Strength in numbers

[yo mama]

 

So, are you saying that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" could be applied to a body outside of the Federal Government, including "unofficial" bodies such as corporations?

 

I'm not asking if you think it should be as much as I am asking if you are suggesting that the Constitutional protection against infringement could be interpreted as applying elsewhere than the Fed Gov.

What I'm wondering aloud is: (1) whether such a federal LAW would pass muster; and/or (2) whether such a work place POLICY put into place by a federal employer would, as well.

 

We'd obviosly have to get past clear cases, like secret service and FBI types. Those guys are allowed to pack heat at work. But what if the Federal Trade Commission prohibited their rank and file from keeping otherwise legal handguns in their cars while parked at the office parking lot? Dunno. That would seem like a federal infringement on the right to keep and bear arms to me.

[detlef]

If one argues that an employer should not be allowed to infringe upon one's constitutional right to bear arms, why are we not outraged at the fact that employers can search someone without cause? Which is exactly what most drug testing policies are.

[westvirginia]

If one argues that an employer should not be allowed to infringe upon one's constitutional right to bear arms, why are we not outraged at the fact that employers can search someone without cause? Which is exactly what most drug testing policies are.

 

I would argue that employment is a contract between employer and employee, and fedgov/stategov has no business in that relationship.

[Ursa Majoris]

I would argue that employment is a contract between employer and employee, and fedgov/stategov has no business in that relationship.

It's an unwritten contract ("at will") in most cases but acceptance of employment also means acceptance of company policy.

[Pope Flick]

In my contract my employer retains the right to search the vehicle parked on their premises that got me to work at anytime.

 

It varies...

[i_am_the_swammi]

Should teachers be allowed to bring weapons to work, and keep them in their cars? I find it hard to beleive that school districts, if they are allowed to prohibit smoking on school grounds, can't prohibit AK-47s from entering their grounds.

 

Which I think is the crux of DMDs story. the 2nd Amendment allows for the right to bear arms, but i would think it applies to public areas. Not sure, but I doubt it applies to private-property owners who desire a weapons-free zone?

[detlef]

I would argue that employment is a contract between employer and employee, and fedgov/stategov has no business in that relationship.

My point was simply that people play the "constitutional right" card only when it matters to them. If you like guns and don't smoke pot, then it's a big effing deal that you can't bring your gun to work but no big deal at all that your employer can search your body in a manner that the cops can't.

 

My inclination is to agree with you on this and the only reason why I make a big deal about drug testing is because I'm afraid that many who have no problem with it would have a serious problem if employers started placing restrictions on their lives that the government can't, but in a manner that actually affected them. Like, it appears, the guns at work policy.

[westvirginia]

My point was simply that people play the "constitutional right" card only when it matters to them. If you like guns and don't smoke pot, then it's a big effing deal that you can't bring your gun to work but no big deal at all that your employer can search your body in a manner that the cops can't.

 

My inclination is to agree with you on this and the only reason why I make a big deal about drug testing is because I'm afraid that many who have no problem with it would have a serious problem if employers started placing restrictions on their lives that the government can't, but in a manner that actually affected them. Like, it appears, the guns at work policy.

 

You won't find any bigger "gun rights" supporter on this board than me, and I would be opposed to this law. The nanny state has no business telling employers they can't do this, just like they have no business putting smoking bans in place. The business owner should be the ultimate arbiter of of both these issues. I can work there or not, as I choose.

[detlef]

You won't find any bigger "gun rights" supporter on this board than me, and I would be opposed to this law. The nanny state has no business telling employers they can't do this, just like they have no business putting smoking bans in place. The business owner should be the ultimate arbiter of of both these issues. I can work there or not, as I choose.

I don't think either of us is arguing with the other. I have really softened my stance against guns over time, though I still have no interest in owning one. I don't favor smoking bans though I will voluntarily make every restaurant I open smoke-free.

[Perchoutofwater]

If one argues that an employer should not be allowed to infringe upon one's constitutional right to bear arms, why are we not outraged at the fact that employers can search someone without cause? Which is exactly what most drug testing policies are.

 

 

Which I think is the crux of DMDs story. the 2nd Amendment allows for the right to bear arms, but i would think it applies to public areas. Not sure, but I doubt it applies to private-property owners who desire a weapons-free zone?

 

 

My point was simply that people play the "constitutional right" card only when it matters to them. If you like guns and don't smoke pot, then it's a big effing deal that you can't bring your gun to work but no big deal at all that your employer can search your body in a manner that the cops can't.

 

My inclination is to agree with you on this and the only reason why I make a big deal about drug testing is because I'm afraid that many who have no problem with it would have a serious problem if employers started placing restrictions on their lives that the government can't, but in a manner that actually affected them. Like, it appears, the guns at work policy.

 

The drug tests and the weapons free zones that employers have are their to protect them from civil litigation. If they are just as productive (which normally they aren't), and I'm not going to get sued for them doing something stupid while high, I wouldn't give a crap if they were high all the time. Likewise, if you tell me that should their be a gun incident on my property that I wouldn't be sued, I'd say let every one carry. It's all about CYA.

 

ETA: I think the bill in Texas that would allow employees to have firearms on their employers property also has provisions to protect the employers.

Edited March 26, 2009 by Perchoutofwater

[jetsfan]

That is an interesting question. I would assume the Federal Government is specifically governed by Federal law, no?

 

But then, an employer policy of "no guns at work" that could result in termination isn't a law, and breaking it doesn't incur a civil or criminal penalty.

 

Oddly enough, we are not allowed to bring firearms on-site here in Houston. However, any NASA site that is part of a military base allows firearms.

Better yet, there are no federal drinking and driving laws, therefore, you cannot get a DUI while on-site.

 

:cheers:

[Duchess Jack]

I can see DMDs outrage, but where do you draw the line. Somebody mentioned teachers having guns in the parking lot, but why stop there. Why not teachers having guns in the classroom. Company property is company property and infringing on rights to bare arms is infringing on rights to bare arms.

 

I am not saying I agree or disagree, but where do you draw the line?

[darin3]

I can see DMDs outrage, but where do you draw the line. Somebody mentioned teachers having guns in the parking lot, but why stop there. Why not teachers having guns in the classroom. Company property is company property and infringing on rights to bare arms is infringing on rights to bare arms.

 

I am not saying I agree or disagree, but where do you draw the line?

I see what you're saying, but I think you'd draw the proverbial line wherever common sense said to. Does it make sense to carry a firearm on campus/in classroom? No, at least not yet... But does it make sense to have it in your locked vehicle in the school parking lot? It may make sense to some. Like already noted, perhaps you're going shooting after school, or taking a hunting trip.

[i_am_the_swammi]

I see what you're saying, but I think you'd draw the proverbial line wherever common sense said to. Does it make sense to carry a firearm on campus/in classroom? No, at least not yet... But does it make sense to have it in your locked vehicle in the school parking lot? It may make sense to some. Like already noted, perhaps you're going shooting after school, or taking a hunting trip.

 

Sorry D, but in this case, if you happen to choose to work for an organization that forbids bringing weapons onto their property, then you have to adjust. You wanna be a teacher in a shcool district that prohibits guns on campus? Then be prepared to take the extra time to stop home and gab your gun and ammo after the school day.

 

if you don't like their rule....quit?

 

I smoke, which is within my legal right, but I can't do so on company property. It is their company, they make the rules, and I as an employee have to adhere to their wishes. How is this different?

[darin3]

Sorry D, but in this case, if you happen to choose to work for an organization that forbids bringing weapons onto their property, then you have to adjust. You wanna be a teacher in a shcool district that prohibits guns on campus? Then be prepared to take the extra time to stop home and gab your gun and ammo after the school day.

 

if you don't like their rule....quit?

 

I smoke, which is within my legal right, but I can't do so on company property. It is their company, they make the rules, and I as an employee have to adhere to their wishes. How is this different?

Then don't use a school as the example. This isn't a case-by-case basis sort of thing. It's a national right-to-bear-arms issue.

 

I certainly understand the bolded, but I think what some are arguing (and I'm "Switzerland" when it comes to gun issues, btw) is that it shouldn't even be possible to have that as a rule.

[tazinib1]

Oddly enough, we are not allowed to bring firearms on-site here in Houston. However, any NASA site that is part of a military base allows firearms.

Better yet, there are no federal drinking and driving laws, therefore, you cannot get a DUI while on-site.

 

:cheers:

 

I was an MP while in the USN for 3 of my 8 years of service. I can tell you that you are SORELY misled if you are to believe you can't get a DUI on a military base. A person who is admitted to a military base is subject to the same laws and regulations of the surrounding community, plus any additional regulations of the base. The MPs and DOD's are the law enforcement officers of the base, and have jurisdiction to investigate any crime occurring or suspected on the base. DUI cases occurring on military bases are usually brought to the US Attorney's office and prosecuted in the US Magistrate's court for that jurisdiction. Federal laws make it a federal crime to commit an act on Federal lands (such as national parks and military bases) that would be a crime in the State in which the federal land is located.

[MikesVikes]

Does this include armour piercing assault rifles? I should be allowed to keep that for when I travel down to Mexico. I know my rights.

 

link

[Avernus]

That, and the fact that its insulting to those even marginally educated.

 

 

[i_am_the_swammi]

I think what some are arguing (and I'm "Switzerland" when it comes to gun issues, btw) is that it shouldn't even be possible to have that as a rule.

 

We are afforded the right to free speech, but I have to utilize those rights within the boundaries of what is acceptible within the workplace. Are some here saying that companies have to allow employees to excercise every right, at any time, the constitution affords them?

 

I get frisked at every event/game I go to....those carrying weapons are not permitted entry....are sporting venues violating constituional rights to carry a concealed weapon, even if I have a permit to do so? Do I want my kids teachers carrying weapons onto school property? Do I want my kid's teachers to have the ability to preach personal opinion/bias because it is their constitutional right to do so?

[DMD]

Sorry D, but in this case, if you happen to choose to work for an organization that forbids bringing weapons onto their property, then you have to adjust. You wanna be a teacher in a shcool district that prohibits guns on campus? Then be prepared to take the extra time to stop home and gab your gun and ammo after the school day.

 

if you don't like their rule....quit?

 

I smoke, which is within my legal right, but I can't do so on company property. It is their company, they make the rules, and I as an employee have to adhere to their wishes. How is this different?

 

I am pretty sure that the employment agreement I signed before I went to work for EDS stipulated that I would not bring a gun to work. But my point is that it doesn't really matter since we would bring them and leave them in our cars anyway. We were not going to bring them in the building since there was no reason. But locked up and out of sight in our cars - who cares?

 

The government or a private business can certainly make that rule. And it will not really matter. People like me will still bring them and no one would ever know since they would never leave the car. The only area that I can see of issue is if a person has a CHL and wants to bring it to work and his work does not allow it. In that case, I would side with the business. But what is out in someone's car - who cares?

[Duchess Jack]

I see what you're saying, but I think you'd draw the proverbial line wherever common sense said to.

 

Whose common sense? There are H8s in the world and skins(es) in the world. As I said I am not saying I agree or disagree with what folk are saying. Its seems pretty reasonable to me that somebody should be able to have a gun in their car if they are going shooting after work, but it might not seem reasonable to somebody else. The same thing applies with what weapons people are allowed to own. Some people believe its their right to own fully automatic weapons - for safety, for collections, etc - but why wouldn't the same logic apply to a chain gun or RPG? Again, its an issue of lines.

[Duchess Jack]

People like me will still bring them and no one would ever know since they would never leave the car.

 

then this all sounds like a non-issue.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Should teachers be allowed to bring weapons to work, and keep them in their cars? I find it hard to beleive that school districts, if they are allowed to prohibit smoking on school grounds, can't prohibit AK-47s from entering their grounds.

 

Which I think is the crux of DMDs story. the 2nd Amendment allows for the right to bear arms, but i would think it applies to public areas. Not sure, but I doubt it applies to private-property owners who desire a weapons-free zone?

 

Aren't public school grounds by definition public property?

[detlef]

Sorry D, but in this case, if you happen to choose to work for an organization that forbids bringing weapons onto their property, then you have to adjust. You wanna be a teacher in a shcool district that prohibits guns on campus? Then be prepared to take the extra time to stop home and gab your gun and ammo after the school day.

 

if you don't like their rule....quit?

 

I smoke, which is within my legal right, but I can't do so on company property. It is their company, they make the rules, and I as an employee have to adhere to their wishes. How is this different?

xactly

 

I am pretty sure that the employment agreement I signed before I went to work for EDS stipulated that I would not bring a gun to work. But my point is that it doesn't really matter since we would bring them and leave them in our cars anyway. We were not going to bring them in the building since there was no reason. But locked up and out of sight in our cars - who cares?

 

The government or a private business can certainly make that rule. And it will not really matter. People like me will still bring them and no one would ever know since they would never leave the car. The only area that I can see of issue is if a person has a CHL and wants to bring it to work and his work does not allow it. In that case, I would side with the business. But what is out in someone's car - who cares?

I think the most useless point that can be brought up is "who cares". Well, if it's my business, maybe I care. Not saying, by the way, that I would necc. enact this rule, mind you. That should be all that matters. Sure, maybe I'd never know that there's a gun in your car. However, as long as we're going to allow businesses to suspend other constitutional rights, why can't they maintain that their gun free zone extends to the parking lot.

 

One could make a very valid argument that it doesn't take long for a dude to run to his car for his gun and thus, allowing guns in locked cars sort of undermines the notion of making your workplace gun free. Thus, if someone wants to make their work-place gun free (which is within their rights), they can say that extends to the parking lot. You might see that as a petty hang-up, but that's the thing about this country, we have to tolerate each other's "petty hang-ups" because nobody has the exact same set of values.

 

What appears to be the issue is that it is a matter of convenience that you want to go to the shooting range after work. I say that's too bad if you choose to work for someone who feels this way.

[darin3]

We are afforded the right to free speech, but I have to utilize those rights within the boundaries of what is acceptible within the workplace. Are some here saying that companies have to allow employees to excercise every right, at any time, the constitution affords them?

 

I get frisked at every event/game I go to....those carrying weapons are not permitted entry....are sporting venues violating constituional rights to carry a concealed weapon, even if I have a permit to do so? Do I want my kids teachers carrying weapons onto school property? Do I want my kid's teachers to have the ability to preach personal opinion/bias because it is their constitutional right to do so?

Dude I totally acknowledge and agree with what you're saying... I was just saying that it's difficult to, because of the polarizing of the issue, figure out an arbitrary line in the sand. The losing side is going to cry foul all of the time.