Missouri bill against gun-related discrimination.

[seeker_two]

fistful: the question isn't "should an employer be forced to hire a gun owner?" But "should an employee lose his job because he refuses to surrender his civil rights to the whim of the employer?"....big, important difference. Why does one property owner have the right to subvert the rights of another property owner who has been invited onto the property?

People do not have Constitutional right to sleep and eat where they want....but the do have a Constitutional right to be secure in their person and property. That applies to ALL property.

Why is this so hard to understand?....

[Perd Hapley]

The Bill of Rights asserts your right to keep and bear arms, not your right to keep and bear arms on someone else's property. It protects your right to pray to Allah, but not your right to pray to Allah in a Jewish deli.   

You are saying that employers may be forced to employ gun owners (or any other group of people), regardless of how they feel about them. That is what you have been saying over and over again. How can I read your comments any other way?

If you don't have a right to park your car on private property, what makes you think you can set any conditions on your being there? What is the difference between "Get off my property," and "Get off my property, unless you want your car to be searched"?

If you don't have a right to be somewhere (or to have some job), how can you claim a civil right to keep or bear arms on that property, or while employed by that person?


As Nick said a long time ago, the B of R is about negative liberties, with regard to government interference. They don't keep citizens from making conditions on how other citizens will use their property, or on what kind of people they will hire.

[roo_ster]

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.

I am interested in the "property owners' rights uber alles" answer, not the FAA answer. 

For instance, you state the employer can preclude employees or anyone else from bringing any object (in their vehicle) onto a public parking lot. 
1. OK, so I own a hovercraft, which can idle for days at a time inches off the pavement.  Does the "no guns" owner of the public lot have a case in your mind?
2. How about the dude who flies while strapped 50' in the air over the property in his ultralight to land in the adjacent lot?
3. Heli pilot packing heat at 5000'?
4. Jet pilot with a rod by his side at 35k'

Does the property owner have a limit as to his authority to limit others' possessions/liberties in their transpo while they are on/above/under his property?

[seeker_two]

The Bill of Rights asserts your right to keep and bear arms, not your right to keep and bear arms on someone else's property. It protects your right to pray to Allah, but not your right to pray to Allah in a Jewish deli.

Actually, if a Jewish deli owner fires someone for being Muslim, the owner is violating the employee's rights. Are you saying it's OK for the deli owner to search the cars of his employees for Korans, too?
   

You are saying that employers may be forced to employ gun owners (or any other group of people), regardless of how they feel about them. That is what you have been saying over and over again. How can I read your comments any other way?

No....but I am saying that an employer has no superior right to demand that an employee surrender his Constitutional rights in order to retain employment. If an employer can search an employee's car as a condition of employment, can the employer also demand to search the employee's house?....his Facebook page?....his posts on APS under his alias?....

If you don't have a right to park your car on private property, what makes you think you can set any conditions on your being there? What is the difference between "Get off my property," and "Get off my property, unless you want your car to be searched"?

One is an understandable demand of a property owner.....the other is a condition where another property owner is demanded to surrender their own rights.....neither apply since we're talking about property that the owner has opened to the public. If the owner wants to make it "members only" and apply stipulations, then another discussion can be started....

[Perd Hapley]

Then why not ask someone who believes in property owners' rights uber alles?

[roo_ster]

Then why not ask someone who believes in property owners' rights uber alles?

I have.  Twice.

Your stated positions in this thread qualify.

[Perd Hapley]

How so? I believe in private property, sure. I don't place property any higher on the list than any other rights. Come to think of it, I don't think I see rights as hierarchical.

How do you see it?

[seeker_two]

How so? I believe in private property, sure. I don't place property any higher on the list than any other rights. Come to think of it, I don't think I see rights as hierarchical.

But some animals are more equal than others......

[Perd Hapley]

You retain the right to get your car off the property. How does that not work for you?

[seeker_two]

You retain the right to get your car off the property. How does that not work for you?

If you think that's the only sanction an employer will use against that employee, you haven't read many HR manuals lately. Refusal of search often leads to termination....and how is that NOT economic coercion?....

[Perd Hapley]

If you think that's the only sanction an employer will use against that employee, you haven't read many HR manuals lately. Refusal of search often leads to termination....and how is that NOT economic coercion?....

Because...it...is...NOT. When a private party declines further association with you, that ain't coercion. It's business. It's the free market at work. You can whine about your economic situation and how unfair it is that the guy with the most money makes the rules, but that's reality, spelled c-a-p-i-t-a-l-i-s-m.

Let's break it down. Do you have a right to be on someone else's property? Do you have a right to work for an employer, even if you don't want to follow his expectations?

Unless you're some kind of unicorn-riding leftist, you answered no to the above questions. That being the case, you can meet your employer's expectations, or you can take a hike. Freedom works like that.

[RoadKingLarry]

Is there a difference between private property that belongs to an individual ie your house, yard, farm and private property that belongs to a corporation? A corporation being a government construct does a corporation have the same rights as a person?

No one has ever been able to explain to me how keeping an otherwise legal object in my locked privately owned vehicle could in anyway violate someone else's rights. Doesn't there have to be some actual harm for a violation of rights to have occurred?
Also, any blissninny that thinks a corporate policy prohibiting having a gun in a locked car will actually stop some crazed lunatic from doing violence isn't worth listening to.
A corporate policy stating that shooting up the workplace and co-workers is grounds for termination makes more sense.

[seeker_two]

I think I understand your position now, fistful......capitalism trumps individual rights....I'm sure the British East India Company felt the same way.....

[Perd Hapley]

No one has ever been able to explain to me how keeping an otherwise legal object in my locked privately owned vehicle could in anyway violate someone else's rights. Doesn't there have to be some actual harm for a violation of rights to have occurred?

The violation consists in using that person's property in a manner contrary to their expressed wishes. Whether you have harmed them, or their property, in any way that another person would recognize is beside the point. For example, if you invite me over to a watch a movie, and I spill popcorn on your couch, talk too much, and leer at your wife; kicking me out is your prerogative. You don't have to explain that to a jury. Which is good, since the jury might not agree with you on proper etiquette. The point is, I didn't have any right to be there in the first place, so your reasons for kicking me out are moot.

In a free country, a business owner would have the same rights.

I think I understand your position now, fistful......capitalism trumps individual rights....I'm sure the British East India Company felt the same way.....

You know what Seeker, I'm sorry that your employer is forcing you to keep working for him, so he can search your car. I mean, if he would just let you quit, then you could have your rights back. But as it is, and you have no choice but to keep on working for this joker, then I guess you'll have to get used to the searches.

I just wish there was something you could do. 

[seeker_two]

The violation consists in using that person's property in a manner contrary to their expressed wishes. Whether you have harmed them, or their property, in any way that another person would recognize is beside the point. For example, if you invite me over to a watch a movie, and I spill popcorn on your couch, talk too much, and leer at your wife; kicking me out is your prerogative. You don't have to explain that to a jury. Which is good, since the jury might not agree with you on proper etiquette. The point is, I didn't have any right to be there in the first place, so your reasons for kicking me out are moot.

In a free country, a business owner would have the same rights.

Kicking someone out is one thing....saying that they have to allow you to search their person or their vehicle in order to stay is not only a violation of their rights, but it's just rude. How is something sitting in their vehicle any business of yours?

You know what Seeker, I'm sorry that your employer is forcing you to keep working for him, so he can search your car. I mean, if he would just let you quit, then you could have your rights back. But as it is, and you have no choice but to keep on working for this joker, then I guess you'll have to get used to the searches.

I just wish there was something you could do. 

So, I have your consent to strip-search your wife whenever you come to visit me?.....even if she remains in your car?.....

....and there's a huge (and precedent-defined legal definition) difference between one's personal property and residence and one's business property that one has decided to open to the public....and demanding that someone surrender their civil rights in order to retain employment (esp. in a high-unemployment economy) is about as coercive as one can get.

Would you want your employer to do to you what you don't want your gov't (esp. police) to do to you?....

[makattak]

Kicking someone out is one thing....saying that they have to allow you to search their person or their vehicle in order to stay is not only a violation of their rights, but it's just rude. How is something sitting in their vehicle any business of yours?


So, I have your consent to strip-search your wife whenever you come to visit me?.....even if she remains in your car?.....

....and there's a huge (and precedent-defined legal definition) difference between one's personal property and residence and one's business property that one has decided to open to the public....and demanding that someone surrender their civil rights in order to retain employment (esp. in a high-unemployment economy) is about as coercive as one can get.

Would you want your employer to do to you what you don't want your gov't (esp. police) to do to you?....

As I agree with fistful on the property right matter (But believe this is a good law because it turns the left's tactics against them) I think I can answer that.

Property owners have a right to make any entrance to their property conditional. They can require that anyone who comes on their property consent to have sex with them. They can require that anyone who comes on their property wear funny hats. They can require that they walk across hot coals. (They cannot require that someone give their consent to be murdered because the law says that consent cannot be granted and they cannot require children give consent to sex because that consent cannot be granted, etc...)

Their enforcement of the right is expulsion and barring from the property (and therefore loss of your job) if you do not give said consent. (Note, I'm talking in terms of what the rights are not what the laws are.)

And, if you want to make a strip search conditional on entrance to your property, YES, you should have that right. "Open to the public" is gibberish. I recognize no difference between the property you own for business and that which you own for residence. That is a weaselly lawerly mangling of a distinction without difference.

[roo_ster]

mak:

Since fistful has vigorously avoided addressing my questions upthread, perhaps you could give a hint as to what you think are the limits (in principle, not FAA regs) to a property owner's authority to limit overflight/overhang of his property (none, conditional, etc.)?  Can a property owner make a 737 divert around his airspace?  Or  make the pilot sign and submit an affidavit that the 737 traversing his airspace has no firearms or blind left-handed dentists on board before overflight?

Also, from the same perspective, are there limits to a property owner's authority as to what goes on under his property (mineral extraction, wells, water that lies underneath his property, but subject to being  siphoned off by a well on another's property)?

(I am familiar with federale and some states' regs on this, but neither we nor fistful have felt the need to be constrained by such in this discussion.)

Or, perhaps, is the property owner's authority to dictate what traverses his property limited to vehicles, people, and critters that maintain contact with ground level?  (Proxies could apply: slab foundations or anything else used to maintain contact with ground level.)

[makattak]

mak:

Since fistful has vigorously avoided addressing my questions upthread, perhaps you could give a hint as to what you think are the limits (in principle, not FAA regs) to a property owner's authority to limit overflight/overhang of his property (none, conditional, etc.)?  Can a property owner make a 737 divert around his airspace?  Or  make the pilot sign and submit an affidavit that the 737 traversing his airspace has no firearms or blind left-handed dentists on board before overflight?

Also, from the same perspective, are there limits to a property owner's authority as to what goes on under his property (mineral extraction, wells, water that lies underneath his property, but subject to being  siphoned off by a well on another's property)?

(I am familiar with federale and some states' regs on this, but neither we nor fistful have felt the need to be constrained by such in this discussion.)

Or, perhaps, is the property owner's authority to dictate what traverses his property limited to vehicles, people, and critters that maintain contact with ground level?  (Proxies could apply: slab foundations or anything else used to maintain contact with ground level.)

For property rights above ground, my thinking would be that he controls the height above his property to the point where overflight would cause him harm. He does not own the air above his property, so I would apply the nuisance and externality principle to this one. (I.e. the principle that although you have a right to make as much noise on your property that you want, you do not have a right to impose that noise on your neighbor in his property.)

So, he has a "buffer" zone that extends above the height of his property (obviously higher for skyscrapers and the like) that would exist to prevent nuisance.

As for underground, if he owns the mineral rights beneath the ground, I would say it is his to the center of the earth. However I'm not opposed to putting some sort of limit to just how far it extends, so long as it extends far enough past any possible harm to his (above ground) property.

As for the wells, if the nature of the water is such that it will flow off his property, it is his until it flows off. If he doesn't want it siphoned (following its nature), then he should drill his own well.

Contact with ground level is not a sufficient limitation. I could fire a bullet head level over your property. It would never touch the ground (unless your property is VERY large) but you would most definitely have your rights violated.

[Perd Hapley]

So, I have your consent to strip-search your wife whenever you come to visit me?.....even if she remains in your car?.....

If you let us know that that is your condition, then by visiting you, we would be giving you our consent. By the same token, if your employer tells you that a search of your vehicle is a condition of employment, then accepting the job means that YOU are giving them consent to search your vehicle. This is why your rights are not being violated. You have the right (not to be searched), but you have chosen not to exercise it, just like disarming yourself to enter a no-guns posted coffee shop.

On the other hand, if you invite us in and then spring the conditions on us, we should have the option of leaving. In that case, our rights would also be intact.

....and there's a huge (and precedent-defined legal definition) difference between one's personal property and residence and one's business property that one has decided to open to the public...

And that difference is inimical to liberty. Not just the fat cat's liberty, but YOUR liberty. When you say that your property is open to the public, you should be the one defining what that means. As an example, if you run a bookstore/coffeeshop, do you have to allow people to sit and read books without buying anything, or can you throw them out? Do you have to allow loud, obnoxious nerds to take up four tables with a role-playing game?* It should be your decision.

.and demanding that someone surrender their civil rights in order to retain employment (esp. in a high-unemployment economy) is about as coercive as one can get.

Fine, call it coercive if you want. If it is coercion, it is a coercion that free people have a right to use against one another. Your problem is that you can't understand the moral equivalence between a consumers' boycott and an employers' boycott. You think that if someone has more money than you do, they should have fewer rights than you do.

Would you want your employer to do to you what you don't want your gov't (esp. police) to do to you?....

Now you get to the crux of the matter. In a free country, we are free to do many things privately, but very limited in what we can do through government. The citizen can do anything not proscribed by law; the police officer (in his official capacity) can do nothing not prescribed by law.

mak:

Since fistful has vigorously avoided addressing my questions...

Bwahahahahaha! I "vigorously avoided" them, huh? Not really. I just sat still at the keyboard.

Look, dude, I told you I don't know the answer to your questions. I can point out obvious things, like I have, but I'm not at all familiar with the legal theorizing concerning how far above or below ground level that property rights extend. Is that good enough for you?

If it helps, I'll let you know that your hovercraft question was stupid and disingenuous, but I didn't think you really needed me to tell you that, and it would have been rude to point out. But since you seem so desperate for answers, there you go.



*No disrespect is intended toward those who play their RPGs politely. It's just that I saw a bunch of obnoxious nerds doing that once.

[roo_ster]

[Emily_Litella[Never mind.[/Emily Litella]

[Perd Hapley]

If you had another question for me, I didn't get back to the thread in time to see it. Sorry.

[MechAg94]

Fistful, what you are describing is basically corporate feudalism.  So long as your serfs can't afford to move elsewhere, you are the king and overlord and can do anything you want.  All you have to do is set up your company store and company script and make sure your employees can't afford to go anywhere else. 

Some of you make me want to favor unions and that sucks. 

[Perd Hapley]

You seriously believe that your right to control your own property leads to underpaying your workers, scrip, company stores, and all of that? Wow, you have an imagination.

And why don't you like unions?

[seeker_two]

Why should a lord's rights supercede the rights of a serf to own his own wagon and the contents within?....

[Perd Hapley]

Why should a lord's rights supercede the rights of a serf to own his own wagon and the contents within?....

Uh, you're the one with a two-tiered system of rights, but you have yet to explain how the "serf's" rights are being interfered with.


Look, we've been over this. You believe that rights fade, above a certain income level. I do not. Can we just agree to disagree?