FL and bringing guns to work...

[divemedic]

I don't think it is a stupid example. I am following the logic that

You don't have any constitutional rights at work.

So, I reply that you cannot order an employee to have sex with you. Therefore, your rights are not absolute as an employer and a property owner. This negates the very foundation of your argument.

 

[STAGE 2]

So, I reply that you cannot order an employee to have sex with you.

The constitution is a restriction on the government, so technically you don't have any constitutional rights at work. There are, however, restrictions on what you can do at work. The existence of these restrictions do not mean that you waive your rights as a private property owner.

 

[divemedic]

Waive, no. But you need to balance the rights of the property owner with the rights of the employee. This is why we no longer have slavery, and sweatshops.

 

[grymster2007]

But you need to balance the rights of the property owner with the rights of the employee.

How many times does it have to be pointed out that the property owner's policy on guns has ZERO impact on an individual's 2A rights? An individual can never have his/her rights violated because they are under no obligation to enter the property owner's property.

There's nothing to balance as only one side can possibly have their rights violated. The only thing the Florida law will do is unbalance a balanced system. As gun people, we're all aware that this is not the first time lawmakers have stepped on the rights of individuals and we should feel obligated to resist every attempt to do so, even when the injustice may personally benefit us for a change.

 

[STAGE 2]

This is why we no longer have slavery, and sweatshops.

No, we no longer have those things because people have the freedom to choose who they work for and if they want to work at all.

But you need to balance the rights of the property owner with the rights of the employee.

You can't balance anything when one side has no right. A gun owner doesn't have a right to carry on private property.

 

[divemedic]

Then you are totally unaware of American history. The Fair Labor Standards Act, passed in 1938 as a part of the New Deal is why we do not have sweatshops and the 13th Amendment is why we do not have slavery. People have the freedom to choose because of the laws that are already in place to protect them.

When business owners had the kind of power you espouse, they cared for nothing except profit. Since they were the only game in town, workers had no choice but to accept their terms. This resulted in abhorrent conditions, and many workers were killed in industrial accidents, such as the Triangle Shirtwaist Company fire, where 146 workers were killed due to poor conditions and no escapes.

Workers, often women and children, forced to work long hours in poor conditions or face starvation is hardly "making a choice." Again, with the new Florida law, the employers are treating workers poorly and are apparently unable to do what is right- so government steps in to protect the rights of those who cannot protect their own- which is the purpose of government in the first place.

 

[grymster2007]

with the new Florida law, the employers are treating workers poorly and are apparently unable to do what is right-

Apparently it is you and me that are unable to do what is right. If we feel so strongly about the right to carry, we should boycott the property owners who disallow it!

so government steps in to protect the rights of those who cannot protect their own-

That's about as scary as it gets. The government stepping in to help out has done a hell of a lot more damage to this country and the rights of its citizens than it has helped. Be careful what you ask for!

 

[Dave P]

Then you are totally unaware of American history. ... why we do not have sweatshops ... why we do not have slavery.


Reminds me of the turp-tine camps in Florida at that time --- talk about a tough job, and no rights for employees!

 

[STAGE 2]

Workers, often women and children, forced to work long hours in poor conditions or face starvation is hardly "making a choice." Again, with the new Florida law, the employers are treating workers poorly and are apparently unable to do what is right- so government steps in to protect the rights of those who cannot protect their own- which is the purpose of government in the first place.

Seriously? You are going to argue slavery to support your point? Not being able to have a gun NOT on your person, but in your car is tantamount to slavery and losing extremities in unsafe machinery? Please. Thats just pathetic. Having a safe working environment has nothing to do with your right to carry a firearm. Involuntary servitude has nothing to do with carrying a firearm. BOTH of these things are directly related to the nature of a business. 99% of all regulations on businesses are either related to the nature of the business, or deal with health in the case of food service. Leaving a gun in your car has nothing to do with the nature of the business.

But once again, you've proven my point. We no longer have situations like the 1930's where people are forced to work in crappy conditions. People are no longer faced with the choice of "work or starve". There are so many different employment opportunities its ridiculous.

So people are perfectly capable to protect their rights by taking their business or their skills elsewhere.

 

[divemedic]

No, but you keep claiming that employer rights are absolute. I keep proving to you that they are not. From there, it is a difference of degree.

 

[STAGE 2]

No, but you keep claiming that employer rights are absolute. I keep proving to you that they are not. From there, it is a difference of degree.

Really? Where on earth did I say that?

 

[longcoldwinter]

The thing that grinds my gears is the instances where the employer claims you cant even carry your gun in your car to and from work if your parked in there parking lot. And no its not always a option to park in a public street. Michigan law with reguards to "gun free zones" specifically exempt parking lots from the no gun rules for a reason. When you start prohibiting guns from parking lots you pretty much make CCL usless.

 

[Garand Illusion]

So I ignored this thread for several days, and now I wish I'd kept my strength and stayed away.

So 3 more days of the same arguments. Why bother? It doesn't matter how many ways you PROVE to the highest count poster that he is basing all of his arguments on a FANTASY of what property rights and the law are.

It doesn't matter how many hundreds of different ways you prove to him that throughout the history of the US, but most particularly since the civil war and in the 20th century, governments have retained control over both private property and the employment contract with NONE of the limits he wants to believe in. And there's no reason to believe the courts won't continue to allow it.

He will still repeat the same old argument and demand that you accept it though he cannot counter any of your logical/legal/legal precedent arguments. When possible he'll split your arguments up and mock them, and you, out of context, and arrogantly pretend that means something.

The bottom line is that the government (and no poster has to accept this, but it IS the law), as elected representatives of the people, can, at its discretion, pass laws the affect and control and inhibit both a property owner's rights and an employers contract with his employees. And there is no problem with constitutional or other law.

There's no more simple logic ... if the government can control hiring practices based on the candidates appearance, enforce rules on what kind of access to a property is allowed, enforce rules on worker safety, etc., it CAN enforce a law on guns in parking lots. Period.

That's quite simply beyond argument, no matter what the Brady Campaign and certain people on this board like to fantasize about.

And just to show the level of argument from this most common of posters ...

Even if I truly don't understand this (and I do), I'm not lying. I'm not being dishonest.

Yes you are. I explained this to you already and you are still spouting the same junk about how property rights are irrelevant.

ROFLMAO!!!

So the reason he is calling me a dishonest liar is because I DARED to disbelieve him! Even though I'd just provided information from a SCOTUS case that proved that "property rights" are subject to local laws.

Well ... my sainted Grandmother always used to say that "A man who repeats a fool is twice a fool." I just didn't want to be twice a fool.

Now I'm sure there will be more replies, but all of them will just shrilly repeat the hundred times over disproved "but property rights are absolute" whine.

Sorry about that ... but it's a fact. Right or wrong, private property owners (at least running businesses) are on the bottom of the pecking order. They can be taxed, told to add in ADA access, forced to change landscape, provide for fire department access, etc. And likewise they can be forced to allow guns in locked cars on their parking lot.

But why keep this up? The Oklahoma law is still up for review (on OSHA rights, not property rights -- the latter wouldn't have lasted 10 minutes in court) and hopefully the Florida law will pass and not be knocked out by the OSHA ruling.

 

[Garand Illusion]

BTW -- for those of you who just plain think this law is wrong, I do understand and respect that opinion. It's not an opinion I agree with, but one I respect.

But there's no point arguing that there is a legal problem with his; 200 years of legal precedent and the SCOTUS case mentioned absolutely disprove this.

Perhaps there SHOULD be a law against it, and property rights and the employer/employee conract SHOULD be honored to that point; but to date neither of those conditions is true.

 

[STAGE 2]

It doesn't matter how many hundreds of different ways you prove to him that throughout the history of the US, but most particularly since the civil war and in the 20th century, governments have retained control over both private property and the employment contract with NONE of the limits he wants to believe in. And there's no reason to believe the courts won't continue to allow it.

Hundreds huh? You know the funny thing is that in your entire post, you didn't bother to cite to ANYTHING. The same applies to your argument about precedent. There are countless businesses across the US that prevent their employees from having firearms on their property, parking lot or otherwise. Show me a single court decision that says the employers don't have the right to do this. Just one.

But there's no point arguing that there is a legal problem with his; 200 years of legal precedent and the SCOTUS case mentioned absolutely disprove this.

Ok, so cite me the case where scotus disproves this. Pruneyard doesn't. The other case doesn't. In both of those cases the court clearly states that because a business is open to the public does not mean it waives its FEDERALLY PROTECTED property rights.

If there is all this legal precedent, and scotus is clear on this issue (firearms) then lets see it. Don't continue your rant, don't give me anything vague. Please don't re-insert your foot in your mouth and tell me that if its not in the constitution then its not a right.

Simply cite me the case that supports what you are saying.

But why keep this up? The Oklahoma law is still up for review (on OSHA rights, not property rights -- the latter wouldn't have lasted 10 minutes in court) and hopefully the Florida law will pass and not be knocked out by the OSHA ruling.

This is now the 3rd time I've asked you this. Was the law challenged on property rights, or just on OSHA grounds. Once again, you assume that this issue was even raised. Show me where the court discussed the issue of property rights and said that it wasn't relevant. Show me where it "wouldn't have lasted 10 minutes". If the court wasn't presented with this issue then you can't say that property rights aren't valid. Just more dishonesty

So the reason he is calling me a dishonest liar is because I DARED to disbelieve him! Even though I'd just provided information from a SCOTUS case that proved that "property rights" are subject to local laws.

This is what I'm talking about. Pruneyard had nothing to do with local laws. Just more dishonesty. If you can't even read a single case properly, why do you expect me to take your legal surmises seriously.

 

[gc70]

Show me where the court discussed the issue of property rights and said that it wasn't relevant. Show me where it "wouldn't have lasted 10 minutes".

From the decision in the Oklahoma case (pages 17-18)

D. Plaintiffs’ Claims and Court’s Conclusions

Plaintiffs offer three constitutional bases for their request for permanent declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting enforcement of the Amendments. (See Br. in Support of Request for Perm. Inj. and Declaratory Relief 7-18.) First, Plaintiffs argue the Amendments result in an unconstitutional deprivation of private property interests. Plaintiffs’ argument related to their property rights takes two forms: (a) Plaintiffs allege an unconstitutional “taking” of private property in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 2, Section 24 of the Oklahoma Constitution (“Takings Clause challenge”); and (b) Plaintiffs allege an unconstitutional deprivation of their “fundamental right” to exclude others from private property, in violation of the substantive component of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 2, Section 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution (“Substantive Due Process Clause challenge”). Second, Plaintiffs argue the Amendments are unconstitutionally vague, in violation of the procedural Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (“vagueness challenge”).22 Third, Plaintiffs argue the Amendments are preempted by various federal statutes in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution (“Supremacy Clause challenge”).

The Court grants in part and denies in part the motions for permanent injunction. In summary, the Court concludes: (1) the Amendments do not result in an unconstitutional taking of Plaintiffs’ private property rights or an unconstitutional deprivation of a “fundamental right”; (2) Plaintiffs lack standing to assert a facial vagueness challenge; and (3) the Amendments are preempted as in conflict with the OSH Act. The Court enjoins enforcement of the challenged laws against Plaintiffs and all employers subject to the OSH Act.

Any more questions?

 

[Garand Illusion]

Awesome post!

Although once again I have been proven a liar and not credible ... because it probably did take more than 10 minutes to type up the decision that the Oklahoma law is NOT a violation of property rights. I was wrong on the amount of time such an argument would survive, though not on whether it would prevail.

I also really like this part, very clear as to what their finding is:

Under the current Supreme Court framework, the Amendments do not effect an unconstitutional taking of Plaintiffs’ property without just compensation. Nor do the Amendments effect an unconstitutional deprivation of a “fundamental right,” as that term is used for purposes of a substantive due process analysis. Therefore, the Amendments are subject only to rational basis review. Although it is a close question, the Court cannot conclude the Amendments are wholly arbitrary or irrational methods of promoting safety and deterring crime. It is not this Court’s province to invalidate state law because the Court disagrees with the Legislature’s chosen method of achieving its objectives

Between the Pruneyard citation and this direct citation the legal standing is pretty clear. Especially when you include as precedent all the other laws that have withstood constititional challenge.

Good Stuff! Thanks!

 

[STAGE 2]

Any more questions?

Yes. did you read the case?

Between the Pruneyard citation and this direct citation the legal standing is pretty clear. Especially when you include as precedent all the other laws that have withstood constititional challenge.

Same question to you. Did you read the case? I'll hit some of the highlights for you.


As the court states, the Penn-Central inquiry is the test used to determine whether this law is valid. The factors are...

the character of the governmental intrusion, the degree of the interference with the reasonable, investment backed expectations of the property owner, and the economic impact of the action

All your assertions that property owners "don't have rights" go to the first factor. Thus, if you are correct, the court should find this factor deficient. Lets talk a look shall we.

The court starts out by saying...

There are five specific characteristics of the governmental intrusion in this case that are unique, and in the courts view, result in a severe deprivation of property rights.

Uh oh. That doesn't look good. The court states that the law is a..

direct and serious deprivation of the right to exlude which as explained above, is the most treasured and fundamental of all property interests

That sure doesn't sound like "no property rights" to me. Then the court talks about your favorite case, Pruneyard...

Regardless of ones view of the importance of the right to bear arms, it cannot be disputed that forcing a property owner to allow loaded and unloaded firearms on his property is more onerous than allowing the peaceful distribution of leaflets on his property.... The court finds the character of the governmental intrusion distinguishable from that at issue in Pruneyard because in Pruneyard, the physical invasion involved first amendment expression that posed no danger to the shopping center or its patrons.

So lets see. You just said that Pruneyard is authoritative on this issue. Again I ask you, did you bother to read the case? Clearly not.

The court continues...

Plaintiffs liberty interest in excluding firearms from their business premises is significantly more compelling than liberty interests in excluding activities percieved by the land owner to cause a thread to safety

Yup, Pruneyard sure is controlling No property rights here.

In sum, the court finds that the "character of the governmental intrusion to be severe because the law eliminates Plaintiff's right to exclude percieved danger from their corporate property.

First factor in favor of property owners. That pretty much destroys all of your assertions regarding the rights of property owners. But lets keep going.


The next two factors are economic factors. This is what lost the argument for the plaintiffs. NOT that they didn't have any property rights. And here's why.

In this case the plaintiffs have not made ANY allegations OR presented ANY evidence of economic harm.

There you have it. The plaintiffs did not have a losing argument, they didn't present one. They gave NO evidence of economic harm. Had they done so, they would have won the case. The court explicitly says this in footnote 42 when they say...

Although plaintiffs have not done so in this case, other business or property owners may be able to show that forced entry of firearms onto their property causes economic harm

They then cite to workplace violence studies. This right here is the court saying "if you would have done this you would have won, so in the future, anyone else who sues, use this info for this factor."

Thats why the court has such a hard time making this ruling...

It does not seem logical that a state can force a property owner to allow the invasion of firearms onto his property... This court however must interpret the law as it exists and does not find suport for the proposition that the law is a regulatory taking under any of the possible theories

In other words, because you guys dropped the ball and didn't give us ANYTHING to work with for the economic prong, we can't help you becasue that would be changing the law. And thats why they ding the gun owners with OSHA. Different analysis, but the same result.


Bottom line, this case is COMPLETELY SUPPORTIVE of everything I've been saying. EVERYTHING regarding property rights was decided in the favor of the property owner. Had they presented even a meager amount of evidence regarding economic impact they would have won. Thats why similar laws in California, Utah, Texas, Montanta, Missouri, Indiani, Georgia, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana and Indiana have been rejected. Precedent my rear.

You would have probably known this had you read the case. You didn't. Thats why I've been waiting for someone to bring it up. You holding this up as an example of how property owners have no rights is dishonest because 1) its not true and the court blatantly said that and 2) you didn't even bother to read the case. Thus you were making statements without any knowledge of their truth.

Thanks for playing.

 

[gc70]

EVERYTHING regarding property rights was decided in the favor of the property owner.

I know it is inconvenient for your argument, STAGE2, but I am not blind:

the Court concludes: (1) the Amendments do not result in an unconstitutional taking of Plaintiffs’ private property rights or an unconstitutional deprivation of a “fundamental right”

I will leave it to anyone else who cares to argue whether NO really means YES.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

So 3 more days of the same arguments. Why bother?

Some people think if they say the same thing enough times and with conviction, people will think it is the truth. I tend to think it is more like wrestling with pigs....


One would think the SCOTUS rulings on eminent domain would show the courts don't think squat of private property rights.