• 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

MarineTpartier

Haters gon' hate
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 30, 2011
Messages
5,586
Reaction score
2,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The NRA has gone after a Tennessee Congresswoman due to her lack of support for a law stating that businesses should not be able to restrict employees from having a weapon on their property ie the employee having a weapon in their vehicle while it is parked in the parking lot. When I heard this story I initially wanted to come home and research it. However, I thought it would be more fun to put it up to debate. So what say you? Private property rights or the 2nd amendment? Which one holds sway in this case?
NRA hits Republican roadblocks - Washington Times
 
The NRA has gone after a Tennessee Congresswoman due to her lack of support for a law stating that businesses should not be able to restrict employees from having a weapon on their property ie the employee having a weapon in their vehicle while it is parked in the parking lot. When I heard this story I initially wanted to come home and research it. However, I thought it would be more fun to put it up to debate. So what say you? Private property rights or the 2nd amendment? Which one holds sway in this case?
NRA hits Republican roadblocks - Washington Times

Unless the state has a law that says, "No Gun-Free Zones," if the cars are parked on company property? I wouldn't support the law either.
 
Private property rights. People should be able to govern their own property according to their own standards as much as possible, specifically in ways that do not harm others. Banning guns from your private property, home or business, allows people to govern their property without hurting others. If people don't want to work at places that don't allow guns, then they can work somewhere else.
 
The second amendment is inapplicable in this scenario. The second amendment forbids the government from infringing the right to bear arms, not business owners.
 
The second amendment is inapplicable in this scenario. The second amendment forbids the government from infringing the right to bear arms, not business owners.

^^^^Best Answer.
 
Our employee manual states that employees are not allowed to bring a weapon into the building. It doesn't mention the parking lot. Besides, who would know?
 
The second amendment is inapplicable in this scenario. The second amendment forbids the government from infringing the right to bear arms, not business owners.

Therein lies the debate my friend. If the gov't upholds a policy by a employer to disallow firearms on their property, is the gov't not now enforcing said policy by ruling in the employer's favor?
 
Therein lies the debate my friend. If the gov't upholds a policy by a employer to disallow firearms on their property, is the gov't not now enforcing said policy by ruling in the employer's favor?

If the government were called upon to rule on an employer who tagged his place of employment as a gun-free zone, the government would rule on it based on property rights. And property rights alone.
 
If the government were called upon to rule on an employer who tagged his place of employment as a gun-free zone, the government would rule on it based on property rights. And property rights alone.

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.
 
The NRA has gone after a Tennessee Congresswoman due to her lack of support for a law stating that businesses should not be able to restrict employees from having a weapon on their property ie the employee having a weapon in their vehicle while it is parked in the parking lot. When I heard this story I initially wanted to come home and research it. However, I thought it would be more fun to put it up to debate. So what say you? Private property rights or the 2nd amendment? Which one holds sway in this case?
NRA hits Republican roadblocks - Washington Times
I would go further, that the employee has the right to carry the firearm on their person at all times, unless....

An employer who wishes to maintain a gun-free zone should have to comply with four requirements to maintain an annually renewed permit to have the gun-free zone.
  • Demonstrate a 'need' to have the gun-free zone, such as the presence of hazardous chemicals on the property. If the employer has no 'need', merely a preference, then the employee's right supersedes. Terminating and employee for possessing a firearm is to be treated as discrimination, the same is as if the employee were fired simply for being black.
  • Provide armed security.
  • Legally defined 'no-firearms' signs must be posted at every entrance and exit to the property and each building.
  • Pay a special insurance to cover the increased crime rate on gun-free-zones and cover liability (because the employer will be fully liable).

If an employer doesn't like it, they are free not to engage in commerce.
 
Last edited:
Private property rights. People should be able to govern their own property according to their own standards as much as possible, specifically in ways that do not harm others. Banning guns from your private property, home or business, allows people to govern their property without hurting others. If people don't want to work at places that don't allow guns, then they can work somewhere else.
That's interesting to me because my employment is not tied to one physical spot on the map. Residential construction requires me to enter all manor of properties all over the county (we do some commercial projects now and then), sometimes out-of-state.

It's best if I just not bring it up before entering someone's home. My method of concealed carry makes it very hard to detect, the downside being it takes longer to draw. I usually carry a snub-noes in my right front pocket, and the orientation of the pouches of my tool belt mostly cover that pocket. They don't ask, I don't tell, and that seems to be a fair arrangement. 90% of the time the homeowners aren't there anyway.
 
Therein lies the debate my friend. If the gov't upholds a policy by a employer to disallow firearms on their property, is the gov't not now enforcing said policy by ruling in the employer's favor?
If the government is trying to put you in jail, yes.

If the government is denying your unemployment claim because you violated a term of your employment agreement, then no.

Fortunately for me most construction companies don't bother putting anything about weapons in an employee handbook. How silly would it be to tell someone not to bring any kind of weapon and then give them a framing hammer, any kind of saw or nail gun, or even an 'powder-actuated' nail gun (classified as a 'firearm' in my state). Construction workers could have all these other means to kill someone, just not a 5-shot .38 with less range, power, and far fewer rounds then the DeWalt roofing nail gun in my hand.
 
Last edited:
Okay, now I'm Romneying on this. I am going to have to research this thing more. Great points by all btw.
 
I am in favor of allowing Private Businesses to decide themselves that their property is a gun-free zone. Any enforcement of this would be private. IE the Business could terminate you as an employee if you violate the agreements of your employement (By bringing a gun on the premises) or they could instruct you to leave if you're a patron (and if you refuse, if that justifies as tresspassing, then the law could come into effect).

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

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

Private property absolutely CAN take away with your constitutional rights while in their establishments OR require you to leave their establishments.

Ask yourself this...can a movie theater tell a Patron they must leave because they're standing up in the middle of the theater during the movie expressing their political views to people in the audience?

Can you and 10 of your friends simply walk into a Curves and begin having a meeting about Guns and Manly things because of your right to assembly?
 
If the government were called upon to rule on an employer who tagged his place of employment as a gun-free zone, the government would rule on it based on property rights. And property rights alone.
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.
 
Last edited:
I would go further, that the employee has the right to carry the firearm on their person at all times, unless....

An employer who wishes to maintain a gun-free zone should have to comply with four requirements to maintain an annually renewed permit to have the gun-free zone.
  • Demonstrate a 'need' to have the gun-free zone, such as the presence of hazardous chemicals on the property. If the employer has no 'need', merely a preference, then the employee's right supersedes. Terminating and employee for possessing a firearm is to be treated as discrimination, the same is as if the employee were fired simply for being black.
  • Provide armed security.
  • Legally defined 'no-firearms' signs must be posted at every entrance and exit to the property and each building.
  • Pay a special insurance to cover the increased crime rate on gun-free-zones and cover liability (because the employer will be fully liable).

If an employer doesn't like it, they are free not to engage in commerce.

Yay for expansion of government power, regulation, and encroachment into the private sector!
 
I am in favor of allowing Private Businesses to decide themselves that their property is a gun-free zone. Any enforcement of this would be private. IE the Business could terminate you as an employee if you violate the agreements of your employement (By bringing a gun on the premises) or they could instruct you to leave if you're a patron (and if you refuse, if that justifies as tresspassing, then the law could come into effect).

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

The government stating that private property owners have a right to forbid guns on their property does not equal the government taking action against your rights, it simply is affirming the rights of the property owner.
I tend to agree with you. However, I wouldn't like the idea of not being able to bring it into the parking lot in my vehicle. I can understand not bringing it into the building. But the parking lot? Let's put it this way. By saying I can't keep a weapon in my vehicle, you are now disallowing me to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights because I can't carry a gun on the way to work. Maybe they provide a place to check my weapon in? Maybe in the same manner as when you come aboard a Federal Park. You can check in your weapon with the Park Ranger.
 
The second amendment is inapplicable in this scenario. The second amendment forbids the government from infringing the right to bear arms, not business owners.

Correct. Yet in turn where do the laws that establish property rights and business license?
 
That's interesting to me because my employment is not tied to one physical spot on the map. Residential construction requires me to enter all manor of properties all over the county (we do some commercial projects now and then), sometimes out-of-state.

It's best if I just not bring it up before entering someone's home. My method of concealed carry makes it very hard to detect, the downside being it takes longer to draw. I usually carry a snub-noes in my right front pocket, and the orientation of the pouches of my tool belt mostly cover that pocket. They don't ask, I don't tell, and that seems to be a fair arrangement. 90% of the time the homeowners aren't there anyway.

As long as you are complying with the gun laws of your state/city/etc, unless there is clear indication that a location requires no firearms then the default expectation on the part of an individual should be whatever is the baseline law of the land. It would only be in cases where private property is marked clearly as requiring no firearms on the premises to enter, or it's agreed upon as part of the condition to be on the property (Such as being employed), that it should allow the private property owner the right to deny you access to their property and take actions appropriate for individuals who attempt to enter/remain in private property when they are not invited to be there.
 
I tend to agree with you. However, I wouldn't like the idea of not being able to bring it into the parking lot in my vehicle. I can understand not bringing it into the building. But the parking lot? Let's put it this way. By saying I can't keep a weapon in my vehicle, you are now disallowing me to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights because I can't carry a gun on the way to work. Maybe they provide a place to check my weapon in? Maybe in the same manner as when you come aboard a Federal Park. You can check in your weapon with the Park Ranger.

I frankly find this more of a problem area with regards to how property rights are viewed with regards to your car and a location you're parked on. That said, they're not disallowing you to do any such thing because you are in no way required or mandated to be working at said business or engaging in commerce with them. They're at best causing you to potentially voluntarily restrict it. And if you choose not to do so, they have no immediete legal recourse against you.

And that's really the thing. With it being a gudieline of a private entity, it's got none of the teeth of law.

They can't force you to allow a search. They can't force you to tell them you have a gun. They can't force you to not bring your gun. The best they can do is if they find out in some fashion they could fire you, if you're an employee, or ask you to leave the premisis, if you're a patron. And that's really only if they made it explicit from the point you entered onto the property that such a policy exists. Now, if you refuse to go after they tell you to get off their property when you were fully aware on the time of coming on about their rules, then you may have some legal issues. But that's due to your decisions after you've been asked to leave, not because you have a gun on you.
 
Last edited:
Therein lies the debate my friend. If the gov't upholds a policy by a employer to disallow firearms on their property, is the gov't not now enforcing said policy by ruling in the employer's favor?

This is where it gets sticky, indeed. If you are not allowed to bring a weapon onto the private/public property what LAW are you violating? In addition, should someone harm you while on that property, as in the case of the Batman (Joker?) shooting, is that property owner then liable for NOT enforcing the ban? After all, if they (property owner/gov't) do not allow you to defend yourself then are they not liable for allowing you harm for denying your RIGHT to do so? Many states have laws prohibiting being armed in bars and schools, yet provide ZERO security or enforcement. It should work BOTH ways, if you impose the ban then you are responsible for enforcing it, and GUILTY (at least civilly liable) if you do not do so. We see cities, such as Chicago and DC that prohibit LAWFUL possession of arms yet they take NO responsibility for your protection or strict enforcement of these "gun free zones". Just what penalty would be imposed for one having a gun in their vehicle and how would it be enforced?
 
Last edited:
I frankly find this more of a problem area with regards to how property rights are viewed with regards to your car and a location you're parked on. That said, they're not disallowing you to do any such thing because you are in no way required or mandated to be working at said business or engaging in commerce with them. They're at best causing you to potentially voluntarily restrict it. And if you choose not to do so, they have no immediete legal recourse against you.

And that's really the thing. With it being a gudieline of a private entity, it's got none of the teeth of law.

They can't force you to allow a search. They can't force you to tell them you have a gun. They can't force you to not bring your gun. The best they can do is if they find out in some fashion they could fire you, if you're an employee, or ask you to leave the premisis, if you're a patron. And that's really only if they made it explicit from the point you entered onto the property that such a policy exists. Now, if you refuse to go after they tell you to get off their property when you were fully aware on the time of coming on about their rules, then you may have some legal issues. But that's due to your decisions after you've been asked to leave, not because you have a gun on you.
I don't know. Good luck getting a judge to side with the employer on the "you don't have to work there" line of argument. In this economy, I believe a judge would side with the employee. Just on that particular argument though.
I agree on the search aspect though.
 
I don't know. Good luck getting a judge to side with the employer on the "you don't have to work there" line of argument. In this economy, I believe a judge would side with the employee. Just on that particular argument though.
I agree on the search aspect though.

Well, you wre asking it seemed on which one we feel should hold sway.

If you're asking me which way the ruling would actually go, that's a whole different ball of wax that'd largely depend on the location its getting tried at and the type of judge that's hearing the case.
 
Back
Top Bottom