Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
822 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I was wondering something, where do my Rights end and the rights o another begin? Who's Rights trumps others Rights?

Been thinking of the "no guns in cars on company parking lot" issue.
I have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the amendment, to my knowledge, doesn't have an "except...." at the end of it.
Yet my company says that I cannot have a firearm, in my property if it is on their property.

So, does my vehicle become their property when I am parked on their property so therefore it is no long "allowed" to my Right to Keep and Bear Arms?

Wayne
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
4,964 Posts
Well, the company has a right to say whether or not your car can be on their property.

I do not believe, however, that they have the right to know what is in your car.

Matt
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
25,537 Posts
Figured I'd throw out the "standard warning" that has to come with a question like this....... The only lawyers you'll find here are the JAIL HOUSE type.

Having said that, I sort of agree that if it's the companies private property, they have the rights to let you use it. Now if they wanted to search your car, you might have a case, and that could differ from state to state. And, of course if it's federal and posted all bets are off!! :image035:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
The right to swing a stick ends at the point where it hits my face. :twak:

Unfortunately the property rights of the owner outweigh your right to carry on the property.

In fact, with the CCW out of the picture, they have the right to prevent you from parking the car on the property anyway.

To what extent can a business place restrictions on the access to their private property.

A business cannot state that only white males can park in the parking lot.

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

Can a business restrict parking to only drivers that are naked?

Things that make you go hmmm....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
563 Posts
I'd say that the property owner has the right to determine the limitations for access to the property.
I don't know if it still happens, but when I lived in Michigan 20 years ago, some employers would post signs in employee parking lots stating that foreign cars would be towed at owner’s expense. AND THEY WOULD TOW THEM
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,807 Posts
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. The link below is a place to start.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Filter.aspx?ID=53
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,468 Posts
Blinky said:
Can a business restrict parking to only drivers that are naked?
You would have to be very discriminatory- some things you don't want to see!
:embarassed:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
753 Posts
It's their right to dictate the conditions of employment. You still have the choice to excersize your rights.. but suffer the consequences. Unless of course you work on Federal property, or your state otherwise limits your rights via statute concerning your CCW.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,807 Posts
sarhog said:
News to me. Can you provide details?
I may have had a senior moment. I may be remembering that Gov. Bush said he would sign it. I am at work and we have a filter that is making it hard for me to check this out. NRA ILA has a story from late March about two bills being considered. I thought for sure that I had seen an NRA release that stated FL had passed the bill. Since I can't find it right now I may have just remembered a statement that Bush said he would sign it. I'll keep looking and if I actually find it I'll post a link.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
750 Posts
If it was passed in FL, it would have to have been within the past few days.

I don't think it has actually been put to a vote just yet.

mm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
940 Posts
Wayne said:
I
Been thinking of the "no guns in cars on company parking lot" issue.
I have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the amendment, to my knowledge, doesn't have an "except...." at the end of it.
Yet my company says that I cannot have a firearm, in my property if it is on their property.
Try to not read selectively.

Congress shall make no law - not your employer.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
25,483 Posts
I wish I had the details to hand but I think FL has this going thru the books right now - and have a feeling another state is working on it - wish my memory was better!

Ahh - this from NRA March 27 -
Florida Considers Protection Of Workers Firearms Rights
Tallahassee Democrat
The fast-moving Florida Legislature takes up one of the most heavily lobbied issues of its 2006 session this week. At issue: a bill allowing people to keep firearms locked in their cars at work.
http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060327/CAPITOLNEWS/603270321/1010
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
822 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
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.

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?

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?

Wayne
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,741 Posts
Wayne said:
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??? :confused:
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
23,594 Posts
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.....:tired:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54 Posts
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.
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top