The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old July 9, 2009, 10:17 AM   #51
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,720
Quote:
In Florida, they can't stop you from keeping a firearm in your car on company property as long as you have a CCW.
...unless you are Disney, then you can do whatever you want and the government will turn a blind eye.
__________________
"Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth
zxcvbob is offline  
Old July 9, 2009, 10:25 AM   #52
mavracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2008
Location: midwest
Posts: 4,209
Quote:
The owners daughter who is also on the sales team carries in her purse. I'm not sure if he's aware of that, but I'm sure that she will raise a stink when she finds out as well.
I BELIVE that in the future this could cause a meeting I'd be tempted to bring popcorn to.
__________________
rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6
Quote:
originally posted my Mike Irwin
My handguns are are for one purpose only, though...
The starter gun on the "Fat man's mad dash tactical retreat."
mavracer is offline  
Old July 9, 2009, 10:52 AM   #53
PhoenixConflagration
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2008
Location: Jacksonville, Fl
Posts: 517
Property rights vs carry rights is a sticky subject (and possibly a topic for its own thread), but I'll say this about that: I feel that my right to live, to protect myself, does indeed trump a property owner's right to determine what's in my pocket. The business owner could say, "No employees are to carry wallets made from leather, because I love cows." While the law says he can do this, is he not interfering too heavily with the lives of his employees? That's a trivial, comedic example, but the principle applies. While one's constitutional rights are supposed to end where they infringe upon the rights of another, this situation is a two-way infringement. With this conflict, one right will have to make way for the other. If property rights trump 2A rights, then the employee may be placed in a situation that costs him his life. If the opposite holds, the employer has armed employees who are still bound by many other laws not use/abuse those arms.
__________________
There is nothing quite so dangerous as a pacifist, for they will readily sacrifice others for their ideals.
PhoenixConflagration is offline  
Old July 9, 2009, 11:28 AM   #54
mavracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2008
Location: midwest
Posts: 4,209
Quote:
I feel that my right to live, to protect myself, does indeed trump a property owner's right to determine what's in my pocket.
yes it does as long as you're on your property.When you go on his property you are subject to his rules.If he says "Do you have a leather wallet?" and you say "yes" if he asks you to leave and you don't you are now guilty of tresspassing.
__________________
rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6
Quote:
originally posted my Mike Irwin
My handguns are are for one purpose only, though...
The starter gun on the "Fat man's mad dash tactical retreat."
mavracer is offline  
Old July 9, 2009, 11:40 AM   #55
azredhawk44
Junior member
 
Join Date: September 28, 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 6,465
Quote:
When you go on his property you are subject to his rules.If he says "Do you have a leather wallet?" and you say "yes" if he asks you to leave and you don't you are now guilty of tresspassing.
And... if I visit a business that has other rules? No jews allowed, perhaps?

Frankly, I think religion has a great parallel to 2A carry rights on private property. What you have is a conflict of beliefs, where one belief system is trying to squash another.

Since it's obvious that GFZ's, 30.06 signs and the like do not prevent rampage shootings (and seem to actually encourage it due to the large ratio of unarmed people for the active shooter), there isn't a safety argument to be made. It's purely a flexing of ideological will.

How is the ideological will of an incorporated entity open to the public allowed to discriminate against another ideological will that is legally permissible in our country?
azredhawk44 is offline  
Old July 9, 2009, 11:45 AM   #56
brickeyee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 3,351
Quote:
Not true...even in a right to work state (I'm tempted to give a practical example; but restraint must be the better part of valor unless it were to become public). Of course a court would make the final ruling as this is a civil matter.

Protected class is an EEOC issue. Policies and procedures not necessarily so.
An employer can discriminate on just about anything they want as long as it does not have an adverse effect on a protected class.

If you do not want to employ left handed people you can do so.

Discrimination IS an EEOC issue.

We 'discriminate' all the time in hiring.

We try very hard to not hire anyone stupid.
brickeyee is offline  
Old July 9, 2009, 12:10 PM   #57
spacemanspiff
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2002
Location: alaska
Posts: 3,498
Quote:
Last time I looked carrying a weapon did not place you in a 'protected class.'
This type of issue would most likely fall under 'employment practices'.

If an employer knowingly singles out an employee, and applies a policy about their behavior only to them, its called 'harrassment'.

In my office we had several employees who had copied their own music from cds, to listen to while they work. One employee chose to store the data on the public profile, instead of to the local hard drive. So when IT found out, everyone had to remove all personal data off the systems, even though it was only one persons actions.

One person is allergic to many odors, especially perfumes. So everyone got the memo that prohibits the wearing of perfumes/colognes, even though it was only one person that wore perfume.

Now go back and consider what started this tangent, the OP was given a directive solely because he is the only one that is known to be armed, or the first one suspected of it. A whiny liberal would complain about being harrassed if soemthing like this happened to them. They could file a lawsuit and because it was a practice of the employer to discriminate against anyone for any reason, and its documented, their insurance would have to pay. Might take years to happen.

There is a lot that goes on in the workplace that people could easily sue their employers over. Theres a lot of insurance companies that would rather settle than get a judgment in court.
__________________
"Every man alone is sincere; at the entrance of a second person hypocrisy begins." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Soren Kierkegaard
spacemanspiff is offline  
Old July 9, 2009, 12:27 PM   #58
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,720
The phrase to use is "hostile work environment" HTH
__________________
"Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth
zxcvbob is offline  
Old July 9, 2009, 12:48 PM   #59
magnum force
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 28, 2009
Posts: 273
hopefully your emplyer doesn't end up in a situation with a disgruntled employee where he needs a CCW permit holder to save his life!
magnum force is offline  
Old July 9, 2009, 01:32 PM   #60
ReNtaPiG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 18, 2009
Posts: 310
Quote:
People are very hypocritical when it comes to rights. They want all of their rights to be protected and scream bloddy murder when they percieve someone is trying to restrict them but in the same breathe they have no problem trampling the rights of others.
Sooooo true...they can dish it but can't take it!!


Quote:
Quote:
In Florida, they can't stop you from keeping a firearm in your car on company property as long as you have a CCW.

...unless you are Disney, then you can do whatever you want and the government will turn a blind eye.
Sooooo NOT true...Disney is in possession of an explosives license thereby excluding them from the "Bring Your Gun To Work Law" as well as any other business with such explosives license (ie. fireworks, dynamite)

Its a BS loophole and I don't agree with it...but it's there to be exploited.
ReNtaPiG is offline  
Old July 9, 2009, 01:41 PM   #61
brickeyee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 3,351
Quote:
If an employer knowingly singles out an employee, and applies a policy about their behavior only to them, its called 'harrassment'.

"Harassment" over what?
Not following a policy that applies to everyone?

They just sent him a notice because they believed he was the only person it would affect.

An employer could decide to fire you because they decided that 'Bob' (your name) is not acceptable.

'At will' employment is just that, at will.

You can be terminated for any reason (or no reason).
brickeyee is offline  
Old July 9, 2009, 02:08 PM   #62
p99guy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 2004
Location: Haslet,Texas(DFW area)
Posts: 1,506
Even if Texas does get a law passed in the future that allows us to have a gun in the vehicle on an employers parking lot...I'm still S.O.L. because
I work on a Federal Gub'ment compound with its own police farce, ooops force. And they will tell us tough noogies...Texas law don't apply to this property.( they are even that way over handicap parking hangtags)
There are times driving home after midnight, that I would have rather had my sidearm. They dont even let their own Police have a personal handgun on property, or leave work with their issue one.....its crazy.
__________________
Lighten up Francis!.....;Actor Warren Oats, in the movie "Stripes"
p99guy is offline  
Old July 9, 2009, 02:56 PM   #63
Brian48
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 21, 2001
Location: Boston, People's Republic of MA
Posts: 1,615
My employer never had a firm policy regarding CCWs until this past year. We hired a new HR and one of the liberal weenie things she did was put this in there. I think I'm the only one who carries here, but she doesn't know that. In fact, I've carried for 8 years here and still no one knows.
Brian48 is offline  
Old July 9, 2009, 03:06 PM   #64
mavracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2008
Location: midwest
Posts: 4,209
Quote:
And... if I visit a business that has other rules? No jews allowed, perhaps?
let me clearify he may not tell you you can't own a leather wallet just that you can't have one on his property.
they can't fire you for having a permit however they can not allow weapons.
they can't discriminate for religion they can however tell you no religious jewelry or images on your T-Shirt.
they can fire you for not working on sunday.
A buisness can put up a sign "no prayer on premisis" and ask you to leave if you drop to your knees praying.if you dont leave it will be trespassing.
A buisness/owner has the right to refuse service to anyone.
__________________
rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6
Quote:
originally posted my Mike Irwin
My handguns are are for one purpose only, though...
The starter gun on the "Fat man's mad dash tactical retreat."
mavracer is offline  
Old July 9, 2009, 03:09 PM   #65
fisherman66
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 22, 2005
Location: The Woodlands TX
Posts: 4,679
Quote:
A buisness/owner has the right to refuse service to anyone.


google "racial discrimination restaurant" and see example after example of courts disagreeing with that statement.
__________________
la plus belle des ruses du diable est de vous persuader qu'il n'existe pas!

Last edited by fisherman66; July 9, 2009 at 03:20 PM.
fisherman66 is offline  
Old July 9, 2009, 03:47 PM   #66
skeezix
Member
 
Join Date: February 22, 2009
Location: Newark, Ohio
Posts: 61
The courts also don't have the authority to call something constitutional or not, regardless of what they think. Just because it's a common practice doesn't make it legal :-) The States voted in the Constitution, so they can vote on whether or not something applies.

If my work place does not allow me to carry firearms that is the owners right. I ALSO have the right to start my OWN company and make those rules as I see fit. THAT is where the free speech and freedom comes into play.

Just like smoking bans. Do I have the right to visit a restaurant without breathing cigarette smoke? Yes, and that is why I have the right to take my money to an establishment that doesn't allow smoking. It doesn't, however, give me (or legislation) the right to FORCE establishments to cater one way or another, that is what my wallet is for. Money talks! Especially since there are only 2 forces that guide capitalism - profit and loss.

We all have rights, just keep in mind where those rights actually exist and what they apply to. For those who think that carrying anyway is ok (in a work place where it is ruled against) because you "have the right", this is no different than someone coming into your own home and bringing a gun (even if you demand they do not bring one) because they "have the right".

;-)
skeezix is offline  
Old July 9, 2009, 04:52 PM   #67
mavracer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2008
Location: midwest
Posts: 4,209
Quote:
google "racial discrimination restaurant" and see example after example of courts disagreeing with that statement.
read thru the first ten hits.
two settlements out of court.
two thrown out.
two won by the restaraunt.
four not gone to court yet.
so zero 0 for 10 on courts disagreeing.
__________________
rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6
Quote:
originally posted my Mike Irwin
My handguns are are for one purpose only, though...
The starter gun on the "Fat man's mad dash tactical retreat."
mavracer is offline  
Old July 9, 2009, 05:00 PM   #68
Alleykat
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2007
Posts: 3,668
Quote:
It would be illegal to discriminate against an employee on that basis, but a bank could easily have a no weapons policy with an exemption for a security guard or sum such scenario. It would need to be part of a job description or written policy to have exceptions, and those could be subject to court test.

Sorry, I'm too lazy to hunt for source. As part of an HR dept, if fairly confident in my statement.
And you'd be wrong. In a Right to Work state, employees are employed at the will of the employer. Unless an employee is in a protected class, and, as Brickeye says, carrying a concealed weapon won't get you into a protected class, then the employer can pick out an individual employee and fire him/her for no reason. If the employer thinks that a particular employee isn't competent to be armed on the job, then the employer can fire that employee or prohibit that employee from carrying a concealed weapon, while permitting other employees to carry.
Alleykat is offline  
Old July 9, 2009, 05:08 PM   #69
fisherman66
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 22, 2005
Location: The Woodlands TX
Posts: 4,679
As frozen friend pointed out this is not a protected class issue, but a hostile work environment if a policy is created and applied to just one employee and not detailed in a job description.

This isn't a competency issue either, but if it were that employer would need to have documentation and be prepared to defend those findings.
__________________
la plus belle des ruses du diable est de vous persuader qu'il n'existe pas!
fisherman66 is offline  
Old July 9, 2009, 05:30 PM   #70
oneounceload
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2008
Location: N. Central Florida
Posts: 8,518
Quote:
You can believe anything you want. I believe in little green men from outer space built the pyramids but that does not make it true.

Open to the public has nothing to do with it. Property owners have the right to control who is and who is not armed on their property. Sorry but it is more entrenched and established right. One that is on sounder footing than the right to carry
As mentioned above, not necessarily true here in Florida
oneounceload is offline  
Old July 9, 2009, 08:50 PM   #71
Alleykat
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2007
Posts: 3,668
Quote:
Property rights vs carry rights is a sticky subject (and possibly a topic for its own thread), but I'll say this about that: I feel that my right to live, to protect myself, does indeed trump a property owner's right to determine what's in my pocket. The business owner could say, "No employees are to carry wallets made from leather, because I love cows." While the law says he can do this, is he not interfering too heavily with the lives of his employees? That's a trivial, comedic example, but the principle applies. While one's constitutional rights are supposed to end where they infringe upon the rights of another, this situation is a two-way infringement. With this conflict, one right will have to make way for the other. If property rights trump 2A rights, then the employee may be placed in a situation that costs him his life. If the opposite holds, the employer has armed employees who are still bound by many other laws not use/abuse those arms.
__________________
Property rights have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.
Alleykat is offline  
Old July 9, 2009, 09:45 PM   #72
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Property rights have nothing to do with the discussion?

Business owners would beg to differ. Their point is that they should be able to control what items are allowed on their property.

So, this really is an argument about property rights (the business premises and parking lot) vs 2nd Amendment.
MLeake is offline  
Old July 9, 2009, 09:50 PM   #73
Shane Tuttle
Staff
 
Join Date: November 28, 2005
Location: Montana
Posts: 9,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by brickeyee
An employer could decide to fire you because they decided that 'Bob' (your name) is not acceptable.
'At will' employment is just that, at will.
You can be terminated for any reason (or no reason).
And "at will" doesn't hold water in court often enough for companies to hide behind this. If your statement were true, then court cases won in favor of the former employee would be virtually non-existant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alleykat
If the employer thinks that a particular employee isn't competent to be armed on the job, then the employer can fire that employee or prohibit that employee from carrying a concealed weapon, while permitting other employees to carry.
So, a county sheriff that deems a person competent to carry concealed anywhere the state allows gets trumped by the opinion of an employer? Unless the employer can prove the employee was negligent i.e. brandishing, and others are allowed to carry at work, the employee would stand a very good chance to win in court.

Hostile work environment=Harrassment

Fisherman66 is just about dead-on with his statements. (Having a wife with some HR background, albiet rusty on every single law, doesn't hurt either.)
__________________
If it were up to me, the word "got" would be deleted from the English language.

Posting and YOU: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting
Shane Tuttle is offline  
Old July 9, 2009, 09:52 PM   #74
Shane Tuttle
Staff
 
Join Date: November 28, 2005
Location: Montana
Posts: 9,442
Quote:
Business owners would beg to differ. Their point is that they should be able to control what items are allowed on their property.
So, this really is an argument about property rights (the business premises and parking lot) vs 2nd Amendment.
This is argumentative. Unless another Staff sees it unfit, I think the OP has the right to make this call if it furthers clarification for him.

I'm also moving this over to L&CR...
__________________
If it were up to me, the word "got" would be deleted from the English language.

Posting and YOU: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting
Shane Tuttle is offline  
Old July 9, 2009, 10:28 PM   #75
skeezix
Member
 
Join Date: February 22, 2009
Location: Newark, Ohio
Posts: 61
It IS about property rights, that is the thing. You are not forced to work at a specific place, you have the choice to run/start your own company as you see fit, making those rules as you see fit, or working elsewhere that better compliments your desires or beliefs. As long as you choose to work for a company, you choose to abide by those rules. Don't like 'em? Go elsewhere! You're not forced to stay, and the state of the economy doesn't have a play in this.

The only real benefit to the original situation in this thread is that this manager doesn't appear to be the owner, and the owner trumps manager should they choose to override the choice of no firearms on the premises ;-)

You DO have the right to defend yourself, which is an option if you work elsewhere, start another company, etc. When you step into anothers domain, you are bound by their rules. This is common sense and the very essence of why government is here. "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" --- To secure these rights! That means THEM too! You have the right to make your own rules on your own property. So does everyone else. Your rights stop when they overstep their boundary on another person.

As for kangaroo courts and silly decisions on 'harassment', in capitalism the courts have no say on how or why someone gets fired. This is purely the right of the employer, they hire or fire whom they will. It's the attitude of "but it's my right!" getting twisted into a silly mess that causes the misconceptions that one persons freedom or liberty (or assumption of them) somehow completely overrides that of another person.

Do I not have the right to hire whom I wish in my own company? Do I not have the right to fire whom I wish in my OWN company? Am I not the person taking the chance of going out of business, paying people with MY blood, sweat and tears? If you choose to work for me, you also choose to work by my rules or go elsewhere. You also agree to whatever payment we agree to, whether it be next to nothing, or exorbitant. You have the choice of starting a competing company and doing a better job, or have better prices for consumers, better quality, or any combination of these. If my business decisions put me in the position that I hire second-rate people just because of an issue of firearms (or anything else), then I will have a second-rate company and eventually be overtaken by a competitor. This is my right as an owner, the right to fail, the right to make bad choices as well as good. That is what freedom and liberty is.

No one is a slave unless by choice.

I suppose another example to help - I have the right to freedom of speech. However, I do NOT have the right to walk into my neighbors house and speak whatever I wish - that is their home, their property, and they would have every right to remove me by whatever means necessary. Does that somehow mean my right to free speech was taken? Nope! I certainly DO have the right to speak whatever I wish in my own home however. This is the difference.
skeezix is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.11028 seconds with 8 queries