The state I live in passed a law that business owners may not restrict the right of their employees from having a gun on company property. So the wishes of the property owner are irrelevant. As they SHOULD be. (in regard to a person's right to self defense) The Constitution is the highest law of the land, and the 2nd Amendment protects a God given right that we already have. Yes, the law only refers to the employer/employee relationship, but its something anyway.
I laugh at those who think that the Second Ammendment applies to anything OTHER than the US Government, it says the GOVERNMENT may not inrfringe on the right to keep and bear arms. ALL 10 ammendments of the Bill of Rights pertain to what the GOVERNMENT may not deny. When will people remember that the Bill of rights is SUPPOSED to limit the GOVERNMENT and NOT the people.
The government may not tell you that you cannot worship how you wish, or say what you like where you like, or promote a political ideology, I (on my property CAN). The GOVERNMENT cannot deny anyone the right to keep and bear arms for defense, I (on MY property can) etc. etc. You don't believe me, just try to hold a political speech on my front yard and when I call the cops, guess who gets told to shut up, and move along; try to carry on my property and when I bodily throw you off my property guess who WONT get the backing of a lawyer for "violating your rights", in either case. Try to hold a political rally in a business parking lot without permission, try to say Islamic prayers on the steps of a baptist church, both of these places are "open to the public" however your 1st Ammendment rights are LIMITED by the property owner; you can be TOLD, not asked, to cease and desist despite your first ammendment rights. A person or business CANNOT "violate" your rights, they CAN tell you what you can and cannot do on their property.
Yes the Constitution is the highest law of the land, but the Bill of Rights ONLY limits the GOVERNMENT. Note that even in Heller, the SCoUS only said that GOVERNMENTS could not place such limits on weapon ownership as to make it impossible to own arms. It said NOTHING about private individuals or businesses limiting the carry of weapons.
If you fire an employee just because they have brown eyes, is a woman, or is a Muslim, they are going to win a wrongful-termination claim against you and draw unemployment off of you:
I argue that 'lawful possession of a firearm' be added to the list because laws supporting preferences of private business owners to arbitrarily ban a right do not meet SCOTUS "Strict Scrutiny" standards. The typical employee has a need to carry, whereas the typical employer does not have a need to ban.Quote:
Wrongful Termination of At Will Employment
The Civil Rights Act in 1964 extended anti-discrimination protections to employees, whose employment could no longer be terminated for reasons such as their race, gender, skin color, religion, or national origin. Additional legal protections now exist to deter certain forms of age discrimination. Following the creation of these anti-discrimination laws, it became possible for employees to argue that their terminations were "pretextual" - that is, although their employers were citing lawful reasons to terminate their employment, their employers were actually motivated by unlawful discriminatory motives.
Some states will permit an "at will" employee to bring a lawsuit on the basis that the employer violated an implied covenant of "good faith and fair dealing" in association with the termination decision. In such states, even with an at-will employee, the employer must extend some degree of fairness in the decision to terminate employment.
If you remove a customer just because they have brown eyes, is a woman, or is a Muslim, you will be cited by the State for braking Public Accommodation codes.
When you open your business to the public, you have to conduct 'fair and equal treatment' to each person who voluntarily walks through your door. You cannot deny access to your business just because a customer is one of these protected classes. You cannot refuse to sell to a customer just because the customer belongs to one of these classes. You can't do that now, you wouldn't be able to do that if 'lawfully carrying a firearm' were added to the list.Quote:
South Dakota Code 20-13-23
20-13-23. Public accommodations--Unfair or discriminatory practices. It shall be an unfair or discriminatory practice for any person engaged in the provision of public accommodations because of race, color, creed, religion, sex, ancestry, disability, or national origin, to fail or refuse to provide to any person access to the use of and benefit from the services and facilities of such public accommodations; or to accord adverse, unlawful, or unequal treatment to any person with respect to the availability of such services and facilities, the price or other consideration therefor, the scope and equality thereof, or the terms and conditions under which the same are made available, including terms and conditions relating to credit, payment, warranties, delivery, installation, and repair.
I want to add 'lawfully carrying a firearm' as a protected class because I have a need to carry whereas the business does not have a need to deny.
The way you win this argument is to demonstrate a 'need' to keep firearms off your property. 'My property, my rules' fails the SCOTUS "Strict Scrutiny" standard because a right always supersedes preference.