NRA vs Bar Assoc over guns in cars
HeyBub
organization over employers' rights to bar workers from leaving guns in
their cars while on the job."
The classic clash of rights...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/09/business/main2457881.shtml?source=RSSattr=U.S._2457881
Unknown
wrote:
See HB 220, HB511, HB 992, HB 1037 and SB 534 for the bills currently
in the Texas legislature on this subject.
HeyBub
I think, on balance, that I'm on the side of the property owner. He should
have the same rights as a business that elects to put up a 30.06 sign. If
the customers, or employees, don't like it, they could take their business
(or employment) elsewhere.
I'd accept an exception: if the employer was an agency of government like a
school or water-treatment plant. There, the rights of the employee should
trump those of the "government."
Jeff Dege
>
> I think, on balance, that I'm on the side of the property owner. He should
> have the same rights as a business that elects to put up a 30.06 sign.
Yep. It's his car, and if he doesn't want guns in it, it's nobody else's
business. Or if he does want guns in it, it's nobody else's business.
--
The storm center of lawlessness in every American State is the State
Capitol. It is there that the worst crimes are committed; it is
there that lawbreaking attains to the estate and dignity of a learned
profession; it is there that contempt for the laws is engendered,
fostered and spread broadcast.
- H. L. Mencken
Unknown
wrote:
>n...@gntbcr.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 11:28:43 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "The nation's largest lawyers group is taking on the biggest gun
>>> rights organization over employers' rights to bar workers from
>>> leaving guns in their cars while on the job."
>>>
>>> The classic clash of rights...
>>>
>>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/09/business/main2457881.shtml?source=RSSattr=U.S._2457881
>>>
>>>
>> See HB 220, HB511, HB 992, HB 1037 and SB 534 for the bills currently
>> in the Texas legislature on this subject.
>
>I think, on balance, that I'm on the side of the property owner. He should
>have the same rights as a business that elects to put up a 30.06 sign. If
>the customers, or employees, don't like it, they could take their business
>(or employment) elsewhere.
I'm on the side of the "property owner" also. The CAR OWNER. If you
have something illegal, like some "drugs", loose women or undocumented
aliens, in your car, then it is ILLEGAL everywhere. If you have
something LEGAL, like guns, cigarettes or a Playboy magizine, then it
is NONE OF THE EMPLOYERS BUSINESS.
IF the business thinks you are stealing, like taking out a lunch box
full of memory chips, let them get a warrant.
BTW, I favor HB1037/Farabee. All the others put up various hoops to
jump thru, including notifiying your employer you have a CHL. Any
anti-gun employer could fire you on some trumped up charge if they
know you OWN any guns.
>
>I'd accept an exception: if the employer was an agency of government like a
>school or water-treatment plant. There, the rights of the employee should
>trump those of the "government."
>
Anything LEGALLY in your car should be of no concern to an employer.
HeyBub
>>
>> I'd accept an exception: if the employer was an agency of government
>> like a school or water-treatment plant. There, the rights of the
>> employee should trump those of the "government."
>>
>
> Anything LEGALLY in your car should be of no concern to an employer.
"Legal" has nothing to do with it.
One of the big three auto manufacturers once prohibited autos made by the
competition from parking on its employees' lot. What's the difference
between saying "We don't want Toyotas on our property" and "We don't want
Glocks on our property"?
If I, as an employer, promulgate a rule saying I don't want any car on my
property that contains pistachio nuts, it should be my right to enforce such
a rule via firing nut-lovers.
What's the difference between prohibiting a pistol in a car parked on my
property and prohibiting a car with a dog or a child or a spouse or sporting
an American flag or offensive bumper-sticker?
If I don't like what YOU do on MY property, why can't I evict you using
whatever means necessary from my property?
This is a tempest in a teapot. If the law prohibiting a property owner from
using the property the way he wants does pass, the property owner will find
some other way to fire the uppity employee(s). We'll end up with gun
affectionate employees working in gun-friendly businesses and
politically-correct employers fooling themselves they have a safe working
environment, like the Post Office.
The only thing that will change is that property rights will be diminished.
Jim Casey
> If I, as an employer, promulgate a rule saying I don't want any car on my
> property that contains pistachio nuts, it should be my right to enforce such
> a rule via firing nut-lovers.
Relationships between employers and employees are not symmetric. The
employee needs his next paycheck more than then employer needs the
efforts of that one person. ("Stars" of various sorts are an exception
to this rule.)
Employers also have effective veto power over their former employees'
subsequent job search, by withholding a recommendation or giving a
negative one.
As a condition of employment, my employer can search my car or fire me
if I refuse. Nearly every employer in my field has similar terms (they
all come out of a legal boiler mill somewhere). I don't have much
choice if I don't change careers.
Employers can be just as tyrannical as govenment (think Pullman). When
they become so, they should not be surprised to face strikes, violence,
and the restraint of democratic governments.
I've said this before: Most employers who have weapons bans do nothing
to ensure that weapons are not brought into the workplace by those who
intend to do harm. Employers disarm their employees, then fail to
protect them.
If an employer banned Bibles, the outcry would be loud and relentless.
And make no mistake about it: Bibles are dangerous. Disagreements over
various versions of scriptures have led to countless bloody wars.
- Jim
Omelet
Jim Casey <sea...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> I've said this before: Most employers who have weapons bans do nothing
> to ensure that weapons are not brought into the workplace by those who
> intend to do harm. Employers disarm their employees, then fail to
> protect them.
That is SO true!
My place of employment is so gun paranoid, they have "nanny blocks" for
anything having to do with guns on the internet connections.
It's insane.
--
Peace, Om
Remove _ to validate e-mails.
"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a Son of a bitch" -- Jack Nicholson
HeyBub
I agree with almost everything you say. The one exception being the control
of employers over employees. It's a contract between two willing parties -
employer and slave, er, employee. If I want to spank my female employees
just because I like it, well...
That said and out of the way, if I, during the consideration of a
prospective employee, learned that my competitor fired him for transporting
a Bible in his car, I'd hire the applicant in a heartbeat.
HeyBub
> In article <45cf1aba$0$5782$4c36...@roadrunner.com>,
> Jim Casey <sea...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> I've said this before: Most employers who have weapons bans do
>> nothing to ensure that weapons are not brought into the workplace by
>> those who intend to do harm. Employers disarm their employees, then
>> fail to protect them.
>
> That is SO true!
>
> My place of employment is so gun paranoid, they have "nanny blocks"
> for anything having to do with guns on the internet connections.
>
> It's insane.
Time to sow seeds of discord and distrust.
You can get around nanny-blocks; do so on a collegues computer and surf to
the most explicit gun page you can find. Leave it on the monitor.
Put notices of gun auctions, shooting matches, raffles, gun shows, and the
like on the break-room bulletin board.
Leave clippings of pro gun-related stories hither and yon.
Subscribe to "Soldier of Fortune" or "Ammo Digest" in the institution's
name.
Call the cops. Pretend to the be the institution's adminstrator. Arrange for
a talk on gun safety by the police department's range officer.
Get some clear address labels. Make up the following and surreptiously
placard the entrance doorways:
ATTENTION CRIMINALS!
This is a gun-free zone.
Please do not harm anyone inside
Thank you
Another one;
This is a Firearm-Free Institution
POLICE MUST CHECK GUNS
With the Security Office
Optional: Leave bullets on desks (best if they're just cases and bullet - no
powder).
Have your reloading supplies delivered to your office.
Steve Rothstein
>
> Employers also have effective veto power over their former employees'
> subsequent job search, by withholding a recommendation or giving a
> negative one.
>
> As a condition of employment, my employer can search my car or fire me
> if I refuse. Nearly every employer in my field has similar terms (they
> all come out of a legal boiler mill somewhere). I don't have much
> choice if I don't change careers.
>
> Employers can be just as tyrannical as govenment (think Pullman). When
> they become so, they should not be surprised to face strikes, violence,
> and the restraint of democratic governments.
I tend to agree with Jerry on the property use issue in this case,
though I also recognize that no company should have the authority to
force a search of your personal property while on their premises. That
includes your car or your briefcase. If they suspect theft, they should
be able to call the police to get a search done based on probable cause.
If they want to search and you refuse consent, I think that firing you
might be arguable as against the public interest and be one of the
protected times, even in Texas, but I don't think courts would agree
with me.
The problem is that there are some very strong rights on both sides that
are coming into conflict.
One of the most effective ways to solve this issue is through employee
actions. Strikes can and do work to correct company policies, if we can
convince enough people to agree that the policy is wrong. Unfortunately,
the policies on guns and searches are so accepted now that we have
trouble convincing co-workers to stand up for themselves.
>
> I've said this before: Most employers who have weapons bans do nothing
> to ensure that weapons are not brought into the workplace by those who
> intend to do harm. Employers disarm their employees, then fail to
> protect them.
And I strongly agree that this should make the employer liable. If we
clearly stated that a company was liable for protecting its employees
from their house or last stop before work back to their house or first
stop after work when they disarmed them and banned firearms in the
parking lot, then we could get more companies to stop this practice. I
think making the liability clear is the best answer, over the taking of
property rights.
Steve Rothstein
Jim Casey
> I agree with almost everything you say. The one exception being the control
> of employers over employees. It's a contract between two willing parties -
> employer and slave, ...
This is a myth perpetuated by the ruling class. If I withhold my
services from the software industry, no one will notice or care. They
will spread the work I'm doing to the remaining flunkies, or farm it out
to a contractor in India.
At a lower point on the employement food chain, when citizens refuse to
take a job because of low pay (which is the only reason someone refuses
a job), employers hire immigrants, illegal if necessary.
There was a time in this country when if you didn't like the local
employment situation, you could move west, hunt, trap, fish, farm, or
whatever you liked. You could also set up your own business without a
lot of legal barriers.
None of that is true today, unless you want to live below the radar like
the Unabomber. Yes, you can start a business, but you face a rat's nest
of regulations, many of which were passed into law by your established
competitors. That's among the reasons 90-95% of new businesses fail
within five years.
> That said and out of the way, if I, during the consideration of a
> prospective employee, learned that my competitor fired him for transporting
> a Bible in his car, I'd hire the applicant in a heartbeat.
Would you hire someone who had been fired because he had a weapon in his
car, either contrary to company rules or illegally?
- Jim
Unknown
wrote:
>n...@gntbcr.com wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd accept an exception: if the employer was an agency of government
>>> like a school or water-treatment plant. There, the rights of the
>>> employee should trump those of the "government."
>>>
>>
>> Anything LEGALLY in your car should be of no concern to an employer.
>
>"Legal" has nothing to do with it.
It has everything to do with it.
>
>One of the big three auto manufacturers once prohibited autos made by the
>competition from parking on its employees' lot. What's the difference
>between saying "We don't want Toyotas on our property" and "We don't want
>Glocks on our property"?
Yah, I saw that sign on TV. It was at a Ford plant. You know, Ford,
which LOST $4000 on every car they sold.
>
>If I, as an employer, promulgate a rule saying I don't want any car on my
>property that contains pistachio nuts, it should be my right to enforce such
>a rule via firing nut-lovers.
It's a lot easier to tell a Toyota from a distance than whether
someone has concealed pistachio nuts. How about requiring women to
wear panties? Are you going to "empower" security to check?
>The only thing that will change is that property rights will be diminished.
That is the basic question. Employer POWERS vs. Peoples RIGHTS.
Omelet
Steve Rothstein <sroth...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> And I strongly agree that this should make the employer liable. If we
> clearly stated that a company was liable for protecting its employees
> from their house or last stop before work back to their house or first
> stop after work when they disarmed them and banned firearms in the
> parking lot, then we could get more companies to stop this practice. I
> think making the liability clear is the best answer, over the taking of
> property rights.
>
> Steve Rothstein
It will probably take an injured, carjacked, robbed, or dead employee
with subsequent court action tho' to make that a reality.
I think the best policy is to simply lock the weapon in a bolted lock
box in the car, then keep your mouth shut.
Don't give them a _reason_ to search your car...
Jim Casey
> ... I tend to agree with Jerry on the property use issue in this
> case, though I also recognize that no company should have the
> authority to force a search of your personal property while on their
> premises. That includes your car or your briefcase.
Let me explain how this works at the three large corporations I have
worked for. When you're hired, you get a song-and-dance from someone in
the human resources department about company policies. Then you sign an
agreement that specifies, among other things, that you consent to a
search of your vehicle or person upon request. If you don't consent,
you have violated your conditions of employment and can be fired for
cause (therefore, no unemployment compensation or legal recourse).
They don't need probably cause or a warrant. They don't need police
involvement.
At two of these companies, everyone coming in or out had to open all
bags for inspection, and they occasionally frisked someone. Some of the
guards were jerks and pushed the edge of the envelope as far as they could.
- Jim
Jim Casey
> I think the best policy is to simply lock the weapon in a bolted lock
> box in the car, then keep your mouth shut.
> Don't give them a _reason_ to search your car...
They don't need a legitimate reason. Some of the cases that got this
issue started involved "drug dogs" signalling on the vehicles of
employees that had firearms in them.
Gossip and lies can lead to drug searches. Most large companies have a
tool-free phone number where employees can snitch on suspected
evildoers. Somebody who doesn't like you can make trouble without even
dropping a dime.
- Jim
Omelet
Jim Casey <sea...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
Yeah. :-(
HeyBub
> HeyBub wrote:
>
>> I agree with almost everything you say. The one exception being the
>> control of employers over employees. It's a contract between two
>> willing parties - employer and slave, ...
>
> This is a myth perpetuated by the ruling class. If I withhold my
> services from the software industry, no one will notice or care. They
> will spread the work I'm doing to the remaining flunkies, or farm it
> out to a contractor in India.
Yep. Could be you've priced yourself out of the market.
>
> At a lower point on the employement food chain, when citizens refuse
> to take a job because of low pay (which is the only reason someone
> refuses a job), employers hire immigrants, illegal if necessary.
Yep. Labor (along with raw materials and capital) is one of the three
ingredients that go into a business.
>
> There was a time in this country when if you didn't like the local
> employment situation, you could move west, hunt, trap, fish, farm, or
> whatever you liked. You could also set up your own business without a
> lot of legal barriers.
Yep.
>
> None of that is true today, unless you want to live below the radar
> like the Unabomber. Yes, you can start a business, but you face a
> rat's nest of regulations, many of which were passed into law by your
> established competitors. That's among the reasons 90-95% of new
> businesses fail within five years.
That doesn't sound right. I can see oppressive regulations preventing a
business from ever starting or contributing to its failure during the first
year. After the first year, I'd presume the owner has figured out how to
surmount the bureaucratic hurdles.
>
>> That said and out of the way, if I, during the consideration of a
>> prospective employee, learned that my competitor fired him for
>> transporting a Bible in his car, I'd hire the applicant in a
>> heartbeat.
>
> Would you hire someone who had been fired because he had a weapon in
> his car, either contrary to company rules or illegally?
Contrary to company rules, sure. That's a plus. Illegally? No.
I once had an applicant who, in the interests of full disclosure, mentioned
he was out on bail for arson of his former place of employment (!). I didn't
hire him, either.
HeyBub
>
> It will probably take an injured, carjacked, robbed, or dead employee
> with subsequent court action tho' to make that a reality.
That won't happen. Look at reported workplace-shooting crimes, especially
where there are multiple victims. Where did these take place? Schools. Post
Offices. Corporations where guns are prohibited.
Do you see any successful lawsuits? Do you see ANY lawsuits?
Back when the CHL first went into effect, the Texas Restaurant Association's
legal counsel argued AGAINST posting ANY kind of sign ("no guns" or "we
welcome guns") or having any state policy. His argument was: If "no guns,"
the restaurant owner was implicitly guaranteeing the safety of the patrons.
Should a disarmed patron suffer harm, the restaurant was open to a suit.
Conversely, a "we welcome gunners" sign encouraged gun-toting customers.
Should one of THEM do something foolish, again the restaurant owners could
come under some liability for maintaining an attractive nusiance.
>
> I think the best policy is to simply lock the weapon in a bolted lock
> box in the car, then keep your mouth shut.
>
> Don't give them a _reason_ to search your car...
If they DO search your car, fall back on the defense available to you if the
search was by a cop: "I didn't know it was there (and I can prove I had no
way of knowing it was there)."
HeyBub
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 06:49:17 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> n...@gntbcr.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'd accept an exception: if the employer was an agency of
>>>> government like a school or water-treatment plant. There, the
>>>> rights of the employee should trump those of the "government."
>>>>
>>>
>>> Anything LEGALLY in your car should be of no concern to an employer.
>>
>> "Legal" has nothing to do with it.
>
> It has everything to do with it.
Nope. If an employer says "I want to search your car" or "I want to pee on
your leg" you have two choices: "Yessir, yessir, three bags full" or "No,
I'll clean out my locker." There are remedies, but they only latch in after
the fact (usually) in a civil action. At the instant the employer makes a
demand, you have only the two permissable answers above. You do not have a
"right" to any other action or defense.
>>
>> One of the big three auto manufacturers once prohibited autos made
>> by the competition from parking on its employees' lot. What's the
>> difference between saying "We don't want Toyotas on our property"
>> and "We don't want Glocks on our property"?
>
> Yah, I saw that sign on TV. It was at a Ford plant. You know, Ford,
> which LOST $4000 on every car they sold.
Their choice. The employees who drove Toyotas had to park elsewhere.
>>
>> If I, as an employer, promulgate a rule saying I don't want any car
>> on my property that contains pistachio nuts, it should be my right
>> to enforce such a rule via firing nut-lovers.
>
> It's a lot easier to tell a Toyota from a distance than whether
> someone has concealed pistachio nuts. How about requiring women to
> wear panties? Are you going to "empower" security to check?
Sure. Hillary Clinton decreed that female employees had to wear panties if
they worked for the White House. At least according to Gary Aldrich:
http://www.patrickhenrycenter.org/issues/issue001.html
>
>> The only thing that will change is that property rights will be
>> diminished.
>
> That is the basic question. Employer POWERS vs. Peoples RIGHTS.
You've got to wrap your mind around the legal concept here. Absent statutory
authority, employees DO NOT have constitutional "Rights" vis a vis their
employer. The constitution affects (in general) only the relationship
between an individual and the government, not between two individuals (or
corporations).
Specifically, you do NOT have a right to probable cause before being
searched - the search is voluntary anyway. You either consent or you're
fired. You do not have a "right" to practice your religion on company
property, you do not have a right to print and distribute anything you
please, you do not have a right to a lawyer, indictment by a grand jury, a
public trial by your peers, bear arms, compulsory process for witnesses, or
avoiding cruel punishment.
Unless you're in California.
Unknown
wrote:
>>>> Anything LEGALLY in your car should be of no concern to an employer.
>>>
>>> "Legal" has nothing to do with it.
>>
>> It has everything to do with it.
>
>Nope. If an employer says "I want to search your car" or "I want to pee on
>your leg" you have two choices: "Yessir, yessir, three bags full" or "No,
>I'll clean out my locker." There are remedies, but they only latch in after
>the fact (usually) in a civil action. At the instant the employer makes a
>demand, you have only the two permissable answers above. You do not have a
>"right" to any other action or defense.
It should be illegal and any "employee agreement" that allows a
non-warrant search should be null and void.
>You've got to wrap your mind around the legal concept here. Absent statutory
>authority, employees DO NOT have constitutional "Rights" vis a vis their
>employer. The constitution affects (in general) only the relationship
>between an individual and the government, not between two individuals (or
>corporations).
NO "employer" should have the POWER to regulate what YOU carry in your
OWN CAR! IF a company CHOOSES to have an employee parking lot, then
the EMPLOYEE can CHOOSE what to have in that car.
Jim Casey
>> Yes, you can start a business, but you face a rat's nest of
>> regulations, many of which were passed into law by your established
>> competitors. That's among the reasons 90-95% of new businesses
>> fail within five years.
> That doesn't sound right. I can see oppressive regulations preventing
> a business from ever starting or contributing to its failure during
> the first year. After the first year, I'd presume the owner has
> figured out how to surmount the bureaucratic hurdles.
It depends upon how much capital the business starts with and how long
the owner is willing to go without earning a profit. If the business
expands, more resources have to go to filing reports. I've seen this in
the medical field, where clinics have more people doing various sorts of
paper-pushing than actual patient care.
Some people have a very commnendable can-do attitude and ignore the
paperwork until they come to the bureaucrats' notice. That takes a few
years. (BTW, if they're dealing with Medicare and Medicaid, many
mistakes can become federal or state felonies.)
I'll grant that many businesses fail because the owners lack sufficient
clues or work attitude. I don't know which factors are most important
in business failures. You can find biased figures all over.
>> Would you hire someone who had been fired because he had a weapon
>> in his car, either contrary to company rules or illegally?
> Contrary to company rules, sure. That's a plus. Illegally? No.
For an employee, carrying a weapon past the point where notice has been
given is a crime. The only gray area I'm aware of is when an employer
tells an employee not to carry while on duty, even though the employee
is not on company premises or driving a company vehicle (pizza drivers).
- Jim
Jim Casey
> Do you see any successful lawsuits? Do you see ANY lawsuits?
Nearly every workplace killing results in lawsuits. Some of them are
successful. Some are overturned on appeal, some not. It's a crap-shoot.
- Jim
HeyBub
>>> Would you hire someone who had been fired because he had a weapon
>>> in his car, either contrary to company rules or illegally?
>
>> Contrary to company rules, sure. That's a plus. Illegally? No.
>
> For an employee, carrying a weapon past the point where notice has
> been given is a crime. The only gray area I'm aware of is when an
> employer tells an employee not to carry while on duty, even though
> the employee is not on company premises or driving a company vehicle
> (pizza drivers).
I stand corrected. If an employee was fired for carrying a pistol onto the
workplace in direct contravention of stated company policy, he did, in fact,
break the law and would be ineligible to be employed by me.
Steve Rothstein
I understand how it happens. This is what I am saying is wrong, that the
company can force the employee to consent. That is the law we need to be
fighting for.
I have wondered in the past about suing over the fail to consent
discharge. There is one legal theory that says the contract may not be
valid if there is a strong enough disparity of strength in the
bargaining positions. Clearly there is a large disparity in these cases.
I am not sure how it would play out in court, even combined with the
fact that violating public policy is already protection against firing.
Consent to a search is the public policy that would be violated if they
did fire you. Again, those are cases that would be testing new legal
waters and I would not want to be the test case, but it is something to
consider if it ever happens. Of course, I advise people to obey their
boss' rules unless they are prepared to be fired. I would just like to
see some things change din this area (and it is not just about guns, but
all non-consent searches).
Steve Rothstein
Jim Casey
> I understand how it happens. This is what I am saying is wrong, that
> the company can force the employee to consent. That is the law we
> need to be fighting for.
From one point of view (which I understand without liking it), no force
is involved. I am free to turn down the job and take my chances elsewhere.
The near-universality of these employment practices makes that difficult.
> There is one legal theory that says the contract may not be valid if
> there is a strong enough disparity of strength in the bargaining
> positions. Clearly there is a large disparity in these cases. I am
> not sure how it would play out in court, ...
Texas courts are generally sympathic to employers. Federal courts less
so, though it varies by circuit. I would not want to depend upon the
mercy of the court in this time and place.
- Jim
Omelet
"HeyBub" <heybub...@gmail.com> wrote:
Our policy reads that the police would be called and said carrier would
be arrested and charged...
Omelet
Jim Casey <sea...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
And the general social "anti-gun" attitude...
Jim Casey
> And the general social "anti-gun" attitude...
Yeah, it seems like judges will come down against the RKBA whenever
possible.
- Jim
Omelet
Jim Casey <sea...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
Hence the need for Expert Witnesses.
Kevin Craig
<"n...@gntbcr.com"> wrote:
> NO "employer" should have the POWER to regulate what YOU carry in your
> OWN CAR!
No employer has that power, and none claim to have that power.
Not until your car comes onto THEIR property, that is.
> IF a company CHOOSES to have an employee parking lot, then
> the EMPLOYEE can CHOOSE what to have in that car.
The employee can CHOOSE to park elsewhere, to ride the bus, or to find
another job, too.
Kevin
Herb Martin
"Kevin Craig" <kbc...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:140220071920236316%kbc...@pobox.com...
> In article <eievs2hgul78cuvua...@4ax.com>,
> <"n...@gntbcr.com"> wrote:
>
>> NO "employer" should have the POWER to regulate what YOU carry in your
>> OWN CAR!
>
> No employer has that power, and none claim to have that power.
>
> Not until your car comes onto THEIR property, that is.
Actually their property rights SHOULD END where mine begin.
They can either allow me or my auto on the property or not, but
the they should have no rights under my clothes or in my locked
trunk.
>> IF a company CHOOSES to have an employee parking lot, then
>> the EMPLOYEE can CHOOSE what to have in that car.
That SHOULD be the law.
> The employee can CHOOSE to park elsewhere, to ride the bus, or to find
> another job, too.
True but we already defend rights never specific protected by the
Bill of Rights from unnecessary infringement by employers -- for instance
employees have the right to be free from sexual harassment and to
organize for union purposes.
Those rights are arguably important but not nearly so as the rights to
be secure in our possiesion, the right to keep and bear arms, or the
right to privacy.
--
Herb Martin
Steve Rothstein
> "Kevin Craig" <kbc...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:140220071920236316%kbc...@pobox.com...
>> In article <eievs2hgul78cuvua...@4ax.com>,
>> <"n...@gntbcr.com"> wrote:
>>
>>> NO "employer" should have the POWER to regulate what YOU carry in your
>>> OWN CAR!
>> No employer has that power, and none claim to have that power.
>>
>> Not until your car comes onto THEIR property, that is.
>
> Actually their property rights SHOULD END where mine begin.
>
> They can either allow me or my auto on the property or not, but
> the they should have no rights under my clothes or in my locked
> trunk.
I think this is exactly what Kevin is saying also Herb. The employer has
the right to say if you come onto their property or not. They can put
almost any conditions on entry that they so desire. They therefore have
the right to say you cannot enter onto their property with a gun in your
car. You now have the choice of entering in accordance with their
wishes, parking elsewhere, or working elsewhere.
Because of the disparity of force int he employment negotiations, I have
some reservations over this equation, but I also fully support the
private property rights of the company.
My question is who gets to make the decision if the company is in an
office building with a shared parking lot, or one open to the public.
Then you have a third party involved, the property owner, who has some
rights but has also forfeited quite a few by leasing out the office space.
But, I also have to point out to Kevin that there is another side of the
issue that he is mistaken about. Many employers claim to have control
over what is in your car even when it is off their property, IF you are
using it for your employment. For example, pizza delivery drivers often
use their own car at work. At TABC, I use my personal car to run some
office errands (by my choice, I can and sometimes do check out a state
car for them). Many companies then have handbook rules saying you cannot
carry even while you are in your own car and off their property if you
are on duty (as in the time is being paid by them). I have a much harder
time with the ethics of this issue because by law, the company is liable
for your safety and therefore can make some decisions, but you are
always fully responsible for your own safety too. This is one area where
I wish I could convince the companies to rethink their positions because
it is better to come to agreement than try to argue over the rights
involved.
Steve Rothstein
Unknown
<sroth...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Actually their property rights SHOULD END where mine begin.
>>
>> They can either allow me or my auto on the property or not, but
>> the they should have no rights under my clothes or in my locked
>> trunk.
>
>I think this is exactly what Kevin is saying also Herb. The employer has
>the right to say if you come onto their property or not. They can put
>almost any conditions on entry that they so desire. They therefore have
>the right to say you cannot enter onto their property with a gun in your
>car. You now have the choice of entering in accordance with their
>wishes, parking elsewhere, or working elsewhere.
And this is the line in the sand. Either the PERSON has a RIGHT to
what is in his PERSONAL PROPERTY, ie the CAR or not. I doubt many
people would be able to work somewhere like IBM or TI or DELL where no
"parking" exists for MILES.
And people have been FIRED for exchanging rifles during deer seasons
from the above named firms.
SO. LEGISLATURE, WHO has the "right". I say whatever is in my car on
"your" property is MY BUSINESS. Your drug-sniffing dogs can lick
their own butts, but it is NONE of the COMPANY's business.
Herb Martin
"Steve Rothstein" <sroth...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:vnQAh.1572$_73...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Herb Martin wrote:
>> "Kevin Craig" <kbc...@pobox.com> wrote in message
>> news:140220071920236316%kbc...@pobox.com...
>>> In article <eievs2hgul78cuvua...@4ax.com>,
>>> <"n...@gntbcr.com"> wrote:
>>>
>>>> NO "employer" should have the POWER to regulate what YOU carry in your
>>>> OWN CAR!
>>> No employer has that power, and none claim to have that power.
>>>
>>> Not until your car comes onto THEIR property, that is.
>>
>> Actually their property rights SHOULD END where mine begin.
>>
>> They can either allow me or my auto on the property or not, but
>> the they should have no rights under my clothes or in my locked
>> trunk.
>
> I think this is exactly what Kevin is saying also Herb. The employer has
> the right to say if you come onto their property or not. They can put
> almost any conditions on entry that they so desire.
I disagree with this -- not what the current legal situation is -- but with
the
"right". An employer doesn't have a right to interfere with YOUR property
as long as it is within your property (your clothes or auto) and is LEGAL.
A better analogy is that no employer can prevent you from bringing your
legal "rescue" drugs (asthma, heart medication) onsite -- you need these
to protect your life even if missing a does would not cause immediate
death -- same for legal firearms, carried in a legal manner.
> They therefore have the right to say you cannot enter onto their property
> with a gun in your car.
Currrently they do have this POWER -- it is not a right. They should
not have this power. Only the authority to admit you or not, and as long
as they comply with the law.
The right to keep and bear arms or to wear purple underware is not any
business of the employer.
None at all. Unless they are running a jail, provide a lockup for weapons
with armed guards, and CHECK everyone to make sure there are no
weapons.
Merely putting up a sign only affects the law abiding (and sheep) but has
no effect on the criminal.