• 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
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.

*****
FreedomFromAll said:
No you are trying to ignore the fact that the gun owner never looses possession of his gun at all.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about concealed carry, you're talking about mere 'possession'. The gun could be left in my safe at my house and I would still have "possession" of it. I'm talking about carrying concealed on my person, and I've made that perfectly clear.

It would be nice if you could confront my argument for what it is instead of shying away behind straw-men.

FreedomFromAll said:
The law that you a re purposing will increase the landowners overhead necessary to ensure the safety of the property from accidental discharge of a firearm.
Click to expand...

Anti-gunners tried that argument, too, when trying to convince their state not to allow guns in employee cars. The link I provided above shows that states which do protect an employee's car, also specifically except the property/business owner from any and all liability.

FreedomFromAll said:
But I hear what you are saying though. You are basically saying that if you were to pick up a hitch hiker and noticed that they were carrying a gun, that you are asserting that the hitch hiker cannot be thrown out of your vehicle.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about employees. A hitchhiker is not an employee, they are what the law calls a "social guest". You bringing up hitchhikers is another straw-man.

FreedomFromAll said:
How do you feel about abortion? Lol just kidding dont answer that I was just giving pro-choicers ammo.
Click to expand...

That's a good analogy, actually.

  • Mother = employer.
  • Womb = the business's building/land.
  • ZEF = the employee.

If one values bodily sovereignty then one necessarily opposes elective abortion and supports an employee's right to carry while at work. However, if one is pro-choice then it follows that they would support banning guns on business property regardless of anyone else's personal rights.

The analogy reaches it's limit, however, when we account for the fact that the ZEF is not the mother's employee, but is closer to the aforementioned "social guest". A 'social guest' per-se can be removed from private property for any or no reason, unless doing so would cause that social guest to die. Therefore it follows that elective abortion not be allowed when it would cause the death of the ZEF.

Great analogy, you just proved my logical consistency across political topics, and for that I thank you.

FreedomFromAll said:
You or I should say the movement that you support is suggesting new laws. I am also making the suggestion that private property laws for land owners has eroded too much already. We do not need your stinking new laws hedging the Constitutional rights of landowners. I would also suggest that you think hard about the ramifications of the laws that you are backing. If special laws protect special citizens then more special laws will protect other special citizens which is a slippery slope to oblivion.
Click to expand...

What we don't need are mercury-saturated curly-Q light-bulbs, government controlled thermostats or mandatory 'energy-star rated' appliances. Those things harm the property owner and society in general, whereas a concealed pistol is a benefit to everyone.
 
Last edited:
FreedomFromAll said:
Oh and i almost forgot the most important part of my argument. The state of New Mexico as I linked and posted states that a landowner has the right to chose whether to have a person carrying a gun on their property or not. That is a state law. Any federal laws saying otherwise would be dictating to the state of New Mexico on gun laws. Thats called federal intrusion to a state. I do not think that you are going to find a lot of gun owners that would back new federal laws telling states what they can or cannot do.
Click to expand...
Just like when SCOTUS stepped in and told states they couldn't have handgun bans, or segregate schools...or will in the relatively near future tell states they have to allow and honor same-sex marriage.

Yes, occasionally the federal government has to step in and safeguard individual rights against local state infringement.
 
Jerry said:
Just like when SCOTUS stepped in and told states they couldn't have handgun bans, or segregate schools...or will in the relatively near future tell states they have to allow and honor same-sex marriage.

Yes, occasionally the federal government has to step in and safeguard individual rights against local state infringement.
Click to expand...

The only individual right at stake here is the right to run your business as you see fit and exclude the people you want. You obviously have no concern for liberty.
 
Guy Incognito said:
The only individual right at stake here is the right to run your business as you see fit and exclude the people you want. You obviously have no concern for liberty.
Click to expand...
Banning guns is no more a business decision then banning blacks or gays. You obviously have no concern for liberty.
 
Jerry said:
Just like when SCOTUS stepped in and told states they couldn't have handgun bans, or segregate schools...or will in the relatively near future tell states they have to allow and honor same-sex marriage.

Yes, occasionally the federal government has to step in and safeguard individual rights against local state infringement.
Click to expand...
Ok so your movement is in support of more Federal controls of the States. Im sure that will go over well.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Ok so your movement is in support of more Federal controls of the States. Im sure that will go over well.
Click to expand...

Not more Federal control, less state control. The Feds saying you can't ban hand hand guns from ownership within city limits etc, for example. They did not right a new law, they threw down the old's one as unconstitutional.

So it depends.

I do however agree that it is a property issue, not a particular gun issue per say.
 
Last edited:
FreedomFromAll said:
Ok so your movement is in support of more Federal controls of the States. Im sure that will go over well.
Click to expand...
As per the 10th Amendment, it is the federal government's right to enforce gun regulation on all the states. Gun ownership is specifically enumerated, unlike same-sex marriage, so if an employer can be forced to honor a same-sex marriage then an employer can be forced to allow their employees to keep and carry at work.
 
If government did not regulate business, did not issue business licenses, I would side with them being able to do whatever they want.

Because they are licensed, I believe the government has an obligation to force compliance of protecting our Constitutional rights.
 
Aberration said:
If government did not regulate business, did not issue business licenses, I would side with them being able to do whatever they want.

Because they are licensed, I believe the government has an obligation to force compliance of protecting our Constitutional rights.
Click to expand...
And thus labor-law was born.
 
Jerry said:
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.

*****
Click to expand...
We are not actually talking about Private person rights vs Private Business rights. We are actually talking about Private property rights vs Private Property rights. I own land which is my private property which also not a government entity. When you enter my private property and tell me that you can carry a gun non matter what I say you have violated my control of my private property.It does not matter whether that land is a business or not since I am the owner of the private property I am the legally responsible party of that private property.

An adult over 21 can have alcohol on their person legally. Yet there are private properties that do not allow you to have alcohol in your possession on their property. The Constitution also promises free movement within our borders yet you cannot freely enter private property at anytime that you wish.

As a contractor you are not allowed to do whatever you want on the property that you are working on. You cannot just waltz into the off limits area of the property without permission. You also cannot in many cases use foul language as an employee around the customers. Doing so may get you fired on the spot. So much for free speech?


I'm talking about concealed carry, you're talking about mere 'possession'. The gun could be left in my safe at my house and I would still have "possession" of it. I'm talking about carrying concealed on my person, and I've made that perfectly clear.

It would be nice if you could confront my argument for what it is instead of shying away behind straw-men.
Click to expand...
I am confronting your argument. But you are not accepting any of the logic that I am showing you. For example in order for you to carry a weapon it must be in your possession. What you are calling mere possession is actually inescapable reality. If you are entering a piece of private property and are confronted with a rule that has banned you from carrying a gun you can take the gun off of the property and store in a place that you pick. So legally you ahve not lost possession of your gun at all. I raised this concept since you were asserting that your person was being violated while in reality your person was not violated at all.



Anti-gunners tried that argument, too, when trying to convince their state not to allow guns in employee cars. The link I provided above shows that states which do protect an employee's car, also specifically except the property/business owner from any and all liability.
Click to expand...

The different states have different opinions on liability. You might want to look into that a little.


I'm talking about employees. A hitchhiker is not an employee, they are what the law calls a "social guest". You bringing up hitchhikers is another straw-man.
Click to expand...
Ok so you are a taxi driver instead and the person is a customer.


That's a good analogy, actually.

  • Mother = employer.
  • Womb = the business's building/land.
  • ZEF = the employee.

If one values bodily sovereignty then one necessarily opposes elective abortion and supports an employee's right to carry while at work. However, if one is pro-choice then it follows that they would support banning guns on business property regardless of anyone else's personal rights.

The analogy reaches it's limit, however, when we account for the fact that the ZEF is not the mother's employee, but is closer to the aforementioned "social guest". A 'social guest' per-se can be removed from private property for any or no reason, unless doing so would cause that social guest to die. Therefore it follows that elective abortion not be allowed when it would cause the death of the ZEF.

Great analogy, you just proved my logical consistency across political topics, and for that I thank you.
Click to expand...
In your own mind sure. But for me you were not very logical, you just stretched things to make your claim look good.

Mother = person

Womb = inside of a person and is not controlled by the government

ZEF = A shorthand online term used in pointless go nowhere debates about abortion.

I am not going to turn this into an abortion debate. I you feel that you won something here I am willing to let you believe that and let you brag in order to stay out of the abortion debate all together.


What we don't need are mercury-saturated curly-Q light-bulbs, government controlled thermostats or mandatory 'energy-star rated' appliances. Those things harm the property owner and society in general, whereas a concealed pistol is a benefit to everyone.
Click to expand...


A concealed pistol is not a benefit to everyone. You should have said a legally carried concealed firearm. You have already justified Federally intrusive laws that benefit your movement.
Yet you seem to think that other Federally intrusive laws are unjustified. Either the Federal Government is being too intrusive or it ius not. We cannot pick and choose what is intrusive by our individual bias. If you grant the Federal Government powers they exist no matter what issues you support. Which means that the Federal Government will be within its power to ban guns as policy and that happened because of the collective result of the acceptance of Federally intrusive laws such as the one that your movement is proponents of.


But you should be more educated about the laws that have been put in plce in the so called worker protection/parking lot law states. Workplace protection gun laws are usually limited to locked vehicles on employee parking lots. Thus, covered employers can often prohibit guns from company buildings and other areas. Some statutes allow the employer to ban handguns from a secured or gated parking lot. Under some statutes, employers can also designate certain parking lots for concealed handgun licensees, so long as the parking lot is reasonably close to the main parking lot. Not all states provide immunity that protect employers from liability. Respondeat superior, negligence in breach of a duty to protect employees, and negligence in hiring and retaining dangerous employees all pose a possibly liability for employers.


The worker protection/parking lot laws have not been challenged yet in the courts to any real degree. Beyond those laws it will be a tough sell to go beyond and force an employer to allow an employee to carry a concealed weapon while working. Parking lot laws are nothing compared to the resistance that you will see from employers and employees when you guys start pushing for workplace guns.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Well...your rules...and local building code rules...and liquor serving licence rules....and Public Accommodation rules...and Labor laws....etc...



Sounds like we agree, then. If I'm armed then I'm not consuming alcohol, not because you say-so, but because that's already illegal through other regulation.



You're ignoring the context and scope of my argument again. You're trying to change the goal-posts by changing Independent Variable #4 from a 'private business' to a 'private residence'. Please stop doing that.



You toss respect right out the door when you want a gun-free zone but don't have a 'need'. Preference is invalid because gun-free zones are a public hazard, see the CO shooting.

The instant you ask for my weapon and/or post a sign, you are being a disrespectful little punk.
Click to expand...

You I are going to have to agree to disagree. I have the right as a private citizin to regulate MY property as I see fit. You may not agree or like it, but thats the way I see it. Its a freedom thing with me. I HATE being impossed upon. And as far as being unpolite its simple I HAVE the right to POST a sign and to have MY propererty and association rights respected. If you find that implolite or direspectful, too bad. Like I said my place my rules. You as an employee or patron are free to associate elsewhere. You cannot force me to accomadate you and like it, agree with it, or go along with it. Before you go on about ordinaces law ect, I routinely break them as I see fit. I dont cotton to people tellin me how to go about my business, I am rather old school that way. I've paid plenty of money to operate as I please, its a matter of priciple. I would love to be able to carry in a restruant or theature or the mall, but if they dont want people to carry it is their right to say so and enforce that policy as they see fit. It is my right to patronize else where. Which I do routinly The same argument applies to employment. You are not forced to work at a particular employer.
 
Your property is different than your business. You have the right to not allow Latinos on your property, because they are Latinos. Or Asian, or Black or hell even if you are a minority and they are White. You don't have to let them queers, or fairies or dykes on your property either. In fact I am sure in most states if they don't leave you could get away with making them.

But you see 'your' business isn't like that. You asked permission to do that. Not only did you ask permission, you asked for protection.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
We are not actually talking about Private person rights vs Private Business rights. We are actually talking about Private property rights vs Private Property rights. I own land which is my private property which also not a government entity. When you enter my private property and tell me that you can carry a gun non matter what I say you have violated my control of my private property.It does not matter whether that land is a business or not since I am the owner of the private property I am the legally responsible party of that private property.
Click to expand...

Your argument isn't specific to an employee carrying a gun. You're saying you shouldn't have to comply with anything you don't want to, and that's just factually incorrect. Yes, you are giving up some aspects of control over your property when you hire people to come work on it. I agree. I argue that these controls you give up are justified. You could hate on Muslims all day long, for example, but if you hire a Muslim women and she shows up wearing a Hajib, if you don't like it, that's just to bad. Once you've hired someone you lost to the right to discriminate against them within your own property. If you don't want to comply with labor laws then don't hire anyone, just do it yourself.

And why the hell would I tell you I'm carrying? The whole point of concealed carry is to fly under the radar.

FreedomFromAll said:
An adult over 21 can have alcohol on their person legally. Yet there are private properties that do not allow you to have alcohol in your possession on their property.
Click to expand...

OSHA doesn't allow me to drink while working, so I would not otherwise be in lawful possession of alcohol the way I would otherwise be in lawful possession of a firearm.

FreedomFromAll said:
As a contractor you are not allowed to do whatever you want on the property that you are working on. You cannot just waltz into the off limits area of the property without permission. You also cannot in many cases use foul language as an employee around the customers. Doing so may get you fired on the spot. So much for free speech?
Click to expand...

As an employee I gave up a level of sovereignty just as you did when you hired me, and for the exact same reason: I engaged in commerce. Yes, I can't go do just whatever I want, wherever I want. While I'm on your property as an employee I have to otherwise be performing my job. A concealed pistol doesn't stop me from doing my job. Likewise I've already acknowledged concessions an employee should make to the employer while carrying, such as allowing the employer to make a copy of the CCW for their records, banning open carry, and the gun must remain on the employee's person at all times (never left in a purse or bag, etc).

FreedomFromAll said:
I am confronting your argument.
Click to expand...

You're trying to change the independent variables upon which my dependent variable is based instead of falsifying the dependent variable directly. Therefore, no, you are not confronting my argument, you're changing the goal posts. You're doing it right now, even with the alcohol reference, since my gun is otherwise lawfully possessed while a bottle of liquor is not. If I were under 21 and carrying a pistol, that would = carrying liquor. If I didn't have a CCW permit, that would = a bottle of liquor. If the pistol were illegally modified, that would = a bottle of liquor. But no, my concealed pistol is 100% otherwise legal.

FreedomFromAll said:
But you are not accepting any of the logic that I am showing you.
Click to expand...

That's correct, because your trying to change the goal posts instead of falsify the dependent variable directly. You aren't addressing the merits of my argument, you're ignoring them and trying to change the conditions under which my argument is true.

FreedomFromAll said:
For example in order for you to carry a weapon it must be in your possession. What you are calling mere possession is actually inescapable reality. If you are entering a piece of private property and are confronted with a rule that has banned you from carrying a gun you can take the gun off of the property and store in a place that you pick. So legally you ahve not lost possession of your gun at all. I raised this concept since you were asserting that your person was being violated while in reality your person was not violated at all.
Click to expand...

And again, my argument does not regard mere 'possession', but carrying on my person. You are again ignoring my argument instead of confronting it.
 
Last edited:
PirateMk1 said:
You I are going to have to agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

Agreeing to disagree means allowing the difference to exist. No, I'm not allowing the difference to exist, I'm pressing the issue. It's not acceptable, it is unconstitutional discrimination and can not be tolerated. You can retract your hand, I won't be shaking it.

PirateMk1 said:
I have the right as a private citizin to regulate MY property as I see fit.
Click to expand...

You lose degrees of that right when you hire employees, hence the advent of labor law.

PirateMk1 said:
You may not agree or like it, but thats the way I see it.
Click to expand...

And you're wrong, please see labor law and public accommodation for details.

PirateMk1 said:
Its a freedom thing with me. I HATE being impossed upon. And as far as being unpolite its simple I HAVE the right to POST a sign and to have MY propererty and association rights respected.
Click to expand...

Yup, you can post those signs all day long, I'll just keep ignoring them.

PirateMk1 said:
If you find that implolite or direspectful, too bad.
Click to expand...

I'll just keep on carrying anyway.

PirateMk1 said:
Like I said my place my rules.
Click to expand...

So you just want to ignore the existence of labor laws. Good luck with that.

PirateMk1 said:
You as an employee or patron are free to associate elsewhere. You cannot force me to accomadate you and like it, agree with it, or go along with it.
Click to expand...

You mean like when we forced you to leave our gun alone while they're in our cars? That kind of "cannot for me" sort of thing? I'm here to tell you, oh yes we can. He have before, and we will again.

PirateMk1 said:
Before you go on about ordinaces law ect, I routinely break them as I see fit. I dont cotton to people tellin me how to go about my business, I am rather old school that way. I've paid plenty of money to operate as I please, its a matter of priciple. I would love to be able to carry in a restruant or theature or the mall, but if they dont want people to carry it is their right to say so and enforce that policy as they see fit. It is my right to patronize else where. Which I do routinly The same argument applies to employment. You are not forced to work at a particular employer.
Click to expand...
If you don't want to comply with labor and anti-discrimination laws, then don't hire employees. It's that easy.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Your argument isn't specific to an employee carrying a gun. You're saying you shouldn't have to comply with anything you don't want to, and that's just factually incorrect. Yes, you are giving up some aspects of control over your property when you hire people to come work on it. I agree. I argue that these controls you give up are justified. You could hate on Muslims all day long, for example, but if you hire a Muslim women and she shows up wearing a Hajib, if you don't like it, that's just to bad. Once you've hired someone you lost to the right to discriminate against them within your own property. If you don't want to comply with labor laws then don't hire anyone, just do it yourself.

And why the hell would I tell you I'm carrying? The whole point of concealed carry is to fly under the radar.



OSHA doesn't allow me to drink while working, so I would not otherwise be in lawful possession of alcohol the way I would otherwise be in lawful possession of a firearm.



As an employee I gave up a level of sovereignty just as you did when you hired me, and for the exact same reason: I engaged in commerce. Yes, I can't go do just whatever I want, wherever I want. While I'm on your property as an employee I have to otherwise be performing my job. A concealed pistol doesn't stop me from doing my job. Likewise I've already acknowledged concessions an employee should make to the employer while carrying, such as allowing the employer to make a copy of the CCW for their records, banning open carry, and the gun must remain on the employee's person at all times (never left in a purse or bag, etc).



You're trying to change the independent variables upon which my dependent variable is based instead of falsifying the dependent variable directly. Therefore, no, you are not confronting my argument, you're changing the goal posts. You're doing it right now, even with the alcohol reference, since my gun is otherwise lawfully possessed while a bottle of liquor is not. If I were under 21 and carrying a pistol, that would = carrying liquor. If I didn't have a CCW permit, that would = a bottle of liquor. If the pistol were illegally modified, that would = a bottle of liquor. But no, my concealed pistol is 100% otherwise legal.



That's correct, because your trying to change the goal posts instead of falsify the dependent variable directly. You aren't addressing the merits of my argument, you're ignoring them and trying to change the conditions under which my argument is true.



And again, my argument does not regard mere 'possession', but carrying on my person. You are again ignoring my argument instead of confronting it.
Click to expand...

Ok we seem to be talking past each other and are making no headway at all in either direction. I want to better understand the reasons that you have joined a movement to create a new law(s).
Obviously we both have real concerns about our rights being stepped on. Which means that theoretically we both have valid arguments.

On one side we we have a legal citizen enjoying their Constitutional right to carry a firearm. The gun that the person is carrying is concealed and presumably not obvious to anyone else, and is also legal. In most places in the country there is nothing wrong with such activity. the idea is that this person would like a law that states that an employer cannot under any circumstance disallow the gun owner from carry a gun at first in locked their vehicle in a parking lot and later on their person in the work place.

Im just try to make sure that I have your side correct at this point and that you understand mine. So please by all means correct me if Im wrong. Believe it or not I am actually to a certain extent in agreement with you. You should also realize that the parking lot laws to a certain extent in certain states are in agreement with me also. I already stated so much when I said this: " Workplace protection gun laws are usually limited to locked vehicles on employee parking lots. Thus, covered employers can often prohibit guns from company buildings and other areas. Some statutes allow the employer to ban handguns from a secured or gated parking lot. Under some statutes, employers can also designate certain parking lots for concealed handgun licensees, so long as the parking lot is reasonably close to the main parking lot. Not all states provide immunity that protect employers from liability. Respondeat superior, negligence in breach of a duty to protect employees, and negligence in hiring and retaining dangerous employees all pose a possibly liability for employers."



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. (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. And at the key time when the guy demands a reason why I keep sending him home would get me in possible trouble. 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.

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."

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."

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? 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.

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
 
Jerry said:
Agreeing to disagree means allowing the difference to exist. No, I'm not allowing the difference to exist, I'm pressing the issue. It's not acceptable, it is unconstitutional discrimination and can not be tolerated. You can retract your hand, I won't be shaking it.



You lose degrees of that right when you hire employees, hence the advent of labor law.



And you're wrong, please see labor law and public accommodation for details.



Yup, you can post those signs all day long, I'll just keep ignoring them.



I'll just keep on carrying anyway.



So you just want to ignore the existence of labor laws. Good luck with that.



You mean like when we forced you to leave our gun alone while they're in our cars? That kind of "cannot for me" sort of thing? I'm here to tell you, oh yes we can. He have before, and we will again.


If you don't want to comply with labor and anti-discrimination laws, then don't hire employees. It's that easy.
Click to expand...

You sound like your fighting mood. So am I. I could care less about labour law and all the rest. I have paid lots of fines for voilating all sorts of laws. Been in court more time than I could count. Know what, that don't deter me in the least. Theres principle of the matter, that counts for me. You and everybody else dont get a say in how I manage my property, or business. I never put up with that nonsence and never will. I dont have to accomadate you. You could sue but, you will be in court buried under a mountain of paper. Literally. There are certain things you just dont do. One of them is come on to my property and do as you please, that dont happen without a fight.

People have the right to manage their property and business as they see fit, so long as no one is harmed. That is as old as civilization. If there is harm there is remidy in the courts, if you choose to go that far.

Quite frankly I can see why someone would ban weopons on their property, and that would have to do with insurance and the assocated fees, not to mention liability issues, amongst other issues. Would I do it? No. With a caveat, that would be if have a client that is deadset against weopons on THEIR property then I would expect my employees to aceed to the demand, as I would. On my property different story. I could care less if my employees were armed or not. I am not in business to protect someones rights, I am in business to make money. That said I am also against the goverment making more laws about were you can and cant go with your weapons.

Have you ever tried just asking the places you go to if they would be kind enough to allow you to carry? You might want to ask, you may be pleasently suprised. I ask, sometimes they say no, and others they say yes. More often then not they let me carry. As far as your employer well thats between you all.

I dont know about the rest of you, but ignoring signs on my property can be unhealthy. :)

You dont like my position so be it. You dont think my hand is worth shaking so be it aswell. Its a shame you see it that way. You aint gona get me to see otherwise on my position. I dont expect to change your mind. You seem pretty set in your opinion. For the most part you seem like a reasonable fellow. You aint backin down and I aint backin down. Now what?
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Ok we seem to be talking past each other and are making no headway at all in either direction. I want to better understand the reasons that you have joined a movement to create a new law(s).
Obviously we both have real concerns about our rights being stepped on. Which means that theoretically we both have valid arguments.
Click to expand...
I'll be more than happy to give your post a more detailed response later today, but for the time being I'd like to just put my finger directly on my objection. Hopefully this will help make myself clearer.

Since the right to keep and carry is a specifically enumerated right, any gun ban must meet 'Strict Scrutiny' requirements.
Constitutional Law Class Notes 3/8/04

There are three levels of scrutiny that the Court employs to evaluate intentional discrimination (either facial discrimination or discriminatory motive): (1) strict scrutiny, (2) intermediate scrutiny, and (3) low-level scrutiny.

For example, racial discrimination falls into the category of strict scrutiny. Other forms of discrimination don’t get that kind of presumption of hostility. For example, when the government discriminates between optometrists, opticians, and ophthalmologists, it seems reasonable to think there is a valid reason. Someone attacking such a rule, though it is discriminatory, will face an initial presumption against them. Each choice of the level of scrutiny is an indicator of the judicial mindset as to the type of discrimination at hand.

If you’re in the zone of strict scrutiny, the discriminatory law must serve a compelling interest and the law must be necessary. For example, in California, they have had a long-standing practice of segregating prisoners on the basis of race for the first 60 days until the prison officials determine how dangerous and violent the prisoners are. This is a practice that would usually demand strict scrutiny. However, there is a doctrine that says that discrimination in prison will be treated differently and possibly considered with the rational basis test instead of strict scrutiny. Maybe segregating prisoners could be rationally related to the goal of preventing prison violence. But on the other hand, it may not be necessary. Thus, the test chosen may be entirely dispositive as to whether the practice violates the Equal Protection Clause or not.
Click to expand...

The first requirement of Strict Scrutiny is where my chief objection with 'land owner preference' is. The first requirement is that the law allowing the land owner to ban must serve a 'compelling interest', ie; something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred.

Constantly repeating 'my property, my rules' is affirming that your ban is merely a preference. Preference fails the Strict Scrutiny test. The land owner must have a 'compelling interest' in order to ban employees from exorsizing a specifically enumerated constitutional right.

Please see also:
Strict scrutiny - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
As a sidebar:
Folks who oppose employees from even keeping a gun in their car are welcome to share examples of that gun harming anyone, while lawfully stored, as evidence that the land owner has a 'compelling interest'.

Also, folks who disagree with employees carrying while on the job are welcome to share examples of holstered pistols harming anyone.
 
Last edited:
PirateMk1 said:
You aint backin down and I aint backin down. Now what?
Click to expand...
Well, you post your sign, I carry concealed. If you catch me before the law is changed, I'll have to leave. If you catch me after the law is changed, if the cops I call can't calm you down, then I'll be filing a lawsuit.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
As a sidebar:
Folks who oppose employees from even keeping a gun in their car are welcome to share examples of that gun harming anyone, while lawfully stored, as evidence that the land owner has a 'compelling interest'.

Also, folks who disagree with employees carrying while on the job are welcome to share examples of holstered pistols harming anyone.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Guy Incognito said:
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.
Click to expand...
If you don't want employee's rights on your property, don't hire employees. Problem solved.
 
Jerry said:
If you don't want employee's rights on your property, don't hire employees. Problem solved.
Click to expand...

That only solves the problem if you don't give a **** about the rights of employers.
 
How about this: want to carry your gun on the job but your employer won't let you? Get another job!
 
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.
 
teamosil said:
The second amendment is inapplicable in this scenario. The second amendment forbids the government from infringing the right to bear arms, not business owners.
Click to expand...

I find this interesting. Unlike the 1st amendment, which states, congress shall not make a law......., the 2nd simply states "shall not be infringed".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom