Working for a company banning weapons on property.

[Guest faust921]

I think we need to pull together on this one. If Michael Jackson the child molester can get a bill to the floor (Hardaway) why can this bill get there?

[Guest manofsteel]

LOL! sorry about the spelling, just got off a 14 hour shift with a 72 mile drive home. I hate we cant get this one taken care of. I have sent emails to my reps. and congressmen. I thought I read somewhere that Alabama had passed a similar bill just hoping we would follow.

[Guest mosinon]

Is this really a huge problem? Are there really places that inspect your car when you work there to make sure you don't have a gun?

I'm asking cause I don't know.

[-boatman-]

They have never checked where I work that I know of, but they can.

[Links2k]

Fedex will never allow it, so Memphis reps will always vote against it. My place of employment (govt) will fire me if a gun in found on our parking lot.

[peejman]

Is this really a huge problem? Are there really places that inspect your car when you work there to make sure you don't have a gun?

I'm asking cause I don't know.

Check your employer's policies. Most places that prohibit firearms include having one in your car. Everywhere I've worked had such a policy. I'm not aware of any actual searches, and I do know plenty of people who keep one in their car anyway.

One of my sister's coworkers was fired for bringing a firearm to work. They had a birthday party on the premises after work hours. One of the gifts was a handgun. Ironically, it was a husband and wife (both employees)... the wife bought her husband a pistol. When the management learned what happened, they got them together and said "one of you is going home today, you decide who." Per company policy, they could have fired both of them. It sucks, but such is life when you work for someone else.

[RobD]

Sadly where I work the unarmed "security guards" drive around the lot in there f-ing little preius's and look in cars (they even take pictures of valuables and email to everyone to let you know that someone didnt hide there stuff).

[CrazyRay]

I guess I have a different take on this... In that I feel property owner rights should trump me wanting to carry a gun on *their* property. Saying that - I really would prefer that no such law were put into place.

I know most of you don't see it that way, so I'm sure you'll disagree

[E4 No More]

I guess I have a different take on this... In that I feel property owner rights should trump me wanting to carry a gun on *their* property. Saying that - I really would prefer that no such law were put into place.

I know most of you don't see it that way, so I'm sure you'll disagree

Then you should agree that the property owner would assume liability for those actions if their employee is the victim of a violent crime on the way home...right?

[CrazyRay]

Then you should agree that the property owner would assume liability for those actions if their employee is the victim of a violent crime on the way home...right?

A compelling emotional response, but not grounded in logic or the law.

Do you agree to take on the real and legal liability to protect - by gun - every person who is on your property (personal, or business)? Of course not - as that goes against the very thing we all believe in - PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Let's keep a perspective on what you are advocating:

You want the GOVERNMENT to TAKE AWAY property rights, so you can force a property owner to let you carry a gun there.

Instead, I want to retain property rights (a right that arguably is the very reason we have the 2nd Amendment) and let the property owner decide what happens on THEIR property.

You, then - as a safety minded proponet of personal responsibility - have to decide if it is in your best interest to enter that piece of property, knowing you are unable to carry a weapon there.

You can disagree all you want - but this view is 100% in line with the concept of personal responsibility, whereas your view is one that has you FORCING property owners to surrender their rights, by FORCE of the government.

Is that really the position we want to be in, as advocated of the Constitution and the freedoms is is supposed to protect?

[Guest HexHead]

Fedex will never allow it, so Memphis reps will always vote against it.

Oh well, FedEx has spoken. We might as well all go home then.

[Guest HexHead]

Sadly where I work the unarmed "security guards" drive around the lot in there f-ing little preius's and look in cars (they even take pictures of valuables and email to everyone to let you know that someone didnt hide there stuff).

Well, if you're just leaving your gun on the seat or something, then you deserve to get your ass fired. Lock it out of sight in the glove box before you enter company property and don't let ANYONE know you have it. Just lock and unlock your glove box without opening it when you're off the property.

[Guest HexHead]

You can disagree all you want - but this view is 100% in line with the concept of personal responsibility, whereas your view is one that has you FORCING property owners to surrender their rights, by FORCE of the government.

Your personal rights end at the tip of my nose. I'm all for forcing property owners to surrender their rights when they trample MY rights. No corporation should have more rights than an individual. Period.

[leroy]

Check your employer's policies. Most places that prohibit firearms include having one in your car. Everywhere I've worked had such a policy. I'm not aware of any actual searches, and I do know plenty of people who keep one in their car anyway.

....

Good advice. I'm retired; but i worked for a well known company that would fire you if you were found with a firearm in your vehicle. Their security agency had "carte blanche" authority to search your car. It was a condition of employment.

My guess is that the polititians want this little thunderstorm to blow over. They are between the proverbial "rock and hard place". State and Federal employees are barred from doing it by long established precident (and probably some obscure law). The law has some private (or corporate) ownership of property issues; that is, government telling private citizens what they can do on their own property, etc. The appearance of catering to the desires of a relatively small population (us gun owners who carry guns); on and on.

I, like others, would like to see it passed; but i think it faces some serious hurdles. Remember, for the most part, all polititians are just that; polititians.

Food for thought.

Leroy

[JayC]

As Hexhead has said, this entire legal fairytail that a corporation is a person has gotten way out of control... Corporations are not part of 'We The People'...

But, even if they were, the Government forces businesses to do things all the time, for example, they force businesses to sell to certain people, tell them who they can or can't fire, etc...

The simpler solution to this problem is to pass a law that includes your car as an extension of your house and/or business... Make it completely legal (as in many other states) to poses a loaded firearm in your vehicle... And remove anybodies ability to prohibit those vehicles where they are otherwise legal to be.

[E4 No More]

A compelling emotional response, but not grounded in logic or the law.

Do you agree to take on the real and legal liability to protect - by gun - every person who is on your property (personal, or business)? Of course not - as that goes against the very thing we all believe in - PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

Let's keep a perspective on what you are advocating:

You want the GOVERNMENT to TAKE AWAY property rights, so you can force a property owner to let you carry a gun there.

Instead, I want to retain property rights (a right that arguably is the very reason we have the 2nd Amendment) and let the property owner decide what happens on THEIR property.

You, then - as a safety minded proponet of personal responsibility - have to decide if it is in your best interest to enter that piece of property, knowing you are unable to carry a weapon there.

You can disagree all you want - but this view is 100% in line with the concept of personal responsibility, whereas your view is one that has you FORCING property owners to surrender their rights, by FORCE of the government.

Is that really the position we want to be in, as advocated of the Constitution and the freedoms is is supposed to protect?

You ARE legally responsible for everything that happens to anyone on your property regardless of whether they were invited or not. Are you not aware of lawsuits by burglars for being hurt while committing crimes?

Edited February 12, 2010 by SWJewellTN

[CrazyRay]

Your personal rights end at the tip of my nose. I'm all for forcing property owners to surrender their rights when they trample MY rights. No corporation should have more rights than an individual. Period.

I have no clue what that first sentence means... care to explain?

As for your differentiation between corporate held property and private property... What Constitutional grounds do you have for making that distinction?

The 2nd Amendment is a contract between YOU and the GOVERNMENT. It states that the GOVERNMENT will not take away your rights.

That is NOTHING to do with a private entity - be is personal or proporate - being able to retain THEIR rights to the property they legally own.

Again - this is about you wanting to have the government forcible take away property rights... no more, no less.

On a side note - since I saw the issue of cars being mentioned, there is a conflict of personal property rights there. IMHO, the most a real property (land) owner should be able to do in that instance is ask you to remove your property (the car) from their property. They should not have a right to search your property simply because it is located on their property.

I think you'll find my view on this is pretty consistent as far as retaining rights

[leroy]

A compelling emotional response, but not grounded in logic or the law.

1. ....Do you agree to take on the real and legal liability to protect - by gun - every person who is on your property (personal, or business)? Of course not - as that goes against the very thing we all believe in - PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.......

,,,,,

2. Instead, I want to retain property rights (a right that arguably is the very reason we have the 2nd Amendment) and let the property owner decide what happens on THEIR property.

Is that really the position we want to be in, as advocated of the Constitution and the freedoms is is supposed to protect?

Ray:__________

I agree with number 2; i aint sure that i agree with number 1. I will grant that it happens that many times the company is compelled to do just what you have said here. The reason is that they have the deepest pockets, can be hurt the most from adverse publicity, are the most likely to pay, etc, etc ... and are the most easily intimidated by the amulance chasers, polititians, and riff-raff that populates modern culture. The ONLY REASON that this "assumption of responsibility" by the corporation (or individual) can happen is that the tort legal lobby has won the battle for frivilous lawsuits in both the legislature and the pop culture mindset.

If you want true "Individual Responsibility"; start by reigning in these crooks and professional extortionists who use the law to fleece corporations (and individuals) with these ridiculous suits. All this can be done with the stroke of the legislative pen. My guess is that it will never happen because of the combined howling of the tort law lobby, activist judges, anti-capitalists, and the trash that have the "it aint my fault; you are responsible for me" mentality that has so permeated our society. That being said; companies and individuals need to get a backbone; stop rolling over; and publically stand up to these white collar thugs and extortionists. Eighty years ago; a suit alledging "failure to protect" brought against a company by an individual wouldn't have made it to court; today it will.

If you are advocating tort and liability reform and advocating PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, as i believe the Founding Fathers envisioned; i'm all for starting now and am willing to help you campaign for it. When do we get started???!

Kind regrds,

Leroy

JayC is exactly right. See below:

As Hexhead has said, this entire legal fairytail that a corporation is a person has gotten way out of control... Corporations are not part of 'We The People'...

But, even if they were, the Government forces businesses to do things all the time, for example, they force businesses to sell to certain people, tell them who they can or can't fire, etc...

The simpler solution to this problem is to pass a law that includes your car as an extension of your house and/or business... Make it completely legal (as in many other states) to poses a loaded firearm in your vehicle... And remove anybodies ability to prohibit those vehicles where they are otherwise legal to be.

Excellent point!!!

Leroy

Edited February 12, 2010 by leroy
added stuff!!

[Guest HexHead]

I have no clue what that first sentence means... care to explain?

You retain all your rights, up until they infringe on my rights.

As for your differentiation between corporate held property and private property... What Constitutional grounds do you have for making that distinction?

A corporation isn't a person.

The 2nd Amendment is a contract between YOU and the GOVERNMENT. It states that the GOVERNMENT will not take away your rights.

That is NOTHING to do with a private entity - be is personal or proporate - being able to retain THEIR rights to the property they legally own.

And yet you seem to have no problem allowing the government to give property owners the ability to take away my right to self defense. They can refuse to allow me to bring weapons into the building, but don't have the right to prevent me the ability to protect myself on the journey to and from work. That's no different than a corporation telling you that you can't smoke in your home since it may effect their health insurance rates.

Again - this is about you wanting to have the government forcible take away property rights... no more, no less.

As was pointed out before, businesses have to operate under all kinds of regulations that impact their "property rights". Why are we the only sacrificial lamb that it's okay to tramp on?

On a side note - since I saw the issue of cars being mentioned, there is a conflict of personal property rights there. IMHO, the most a real property (land) owner should be able to do in that instance is ask you to remove your property (the car) from their property. They should not have a right to search your property simply because it is located on their property.

I agree. They have no right and I'd tell them to go **** themselves, just like I would anyone that doesn't have a search warrant.

[CrazyRay]

As Hexhead has said, this entire legal fairytail that a corporation is a person has gotten way out of control... Corporations are not part of 'We The People'...

Are you honestly suggesting that the founding fathers would agree with you on taking away property rights just because of the name registered on the title of said property?

But, even if they were, the Government forces businesses to do things all the time, for example, they force businesses to sell to certain people, tell them who they can or can't fire, etc...

Are you saying you want to be a part of that process? I thought pro 2nd Amendment people generally abhorred the govenment meddling in our lives in those ways.

The simpler solution to this problem is to pass a law that includes your car as an extension of your house and/or business... Make it completely legal (as in many other states) to poses a loaded firearm in your vehicle... And remove anybodies ability to prohibit those vehicles where they are otherwise legal to be.

I disagree, and laid out my suggestion just a post previous. My solutions retains your right to secure your property (no private entity should be able to search your car - EVER), while retaining the property owner's rights to decide what they want or don't want on their property. And just like anything else - a property owner can either allow you to be there with a gun, or ask you to leave if they think have a gun.

But since they can't search your car - they better be *real* sure when they ask you to leave, because they will have to defend against that decision in the courts.

I think this preserves everyone's rights and is IMHO the best compromise in that regard.

Edited February 12, 2010 by CrazyRay

[CrazyRay]

You retain all your rights, up until they infringe on my rights.

You have no right to carry a gun on my property - period. Again - I think you need to brust up on the fact that the Constitution is a contract between YOU and the Government, and the 2nd Amendment does NOT force me to do anything in regards to you.

A corporation isn't a person.

Again, show me where the Constitution gives you the right to carry a gun on anyone's property against their wishes - personal or corporately held.

And yet you seem to have no problem allowing the government to give property owners the ability to take away my right to self defense.

You have a perception issue here. The government is not involved in the least - this is an issue between a property owner and an individual person.

YOU are the one wanting the government involved in passing laws to strip away property rights.

They can refuse to allow me to bring weapons into the building, but don't have the right to prevent me the ability to protect myself on the journey to and from work.

They (property owners) aren't telling you that you can't protect yourself to and from work - they are simply telling you they don't want guns on their property.

It is YOUR (and my) problem how to resolve those two things, not theirs.

I agree. They have no right and I'd tell them to go **** themselves, just like I would anyone that doesn't have a search warrant.

If it's your employer, I'd suggest a more tactful approach unless you are just itching for a wrongful termination lawsuit Edited February 12, 2010 by CrazyRay

[E4 No More]

I can't believe that we're going to debate this bull- again with a newby. I'm out.

[GKar]

During the summer session meeting concerning one of these bills, one of the primary concerns expressed by opponents was the potential liability they perceived if possession as described in the bill was allowed (ie, locked in car out of sight). Several legislators indicated they would be inclined to amend the bill to insert specific relief from such liabilities - indeed, they said they have done so on similar issues in the past. That would allay the expressed concerns by the opponents....if, indeed, those are really their objections. Listening to FedEx's presentation, I don't believe they were quite forthright and upstanding....

[CrazyRay]

I can't believe that we're going to debate this bull- again with a newby. I'm out.

lol... as if my post count has anything to do with a reasonable debate, facts, and logic.

[JAB]

I

On a side note - since I saw the issue of cars being mentioned, there is a conflict of personal property rights there. IMHO, the most a real property (land) owner should be able to do in that instance is ask you to remove your property (the car) from their property. They should not have a right to search your property simply because it is located on their property.

Exactly - my problem with all the folks who only want to trumpet the 'property owner's rights' is that they do not recognize my rights to determine what takes place within the scope of my property (my vehicle.) The passenger compartment of my vehicle remains my property regardless of where it is parked and a law which recognizes that would go a long way toward solving the problem. I would, however, also want to see a stipulation included that expressly forbids, in no uncertain terms, employers requiring employees to submit to vehicle searches as a condition of employment. It should be spelled out that employers cannot make such a requirement either at the time of the search or by requiring employees to sign documents authorizing potential searches at a future time. If such were the law, unless an employee let it be known at work that he or she had a firearm in his or her vehicle, the employer would have no reason to ask the employee to remove the vehicle from the property and certainly could not use the firearm as a reason for termination of employment.