Employers can forbid guns, a judge rules, issues an injunction against OK law.

[DBW]

DBW, I think the idea here is my car is also my property. We're not talking about carrying in the building. And, like it or not, the Federal judge didn't issue an injunction based on property rights, rather based on a weak link he pulled out of a hat to OSHA.

Should your employer should be able to have an employment policy restricting you from smoking in your car?

Whose property are you placing your car on? Are you forced to park on their property? Do you have a right to tell someone else what to do with their property?

I know where you guys are coming from. But I simply don't believe that my rights trump someone else's right when it comes to my being on their property. A business owner has rights. It's his/her property. So when a business owner I work for or visit says "no guns", then I make the choice to comply or go elsewhere.

When the government (local, state or fed) tells you that you can not carry a concealed weapon on their premises do you comply or not? Government does not own anything... it belongs to the people. But you comply regardless. And as the SC has ruled in the past... government is no under any obligation to protect citizens. So you make the choice when you enter a government facility to check your guns and comply with the rules and hope that you'll be safe. Government, no matter what level... has no rights. Yet we comply with what they want.

My employer doesn't permit me to have a weapon in their property (in my case the truck they own that I drive). If I can't live with this policy then I can find an employer who doesn't have this policy or start my own company where I'm the boss.

 

[zulater]

When the government (local, state or fed) tells you that you can not carry a concealed weapon on their premises do you comply or not? Government does not own anything... it belongs to the people. But you comply regardless. And as the SC has ruled in the past... government is no under any obligation to protect citizens. So you make the choice when you enter a government facility to check your guns and comply with the rules and hope that you'll be safe. Government, no matter what level... has no rights. Yet we comply with what they want.

Yes I comply because they generally post armed security at the entry points. This means that a criminal that is by definition not going to obey the law will not be able to get a gun into the building.
Like meg said. If they can tell you one thing you can't have in your car then they can forbid anything. It's your property and it's their property set aside for your property. Who's rights are more important? I say the people since the first 3 words of our Constitution are "We the people". The rest would not exist without the people so individual rights trump corporate/business rights.

 

[DBW]

Yes I comply because they generally post armed security at the entry points. This means that a criminal that is by definition not going to obey the law will not be able to get a gun into the building.
Like meg said. If they can tell you one thing you can't have in your car then they can forbid anything. It's your property and it's their property set aside for your property. Who's rights are more important? I say the people since the first 3 words of our Constitution are "We the people". The rest would not exist without the people so individual rights trump corporate/business rights.

Odd, but I've been in numerous government facilities where no guards exist. Since I'm not a criminal I'll comply with the policy of checking my gun when going to such a place.

It may be your car. But your car is on their property. Whether or not is is set aside for parking is irrelevant... it's still their property.

Neither your rights or theirs are more important when viewed seperately. However, when you are the guest of someone on their property... you comply with their wishes or do not enter their property. As an employee... you are the guest since you are not their property. Thus you comply with their policy.

A business, whether owned by a sole proprietor or a corporation is owned by people. Your rights do not trump the rights of others when on their property.

 

[zulater]

Odd, but I've been in numerous government facilities where no guards exist. Since I'm not a criminal I'll comply with the policy of checking my gun when going to such a place.

It may be your car. But your car is on their property. Whether or not is is set aside for parking is irrelevant... it's still their property.

Neither your rights or theirs are more important when viewed seperately. However, when you are the guest of someone on their property... you comply with their wishes or do not enter their property. As an employee... you are the guest since you are not their property. Thus you comply with their policy.

A business, whether owned by a sole proprietor or a corporation is owned by people. Your rights do not trump the rights of others when on their property.

We'll just have to disagree. Our government is designed to be for the people not for business or corporations or even the government. People come first.
Your stance is kinda ironic given your signature lines.

 

[DBW]

We'll just have to disagree. Our government is designed to be for the people not for business or corporations or even the government. People come first.
Your stance is kinda ironic given your signature lines.

Yeah, we'll have to agree to disagree. Our government was birthed by the people... and like a wayward child it has decided it knows better. The result is a government that has enslaved the creators.

My stance is very much in line with my sig lines. You may not agree that a business owner has rights... but you seem to overlook that a business is owned by a person. Even a corporation is owned by people.

The next time you go into a gun shop talk to the owner. Tell him you don't think he has any rights to his shop, the land it sits on or the products he sells. Chances are he'll tell you that you're a fool, even if you are a fellow gun enthusiast.

 

[mons meg]

The next time you go into a gun shop talk to the owner. Tell him you don't think he has any rights to his shop, the land it sits on or the products he sells. Chances are he'll tell you that you're a fool, even if you are a fellow gun enthusiast.

I think we can come up with plenty of examples of how property owners do *not* enjoy complete control of their property...but let's not go there just yet.

Think of it this way. Two competing interests are colliding here. The State of Oklahoma decided to come down on the side of the individual, subject to certain limitations (gun must be left in the locked vehicle). A Federal judge has no place to usurp the Oklahoma Legislature in this case, especially since this has nothing to do with "workplace safety" or even interstate commerce.

I'd say if you have a strong opinion on this, you should take it up with your local representative to the State House, as I believe the law passed by a wide margin:

from http://www.nraila.org/issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=193

The issue began in 2002 in Oklahoma, when the Weyerhaeuser corporation fired employees for having guns in personal vehicles on company property. The Oklahoma Legislature responded, unanimously in the House and by a vote of 92-4 in the Senate, by prohibiting "any policy or rule" prohibiting law-abiding people "from transporting and storing firearms in a locked vehicle."

Ok, now we can "go there". I agree with NRAILA in that this is essentially a civil rights issue. Business owners are not free to disregard the civil rights of others simply because you stepped over their threshold. Or are we arguing that the 2nd Amendment doesn't describe a civil right?

 

[DBW]

Can't say I really care at all one way or the other as it pertains to this case... I just enjoy discussing the issue from an opposing perspective since I tend not to go along with the crowd.

So, if the 2A is considered a civil right... then there is the debate as to whether or not the Oklahoma constitution is in contradiction to the US Constitution:

The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.

Is the bolded portion of the clause above in the Oklahoma constitution a violation of the 2A? And what was the temperment and attitude of those who crafted our state constitution from Nov. 1906 - Mar 1907? What influece did socialism, communism and other ism's have on how it was worded when written? I'd wager it wasn't similar to those who crafted the US Constitution.

Regardless, as an average citizen I've been told by those smarter than me that I'm too stupid to comprehend anything in the US Constitution or the Oklahoma constitution and to leave it to the judges and lawyers to decide what is best for our state and nation. So I do.

 

[mons meg]

I think you're on to something....if only there was a pending USSC case that might actually address the issue of the 2A. Maybe even make a decision on incorporation...

 

[DBW]

I think you're on to something....if only there was a pending USSC case that might actually address the issue of the 2A. Maybe even make a decision on incorporation...

I'm not too optimistic that the Heller case will be ruled on favorably. SCOTUS makes up whatever it wants as it goes along since they've decided it's within their right to legislate from the bench instead of adjudicating law.

 

[madmax]

I'm not too optimistic that the Heller case will be ruled on favorably. SCOTUS makes up whatever it wants as it goes along since they've decided it's within their right to legislate from the bench instead of adjudicating law.

I've heard this before. I suspect if those who tout it were to get a chance to appear before those 9 justices, they'd quickly find they were in over their preverbial heads, particularly when it came to distinguishing what contitutes "legislation from the bench" and "adjudicating law". Generally speaking from what I've seen, those who like the rulings of SCOTUS call it one thing, and those who don't like their rulings call it another. Both labels are convenient if nothing else.