated on the right as some right that trumps all others. Nobody thinks twice if an employer tells an employee to cover up a tatoo even though that technically can be free speech or to dress a certain way.

The 2nd amendment says the government can't ban guns...it doesn't say that you have some unfettered right to show up with an AR-15 on your back to work.
 
Last edited:
I tend to agree with you. However, I wouldn't like the idea of not being able to bring it into the parking lot in my vehicle. I can understand not bringing it into the building. But the parking lot? Let's put it this way. By saying I can't keep a weapon in my vehicle, you are now disallowing me to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights because I can't carry a gun on the way to work. Maybe they provide a place to check my weapon in? Maybe in the same manner as when you come aboard a Federal Park. You can check in your weapon with the Park Ranger.
Guns are allowed in federal parks: New law allows loaded guns in national parks - US news - Life - NBCNews.com
 
You know, in general I don't agree with the extent some of our discrimination laws go so the argument doesn't go quite as strong as you may've hoped Jerry...but it's an interesting notion that at least is worth a step back to think on it.
 
If I say, "You are not allowed to bring guns into my home," I have every right to do so. The right of an employer is no different. Period.
You are not allowed to infringe on my constitutional rights while I'm an employee in your service. Period. This is true for any and all employers who can't demonstrate a 'need'. It's not harming you, so don't make a deal out of it and let me get back to crafting what is going to become your beautiful new bathroom.
 
Sure they can...you couldn't come on my property and burn an American flag yet that's protected by free speech.

Edit: I'd like to point out...it's freaking crazy that the 2nd Amendment is treated on the right as some right that trumps all others. Nobody thinks twice if an employer tells an employee to cover up a tatoo even though that technically can be free speech or to dress a certain way.

The 2nd amendment says the government can't ban guns...it doesn't say that you have some unfettered right to show up with an AR-15 on your back to work.

I agree it isn't a right that trumps others. The 2nd Amendment is such a big deal because the NRA is the richest and probably most powerful lobbying arm in the country. Also, the 2nd Amendment is probably the most controversial one because we have so many fatalities due to gun shots.
 
Property rights should win out. If a property owner doesn't want guns on their property, they should be allowed to make that decision.
 
Our employee manual states that employees are not allowed to bring a weapon into the building. It doesn't mention the parking lot. Besides, who would know?
Depends on whether that car was broken into, for whatever reason....
 
We have the same law in SC.


Look, your HOME is one thing... that is REALLY private property.

Your BUSINESS where you invite others to PLEASE come in (employees and customers) is slightly different. It is private property, but it isn't the same level of "private" as your home.

If you tell employees that they cannot carry a gun on their person, and they cannot have a gun in their car parked in the employee parking lot, you're telling them they must be disarmed ON THE WAY TO WORK AND ON THE WAY HOME AND ANYWHERE THEY STOP IN BETWEEN. You're forcing them to arrive at home unarmed and travel unarmed.

Personally I think if you can force that on them then you should be held fully liable for any harm they come to along the way via criminal action.

Someone is going to say "well if you don't like it find another employer". HA. Like it is that easy in this economy, and besides which MOST employers do this if they're allowed to get away with it.

Like it or not the Employer>Employee relationship is one where the power is very unequal and coercion is a real issue. The man who signs your paycheck wields a lot of power over you.... limiting that power to reasonable levels is not an inappropriate action on the part of state governments.
 
My property, my rules. Unless the business is breaking some sort of law by restricting people from owning guns on his property, then there is no issue here. It's a false dichotomy.
 
Last edited:
My property, my rules. Unless the business is breaking some sort of law by restricting people from owning guns on his property, then there is no issue here. It's a false dichotomy.

In SC and TN it IS a law, therefore breaking it by denying employees that legal right is by definition breaking the law. The question is whether you think it is a good and reasonable law for a state to make.
 
In SC and TN it IS a law, therefore breaking it by denying employees that legal right is by definition breaking the law. The question is whether you think it is a good and reasonable law for a state to make.

It isn't. It infringes on property rights for no other reason than to gain the gun owner vote.
 
It isn't. It infringes on property rights for no other reason than to gain the gun owner vote.
Your property rights aren't worth anything when your causing harm to your employees without cause. 'My property my rules' just makes you sound like a 5 yer-old stomping his foot to get his way.
 
Property rights. If a property owner says no guns, then you either respect that property owners request, or you stay the **** out.
 
Back
Top Bottom