• 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
Jerry said:
How is that *not* the Legalistic Fallacy, that it's right because it's legal?

As for parking lots, what about folks who don't drive their own car to work? Tons of people, especially in larger cities, take some form public transit. A few of us health nuts ride a peddle bike to the shop and already use a company vehicle to go to the work site. If you ban us from carrying at work you are banning us from carrying while going to and from work and any stop in between, too.
Click to expand...
1. As Zyphlin said, put another way, you're not Constitutionally protected from having your rights limited by anything other than government. As a result, my comment is specifically a counterargument to the notion that businesses can't ban guns because it's unconstitutional.

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.
 
Zyphlin said:
But the point I think he's making is you're not constitutionally protected from having your rights discriminated against by INDIVIDUALS, just by the government.

The reason that race, religion, etc can't be discriminated against by private individuals isn't because of the constitution, that applies to government, but due to other laws that have been passed regarding it.
Click to expand...

Be careful not to confuse my posts with someone else's. I didn't make the argument you're speaking against here. I didn't say the constitution all by it's self is enough law to disallow the ban, I referenced the Constitution as the basis of authority (something Congress should get in the habit of) for the laws I'm proposing. Anyone with a pulse is already aware that additional laws are required to properly regulate, that doesn't need to be pointed out to anyone. And we already know there isn't a law stopping a business from banning firearms from their property, that is in fact the entire problem we've been talking about.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
1. As Zyphlin said, put another way, you're not Constitutionally protected from having your rights limited by anything other than government.
Click to expand...
.....do I really need to link employer anti-discrimination laws here.....just tell me right now, what level of debate are we going to have....are there things we already know, or do we need to start at square one....just let me know....I mean, I was looking forward to looking at levels of scrutiny, compare how different states handle the issue and their local crime rate....but evidently you aren't even aware of existing anti-discrimination limitations placed on employers by the government to protect employees....so just let me know where you're at.....
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Jerry said:
Be careful not to confuse my posts with someone else's. I didn't make the argument you're speaking against here.
Click to expand...

I didn't say you were. However, YOU quoted my post and commented on it and my post WAS commenting on the arguments I"m speaking about here. Since you deemed the desire to quote my post, I assumed your response was in regards to the things I was talking about
 
Guy Incognito said:
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.
Click to expand...
If you consider it an infringement, then so be it. It's a justified infringement, not the first, but one of several already in existence. You can't discriminate and you have to comply with building codes. If you don't like you can close shop.
 
Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...

There are some major flaws with this argument. First of all, political opinions are not protected from discrimination. Employers can fire employees for political opinions all the live long day.

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:thumbs:
 
Jerry said:
If you consider it an infringement, then so be it. It's a justified infringement, not the first, but one of several already in existence. You can't discriminate and you have to comply with building codes. If you don't like you can close shop.
Click to expand...

Oh, there's a lot of infringement going on, to be sure. If you want to infringe on employers rights, so be it. But know that it has nothing to do with the second amendment, or rights whatsoever. It's just increased big-government regulation being imposed on businesses.
 
Zyphlin said:
I didn't say you were.
Click to expand...
Then WTF are we talking about?

Seriously, if we failed at discussing the thread topic then we're going to fail at talking about who was or was not talking about what.

That's why I just restated my argument.

I don't give a **** who did or did not say what. I want to discuss the topic, not all that stupid bull****.
 
MarineTpartier said:
I also don't believe the employer has the right to infringe on your Constitutional rights. BTW, I am very torn on this issue. Its a darned if you, darned if don't scenario IMO. As has been posted already, employers can't infringe on your religious rights or be racist towards you. Why can they take this right?
Click to expand...

It's quite simple. You want to keep working there, leave your gun at home. If you want to bring your gun, you won't have a job. Nobody is infringing on any rights, you have no right to a job.
 
Cephus said:
It's quite simple. You want to keep working there, leave your gun at home. If you want to bring your gun, you won't have a job. Nobody is infringing on any rights, you have no right to a job.
Click to expand...

The elephant in the room, I think, is that this applies to race and religion as well.

Frankly, it's the strict libertarian view on the matter, to oppose any sort of anti-discrimination laws. It should be within in private company's rights to discriminate however they please.

So I can understand if you are not a strictly orthodox libertarian how you could make a case for this on similar grounds as the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
 
Jerry said:
That's my point exactly: The gun is my property and it's on my person, the employer does not have a default right to regulate my person, there has to be a 'need', general a search warrant along with it, therefore my private property rights take precedence.

I'm sure the pro-choice'ers out there would agree: It's my body so it's my choice. The government has the obligation to protect my rights unless and until my executing those rights harms someone without justification. Merely carrying a concealed gun onto an employer's property doesn't effect you or anyone else in any way. It doesn't harm you so it must be allowed.
Click to expand...
While I am very pro 2nd amendment to the point I think you should be able to posses nuclear weapons if you so choose, in this case I stand with property right of the employer. They have the right to regulate as they see fit. That would include dicrimination based on whatever suits their fancy, including color creed sex ect. If you are on the employers property they are the masters of their domain. (They pretty much do what they damn well please.) That said if you at their place of employment and there is a shooting well they are fully culpible civily in my opinion because they denied you the ability to defend yourself especially if there is no overaching saftey concern such as explosives, hazadous eviorment ect. And they had inadequate security. :twocents:
 
Last edited:
As a side note, empoyment should only be a temporary stepping stone to working for yourself, were you yourself can decide the rules. The nature of employment requires compliance, with your customer IE your employer. The customer is always right even if they are wrong. If dont want to compromise with employers dont be an employee. I've been in business for myself since 2006, I can tell you that I will never be able to work for anyone else again, I love the go out hunt it, kill it, drag it home, responsibility and mentality. Most employers would not be able to handle that mentality.:)
 
Jerry said:
That's kind of insulting. You can't possibly believe that's a decent argument to allow discrimination against a constitutionally protected right. I would appreciate it if you would put a little more effort into your argument.
Click to expand...

Why you seem to add whatever you want to mine why should I bother? I never offered any view that was discriminatory against owning firearms. In fact I support the 2nd Amendment fully. I even go further than that and support the private ownership of assault rifles. If people can afford to buy bullets for automatic weapons why should it bother me? Well as long as they are following the laws and using them safely who cares. But I do not believe that it is the governments place to tell me what I can command other citizens not to bring on my property or in my place of business. If you do not feel safe on someone elses property and feel that you need a firearm to be safe perhaps it is not a wise place to be? At any rate its my call as a business and property owner to say whether I want you on my property or not. It is reasonable to let me be the judge of my properties safety not the guests.


I know how to handle my own weapons I do not exactly trust some of the people that hire to be responsible with a weapon on my property. And if they do not like my judgement that they are idiots they can find another job. If they disagree and take me to court so be it. Ill take my chances with the Constitution thank you very much.

There is no reason to expand laws that further hedge the rights of property owners. its bad enough that you need a permit to take a **** on your own property much less having the government dictate further what I can do or not do. Especially when it is a judgement call on the safety of myself, the peoples safety that I am by law responsible for and the property itself. I pay insurance and I can see how having an employee with a gun could raise the cost of the premiums.
 
Last edited:
Guy Incognito said:
There are some major flaws with this argument. First of all, political opinions are not protected from discrimination. Employers can fire employees for political opinions all the live long day.

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:thumbs:
Click to expand...
It's going to take more then some loosely strung half-thoughts and a smily to overcome hard examples like NY where it is illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of political affiliation or activities. Keep trying though, maybe one day you'll stop ****ting all over this thread and try actually debating.

Guy Incognito said:
Oh, there's a lot of infringement going on, to be sure. If you want to infringe on employers rights, so be it. But know that it has nothing to do with the second amendment, or rights whatsoever. It's just increased big-government regulation being imposed on businesses.
Click to expand...
That's just something cute you folks say when you loose an argument. There's a reason your party never had a President in office, and you're a pretty example of why.

It all comes down to property rights. There's the person, then the person's home/car/building, then the person's property, then the person's property which has been opened to the public.

Just as you can't stop an employee from having a gun in their car while on your land, neither can you stop them from having a gun on their person while in your building. The right of the person is most important, so if you infringe on an employee's person, you devalue your own person and further devalue rights protected on your land. It doesn't logically follow that the car is protected since it's an extension of the employee, but the employee herself is not protected. That's how it all fits together, and the law needs to reflect that.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
It doesn't logically follow that the car is protected since it's an extension of the employee, but the employee herself is not protected.
Click to expand...
That's not necessarily true. For example, police often have a right to search ("pat down") a person without having the right to search locked areas of the vehicle in which that person is traveling. Obviously the law does recognize the difference between a person and a vehicle owned by that person, especially secured areas of that vehicle.

Ed:
Some state-specific examples:
1. Endorsement does not authorize concealed firearms, where:
(1) Any police, sheriff, or highway patrol office or station without the consent of the chief law enforcement officer in charge of that office or station. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises of the office or station shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises;

(2) Within twenty-five feet of any polling place on any election day. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises of the polling place shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises;

(3) The facility of any adult or juvenile detention or correctional institution, prison or jail. Possession of a firearm in a vehicle on the premises of any adult, juvenile detention, or correctional institution, prison or jail shall not be a criminal offense so long as the firearm is not removed from the vehicle or brandished while the vehicle is on the premises;
Click to expand...
http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/missouri.pdf
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
That's not necessarily true. For example, police ......
Click to expand...
Stop.
Here's how I think you're moving the goal posts...

Dependent Variable (the point we're debating):
  • Private person > Private Business.

Independent Variables (the scope and context under which the point being debated should be true):
  • A right specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
  • A right which is otherwise being lawfully exorsized.
  • A private 'real', 'natural' person exorsizing the right.
  • A private business forbidding the exorsize of that right.

IMO what you just did was change Independent Variable #4 from a privately owned building to a police officer in the performance of her duties. Cops can do many things private citizens can not, and it's not valid to interchange the two.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Stop.
Here's how I think you're moving the goal posts...

Dependent Variable (the point we're debating):
  • Private person > Private Business.

Independent Variables (the scope and context under which the point being debated should be true):
  • A right specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
  • A right which is otherwise being lawfully exorsized.
  • A private 'real', 'natural' person exorsizing the right.
  • A private business forbidding the exorsize of that right.

IMO what you just did was change Independent Variable #4 from a privately owned building to a police officer in the performance of her duties. Cops can do many things private citizens can not, and it's not valid to interchange the two.
Click to expand...
The case of police search was only one example. There are other examples that you did not address that do not rest on any special case of police powers.

In fact, the link I provided offered 14 cases where a person cannot carry a concealed weapon on their person but is allowed to have said weapon in their vehicle. Forum rules prohibit me from displaying all 14 cases, so I only quoted three of them.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/missouri.pdf
 
Last edited:
What Jerry fails to understand is that, Ny laws notwithstanding, there is nothing in the Constitution that protects you from getting fired for political views. There isn't even anything in the Constitution that prevents an employer from firing you over race or religion (that is from federal statutory law).

Anyway, you can always tell somebody's got a loser argument when they resort to ad hominem attacks.
 
Jerry said:
.....do I really need to link employer anti-discrimination laws here.....just tell me right now, what level of debate are we going to have....are there things we already know, or do we need to start at square one....just let me know....I mean, I was looking forward to looking at levels of scrutiny, compare how different states handle the issue and their local crime rate....but evidently you aren't even aware of existing anti-discrimination limitations placed on employers by the government to protect employees....so just let me know where you're at.....
Click to expand...
Anti-discrimination laws are not the Constitution. The Constitution, in and of itself, does not protect you from having your rights limited by businesses. Since the second point is my argument, anti-discrimination laws are irrelevant to it.
 
MoSurveyor said:
The case of police search was only one example. There are other examples that you did not address that do not rest on any special case of police powers.

In fact, the link I provided offered 14 cases where a person cannot carry a concealed weapon on their person but is allowed to have said weapon in their vehicle. Forum rules prohibit me from displaying all 14 cases, so I only quoted three of them.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/missouri.pdf
Click to expand...
Oh you only want to talk about Missouri law?

*****
For the sake of clarity of context I'm riposting my argument for the casual reader:

Dependent Variable (the point we're debating):
  • Private person > Private Business.
Independent Variables (the scope and context under which the point being debated should be true):
  • A right specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
  • A right which is otherwise being lawfully exorsized.
  • A private 'real', 'natural' person exorsizing the right.
  • A private business forbidding the exorsize of that right.
*****

Now lets have a look at your link:

Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 17 do not qualify under Independent Veritable #4 as I'm not talking about police stations, air-ports, federal buildings or schools.

Item 7 doesn't qualify under Independent Variable #2 so long as the person carrying the firearm is not consuming alcohol. This is why many states now allow guns in malt-beverage-serving establishments. Therefore #7 should be repealed.

Item 11 is without evidence that the mere presence of a concealed firearm is any danger to children. Without the ability to meet strict scrutiny this law is unconstitutional and should be repealed.

Item 12 is justified due to the high consumption of alcohol by all patrons and the emotionally charged nature of gambling.

Items 13, 14, and 15 are without merit since the mere presence of a concealed firearm is not a danger to anyone.

****
So from your link, riverboat gambling is the only private business which has a 'need' and is thus justified in banning firearms. I would add to that any business which has above-ground refueling tanks or other hazardous chemicals.
 
Jerry said:
Oh you only want to talk about Missouri law?

*****
For the sake of clarity of context I'm riposting my argument for the casual reader:

Dependent Variable (the point we're debating):
  • Private person > Private Business.
Independent Variables (the scope and context under which the point being debated should be true):
  • A right specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
  • A right which is otherwise being lawfully exorsized.
  • A private 'real', 'natural' person exorsizing the right.
  • A private business forbidding the exorsize of that right.
*****

Now lets have a look at your link:

Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 17 do not qualify under Independent Veritable #4 as I'm not talking about police stations, air-ports, federal buildings or schools.

Item 7 doesn't qualify under Independent Variable #2 so long as the person carrying the firearm is not consuming alcohol. This is why many states now allow guns in malt-beverage-serving establishments. Therefore #7 should be repealed.

Item 11 is without evidence that the mere presence of a concealed firearm is any danger to children. Without the ability to meet strict scrutiny this law is unconstitutional and should be repealed.

Item 12 is justified due to the high consumption of alcohol by all patrons and the emotionally charged nature of gambling.

Items 13, 14, and 15 are without merit since the mere presence of a concealed firearm is not a danger to anyone.

****
So from your link, riverboat gambling is the only private business which has a 'need' and is thus justified in banning firearms. I would add to that any business which has above-ground refueling tanks or other hazardous chemicals.
Click to expand...
Translation: "If the law doesn't agree with me then it must be wrong." LOL!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom