Missouri bill against gun-related discrimination.

[Scout26]

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

:D

I'm in.

I want to be a bishop....since that position requires the carrying of full-auto....

[Nick1911]

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.

There's a difference between doing what you have to do to survive, and what you ideologically support. Maybe that's a moral failing of mine – I'm not a character from a Rand novel; but  I believe that reasonable people, when confronted with the life altering consequences of committing crimes, will toe the line – even if they disagree with the law.  Actions do not betray ideology in a system where severe consequences are tied to said actions, or the lack thereof.

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

Eh, I'd rather not.  I think I've represented my thoughts on the matter succinctly.  It's become clear that we are in disagreement, and that neither of our views are likely to change.  I'm aware that a significant portion of APS'ers would be in disagreement with me on this one, and that's fine.

[roo_ster]

I'm in.

I want to be a bishop....since that position requires the carrying of full-auto....

Here you go, select-fire designed by JMB:

[MechAg94]

But I don't have to accept jobs from gun-hating nudist vampires.

Good for you.  I am not aware of any company in the chemical industry that doesn't have the same rules against guns.  I'd rather not change careers at this time and I am under no illusions that any high horse actions on my part would change anything.  

IMO, this whole thing with the gun rules started due to the propaganda and crap from anti-gunners over the last 40 years.  I think a lot of it is just follow the leader stuff by managers with some inborn fear of their employees.  I think some legislative action would at least force some changes and demonstrate that those rules are silly and unnecessary, kind of like those laws against normal citizens carrying guns.

[roo_ster]

There's a difference between doing what you have to do to survive, and what you ideologically support. Maybe that's a moral failing of mine – I'm not a character from a Rand novel; but  I believe that reasonable people, when confronted with the life altering consequences of committing crimes, will toe the line – even if they disagree with the law.  Actions do not betray ideology in a system where severe consequences are tied to said actions, or the lack thereof.

"When you do it, you are morally and ethically compromised; when I do it, I am just getting along so there is no moral or ethical component." 

"Heads I win, tails you lose."

[Perd Hapley]

Good for you.  I am not aware of any company in the chemical industry that doesn't have the same rules against guns.  I'd rather not change careers at this time and I am under no illusions that any high horse actions on my part would change anything.  

So you've chosen to work in an industry that doesn't like having guns around, and you are unable or unwilling to start your own, gun-loving chemical industry firm. I don't see how that demonstrates a right to do whatever you want to do on someone else's property or a right to unilaterally decide the conditions under which other people will do business with you. So what right is this law protecting?

Has anyone taken away your right to bear arms? No. They just asked you not to exercise that right while at work, in exchange for a salary, and you said that would all right. I'm not denigrating you. I've made the same choice. We just have to recognize what's really going on, and that we are cooperating with it.

IMO, this whole thing with the gun rules started due to the propaganda and crap from anti-gunners over the last 40 years.  I think a lot of it is just follow the leader stuff by managers with some inborn fear of their employees.  I think some legislative action would at least force some changes and demonstrate that those rules are silly and unnecessary, kind of like those laws against normal citizens carrying guns.

I'm sure that such "right-wing social engineering" could work, but I don't think further regulation of business is advisable or morally acceptable.

[RevDisk]

Meh.  A libertarian possibility would be:  want to ban guns from your workplace?  Go right ahead!   But you are liable for any violence related damage because you ensured folks could not defend themselves and thus voluntarily created a high risk environment.  Don't ban guns?  Limited liability.

[Doggy Daddy]

I just want to point out that this discussion seems to have drifted from the intent of the bill being discussed.  The bill would deny discrimination against people who merely own or use guns.   It doesn't seem to say anything about requiring a business to allow guns on property or in the parking lot.  This is about businesses that wouldn't hire you just because you have a .22 at home:

Legislation that would make it illegal for employers to discriminate against people because they own or use guns overwhelmingly passed the Missouri House before lawmakers left for spring break.

DD

[seeker_two]

Here's what it boils down to.....do the rights of the parking lot owner supercede the right of the automobile owner to be free of search?.....I don't think it does...

[Perd Hapley]

Here's what it boils down to.....do the rights of the parking lot owner supercede the right of the automobile owner to be free of search?.....I don't think it does...

The two rights are not in conflict. You have a right not to be searched, but you can't claim a right to be in someone else's parking lot (or in their employ) under your own, unilateral set of conditions. Legally, your options should be to leave, stay and comply with the owner's wishes, or work out a compromise. As long as you have the option of leaving and taking your stuff with you (or just not showing up at all), your rights are intact.

[Perd Hapley]

I just want to point out that this discussion seems to have drifted from the intent of the bill being discussed.  The bill would deny discrimination against people who merely own or use guns.   It doesn't seem to say anything about requiring a business to allow guns on property or in the parking lot.  This is about businesses that wouldn't hire you just because you have a .22 at home:

Legislation that would make it illegal for employers to discriminate against people because they own or use guns overwhelmingly passed the Missouri House before lawmakers left for spring break.

DD

Just as long as we understand that no one has a right (or should have a right) to force you to do business with anyone. We have no right to force hoplophobes to associate with us. Whether we bring our guns anywhere near them or their property, or not, they should have the right to disassociate themselves from us. After all, we often decide not to do business with them (by boycotting "gun-free" stores, anti-gun businesses, etc.).

[seeker_two]

The two rights are not in conflict. You have a right not to be searched, but you can't claim a right to be in someone else's parking lot (or in their employ) under your own, unilateral set of conditions. Legally, your options should be to leave, stay and comply with the owner's wishes, or work out a compromise. As long as you have the option of leaving and taking your stuff with you (or just not showing up at all), your rights are intact.

Even when one property owner can use economic coercion (employment) against the other to get them to relinquish their right?

[Perd Hapley]

Even when one property owner can use economic coercion (employment) against the other to get them to relinquish their right?

   Seriously?  If I don't patronize a no-guns-allowed store, would you call that economic coercion, too?

[BridgeRunner]

  Don't ban guns?  Limited liability.

In law, or in fact?

Please tell me you're not suggesting statutorily limiting liability that doesn't actually exist.

[seeker_two]

   Seriously?  If I don't patronize a no-guns-allowed store, would you call that economic coercion, too?

Don't you think that an employer holds a bit more economic influence over an employee than a single consumer has over a business owner?

[Perd Hapley]

Don't you think that an employer holds a bit more economic influence over an employee than a single consumer has over a business owner?

First of all, is that a yes or a no?

To answer your question, yes, but any number of customers could participate in the boycott.

[MechAg94]

So you've chosen to work in an industry that doesn't like having guns around, and you are unable or unwilling to start your own, gun-loving chemical industry firm. I don't see how that demonstrates a right to do whatever you want to do on someone else's property or a right to unilaterally decide the conditions under which other people will do business with you. So what right is this law protecting?

Has anyone taken away your right to bear arms? No. They just asked you not to exercise that right while at work, in exchange for a salary, and you said that would all right. I'm not denigrating you. I've made the same choice. We just have to recognize what's really going on, and that we are cooperating with it.

I think you are coloring the specific situation a bit to fit your opinion.  I am not asking to bring guns onto the premises without permission or consent.  I just want to keep it in my truck in the parking lot.  I can even understand that I can't have them in my truck when I visit our site where I have to drive inside a 3rd party site.  I have no problem with them wanting to keep guns out of the actual chemical plants.  It is the rules about the parking lots outside the plants that I disagree with where visitors can park who can have any number of guns in their vehicle.  By Texas law, the is not on the premises of the business.  I believe that is also how the law was written that passed last year.  I guess we'll see how that survives in court at some point.  I am not interested in testing it. 

I think you are giving the property rights issue far too broad a stroke on this.

[Perd Hapley]

I've been careful to refer to property rights AND the right to decline to do business with someone. You have a right to decide you'll no longer work for your employer, due to the gun issue. So they should have the right to dismiss you, due to the gun issue.

[seeker_two]

First of all, is that a yes or a no?

It's a clarification of your question....I would say "not relevant" due to the inequity of economic power....esp. in the current job market.

Should a person be made to choose between his constitutional rights and his ability to economically provide for himself and his family? Should the law create a loophole by which civil rights can be violated in a business open to the public....or even inside the private property of another while in a parking lot? And who will determine which civil rights can be violated (RKBA, search) and which cannot (having a black person in your vehicle)?.....

[Perd Hapley]

You're not putting me on, are you?

[Perd Hapley]

It's a clarification of your question....I would say "not relevant" due to the inequity of economic power....esp. in the current job market.

Should a person be made to choose between his constitutional rights and his ability to economically provide for himself and his family? Should the law create a loophole by which civil rights can be violated in a business open to the public....or even inside the private property of another while in a parking lot? And who will determine which civil rights can be violated (RKBA, search) and which cannot (having a black person in your vehicle)?.....

This amazes me. You're talking as if you have a right to be on someone else's property, or in someone's employ, no matter how they feel about it. As if your employer was obligated to provide for you. As if you have more rights than those with more money than you.

Since you have no right to be on my property, I can place any conditions I want on visitors, in a free country. Since you have no right to demand a job from your employer, the conditions of employment would be virtually unlimited, in a free country. Since you work for hire, not as a feudal vassal, your employer has no obligation to provide you with a living wage, in a free country.

Have I not been clear enough that I don't support any EEOC regulations for private businesses, about race or religion or physical handicap, or anything else at all?

[seeker_two]

Obligated?.....No. But, if a parking lot owner allows me to park on that property, it does not mean the lot owner has permission to violate my civil rights to search and property. Whatever is in the car is outside the reach of the lot owner. If the lot owner doesn't like it, he should reconsider having the parking lot open to the public. If the lot owner suspects criminal activity, that's what the police are for.

I'm surprised that you can be against behavior control by some types of economic coercion (taxes) yet support other types (employment).....

[Perd Hapley]

I'm surprised that you can be against behavior control by some types of economic coercion (taxes) yet support other types (employment).....

You're killin' me dude. You don't see a difference between government taking your money through taxes, and employers declining to give you their money through employment? You don't see how government forcing an employer to work with people they don't like is the actual coercion that is going on in this country? Are you seriously saying that, if I don't hire you, I'm forcing you to do something?

Obligated?.....No. But, if a parking lot owner allows me to park on that property, it does not mean the lot owner has permission to violate my civil rights to search and property. Whatever is in the car is outside the reach of the lot owner. If the lot owner doesn't like it, he should reconsider having the parking lot open to the public. If the lot owner suspects criminal activity, that's what the police are for.

Who is violating your civil rights by searching your car? If that is about to happen, you should have the option to leave. If you are not allowed to leave, then you can start talking about your civil rights. Since you have no right to be in someone else's property, you can't claim a right to do anything on that property, or take anything into that property. Your presence there is solely at the discretion of the property owner. The one thing they have to let you do is leave. And that's it.

Furthermore, there's no reason why "open to the public" should entail a surrender of property rights. As a property owner, you should have the right to invite the general public into your property, but still set limits on what that means. If you're selling your house, you should be able to have an open house, without letting people using your bathroom or sleep in your bed, or watch your TV. There's no reason why you shouldn't be able to decide who will be allowed in, and how they will treat your property.

Why do you want the civil rights of property owners and employers to be violated?

[roo_ster]

Question:
How high into the sky does a property-owner's or employer's right to dictate something (like one's state of armament) extend?  0', 5', 10', 100', 1000', stratosphere, solid angle radiating out from their plot of land to the extent of the universe?

Ought we require pilots to refrain from flying over folks' properties if permission has not been explicitly given to do so?  Why yes or no?

[Perd Hapley]

Uh, OK.  I would imagine that's been settled long before now, and I kinda doubt guns are treated any differently than anything else. Don't know. Look it up.