The Firing Line Forums

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old October 30, 2013, 10:20 PM   #76
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by born2climb
I can only say that this country would never have been founded if everyone were so concerned with "following the rules"...
On the other hand, the decision to declare independence from England was made collectively by elected representatives of the colonial assemblies after considerable effort to otherwise resolve the areas of friction. It was also made publicly and communicated to George III (the Declaration of Independence).

That's a little different from some guy saying to himself, "I'm not going to abide by the employer's no gun policy and hope I don't get caught."
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old October 30, 2013, 10:35 PM   #77
born2climb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 17, 2013
Posts: 140
Yeah, I guess it is a "little" different. Seems to me, the king wanted the arms at Concord....and seems to me, a group of men didn't agree with him...
__________________
Don't invest in idiots....the market's flooded!!!
born2climb is offline  
Old October 30, 2013, 10:57 PM   #78
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by born2climb
Yeah, I guess it is a "little" different. Seems to me, the king wanted the arms at Concord....and seems to me, a group of men didn't agree with him...
Yeah, but that was only a very small piece of a much larger and more complex puzzle. So let's have no more inapplicable analogies.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old October 31, 2013, 08:52 AM   #79
TimSr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2013
Location: Rittman, Ohio
Posts: 437
I'm more of the mindset that its not so much about obeying all your employers rules as it is about being willing to accept the consequences when you don't. I worked in the booth at an all night self serve gas station. I got robbed. I bought and secretly carried against company policy. If ever robbed again, my goal was to survive to stand in the unemployement line.

Employers are in a very sticky spot when it comes to allowing employees to carry during their work hours in that they can be held responsible for what you do with it, while they can also be held responsible for denying you protection. In many cases, they have a "no gun policy" simply because they are required by insurance or other liability reasons, and need it for legal cover for what you may do, while at the same time not caring if its violated as long as they have plausible deniability of knowing that it was being violated. In other words, I get robbed and am involved in a controversial shooting, they can wash their hands of responsibility by saying they did not know, did not sanction it, and I was violating company policy, even though they are patting me on the back on the way out the door, and glad that I was armed.
TimSr is offline  
Old October 31, 2013, 10:25 AM   #80
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,193
Glenn E. Meyer Wrote;
Quote:
You can go sell Apples on the corner and proclaim that on the Internet if we ever get to that extreme circumstance.
And your comparison is Apples vs. Oranges. As you pointed out, those were extreme circumstances. Drastic times call for drastic measures. Most of us who are basically honest may have to compromise our own moral judgements when faced with starvation, however this is rarely the case (at least as of this moment)

Just as companies have a plethora of choices given the number of people unemployed, there is also a "stop and rob" every 100 feet in most urban areas, their turnover is usually quite high and, the skillset required is somewhat low so, for most of us, there are options.

Quote:
Thus, I repeat that this 'moral' preaching is a particular stage of moral beliefs in a more complex set of decisions.
Call it what you will, I don't necessarily disagree with your analysis, I do take umbrage with your description but, I digress. I will stick with my own notion of the "moral high ground" unless more dire circumstances warrant that I must compromise my view. ETA; It has served me well for 50+ years.
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -

Last edited by OuTcAsT; October 31, 2013 at 10:32 AM. Reason: clarification
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old October 31, 2013, 01:42 PM   #81
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,686
Umbrage was why the Internet was invented. Makes it easier to take umbrage.

My basic point is that there are complex processes that control views of morality and the actual actions based on them. Surface conversations and statements of one's motivations are naive.

Umbrage vs. the real processes in moral decision making.

PS - for the debate about whether companies or institutions are liable for not letting protect yourself. VT was sued for not warning folks about Cho after the first shooting.

A jury originally found for the families but it was overturned.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...y.html?hpid=z4

The gist being that the institution was not responsible for the criminal actions of third parties. That would probably be the same analysis if you sued for not being able to carry.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter

Last edited by Glenn E. Meyer; October 31, 2013 at 02:34 PM.
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old October 31, 2013, 08:22 PM   #82
WyMark
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 10, 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 226
born2climb said:
Quote:
Then again, maybe the 2nd is not as precious as we thought it was. Maybe it can be interpreted away like just so much ink on paper...
Or maybe carry at work, carry on company property, and other carry on private property questions aren't really 2A issues anyway, and so interpretations don't matter.
WyMark is offline  
Old October 31, 2013, 10:28 PM   #83
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
Umbrage was why the Internet was invented. Makes it easier to take umbrage.
Al Gore invented umbrage?

Who knew?
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old October 31, 2013, 10:35 PM   #84
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,319
Quote:
Or maybe carry at work, carry on company property, and other carry on private property questions aren't really 2A issues anyway
Actually, I'm not sure they are. The Bill of Rights is about our relationship to the government. While some of its protections can apply to interactions between private parties, that isn't the case with the 2nd Amendment yet.

So far, the only binding legal precedents we have protect ownership of guns in the home.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old October 31, 2013, 10:57 PM   #85
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
...The Bill of Rights is about our relationship to the government. While some of its protections can apply to interactions between private parties, that isn't the case with the 2nd Amendment yet.

So far, the only binding legal precedents we have protect ownership of guns in the home...
Indeed the Constitution does not regulate the conduct of private parties. As explained by the United States Supreme Court (Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company, Inc, 500 U.S. 614 (U. S. Supreme Court, 1991), emphasis added):
Quote:
....The Constitution structures the National Government, confines its actions, and, in regard to certain individual liberties and other specified matters, confines the actions of the States. With a few exceptions, such as the provisions of the Thirteenth Amendment, constitutional guarantees of individual liberty and equal protection do not apply to the actions of private entities. Tarkanian, supra, 488 U.S., at 191, 109 S.Ct., at 461; Flagg Bros, Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149, 156, 98 S.Ct. 1729, 1733, 56 L.Ed.2d 185 (1978). This fundamental limitation on the scope of constitutional guarantees "preserves an area of individual freedom by limiting the reach of federal law" and "avoids imposing on the State, its agencies or officials, responsibility for conduct for which they cannot fairly be blamed." Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 936-937, 102 S.Ct. 2744, 2753, 73 L.Ed.2d 482 (1982). One great object of the Constitution is to permit citizens to structure their private relations as they choose subject only to the constraints of statutory or decisional law. ....
The reason discrimination by private parties in certain situation on certain bases (e. g., race, religion, national origin, sex, etc.) is that statutes prohibit such discrimination -- not the 14th Amendment.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old November 1, 2013, 07:46 AM   #86
TimSr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2013
Location: Rittman, Ohio
Posts: 437
Quote:
born2climb said:
Quote:
Then again, maybe the 2nd is not as precious as we thought it was. Maybe it can be interpreted away like just so much ink on paper...

Or maybe carry at work, carry on company property, and other carry on private property questions aren't really 2A issues anyway, and so interpretations don't matter.

I do not believe it is a 2nd amendment issue. I believe it is a private property rights issue. I have a right to refuse to open the door of my home to anyone for any reason. They have no right to exercise their constitutional rights in my home without my consent. Nobody can dispute that. The question is, do/should these private property rights extend to my business?
TimSr is offline  
Old November 1, 2013, 07:56 AM   #87
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,772
Carry at Work

Quote:
Originally Posted by TimSr View Post
I do not believe it is a 2nd amendment issue. I believe it is a private property rights issue. I have a right to refuse to open the door of my home to anyone for any reason. They have no right to exercise their constitutional rights in my home without my consent. Nobody can dispute that. The question is, do/should these private property rights extend to my business?
They do extend to businesses in almost all way, with the exception of protected classes under statutory law. I can prohibit anyone entering my business for any other non-protected reason. Don't like purple hair? Not allowed. Don't like blondes? Not allowed. I can regulate speech and behavior too. Those things aren't protected.

Right now, guns aren't protected either.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old November 1, 2013, 09:27 AM   #88
Koda94
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 405
IMO i respect property rights but if the buisness is open to the public then they shouldnt be able to prohibit constitutional rights
__________________
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2
Koda94 is offline  
Old November 1, 2013, 09:54 AM   #89
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koda94
IMO i respect property rights but if the buisness is open to the public then they shouldnt be able to prohibit constitutional rights
Nonetheless, they legally may. They are not subject to the Constitution. The Constitution regulates the conduct of government.

In general, discrimination is not illegal. You do it all the time. Every time you decide to shop in this store rather than that, you have discriminated. Every time you decide to buy this rather than that, you have discriminated.

Businesses discriminate all the time too, and legally. Apple stores discriminate against people who want to buy a PC by only selling Apple computers. Many restaurant discriminate against Orthodox Jews or Muslims by not strictly following the dietary laws of those religions. Many restaurants also discriminate against persons not wearing shirts and/or shoes by not admitting them. Tiffany discriminates against poor people in the prices they charge. Businesses also discriminate whenever they hire one person instead of another who has applied for the job.

Discrimination is merely choosing one thing over another or rejecting a possible choice. Discrimination is the very essence of freedom and private property. It is the right to choose. It is the right to exclude. It is the right to decide how you want to use your property.

Discrimination is perfectly legal, unless some law makes it illegal. There are laws that make discrimination illegal on various, specifically identified and defined bases, illegal -- at least if you're a business open to the public or an employer or in some other specified category.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old November 1, 2013, 11:56 AM   #90
Koda94
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 405
Frank, I understand what your saying except that IMO there are differences between discriminating against one brand of computer over another (among other examples you referenced...) vs discriminating against a civil right. In my town there is a private business in the spotlight when earlier this year they refused to sell a lesbian couple a wedding cake because the business owners religious beliefs don’t condone it. In my opinion if they want to exercise that right then they have every right to open their business only to those customers that share their same beliefs. If they want to be open to conduct business with the public at large then they shouldn’t discriminate to any member of the public their civil rights which are protected by law… just like the right to self-defense is.
__________________
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2
Koda94 is offline  
Old November 1, 2013, 12:07 PM   #91
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koda94
...IMO there are differences between discriminating against one brand of computer over another (among other examples you referenced...) vs discriminating against a civil right...
That might be your opinion, but it is not necessarily the law. And your opinion doesn't change the way things are.

Of course, the law can be changed. That's the province of the legislature. Legislatures have acted with regard to certain civil rights for certain classes of people. You are free in our system to try to get sufficient support for further expanding those laws to cover any other civil rights for any other classes of persons you might think should be included. The question is whether the political environment would be favorable for such an effort.

There's a conflict between the rights of an honest citizen to lawfully carry a gun and the right of a business to conduct its business and control its property. Conflicting rights often rub against each other, and when they do, it's been customary in our system for a legislative body to decide priorities and enact laws to ameliorate the rubbing.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old November 1, 2013, 12:15 PM   #92
motorhead0922
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 496
Violating another person's "civil rights" is illegal. What's the difference between "civil rights" and "constitutional rights"? Seems the same to me.
__________________
NRA, SAF, ACLDN, IDPA

Give me liberty or give me death.
motorhead0922 is offline  
Old November 1, 2013, 12:25 PM   #93
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by motorhead0922
Violating another person's "civil rights" is illegal. What's the difference between "civil rights" and "constitutional rights"? Seems the same to me.
This was all explained above.
  1. The Constitution doesn't apply to private conduct.

  2. Through statutes enacted by legislatures certain civil rights are protected against certain private conduct for certain classes of people.

  3. The statutes are specific as to rights protected, against what conduct, and for whom. If something you think is a right isn't included in the statute, and if some private conduct should be included but isn't, and if some class of people you think ought to be protected isn't included in the statute, that "right" and/or that class of people aren't protected by the statute against that conduct.

  4. If you think that's wrong, get politically active and try to get the law changed.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper

Last edited by Frank Ettin; November 1, 2013 at 05:51 PM. Reason: correct typo
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old November 1, 2013, 12:26 PM   #94
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,686
However, carry has not been defined as a basic civil right protected by the Constitution. One might wish it to be so but it is not. Other discriminations have been declared to be illegal by statute or amendment and then supported/interpreted by the SCOTUS.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old November 1, 2013, 04:37 PM   #95
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koda94
IMO i respect property rights but if the buisness is open to the public then they shouldnt be able to prohibit constitutional rights
An interesting wrinkle is that many businesses don't allow their employees to carry on company premises, but they do allow customers to do so. The job I quit was with a branch of a national chain. I would almost bet that neither Wal-Mart nor Starbucks allows their employees to carry on duty.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old November 1, 2013, 10:46 PM   #96
shortwave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,936
+1 Aquila Blanca.

Many fast food chains are this way as are many pizza chains.
shortwave is offline  
Old November 2, 2013, 12:42 AM   #97
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Very interesting replies. Sorry I was out the last few days.

Integrity, morality and such is quite in the eye of the beholder.

As for my view, when I hire out to someone I do agree to follow their rules if I find them moral. If they are not I may (not always) disregard them and say nothing about it (like CCW) and if caught I guess I will be fired.

However, I hold my own survival above some loyalty to a company who could care less about me and would let me go in an instant if it saved them a dime.

Is it ever permissible to lie? I think most of us would say yes.

The criteria is the key and the fact is we decide what that criteria is.

Some folk could never be an undercover cop as they could not lie to the crooks they were trying to catch. That's fine. But those that do become undercover cops have not lost their "integrity".

The same is true I believe for Mr. Cothran in the OP. At the end of the day can you look yourself in the mirror. Mr. Cothran said yeah he could and felt no remorse for carrying. It saved his life but cost him his job. I think he did right and I hope he gets another job soon.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old November 2, 2013, 07:21 AM   #98
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,319
Quote:
Integrity, morality and such is quite in the eye of the beholder.
Not really. The very definition of integrity is truthfulness and accuracy in one's actions.

That runs counter to this:

Quote:
Is it ever permissible to lie? I think most of us would say yes.
If someone feels the need to be less than truthful in a business dealing, that's their call. But they don't really get to march around proclaiming their integrity while they're doing so.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old November 2, 2013, 07:22 AM   #99
born2climb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 17, 2013
Posts: 140
Great post, Tennessee Gentleman. I agree almost 100%...except about the undercover cop.
__________________
Don't invest in idiots....the market's flooded!!!
born2climb is offline  
Old November 2, 2013, 09:17 AM   #100
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,772
Carry at Work

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman View Post
Very interesting replies. Sorry I was out the last few days.

Integrity, morality and such is quite in the eye of the beholder.

As for my view, when I hire out to someone I do agree to follow their rules if I find them moral. If they are not I may (not always) disregard them and say nothing about it (like CCW) and if caught I guess I will be fired.

However, I hold my own survival above some loyalty to a company who could care less about me and would let me go in an instant if it saved them a dime.

Is it ever permissible to lie? I think most of us would say yes.

The criteria is the key and the fact is we decide what that criteria is.

Some folk could never be an undercover cop as they could not lie to the crooks they were trying to catch. That's fine. But those that do become undercover cops have not lost their "integrity".

The same is true I believe for Mr. Cothran in the OP. At the end of the day can you look yourself in the mirror. Mr. Cothran said yeah he could and felt no remorse for carrying. It saved his life but cost him his job. I think he did right and I hope he gets another job soon.
Integrity is easily definable and has been several times in this thread. Folks can spin it all they want but it's really not open to redefinition.

With morality, there are only two choices. There either is or is not a real right and wrong. If there is, any one who violates it is wrong, no matter their opinion, no matter if they or anyone alive even KNOWS it's wrong or right. If there is not then ANY discussion of morality is pointless as it can only be defined by the person(s) with enough force to impose their views.

Just because there are instances where lying is acceptable, such as undercover police, does not mean that morality is relative. Even a child understands such things. My kids know the difference between lying to me about breaking the lamp and a cop lying to a criminal.

I've actually never met anyone who believes in relative morality even though I've met dozens who claim they do. Each one of them still had any number of issues on which they expressed moral outrage over a particular action/event. That's completely inconsistent.

If morality is relative, it is no more cause for conflict than what color car you prefer or whether you like coffee or tea. It is your opinion and why would you possibly care if anyone agrees or not, since you freely acknowledge that the basis of your opinion is your opinion. If morality is relative, one should have no serious objection to any moral issue. An opinion, yes, but no reason to enforce that opinion. The Jews in WWII, abortion, whatever. You have your opinion but since you acknowledge that it's no more than an opinion with no true basis, there is no reason to expect anyone else to comply and no more reason for outrage than if the Nazis liked red cars and you like blue.

On a more personal basis, there should be no objection to folks who lie to you, even steal from you. It is not immoral, after all. Even "ownership" is a moral concept. It's the idea that you have a specific right to something that someone else doesn't have a right to. You might find it inconvenient that you'll have to spend more money or work more hours to replace that item but you haven't been "wronged" because there is no "wrong". If your spouse "cheats", what's the problem? Just because your opinion is that they shouldn't? Must be they like blue cars and you like red. So what?

If you believe that "society" defines morals, how do you define "society"? Who has the right to define that word? Why aren't the Bloods and Crips "societies" and what right do we have to impose our views on them, or even object to their imposing their views on us, since it's all just two "societies" opinions? The nation of Germany in WWII was certainly a "society", what right do other societies have to interfere with what they've decided is "moral"?

So then, if morals are relative then the basis of their enforcement comes only from the barrel of a gun, the threat of penalty, the ability to enforce one's views.

If that's the case and we bring this back the original question, it is not immoral for the company to prohibit weapons, it is not immoral for the employee to carry anyway. Of course, it also wouldn't be immoral to steal from the company or use your co-workers as human shields either, because there is no "immoral".
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Closed Thread

Tags
carry at work cothran

Thread Tools

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 11:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14768 seconds with 7 queries