- Joined
- Nov 30, 2011
- Messages
- 5,586
- Reaction score
- 2,420
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The NRA has gone after a Tennessee Congresswoman due to her lack of support for a law stating that businesses should not be able to restrict employees from having a weapon on their property ie the employee having a weapon in their vehicle while it is parked in the parking lot. When I heard this story I initially wanted to come home and research it. However, I thought it would be more fun to put it up to debate. So what say you? Private property rights or the 2nd amendment? Which one holds sway in this case?
NRA hits Republican roadblocks - Washington Times
The second amendment is inapplicable in this scenario. The second amendment forbids the government from infringing the right to bear arms, not business owners.
The second amendment is inapplicable in this scenario. The second amendment forbids the government from infringing the right to bear arms, not business owners.
Therein lies the debate my friend. If the gov't upholds a policy by a employer to disallow firearms on their property, is the gov't not now enforcing said policy by ruling in the employer's favor?
If the government were called upon to rule on an employer who tagged his place of employment as a gun-free zone, the government would rule on it based on property rights. And property rights alone.
I would go further, that the employee has the right to carry the firearm on their person at all times, unless....The NRA has gone after a Tennessee Congresswoman due to her lack of support for a law stating that businesses should not be able to restrict employees from having a weapon on their property ie the employee having a weapon in their vehicle while it is parked in the parking lot. When I heard this story I initially wanted to come home and research it. However, I thought it would be more fun to put it up to debate. So what say you? Private property rights or the 2nd amendment? Which one holds sway in this case?
NRA hits Republican roadblocks - Washington Times
That's interesting to me because my employment is not tied to one physical spot on the map. Residential construction requires me to enter all manor of properties all over the county (we do some commercial projects now and then), sometimes out-of-state.Private property rights. People should be able to govern their own property according to their own standards as much as possible, specifically in ways that do not harm others. Banning guns from your private property, home or business, allows people to govern their property without hurting others. If people don't want to work at places that don't allow guns, then they can work somewhere else.
If the government is trying to put you in jail, yes.Therein lies the debate my friend. If the gov't upholds a policy by a employer to disallow firearms on their property, is the gov't not now enforcing said policy by ruling in the employer's favor?
I disagree. I think they would rule it based on property rights vs 2nd Amendment rights. Reason being, the private property is still in the US and Americans are working there. Those Americans have rights. Owners of private property can't take away Constitutional rights can they? I'm being the devil's advocate btw. Personally, I believe the property rights should hold sway. I'm just thinking out loud.
That's my point exactly: The gun is my property and it's on my person, the employer does not have a default right to regulate my person, there has to be a 'need', general a search warrant along with it, therefore my private property rights take precedence.If the government were called upon to rule on an employer who tagged his place of employment as a gun-free zone, the government would rule on it based on property rights. And property rights alone.
I would go further, that the employee has the right to carry the firearm on their person at all times, unless....
An employer who wishes to maintain a gun-free zone should have to comply with four requirements to maintain an annually renewed permit to have the gun-free zone.
- Demonstrate a 'need' to have the gun-free zone, such as the presence of hazardous chemicals on the property. If the employer has no 'need', merely a preference, then the employee's right supersedes. Terminating and employee for possessing a firearm is to be treated as discrimination, the same is as if the employee were fired simply for being black.
- Provide armed security.
- Legally defined 'no-firearms' signs must be posted at every entrance and exit to the property and each building.
- Pay a special insurance to cover the increased crime rate on gun-free-zones and cover liability (because the employer will be fully liable).
If an employer doesn't like it, they are free not to engage in commerce.
I tend to agree with you. However, I wouldn't like the idea of not being able to bring it into the parking lot in my vehicle. I can understand not bringing it into the building. But the parking lot? Let's put it this way. By saying I can't keep a weapon in my vehicle, you are now disallowing me to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights because I can't carry a gun on the way to work. Maybe they provide a place to check my weapon in? Maybe in the same manner as when you come aboard a Federal Park. You can check in your weapon with the Park Ranger.I am in favor of allowing Private Businesses to decide themselves that their property is a gun-free zone. Any enforcement of this would be private. IE the Business could terminate you as an employee if you violate the agreements of your employement (By bringing a gun on the premises) or they could instruct you to leave if you're a patron (and if you refuse, if that justifies as tresspassing, then the law could come into effect).
I am NOT in favor of the government dictating to private businesses that their locatoins MUST be gun-free zones, under penalty of law. That is the government forcing it upon people and it would require government enforcement of the ban.
The government stating that private property owners have a right to forbid guns on their property does not equal the government taking action against your rights, it simply is affirming the rights of the property owner.
The second amendment is inapplicable in this scenario. The second amendment forbids the government from infringing the right to bear arms, not business owners.
That's interesting to me because my employment is not tied to one physical spot on the map. Residential construction requires me to enter all manor of properties all over the county (we do some commercial projects now and then), sometimes out-of-state.
It's best if I just not bring it up before entering someone's home. My method of concealed carry makes it very hard to detect, the downside being it takes longer to draw. I usually carry a snub-noes in my right front pocket, and the orientation of the pouches of my tool belt mostly cover that pocket. They don't ask, I don't tell, and that seems to be a fair arrangement. 90% of the time the homeowners aren't there anyway.
Yay for expansion of government power, regulation, and encroachment into the private sector!
I tend to agree with you. However, I wouldn't like the idea of not being able to bring it into the parking lot in my vehicle. I can understand not bringing it into the building. But the parking lot? Let's put it this way. By saying I can't keep a weapon in my vehicle, you are now disallowing me to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights because I can't carry a gun on the way to work. Maybe they provide a place to check my weapon in? Maybe in the same manner as when you come aboard a Federal Park. You can check in your weapon with the Park Ranger.
Therein lies the debate my friend. If the gov't upholds a policy by a employer to disallow firearms on their property, is the gov't not now enforcing said policy by ruling in the employer's favor?
I don't know. Good luck getting a judge to side with the employer on the "you don't have to work there" line of argument. In this economy, I believe a judge would side with the employee. Just on that particular argument though.I frankly find this more of a problem area with regards to how property rights are viewed with regards to your car and a location you're parked on. That said, they're not disallowing you to do any such thing because you are in no way required or mandated to be working at said business or engaging in commerce with them. They're at best causing you to potentially voluntarily restrict it. And if you choose not to do so, they have no immediete legal recourse against you.
And that's really the thing. With it being a gudieline of a private entity, it's got none of the teeth of law.
They can't force you to allow a search. They can't force you to tell them you have a gun. They can't force you to not bring your gun. The best they can do is if they find out in some fashion they could fire you, if you're an employee, or ask you to leave the premisis, if you're a patron. And that's really only if they made it explicit from the point you entered onto the property that such a policy exists. Now, if you refuse to go after they tell you to get off their property when you were fully aware on the time of coming on about their rules, then you may have some legal issues. But that's due to your decisions after you've been asked to leave, not because you have a gun on you.
I don't know. Good luck getting a judge to side with the employer on the "you don't have to work there" line of argument. In this economy, I believe a judge would side with the employee. Just on that particular argument though.
I agree on the search aspect though.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?