Carry at Work

Status
Not open for further replies.
Umbrage was why the Internet was invented. Makes it easier to take umbrage.

My basic point is that there are complex processes that control views of morality and the actual actions based on them. Surface conversations and statements of one's motivations are naive.

Umbrage vs. the real processes in moral decision making.

PS - for the debate about whether companies or institutions are liable for not letting protect yourself. VT was sued for not warning folks about Cho after the first shooting.

A jury originally found for the families but it was overturned.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...23c-11e3-a751-f032898f2dbc_story.html?hpid=z4

The gist being that the institution was not responsible for the criminal actions of third parties. That would probably be the same analysis if you sued for not being able to carry.
 
Last edited:
born2climb said:
Then again, maybe the 2nd is not as precious as we thought it was. Maybe it can be interpreted away like just so much ink on paper...
Click to expand...

Or maybe carry at work, carry on company property, and other carry on private property questions aren't really 2A issues anyway, and so interpretations don't matter.
 
Or maybe carry at work, carry on company property, and other carry on private property questions aren't really 2A issues anyway
Click to expand...
Actually, I'm not sure they are. The Bill of Rights is about our relationship to the government. While some of its protections can apply to interactions between private parties, that isn't the case with the 2nd Amendment yet.

So far, the only binding legal precedents we have protect ownership of guns in the home.
 
Tom Servo said:
...The Bill of Rights is about our relationship to the government. While some of its protections can apply to interactions between private parties, that isn't the case with the 2nd Amendment yet.

So far, the only binding legal precedents we have protect ownership of guns in the home...
Click to expand...
Indeed the Constitution does not regulate the conduct of private parties. As explained by the United States Supreme Court (Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company, Inc, 500 U.S. 614 (U. S. Supreme Court, 1991), emphasis added):
....The Constitution structures the National Government, confines its actions, and, in regard to certain individual liberties and other specified matters, confines the actions of the States. With a few exceptions, such as the provisions of the Thirteenth Amendment, constitutional guarantees of individual liberty and equal protection do not apply to the actions of private entities. Tarkanian, supra, 488 U.S., at 191, 109 S.Ct., at 461; Flagg Bros, Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 156, 98 S.Ct. 1729, 1733, 56 L.Ed.2d 185 (1978). This fundamental limitation on the scope of constitutional guarantees "preserves an area of individual freedom by limiting the reach of federal law" and "avoids imposing on the State, its agencies or officials, responsibility for conduct for which they cannot fairly be blamed." Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 936-937, 102 S.Ct. 2744, 2753, 73 L.Ed.2d 482 (1982). One great object of the Constitution is to permit citizens to structure their private relations as they choose subject only to the constraints of statutory or decisional law. ....
Click to expand...

The reason discrimination by private parties in certain situation on certain bases (e. g., race, religion, national origin, sex, etc.) is that statutes prohibit such discrimination -- not the 14th Amendment.
 
born2climb said:
Quote:
Then again, maybe the 2nd is not as precious as we thought it was. Maybe it can be interpreted away like just so much ink on paper...

Or maybe carry at work, carry on company property, and other carry on private property questions aren't really 2A issues anyway, and so interpretations don't matter.
Click to expand...


I do not believe it is a 2nd amendment issue. I believe it is a private property rights issue. I have a right to refuse to open the door of my home to anyone for any reason. They have no right to exercise their constitutional rights in my home without my consent. Nobody can dispute that. The question is, do/should these private property rights extend to my business?
 
TimSr said:
I do not believe it is a 2nd amendment issue. I believe it is a private property rights issue. I have a right to refuse to open the door of my home to anyone for any reason. They have no right to exercise their constitutional rights in my home without my consent. Nobody can dispute that. The question is, do/should these private property rights extend to my business?
Click to expand...

They do extend to businesses in almost all way, with the exception of protected classes under statutory law. I can prohibit anyone entering my business for any other non-protected reason. Don't like purple hair? Not allowed. Don't like blondes? Not allowed. I can regulate speech and behavior too. Those things aren't protected.

Right now, guns aren't protected either.
 
IMO i respect property rights but if the buisness is open to the public then they shouldnt be able to prohibit constitutional rights
 
Koda94 said:
IMO i respect property rights but if the buisness is open to the public then they shouldnt be able to prohibit constitutional rights
Click to expand...
Nonetheless, they legally may. They are not subject to the Constitution. The Constitution regulates the conduct of government.

In general, discrimination is not illegal. You do it all the time. Every time you decide to shop in this store rather than that, you have discriminated. Every time you decide to buy this rather than that, you have discriminated.

Businesses discriminate all the time too, and legally. Apple stores discriminate against people who want to buy a PC by only selling Apple computers. Many restaurant discriminate against Orthodox Jews or Muslims by not strictly following the dietary laws of those religions. Many restaurants also discriminate against persons not wearing shirts and/or shoes by not admitting them. Tiffany discriminates against poor people in the prices they charge. Businesses also discriminate whenever they hire one person instead of another who has applied for the job.

Discrimination is merely choosing one thing over another or rejecting a possible choice. Discrimination is the very essence of freedom and private property. It is the right to choose. It is the right to exclude. It is the right to decide how you want to use your property.

Discrimination is perfectly legal, unless some law makes it illegal. There are laws that make discrimination illegal on various, specifically identified and defined bases, illegal -- at least if you're a business open to the public or an employer or in some other specified category.
 
Frank, I understand what your saying except that IMO there are differences between discriminating against one brand of computer over another (among other examples you referenced...) vs discriminating against a civil right. In my town there is a private business in the spotlight when earlier this year they refused to sell a lesbian couple a wedding cake because the business owners religious beliefs don’t condone it. In my opinion if they want to exercise that right then they have every right to open their business only to those customers that share their same beliefs. If they want to be open to conduct business with the public at large then they shouldn’t discriminate to any member of the public their civil rights which are protected by law… just like the right to self-defense is.
 
Koda94 said:
...IMO there are differences between discriminating against one brand of computer over another (among other examples you referenced...) vs discriminating against a civil right...
Click to expand...
That might be your opinion, but it is not necessarily the law. And your opinion doesn't change the way things are.

Of course, the law can be changed. That's the province of the legislature. Legislatures have acted with regard to certain civil rights for certain classes of people. You are free in our system to try to get sufficient support for further expanding those laws to cover any other civil rights for any other classes of persons you might think should be included. The question is whether the political environment would be favorable for such an effort.

There's a conflict between the rights of an honest citizen to lawfully carry a gun and the right of a business to conduct its business and control its property. Conflicting rights often rub against each other, and when they do, it's been customary in our system for a legislative body to decide priorities and enact laws to ameliorate the rubbing.
 
Violating another person's "civil rights" is illegal. What's the difference between "civil rights" and "constitutional rights"? Seems the same to me.
 
motorhead0922 said:
Violating another person's "civil rights" is illegal. What's the difference between "civil rights" and "constitutional rights"? Seems the same to me.
Click to expand...
This was all explained above.

  1. The Constitution doesn't apply to private conduct.

  2. Through statutes enacted by legislatures certain civil rights are protected against certain private conduct for certain classes of people.

  3. The statutes are specific as to rights protected, against what conduct, and for whom. If something you think is a right isn't included in the statute, and if some private conduct should be included but isn't, and if some class of people you think ought to be protected isn't included in the statute, that "right" and/or that class of people aren't protected by the statute against that conduct.

  4. If you think that's wrong, get politically active and try to get the law changed.
 
Last edited:
However, carry has not been defined as a basic civil right protected by the Constitution. One might wish it to be so but it is not. Other discriminations have been declared to be illegal by statute or amendment and then supported/interpreted by the SCOTUS.
 
Koda94 said:
IMO i respect property rights but if the buisness is open to the public then they shouldnt be able to prohibit constitutional rights
Click to expand...
An interesting wrinkle is that many businesses don't allow their employees to carry on company premises, but they do allow customers to do so. The job I quit was with a branch of a national chain. I would almost bet that neither Wal-Mart nor Starbucks allows their employees to carry on duty.
 
Very interesting replies. Sorry I was out the last few days.

Integrity, morality and such is quite in the eye of the beholder.

As for my view, when I hire out to someone I do agree to follow their rules if I find them moral. If they are not I may (not always) disregard them and say nothing about it (like CCW) and if caught I guess I will be fired.

However, I hold my own survival above some loyalty to a company who could care less about me and would let me go in an instant if it saved them a dime.

Is it ever permissible to lie? I think most of us would say yes.

The criteria is the key and the fact is we decide what that criteria is.

Some folk could never be an undercover cop as they could not lie to the crooks they were trying to catch. That's fine. But those that do become undercover cops have not lost their "integrity".

The same is true I believe for Mr. Cothran in the OP. At the end of the day can you look yourself in the mirror. Mr. Cothran said yeah he could and felt no remorse for carrying. It saved his life but cost him his job. I think he did right and I hope he gets another job soon.
 
Integrity, morality and such is quite in the eye of the beholder.
Click to expand...
Not really. The very definition of integrity is truthfulness and accuracy in one's actions.

That runs counter to this:

Is it ever permissible to lie? I think most of us would say yes.
Click to expand...

If someone feels the need to be less than truthful in a business dealing, that's their call. But they don't really get to march around proclaiming their integrity while they're doing so.
 
Tennessee Gentleman said:
Very interesting replies. Sorry I was out the last few days.

Integrity, morality and such is quite in the eye of the beholder.

As for my view, when I hire out to someone I do agree to follow their rules if I find them moral. If they are not I may (not always) disregard them and say nothing about it (like CCW) and if caught I guess I will be fired.

However, I hold my own survival above some loyalty to a company who could care less about me and would let me go in an instant if it saved them a dime.

Is it ever permissible to lie? I think most of us would say yes.

The criteria is the key and the fact is we decide what that criteria is.

Some folk could never be an undercover cop as they could not lie to the crooks they were trying to catch. That's fine. But those that do become undercover cops have not lost their "integrity".

The same is true I believe for Mr. Cothran in the OP. At the end of the day can you look yourself in the mirror. Mr. Cothran said yeah he could and felt no remorse for carrying. It saved his life but cost him his job. I think he did right and I hope he gets another job soon.
Click to expand...

Integrity is easily definable and has been several times in this thread. Folks can spin it all they want but it's really not open to redefinition.

With morality, there are only two choices. There either is or is not a real right and wrong. If there is, any one who violates it is wrong, no matter their opinion, no matter if they or anyone alive even KNOWS it's wrong or right. If there is not then ANY discussion of morality is pointless as it can only be defined by the person(s) with enough force to impose their views.

Just because there are instances where lying is acceptable, such as undercover police, does not mean that morality is relative. Even a child understands such things. My kids know the difference between lying to me about breaking the lamp and a cop lying to a criminal.

I've actually never met anyone who believes in relative morality even though I've met dozens who claim they do. Each one of them still had any number of issues on which they expressed moral outrage over a particular action/event. That's completely inconsistent.

If morality is relative, it is no more cause for conflict than what color car you prefer or whether you like coffee or tea. It is your opinion and why would you possibly care if anyone agrees or not, since you freely acknowledge that the basis of your opinion is your opinion. If morality is relative, one should have no serious objection to any moral issue. An opinion, yes, but no reason to enforce that opinion. The Jews in WWII, abortion, whatever. You have your opinion but since you acknowledge that it's no more than an opinion with no true basis, there is no reason to expect anyone else to comply and no more reason for outrage than if the Nazis liked red cars and you like blue.

On a more personal basis, there should be no objection to folks who lie to you, even steal from you. It is not immoral, after all. Even "ownership" is a moral concept. It's the idea that you have a specific right to something that someone else doesn't have a right to. You might find it inconvenient that you'll have to spend more money or work more hours to replace that item but you haven't been "wronged" because there is no "wrong". If your spouse "cheats", what's the problem? Just because your opinion is that they shouldn't? Must be they like blue cars and you like red. So what?

If you believe that "society" defines morals, how do you define "society"? Who has the right to define that word? Why aren't the Bloods and Crips "societies" and what right do we have to impose our views on them, or even object to their imposing their views on us, since it's all just two "societies" opinions? The nation of Germany in WWII was certainly a "society", what right do other societies have to interfere with what they've decided is "moral"?

So then, if morals are relative then the basis of their enforcement comes only from the barrel of a gun, the threat of penalty, the ability to enforce one's views.

If that's the case and we bring this back the original question, it is not immoral for the company to prohibit weapons, it is not immoral for the employee to carry anyway. Of course, it also wouldn't be immoral to steal from the company or use your co-workers as human shields either, because there is no "immoral".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top