TFS Magnum welcomes comments - be nice or be gone
I carry all the time and have never been raped or killed.the end.
You have the right to protect yourself. You have the right to keep and bear arms. You (and other people, including employers) have the right to set the terms for someone entering your property.
If your employer doesn't allow weapons on the property, you are free to work or park somewhere else.
Don't use the government to force someone else to give up a right when you have other options.
No one said that the government needs to do something about it, the employees need to do something about it, they need to do what they can do to help change the rules of their employers. Create a petition, speak with the owner/CEO or whomever you can get to, colletivly purchase some stock in the company and go to some meeting, do whatever you can.
As a Libertarian I am against the governments involvement in almost everything...
So do employers - companies in general - get to search the cars of every employee or customer driving on their property?
Also if employers have the right to set terms, then they also have the responsibility to provide security.
This probably won't change until someone sues an employer for not providing security. If you keep me from defending myself, then you must accept that responsibility on your shoulders.
Again, as an employee, you have voluntarily CHOSEN to accept the terms of employment. If they want to search you every day when you come in, they will. If you don't like it, find another job. Nobody is FORCING you to be searched. You have chosen to work there, and chosen to disarm as a condition of employment. YOU must bear the responsibility of your choices, not the employer.
Mark, I agree with you. Usually the topic is being discussed in the context of regulations requiring employers to allow guns in locked cars in parking lots.
Look at from the view of the Employer.
If they allow firearms on there property then they are subject to being sued if any incidence happen on there property.
So there view is prohibiting firearms will provide a level of protection from suits.
As for the Government being involved, they are already involved. By allowing the victim to blame the Employer/Company and get compensation for acts of criminals on there property.
A better way would be to give Employers/Companies immunities against these type suits.
That would remove a primary motivation for prohibiting firearms.
most if not all of the bills being considered (actually Florida and a mid-western state like Kansas are the only 2 I know about) do provide for immunity to the company.
Reason: it is one thing for them to search YOU, but it is quite another for them to search a private vehicle. At least in Colorado, your car is an extension of your home, any rights you have in your home extend to your vehicle, including concealed firearms and the like.
Does an employer have any right to tell you that a legally transported piece of property can not be in your vehicle? I don't think they do. Would I risk losing my job if somone were to find a firearm in my vehicle? more than likely, but it is my choice.
Like I said before, if you don't like the way something is, change it.
I would just like to point out the folks going on about getting government off the backs of corporations that in the original post I do not lobby for changes in any law.
I merely point out that corporate policies which disarm employees only make them vulnerable to attack.
Hmm. And would the libs defending corporate and government tyranny feel the same if they were the ones being attacked? Will reason overrule self-preservation? Mrs. Reason is unreasonable unless, to avoid righteous defenders of life and property, she would give up her job at a company that openly condones guns on the property (or even concealed carry) and move to UK or AU, where self-defense is prohibited. The rest of us still believe in reality. Great comments ZD, but don't let them lead you into extraneous and weak reasoning.
ZD: I'm glad to hear you're not advocating _forcing_ employers to allow their employees to bring guns to work.
You're right that it leaves them defenseless.
Reason is not thinking this thru. Reason OBJECTS to people having a gun in the car, aplauds the company for searching the car.
Now, let's think a bit. WHAT GOVERNMENT EVER GAVE THE COMPANY THE RIGHT TO REMOVE YOUR CIVIL RIGHTS (AKA THE 2ND AMENDMENT)? Would that same company agree to the employees creating a 100% profit tax and enforcing it? Of course not, the company would say it wasn't legal.
I say it isn't legal for the company to throw the Bill of Rights out the door.
Be that guns, freedom of speech, the right not to be arbitrarily searched of your possessions (car or locker), and a host of other things.
Companies do this regularly. They demand we become "wage slaves" and meekly do as we're told. I don't agree and therefore I do not obey unconstitutional rules at my workspace.
IF EVERYONE DID THIS ONE ACT, REFUSAL, WE WOULD NOT HAVE THIS PROBLEM DISCUSSION.
Think back in time. How many times did an employee drive to work with a rifle or handgun in the car? Nothing was said because EVERYONE KNEW IT WASN'T THEIR BUSINESS TO DECIDE WHETHER THE GUN WAS THERE OR NOT!
THIS IS WHERE WE ARE AT NOW........
GOVERNMENT CONTROLS, WE PLEAD FOR OUR GOD GIVEN RIGHTS AND BOW AND SCRAPE WHEN THEY ALLOW US SOMETHING.
NOT I......
"WHAT GOVERNMENT EVER GAVE THE COMPANY THE RIGHT TO REMOVE YOUR CIVIL RIGHTS (AKA THE 2ND AMENDMENT)? "
The only problem is that the Bill of Rights limits the federal government; it has no bearing on companies and employees. For example, the government cannot keep you from speaking your mind, but their is nothing in the constitution that says owners of property have to allow it on their property, the same way a person can refuse you access to their property if you are armed and they do not wish firearms on their property.
I don't believe that a company has to deny a right in order to not be sued. If they requried people to carry they could be sued if an incident occured but if they said nothing on the subject, I don't think there is much cause for action.
Commenting by HaloScan
