2nd amendment poll in Indy Star

[Tryin']

60.9, I believe. . .

 

[public servant]

Is it really "forcing" the business owner, or is it giving back 2nd Amendment rights where they had been taken?

If the business owner doesn't want it on his property...then yes, it's being forced on them. I don't agree with having to go to work without a weapon, but I guess the question is...where do their rights and the rights of gun owners begin and end?

I know from reading threads here that many people don't want business owners told who they have to hire...that they don't want business owners told they must provide this or that benefit. But are we willing to allow the gov't. to tell them what they must allow on their property?

I would think the solution would be...if you don't like that the business owner doesn't allow our firearms on their property...find a place of employment that does. No one is forcing anyone to work at these places. I know that's not feasible...but it's a solution to giving up 2A rights.

As I said...I'm all for being allowed to travel back and forth to work with a weapon. But do "we" have the right to force it on the owner of private property? I personally do not think so. (this is why I have not yet voted in the poll) I think we have to change their minds...not have the gov't. change it for them.

 

[Roadie]

If the business owner doesn't want it on his property...then yes, it's being forced on them. I don't agree with having to go to work without a weapon, but I guess the question is...where do their rights and the rights of gun owners begin and end?

I know from reading threads here that many people don't want business owners told who they have to hire...that they don't want business owners told they must provide this or that benefit. But are we willing to allow the gov't. to tell them what they must allow on their property?

I would think the solution would be...if you don't like that the business owner doesn't allow our firearms on their property...find a place of employment that does. No one is forcing anyone to work at these places. I know that's not feasible...but it's a solution to giving up 2A rights.

As I said...I'm all for being allowed to travel back and forth to work with a weapon. But do "we" have the right to force it on the owner of private property? I personally do not think so. (this is why I have not yet voted in the poll) I think we have to change their minds...not have the gov't. change it for them.

I see both sides of the issue, I really do. The bottom line is:
Do I give up my personal property rights in my car, because it sits on someone elses property?

If an employer has a no smoking policy, do they have the right to tell employees not to have cigarettes in their cars?

If I work for Apple, can they tell me I can't have a Acer netbook in my car?

I don't know the answer to that. My gut says no. If the answer is no, then they shoudlnt have a right to dictate ANYTHING that I legally possess in my car.

I agree with education. The more we can do to make people realize "Gun Free Zones" are a ludicrous concept, the better.

 

[originalhonkey]

done

 

[dross]

I find myself in the odd position of arguing for something I don't feel too strongly about. Yet I think the point needs to be made.

Your employer can tell you not to have anything in your car he doesn't like. He can tell you not to vote. He can tell you that you must have an air freshener in your car. He can tell you that when you go home at night you have to stand on one foot and whistle Dixie.

You don't have to do it.

The employer isn't infringing on any rights you have at all. He's just saying, "Don't bring a gun on my property."

I understand dburkhead's arguments, and on one level I agree. Basically, in the real world we live in, we already have this type of regulation, so why not have this regulation, which is for the good, and not particularly onerous to the employer. I agree with this. Yet, I feel it's important to make the philosophical point.

No one is making anyone do anything. Carry if you like. Keep your weapon in your car if you like. Do whatever you like. But, when you're on my property you must follow my rules, even if the rules I make are stupid and arbitrary. Don't like my stupid rules? No problem. I'm not going to force you to do anything. It's completely and totally your choice. Just don't come on my property.

Don't I have the basic right to set whatever stupid and arbitrary rules I want on my own property, property that I bought and paid for? You don't have to follow them if you don't like them. You just have to leave.

 

[Eddie]

Regarding the ongoning thread between Dross and Dburkhead. I think that Dross's position of "the employer makes the rules on their own property" works great if the business across the street from the place that bans guns is hiring and allows guns. The point I see in Dburkhead's posts is that if for liability purposes all big employers don't allow their employees to carry their gun with them to work and leave it in the car then there is no longer a choice.

We do limit some things that the larger employers can do. We force them to buy unemployment insurance, follow OSHA rules, subject them to liability if they discriminate or sexually harass their employees. I think that our constitutional rights lie on a separate plane from other rules. The RKBA to me is similar to the right not to be discriminated against at work. I think it deserves an extra layer of protection.

 

[critter592]

I can't vote on the poll. Is it over? Anyone else able to still vote?

 

[shibumiseeker]

I find myself in the odd position of arguing for something I don't feel too strongly about. Yet I think the point needs to be made.

Your employer can tell you not to have anything in your car he doesn't like. He can tell you not to vote.

...

.

They can tell you not to vote, but they may not fire you if you do vote.

It gets down to the mix of fundamental rights. The employee's right to maintaining the extension of their home via their vehicle and the employer's private property rights. To a degree I feel the PRIVATE property (ie, your home) is more sacrosanct than a semi public place, even if it is on private property. An employer invites the public in (to varying degrees depending on the business), and thus in my opinion it does not compare to the rights retained insude a home. I am not saying all rights are given up, just that the two are not equal in my mind.

As long as it does not directly impact my job performance, I don't feel any employer has the right to dictate what I do outside of that employment.

 

[pudly]

I can't vote on the poll. Is it over? Anyone else able to still vote?

Looks like the poll is over. Final count is:

Yes: 60.1%
No: 39.9%
Total votes: 2495

 

[antsi]

I think that Dross's position of "the employer makes the rules on their own property" works great if the business across the street from the place that bans guns is hiring and allows guns. The point I see in Dburkhead's posts is that if for liability purposes all big employers don't allow their employees to carry their gun with them to work and leave it in the car then there is no longer a choice.

This.

Just for instance in my field, let's all say that we'll only give our business to hospitals that respect employees' RKBA, and we'll only work for hospitals that do so. Congratulations, there is no hospital in the USA that meets your criteria. I guess you can always buy a copy of "Home Brain Surgery Made E-Z" and figure it out for yourself.

I think too many people are viewing this issue through the lens of personal private property rights. Certainly I can see if you personally don't want guests to carry in your home, you have the right to set that rule and kick people out if they don't comply. But since when do corporations have individual rights that trump those of actual people?

We are rapidly moving toward a corporatist state, where big companies are in control. People argue endlessly over fringe differences between the Democrats and Republicans, but with either party in control, it is the large corporations that are pulling the strings. Under Bush & Co, we passed Medicare Part D that, under the guise of providing drugs to the elderly and disabled, was actually a mega-billions transfer of taxpayer money to the drug companies and served only to cement in place the market distortions that are profitable to them. Now, under Obama & Co, we are about to pass a "health reform" bill that was essentially dictated by hospitals, physician groups, and insurance companies, and again transfers $billions/trillions from the taxpayer to these corporate interests - and again, whose major effect is to eliminate free markets and cement in place forever sweetheart deals that are profitable for them and needlessly expensive for us. Elect a (D) or an (R), either way, the corporate interests get their way and the people get screwed.

So, no, I am not going to cry for the unspeakable pain felt in the corporate board room when they have to contemplate the idea that one of their proletarian servants might possibly have firearm locked in his car out in the garage. Oh, the humanity!

 

[jeremy]

We are rapidly moving toward a corporatist state, where big companies are in control.

We have been here since the mid-1800's...

 

[Roadie]

I find myself in the odd position of arguing for something I don't feel too strongly about. Yet I think the point needs to be made.

Your employer can tell you not to have anything in your car he doesn't like. He can tell you not to vote. He can tell you that you must have an air freshener in your car. He can tell you that when you go home at night you have to stand on one foot and whistle Dixie.

You don't have to do it.

The employer isn't infringing on any rights you have at all. He's just saying, "Don't bring a gun on my property."

I understand dburkhead's arguments, and on one level I agree. Basically, in the real world we live in, we already have this type of regulation, so why not have this regulation, which is for the good, and not particularly onerous to the employer. I agree with this. Yet, I feel it's important to make the philosophical point.

No one is making anyone do anything. Carry if you like. Keep your weapon in your car if you like. Do whatever you like. But, when you're on my property you must follow my rules, even if the rules I make are stupid and arbitrary. Don't like my stupid rules? No problem. I'm not going to force you to do anything. It's completely and totally your choice. Just don't come on my property.

Don't I have the basic right to set whatever stupid and arbitrary rules I want on my own property, property that I bought and paid for? You don't have to follow them if you don't like them. You just have to leave.

Do you really believe that? I asked before, I will ask again...

Does this mean you feel that an employer has the right, in a non smoking workplace, to forbid cigarettes in employees cars? and then if found in possession of such, be allowed to fire an employee for it?

As for setting any arbitrary rules you want, don't employees have a right to personal property in any way? You can't search an employees wallet or purse without cause and LEO present, as far as I know, so that in itself would seem to tell me that I have some personal property rights, even on your property.

 

[mk2ja]

Do you really believe that? I asked before, I will ask again...

Does this mean you feel that an employer has the right, in a non smoking workplace, to forbid cigarettes in employees cars? and then if found in possession of such, be allowed to fire an employee for it?

As for setting any arbitrary rules you want, don't employees have a right to personal property in any way? You can't search an employees wallet or purse without cause and LEO present, as far as I know, so that in itself would seem to tell me that I have some personal property rights, even on your property.

Yeah I agree with that.

Why would you believe that employees have a right to personal property at work? When I worked at a grocery store, I was required to wear black pants, black socks, and black shoes with my Scott's polo shirt; I didn't have a choice about wearing khaki's or sandals. When I worked at Sony DADC, I was prohibited from having firearms in the parking lot (didn't matter to me since I didn't own any at the time), and I was also prohibited from bringing in camera phones, USB thumb drives, personal computers, and more. Why wouldn't they be allowed to set that kind of policy, and moreover to enforce it by terminating my employment there if I violated the terms of employment?

That being said... I do still find myself supporting SB 25 because I think it is a reasonable provision for the populace at large to be allowed to keep their means of personal defense in the car no matter where they work.

 

[antsi]

mk2ja, in both of your examples the corporation has legitimate business related reasons for policies like dress codes, or bringing in devices that would facilitate the theft of intellectual property.

Sure, my employer can discipline me or fire me if I go around trying to evangelize the patients. That's not my job, it's not what they're paying me for, and it could interfere with my clinical work. They have a legitimate business reason for telling me to keep my mouth shut about my faith on company time.

But if they want to fire me for having a Bible in my car, they're going over the line. There's no earthly reason they would have for such a restriction, and it's a massive violation of my rights.

The most legitimate function of government is to protect the liberties of the people. In this case we have a nearly universal practice of routinely violating employees' rights, and there is no legitimate interest of the corporations that is served by doing this.

 

[dross]

Do you really believe that? I asked before, I will ask again...

Does this mean you feel that an employer has the right, in a non smoking workplace, to forbid cigarettes in employees cars? and then if found in possession of such, be allowed to fire an employee for it?

As for setting any arbitrary rules you want, don't employees have a right to personal property in any way? You can't search an employees wallet or purse without cause and LEO present, as far as I know, so that in itself would seem to tell me that I have some personal property rights, even on your property.

To answer your question = yes, I really do believe that. And to answer your argumentum ad absurdum, yes I think employers SHOULD be allowed to exercise their natural right to hire and fire whomever they wish, based on any criteria that spring from their own mind.

I feel that the law has overstepped in this arena.

You have all the personal property rights on my property that you have on yours -it's just that I reserve the right to compel you to practice your property rights anywhere else in the world than in the one tiny little piece of property belongs to me. You're free to practice them anywhere else you wish. Others won't let you practice your property rights on THEIR property either? Not my problem. I only control that which belongs to ME.

 

[antsi]

To answer your question = yes, I really do believe that. And to answer your argumentum ad absurdum, yes I think employers SHOULD be allowed to exercise their natural right to hire and fire whomever they wish, based on any criteria that spring from their own mind.

I feel that the law has overstepped in this arena.

You have all the personal property rights on my property that you have on yours -it's just that I reserve the right to compel you to practice your property rights anywhere else in the world than in the one tiny little piece of property belongs to me. You're free to practice them anywhere else you wish. Others won't let you practice your property rights on THEIR property either? Not my problem. I only control that which belongs to ME.

I'd be with you, if there were accompanying legal reforms to limit the power of corporations. If we were just talking about Ed's Hardware down the street, and their employment practices, I'd have little to no objection.

Big corporations today though are a totally different animal. They have massive power over communities, markets, and citizens. In many cases they are essentially functioning as quasi-governmental agencies. My hospital is a case in point. We are basically run by government policy making boards. The vast majority of our revenue comes from the government. Much of our physical plant was built with government funding. In such as case, I don't see any difference between the hospital saying "no guns in your car when you're parked in our lots" versus the governor saying "no guns in your car when you're driving on our roads."

You fix the legal system so that corporations have to play by the rules and face real public accountability pressures, and sink or swim on their own merits, and I'll be a lot more willing to consider their property as "private."

The way it is now, though, they're essentially government surrogates. If they're acting in the name of government policies and getting paid on the government dime, they should have to respect our rights just like any other governmental agency.

 

[IndyBeerman]

No, seriously. What? You mean that every time I go to the gun shop with my kids and I light up I'm breaking the law?!?!?! :wtf: I heard they were talking about this, but I didn't know they passed it. I guess I won't be going to Bradis with the kids and I'll be avoiding Morgan County like the plague....



I've yet to see anyone put it better than this and I've yet to see anyone defeat this logic. WELL put.

CALM DOWN LITTLE ONE!! (In my best Captain Picard voice) Take the appropriate pill. Bradis is in Marion County and in your travels from your house to Bradis you do not enter Morgan County, that is unless you take the really long way south to get there.

 

[IndyBeerman]

I've really enjoyed the civil interplay between dross and dburkhead. I, too, have the same uneasiness about limiting the property / business owners from setting policy on their own property. However, I still view this legislation (SB25) to be reasonable, appropriate, and acceptable, all things considered.

One thing from the dross/dburk discussion I wanted to comment on:

If you ban firearms on company property, you likewise affect people when they are not on your property. I think that is the key to my decision to support SB25.

DING-DING-DING
We have a winner!!!
​

 

[SavageEagle]

CALM DOWN LITTLE ONE!! (In my best Captain Picard voice) Take the appropriate pill. Bradis is in Marion County and in your travels from your house to Bradis you do not enter Morgan County, that is unless you take the really long way south to get there.

Whew. I couldn't remember, but you're right. The line is right through Heartland Crossing. DUH. I shoulda known. However, we do go through Mooresville a lot so....

If anyone's got info on that supposed law let me know.

 

[groovatron]

I'd be with you, if there were accompanying legal reforms to limit the power of corporations. If we were just talking about Ed's Hardware down the street, and their employment practices, I'd have little to no objection.

Big corporations today though are a totally different animal. They have massive power over communities, markets, and citizens. In many cases they are essentially functioning as quasi-governmental agencies. My hospital is a case in point. We are basically run by government policy making boards. The vast majority of our revenue comes from the government. Much of our physical plant was built with government funding. In such as case, I don't see any difference between the hospital saying "no guns in your car when you're parked in our lots" versus the governor saying "no guns in your car when you're driving on our roads."

You fix the legal system so that corporations have to play by the rules and face real public accountability pressures, and sink or swim on their own merits, and I'll be a lot more willing to consider their property as "private."

The way it is now, though, they're essentially government surrogates. If they're acting in the name of government policies and getting paid on the government dime, they should have to respect our rights just like any other governmental agency.

Great post!