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

NJgunowner said:
My property, My rules.
Click to expand...

That is simply not true there are more legal restrictions concerning what "rules" you can make on your property than I can post here. So, I don't think you have ended the argument but I would recommend you read through the thread that has probably run it's course and you can judge those other arguments. They are interesting.
 
Last edited:
I think good arguments can be made on both sides. I just feel that my right to effective self defense does not end simply because I am on your property, any more than my being on your property forces me to allow you to punch me in the nose.

Sure, it is your property, but no one says that you had to open it to the public. Wanna make rules concerning my right to self defense? Fine, then don't open it to the public, same as with fire codes, the ADA, and a host of other laws.
 
My property, My rules.
Click to expand...

Well, when the property is on fire - why do the taxes from the general public pay to put out the fire? If it is your property please hire a private contractor to put out the fire.

Same with crime - why should the general public pay for police to come to your private property? Protect it yourself.

Businesses are subject to an enormous number of rules. Roaches in the buffet - you are shut down.

My roaches - my rules - don't eat here!!

IMHO - when you open for business and employ people (as compared to your home) - you are subject to regulation for the public good.

Thus, while legalities may vary - I find you immoral to a greater standard than the venial interests of liability if you deny your employees and/or customers the reasonable ability to defend themselves. Employers should have no ability to regulate behavior of employees that are not specific and job related - for example - no naked chefs for health reasons.

Don't go into business - move to an island - raise your own food - if you truly think you are not part of the public body.

The issue on racial discrimination and protected classes is relevant. We have forbidden such discrimination - if you are in favor of the ability to discriminate then, frankly I have little use for you and most theoretical arguments for that ability are simply sophistry and hypocritical cover for bigotry. Similarly, if protecting yourself is fundamental to you - as is race, then it should not be banned except for very specific technical reasons (such as no guns by the MRI).

Remember that the property rights argument has two forks. On lists like this - the proponents of property rights get all huffy about their castle in some kind of biological pee on the fire hydrant mantra of terrority protection. However, the companies that use it don't give a crap about rights - they are only about their perceived liability and monetary gains. They will screw employees for any gain they can get, youwould have no rights with them - if they could get away with it. They would employ 12 year olds for 16 hours a day and feed them gin at night for a profit. But we stopped that - wait - my property, my rules - why can't I use child labour?
 
Glen- That is what I mean. Many of the "my property, my rules" people see no problem with forming a corporation to avoid liability when things happen on their property.

When rules come that they don't like, it is "my property, my rules"

When a lawsuit (or the tax man) comes, it becomes "the corporation's property" and they hide from liability- government interference when convenient. Morally bankrupt.
 
Ok, let me shoot you down since I'm bored.

Firemen spend more time trying to PREVENT the fire at your home from spreading to others property than anything. Putting it out is just a convenient side effect. Also, since I PAY taxes that go to those firemen, then I have every right to expect them to do their job.

Police, same thing. I pay taxes that pay their salary. In a sence, I am their employer(never tell a cop that unless you like tickets :D ). Btw, police RARELY prevent crimes, they just pickup the pieces after the fact.

Rules that businesses run under from the gov are...
A) to protect consumers
b) to prevent fraud
c) to insure that taxes get paid

The government was founded to provide freedom, liberty, and protection to ALL our citizens. Part that is to feel safe in our homes or places of business, how we do that is up to us. Your right to carry doesn't include making people afraid in their own home or company, just as they have no right to tell you what you can do when your not on their property. If you want to carry at work get hired at gun shop or start your own business.

You want your rights to supersede everyone else's right to feel safe in their homes and businesses.

Your failure to find employment that will let you CC is your problem not mine. I could careless if you wanted to bring a gun to my place, I grew up with them and they don't scare me. But I wouldn't bring my gun to a friends house if I knew it made them nervous OUT OF RESPECT.
 
Firemen spend more time trying to PREVENT the fire at your home from spreading to others property than anything.
Click to expand...

As a 20+ year firefighter, I cannot begin to tell you just how wrong you are.

Your right to carry doesn't include making people afraid in their own home or company, just as they have no right to tell you what you can do when your not on their property.
Click to expand...

I have looked at my entire COTUS and cannot find the part where you are guaranteed to never be afraid.

But I wouldn't bring my gun to a friends house if I knew it made them nervous OUT OF RESPECT.
Click to expand...

We are talking about a business open to the public, not homes. You property people can't seem to tell the difference. Plus, when my wife is raped in your business' parking lot, and I could do nothing to stop it because your policies disarmed me, are you going to pay us out of respect, or are you going to hide behind the law and your lawyer? If the answer is "hide," then this noise you are all making about "respect" and "property rights" is nothing more than a smoke screen desinged to hide the fact that this is about profits- you are placing your profits ahead of my right to defend my life.

If you are that afraid, then DON'T OPEN YOUR PROPERTY TO THE PUBLIC.
 
I specifically excluded the home as it is not thrown open to the public, so that shot missed. Pay attention.

Your taxes do not pay for the entire police force, the armed forces, the fire department or all other protective services. You are a miniscule part of that total figure. Thus, the will of the other members of the body politic outweigh the claim that you are the sole employer.

Thus, a law passed by the legislators who were elected by more than you can short circuit your view of your ability to abridge rights if you want to be open to the public. That's why we are trying to have laws that control the abuses of employers.

As far as being scared of me exercising my rights as a CCW type - well - that's an interesting take. I'm from a group that has one of the lowest predicted crime/risk rates. So what are you scared of?

One could easily make that argument that minorities scare you or offend you and thus you should be able to discriminate - even though those policies have made life Hell for those folks. Thus, we don't allow you to be open to the public, get protected by the larger body of tax payers and indulge your prejudice in serving customers or hiring.

Folks of Color couldn't walk in certain neighbors as it scared folk.

OH - rules of government are to protect folks - isn't that what carrying is about - protection.

Thus, I see nothing in the post that shoots down the fundamental argument. It is just another castle rant based on some terrority violation.

they have no right to tell you what you can do when your not on their property.
Click to expand...

Ok - let's do this - Here comes the school bus down your street. You and your partner - be it opposite sex or same sex - make love on the front lawn in front the grade school drop off. It's your property.

To conclude, it wasn't that long ago that my family could not get jobs based on their religion or couldn't go to certain schools. I regard carrying as fundamental as the right to your religion or not to be discriminated against on the basis of race.

Stay in your home - don't do business with the public. Banning guns doesn't promote safety, so we should we support idiotic arguments in this debate. Being spooked by the idea of guns reads like the editorial page of the NY Times - guns in the parks, carry of guns - horrors - blood in my store!!
 
Guns on employer property

IMHO, framing the debate as a property rights issue is simply wrong. It is a contract, pure and simple. After all, these businesses' policies do not extend to customers or delivery personnel (except for certain industries and government-related jobs). The businesses' ability to enforce gun possession provisions against their employees rests solely in the employment agreement. I don't like their policies, as I think they are wrong-headed, but the fact is that if I don't like the policies, I don't have to work there.

In exchange for employment and all that goes along with it, like pay, benefits, etc., the employee agrees to follow the company's policies.
 
The businesses' ability to enforce gun possession provisions against their employees rests solely in the employment agreement. I don't like their policies, as I think they are wrong-headed, but the fact is that if I don't like the policies, I don't have to work there.

In exchange for employment and all that goes along with it, like pay, benefits, etc., the employee agrees to follow the company's policies.
Click to expand...

That doesn't carry water, either. If that were the case, I could have a company policy that is a part of the employment agreement that says you don't get time and a half for overtime, or that you agree to work for free on thursday, or perhaps that all female employees are required to have sex with the manager. Obviously, the government has the power to regulate business behavior, and to require that employment contracts cannot be unconscionable. Or are you trying to say that sweatshops were a good thing?
 
Man! Glen and divemedic YOU GO! Great discussion.

Let me throw in my $.02 about the contract deal that jamullinstx brought up.

As mentioned by divemedic there is an implied morality as well regarding any work rule. Telling an employee that they cannot carry in a dangerous work environment and then refusing to provide reasonable protection from such danger simply to keep your profit high and your insurance low is immoral. So, the employee has no obligation to obey such an immoral rule and can honestly disregard it.

I will use a non-gun example. I had a buddy who sold mortgages. His company wanted to make a quick buck off getting people into mortgages they could not afford, refinancing them, sometimes more than once in a years time, and then passing them off to FANNIE MAE and company while collecting hefty commissions.

Perfectly legal and in fact the salespeople were directed to do it. My friend chose not to and only sold mortgages to those who he knew could afford them. He disregarded the work rule as he believed it to be wrong but said nothing. He did not make as much money as his peers but he can look himself in the mirror as all his clients still have their homes. Of course his friends who scammed the system can too and that is the real shame.:mad:
 
I work for a large finance/legal company that all of you have heard of, based in San Diego, CA. Somehow, remarkably, our 400 page employee manual does not have a weapons policy. It has a harrassment and anti-violence policy, but weapons of any kind are not mentioned.

I carry to work every day. Nobody knows, not even the coworkers I regularly go to the range with.

-SS
 
The contract issue revolves around what should be part of a moral contract between employer and employee.

My father had to register for a political party not of his chosing back during the Depression days to keep his job. So to lose a job during the Depression (or today) is a touch more exciting than saying don't work for someone during good times and get another job.

A basic moral principle should be that an employer has no right to set policies and behaviors for employees that are not directly and technically job related. Those who postulate that the employer is divine monarch over his or employees don't get it.

Also, to return to the business of being frightened, it occurred to me yesterday that the issue of fear and bans was a specific strategy promoted by the Brady Bunch and other antigun groups to make concealed carry as difficult as possible. Thus it would become useless due to restricitons.

Church bans, restaurant bans, movie bans, theme park bans, etc. were all base on fear and blood in the streets hysteria. It would make carry so difficult that no one would bother with it.

Thus, my property, my rules folks are dupes of this strategy. Fear, fear - so why have concealed carry at all. I chose not to buy into this plan of the antigunners.

Fear is an interesting issue - why an AWB - fear, fear - despite evidence that the AWB is not differentially effective in preventing violent crime. There is no evidence that CCW has increased the risk to property owners - thus pandering to their infantile fears is not a noble protection of rights.

Go protest that the government makes you have toilets in your restaurant and have employees wash their hands. See if you can get an organization started that ends up being as large and succesful as the NRA.
 
Interesting...

I have looked at my entire COTUS and cannot find the part where you are guaranteed to never be afraid.
Click to expand...

Boy does that open a slippery slope that I'm afraid no one would be pleased about. I think I'll go to the movie theater later and be loud and annoying then head over to the public library and break out in song. When I'm done, I'll head over for some fine dining where I'll eat face down like a piggy. I believe I can finish up with a Trip to Chucky Cheese for some generally unacceptable behavior for the kids then I'll be exhausted...so I should jump on a plane for a belching contest and some well deserved rest.

After all, it is all about me, my feelings, my liberty and my rights. [sic] everyone else right?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A basic moral principle should be that an employer has no right to set policies and behaviors for employees that are not directly and technically job related.
Click to expand...


Glad we can get back to the good old days of sexual harassment. :D
 
YodaMage said:
Boy does that open a slippery slope that I'm afraid no one would be pleased about.
Click to expand...

Yoda, you sure do like that "slippery slope" fallacy. Let me post for you again from wiki the reason that idea doesn't work.

The heart of the slippery slope fallacy lies in abusing the intuitively appreciable transitivity of implication, claiming that A lead to B, B leads to C, C leads to D and so on, until one finally claims that A leads to Z. While this is formally valid when the premises are taken as a given, each of those contingencies needs to be factually established before the relevant conclusion can be drawn. Slippery slope fallacies occur when this is not done — an argument that supports the relevant premises is not fallacious and thus isn't a slippery slope fallacy.
Click to expand...

Here is the link for more study: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

OR

If you don't like wiki try this one: http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/slippery.htm
 
I think I'll go to the movie theater later and be loud and annoying then head over to the public library and break out in song. When I'm done, I'll head over for some fine dining where I'll eat face down like a piggy. I believe I can finish up with a Trip to Chucky Cheese for some generally unacceptable behavior for the kids then I'll be exhausted.
Click to expand...

Explain to me how this is comparable. Each of the above behaviors directly impacts the business by annoying the customers. How can you compare that to me carrying a concealed weapon, which not one person will know I have?

Comparing breaking out in song to the First Amendment is like comparing me holding a bowling pin match in the library to the Second Amendment. I am not saying I have the right to USE a gun (except self defense) anymore than I am saying you can't have a Bible in your pocket.
 
Annoying customers...scaring customers...customers uncomfortable with firearms in the building....all kind of the same thing to me.

Do I have an issue, no. But will I respect the opinions, feelings and such of others? Yes. Do I care if the guy next to me at the mall bends over and flashes a 9 at me? Nope...I could care less. On the same note do I respect the right of a place of business to set standards based on the feeling of their other patrons, employees, etc and enforce them? Yes.

Left out of this entire discussion, which has been 'boss man' vs employee is the rest of the people involved. Other employees. If I carried at work and a co-worker or two were uncomfortable and I knew it I'd stop regardless of work rules and the boss. Why? Because I respect others and their rights and feelings. Just me I guess...
 
Contract argument

divemedic,

Every example of your policy-based discrimination is forbidden by government statute. Banning employee firearms possession is NOT. Firearms owners/carriers are not members of a protected class. Accepting many of these statutorial prohibitions is the price paid for liability limitations for LLCs, Inc's, etc.

As to those that say banning employee firearms possession is not job related, you're right. But it is business related. 99.9% of these policies are simply because of litigation avoidance. I think it is completely bogus because I've yet to see any valid actuarial studies that compare the likelihood of adverse financial consequences to businesses that do not prohibit firearms to those that do prohibit them. I've been looking for many years, haven't seen them, thus have concluded that they do not exist. However, insurance companies and corporate attorneys have convinced themselves to be on one side of the argument (with help from lobbyists like the Brady Campaign). Nonetheless, the issue affects a business' ability to carry liability insurance.

I think the stronger argument against firearms possession prohibitions is that it is simply too important a right to allow a private entity to limit. Framing it as a property rights issue only invites debate whenever some other right arises and property owners wish to limit its exercise on their property.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top