Missouri bill against gun-related discrimination.

[Perd Hapley]

The bill is intended to protect gun owners from employment discrimination.

 http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/bill-to-bar-employer-bias-against-gun-owners-gets-ok/article_b1352fe5-d418-54cb-a8df-626428565de7.html

It makes about as much as sense as all the other liberty-infringing EEOC laws.

[mtnbkr]

Is that frequently a problem?  I've never hidden the fact that I'm a gun nut, hunter, etc.  My last boss was a trap shooter and gun nut himself.  I sold him an AR right after changing jobs.  My current manager isn't a gun person, but he's not anti at all. 

I guess I've never felt my job was in danger because of my disgusting habit.

Chris

[Doggy Daddy]

The head of H.R. here seems to be a complete and unyielding hoplophobe.  If she could find a way to get that info pre-job offer, I would worry about it being an issue.

DD

[roo_ster]

The bill is intended to protect gun owners from employment discrimination.

 http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/bill-to-bar-employer-bias-against-gun-owners-gets-ok/article_b1352fe5-d418-54cb-a8df-626428565de7.html

It makes about as much as sense as all the other liberty-infringing EEOC laws.

We didn't choose to start the war or this particular battlefield.  Perhaps it is just this sort of application of the same logic that will, someday, result in the repeal of the entire class of laws.

I say support such pro-RKBA laws, to include laws that bar employers from employees storing guns in their autos, for as long as this particular legal paradigm persists.

[Perd Hapley]

We didn't choose to start the war or this particular battlefield.  Perhaps it is just this sort of application of the same logic that will, someday, result in the repeal of the entire class of laws.

I say support such pro-RKBA laws, to include laws that bar employers from employees storing guns in their autos, for as long as this particular legal paradigm persists.

I agree that bills like these could open some eyes to the evil of other such laws. I still don't want to bolt any new shackles on others.

[Nick1911]

I agree.  This is probably a win for gun rights, but at the cost of the the employers right to control their own places of business.  A net loss for overall freedom, I think.

I work in Missouri, so this effects me.  My employer has a stated "no weapons allowed" even in private cars policy.  It's their property, I think of that as their right.

[roo_ster]

I say that if the other side is using a weapon to hack away at our liberties, we ought to use that same weapon to cut a swath for liberty (no matter how crude), show up the end point and absurdity of their logic, and (finally) cut out their hearts with it.

IOW, make them live up to the principles & ideals they claim to further and rub their noses in it when they fail miserably.

Going all Marquis of Queensbury in this fight is a good way to lose after they take a hatchet to the back of our skulls.  I expect it to be messy and to fight ugly.

[Perd Hapley]

Nick, it still has to pass the Senate and be signed by our Democratic governor.

[Nick1911]

That's true.  Do you think that's likely to happen, fistful?

[Perd Hapley]

That's true.  Do you think that's likely to happen, fistful?

I don't follow state politics that much, even on gun issues. The article says it passed by 115-36 in the House, so it seems to have some momentum.

[Lee]

I work in Missouri, so this effects me.  My employer has a stated "no weapons allowed" even in private cars policy.  It's their property, I think of that as their right.

Same here...but I disagree.  They do not have the right to disarm me for the day (going to and coming home from work)...which is what they have accomplished. 

[Nick1911]

Same here...but I disagree.  They do not have the right to disarm me for the day (going to and coming home from work)...which is what they have accomplished. 

I think they do.  You're welcome to not work there.  Just because it's an intrusion of freedom that happens to be for something we like doesn't make it less of an intrusion of freedom.

[Perd Hapley]

Same here...but I disagree.  They do not have the right to disarm me for the day (going to and coming home from work)...which is what they have accomplished. 

I think they do.  You're welcome to not work there.  Just because it's an intrusion of freedom that happens to be for something we like doesn't make it less of an intrusion of freedom.

You're both wrong. Lee is exercising his right to disarm himself. The employer is exercising his property rights, rights of free association, etc.

[MechAg94]

My truck is not the company's property and I don't think I should have to give up my right of self defense and the means to do so outside company property.  The Feds and states already tell employers what they can and cannot do on any number of other issues.  If we can't get rid of the others, then I don't think guns should be the exception. 

I can live with not carrying in the place of business which is definitely the company's property, but I think a company like my employer who tells us we can't have a gun in our cars in a 3rd party parking lot is ridiculous. 

[RoadKingLarry]

I think they do.  You're welcome to not work there.  Just because it's an intrusion of freedom that happens to be for something we like doesn't make it less of an intrusion of freedom.

So, you would be OK with an employer that banned the possession of bibles or other religious items in your car on company property?

[AmbulanceDriver]

So, you would be OK with an employer that banned the possession of bibles or other religious items in your car on company property?

Or anything that they found "offensive"? 

[Nick1911]

So, you would be OK with an employer that banned the possession of bibles or other religious items in your car on company property?

Yes, I am.

The rights enumerated in the Constitution (which is where I'm assuming you're going with this) are rights of individuals that are protected from government interference.

In much the same way that I can determine who is welcome on my personal private property, I see little reasons employers should be held to a different standard.

Further, I find that the current EEOC regulations make far more sense then this, as current regulation protects persons with certain immutable attributes.  Not the result of any choice of their own.

I'm sure this view won't be shared by many; but I tend to place an individuals property rights fairly highly.  If you own the land, the building, the machinery or store or whatever contained within - why should you be forced by government coercion to house any object you object to?  This is the point where we're codifying that my second amendment rights (if that – as CCW apparently isn't covered by the second amendment) trump your property rights.  Which is a net loss of freedom.

[AmbulanceDriver]

I have to say that Nick does present a very persuasive argument.  Especially since I jumped onto the "first amendment" argument there with RKL before thinking it through.  My current employer does not allow firearms on their property.  I respect that.  Do I like it?  Not entirely...   But I respect it. 

[makattak]

I have to say that Nick does present a very persuasive argument.  Especially since I jumped onto the "first amendment" argument there with RKL before thinking it through.  My current employer does not allow firearms on their property.  I respect that.  Do I like it?  Not entirely...   But I respect it. 

Until he supported the current EEOC regulations. Either people have a right to control who and what comes onto their property or they don't. Why does the nature of the characteristics matter to the right?

(Incidentally, I believe people should have the right to control who and what is welcome on their property. I also support this law because of the reasoning laid out in roo_ster's last post.)

[roo_ster]

Until he supported the current EEOC regulations. Either people have a right to control who and what comes onto their property or they don't. Why does the nature of the characteristics matter to the right?

(Incidentally, I believe people should have the right to control who and what is welcome on their property. I also support this law because of the reasoning laid out in roo_ster's last post.)

Exactly.  It is the thread that unravels Nick1911's argument.  It shows that this...

In much the same way that I can determine who is welcome on my personal private property, I see little reasons employers should be held to a different standard.

...really is meaningless.  Because he is holding employers to a different standard.

In my case, I acknowledge the illegitimacy of EEOC and many other regulations as applied to employers.  But, that is the current game being played.  I am not going to cede the field because it is not ideally suited to my purposes.  Best I can do is squeeze some more liberty for many at a near-zero cost for some other few.  Use the anti-liberty folk's rules against them and demonstrate their illogic. 

This current state of affairs may go on indefinitely, so a little relief by snatching a little liberty where able, may be the best that can be done.  In any case, I do not expect a grand victory, but only a series of hard-fought & nasty battles on the road to victory.  If we are fortunate.

Also, The cost to the employer of implementing this rule approaches zero.  OTOH, complying with EEOC rules is a very costly proposition.  Both are wrong in principle, in an ideal state of affairs, but the EEOC rules are both wrong and costly.

[Nick1911]

So its ethically acceptable to to use an immoral system if its for a cause you support?  Isn't that how we got where we are at?

You'll note, I didn't condone eeoc.  In a strict libertarian sense, I also disagree with it.  I'm simply highlighting that there is a difference between discrimination based on choices an individual has made verses attributes they have no control over, which is the intent of eeoc in the first place.

Would you support tattoos being exempt from employment discrimination ?

[Perd Hapley]

So, you would be OK with an employer that banned the possession of bibles or other religious items in your car on company property?

Legally, I would fully support anyone's right to ban me or any of my stuff from their property. They should be allowed to prohibit me from bringing guns, crucifixes, or even clothes onto their property. But I don't have to accept jobs from gun-hating nudist vampires.

Further, I find that the current EEOC regulations make far more sense then this, as current regulation protects persons with certain immutable attributes.  Not the result of any choice of their own.

EEOC protects religious groups, and religion is not an immutable attribute.


Roo_ster,

The fewer people sheltered by EEOC, the better. EEOC is already hard enough to kill, since so many minority groups (and women) have an interest in keeping it alive. Adding gun owners to the pool would strengthen support for such laws.

[Nick1911]

EEOC protects religious groups, and religion is not an immutable attribute.

An excellent point.  I stand corrected.

[AmbulanceDriver]

EEOC protects religious groups, and religion is not an immutable attribute.

I would like to register the church of John Moses Browning.   Our religion requires the carrying of arms at all times. 

:D

[roo_ster]

So its ethically acceptable to to use an immoral system if its for a cause you support?  Isn't that how we got where we are at?

Would you support tattoos being exempt from employment discrimination ?

Hey, since we're asking questions rather than responding to posts, I'll play, too.

Do you pay your taxes?  Do you take as many deductions as you possibly can?

Do you obtain a driver's license before traversing the public roads?

Do you obtain a CHL before packing heat outside your house?

If you answered "yes" to any of these and you hold ~libertarian beliefs, you have demonstrated that you believe it is "...ethically acceptable to to use an immoral system if its for a cause you support..."  if any of your causes happen to be not paying the maximum in taxes, driving the public highways, or packing heat outside your residence.

Come on back and play the ethical card after you at least realize you're in the middle of the card game. 


I do realize the moral and ethical implications.  I also realize a few other things:

1. Using the immoral & unethical & unconstitutional system for the ends of liberty can result in liberty gained.

IMO, Vermont/Constitutional Carry is the proper regime for concealed carry and that requiring a CHL is unconstitutional.  Nevertheless, using the immoral & unethical system to move a state from zero concealed carry for non-LEOs to shall-issue CHLs is a victory for liberty.  Not total and complete, but only children nowadays think a war can be won in a single grand battle.  Who knows, given time they may move on over to Vermont Carry.

But, that's crazy talk, right, going from no-issue ---> CHL ---> Vermont Carry, while using the immoral & unethical system, right...


But OHTHENOES!  Now business owners may have to go to some extra effort to keep the nasty gunses off their property when toted by CHL licensees.  They may even have to print up an unambiguous sign and post it prominently. 

[or_not]How can we so impose on their property rights? The horror, the horror, of using this immoral & unethical system to achieve liberty!  Best that millions be denied liberty if we have to work through the system and sully ourselves to achieve it.[/or_not]

Well, that leads to point number two...

2. I refuse to let the anti-liberty opposition use my own principles to preclude me from fighting them effectively. 

THEY are the ones who started this war and chose this battlefield.  I have zero problem using any weapon at hand and any contour of the battlefield to fight them.  I will use their weapons against them, I will use the battlefield conditions, I will do whatever is most effective to achieve the objective.

Unilateral disarmament and ceding the field is rarely an effective strategy.

So, yeah, I'll use/misuse anti-discriminatory law to make gains for liberty.  Every day and twice on Sundays.  Not just for RKBA.  I'll suggest my kids check the "Native American" box or whichever is most advantageous come college admissions time.  [sharpton_time]Who the Hell are they to dispute my kids' Chocktaw/Cherokee/Apache ancestry?  What, my kids look white?  Are you trying to say they are trying to "pass as white?!"[/sharpton_time]

Use their own weapons/laws against them.  Flood their laws with absurdity.  Monkey wrench the whole system of unconstitutional accretions and make it break from its contradictions.