Rights Question - Page 2

Rights Question

This is a discussion on Rights Question within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Here is a small snippet of a new addition going through Kentucky 'sLegislature right now : AN ACT relating to weapons...... ...to conform; create a ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 33

Thread: Rights Question

  1. #16
    Member Array Kentucky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    118

    Employee rights...

    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.
    diplomacy ... the art of saying "nice doggie"..while looking for a big rock !!


  2. #17
    VIP Member
    Array CopperKnight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Spokane area, WA
    Posts
    6,742
    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne
    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???
    eschew obfuscation

    The only thing that stops bad guys with guns is good guys with guns. SgtD

  3. #18
    Senior Member Array GoodSamaritan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Central Kentucky
    Posts
    790
    well said Wayne

  4. #19
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 11,650'
    Posts
    13,064
    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.....


    The tyrant dies and his rule is over, the martyr dies and his rule begins. ― The Journals of Kierkegaard

  5. #20
    Member Array cali-da's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    54

    DA's view

    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.

  6. #21
    Senior Member Array gddyup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Derry, NH
    Posts
    988
    Quote Originally Posted by Blinky
    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!
    Firefighter/EMT
    "You've never lived until you've almost died. For those who fight for it, life has a flavor the protected will never know" - T.R.

    <----My LT was unhappy that I did not have my PASS-Tag at that fire. But I found the body so he said he would overlook it. :)

  7. #22
    VIP Member
    Array Miggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Miami-Dade, FL
    Posts
    6,258
    Quote Originally Posted by Wayne
    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.
    You have to make the shot when fire is smoking, people are screaming, dogs are barking, kids are crying and sirens are coming.
    Randy Cain.

    Ego will kill you. Leave it at home.
    Signed: Me!

  8. #23
    Member Array stryder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    32
    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.

  9. #24
    Member Array stryder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    32
    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."

  10. #25
    VIP Member
    Array Miggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Miami-Dade, FL
    Posts
    6,258
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by 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.
    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.
    You have to make the shot when fire is smoking, people are screaming, dogs are barking, kids are crying and sirens are coming.
    Randy Cain.

    Ego will kill you. Leave it at home.
    Signed: Me!

  11. #26
    Senior Member Array madmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Spring Hill, FL
    Posts
    750
    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
    Political Correctness has now "evolved" into Political Cowardice.

  12. #27
    VIP Member
    Array dr_cmg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    10,808
    Quote Originally Posted by sarhog
    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
    George

    Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. Albert Einstein

  13. #28
    Distinguished Member Array BCurry1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    1,314
    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.
    Curry

  14. #29
    Lead Moderator
    Array rstickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Laurel, MD
    Posts
    22,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom357
    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!
    Rick

    EOD - Initial success or total failure

  15. #30
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 11,650'
    Posts
    13,064
    Quote Originally Posted by rstickle
    Even when I was in the barracks we called them jail house, since when you listened, that's where you usually ended up!


    The tyrant dies and his rule is over, the martyr dies and his rule begins. ― The Journals of Kierkegaard

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Gun Rights Are Civil Rights...
    By ExSoldier in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: July 11th, 2010, 01:58 AM
  2. How many are using their 2a rights
    By zachgry in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: March 31st, 2009, 04:49 PM
  3. Gun rights, voting rights clash in U.S. capital
    By Maverickx50 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: March 8th, 2009, 02:39 PM
  4. Gun rights
    By mr.stuart in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: July 13th, 2007, 12:45 AM
  5. "Bill of Rights: Kids question right to bear arms"
    By goawayfarm in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: February 14th, 2007, 12:15 PM

Search tags for this page

what country is farthest away from derry nh

Click on a term to search for related topics.