Do you have the right to have a gun at work?
 

Looks like this is going to be the latest fight over the 2nd amendment. The NRA is contending that private companies do not have the right to prohibit workers from keeping guns in their cars on company property. They've gotten into a fight with ConocoPhillips corporation over it and if it goes to court it looks like we would be faced with an interesting question. Where do property rights end and gun rights begin? If you own a piece of property do you have the right to tell people they can't bring guns onto your property or does the 2nd amendment protect their right to have it there against your will?




http://csmonitor.com/2005/0812/p01s02-ussc.htm

This is an interesting question, but I'd side with the company on this one provided it was a condition of employment.

I think this issue is similar to a situation where the driver of a car is unaware of the fact that one of his passenger has drugs and he will be held accountable for everything that is in his car including the things that he is not aware of.

If a employee decides to bring a gun to the company and decides to start shooting everybody, who will be held accountable? The employee that brought the gun there? Or the company that allowed him to do so?

Me too (holy shit, I'm agreeing with Ustwo. Must be getting cold in Hades). In fact I'll go one farther than that. It's their property. What they say goes. If you don't like it, leave their property.

And if you really think you need a gun at work and you're not a cop or a soldier, you need to find a safer place of employment.

Now that said, if the gun's in his car, under a seat, then the company can forbid it all they want but unless they search his car (and if they don't have his permission to do so then that would be breaking into the car) they won't find it.

What if it's not hidden? Under the Oklahoma law in question, you could have a shotgun fully visible in a gun rack and the company would have no power to tell you to remove it from the property.

What I'm saying is that it seems to me there's a REAL easy way to avoid this issue. If they can't see the gun, they can't enforce their policy. If you just HAVE to have the gun in your car for whatever reason, then you'll avoid dealing with your company if they can't see it.

Agreed that this is an interesting question.

Some years ago, my sister worked the late shift at a hospital which wasn't in the best part of town. The parking lot was also fairly isolated, and quite dark. Her husband wanted her to keep one in her car, and she agreed. Somehow, a co-worker found out, and she was instructed not to do it. Which she ignored.

While I would normally support the right of an employer to dictate this condition, I have two questions:

1. Does ANYONE think a nutjob would decide not to bring a gun to work because of this rule?

2. Can this be expanded to other constitutional rights? For example, the reason picketing of businesses is allowed is that a business isn't really considered private property.

I'll come down on the side of the employer, with the proviso that the employer should also be able to kick demonstrators and picketers off the property.

They'll just have to do their thing from across the street.

Except that generally you have to picket on the sidewalk OUTSIDE of the business- - you can't actually go on the business property. That's because businesses ARE considered private property, with very few exceptions (such as the California law that says malls are public property (but the stores in the mall are still private))

I run into the private/public property thing all the time in my job. I can take all the pictures I want of your business as long as I'm on the public sidewalk, and you can't tell me to leave or to stop rolling. But if I walk on to your parking lot and you tell me to leave, I have to do so.

right to property... at what point do state restrictionss end and property freedoms begin? If conoco does not want a gun on their property, they should have the right to ban them there. Public schools ban guns and other firearms, and Im sure that more than a few teachers have had to walk across dark parking lots..

I'd side with the company on this one. As previous posters pointed out, it's on their property and they should be the ones making the rules.

It´s company property and so, as stated above, they make the rules. First, I don´t see why you would want to live in a country where you have to carry a gun at every time to protect yourself. But I can understand if you have a late night job in East LA and feel the need to feel safe. How is the crime situation in Oklahoma? I´d say don´t bring a gun to work but you should be able to keep a gun in your car when you stop at a supermarket or gas station on your way to a hunting trip.

Our company has this policy....the policy also states they have the right to search your vehicle at their discretion and if you are found to be in violation of the policy you can be terminated immediately.

There are places you can have a gun, there are places you cant. If you have a problem with that policy, dont work for the company that has it.

How is this even an issue? You have right to freedom of speech, too, but you can't stand up at your desk and say whatever you want on the company property and time (like saying your boss is a dweeb, or trying to convert people to your religion).

It's private property, dunderheads.

I have a question, how safely can a gun be stored in a car? By that I mean shouldn't all guns be stored locked safely away in sturdy boxes?

Leaving your gun in the glove-compartment, or under the seat is just asking for it to be stolen and to fall into criminal hands.

Exactly what use does a gun have to a person while it is left out in the parking lot?

It is irresponsible to leave a deadly weapon unattended, within such easy reach of criminals, in my mind, it should be illegal to be found doing so.

I had my car broken into last night. If I kept a gun in the glove box it would be gone and in the hands of some twerp criminal.

I agree, which is why I'm all for the right to carry a weapon :)

At least we agree on something Ustwo - however I do think it's much easier to not leave a gun unattended if you simply don't have a gun in the first place. ;)

Such would be your right, but never take a knife to a gun fight :thumbsup:

A company or other property owner has the right to take whatever action they desire on hteir property such that it does not harm others. The owner does have a responsibility to reasonably provide for the safety of those it invites onto its property, and if it deems the presence of weapons to be a hazardous condition for others on the property, then it is not only allowed, but probably obligated to take measures to mitigate this risk.

As for enforcement, its not unlike internet porn. No, not all employees will obey company restrictions, but by having it as policy, all employess are aware that it is not acceptable, and should an incident occur, the employee can not claim push responsibility to the company.

The fact that the NRA wants to attack a company for exercising their property rights in a way that harms noone, and possibly enhances their employees' safety, just further shows how far off the charts this group is as they steadfastly oppose any rational compromises to allow weapon ownership, but mitigate the dangers presented by such ownership.

Josh

No, I don't. But I do get to throw pens at people.

I own guns, I have a concealed weapons permit, as a matter of fact I typically carry a gun most places I go. When I am at work, the gun is locked in the trunk of my vehicle. If my employer were to decide that this was unacceptable, and created a policy preventing me from bringing a firearm onto the premises, I simply would not park on company property. If that meant i had to find alternate parking and said parking was too far away to walk to my job, then I guess I'd have top buy a bicycle and a bicycle carrier for my car. I agree with the NRA on most issues, but like every other political group, there are times they support stuff that is just moronic.

Yeah, I was thinking of the situation in California where "free speech" prevents protesters, picketers, and proselytizers from being removed.

I haven't seen anything lately about airports. In fact, I haven't seen a Hare Krishna in one in years.

That's the question I'm asking. Can I make a rule that I don't allow gays on my business property? Unmarried couples in my rental property?

Once you start screwing with the Bill of Rights, it doesn't always wind up where you intend.

Your company policy is just aching to be tested in court.

Can they search your purse too?

If having gays or unmarried couples could be a potential danger to your other employees, then yes in my opinion you'd have that right. That's not the case though.

The company policy we sign when we agree to be an employee only states they may search your vehicle, when it is on their property.


I guess if my company is aching to be tested in court so are a LOT of them. Its my impression the person that owns the property has full rights to declare no firearms.

In spite of how it appears, I'm not trying to be argumentative here. I just have problems with that particular policy. Like the following:

Even the feds, when they have a search warrant, have to specify what they're searching FOR. That's why some of their findings get tossed out of court. If the warrant says "drugs," they can't mention in court that they found, for example, child pornography.

So when your company searches a car, what are they searching for? What if you're a union organizer, and they find a list of people at your company who've agreed to join? What if they find one of the magazines you posed for in your "wild youth"-- can they fire you for "conduct unbecoming to the company?" What about that half-empty bottle of wine from last night's party? Or that letter with the job offer from a competitor?

What if they find a prescription for an anti-cancer medicine in your car? Can they find an excuse to let you go, or not promote you, since you might not be around?

Of course they can--they just won't admit that they're doing it.

Also, a judge has to sign a search warrant. What if your boss doesn't like you, and wants to promote his friend into your job? What's to prevent him from searching your car? What's to prevent him from planting something?

What has also not been mentioned yet is that an employee can not sign away their rights. As an example, even if I get an employee to agree in writing that I don't have to pay him or her overtime, it won't hold up in court. And I'll be in a lot of financial trouble.

I think I would do one of two things at a company such as yours (provided I was either a lawyer or had the financial wherewithal to proceed). I'd either not sign the agreement, and tell a labor attorney about it when I wasn't hired, or plant something in my car resembling one of the concerns I listed above. A medical history, or whatever. That would be a strong basis for an invasion of privacy claim.

I say that as an employer, too. While I despise the basis for most lawsuits brought against employers, I feel strongly that an employer has no business searching your car, unless he has damn good reason to believe there's unauthorized company property in it.

I can understand someone feeling differently, but there would be hell to pay if someone searched my car without that basis.

Although I disagree with your premise about potential danger (a CAR is a potential danger, and crime goes down when carry laws are liberalized), that's a discussion for another time. But let's change things a little. Suppose a landlord's religion is very much against unmarried couples living together.

By forcing the landlord to rent to them anyway (which seems to have been established as precedent) you are forcing someone to violate their religion. Just like requiring a Hindu (I think) to cut his hair, or not wear a turban. Or telling a Jew he can't wear a Yamulke. Or telling a Mormon he must serve alcohol in his restaurant. (Oh yeah, serving alcohol to patrons who must drive home is a potential danger, too.)

I know I sound like I'm contradicting myself in regard to the gun argument, but (in my mind at least :)) I'm playing devil's advocate.

And establishing my position as being "Don't contradict the Bill of Rights."

I dont have the specific wording here, when I get to work I will look it up, the searching the vehicle pertains only to firearms.

This policy was put in place when the group of hunters we have at work decided to show off their guns during lunch hours during hunting season and one was accidentally discharged.

Well, it's not _really_ the same thing. If I as a landlord are forced to give people whose actions or beliefs I do not agree with housing, it will have no direct negative effect on me in the same way.

We're not talking about a company discriminating against a certain religion or group of people here. It's not like they say "If you own a gun, you're not welcome here". If they did, I would have a problem with that. They simply ask people to leave them at home, and is that really too much to ask?
Forcing someone to violate his/hers religious beliefs is in my opinion very different from asking people to not bring weapons to work.
To me, not wanting guns at work is similar to schools not wanting cell phones in class rooms. No one is forbidding you to own one, just don't bring it there.

I don't think we have a huge disagreement, especially after reading Shani's info on the idiots discharging a hunting rifle, or whatever it was.

I can't resist saying that a gun sitting in a car has no direct negative effect on anyone. Being forced to violate your religious beliefs does.

I guess my emotional basis is that in my opinion, if an employer can ban guns, a landlord should be able to choose whom they'd like to rent to, without having to explain his reasons either.

The simplistic argument for both is "You don't like the gun rule? Find someplace else to work."

"You don't like the landlord's requirement? Find someplace else to live."

That works for me. But the car searching business most definitely does not.

I don't understand why someone who is trained with firearms can't have one on them at all times, at work or not.

You have a point. If the car is broken into though, the gun might wind up in the wrong hands. Not bringing a gun will eliminate that risk

The company has a good reason for not allowing guns on their property: Keeping a safe work environment for their employees. (With that I'm not saying that if a gun would be brought there, all hell would break loose)
Again, I would have a problem if gun owners weren't allowed to work there at all, but I see no problem with not allowing them to bring their guns to work.
They're not being forced to get rid of their guns. They are simply asked to leave them behind for a few hours every day. Once the working day is over, they can cuddle their weapons for as long as they want.

I see where you are coming from. If a landlord says that there is no smoking allowed in the apartments because it disturbs neighbors/ruins the wallpaper/some other sane reason I see no problem with that either. If a landlord says he doesn't allow jews to rent his apartments on the basis that he doesn't like jews, that would be a different matter.
This company is similar to the first example. They are not banning guns because they don't like them, they are banning them for a good reason.

I don't really understand why the strong need to bring a gun to work. Why? Pure principle?

going back to the original post, this is a no-brainer: their house, their rules. to my mind the second amendment doesn't apply here, anyway...

What I don't understand is why someone would want to stop them. Everyone has their reasons for doing what they want. Even level-headed individuals do things that make others confused at times.

The part about someone breaking into the car... I agree with that one actually. A car is no place for a weapon. If one cares enough about weapons to always want to be prepared, they should keep it on their person or not at all.

Well I can see a reason for stopping it. There is simply no need for guns at work. Can you give me one good reason as why you have to bring your gun to work? Like I said earlier, the company is not forcing people to give up their guns or not allowing gun owners to work there, they are just asking them to leave their weapons at home. It's really not that big of a deal IMHO. After a days work they come home to their gun again. (Ok, that just made it sound like the gun was a puppy, but whatever...)

I'm pretty sure that most companies have rules in place saying it's a fireable offense to start slaughtering your co-workers. That policy, along with making it a fireable offense to have a gun in your locked, parked car are undoubtedly the reason why so few people stark massacreing their co-workers....it's simply because they don't want to get fired, right? :crazy:

Sure. Because you have to DRIVE to work. You never need a gun until you need one really badly, and then it's too late to go home and get it.

All that does is guarantee that if somebody decides to commit a crime there, the criminal is guaranteed to have an unarmed and helpless group of people to victimize. Ever wonder why "cop bars" so rarely get robbed? Hint: It may be because it's full of people with guns.

Really? My religion says it's a sin for me to go anywhere without a gun (and yes, I'm observant). Why should I have to commit a sin to work for somebody or to live someplace?

Ah. so when I go to apply for a job with a company, since I want to work for them, they have a right to demand a DNA sample to make sure I don't have a high chance of getting sick later and costing them money?

You say "such that it does not harm others". OK, I can live with that. So let's say an employee is driving home from work (or walking out to their car in the dark parking deck) and they get attacked and killed. Now they were not allowed to have the most effective means of self-defense because of corporate policy, yes? So their estate should be able to sue the hell out of the company for disarming them without providing an equivalent level of physical security, yes?

If you disarm people so that they cannot effectively defend themselves, you are OBLIGATED to protect them. If you fail to do so, you can be held liable.

Yes, but at the same time by doing so, they are assuming a higher standard of care to insure that the people who they have mandated to be disarmed are adequately protected from harm.

Unless your job requires it, no. I'm all for gun rights, but bringing a gun to work is like bringing a gun to school or church. It's an innapropriate time. Put it in a locked box in your car if you don't feel safe or going hunting or what have you.

I'd like to protect myself from the crazy whackos who shoot up the workplace when they get fired. If you can tell me when and where a crime will happen, please do. I'd like to carry my firearm then and ONLY then.

Ok, so park the car outside the company property.

Yeah, and other stores where the clerk has a gun never gets robbed. You're right, silly me.

Whatever you say daswig, whatever you say...

Because we all know this happens ALL THE TIME. Right?
What about the people that feel uncomfortable with their coworkers bringing guns to work? They should just suck it up?

What's wrong with an adult bringing a gun to school or church? You DO realize that several "school shootings" were STOPPED by school administrators or adult students getting their guns, don't you? A prime example of this was the Law School of the Appalacians shooting in Wise, Va, where the shooter was confronted by another student that got his gun from his car and took the shooter into custody.

"No gun zones" are just another way of saying "criminal-safe zones".

Maybe they need therapy to get over their Hopolophobia. Remember, Freud said "fear of weaponry is a sign of sexual and emotional immaturity."

So the company then assumes liability for their worker's safety, right?

Which store is more likely to get robbed? One with a sign on the door that says "No guns allowed, and our employees are unarmed", or one with a sign on the door that says "CCW holders are welcome, and our employees may be armed too"?

Are you denigrating my religious beliefs?

And somewhere around there...this discussion died. Oh well, it was interesting while it lasted.

good lord, do some of you people actually think like this and believe in this stuff?

Yes, and some people still believe that the Second Amendment is still "good law".

You might check the number of States in the US that have gone from "may issue" or "no issue" CCW to "shall issue" CCW since 1986...and what has happened to their crime rates since then.

You also might check out the caselaw on what exact duty the police have to protect individuals, even high-risk individuals, from criminality. You will be shocked at what you find. The old NWA song "911's a joke" doesn't miss the mark by far...

/me applauds the majority...

Given that something like 37 or 38 states now have "shall issue" (or less strict, Vermont and Alaska require no permit for CCW) CCW, is sounds like the majority of US states think CCW is a good thing. IIRC, only four states and DC now completely prohibit CCW(except, of course, for government officials, some pigs being more equal than others). So, is that the majority you are applauding?

BTW, the following states are AT LEAST "shall issue"...

Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Colorado
Conneticut
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Montana
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Mexico
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wyoming

wow.......

Would you care to guess what happened to those state's crime rates after "shall issue" CCW passed?

I'll provide you with a hint: The VPC's "Blood will run in the streets!" pronouncements haven't exactly been proven even remotely correct, with the anti-gun groups now struggling to "prove" that CCW does not lead to a decrease in criminality after CCW reform.

It's interesting to note that a law abiding person has a better chance of being illegally killed by a police officer in the US than of being illegally killed by a CCW holder, despite the fact that there are many more CCW holders than police officers. In fact, according to the statistics published by Texas DPS, status as a CCW holder is an excellent predictive factor for non-criminality, with CCW holders being far less likely to commit a crime than either the population at large or police officers. Kind of makes you think...

Miss Kitty with an assault weapon? I'm impressed. :hmm:

Ah. Ad homs based upon my avatar. Nice Argument, you must be right, and everything I said must be wrong, because you made fun of my avatar. :thumbsup:

actually..there is precedence for companies to be liable for the safety of the employee while he is on company property, including the parking lot, so yes, hte company does assume liability for worker safety while on company property

Back to your regularly scheduled NRA meeting

I know there is. And all that it will take for this to stop is for a company to be sued and lose for failing to protect their employees while having a "no guns at work" policy. Eventually, it will happen. Look at how Texas became "Shall Issue"...it had to do with a person who left her gun in her car to obey the law during the Luby's Massacre...and her parents died as a result. IIRC, she's in Congress now. Another interesting thing is how Lowe's got rid of their "no CCW" policy...a CCW holder who had left his gun in his car was attacked in the parking lot, and they retracted the policy when somebody pointed out just how much civil liability their policy brought on them...

An adult bringing a gun to church is disrespectful. No one will convince me otherwise.
I might need a source for this case. Was the second gun toting student charged along with the first?
So guns belong everywhere, eh? Well maybe we should allow guns on planes. You know, so we can prevent terrorism. :crazy:

^^^^ more eloquent than I can be at this late hour

I think that employers and any other private party has the right to exclude weapons from their location. I don't allow guns in my house -- but I shoot them at the range. I don't want guns at church. I don't want co-workers to have guns in their possession at work either.

I believe guns as weapons are fundamantally offensive in nature (as opposed to defensive). I sincerely value the right of a person to own and use one, but there are limits that begin in the shared spaces of society, when we are not at home.

I'm thinking about social spaces we typically inhabit, such as work and church. Though Wayne LaPierre starts talking gun owners being banned from gas stations and cafes, I think that argument is spurious and doesn't acknowledge the issues of personal security which non-gun-carriers feel.

Was daswig's banning at all related to this thread? Reading the first pages, I completely agreed with the group saying "my house, my rules." However, I was also convinced by daswig's argument about CCW laws and the rate of crime after they've been instated. The argument even seemed very level-headed in the *ahem* blatant provocation present. Was "wow......." really an appropriate response in an adult discussion? How about "good lord, do some of you people actually think like this and believe in this stuff?" I'm not stoking the fire, but that's not exactly the discourse I'm used to seeing. Just my 2 cents.

A gun is a deadly weapon, and I'd likely be uncomfortable if I believed the guy in the cubicle over had a pistol in his shirt. However, I think a responsible company would provide a SECURE working environment and a place ON-PREMISES for locking up a weapon. If their employees are legitimately worried about their security, they should be allowed to carry one -- up to the building. What's to say that the parking lot of the company isn't a horribly unsafe place? What if you locked your gun in your car and got attacked in the parking lot? Is it the employer's fault for "their house" being insecure, or the employer's fault for disarming their employee?

I actually worked on a "no-gun" property as a uniformed security guard, and I must admit that made me a bit nervous. There's nothing like walking around in a uniform by a sign that says "NO GUNS ON PREMISES" to attract all the attention you don't want. Especially the time when a punk kid swung a 6" lead pipe at me, knowing I wasn't armed. It's a thin line, and I think at least a little consideration should be taken for BOTH sides in this case.

There is a difference in that what NRA is doing is attempting to get people to adopt a very broad version of the amendment. What the amendment actually says is:

Fair housing would preclude you specifically from refusing to rent to someone because you disagree with their sexual preference or their choice to live together while not married. It also protects your right to refuse to rent to someone with a bad credit history, or to someone who uses your property for illegal purposes.

Refusing to serve gays at your business is also specifically prohibited, if you do it because they are gay.

However, such lifestyle choices are not always protected. A church doesn't have to admit gays, and neither does the boy scouts.

The second amendment doesn't guarantee that you can keep a gun in your car at work. Businesses have the right and the legal responsibility to use thier assests for the benefit of the stockholders. This is why your phone calls, computer usage, usage of company vehicles, and comings and goings can be monitored.

If your company puts a policy in writing, and that policy does not violate law or public policy, or create an undue burden, then it will be upheld by the courts, every time.

So, if you work for Conoco, don't have a gun in your car at work!

That's a compromise I could accept. I'd be very uncomfortable with my coworkers wearing guns, (I mean, who's to say they wont freak out and start shooting all over the place :) ) but if the company allowed them to bring their guns to the building entrance and drop them off to be locked in a safe gun cabinet, I'd say that's meeting both sides halfway.

Yes, I seem to remember that.
/sarcasm

I assume you interpret "shall not be infringed" to mean something different than the definitions in the dictionary.

I'm not quite sure why you're explaining this to me. I'd have preferred an explanation on the propriety of the government forcing, for example, an 80-year-old widow to rent to someone that daily violates that widow's religious beliefs.

And you explained this because ....?



That's what's being debated in this thread. However, the second amendment was intended to do exactly that. And to act as a check upon oppressive governments.

All of which are provided at company expense, unlike personal firearms.

That's the whole point. We're debating whether or not this company policy violates the second amendment. :crazy:

Hmm, no... It's their property... what the laws of the state and the constitution of the nation say goes. They can't make murder legal on their property. They cannot declare themselves a tax-free zone. They cannot sell alcohol without a proper permit. It doesn't matter that it's THEIR property.



Again, no... they cannot have conditions of employment that are in conflict with our rights and freedoms. This is, literally, no different than saying a company can have a "condition of employment" that you can't be black or asian or female. It's a federally protected, constitutional right.



That isn't an issue with this... that is an issue with the way judges allow the legal system to be maniuplated. Sadly we live in a very litigious society right now. But honeslty, the law would (should) hold the gunman responsible, not the company.



It's not about NEEDING to carry a gun... it's about being ALLOWED to.

True - they can't make illegal behavior legal. However, they CAN limit legal behavior within their property.

Your employer CAN tell you that you can't drink [alcohol] during work hours, even though that's LEGAL.

They CAN tell you that you can't wear cutoff jeans to work, even though it's LEGAL to do so.

They CAN tell you not to hurt their business by telling their customers exactly what you think of them, even though your right to do so is protected by the First Amendment.

You have a right to carry firearms in public, not necessarily in private locations...and certainly not where specifically prohibited by other law(airports, post offices, etc.).

I wasn't going to bother with this thread, but what the heck.

IMO, if you are cleared by a background check and are allowed by the laws of your state to carry a concealed firearm, then yes, you should be allowed to wherever you are.

You don't ask a policeman to remove their pistol when they enter your workplace, church, etc.

But wait, you say, they are better trained in firearm safety.

No, not usually.

Many cops fire their guns once or twice a year, just enough to stay certified. Whereas a typical CCW owner may go to the range and practice monthly, if not weekly.

If you can't carry your gun with you everywhere, then it defeats the whole purpose of having a CCW.

And that's exactly why gun opponents try to limit permit holders in ways like this. They don't believe in CCW at all.

I think you left part of it out, its "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

The "people" are you and me. It's also interesting to note that unlike the First Amendment, which starts out "Congress shall make no law", the language of the Second Amendment does not seem to limit the right enumerated to only protection from governmental action.

Nobdy needs to carry a gun. Most of the time we're perfectly safe without them. If the unlikely situation arises that we are the victims of violence, we're just as free to become cause-of-death statistics as we are to carry guns to prevent that from happening
I do go places between work and home. Between thsoe two, I could walk through a dark alley, be carjacked, or get mugged. The issue is that this kind of policy deprives us of a lot more than our right to carry at work.
Not quite. If, for example, they have a warrant to search for an illegally imported giant panda, and the y search in your jewelry box, they're overstepping their bounds. On the other hand, if they have a warrant to search for a few pounds of weed and they find a stack of counterfeit money in a place where the drugs could have been found, then it's legal.
School shootings have been stopped by armed resistance, and if a few teachers at Columbine HS had been armed, then the shooters could possibly have been stopped before the police arrived and waited a few hours to go in.
They get robbed, but unarmed clerks can't defend themselves. Not everyone is happy with the cash, some shoot anyway. Two jewelrs in my town were gunned down by a robber as they knelt against the wall and pled for their lives by someone who wasn't satisfied with the half million dollars' worth of stuff he stole. During this time the silent alarm had failed to alert police, some of who were at the station a block away.
It amazes me that so many people expect policies against guns at the workplace to stop shootings. If they're willing to break the law by killing everyone in the fucking office, they're not going to be stopped by a policy that lets the company fire them for having a gun. If there's a gun safe, there has to be a big enough hole in the window to shoot the guard and get himself a shitload of ammo and backup weapons. If you don't have a gun on you, you can't defend yourself. The good guys with guns aren't the ones you have to worry about. It's perfectly acceptable for an employer to require a CCW for you to be allowed to carry at work, and nobody is arguing that. You should be supporting those guys because they're the ones who are going to shoot back when crazy Johnnie from accounting gets pissed off by how much less he makes than you and decides to hunt you down.

I notice no one wants to touch that one.

I'll touch it...

Yes, I believe that we should make our pilots federal police officers and arm them. There are several companies currently making ammunition that could be used on planes w/o over penetrating, or going through the structure of the plane (Glaser and MagSafe are two good examples). I also believe that we should allow law enforcement personnel and CCW holders to carry on planes, provided that their weapons are loaded w/ the previously mentioned ammuniton. I don't think that John Q. Public should be allowed, but qhat I'm suggesting here is a group of people who have demonstrated that they are stable, not criminals, and not likely to become criminals.

So, allow the government to carry guns in planes but not allow John Q Public the right to defend himself ... isn't that what the 2nd ammendment fights against?

This was addressed, please read more carefully.

J. Q. has (or should have) the option to obtain a CCW permit.

The purpose of not allowing the general population to carry on board planes is that I believe that there is a need for a more thorough background check for this privilege/responsibility. A concealed weapons permit (CCW) satisfies that need in my mind, and as Lebell said, John Q. Public should be allowed the right to obtain said permit.

guns on airplanes...the only people i'd trust with a gun on an airplane is the pilot, honestly. Sorry, but 'accidents happen' costs lives. and yeah, i know, once, airplanes were taken over by people with mere boxcutters and a gun would have possibly have prevented a horrible situation, but in normal, everyday circumstances, i firmly believe a gun would pose a huge risk. Discharging a firearm in an enclosed cavity flying 30,000 feet in the air has very very few positive outcomes. I really don't think the framers of the constitution imagined people having to fight an oppressive government while 30,000 feet above the ground.

maybe it's just me, but i really would not feel safer with johnQ public packing heat on an airplane with my butt in it..

Plain and simple....... NO you don't.

I find it amazing these "pro gun rights" people totally disregard anyone else's rights. If I own a business and I say no guns and I mean no guns then you bringing a gun on my property shows great disrespect, a "fuck you" attitude towards my rights as to what I want on my property, and a callous self serving ignorant behavior that most of you accuse those who are in favor of gun control as having.

Moderation in everything. If you show respect then respect shall be given.... if you choose to fuck with people's wishes and say, "fuck you I have a right to carry this gun anywhere I wish" then you are creating self prophesizing problems and gun control then becomes an option to which I may favor moreso than your "rights".

I'm generally a believer in gun rights, practically and as a matter of principle. But I agree with this 100%.

The building isn't your property, and you don't have a right to be there. If there are conditions for being a guest in any particular place, follow those conditions or abstain from being a guest.

The same holds true for private property owners saying "I don't want African-Americans or gays (or whomever) on my property". Is that acceptable? Based upon your position of "moderately" depriving people of their civil liberties, I would have to say that such a conclusion is the logical extension of your argument. Or is the 14th Amendment somehow more valuable than the Second Amendment?

If you open your property to the public, you have to accept that the public will come....including parts of the public that you may not want. And that's simply too bad for the property owner.

So because a pilot has gone through the training to fly the airplane, he is magically more qualified than a person who has gone through the necessary training to carry a concealed gun? (which in my state includes a test to show that you can actually hit what your shooting at)

So you are comparing a person's being, their ethnicity, to a thing they have an option to carry?????

That's like my saying I have the "constitutional right to free speech therefore I will go into Pat Robertson's church dressed in my Satanic wardrobe and preach from my Satanic Bible."

So if I am in a movie theatre and screaming at the top of my lungs the theatre cannot do anything, because I am exercising my Constitutional right to free speech????

That's not menacing, or public disturbance? That won't get me thrown in jail?

Is that the mentality, your way of thinking in above quoted post?

It's this mentality in your post that truly makes me anti-gun and pro-gun law.

Second amendment be damned..... I have the right to refuse service to anyone, and I have the right to have my employees work by rules I apply so long as I break no labor laws...... last time I checked having a gun at work was not a labor law or protected under such.

I have many rights guaranteed me by the Constitution.... but they stop whereupon they may infringe upon another's right. My right to not allow guns in my business supercedes any right to ignore it and carry a gun on my property.

Come to my business carrying a gun.... I ask you to leave.... you choose to stay, I call the cops, whose side do you think they will take?

Are you an idiot???? I'm sorry but comparing not wanting someone carrying a gun on my property to racism and prejudiced.... is the stupidest thing I have read on here.

Amazing isn't it? Some (a vast majority) of pro-gunners argue also for property rights, and yet they have this mentality? Fuck the owner's wishes I'll do as I damned well please......

LOL..... ahhhhh ain't disrespect of other's rights great so long as YOU get what you want?

And on another note, if employees or guests are allowed to carry guns into amusement parks, theatres, anywhere I go and choose to feel secure.... i won't shop there.

The owner has his rights, I have mine to boycott.

interesting, I carry a gun into every amusement park i've been to, every time I take my kids to the movies (about once a month), every time I go to the grocery store, the mall, the park, pretty much everywhere. I don't carry my handgun into schools, courthouses, and the post office because the law specifically prohibits me from carrying guns in those places. Perhaps you should boycott every business in every state that issues concealed weapons permits. I guarantee you that if carrying a concealed handgun is legal in your state, that you have been in the same room with somebody carrying a gun more times than you can imagine.

People have a constitutionally protected right not to be discriminated against and denied service based upon their ethnicity. People also have a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. A private individual infringing upon either of those rights is violating the civil rights of the person being discriminated against. Does the nature of the enumerated civil liberty or the number of the amendment it is contained in affect its protected status?


Where did I say that? What you are suggesting with the gun bit is not violating somebody's civil liberties based upon racism, it's violating somebody's civil liberties based upon hoplophobia. Either way, it's a violation of their constitutionally protected civil liberties. The only difference is your motivation. And the argument for not allowing gays, african-americans, and other groups of people on your property is the same as the argument you present here...that it's your private property, and you can discriminate against whomever you choose to. All you should have to do to see this is change "gun" to "gay" or "african-american" in your argument.

If you open your property to the public and then violate part of that public's civil liberties, you will eventually be called upon it. You do have the option of not allowing guns or gays or african-americans on your property, all you have to do is to close it to the public.

Oh please. If an employer says that you cannot carry a weapon on their property, he is not prohibiting gun owners to work there. He is just saying that they should leave their guns at home.
If an employer says he doesn't allow gays on his property it's a big fucking difference. It's not like they can temporarily leave their gayness at home when going to work now is there?

Snarky fella aren't you?

Just what is a CCW permit?

Personally, I think anyone carrying a gun on a plane is insane. There are sure fire ways to prevent the sort of thing that happened on 9/11 if the airlines would care to spend the money on doing so.

However, with regard to the pilots, if they were to carry, I think pilots already undergo pretty intensive background checks, many if not most have air force or naval experience and know the mechanics of a plane (in general, where fuel lines and hydrolics are) - starting from "go", they probably are more "trustworthy" to carry a gun within the confines of an aircraft.

This is the point of disagreement. I don't believe their civil rights are being violated. They're being invited to step foot on private property, given certain conditions. They only lose this particular liberty if they, the public, deem it a reasonable cost for entrance and agree to give it up. The owners have EVERY right to set these conditions, it's their property.

If one doesn't wish to part with their liberties at the door, then one needs to accept that they won't be permitted to pass the door into someone else's private property. Balance of rights.

Fwiw, I think it's a shortsighted and ineffective way to stop gun violence. And a shortsighted and ineffective way to bar guns in states with CCW permits.

But they have the right to do that shortsighted and ineffective thing.

Sorry, didn't intend to be snarky. Your tone prompted the reply.

CCW = Concealed Carry Weapons permit.

Had one myself in Colorado (after training, an FBI background check and a couple of hundred $$ in fees).

Will have again in Oregon after I get a perm job.

This is exactlywhy i feel a pilot being the only armed person on a plane is MUCH safer than john Q public who shoots at the guy that looked suspicious and hits a fuel line sending the plane down as a fireball from the heavens..

While I appreciate the seriousness of shooting a gun on a plane,

a) John Q CCW holder would be liable for shooting a "guy that looked suspicious" on the street same as he would on an airplane...yet how many CCW holders get arrested for this? Answer...one that I can think of over the last ten years.

b) Your hyperbole imagery is exactly that...hyperbole. You've been watching too many movies. Even with armor piercing ammo, it would be next to impossible to bring down a plane with a pistol. Even a shot through the fusilage wouldn't cause an explosion or even a catastrophic decompression. Make CCW owners carry frangible ammo onboard and you remove even this 1 in a billion possibility.

Christ, people, why are you less afraid of asshats who carry guns illegally than you are of people who jump through all the legal loopholes to do so legally?? Are you equally afraid of chefs charging out of the kitchen at your local Denny's or IHOP and slicing up the guests with an 8 inch chef's knife??

//Christ, people, why are you less afraid of asshats who carry guns illegally than you are of people who jump through all the legal loopholes to do so legally??//

Because nobody needs to carry a gun, and I don't understand the mentality of someone who feels so insecure that they feel they must conduct their daily lives armed to kill. It's...scary.

I'm not afraid of the Denny's guy, because he leaves his knife at work when he goes home and doesn't feel the need to take it to the park, or to the movies, on a plane, or to his part-time job as a car salesman.

Lebell, you come across here as a decent, honest and intelligent person. Why do you feel it necessary to carry a gun? I really truthfully don't understand it.

^^^
I'm with zen. I didnt' realize I needed a gun in order to walk around in public, but hell, it seems like i may have to just to keep the status quo.

sad sad days

Also, i am not afraid of asshats who illegally carry guns on airplanes..bc they are generally stopped before they get on the airplane...Actually, i don't recall a hijacking of an airplane by an armed assailant.

I am not discriminating against anyone. I simply said you carry a gun on my property YOU WILL leave or the police wil escort you. As a business owner, you have the right to refuse service. If you choose to carry a gun on my property and I throw you off.... then sue me and see who wins. 99.99% sure it would be me, and I would make sure you paid my lawyers fees, and countersue for defamation. I'm not being prejudiced against anyone, I am not saying you cannot defend yourself, and I am not saying outside of my property you can't carry a gun.... but my RIGHTS to MY PROPERTY supercede your rights to have a gun on it. You have the choice to do business with me or not.... if you choose to then you leave the gun outside off my property... if you don't I have you escorted off. Plain and simple.... want to carry a gun... stay off my property.

Racism, sexual discrimination, ethnic prejudiced.... is a far, far, different animal. One cannot help what they are.... however, one does have the option to carry a gun.

Why is it illegal to carry a gun within I believe 500 feet of a school or church???????? Is that not this prejudice and stomping on your rights that you talk of?

You never answered my theatre or Pat Robertson scenarios I noticed, instead you keep equating my choice of not wanting a gun on my property to racism, and other prejudice. I find your argument degrading and if you truly believe this.... then I again reiterate.... this is a prime example of why I would never support CCW, and why I would ban weapons from my business and why I would choose to boycott a business I feel guns should not be allowed in.

There are those that are responsible and respectful, just like smokers, and I hate to believe I would punish the innocent because of the ignorant few who believe they rights can impede on mine.

I'm sure when I have gone to Cedar Point or Disney or a crowded bar, there have been guns there..... but noone has ever brought them to my attention and therefore I live by my naivity and believe what I don't know won't hurt me.... but what happens on the Magnum roller coaster when someone's gun goes off by accident and kills my son??????

What happens when a pick pocket lifts your gun and uses it to shoot innocent people?

Perhaps it may never happen, and perhaps you are willing to take that risk and 100% firmly believe that neither of those or any similar scenario would ever happen.

However, all it takes is 1 time. And I can guarantee if I am innocently riding a roller coaster and someone's gun would go off by accident and kill my son.... I would not only own the park but I would make sure the man/woman who had the gun did prison time... and if not I would make sure through connected friends that that person never carried a gun to an amusement park again.

I'm certain that Lebel doesn't need ~me~ speaking for him, but this is out of line and inappropriate.

These characteristics ARE NOT IN conflict with each other.

As if your lack of understanding reduces someone's decency, honesty or intelligence.

-bear

First, explain to me how a gun just goes off by accident. Second, if I enter your business, you will not know I have a gun, unless it's absolutely necessary for me to use it. I spent an entire day at a local fair type event with an off duty police officer, it was not until I got into my car and unholstered my gun to place it onto the seat next to me that he realized I was carrying one. This is somebody who is trained to notice EVERYTHING. If you see my gun in your place of business, I guarantee it's because somebody's life is in immediate danger, and your likely to thank me when I eliminate that threat.
As far as a pickpocket lifting my gun, if I'm carrying concealed, he nor anybody else will even know I have the gun. What happens if the pickpocket brings a gun with him and starts shooting people?

On a side note, Pan, are you aware that your state is a "shall issue" state? Meaning that if I'm not legally barred from receiving a CCW permit that they are legally required to issue it to me.

Of course you are. You are saying that certain people are not welcome at your business because they choose to exercise their constitutionally enumerated rights.

How would the police get there? After all, you're barring people with guns from your property, right? Are you going to require them to disarm before they come in?

Are you in England? Because that's the legal system you're describing...it's called "loser pays", and isn't how the US court system operates. Also, you are precluded from filing a defamation suit for statements in court proceedings.

Sure you are being prejudiced, against people with CCW permits. You are not discriminating based upon skin color, you're discriminating based upon their exercise of their civil liberties.

It's not illegal where I am. I am pretty sure it's not illegal where you are, because it would violate the Constitution in half a dozen different ways. For example, such a law would bar gun owners from living near schools or churches. That alone would make such a law unconstitutional.

I didn't say it was racist, I said it was discriminatory and infringed upon a constitutionally enumerated right. There is a difference.


Can you tell us of a single time that a holstered firearm "just went off" without a human being acting upon it? Can you tell us of a single documentable incident where somebody had a gun pickpocketed away from them? Please remember, firearms are very heavy, and most people would notice when somebody takes several pounds of steel out of their holster.

You have a strange idea about how the justice system works. And your "we must strip people of their civil liberties if it just saves one child's life" bit has grown pretty threadbare.

I'm indifferent as hell to gun ownership. I don't want one in my house and couldn't care less how many you have in yours.

At the time the second ammendment was written, only white male landowners were considered citizens and most were part of the local militia. "Arms" at the time consisted of muskets. Some of the NRA interpretations of the 2nd ammendment truely amaze me, they are more creative than the fundamentalist interpretations of the bible.

In the context of the times, I see a right for a citizen to have a musket at home in case the militia gets called up.

How exactly do you read this sentence and see a constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon into your place of employment against your employer's consent? Could the same logic be used to create a constitutional right to Stinger missiles or thermonuclear devices?