Rights Question

[Kentucky]

Here is a small snippet of a new addition going through Kentucky 'sLegislature right now :

AN ACT relating to weapons......
...to conform; create a new section of KRS Chapter 237 to permit an employee or other person to have a firearm in his or her vehicle on the premises of an employer; permit legal action in event of wrongful dismissal.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[CopperKnight]

So, basically what you are saying to your employer is that "they are god to do with your life as they see fit". I see it as being no better than being a common slave at the whim of your "master".

As a property owner myself, If someone was injuried while on or in my property, I can be sued and I will lose. Why can't they?
Wayne

These are the only two I'm willing to speak to.

You aren't a slave because you choose to work there and can leave any time you want.
AND
Nothing says they can't be sued for this. Maybe someone recalls a specific or related case???

[GoodSamaritan]

well said Wayne

[Rock and Glock]

Okay, then why are these employer restrictions going to off property infringements?

In MI and FL (state employment in FL), they can/will fire you if you smoke. On or OFF property, on your off time. I believe that it's been upheld by the courts in both cases.

I think the distinction is that it is a condition of employment - not unlike drug testing, etc.


What about renting? I know that some places (like HUD but that may be because it's federal but also civilian owned) restrict gun ownership while on their property.

Yet why can't they (employees) restrict blacks, jews, or others not of "their kind" from renting? Why can't they just walk into your place and just go through your property? Why can't they tell you what you can watch on tv or read?

The various and sundry "housing acts" prohibit discrimination based on race and religion.

I mean, I they (employers, renting property owners) have the "right" to remove one Right, why are they forbidden to remove other Rights? Is one Right more important than another?

And if others Rights trump yours, doesn't that just make you a slave? Yes, you say that you don't have a "right" to work (well, in some states), or a "right" to employment but it isn't like you have any other choice. You either work, or you die.

So, basically what you are saying to your employer is that "they are god to do with your life as they see fit". I see it as being no better than being a common slave at the whim of your "master".

Unless they can be held 100% liable for your safety, to work, at work, and from work to your home, then I don't see how their "right" trumps yours.

As a property owner myself, If someone was injuried while on or in my property, I can be sued and I will lose. Why can't they?

Then you have the "individual" and then "corporate" "rights". Who has the Rights? Individuals or Corporations (which can include state and federal governments)? Are the Bill of Rights for individuals or for Corporations? When I say this, a corporation, like Microsoft, isn't owned by Bill Gates but by the board of directors and the stock holders. So are we now saying that majority rules?

As to the comment, "Your Rights end when the stick hits my nose" is right, but I would have taken a tool that is legal (and tech. my right to own as a weapon) and am bearing it. You or anyone else can't take the stick away from me if I legally own it. Now, if I chose to abuse my Right of bearing my arm(s) to infringe on your Right then the stick can then, and only then, be taken from me (unless you deserved it and I was using the tool in self-defense then you don't have the Right to disarm me).

So, when does anothers Right, trump yours, if in theory, all Rights are equal?

Good questions - I think of the old saying that a million monkeys typing for a million years could reproduce Shakespeare, whereas in this case of "Rights" its a million attorneys.....

[cali-da]

I would that I agree that the property rights of the owner carry a lot of weight. I would also add that the Fourth Amendment only applies to the government actions. For example, if your company's private security searched your car and found anything illegal or for that matter a gun, the Fourth Amendment does not come to your aid. The Fourth Amendment and for that matter most of the other Bill of Rights are designed for protection from the government.

[gddyup]

A business cannot require that only owners of Ford vehicles park in the parking lot, can they?

Things that make you go hmmm....

Not to sidetrack this post, but a Ford manufacuring plant has done just this. If you DO NOT drive a Ford made vehicle, you are NOT allowed to park in the parking lot. The union even agreed to it!

[Miggy]

What about renting? I know that some places (like HUD but that may be because it's federal but also civilian owned) restrict gun ownership while on their property.

Unless they reversed it and I wasn't paying attention, this little tidbit went in effect during the Clinton Administration and got killed by a Federal Judge so hard it bounced for a week. It violated not only the Second but also the Fourth since the law gave the Feds the right to enter anytime into Federal Housing to check for guns without a warrant.

[stryder]

Read this. It is from an excellent, pro-gun law professor at Univ. Tennessee, Dr Glenn Reynolds:

"The Second Amendment -- like the rest of the Constitution, except for the 13th Amendment -- doesn't apply to private actors. Banning firearms on private property is no more a Second Amendment violation than banning videocameras on private property is a First Amendment violation.

...Legislation to stop employers from doing things seen as socially harmful is commonplace. The Constitution doesn't prohibit racial discrimination by private employers, but state and federal legislation does, because we think it's a bad thing.

[people are quick], even on the right, to constitutionalize all sorts of arguments that aren't really about the Constitution at all."

Rights enumerated in the Constitution spell out the limitations of the government. Private citizens (and businesses) are fairly free to enact whatever rules they want -- except those proscribed by law (the ones Congres makes). The reason there is a difference is that an individual or business can't put you in jail if you don't want to abide by their rules. In contrast, if you choose not to abide by Government's laws, you can/will be incarcerated -- i.e., your freedom taken away.

This is why when someone is babbling on and you tell them to shut up, they may claim to have a "first amendment" right to say what they want, but the real right is that the government can't tell them to shut up. You certainly can.

[stryder]

Not to sidetrack this post, but a Ford manufacuring plant has done just this. If you DO NOT drive a Ford made vehicle, you are NOT allowed to park in the parking lot. The union even agreed to it!

This has been their policy for years. It's the same at GM & Chrysler too. Actually as I understand it there are 3 parking lots: 1st (closest & best) for Ford cars, 2nd (further away) for American cars and 3rd farthest away for "foreign" cars.

It's called "freedom."

[Miggy]

Before anything else, the propsed law in Florida is stalling big time at the legislature. Corporations are throwing all their might against it and a watered-down version is being discussed. I think the NRA went the wrong way about it. Instead of making it specific to guns, they should have made it so companies cannot search the vehicle unless they have proof positive that either illegal items are in the car or they have proof that their property is being robbed in that particular vehicle.

I would that I agree that the property rights of the owner carry a lot of weight. I would also add that the Fourth Amendment only applies to the government actions. For example, if your company's private security searched your car and found anything illegal or for that matter a gun, the Fourth Amendment does not come to your aid. The Fourth Amendment and for that matter most of the other Bill of Rights are designed for protection from the government.

I work security and the company I work for has guidelines that include that we cannot search ladies purses without their consent. We can't even touch them! Also, we can't perfom body searches even though, they are working in the private sector and allegedly we are not subjected to the search and seizure protections.

[madmike]

Although I do understand and agree in principle with the thought that "my" locker on company property is subject to search, I'll not agree that they can under any circumstances, search my truck.

We have nothing in our policy and procedure book that informs me that this is a "condition of employment," whereas the thing about the locker is covered.

They do have the right to tell me not to park it on company property, but that ends right there.

Should they ever decide otherwise, I'll have to remind them that their "company rules" apply to employees only. At that point, I'll no longer be one.

As of right now, the company has no stated position on firearms or anything else being kept in cars on company property. They do not allow employees to bring firearms into the building. Should they extend that to include our cars, I'll probably choose to ignore the rule. It is after all, a "rule" and not a law.

But in doing so, I'll know that I put my job at risk. If they call me on it, I will quit that job.

mm

[dr_cmg]

News to me. Can you provide details?

I have not been able to find any info later than the NRA item on March 27 and can only believe I misunderstood something read somewhere else. I did find the following thread which is about a state attorney's letter to the legislature.

http://www.combatcarry.com/vbulletin...ead.php?t=8114

[BCurry1]

NRA is working right now to get laws passed in several states to clarify that question. I would suggest looking at the NRA site. Oklahoma passed a law last year and Florida passed one this year. I seem to recall that the companies involved in OK got a tame judge to issue a restraining order against enforcing the law. I do not know the current situation.

Yeah, OK passed this law a long time ago, and several companies sued the state. So a judge imposed a restraining order, in effect saying the law does not take effect until after the law suit. To my knowledge all but ConocoPhillips has dropped the suit. They are the only ones left holding this law back. This is why my friends and I do not buy gas at Conoco.

[rstickle]

I beg your pardon. We might be BARRACKS lawyers, but I dare say most of us are not JAIL HOUSE lawyers.

Even when I was in the barracks we called them jail house, since when you listened, that's where you usually ended up!

[Rock and Glock]

Even when I was in the barracks we called them jail house, since when you listened, that's where you usually ended up!