Whose rights are right?

Danzig said:
But the truth of the matter is that your rights END at the body and property line of every other individual.
Click to expand...
That is NOT the truth of the matter. Not even close.

First of all, a person's body is not to be equated with a property line. The idea that stepping over a property line is equivalent to touching the property owner is absolutely without legal or logical basis.

Second, just because you're on someone else's property does NOT mean you have no rights. Some of your rights may be abridged, but to say that all your rights end the minute you step off public land onto private property is ridiculous. For example, you still retain your right to liberty (the property owner can not imprison or enslave you simply because you're parked in his parking lot), the right to life (you can not be killed simply for walking in the front door of a business) as well as other rights.

Third, the legislation that spawned this discussion is NOT about carrying into someone's home or business, it is about having a firearm in a locked vehicle parked in a public parking lot that is owned/leased by a business.
 
This is a liability issue. I worked for Wal-mart a while back and we were specifically told not to EVER perform CPR on a person while working there. We were supposed to stand by and watch while someone dies so that the company does not become liable for a lawsuit. :barf:

Obviously the default position for any corporation is going to be "no guns allowed". To do otherwise will open them up to liability if something happens. I think anyone that opens their property up to the public must abide by the rights of said public.
 
"Here’s the bottom line. Whether the business is a giant like Disney or a small auto repair shop it is their property and they have the right to set the rules for conduct while on their property. This reinforces my belief that the NRA doesn’t lobby for the rights of Americans but rather the bottom line of the gun manufacturers."

There are already limits to what people are allowed to do on their own private property. I can't put a well or septic system where ever I wish and I can't shoot in my backyard. My property is mine, I have private property rights, but they often end when they conflict with the rights of others.
 
This is a liability issue.
Click to expand...
It is most definitely a liability issue. I have every right to tell employees they cannot carry at work since I am the one responsible for their actions. I can decide how big a risk I choose to take inside my own business.

It is my business and I am the final authority. The government can make me conform to certain accessibility requirements and anti-discrimination laws but beyond that I make the decisions. Guns being carried by employees are a great risk to my livelihood and I can choose not to take that risk. Just like I can tell an employee not to discuss religion or politics at work and if they refuse to abide by the rules they can go work elsewhere.
 
Antipitas, my contention is the two threads are slightly different colors but I bow to your superior understanding of the rules of engagement and your responsibility to maintain order.

I see your point as it relates to what are the rights of a property owner. But where on the person of the visitor do those rights end? By custom our personal space is our arm's reach and I'd suspect that common law would prohibit the property owner from approaching into your (or your female visitor's) personal space in an arbitrary manner. (I know that regardless of common law and the constitution, sexual harassment laws provide a certain amount of privacy for employees.)

But none of that is first amendment protection.

What right of freedom to read what one wishes (during their break time-and not to preach to the other employees) does an employee have under the first amendment? What right does the employee have to carry their reading material on their person in their personal space? Do they have the right to carry a picture of their nude significant other in their wallet? The lawyer mentioned the New York Times but I'd broaden the question.
 
Why are so many on this thread ignoring the fact that the legislation that spawned this argument is about leaving a gun locked in a vehicle in the parking lot, NOT about carrying a firearm into a home or business?

I'm not aware of any legislation, current or proposed that takes away a property owner's right to control whether or not people carry into the property owner's business or home.
 
When available, I have parked on the street with gun locked up. Otherwise I have considered the boundary to be where the company's parking lot meets MY tires. I have never carried on person into an employers property. But, I regard my life much more than their panties when I am commuting. Only if they give me armed security that I approve maybe I will consider a change. Being dead is worse than being fired. Ban Ted Kennedy's car before you ban my gun!
 
I do not want my employees leaving guns in their car either. Not because I do not want them on my property, but mainly because it is a downtown location and they will most likely be parking on public streets. So unless they are willing to go to the needed effort to secure the gun inside the vehicle (locked doors do not count as secured when glass is so easily broken) I would prefer they did not leave them in their car...but that would be their own choice.

I have put some thought into providing secured lockers on the premises for employees to leave firearms (and other valuables) in during their work hours if it becomes an issue. That might persuade them to not leave them unsecured in a car.
 
I have put some thought into providing secured lockers on the premises for employees to leave firearms (and other valuables) in during their work hours if it becomes an issue. That might persuade them to not leave them unsecured in a car.
Click to expand...
That seems like a very reasonable solution. Probably worthwhile to contact an attorney to make sure there are no hidden liability/legality issues.
 
That seems like a very reasonable solution. Probably worthwhile to contact an attorney to make sure there are no hidden liability/legality issues.
Click to expand...
My partner in another business is an attorney and he said if I just provide the storage and make them provide their own locks to which only they have access I should be fine. The storage has to be reasonably secure and in an area not open to patrons. :)
 
I do not want my employees leaving guns in their car either. Not because I do not want them on my property, but mainly because it is a downtown location and they will most likely be parking on public streets. So unless they are willing to go to the needed effort to secure the gun inside the vehicle (locked doors do not count as secured when glass is so easily broken) I would prefer they did not leave them in their car...but that would be their own choice.

I have put some thought into providing secured lockers on the premises for employees to leave firearms (and other valuables) in during their work hours if it becomes an issue. That might persuade them to not leave them unsecured in a car.
Click to expand...


that's a great idea Playboy I wish more buisiness owners would use their brains to solve problems instead of just banning everything.
 
JohnKSa said:
Why are so many on this thread ignoring the fact that the legislation that spawned this argument is about leaving a gun locked in a vehicle in the parking lot, NOT about carrying a firearm into a home or business
Click to expand...
Two threads got merged. In one, meekandmild was pointing out Gura's comparison of restricting the RKBA at work vs restricting the right to bring printed material to work.
 
Meekand Mild,
There is substancial literature on employees having the right to read what they want on company property during their break times. This includes campaigning for candidates, circulating petitions, etc. Unions have defended these rights for over a century now.

tipoc
 
There is substancial literature on employees having the right to read what they want on company property during their break times. This includes campaigning for candidates, circulating petitions, etc. Unions have defended these rights for over a century now.
Click to expand...
I think you are mistaking union agreements with law.

I would love to see samples of this "literature" where it says I am legally obligated to allow an employee to campaign or circulate petitions on my property at any time.
 
I think it very, very dangerous when government meddles with property rights. The Florida law so happens to please most folks who like to carry a gun, but placing restrictions on the rights of property owners to accommodate these people sets dangerous precedent indeed.

Having the government dictate further restrictions on private property is simply another incremental step on the path to communism and because most here support this particular law, makes it no less so.

Careful what you wish for!
 
It doesn't set a precedent at all. The precedent has already been set. Your property rights are restricted by:

The ADA
Anti-Discrimination Laws
Building Codes
OSH
and more.

Property rights have NEVER been absolute.
 
I think it very, very dangerous when government meddles with property rights.
Click to expand...

The government has already dangerously meddled with property rights when it allowed real property owners to invade personal property (vehicles) to snoop for things the real property owners don't like.
 
It doesn't set a precedent at all.
Click to expand...

True. “Precedent” was a poor choice on my part.

That doesn’t change the fact that incremental restrictions on basic rights are detrimental to a society that proclaims liberty for all, regardless one of the increments happens to benefit me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top