Ha! My employer just modified company policy to disallow firearms on the premises...

Cost of doing business?
Click to expand...

Cost/risk of being employed?

That's why we have commercial insurance.
Click to expand...

Not even close there...make sure to read the linked article.

http://www.insurancecoverageblog.com/archives/industry-developments-when-is-rogue-employee-conduct-covered-course-and-scope-of-employment-decisions.html

Not if it's on the lives of the employee by denying them SD to save you some $. Then it is wrong.
Click to expand...

This is a statement filled with ambiguity. First, in most cases it is acceptable to substitute 'security' or 'protection' with SD. If you have decided that SD is the ONLY acceptable security, then stop reading here as we will never agree and anything else is a waste. If security is the point, then I agree that the employer must provide an acceptable level of security or putting $ above such may be considered immoral. That said...there is an interpretive level at play there too... commonly accepted security? Industry/area standard security?

There are some that would believe AK's and anti-aircraft batteries are a minimum.

I'm not sure that it furthers a productive cause to arbitrarily play an 'immoral' card when some one stands in the way of 'what I want to do'. It becomes not unlike an overplayed 'race' card.
 
Originally Posted by YodaMage
The employer who holds liability for what does and may occur on their property or actions taken by their employees?
Click to expand...

TG replied...
Cost of doing business?
Click to expand...

Good Point TG!!! So not carrying as mandated by the employer is nothing more than a cost of employment. Everyone has costs. Who wants to pay them? That is what we are talking about, isn't it? Should the employer have to endure the extra costs of liability of an armed employee? Of course not. Unless otherwise mandated by law, the employer should not have to endure such unwanted costs, if they are in fact, unwanted, as they are with some employers.

I know, I know. Gun board many people think that every gun toting person is a level-headed, even-tempered good guy with 100% absolutely safe gun handling practices who meticulously conceal carry where absolutely nobody knows it and are absolutely great shooters and hence it would have ZERO impact in the workplace if they carried unless something bad happened and then that employee would be the one to save the day because s/he was armed and so we perceive that being armed somehow means being able to respond with 100% correctness.

Yes, I am generalizing, but what I stated above aren't themes foreign to TFL.

Then we have all seen the threads where people shoot themselves negligently, shoot their friends, shoot other employees, leave their guns in the bathrooms, get mad and whip out their guns to show how powerful they are, etc. The general consensus is that we give those people various titles such as moron, idiot, naive, etc. and none of us really want those people working for us or next to us because we don't consider them appropriately safe or stable. THOSE are the people businesses worry about.
 
TG said:
Now THAT makes a whole lot of sense! But at least we will starve with honor right? Geez!
Click to expand...

As opposed to breaking the law with honor? ;-)

We have the right to fail, which is my point. The right to pursue happiness (not a guarantee to get it), the right to start a business and go bankrupt, the right to break a law and face the consequences, the right to work as hard as we want and keep the fruits of our labor, or the right to **** it all away and have nothing.

I am not forced to conform and use a grocery store (or restaurant) for food. I can grow my own if I get off my butt and work for it. I am not forced to pay for electricity unless I choose to use it. I am not forced to live in the city, or in the boondocks.

If it is important enough to me then I will get it done. If that means working my tail off for a garden, so be it. It is easier (at this time) to go to a grocery store. But it is still my responsibility to get food. Just as it is my responsibility for anything, and accept the results of those choices.

Do you think you have the right to free speech on this board? You do not, unless you own it :-) You do, however, have the right to start your own board and exercise free speech. Why? Property rights! They are the very essence of a free society, the root and foundation.

Government and employers are not here to take care of me, that is my job.

Private property was the original source of freedom. It still is its main bulwark. –Walter Lippmann 1937

Property is the fruit of labor. Property is desirable, is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently to build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence. – Abraham Lincoln

The program of [classical] liberalism, condensed into a single word, would have to read: property. – Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973), Austrian Economist and Author

The system of private property is the most important guaranty of freedom, not only for those who own property, but scarcely less for those who do not. – Friedrich A. Hayek, in "The Road to Serfdom"
 
Now if i were in my "4X" and some one was shooting at me, I would drive it on ANY private property that would aid me in either escape or if needed, to use the 8 inch pipe bumper as a lethal weapon to stop the threat to my life!
I will buy new sod if the property didn't belong to the shooter!:D
Brent
 
zxcvbob said:
When you choose to break a rule (or law) for a higher good you also choose to accept the consequences. That's one of the tenets of civil disobedience.
Click to expand...

You will note that nowhere have I asserted differently. We are all grown-ups here (I hope!) and just as there are consequences of not carrying and therefore risking death or injury in a dangerous job/situation in order to obey the unfair rules there are consequences in following the higher law disobeying the immoral rules and suffering for that as well. That is the crux of the moral dilemma, which consequence do you choose.

YodaMage said:
Cost/risk of being employed?
Click to expand...

More like, the cost of obeying an immoral work rule. That is a personal choice and I will not judge the act to either to obey or disobey. One may chose to be wronged if they so desire.

YodaMage said:
Not even close there...make sure to read the linked article.
Click to expand...

Yoda, you should know that I sold Commercial P&C Insurance for 4 years. The article has no bearing on this discussion. I never sold a policy that excluded liability for allowing employees to legally CCW therefore they would cover such suits. And I sold them for the biggest companies. Now the lawyers and the risk managers would advise the companies to not allow it to reduce potential law suits but apart from things like OSHA these companies had zero obligation to protect employees from crime since the law here in TN says crime is "unforeseeable".

YodaMage said:
This is a statement filled with ambiguity. First, in most cases it is acceptable to substitute 'security' or 'protection' with SD. If you have decided that SD is the ONLY acceptable security, then stop reading here as we will never agree and anything else is a waste.
Click to expand...

Like many of my statements it is a one that lends itself to negotiation. I agree and did in a post earlier that businesses may take reasonable steps (beyond OHSA) to protect their employees that would make the work rule moral. As my position has been consistent it is when the employer refuse to do it (in order to make more money) and then deny that right to the employee that it may be morally permissable to disregard such a rule. There are lots of ways to make it safer for employees. I have seen bullet proof protection in conveience stores in high crime areas and some pizza companies that won't deliver to certain parts of town as examples. I have also seen companies that prohibit CCW but will spend next to nothing for crime protection for their employees as well. As also stated before this is part of the criteria one should use when deciding whether to obey the rule or not. If morality decisions were always so certain then we would have one religion no need for law and no discussion here for sure.

Double Naught Spy said:
Should the employer have to endure the extra costs of liability of an armed employee?
Click to expand...

Should an employee obey an immoral and unfair work rule and endure the loss of his life or health to protect the bottomline of a souless company? Of course not!

Double Naught Spy said:
THOSE are the people businesses worry about.
Click to expand...

And those are the poeple who will make no moral evaluation of the rule and carry anyway. So, no protection there.

skeezix said:
As opposed to breaking the law with honor?
Click to expand...

No, it's breaking the law and living. Which makes my point of the silliness of obeying a rule without considering the moral implications. Does "I was just following orders!" ring a bell?

As to the rest of your post. Fine and dandy in the intellectual sense but hardly real. Theoretical alternatives like living on a farm and raising your own food may sound nice but most can not do such. Sure, there is always an alternative and one of those alternatives would be to disregard an unfair immoral work rule and protect yourself as the Pizza Hut delivery men did. They were fired (and I don't patronize that business anymore) but I hesitate to stand in judgment over their act to protect their own lives and in fact applaud them for having the courage to do what turned out to be the right thing.
 
Last edited:
Your Employer must have Probable Cause to Search your Auto. In Effect they would have to have a Warrant. Your Car is just like your Home and you have the right to say NO. However they will find a way to REMOVE you from their Employment if you deny them access. But I would call my Lawyer when Asked and let them know where I Stood. However they can If so stated in Company Policy that random checks will be made to include vehicle searches , You don't have any recourse but to comply or find employment elsewhere. :rolleyes:
 
What about the Florida law which protects the employee from an intrusive employer while protecting employer from liability?

Are you people trying to say that an employer has the right to prohibit employees from wearing or possessing underpants?

You claim that you want a business to have plenipotentiary powers to regulate what happens on that property without interference, yet the fact that you invited government interference when it was in your favor to do so (when you formed a corporation to dodge liability) is different somehow.

This right to control your property does not and has not ever existed. Fire codes, building codes, the ADA, rights of way, and other business regulations have proven that.
 
But am I allowed to wear low rise pink cotton bikini panties? And are my high thigh satin or spandex panties allowed so long as I keep my shirt tucked in? And what if the waist band "PRINTS"?
Brent
 
Look, the government can decide exactly what you can and cannot do on your property. That has been true since the country was founded. Therefore, there is no absolute right to make any rule that you wish on your property. Building codes, fire codes, the ADA, etc. are all proof of this. The only thing left is to settle the question of where the limits on that regulation are. That limit is found in the takings clause of the 5A, which provides that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. The Takings Clause does not prohibit the taking of private property, but instead places a condition on the exercise of that power. It is designed not to limit the governmental interference with property rights per se, but rather to secure compensation in the event of otherwise proper interference amounting to a taking.

What is a taking? A taking is a direct government appropriation of private property. In addition to outright appropriation of property, the government may effect a taking through a regulation, if that regulation is so onerous that its effect is tantamount to a direct appropriation. This is known as "regulatory taking". see Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005). In Lingle, the Supreme Court provided a framework for addressing regulatory takings. First, a court must determine if the regulation results in one of three types of "per se" regulatory takings. These occur (1) where a regulation requires an owner to suffer a "permanent physical invasion" of the property; or (2) where a regulation completely deprives an owner of "all economically beneficial uses" of the property; or (3) a government demands that a landowner dedicate an easement allowing public access to her property as a condition of obtaining a development permit.

A law which prohibits a property owner from excluding CCW holders does not fit any of those definitions. Therefore, such a law would not be a taking under the 5A, and would not be unconstitutional.


Divemedic, what is your stance on affirmative action out of curiosity?
Click to expand...

Affirmative action is discrimination. Discrimination is wrong. Using force to deprive a person of their civil rights should be illegal. Economic force is still force.
 
Last edited:
So to be clear, the government SHOULD be able to mandate by law what a business property owner can and cannot do but the government should not be allowed to mandate what a business owner can and cannot do?



Got it.
 
No. You are confusing two different questions.

The first question is about whether or not a law that prohibits a business owner from taking action against a person who has a concealed weapon violates the COTUS. The answer is no, as the only way such a law would be unconstitutional is through the Takings clause of the 5A, and this law does not violate the 5A, as that law is not onerous enough to constitute a taking.

The second question, a red herring, was whether or not Affirmative Action is constitutional. Affirmative Action mandates that a business must favor certain minorities over others, to right perceived historical wrongs. That is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14A, which mandates that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Obviously when you favor one race over another as a part of affirmative action, you are not giving equal protection under the law.

Two different questions, two different Amendments, two different circumstances, all equaling two different answers.
 
Your Employer must have Probable Cause to Search your Auto. In Effect they would have to have a Warrant. Your Car is just like your Home and you have the right to say NO. However they will find a way to REMOVE you from their Employment if you deny them access. But I would call my Lawyer when Asked and let them know where I Stood. However they can If so stated in Company Policy that random checks will be made to include vehicle searches , You don't have any recourse but to comply or find employment elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Our employees give consent on their hire date to search upon request if it is on company property. Failure to give consent (either on hire date by refusing to sign the form, or at the time of a requested search) is failure to be employed. Funny how all that crap a new employee signs on day one dictates policy. Off property is out of bounds.

My employer does not do random checks. Theft suspicion, drug suspicion, weapons possession suspicion are all subject to possible search. We don't even do random drug tests for our drivers any more, but my employer does reserve the right. A supervisor found a bong at one work location. Every employee that worked at that location was subjected to a drug test. The company was not bound to narrow the search field (form signed on day one). I was subjected to a drug test after a worker's comp filing (form signed on day one). If I wanted treatment I had to get a test. Since I already received treatment by that time I would have been terminated if I failed to comply.
 
Parking lot counts towards company policy, so you cant leave your gun in your car.
Click to expand...
Under the NEW Az law, you can carry on Company property, just not in their building.

We can now carry in bars under the same NEW law. Yeehaw!!
 
Here's a different view for prespective....

Constitutional admendments are the law, the law states that individuals have these rights, to deney thos right, would't that be breaking the law? Kind of funny, the Bill of Rights are about the only laws that tell you what you can do, while all the rest tell you what you can't do, so people think it's ok to break those laws that say what people can do because people don't see them the same way.

Just because it's on private property doesn't mean it belongs to the owner of the property. They own the property, not nessasarly what is on it. Just beause I am on private property, does not mean they own me. Because they do not own me, they can not dictate my life nor tell me what to do. For instance, if the property owner's kidney failed, could they point to someone on thier property and have them ripped open and take that kidney because it was on thier property?

No matter what, that private property is on US territory, it is subject to the laws of the United States, and the constitutional laws are the biggest laws of them all, and those laws state you have rights, to deney those rights is to deney those laws, therefore breaking them.

It's an old "redneck" adage where someone thinks they can beat thier son and wife and rape thier daughter and then tell the law to go get bent because "this is my property I can do what I want", but that is so wrong because it does not permit that owner to break the law.

Bottom line:
If a law say's someone can't, and they do, the law was broken.
If a law say's someone can, and they are deneyed, the law was broken.
 
This is like the chicken and the egg, the argument that will never end.

I can end this in 2 seconds...

My property, My rules. You [people] keep saying that the law gives you the right to CC. This is true in those states with that law, and no one is disputing that. And in almost every state in the union the law says that property owners have the right deny CC on their premises. YOU then have the right to NOT go on my (or your employers) property if you don't wish to comply. That is the end of it, you argue all day but it is a dumb argument. It's MY choice to make the rules about my home, it is YOUR choice whether to you wish to comply or not enter. If you think you'll be killed in someones home or at work then don't go there.

This is just a retarded argument.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top