• 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
If people don't want to work at places that don't allow guns, then they can work somewhere else.
...And if people don't want to work at places that don't pay for birth control, then they can also work somewhere else. Right?

This is a great question, Marine, as demonstrated by the logical, intelligent responses.

My automatic response is that gun rights hold sway. On the other hand, do we really want Dwight Schrute walking around the office all day, every day, with a Smith & Wesson.40 strapped to his leg? Even if he's legally obliged to do so? Talk about a hostile work environment.

On the other hand, if some whackjob gets fired and comes back with an "assault" rifle (hat tip to Goshen), wouldn't it be nice if Dwight was also a crack shot and put one in the whackjob's eye before he got started with his massacre?

On the other hand, If I start and run a business, don't I have the right to ask employees to follow my rules? I can order them to please NOT espouse their extremist political views to my customers (true story), but then I'm violating their civil rights, right?

On the other hand, defending my life is a bit more complicated than speaking my mind.

I'll argue either side, but at the end of the day I'm a fan of the second amendment. Too much crazy stuff going on these days, bottom line.

So yes, I'll leave it in the car if they make it a condition of my employment or patronage, because if I agree to their silly no-firearm rule then I'm willfully giving up my right to bear arms.

But no, I'm not going to drive unarmed back and forth to work each day. I drive a chrome Fisker just like Justin Bieber's, and some whackjob high on bath salts is gonna 'jack it and/or eat my face. So no, unless they let me keep it in my car, or they have a weapons cage at the front desk (one that the aforementioned whackjob can't possibly gain access to), then they can kiss my American arse. I'll work/shop/eat/play somewhere else.

I like Jerry's answer best. Don't ask, don't tell.
You won't know I have it until I have to use it, and then you'll be damn glad I had it.
 
On the other hand, If I start and run a business, don't I have the right to ask employees to follow my rules? I can order them to please NOT espouse their extremist political views to my customers (true story), but then I'm violating their civil rights, right?

If they're driving away your costumers then they're harming your business, but a concealed pistol doesn't harm anyone.

I like Jerry's answer best. Don't ask, don't tell.
You won't know I have it until I have to use it, and then you'll be damn glad I had it.
The CO shooting is exactly why I carry into businesses with posted 'no-firearms' signs. Zombies love to attack gun-free-zones.
 
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.

If you follow this logic then the WBBC would be allowed to set up on your front lawn and protest and you couldn't call the cops to get them off of your property because that would be the government infringing their right to free speech.

I obviously disagree with this logic.
 
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.
If you don't mind I'd like to explore this a little bit.

Your property, your rules. Ok. I'm an installer working for a contractor you hired to remodel your bathroom/kitchen/basement/etc. Our company actually does have a good reputation for quality work, meeting deadlines and offering competitive prices. I say all this to control for the quality of craftsmanship in your decision making.

So, I'm one of a few in your home working on the project. It's your house so as per your assertion, your word is final, regardless.

~Brand loyalty is something one commonly finds in construction. My personal brand loyalty is with DeWalt. Every power tool I have is DeWalt, no exceptions. I will even pay more to get the same tool in DeWalt that I could get of the same quality in another brand for less. Now let's say you have some problem with DeWalt you feel is worth making an issue over. Perhaps DeWalt's CEO expressed a strong political opinion in the Wall Street Journal which you passionately disagree with, and your boycotting. Paying me is essentially paying DeWalt, since I'm their customer. Maybe you're environmentally conscience, did your homework and object to the kinds of batteries DeWalt uses or how DeWalt produces and/or disposes of them. Maybe Dewalt outsources labor in a way you despise. Maybe you just don't like the color yellow.

Do you have the right to tell me I can't use my DeWalt tools in your home under threat of canceling the contract?


~What if you have the kind same problem with the brand of jeans I'm wearing, something you feel is worth making a fuss about? Are you going to tell me I have to go home and change? What if I only own the one brand, are you telling me I can't work on your project until I go buy a brand you approve of?


~What if you have a problem with the War on Terror and I wear one of my OEF-Afghanistan, Fort Benning or National Guard shirts (these aren't political shirts)?


~For that matter, what if you 'order' me to talk about my thoughts on gay serving in the military while working in your home?


Exactly how far does 'my property, my rules' go?
 
Last edited:
A property owner can disallow you on their property at their own digression. Nothing overrides the rights of the property owner period. But a vehicle is the employees private property so the fire arm within it is not legally on the business owners property. But again the property owner can through off their property for suspecting you have something they do not like in your vehicle. If they fire you for having a firearm on their property there are many elements that would determine if you could bring legal action against the property owner. Logically you would really not have a leg to stand on.
 
A property owner can disallow you on their property at their own digression. Nothing overrides the rights of the property owner period. But a vehicle is the employees private property so the fire arm within it is not legally on the business owners property. But again the property owner can through off their property for suspecting you have something they do not like in your vehicle. If they fire you for having a firearm on their property there are many elements that would determine if you could bring legal action against the property owner. Logically you would really not have a leg to stand on.

We start with the individual's right to be secure in their person and papers, which is where the right to private property comes from.

The car, SCOTUS ruled, is an extension of the employee, and that's why the employer may not regulate it. Since the car is protected because it's an extension of the employee, then logically the employee herself is protected, since she is the principal source of the right which is protecting the car. An employee in the building is identical to a car in the parking lot, so if an employer can't object to a gun in the car, neither can they object to a gun on an employee's person.
 
We start with the individual's right to be secure in their person and papers, which is where the right to private property comes from.

The car, SCOTUS ruled, is an extension of the employee, and that's why the employer may not regulate it. Since the car is protected because it's an extension of the employee, then logically the employee herself is protected, since she is the principal source of the right which is protecting the car. An employee in the building is identical to a car in the parking lot, so if an employer can't object to a gun in the car, neither can they object to a gun on an employee's person.
But the employer can object to your presence on the property. The employer can fire you for nothing at all really as long as they do so within the limits of the law. As a property owner they can choose what you can and cannot bring onto their property. And if they believe that you might be bringing something they do not want they can throw you off of their property.

If their is a rumor that someone you know is a thief, you do not need proof to throw them off of your private property. As an employee you may have a contract or there may be certain laws that give you a little more rights on private property of where you work but at any moment they can throw you out the door. You would have to go to court to address anything that you feel violated your rights. After the fact you could try to present a reason for carrying a firearm somewhere where the property owner forbid the possession of a firearm.


In New Mexico the law says this: Pursuant to Subsection C of NMSA 1978 Section 29-19-12, any person lawfully in possession of private property may prohibit the carrying of concealed handguns on such private property by posting notice in accordance with NMSA 1978 Section 30-14-6 or by verbally notifying persons entering upon the property.
 
But the employer can object to your presence on the property.
If I'm just some Joe-Schmuck passing through, yeah, they can kick me off for any or no reason. Once they've hired me, however, they have to show cause or I can file a complaint and get them cited, fined and/or I get to collect on their unemployment insurance.

The employer can fire you for nothing at all really as long as they do so within the limits of the law.
Ultimately, everyone can do absolutely anything they want. But be ready to accept the consequences. Sure, an employer can fire me for no reason at all, but I would then get to collect a check from their unemployment insurance, and I think Democrats just extended unemployment benefits again.

As a property owner they can choose what you can and cannot bring onto their property. And if they believe that you might be bringing something they do not want they can throw you off of their property.

Depends on the item, depends of the reason. They can not like my father's ring all day long, but as it's in the same type of classification as the wedding rings they do allow, should they fire me for it I'll get free money from them for a while.

If their is a rumor that someone you know is a thief, you do not need proof to throw them off of your private property.

And if the employer can't prove their a thief when the unemployment caseworker calls the next day, the employer will have to pay. Likewise, if the employer can't prove they're a thief when the lawyers calls, the employer will have to pay even more when the slander suit comes down.

As an employee you may have a contract or there may be certain laws that give you a little more rights on private property of where you work but at any moment they can throw you out the door.

The moment they put their hands on me to 'throw me out the door', they're committing assault, so we'll just add that to 'slander' and 'wrongful termination'.

You would have to go to court to address anything that you feel violated your rights. After the fact you could try to present a reason for carrying a firearm somewhere where the property owner forbid the possession of a firearm.
You seem to think you can just use and abuse people who are on your property without consequence. One day you're going to have a very rude awakening.

When you hired the employee, in the interview...did you ask if they had any formal hand-to-hand combat training? I mean, if you looked at my resume, the military service is hard to miss, so if you plan on retaining some 'right' to assault me ("throw me out the door", at it were) you may want that information before you do something stupid and your arm goes in a cast. Also, in such a confrontation, were you to ever try and disarm me, that's 'reaching' and will justify my using lethal force to stop you. As a civilian you must have a Guard Card and be employed as a 'guard' in order to take a weapon off of anyone. Do you have a Guard Card?

So, think about it.

In New Mexico the law says this: Pursuant to Subsection C of NMSA 1978 Section 29-19-12, any person lawfully in possession of private property may prohibit the carrying of concealed handguns on such private property by posting notice in accordance with NMSA 1978 Section 30-14-6 or by verbally notifying persons entering upon the property.
A better source: http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/newmexico.pdf

...though I don't see why your stating this. I already know about the laws I'm arguing to overturn.
 
Last edited:
If I'm just some Joe-Schmuck passing through, yeah, they can kick me off for any or no reason. Once they've hired me, however, they have to show cause or I can file a complaint and get them cited, fined and/or I get to collect on their unemployment insurance.


Ultimately, everyone can do absolutely anything they want. But be ready to accept the consequences. Sure, an employer can fire me for no reason at all, but I would then get to collect a check from their unemployment insurance, and I think Democrats just extended unemployment benefits again.



Depends on the item, depends of the reason. They can not like my father's ring all day long, but as it's in the same type of classification as the wedding rings they do allow, should they fire me for it I'll get free money from them for a while.



And if the employer can't prove their a thief when the unemployment caseworker calls the next day, the employer will have to pay. Likewise, if the employer can't prove they're a thief when the lawyers calls, the employer will have to pay even more when the slander suit comes down.



The moment they put their hands on me to 'throw me out the door', they're committing assault, so we'll just add that to 'slander' and 'wrongful termination'.


You seem to think you can just use and abuse people who are on your property without consequence. One day you're going to have a very rude awakening.

When you hired the employee, in the interview...did you ask if they had any formal hand-to-hand combat training? I mean, if you looked at my resume, the military service is hard to miss, so if you plan on retaining some 'right' to assault me ("throw me out the door", at it were) you may want that information before you do something stupid and your arm goes in a cast. Also, in such a confrontation, were you to ever try and disarm me, that's 'reaching' and will justify my using lethal force to stop you. As a civilian you must have a Guard Card and be employed as a 'guard' in order to take a weapon off of anyone. Do you have a Guard Card?

So, think about it.


A better source: http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/newmexico.pdf

...though I don't see why your stating this. I already know about the laws I'm arguing to overturn.

Throwing you out the door was figurative not actually physically handling the person. The fact is that an employer can demand you to leave the property without a reason why they are making the demand. They can even call law enforcement if you refuse. Of course as I said after the fact you may have a case against your employer depending on various laws. But the property owner can legally demand that you leave the property for no reason other than they dont want you there.


That being said though I think that there should be a compromise. I think that it is understandable that a gun carrier obviously has the legal right to carry a gun. And even the NRA is not asking to let employees sport a gun inside the work place (if the work place does not require it) but if one wants a gun for the commute or whatever they do traveling to the work place where else would they store the gun but in their vehicle. Personally I see no problem with storing a weapon in a vehicle. Most work places only check the employees after they have exited the parking lot anyways. Well some have guards when you enter the parking lot but they mostly just check if you should be there at all.


But if you remove the weapon from the vehicle on the property I believe that property rights wins in that case. Being on someones private property is a privilege not a right. Even if you work on the property that doesn't change the the laws for private property. I dont believe that the employer though can legally ask the employee if they are a gun owner though. So unless the gun is visible no one would really know unless the employee was stupid enough to announce it. Also in play would be any agreement signed by the employee that would make it legal for the employer to ban guns even in a vehicle.
 
Throwing you out the door was figurative not actually physically handling the person.
So, you believe a lawfully carried firearm by a trained person with a clean criminal history on your property is a threat, and your reaction is to use tuff-guy talk thinking everyone will 'understand'. Good luck with that. If you're right and the person is a threat, you're more likely to get shot because you couldn't control your mouth. Something tells me this wouldn't be the first time your mouth got you into trouble, though.

There is a scope of correct actions, ranging from politely pointing out the sign and asking the person to leave, to quietly calling the police and letting them handle it, even pressing charges if you wish.

They can even call law enforcement if you refuse.

Well, in your state, you can press charges even they made an honest mistake, immediately fully comply and sincerely apologize.

Of course as I said after the fact you may have a case against your employer depending on various laws. But the property owner can legally demand that you leave the property for no reason other than they don't want you there.

Not when you're an employee, they can't...at least not without also suffering legal consequences.

That being said though I think that there should be a compromise. I think that it is understandable that a gun carrier obviously has the legal right to carry a gun. And even the NRA is not asking to let employees sport a gun inside the work place (if the work place does not require it) but if one wants a gun for the commute or whatever they do traveling to the work place where else would they store the gun but in their vehicle. Personally I see no problem with storing a weapon in a vehicle. Most work places only check the employees after they have exited the parking lot anyways. Well some have guards when you enter the parking lot but they mostly just check if you should be there at all.

I love compromise, I actually look for opportunities to compromise on every issue.

I offer that employees only be allowed to carry concealed, not open, just like a dress-code. I offer that employers have the right to make a photocopy of the employee's CCW for their files, just like a driver's license and social security card. I also offer that employers should receive special legal protection in the federal code against liability for damage, injury or death should an otherwise legally carried firearm be used on their property.

And in return for these infringements on the individual's privacy, the individual has the right to carry a gun in the building, while employed, while on the clock, just like they have the right to be black, a woman, or gay, and not discriminated against.

But if you remove the weapon from the vehicle on the property I believe that property rights wins in that case. Being on someones private property is a privilege not a right.
See that's where the rub is, because if they're an employee, the do have a right to be there. If they're not an employee then yes it's merely a privilege.

Even if you work on the property that doesn't change the the laws for private property. I dont believe that the employer though can legally ask the employee if they are a gun owner though. So unless the gun is visible no one would really know unless the employee was stupid enough to announce it. Also in play would be any agreement signed by the employee that would make it legal for the employer to ban guns even in a vehicle.
That agreement wouldn't be legal. No private contract can otherwise brake the law, or it is void. If an employee signs such a contract and has a gun in their car anyway, there's nothing the employer could do about it since the contract itself brakes the law.
 
If you follow this logic then the WBBC would be allowed to set up on your front lawn and protest and you couldn't call the cops to get them off of your property because that would be the government infringing their right to free speech.

I obviously disagree with this logic.

I was of the same mind as you, but Jerry's comments have kind of given me a bit pause when it SPECIFICALLY comes to employers, not simply any kind of private property.

Simply becaues it's your business and property doesn't give you the right to have policies that discriminate against a persons religion or sex or race and even in some places sexual orientation. We clearly have laws in place that prevent businesses from doing whatever they want with their private property.

Like it or not, the right to own a firearm is a Constitutionally protected right as it's interpretted currently under the law, and the ability to carry is law in many states. So it's one of those things where you have to ask why private property rights of business owners can be infringed when discriminating against an someone wearing a Hijab or is black but not when it comes to having a gun.
 
I was of the same mind as you, but Jerry's comments have kind of given me a bit pause when it SPECIFICALLY comes to employers, not simply any kind of private property.

Simply becaues it's your business and property doesn't give you the right to have policies that discriminate against a persons religion or sex or race and even in some places sexual orientation. We clearly have laws in place that prevent businesses from doing whatever they want with their private property.

Like it or not, the right to own a firearm is a Constitutionally protected right as it's interpretted currently under the law, and the ability to carry is law in many states. So it's one of those things where you have to ask why private property rights of business owners can be infringed when discriminating against an someone wearing a Hijab or is black but not when it comes to having a gun.
Since I've made some arguments based on my being in a residence as a hired contractor, please let me clarify that if I'm just a regular person there fore the BBQ, if you don't like my religion or my deodorant, out I go.

The issue of guns aside, when I'm hired and walk into a client's home, I'm already bringing infringements with me. At the minimum, OSHA now lives in your house until we're don. If part of your home is designated as a hard-hat aria, even-though it's still your private residence, you *have to* wear a hard-hat in that aria or you can be fined. If we have to stake orange netting through your prize winning rose garden (typically for ditches which need to remain exposed for a couple days), then it's going to be don.

Now, we're professionals, not jerks. We're going to use a healthy level of tact and respect, and you will have known these things were going to happen in advance. But my point is, as the homeowner, you can't contradict OSHA regulations while we're working in your home.

Likewise, you can't contradict regulations protecting employees from discrimination while they're in your home as hired hands, either.

Currently, today, as a contractor I can already store my firearm in my car while it's parked on your private property. This is only one step removed from the firearm being on my person.

So again, if I'm a regular guy, you're free to kick me off for any or no reason at all. That's your right. But if you hired me to work for you then you accepted a level of infringement on your own rights so as to make room for mine while I'm on the job.

***
I also appreciate your bringing up the Hajib, since it's another protected item with a bad public image. Like the Hajib, a concealed gun should comply with a dress code.
 
Last edited:
So, you believe a lawfully carried firearm by a trained person with a clean criminal history on your property is a threat, and your reaction is to use tuff-guy talk thinking everyone will 'understand'. Good luck with that. If you're right and the person is a threat, you're more likely to get shot because you couldn't control your mouth. Something tells me this wouldn't be the first time your mouth got you into trouble, though.
No I do not believe your strawman argument thank you. You seem to have taken mere conversation personal for some strange ass reason that I do not care to know. Perhaps you are having a bad day?

There is a scope of correct actions, ranging from politely pointing out the sign and asking the person to leave, to quietly calling the police and letting them handle it, even pressing charges if you wish.
I am not for gun control even though you seem to think so.



Well, in your state, you can press charges even they made an honest mistake, immediately fully comply and sincerely apologize.
Yes that all can happen after the fact. But no law enforcement officer can make a private property owner let a person that they wish not to be on their property stay against their wishes. As I said later there may be legal issues for the property owner but still it is the property owners right to throw you off their property against your will, especially if they view you as a threat to thier safety or the safety of other people. It would be unconstitutional otherwise.



Not when you're an employee, they can't...at least not without also suffering legal consequences.
Again they can fire you on the spot and have you legally removed from the property at their order. Yes later they may be in court over it but immediately you were no longer on the property.



I love compromise, I actually look for opportunities to compromise on every issue.

I offer that employees only be allowed to carry concealed, not open, just like a dress-code. I offer that employers have the right to make a photocopy of the employee's CCW for their files, just like a driver's license and social security card. I also offer that employers should receive special legal protection in the federal code against liability for damage, injury or death should an otherwise legally carried firearm be used on their property.

And in return for these infringements on the individual's privacy, the individual has the right to carry a gun in the building, while employed, while on the clock, just like they have the right to be black, a woman, or gay, and not discriminated against.
What would happen is that an employer may require the potential employee to disclose if they own a firearm or have a CCW making it a potential reason for not hiring a person. or if they do hire you they would then have to keep a very close eye on you. If they view that you require too much observation for whatever reason they can decide that it is not worth having you work there. Plus you are forgetting about insurance companies that would probably charge the owner of the property higher premiums considering the potential danger of a firearm discharging accidentally.

The safety of the private property should actually be up to to the property owner. Right now a property owner can allow someone to possess a firearm if they wish. But if you start trying to regulate private property and force employees to declare gun ownership it may become no longer a choice for the property owner but instead a regulated decision out of the property owners hands. The result could be higher insurance for gun owners.




See that's where the rub is, because if they're an employee, the do have a right to be there. If they're not an employee then yes it's merely a privilege.
You have permission as an employee to be on the property. You do not have permission to do whatever you want whenever you want just because you are a employee. In fact to counter what you are asserting a gun could be considered part of the dress code and legally be banned. There is legal power to make a employee where certain clothing and cut their hair and be clean and so on.


That agreement wouldn't be legal. No private contract can otherwise brake the law, or it is void. If an employee signs such a contract and has a gun in their car anyway, there's nothing the employer could do about it since the contract itself brakes the law.
How exactly would such an agreement break the law? An agreement to not bring an object on the property is not breaking the law. Asking an employee to leave their gun at home is reasonable request. If you feel that it is not reasonable get a different job, its that simple. I have worked places that I did not like their rules so I simply stopped working there. An employer is not required to hire you or keep you on the payroll unless a contract is in play. if you have no contract an employer can fire you for no reason or perhaps not fire you but just tell you that you are no longer needed.
 
Last edited:
If you follow this logic then the WBBC would be allowed to set up on your front lawn and protest and you couldn't call the cops to get them off of your property because that would be the government infringing their right to free speech.

I obviously disagree with this logic.

The difference is that I haven't invited people on to my private property with the purpose to employ them. My private property is mine and I have not invited the WBBC onto my front lawn. Therefore, they would be trespassing. When you open up your private property for the purpose of employing people, does that mean those people submit to your rule and the Constitution means nothing now? I don't believe so. Of course, that's why I started this thread, to see what others thought.
 
The difference is that I haven't invited people on to my private property with the purpose to employ them. My private property is mine and I have not invited the WBBC onto my front lawn. Therefore, they would be trespassing. When you open up your private property for the purpose of employing people, does that mean those people submit to your rule and the Constitution means nothing now? I don't believe so. Of course, that's why I started this thread, to see what others thought.


No the Constitution is in full power even on private property. But being on someone elses private property is a privilege, and it being not your private property means that they can make you leave their private property for whatever reason that they wish. Sure you could complain and perhaps even win some type of ruling for such behavior but one thing is sure you are no longer on their property.
Perhaps even being banned from ever setting foot on their property again. The Constitutional rights of the private property owner still exist whether the guests on that property own guns or not.
 
Last edited:
If you follow this logic then the WBBC would be allowed to set up on your front lawn and protest and you couldn't call the cops to get them off of your property because that would be the government infringing their right to free speech.

I obviously disagree with this logic.

Again, your HOME is one thing... that is TRULY private property.


Your BUSINESS where you deliberately invite others in (employees and customers) is a slightly different matter. Yes, you own it but it isn't an entirely PRIVATE space... it isn't a PUBLIC space either but it is a SHARED SPACE... if you don't share it with customers and employees you dont make any money, which is why you're there.

I own my home. My teenage son lives here with me. "My house my rules".... well yes, but I want him here with me and if I make rules that are ****ing stupid I may not be sharing my private space anymore... I'll be alone.

The business owner WANTS employees and customers to come onto his property.... well, fine, but he may have to make a few small concessions to THEIR needs if he wants to do business.

Again, HOME is one thing, BUSINESS is a slightly different thing. A business has to make some accomodation for employees and customers... like obeying OSHA rules for employee safety and comfort, yes? Like publishing HAZMAT data on any chemicals in use there, right? This is a very similar thing, but it not only affects the employees safety AT work but travelling to and from work and anywhere they stop in between.
 
Again, HOME is one thing, BUSINESS is a slightly different thing. A business has to make some accomodation for employees and customers.
Barring legal requirements, why does a business "have" to make accommodations for employees and customers. Why can't businesses choose to make accomodations?
 
Again, your HOME is one thing... that is TRULY private property.


Your BUSINESS where you deliberately invite others in (employees and customers) is a slightly different matter. Yes, you own it but it isn't an entirely PRIVATE space... it isn't a PUBLIC space either but it is a SHARED SPACE... if you don't share it with customers and employees you dont make any money, which is why you're there.

I own my home. My teenage son lives here with me. "My house my rules".... well yes, but I want him here with me and if I make rules that are ****ing stupid I may not be sharing my private space anymore... I'll be alone.

The business owner WANTS employees and customers to come onto his property.... well, fine, but he may have to make a few small concessions to THEIR needs if he wants to do business.

Again, HOME is one thing, BUSINESS is a slightly different thing. A business has to make some accomodation for employees and customers... like obeying OSHA rules for employee safety and comfort, yes? Like publishing HAZMAT data on any chemicals in use there, right? This is a very similar thing, but it not only affects the employees safety AT work but travelling to and from work and anywhere they stop in between.

The business owner want just want employees that do not have a firearm on their property. If that is bad for his business that is on the owner of the business and the government has no right to say otherwise.

I own my own business I occasionally hire helpers if the job calls for it. I can dictate to those employees what they are allowed to take onto my property. If they feel that they cannot work under those conditions they are free to leave. They do not have the right to dictate to me the property owner what I allow on my property. I have to take in account the safety of the other people on my property at ALL times. If a I allow an object that will cause harm to other people I am liable for the danger if it were to happen. This concept is proven by the fact that signs that enforce speed limits on private property are enforceable by law enforcement. And make no mistake private property that the owners allow public usage of is still legally private property. The owner is still the responsible party of that property or the person(s) that he gave the ;legal responsibility too. The public that goes to a store do not have any claims to the private property where the store is located. By going onto private property you are submitting an agreement to follow the rules that the owner of said private property has set. If you feel that the rules are wrong either do not go there or take them to court.

In short I see where you could legally be allowed to carry a gun where you want but a property owner could also legally not allow you on their property as well. In New Mexico:NMSA 29–19–12; NMSA 30–14–6 Property owners may prohibit the carrying of firearms onto property they lawfully possess by posting signage or verbally notifying persons upon entering the property. they do not state that the property has to be private space at all.
 
Barring legal requirements, why does a business "have" to make accommodations for employees and customers. Why can't businesses choose to make accomodations?


Does the business get to CHOOSE whether to comply with OSHA safety regulations or not? No.

CHOOSE whether to comply with Equal Opportunity hiring and promotion practices? No.

CHOOSE whether to discriminate in serving customers based on race, creed, gender or orientation? No.

Therefore, IMO, do they get to CHOOSE whether I will be allowed to travel to and from work, and any stops along the way, and arrive home after work armed or disarmed? No. That affects my safety, and it impacts my 2A rights in too many ways.
 
Barring legal requirements, why does a business "have" to make accommodations for employees and customers. Why can't businesses choose to make accomodations?

They don't have to do anything if they don't want to. But if they want to remain in business for any amount of time, it would be in their best interest to do so.
 
Does the business get to CHOOSE whether to comply with OSHA safety regulations or not? No.

CHOOSE whether to comply with Equal Opportunity hiring and promotion practices? No.

CHOOSE whether to discriminate in serving customers based on race, creed, gender or orientation? No.
The first part of my statement said "barring legal requirements" so none of this is relevant.

Therefore, IMO, do they get to CHOOSE whether I will be allowed to travel to and from work, and any stops along the way, and arrive home after work armed or disarmed? No.
You've stated this argument, but you offer no defense. Why should businesses not be allowed to choose to ban guns off of their property? If it's just because you think such bans would affect your safety, then why do the potential threats to your safety trump their preferences for their own business. Why can't you just go work and patronize places that allow guns on their property and avoid those that don't?

That affects my safety, and it impacts my 2A rights in too many ways.
The 2nd Amendment applies to government not to business, so actually it doesn't affect that at all.
 
They don't have to do anything if they don't want to.
I basically agree with this. I think it should be up to businesses to decide what to allow on their property and if they take a hit for that, then so be it. However, it doesn't make sense to force them to allow guns.

But if they want to remain in business for any amount of time, it would be in their best interest to do so.
Eh, that depends entirely on where the business is. In fact, I'm fairly certain that in certain places, businesses would attract more customers by banning guns on their property.
 
The first part of my statement said "barring legal requirements" so none of this is relevant.


You've stated this argument, but you offer no defense. Why should businesses not be allowed to choose to ban guns off of their property? If it's just because you think such bans would affect your safety, then why do the potential threats to your safety trump their preferences for their own business. Why can't you just go work and patronize places that allow guns on their property and avoid those that don't?


The 2nd Amendment applies to government not to business, so actually it doesn't affect that at all.


Then I suppose Federal safety regulations and bans against racial/etc discrimination don't apply to businesses either? :roll:
 
Then I suppose Federal safety regulations and bans against racial/etc discrimination don't apply to businesses either? :roll:
When did I say that? Are you denying that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the government?

Also, what happened to responding to the part of my post that actually has to do with the topic of thread? Why is it that you always tend to pick out the most irrelevant part of people's posts, respond to them with something snarky and offer nothing of substance?
 
Again, your HOME is one thing... that is TRULY private property.


Your BUSINESS where you deliberately invite others in (employees and customers) is a slightly different matter. Yes, you own it but it isn't an entirely PRIVATE space... it isn't a PUBLIC space either but it is a SHARED SPACE... if you don't share it with customers and employees you dont make any money, which is why you're there.

I own my home. My teenage son lives here with me. "My house my rules".... well yes, but I want him here with me and if I make rules that are ****ing stupid I may not be sharing my private space anymore... I'll be alone.

The business owner WANTS employees and customers to come onto his property.... well, fine, but he may have to make a few small concessions to THEIR needs if he wants to do business.

Again, HOME is one thing, BUSINESS is a slightly different thing. A business has to make some accomodation for employees and customers... like obeying OSHA rules for employee safety and comfort, yes? Like publishing HAZMAT data on any chemicals in use there, right? This is a very similar thing, but it not only affects the employees safety AT work but travelling to and from work and anywhere they stop in between.

I'm having a little difficulty deciding, though I tend toward supporting the gun. However property rights are one of the few listed as unalienable, so where do we draw the line? On the other hand, life is also unalienable.

:shrug:
 
Back
Top Bottom