POLITICS: Making CCW impossible - without Gov't Help...

[Old Ironsights]

With "Libertarians" like these...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/colu ... 880.column

[TCB in TN]

I agree, last time I check my car is still MY property! If the company don't like that they can give me one of theirs to drive and then I will be glad to let them specify what can be in it!

[AJMD429]

However there is hope - sort of.

Some private property is considered legally to be "quasi-public" in nature - places like hospitals - they may be run privately, but due to the necessity of some people being there without maybe much alternative, the government regulates them as if public property to some extent.

On the bad side, this has been the excuse for banning smoking in businesses. On the good side, it could be a way to FORCE acceptance of right to arms in the same sense that they FORCE a right to clean air there.

Of course there are all sorts of differences between those two 'rights' and how they affect bystanders, freedom, etc., but all I'm saying is that legally, the courts DO blur the line between private and public property somewhat.

I don't know if it is good or bad . . .

[Duff L Bagg]

If the State of Florida's position on having a gun in you car while on private Property is reversed, then as was stated above the government has no standing in banning smoking in work places or requiring business to spend huge sums of money to meet the requirements of the "Americans with Disabilities Act".

I'll tell what snatches my drawers into a knot, is the fact the media only sees a GUN not the person standing behind it nor will they report that statistically CCW holder are the least likely to commit a crime with a gun. Though everyday ccw holders come to the rescue when the police are still en route. The media wants the general public to see CCW holders in the same light as gang bangers and drug dealers. Anti-gun is so ingrained into the Media and the Left that they will not allow themselves be dis waded from their position by the facts.

Drawers readjusted, I'm better........for now

[FWiedner]

With "Libertarians" like these...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/colu ... 880.column

Pardon my confusion, but I'm not clear on which is the object of your ire.

Do you object to citizens who claim the right to keep arms on their own property, meaning those persons who might wish to or agree to leave their guns in their vehicles at or near their workplace, or do you disagree with those property owners who don't want armed persons not of their choosing on their property, that being within the workplace?

Both parties obviously have valid concerns, and the compromise doesn't seem like a difficult one. The primary argument in this case seems to be the breadth or limit of what property owners consider to be their territory or property.

Perhaps you are referring to the author, who seems to believe property owner concerns should trump those of gun-owners?

[Old Ironsights]

Here's my objection.

There is a hierarchy of Rights and the first and foremost of those Rights is the Right to Defend your Life.

That is also a "property right" in the sense that one's life is genuinely a man's core asset and all other assets are and must be subsidiary to it.

My person is my property, and no one has the authority to tell me what I may or may not do with it so long as I do not injure others.

The problem with the article's line of "reasoning" is that it sets the stage for the effective prohibition of firearms.

When no business can get Business Insurance without banning firearms from the premises &/or parking lots then there will be no practical way for an employee to possess firearms anywhere but in his home except on his day off.

This nonsense being pushed in Florida that says an open to the public (unfenced, unguarded, criminal infested...) parking lot that must be maintained to specific standards for "public" facilities is yet somehow simultaneously "private" and sacrosanct is the height of absurdity.

There is absolutely no right, property or otherwise, that gives anyone a right to violate the rights of others - particularly not the right to defend your life.

[KT-45]

WOW. OK, maybe I'm missing the point. Let me recap:

1 - gun owners object to employers refusing to allow them to bring a gun to work...at least on the property owned and controlled by the employer.

2 - Business owners expect that they can control who brings what onto their property.

Oddly enough, I have discussed this with my employer. He has no problems with me carrying on the job...let alone leaving a firearm in my privately owned vehicle on his property while I'm working. In return I don't have a problem working for him.

THAT'S the bottom line! Employment is an agreement between employer and employee. If you don't like the agreement then find other employment!

[FWiedner]

OI, I'll agree with you for the most part. I might adjust your heirarchy right up front just for argument's sake and suppose that a property right would have to supercede any right to defend that proerty. In this case a life or a person.

We all assume that we own our person and thereby have a right to defend that person and the life contained therein. But does one really have a right to life? Our heritage, and our foundation documents tell us that we do, and a person can claim a right to what he can hold or protect, but does he have a right to a thing that he claims but cannot give or provide to himself?

The discussion turns into a chicken or egg dilema. A property owner has a right to defend the boundaries and content of his property, but whose property is of greater import? That, of course, will depend on which property owner you are talking to.

Those corporate entites have valid concerns that they claim involve employee safety and which definitely involve corporate liability for what occurs on their property, but they don't really care about what happens to those employees except for how whatever happens might affect the company. An individual who might be employed by that company has valid concerns of personal safety and the means of defending their very life both in and away from the workplace, however it might affect the company. An employee of such a company might contract to work in an evironment where they agree to attenuate their several rights as a condition of employment, but does such a contract abrogate those rights? It absolutely does not.

In modern society, corporate entities seem to find favor in the eyes of the law, and issues must be broken down to very fundamental terms of actual life, death, and human rights in order for the individual to prevail in a legal battle.

In truth, this is one of those circumstances where the balance of rights must be distilled to just such a fundamental level, but in reality, as in many cases, it is a question which will probably be decided based upon which party is able to muster the greater political infulence.

[KT-45]

In truth, this is one of those circumstances where the balance of right must be distilled to just such a fundamental level, but in reality, as in many cases, it is a question which will probably be decided based upon which party is able to muster the greater political infulent.

Is that as opposed to 'political effluent'?

Sorry, just had to nitpick.

But you gotta admit that there's too much 'political effluent' these days!

[Old Ironsights]

WOW. OK, maybe I'm missing the point. Let me recap:

1 - gun owners object to employers refusing to allow them to bring a gun to work...at least on the property owned and controlled by the employer.

2 - Business owners expect that they can control who brings what onto their property.

Oddly enough, I have discussed this with my employer. He has no problems with me carrying on the job...let alone leaving a firearm in my privately owned vehicle on his property while I'm working. In return I don't have a problem working for him.

You are very lucky. You must not live in too anti-gun an urban area.

THAT'S the bottom line! Employment is an agreement between employer and employee. If you don't like the agreement then find other employment!

Until you can't find employment because no employer is willing (or able for insurance reasons) to "allow" you to exercise your Right to (prepare for) Self Defense - thus making your life 'worth less" than the value of his insurance policy.

Ain't it great when an insurance company can declare your life worthless?

[FWiedner]

In truth, this is one of those circumstances where the balance of right must be distilled to just such a fundamental level, but in reality, as in many cases, it is a question which will probably be decided based upon which party is able to muster the greater political infulent.

Is that as opposed to 'political effluent'?

Sorry, just had to nitpick.

But you gotta admit that there's too much 'political effluent' these days!

[KT-45]

WOW. OK, maybe I'm missing the point. Let me recap:

1 - gun owners object to employers refusing to allow them to bring a gun to work...at least on the property owned and controlled by the employer.

2 - Business owners expect that they can control who brings what onto their property.

Oddly enough, I have discussed this with my employer. He has no problems with me carrying on the job...let alone leaving a firearm in my privately owned vehicle on his property while I'm working. In return I don't have a problem working for him.

You are very lucky. You must not live in too anti-gun an urban area.

THAT'S the bottom line! Employment is an agreement between employer and employee. If you don't like the agreement then find other employment!

Until you can't find employment because no employer is willing (or able for insurance reasons) to "allow" you to exercise your Right to (prepare for) Self Defense - thus making your life 'worth less" than the value of his insurance policy.

Ain't it great when an insurance company can declare your life worthless?

OI - Yes, I live in an urban area, albeit one that is right-leaning in the extreme...which, of course, is why I choose to live here.

I am a plumbing/heating service tech with over 36 years (military and civilian) in the field. I flatter myself that I'm the best-darned service tech in the county. My employer agrees...which gives me a certain amount of latitude when it comes to stuff like guns on the job.

My boss used to be a nationally ranked motocross racer. One day I was in the Pike National Forest, happily plinking away at targets with my Winchester .30-30 levergun and my Peacemakers. The boss happened by (he was out trail riding motorcycles with his sons). We shot the breeze for a while and I asked him if he'd like to shoot the .30-30. He agrees, so I take a few minutes to familiarize him with the rifle. Then he blows-away my targets at 25 and 50 yards, missing once out of 7 shots! I said, "You're pretty good with a rifle." He just gave me a huge gin and replied, "That's kinda fun!"

Over the years my boss and I have talked about different circumstances where "the stuff might hit the fan". He swears my house is the first place he'd run for.

[FWiedner]

He just gave me a huge gin...

Never been a fan of mixing booze and guns myself.

[KT-45]

He just gave me a huge gin...

Never been a fan of mixing booze and guns myself.

My head is bloody but unbowed!

[slimster]

Ain't paybacks hell?