The issue started (this time) over at Roberta's, and now has made its way over to FreedomSight.
The bottom line is, can an employer tell you not to keep a firearm in your car while at work? More to the point, can a law decide this either way?
Both viewpoints, while in opposition, are valid.
Roberta says there should be a law preventing an employer from barring firearms from their property:
I'm in favor of 'em, at least in most situations. "What," you gasp, "you favor empowering the State to push around businesses?"Jed says not so fast:
Yep. 'Cos most businesses are already creatures of the State. They're corporations. Artificial persons. Entities that would neither have legal rights nor even exist were it not for the State and as such, they should be bound by the Bill of Rights, same as the State.
This is an incorrect position, because it would mean the infringement of the fundamental right of property, upon which even the right to self defense rests. I do not believe that we can argue that it advances the cause of liberty to tear down the rights of one person, or persons, in favor of the rights of another.Like I said, both are good.
So, I know the second amendment applies to the .gov, not to individuals, but isn't it the job of the .gov to protect these rights when another entity tries to violate them?
I've changed the title of this post three times. I suck =P.
3 comments:
I can see both arguments...I actually was a proponent of Jed's point of view and argued quite vehemently for it in the past...after much debate, soul searching and thinking about it, I'm not so sure any more.
I don't agree with Roberta's reasoning because a corporation is nothing more than a conglomerate of citizens who own a company...each of those citizens have a certain level of property rights which are administered by the board of directors (or whatever governing body that particular corporation espouses).
I think the issue revolves around the car as "private property." As long as the company allows parking of private vehicles in their lot, I see no reason why the company's property rights should supersede the property rights of the owners of the vehicles. Do the vehicles, once they enter the company's lot, now somehow belong to the company?
Companies do not have to allow the use of their property for the purpose of parking private vehicles...but as long as they do, I don't see how that translates into the owners of the vehicles surrendering their property rights when they enter the parking lot.
Especially when enforcement of this policy not only disarms employees on company property, but effectively disarms them anywhere between their homes and company property as well.
I have posted another entry addressing this. It does all come down to property rights, but Jed and I don't have quite the same take on those.
http://twowheeledmadwoman.blogspot.com/2008/02/stickin-to-my-guns.html
Sailorcurt> Do the vehicles, once they enter the company's lot, now somehow belong to the company?
No, of course not. But because the employer owns (or controls, via rent/lease) the lot, they can state the terms under which vehicles are allowed to enter the property.
And there's still the issue of right to contract, i.e. the employee agrees not to bring in guns in order to get the job.
Post a Comment