Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Perd Hapley on March 15, 2012, 12:18:31 PM
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Nick, it still has to pass the Senate and be signed by our Democratic governor.
-
That's true. Do you think that's likely to happen, fistful?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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"?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.)
-
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.
-
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 ?
-
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.
-
EEOC protects religious groups, and religion is not an immutable attribute.
An excellent point. I stand corrected.
-
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
-
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...
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.handgunlaw.us%2Fimages%2Fright-to-carry-history.gif&hash=32c454345e3b3a36f9eeedb76ade95cdbbe39835)
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.
-
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....
-
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.
-
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:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cornellpubs.com%2FImages4%2Fcolt_r-80.jpg&hash=9f938bab844d825b3f9f8cebc10497323ee1b47f)
-
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.
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.).
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
=| 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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)?.....
-
You're not putting me on, are you?
-
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?
-
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).....
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?....
-
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.
-
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?
-
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....
-
Then why not ask someone who believes in property owners' rights uber alles?
-
Then why not ask someone who believes in property owners' rights uber alles?
I have. Twice.
Your stated positions in this thread qualify.
-
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?
-
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......
-
You retain the right to get your car off the property. How does that not work for you?
-
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?....
-
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.
-
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.
-
I think I understand your position now, fistful......capitalism trumps individual rights....I'm sure the British East India Company felt the same way.....
-
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. :'(
-
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?....
-
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.
-
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.)
-
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.
-
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.
-
[Emily_Litella[Never mind.[/Emily Litella]
-
If you had another question for me, I didn't get back to the thread in time to see it. Sorry.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Why should a lord's rights supercede the rights of a serf to own his own wagon and the contents within?....
-
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?
-
Guess we'll have to.....seems this turnip's all squeezed out....
=D