Whose rights are right?

As neither myself nor my children have a RIGHT to their property, they are not denying us our rights by not selling to us or allowing us on that property. Our rights end at their property line. Once we cross that line we are guests, invited or uninvited. And even if we have been invited, as the owners of that property, they have the right to rescind that invitation as they see fit.
Click to expand...

The courts, the constitution, and the law seem to say otherwise.
 
The issue for me is why should my employer be telling me what personal property I can have locked up in my car while I'm working. My employer has many anti-discrimination policies which we must abide by while we are at work, but why should it be any of their business if one of my co-workers has books advocating bigotry or CDs with sexist lyrics locked up in his car out of plain view? For me it's a privacy issue, they shouldn't concern themselves with what I have in my car as long as there is no reason to believe I'm commiting a crime against the company such as stealing from them.
 
Well, it's hoplophobia plain and simple. The employers don't want to upset their more timid employees with the fact that unknown coworkers have handguns either on their person or within relatively easy reach.
None of it makes any sense or is particularly rational, but what ya gonna do?
 
Spin on this all day but simply we lose more freedoms each year and in my opinion due to population growth it will get worse, remember the government need only say its for the good of the people but "people" it seems does not include those of wealth and power.
 
However, my right to own a hand gun does not trump the rights of those who for whatever reason do not care to have guns around.
Click to expand...
They have no "right" to not have guns around. If you believe that, you should turn in your CCW permit 'cuz I guarantee you everyday there's people you brush up against who don't like having guns around 'em.

Also FYI,
...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...
Click to expand...
-Declaration of Independence
 
I guess by your logic if a mom and pop store puts a sigh that says No women allowed or (Blacks, Libertarians,Homosexuals,Men,Conservatives,etc. etc.) that would be ok with you?
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be good for business but they have the right to refuse service to anyone. They don't have to give a reason.
 
Once someone has invited another onto their property, they must allow those persons to be prepared to defend themselves.
That is the point of the 2nd.
If a business owner does not want firearms in the premisis, then they shouldn't have opened the business. IMO
If you do business inside your car, then expect others to 'carry' inside your car.

The owner does have the right to deny service to persons for any reason.
And thus, ask them to leave the property.
But, they cannot deny the Right, "to bear arms".
In today's terms, we use the verbage, "to carry".

This gets into the debate over concealed and open carry.
What they don't know, they can't respond to.

Walmart is a good example to pick on...
Walmart does not allow firearms on their property, unless a manager has physical control of the firearm.
We, as weapon owners, have the choice to shop there or not.
To carry concealed there is not illegal.
Once they determine a firearm is present, without being in their control, they have the right to escort the firearm, and its owner, off the property.
As long as the property owner takes no legal action against that 'carry', no Right has been infringed upon.
 
Again, this is not about the rights of gun owners versus property owners. This is about whether or not the law in question violates the "just compensation" portion of the Fifth Amendment's Takings clause.
 
OK,
Threads have been merged and I'm not sure what reply was toward me.

I'm not sure what you mean divemedic.
You may have gone "over my head" on this one.
No property is taken, for personal use by a patron, from an owner of a business whom is conducting said business, just because the employee has arms in his car.

No law... NO LAW... may override the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights are not laws.
They are the foundations upon which laws in the U.S. are written.
Therefor, the State passing a law into effect, allowing the personal storage of arms in ones personal automobile, is just an affirmation of the Right that is already in place.
It is not a breach of the 5th Amendment toward the employer, as the employer should have understood the 2nd Amendment to begin with.

An analogy of U.S. citizenship using Poker:
You play Poker with a full deck of 52 cards.
Everyone accepts this as fact.
The House, for some reason, outlaws the Ace of Clubs.
The game is no longer Poker.

It is a truely silly analogy, but the point is made.
 
Yithian-

If you read my post here, you will see that there is no legal difference between this law and the law that requires handicapped parking, or a law the requires utility right of way.

This has been well settled by the courts. Forcing a temporary occupation does not cause the owner to lose all economic benefit to his or her property, therefore is not a violation of the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, which is the root of American Property Rights.

This discussion is not about the 2A, but about whether or not the law violates property rights. IMO, it does not, and the law is constitutional. We will see.
 
They have no "right" to not have guns around.
Click to expand...
Yes they do. On their own property a person has the right to not be around a gun. As an employer I have the right to decide that I will honor the desire of others to not be around guns while they are on my property.
Well, it's hoplophobia plain and simple. The employers don't want to upset their more timid employees with the fact that unknown coworkers have handguns either on their person or within relatively easy reach.
Click to expand...
Far from it. As a business owner there are tons of factors that come into play liability wise. We are often responsible for what happens on our property and responsible for the welfare of our employees.
 
Some of you are under the wrongheaded idea that your rights are unlimited. But the truth of the matter is that your rights END at the body and property line of every other individual. And a business is no less a piece of property than a gun or a loaf of bread. If you have no right to my gun or my loaf of bread you also have no right to my business or any item which I may happen to sell.

Again, I maintain that we are all GUESTS when we enter other people's businesses and as guests...we can be uninvited at the owner's discretion.

As for the Supreme Court, the laws, etc. saying different? The law is often an ass and in this case, where it gives one person a right that supercedes another's property rights, then the law is clearly immoral and WRONG.

Again, unless you do not believe that people's property is truly theirs. That is a socialist tenet by the way...that a person's property is theirs but that that the exercise of that ownership can be controlled by the state. :barf:

Remember folks, we do NOT have a right not to be offended. What we do have, is the right to take our business elsewhere if we are offended by their particular exercise of their rights.
 
I think the problem here is that many of you are under the mistaken belief that we are a country operating under the Libertarian ideal. That is certainly not the case. In this country we operate within the confines of the COTUS.

As for the Supreme Court, the laws, etc. saying different? The law is often an ass and in this case, where it gives one person a right that supercedes another's property rights, then the law is clearly immoral and WRONG.
Click to expand...

COTUS issues aside, answer these three questions:

1 A property owner asserts that as soon as a female enters his property, she is required to have sex with him. Do the property rights prevail?

2 A property owner who owns a nightclub fails to maintain his fire sprinklers, and a fire that was caused by poorly maintained electrical wiring kills 150 people. The law states that the property owner is liable. Is THAT law immoral and wrong?

3 You own a grocery store. I park my car on your property (the parking lot). Do you now own my car? Do you have the right to search my property? Sell my property? Whose property rights prevail?

Where in the constitution do you find your opinion? I can't seem to find that part.
 
property

this old man needs to think before he posts. my post does not apply in this thread. would delete if i knew how. one hour after i post it hits me it is about people who work there.:o
 
Property ownership...

Stop paying your property taxes/protection fees and see how quickly the government takes your land without compensation. They will show you who owns the land.
 
Playboypenguin said:
Yes they do. On their own property a person has the right to not be around a gun. As an employer I have the right to decide that I will honor the desire of others to not be around guns while they are on my property.
Click to expand...
What entity actually owns the property you conduct your business on? You, or your company? If the owner is a company, I would say that you do not (or should not) have that right.

Regardless, you do not have a right to incorporate and run a business unimpeded. Businesses have been regulated by government since their genesis.

I propose that all states keep their trespass laws intact, but get rid of any sign-posting laws that allow property owners to preemptively warn off armed individuals, and remove a property-owner's liability in the case where any employee or guest commits a crime or causes an accident while in legal possession of any object or weapon used in that accident/crime.

If you don't want guns or other weapons on your property or your company's property, your ultimate recourse is not to let anyone on it. Unless you screen everyone and have armed guards to deny entrance to any gun-wielding lunatic who decides that the screening process is not for him, I would say that the greater rights violation is the one employers routinely impose on their employees.

I think this is a very similar issue to housing law, actually. I would also like to see gun bans in housing contracts be invalidated. True, both employees and renters could theoretically go somewhere else if they don't like the rules of the specific employment/rental contract they're offered. That hasn't stopped courts from limiting employer/landlord rights in myriad ways, and they are limited for very good reasons, most of the time. There is never an infinite selection of suitable habitations and/or companies offering work, and not everyone can start their own business or work for themselves. Unless you can guarantee that property will always be available with a rental contract agreeable to the renter, or that a company with agreeable employment rules will always be available, I don't think you can fall back on property rights as a business owner or landlord to prohibit arbitrary things you may not like possessed by your employees/tenants.

That doesn't mean there's a right to employment. Nobody's requiring you to run a business. Nobody's requiring you to hire anyone. Nobody's requiring you to tolerate disruptive behavior (much less behavior that materially hurts the company). However, if you do offer employment, there should be some limits to how you can discriminate. Otherwise, it's not so much a company you're running as a social colony run under socialist/dictatorial management, where basically everyone is forced to operate with no latitude for individuality... like an ant colony, for instance. I'm not arguing that such businesses aren't perhaps optimally efficient. However, I don't think they are compatible with society's general concept of individual rights.

As in criminal law, I'm starting to object wherever I see anyone, government or business or individual, try to discriminate on the basis of possessions someone else might have. Possessions (barring certain extreme cases) are not inherently disruptive, nor do they present an innate danger to others. In cases where they are disruptive, removing them from sight is adequate to prevent disruption. Laws against possessions encourage erosion and violations of the 4th amendment; corporate rules against possessions encourage witch-hunts and overly-intrusive workplace monitoring. I realize there's no constitutional law against intrusive employee monitoring, but that doesn't mean companies inherently have the right to ban possessions regardless of whether they're disruptive.

Danzig said:
Again, I maintain that we are all GUESTS when we enter other people's businesses and as guests...we can be uninvited at the owner's discretion.
Click to expand...
True in the case of private property owned by an individual with a visitor not under contract. True in the case of visitors to businesses not open to the public (but these are the exact people NOT subject to corporate "rules" against gun carry). Not true in the case of employees. They are not guests, really. They have contractual obligations to be there, that can only be nullified by the company terminating those employees, which goes quite a bit farther than merely de-inviting them from the company grounds. Not exactly the same thing as being a guest, IMO, even in an at-will state.

The final case is that of "visitors" to businesses open to the public. I would say they're not really "guests" in the sense you're intending. Of course, a business owner operating a store could screen everyone who enters for guns and anything else he doesn't like -- perhaps get rid of those pesky customers who have a copy of the Koran in their purse or man-purse. Stores generally won't do that because pre-screening is an annoyance that reduces and annoys customers, and therefore profit.

I also think there's something in the semantics of the word "guest" that makes it not apply when you have dozens, hundreds, or thousands of random "guests" per day coming onto your property. I'm not talking about whatever legal connotations the word may have, I'm just talking about the word in general everyday context.
 
Since the threads on 2 different subjects were merged, I'll repost the LINK here (on the NPR page there is another link to the audio file) where Heller's attorney asserts that the NPR reporter would have no right under freedom of speech to bring a copy of the New York Times onto his employer's property. My assertion is that his freedom of speech would allow him to bring it on his person and read it himself but not to make others read it. Is there case law substantiating the right of a property owner to prohibit employees from bringing reading materials to work for their own private reading during their coffee break time? Is there case law which substantiates the right of employers to prohibit other forms of speech on premises when the workers are on their coffee breaks?
 
Meek, both threads deal with what a property owner can and can't do. Both were essentially about banning guns from an employees private vehicle that happens to be parked on business property. One thread was about a discussion with Alan Gura and the other about the newly passed law in Florida.

Perhaps different subjects to you, but the same subject to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top